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

[raincitygirl.livejournal.com]

Ooh, interesting.

*rubs hands together with glee at the pretty, pretty meta.*

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I got right to the end of the post before I realised which Mr Bennet you meant - and now I have this fascinating vision of Pride and Prejudice in which Mrs Bennet, and probably Kitty and Lydia too, are airheads because Mr B keeps mindwiping them, in between murdering half the gentry of Hertfordshire to protect Lizzie from an unsuitable match.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

ROTFLOL. This clearly needs to be written!

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

What about Mary? Is she the evil genius behind it all? Please please?

(I've had a Mary Bennett, Vampire Slayer bunny rattling around in my head for a while -- well, ever since I saw the movie where Donald Sutherland, who was the watcher in the original Buffy movie, played Mr. B)

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

"My child, let me not have the grief of seeing you unable to respect your partner in life," said Mr Bennet, as he quietly took the pistol from the hidden drawer in his desk and concealed it in his pocket.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Mary is possessed by the spirit of a sixth Bennet sister who has never been mentioned since her untimely and mysterious death. She is responsible for a string of unsolved murders in Meryton.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Very interesting observation. I think the ruthless father of daughter=beloved character angle works on several levels where fans are concerned; it partly is self-identification if the fans in question are daughters or fathers themselves and it partly seems to be some kind of cultural sentimentality for the distant-yet-loving father that we all seem to share to a certain degree. Personally, I'm not entirely free of it, either, although I do find both Jack and Noah a little over-controlling in their quest to protect their daughters. Keith, on the other hand, is probably a little too gullible, but I think his popularity might not only be to him being a single, very protective father, but to him being virtually the only positive parental figure in Veronica Mars, period. (The only other one who might qualify is Wallace's Mom, and she lied to him about her past and his biological father, so she is somewhat ambivalent, as well)

The same gender discrepancy is carried out if the parents in question are actually "bad" - most fans hardly bat an eye lid for Chandra's treatment of Mohinder, while both Nathan's and Meredith's reaction to and behaviour towards Claire is met with outrage. Of course the situation with Claire is extremely complicated - not least because Nathan for instance is constantly floundering between wanting to be a good father and wanting to bail, and basically doing both right until the end (I think his decision to not let Peter explode has quite a lot to do with wanting to look better in Claire's eyes, too) - but the fact remains that both Nathan and Meredith aren't her "parents" in the sense of having raised her and bonded with her, so both of them reacting ambivalently seems pretty realistic and could deserve a minimum of understanding.

Someone who trancends this once again is interestingly Peter, where fans do usually react very sensitive if the "parent" in question treats him good or bad, and I'm wondering if that is because he occupies roles that are usually coded as being specifically female (nurturing, passive, emotional, whathaveyou).


Also: thank you very much for linking me. *blushes*

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

Ha! You always hit the nail on the head. :-P

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I'm in awe of your imagination...

Can Mohinder be Mr. Bingley? And Angela Lady Catherine?

[vonnie-k.livejournal.com]

Deleted & reposted because of grammar snafu (Sorry):

What a fascinating meta. I think the fandom-wide favouring the father-daughter relationships over father-son ones is absolutely gendered, and has a lot to do with our identification with both the idealized and interestingly-flawed strong female characters like Veronica, Sydney, and Claire (while it's not a biological parent/child relationship, you can sort of slot in the relationship between Buffy and Giles here as well), and the craving for unconditional love and protection from a strong male figure that transcend the often transient, conditional love that comes from a romantic partner. And by and large, the shows in question have done a decent job of subverting, but not negating, the potentially problematic power imbalance in the relationships by making the women on a near equal footing with their fathers in terms of their abilities/competence and making the fathers often flawed and remote, then having them gradually thaw/humanized through the influence of their daughters. (Wow, the romance novel parallel of this whole setup is kind of wiggin' me out right now. Heh.) Keith Mars, however, doesn't fall into the type as neatly, being an unfailing decent man, even though he does tread on the morally gray territory for the sake of his daughter. (*loves on Keith*)

The father-and-son relationships in fandom seem a lot more fractious by comparison, don't they? Lost...err, lost me a while ago, but the Angel & Connor example is a good one. I know you don't watch Supernatural, but the relationship between the Winchester boys and their father is equally fraught, and the the response of the SPN fandom toward John Winchester, as I understand it, is extremely divided on the love/hate line.

