hazelbite | Quote of the Moment

So, once, a long time ago, I decided to do this "Quote of the Moment" thing. Well, I posted one quote and then forgot about the whole thing.

But! I was watching this video on YouTube (WHY am I addicted to that place, why?!?) with Amanda Tapping doing an interview. She had the following to say about her very small role on the X-Files:

"I was mostly dead on the X-Files....and I give good dead."

She said it so fast that the audience didn't have a chance to really laugh, 'cause I thought it was a silly quote from her, being the comedian that she is and everything.

ETA:

VG: Do you have another time or another planet where you would love to go?

Amanda: You know what I would love? I would love to go to a planet where...it's in the same time frame as Earth, the same level of technology, but where, since the beginning of time, every country has been governed by women. From the beginning of time. And I don't mean that from a didactic feminist perspective, I simply would like to see if we would have a more nurturing, caring society. Would women be as machiavellian in our pursuit of power? Would we be Maggie Thatchers? Or would we be Indira Gandhis? What would happen? And I would just love to see what society and what global society would have been like if women had been in power since the very beginning.

VG: Well, I think you should write that script.

Amanda: It's something I've thought about and I think it would be fascinating.

I do too! I would really love to see someone write this, and write it well, because there are just so many places it can go, and maybe maybe it's just my love of different cultures or of scifi in general -- even though the book wouldn't have to be science fiction -- that the possibilities are infinite! Amanda Tapping is so awesome ♥

So um yeah, back to homework...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Uh... I'm not sure how to explain this...

There has been a *MINOR* travel mishap. See, I was supposed to catch a bus back out to Santa Rosa this morning. And, well, it didn't QUITE work that way. So NOW, I have to wait and catch a bus TOMORROW morning. So I was wondering if I could hijack today's Anthro notes from you once I finally get back in town tomorrow afternoon... shiny?

And many thanks for the gag reel. It helps bad days IMMENSELY :-D.

Oh, and we've watched/sang ENTIRELY too much Rent while I've been up here. See ya tomorrow!

No problem! Except that you don't have to worry about it because class was cancelled today, which is a good thing because you're not back yet and I didn't finish the reading! :D

I'm so jealous of all the Rent fun you've been having! We still need to watch it...but I keep forgetting!

Later!

(deleted comment)

And why would you want to do that?

I don't think she was saying that it would only be a nuturing, caring society, but that it was one possibility out of many to consider. That's what I got out of it anyway. Besides, it's too simple and utopian for my taste, I want the intrigue!

Personally, I would LOVE to see how the "pursuit of power" would work out, to see how corruption and "evilness" (though what is evil and what is not is a matter of opinion and can vary by culture) carry over, to what extent, and if there are any differences.

Who knows? It could be exactly the same, or worse, like you said. It's still fascinating to think about :D

I was annoyed at first, too, because I made the same assumption you did about where she was headed with that. But she immediately says that it's because she wants to see if the "more nurturing and peaceful" thing would really be true.

"I give good dead"? Brilliant! I love that woman. And she gets bonus points for being rational about the whole "a woman-led society would be more nurturing" thing. I've always found that assertion to be infuriatingly sexist, myself.

I wonder if you even could have an Earth where women have been in charge throughout human history. Observation of our closest primate relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos), as well as our more distant cousins, shows that their females are ultimately subservient to the males, so there's no reason to assume that our ancestors were any different. So the real trick for the writer (and this is something I'd like to see done, and done well) would be to explain how women inverted that hierarchy in the first place.

Have you ever read Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman? It's a feminist utopia, but she manages to write it without being too sexist about men. It was actually a fun read, despite the premise (I assumed it would be sexist and idealistic and annoying). And she doesn't fall into any of the clichés like "the male explorers come and bring war and disease with them." It's a short read, and I recommend it.

Heee! I know, I was cracking up when she said that!

And I'm very glad she didn't say that it would only be a more nurturing society, because I don't belive that it would be for a second. I was also thinking that inverting the hierarchy, like you said, could maybe have something to do with matriarchical societies. But I don't really know much about matriarchical societies, so I'll have to find more info.

Thank you for the book rec! I'm always looking for new things to read so I'll definitely check that one out, I'm intrigued :D

I was also thinking that inverting the hierarchy, like you said, could maybe have something to do with matriarchical societies. But I don't really know much about matriarchical societies, so I'll have to find more info.

Thing is, there's absolutely zero evidence that matriarchal societies ever existed. Well, there's no conclusive evidence, anyway. Early proponents of the theory, led by Marija Gimbutas, interpreted archaeological evidence in a way that suited a theory they were already trying to prove; but the thing is, that evidence is scant and lacks context, and could mean any number of things. Also, their research focused entirely on Europe, and fails to explain why the rest of the world is patriarchally organized (the theory is that some patriarchal race from the Russian Steppes conquered the matriarchies of Europe, but the theory doesn't say anything about Asia, the Americas, etc.)

Given the patriarchal organization of primate societies, and given that men pretty much run things now, I'd say one needs more than some female-shaped statuettes and a warm fuzzy feeling to assert that things were any different between the emergence of hominids and the beginning of recorded history.

I was just doing some searching and I ran across that name. I had no idea before now that there was nothing to support it. I thought there was some kind of prehistorical evidence to show that matriarchal societies did exist, though I don't know where I got that idea, now that I think about it. It does seem like matriarchy was created to fill in the gap left by the lack of evidence.

Which leads right back to how interesting it would be to see the differences/similarities between a matriarchical society and a patriarchical one!

The thing is that until recently, Gimbutas' theory was widely accepted in acdemia, by men and women alike. Hell, one of my teachers is still teaching it. So it was "the truth" for a number of years, and you could have picked it up anywhere. Also, it's a central background point in The DaVinci Code, so it's floating around popular culture these days.

But you're right, it just makes the idea of a women-controlled society all th more interesting to investigate. If I thought I had the talent, I'd write it myself.

Also, your icon is very nice.

Quote of the Moment

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject