Father-of-daughter privilege?

[selenak]

Fandom loves its Daddies. Whether Jack Bristow, Keith Mars or Mr. Bennet: they're prepared to do all for their daughters, and two out of three are doing that very ruthlessly at other people's expenses, and are dearly beloved for it. It did occur to me that this dynamic somewhat depends on the child in question being a daughter. In Alias, it's hard to imagine either Jack Bristow or Arvin Sloane behaving as they do if Sydney had been a son, or for that matter Nadia. There still would have been protectiveness, I suppose, but a lot more open display of anger and blame during disagreements if the disagreeing child was a son. And not only less love in fandom for the dynamic, but also less tendency to forgive the Daddy in question every single action because of the "all I did, I did for *insert name of daughter*" justification.

My proof for this? Compare and contrast the examples just named to Angel and Connor on AtS, and Michael and Walt on Lost. Angel makes the proverbial Faustian deal to save Connor at the end of season 4, which includes, among other things, a mindwipe for his colleagues, and of course Connor himself. Michael sells out his friends and ends up killing two people to save Walt, after spending much of the season endangering his friends on earlier attempts to save Walt. Lost pretty much makes it clear that Michael was in the wrong and having a selfishness of two thing going there; AtS goes for a "it was a morally wrong but impossible to make otherwise decision" approach and ultimately gives it narrative justification as Connor's symbolic function changes from embodiment of the sins of the past to symbol of hope (of which there are few left by the end of the story). This didn't stop a lot of fans, notably Wesley fans, for wishing there had been more negative consequences for Angel once the mindwipe was reversed.

Now, given that the earlier named gentlemen who have daughters as opposed to sons do regularly endanger and sacrifice other people for their girls, and do just as appalling things to people who trust them, but still end up being unrestrainedly adored by fandom and with a narrative that does not offer the same kind of censure the fathers-of-sons get, either, I can't help but conclude it's the gender of the offspring which does it. Make up your own mind whether there is some inherent sexism at work, or the fact most lj fandom is female and has some identification going on; I just notice the phenomenon.

On that note, look what wee_warrior wrote for me!

Twenty things Mr. Bennet is not allowed to use as a rationalization for mindwiping his wife Sandra

Exactly.

Comments

Re: II

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Indeed, as evidenced by the overwhelmingly positive response to Charles Deveaux based, as far as I can see, on nothing but his being nice towards Peter and complimentary about him. (And ignoring completely that Charles' passivity and not doing anything to stop the explosion for years is the same thing it has condemmed Nathan for when with Nathan it lasted a week; not to mention that Charles even does the Angela thing of leaving his own child completely in the dark and risking her death.)

There is also the fact that he doesn't believe the bomb is inevitable, but again, he could have said something. Or left a note. Anything. (I'm also not entirely fond of him encouraging a relationship between his daughter and an obviously unstable heroin addict, not least because I'm not sure that this wasn't because they needed Isaac's paintings.)

As for differing reactions re: Charles and Nathan virtually doing the same thing, it's mostly irrational. Partly it's because he is nice to Peter - witness how long it took a lot of fans to accept that Angela was not a nice old lady, and how difficult it is for most of the audience now to allow that she might indeed love him, while she never once gave the impression that she felt anything for Nathan as a person, and nobody objected to that until Claire was concerned, and after that still interpreted it as okay until she really came close to almost coercing him into going along with her. Much as I love Angela, I find her emotional treatment of Nathan horrible to put it mildly, and I'm really taken aback that the majority of fandom mostly shrugs it off with an "Oh well, Nathan's a jerk, who cares." I think judging Nathan's behaviour worse than Charles's partly goes in that direction - Nathan is bad, because he is not always nice to Peter, so he gets cut much less slack - but it's also because he is an important character, and we have three other important characters who expect him to do the right thing, so why doesn't he do it already. (There is also a somewhat negative effect of the show's pacing - Nathan may have only hesitated for a week, but in real time, he hesitated almost four episodes and one what if situation, which does translate to around five weeks where the character is basically treating water.)