(Wait! There is Sandy Cohen from The O.C. and most people I know adored his relationships with both his biological son Seth and his adopted son Ryan. Of course, The O.C. is a teen soap, not a genre drama. And we have Benjamin and Jake Sisko, who had a lovely -- if not particularly complicated -- relationship, although one may argue that Jake was too minor a character for this to count.)

I'm also trying to think of fannish mothers, and... wow, other than Lorelai Gilmore, I can't really think of an universally adored *major* fannish character who's also a mother. (Not of babies, but of grown/growing children.)

Interesting stuff!

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

[Whoops, I was responding and meanwhile you were sort of ... gone.]

I know you don't watch Supernatural, but the relationship between the Winchester boys and their father is equally fraught, and the the response of the SPN fandom toward John Winchester, as I understand it, is extremely divided on the love/hate line.

I'd point out one caveat here which is that the reaction to John seems to hinge extremely on the reacting person's feelings about Dean. From my experience - which was admittedly brief and mostly restricted to the end of Season One, beginning of Season Two - the fans who hate John do so because he has burdened Dean beyond what was reasonable for a growing kid, not because he is at odds with Sam.

[47-trek-47.livejournal.com]

On that note, what about Angela Petrelli? I assumed she was evil (as did most of the fandom, I believe) until I actively started looking at her actions and realized that she could, in fact, be trying to save the lives of both of her sons, by preventing Nathan from (presumably) getting himself killed saving Peter. Obviously, we'll have to wait and see what canon tells us about that next season (and I'm pretty sure that will be an issue next season) and then see how fandom reacts to a mother willing to let millions of people die to save her sons.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

On that note, what about Angela Petrelli?

Fandom reception on Angela has gone from positive to negative back to positive back to negative; most of these interpretations depend on her telling Peter that he is her favourite, telling Nathan that he shouldn't go to Texas for Claire, telling Claire that she only wants to protect her, and telling Charles that Peter is a wuss. Interestingly, most people don't seem to care the least that she treats Nathan more like a race horse than her son which lends credit to the idea that reception of the parental figure is much concerned with the perception of the child character she either fights for or does things to (admittedly, there were a few people squicked out by her getting a little overly hands-on with Nathan in their last few episodes).

That said, I do believe that reception of what a parent does is indeed dependent on their gender; if Meredith had been Claire's biological father, for instance, people probably would have taken her behaviour in a less negative way.

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

I am both totally a part of this phenomenon (I forgive Jack pretty much everything he does for Sydney and Sloane almost everything he does for Nadia) and yet not (I forgave Angel absolutely everything he did for Connor, and although I had other problems with the character of Michael, I always figured that pretty much any parent put in his position would've done what he did for Walt, no matter how extreme). So I have thought about it quite a bit.

A theory that tzikeh and I worked out is that, perhaps, the father-rescuing-daughter scenario is the feminist version of the damsel in distress fantasy. We're way too aware/independent/etc. to accept a love interest rushing in to save the woman every single time. But a daddy? That's what a daddy is SUPPOSED to do. (What a mommy is supposed to do too, for that matter, although Irina Derevko and Danielle Rousseau remain the only two avenging mommies of fandom that I can think of.) Loving on Jack Bristow mid-rescue lets you have your cake (I am so glad Syd's not waiting for Vaughn to help her!) and eat it too (Yay, she's been rescued!)

It's an interesting thing to realize that most of fandom doesn't react that way, though -- especially given that, in virtually every other fannish sphere I can think of, judgment is levied far more harshly on female characters than male.