I'm oddly reminded of fannish reaction to the Spike/Buffy pairing; [...]and guess whom a lot of fans felt protective about?

Ahhh, the evil spectre of Spuffy. Begone, evil, begone! (I was a lurker during Buffy Season 6 and 7. That was a truly eye-opening experience.)

Spike love is still a mystery to me, mostly because I liked the character exclusively in Season 2, now and then in Season 4 and 5, and in Angel Season 5 (for the latter I might totally be the only one). I think he is like Peter in so far as he also seems to present some sort of romantic ideal, and inhabiting the traditionally feminine role plays into that as well, since who doesn't want the guy who is emotionally open enough to understand how you feel? (At least I have heard that this is the case for a lot of straight girls. Not that I am too familiar with the situation; needless to say that if I was more romantically inclined towards guys, my ideal would probably be ... Charles Bingley? At least he is funny!)

Re: II

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'm also not entirely fond of him encouraging a relationship between his daughter and an obviously unstable heroin addict, not least because I'm not sure that this wasn't because they needed Isaac's paintings.

That's a conspiracy angle I hadn't thought of, but it totally works for me. Poor Simone.

Much as I love Angela, I find her emotional treatment of Nathan horrible to put it mildly, and I'm really taken aback that the majority of fandom mostly shrugs it off with an "Oh well, Nathan's a jerk, who cares."

Oh absolutely. What I find especially frightening is that Nathan was the only child for a decade at least and more likely 11 or 12 years, and in all that time, she apparantly still didn't create an emotional bond with him. Which goes into my thesis that the Nathan-Peter codependency started because they were literary the first people to love each other unconditionally, but Peter would have had Nathan from the start, and all Nathan had Mr. Petrelli of the manic depressive condition and Angela who as you once put it treats him like a race horse, not a son. As cadesama put it, there must have been some kick-ass nannies to ensure he's as functional (for a Petrelli!) as he is.

I think one reason for the shrug off is the misinterpretation of Angela's political support of Nathan (organizing the brunch, and in the later episodes the entire you-are-the-leader-of-destiny stick) as maternal affection or even favoritism. When really the only time Angela reads as maternally affectionate (as opposed to either cold or manipulative) towards Nathan to me is the background hug when Claire is having her "moment" with Peter in .07%. It also remains boggling to me where the nice-old-biddy idea ever came from, considering her second scene ever in the pilot. Now whether at that stage you think Angela is telling the truth as she sees it (i.e. Nathan doesn't love Peter, Peter is kidding himself) or not, it's still such a ruthless thing to do, and hard to see having any other purpose than trying to divide her sons and set them against each other. In retrospect, with the knowledge of the relationship we now have, it's even more chilling.

Re: II

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Poor Simone.

Indeed. She probably could have been an interesting character, if they had worked her from a different angle. The possibilities were certainly there.

What I find especially frightening is that Nathan was the only child for a decade at least and more likely 11 or 12 years, and in all that time, she apparantly still didn't create an emotional bond with him.

It's scary. I wonder if it was just the circumstances occupying too much of her time - between playing superhero and dealing with a husband who is mentally ill and apparently difficult on top of that would have been pretty exhausting. I don't think that she is unable to develop affection, since she obviously has it for Peter, but there should be something there, too, since she regards feelings as weakness.

Of course, being more loving with Peter could simply mean that she had given up saving the world actively by then, and it was already too late to built up something with Nathan. And who knows when they came up with that freaky plan.

And yes, that must have been some awesome nannies indeed - or maybe he had halfway normal grandparents.

I think one reason for the shrug off is the misinterpretation of Angela's political support of Nathan (organizing the brunch, and in the later episodes the entire you-are-the-leader-of-destiny stick) as maternal affection or even favoritism.