FWIW, I have always thought Jack Bristow would've been an even worse father to a son, and no, he wouldn't have been half so protective. I do think Sloane could've been much the same kind of father to a son that he was to Nadia, although I do not think he would've had the same relationship with Jack's son that he did with a daughter. I am not quite sure why I think that about Sloane, but I do. (Jack not ever ever needing to have a son I can elaborate on if you are interested.)

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

And for what little it's worth, I am one of the few "Heroes" fans who doesn't think everything Mr. Bennett's done is okay b/c it was for his daughter. I still find his treatment of his wife extremely problematic, and the character hasn't really endeared himself to me in a way that would make up for that.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Whatever you like, as long as we learn that the real reason why Mr Bennet spends so much time in his library at Longbourn is that it's the command centre of his clandestine organisation.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'm just sayin'....*g*

I

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Keith, on the other hand, is probably a little too gullible, but I think his popularity might not only be to him being a single, very protective father, but to him being virtually the only positive parental figure in Veronica Mars, period

Well, true, but then again, how many completely positive parental figures do we have in the Heroes 'verse? Sandra, but Sandra is sabotaged by her absentmindedness, and Mohinder's mother seems to be okay but she's only shown briefly, in one episode. And after three seasons of flashbacks, there is exactly one nice known father in the past (Jin's), a lot of bastards, and in the present, there's Michael as discussed and one of the villains who falls also under the "bastard" category...

The same gender discrepancy is carried out if the parents in question are actually "bad" - most fans hardly bat an eye lid for Chandra's treatment of Mohinder, while both Nathan's and Meredith's reaction to and behaviour towards Claire is met with outrage.

Though in this case, there is the difference in visual presentation - Chandra's treatment took place in the past and we don't see it, so fans can tell themselves maybe Mohinder is overreacting - and Claire, a character the audience is invited to identify with, is very much shown in the present. Though I completely agree with you; even if the Mohinder storyline with Chandra were playing out in the present, there would be the same difference in reaction.


Of course the situation with Claire is extremely complicated - not least because Nathan for instance is constantly floundering between wanting to be a good father and wanting to bail, and basically doing both right until the end (I think his decision to not let Peter explode has quite a lot to do with wanting to look better in Claire's eyes, too) - but the fact remains that both Nathan and Meredith aren't her "parents" in the sense of having raised her and bonded with her, so both of them reacting ambivalently seems pretty realistic and could deserve a minimum of understanding.

Good point. I was surprised after my initial Heroes marathon to find out that Meredith is seen with such hostility. Of course she's presented ambiguously - i.e. blackmailing Nathan for the money and naming only half the sum to Claire aren't good guy actions - but there is also the clear indication she's afraid of someone (presumably the Company) tracking her down again, and her positive reactions to Claire, the tenderness and pride she shows both towards Claire and in her conversations with Nathan, don't come across as feigned. But I think it's the cultural conditioning that says a mother discovering her daughter is alive must be 100% Momma Bear wanting her back and with her all the time, no matter the circumstances, otherwise she's a heartless bitch, and no medium is possible. (Never mind that uprooting Claire at age 15 would be confusing at best and cruel at worst unless her adoptive parents are abusive, which the Bennets of course aren't.)

With Nathan, I agree completely with you re: the twin instinct of wanting to bail and wanting to be a good father, and also his motivation re: his finale actions. It occured to me that Nathan is the only character on the show who does double duty as both a son and a father in his storyline - i.e. we see him as a son with his mother and see how his dead father impacted him, and we see him as a father (or not) with Claire, and in glimpses with his sons - whereas the other characters are clearly divided into parents and children.

II

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Someone who trancends this once again is interestingly Peter, where fans do usually react very sensitive if the "parent" in question treats him good or bad,

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.)

and I'm wondering if that is because he occupies roles that are usually coded as being specifically female (nurturing, passive, emotional, whathaveyou).