Possible. There is of course the stereotype of the rich lady who is outwardly cold and all about manners and yet secretly loving - Emily Gilmore comes to mind, and that is where the nice old biddy part comes in, probably. But as you say, we saw quite a large amount of manipulation in the pilot (never mind a slap! For telling her that he feels a connection!) and even in Episode 2 a lot of her conversation with Peter seemed manipulative - not to mention that telling one of your children "you are my favourite" is more dysfunctional than sweet. Of course, judging from Nathan's words in Six Months Ago, the Petrellis seemed to be pretty open about these kinds of things, anyway.

Re: II

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Of course, being more loving with Peter could simply mean that she had given up saving the world actively by then, and it was already too late to built up something with Nathan.

That's my current favourite explanation, too - Angela during Nathan's early childhood being busy with world-saving and dealing with her returned from Vietnam alternating between depression and "I have a new mission" believing husband, but by the time Peter is a child having given up on it. Of course, there is yet another possibility, depending on whether or not Angela is a precog, and just how her ability shows itself. After all, the writers could have taken more than the Ozymandias plan from Watchmen. Dr. Manhattan in that comicbook finds it harder and harder to relate to aber people because to him, the timelines are so transparant - i.e. for example when he meets a girl for the first time, he also knows already what their first kiss will be like, when they'll have sex, what she sounds like when they break up.

never mind a slap! For telling her that he feels a connection!)

I remember some people during the hiatus speculating that she does that because she figures out his knowing about Nathan's accident means he manifested, and she doesn't want that, but the conversation she has with Charles sounds as if they expect Peter to manifest, so it's more likely the "Nathan and I are connected" part that caused the slap.

not to mention that telling one of your children "you are my favourite" is more dysfunctional than sweet. Of course, judging from Nathan's words in Six Months Ago, the Petrellis seemed to be pretty open about these kinds of things, anyway.

Quite. Daddy Petrelli probably did it, too. *marvels again that Nathan and Peter aren't even more dysfunctional* I think the age gap was what probably prevented the boys from doing the usual thing and becoming rivals as the result of that, which is what favoritism by a parent usually results in. Instead, you get the idea that if there is any rivalry, it's between Angela and Nathan about Peter, and might have been between Peter and Dad about Nathan.

Re: II

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Of course, there is yet another possibility, depending on whether or not Angela is a precog, and just how her ability shows itself.

Hm. That would be a sucky power indeed, if it manifests itself like Dr. Manhattan's. I'm not too sure she is the one with the precognition though. (It's always like Russian Roulette with Heroes: Who gets the Amnesia, who gets the Precognition...) I mean, if she were, shouldn't she have foreseen that Nathan would help D.L. and Jessica to kill Linderman? Shouldn't she have been prepared that Claire jumped out the window and that Nathan in the end would abandon the plan and help Peter?
Of course Peter had to get the power from someone, and if it isn't her it has to be his Dad (pro: depressive, contra: not around much to get powers from; pro: it's seriously evil if the first power Peter naps is his father's) or it has to be Charles (pro: walks through dreams, contra: we don't even know if that was a dream in the end, contra: if it wasn't a dream but time travel he simply could have seen Peter because he's an empath himself).

I remember some people during the hiatus speculating that she does that because she figures out his knowing about Nathan's accident means he manifested, and she doesn't want that

She knows that he knows about the accident because Nathan phoned both of them, she even says so in the conversation (I think they mixed that up a little in Six Months Ago, but he definitely plans to call her as well). Besides, why shouldn't he know about the accident, it would simply be odd if he - or she, for that matter - knew that the accident had been an attack, and he never mentions that.

*marvels again that Nathan and Peter aren't even more dysfunctional* I think the age gap was what probably prevented the boys from doing the usual thing and becoming rivals as the result of that, which is what favoritism by a parent usually results in. Instead, you get the idea that if there is any rivalry, it's between Angela and Nathan about Peter, and might have been between Peter and Dad about Nathan.

Their meals must have been a joy to behold. Peter would snap at his father for something, his father would either yell or get very silent, both would look to Nathan for support, Nathan would squirm and try not to pick sides, but tell Peter later that he has to respect their father because he could get suicidal a heart attack again, and Angela would later take Peter aside and tell him that he's her nice little boy and that she loves him best, and that he shouldn't pay attention to his father and brother, who just don't understand him. I think they would have driven any shrink insane...

Re: II

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It's always like Russian Roulette with Heroes: Who gets the Amnesia, who gets the Precognition...)

It so is.*g*


Their meals must have been a joy to behold. Peter would snap at his father for something, his father would either yell or get very silent, both would look to Nathan for support, Nathan would squirm and try not to pick sides, but tell Peter later that he has to respect their father because he could get suicidal a heart attack again, and Angela would later take Peter aside and tell him that he's her nice little boy and that she loves him best, and that he shouldn't pay attention to his father and brother, who just don't understand him. I think they would have driven any shrink insane...

I'm still waiting for someone to write that Sopranos crossover wherein Dr. Melfi somehow ends up treating any member of the Petrelli family and after a day decides she's much better off with Tony Soprano the mobster...

But, yeah. (One of many reasons why Nathan in my story Folly does not want Meredith to meet the family. *veg*) And you know, of course, "Dinner at the Petrelli's" is yet another plot bunny, though actually I'd combine it with an old one and write the Heidi pov where she has her first dinner with the clan, and since she and Nathan are about to announce their engagement, they are actually all there, and it's just the most bizarre experience ever. Naturally, each family member drags her off at some point to find out whether she could be an ally or a foe.

...maybe it's Heidi who then recommends Dr. Melfi. Not realizing the only shrink tough enough not to go insane would be the already insane Dr. Hannibal Lecter...

Re: II

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I'm still waiting for someone to write that Sopranos crossover wherein Dr. Melfi somehow ends up treating any member of the Petrelli family and after a day decides she's much better off with Tony Soprano the mobster...

I could see that... especially since she never met Livia, and Angela really beats all hearsay about Tony's mother (I'm not too sure about real life, I actually think Livia might be worse).

And you know, of course, "Dinner at the Petrelli's" is yet another plot bunny

I think I breed them, by now.

though actually I'd combine it with an old one and write the Heidi pov where she has her first dinner with the clan, and since she and Nathan are about to announce their engagement, they are actually all there, and it's just the most bizarre experience ever. Naturally, each family member drags her off at some point to find out whether she could be an ally or a foe.

I can't wait to see what you come up with to explain why Heidi didn't run away screaming from that family the first chance she got. Or maybe she tried convincing Nathan to elope and move to Europe...

Not realizing the only shrink tough enough not to go insane would be the already insane Dr. Hannibal Lecter...

You think Lecter could withstand the combined forces of Angela and Papa Petrelli's conroyesque bipolarity? Maybe they were his patients and are responsible that he got driven over the edge.

Re: II

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I could see that... especially since she never met Livia, and Angela really beats all hearsay about Tony's mother (I'm not too sure about real life, I actually think Livia might be worse).

I definitely think Livia is worse. At least when Angela is dooming one or both of her sons, she thinks she's doing it for the greater good; Livia wanted Tony dead out of spite.

I can't wait to see what you come up with to explain why Heidi didn't run away screaming from that family the first chance she got.

Err, Nathan must be really good in bed AND promised her they'd have their own house and there would never be more than one or two shared meals a year? (Hence them never having family brunch.*g*) Kidding. I'll have to come up with more, I know. BTW, my analysis of Nothing to Hide is up.

You think Lecter could withstand the combined forces of Angela and Papa Petrelli's conroyesque bipolarity? Maybe they were his patients and are responsible that he got driven over the edge.

The story Thomas Harris forgot to tell us, clearly !

Re: II

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Err, Nathan must be really good in bed

Well, given that his once and current flames (pun intended) seem to be very fond of him, right down to Jessica (and Meredith would have lots of reasons not to, as would Niki), I'd say he must have more to him than just impeccable manners. Just sayin'. :)