Oh, definitely. I'm oddly reminded of fannish reaction to the Spike/Buffy pairing; not that Spike and Peter have much in common otherwise, but Spike did the traditionally coded as female stuff such as openly emoting all the time, whereas Buffy did the traditionally coded as male stuff like being repressed and emotionally closed off (due to very good reasons, one might add), and guess whom a lot of fans felt protective about?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Thanks! (And btw, great icon!)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Wow, the romance novel parallel of this whole setup is kind of wiggin' me out right now. Heh.

*innocently*

Well, Tim Kring said in a recent interview Bennet-Claire and Nathan-Peter were the star-crossed romances of the season. *veg* ("star-crossed romance" was his exact phrase, I swear.)

And we have Benjamin and Jake Sisko, who had a lovely -- if not particularly complicated -- relationship, although one may argue that Jake was too minor a character for this to count.)

Oh, the Siskos were great, BUT are irrelevant to my point, as Ben isn't presented as doing shady stuff while running with the "I'm doing it for my child!" justification. Au contraire, there are at least two times when it's Jake's safety versus The Greater Good, and Ben picks The Greater Good.

I can't really think of an universally adored *major* fannish character who's also a mother. (Not of babies, but of grown/growing children.)

Irina Derevko, who was universally adored (and an absent mother) right until the show finale. For the rest, we have to branch out to movies (Sarah Connor?).

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not immune to the phenomenon myself and much in your position (Jack, Sloane and Angel!).

A theory that tzikeh and I worked out is that, perhaps, the father-rescuing-daughter scenario is the feminist version of the damsel in distress fantasy. We're way too aware/independent/etc. to accept a love interest rushing in to save the woman every single time. But a daddy? That's what a daddy is SUPPOSED to do.

Oh, that's a great theory, and sounds very plausible to me. Yes, it's a way for female fans to have their cake and eat it; if Vaughn or the respective other love interests did the same amount of rescuing and sacrificing other people for the sake of our female character, we'd roll our eyes and say it weakens her.

FWIW, I have always thought Jack Bristow would've been an even worse father to a son, and no, he wouldn't have been half so protective. I do think Sloane could've been much the same kind of father to a son that he was to Nadia, although I do not think he would've had the same relationship with Jack's son that he did with a daughter. I am not quite sure why I think that about Sloane, but I do. (Jack not ever ever needing to have a son I can elaborate on if you are interested.)

Oh, do elaborate. I think I agree with you re: Sloane, i.e. he would have responded to a son in very similar ways as he did to Nadia, but the relationship with a male version of Sydney would have been different. It's interesting, though, that we don't see either Jack or Sloane mentoring young men until s5 when Jack gets into it a bit with Thomas Grace. (Arguably before that with Vaughn in s3, but, err, advice on killing your wife RIGHT NOW is, err, not what I had in mind.)

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

Want to comment, but LJ won't let me write more. ARGH.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

Be back later. :-)

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

Another part of the phenomenon, I think, is that the fathers in question are often set up as morally ambiguous or hostile characters to begin with, and only later do we see that really they love their daughter. Jack Bristow, Sloane and Mr Bennet fall squarely into this category - and are therefore easy to love. They're also characters for whom the narrative justifies and minimises their actions - they really do live in a hostile and dangerous world, and even if they're doing wrong, others are doing worse.

I would put Angel into this category, too, but I'm not really into that fandom, so I don't know much about the reactions there. Personally, I was just relieved to not have to watch Connor's desperate, severely depressed, self-harming actions any more. It felt like the writers had put themselves in a corner, where Connor had had so many horrible things piled on him that the only escape was wiping them away.

Michael is in a different category - he starts as a normal person, and we know he is trying to understand the son he hasn't seen for years, and only later does he start to take on darker characteristics and harm people, and it's the first time on the show we actually see one of the castaways deliberately killing people on the island (I think).