La Femme Nikita makes mainstream cultural criticism

[nell65]

For Reals. I'm reading Susan Douglas's latest Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism's Work is Done (2010, Times Books), and our gal gets several shout outs in the chapter, "Warrior Women in Thongs."

The bulk of the analysis in this chapter is actually for Xena and Buffy -- but Nikita, Max and Sydney get a paragraph each (so do Lara Croft and Charlie's Angles, turn of the millennium flavor.) The argument in the chapter is that these women were at once truly kick-ass, and yet lot was done to make sure that emotionally and in everything but hand to hand combat, hyper feminine and very definitely NOT LIKE MEN.

I haven't finished the whole book yet, but so far I'm enjoying it -- if you know it, it's like the sequel to her book Where the Girls Are about media culture and feminism 1950s-1980s.

Comments

[clueless-02.livejournal.com]

yet lot was done to make sure that emotionally and in everything but hand to hand combat, hyper feminine and very definitely NOT LIKE MEN.

You know, I find this bit kind of interesting when you apply it to Xena or Nikita because hyper feminine is not first word I would use to describe them.

In Xena's case, until they give her a baby, she is well... kind of... butch for lack of a better word. And emotionally, unless she is getting mushy with Gabrielle, she is closed off. And in Gabrielle's case, she has the shrinking outfit syndrome, but they cut her hair off and she goes from OMG!She is so cute and innocent to OMG!She looks like she could kill me.

In Nikita's case, I don't know if this just my take on it or what, but she always seemed to have an edge to her personality that defied traditional roles. I know she had to play vamp a few times but there was something untamed about her that I just found totally awesome.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Whoops - the reply is below!

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I think Douglas would point out that, among other things, in Xena's case she wears a double d cup breast plate/boob and waist enhancer and a mini skirt, right up until she wears a bikini, while in the very first episode of LFN Madeline tells Nikita that it is femininity that is her greatest weapon; she is "A woman with your looks who can kill in cold blood." ;-) And, well, Peta Wilson's Nikita was many things - but a classically beautiful woman was/is definitely one of them, and was regularly referenced as one of her most effective tools for disarming men. She also likes decorating, cut flowers, fashion, cats and children.

The point isn't that they aren't great fighters, though, or awesome complex characters who defied (or couldn't have) a traditional female role caring for hearth, home, babies and men, because they are both in every way - but rather that whatever they are, and whatever they are becoming --- the way they are juxtaposed to the men in their respective universes (and this goes for all the shows she was referencing) highlights just how *different* they are from 'men-as-a-class' , even as they acquire the strength to go hand to hand and toe to toe, literally, with the men with whom they do battle.

Which is part of her larger point/argument about 'enlightened sexism' - sure, we have Xena and Nikita and Buffy, and now, Nikita again!, and all the women cops/doctors/lawyers/judges etc.... so, it's okay that we also have 'Girls Gone Wild" and "Sweet Sixteen" and "Jersey Shore" because, see, these are all empowerful choices that girls make, just like Xena did. Yay! Feminism won! Let's all go party!

Only, you know, not.

And that all of this works to hide the actual day to day struggles of regular women who aren't tough cookies at the top of their professions and also beautiful *or* white twenty something girls who take their shirts off just because a penis owner asked them too. That most women in the US need equal pay, better access to health care, reproductive and otherwise, and for those who are mothers (which NONE of these women are!) better childcare options, better schools for their kids, and a way to be mothers that doesn't derail their careers and dramatically decrease their lifetime earnings. And that these are political battles that need to be fought, and aren't being fought because, hey! look over there! We already have Xena!! Buffy! Nikita! Sookie! Paris! Angelina!, or, for those who want a little more substance, Oprah! Hillary! Nancy! Sarah! What more could you possibly want/need?

[madamedarque.livejournal.com]

This is an interesting vein of criticism, and I was thinking...isn't LFN supposed to be "empowering" because Nikita functions on an equal level with men and *also* remains feminine? Not in a fan-service-y way (although there probably was some of that) but in a "she likes flowers and fashion so she indulges in those hobbies for herself, and because she enjoys it." Lines like Madeline's in the premiere were cringe-worthy, but I found it refreshing that while Nikita could choose to be seductive, she could also just as easily break your neck. Is there power in that, or is it just making the best of the raw tools a woman has in a patriarchal society? I don't know.

I also think the juxtaposition between Nikita and Madeline adds something to this talk about "feminine characteristics." Nikita was undeniably emotional. But we all know Madeline was the least emotional person on the show. She had a lot of what could be termed "masculine" characteristics in the way she did her job, and she was condemned for it by Nikita (and by extension, the show). It also came out in her relationship with Paul--I always loved that for all his hyper-masculinity and arguable sexism, he was the one who wanted a ~relationship while Madeline dispassionately had sex with him and wanted to move on. Actually, the way Madeline conducted her sex life (no emotional commitments) seemed written to show her "masculine" attributes. In contrast, Nikita/Michael for me never had any of this compelling gender role flipping; it was the passionate, headstrong heroine against the stoic male. It just seemed the stuff of a bodice-ripper to me, which was one of the reasons I never really got into the ship, I think.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Yeah - it is. Obviously late nineties/early ought's television series are only a small part of her overall argument, or even the time frame. She starts - for example - with Murphy Brown and Northern Exposure-- though not, interestingly enough, come to think of it, the X-Files..... hmm.....

She also has a LOT to say about 90120 and Melrose place - but then a lot of her focus is how young women receive and makes sense of these images/shows/material. So she also talks about magazines and books and news media.....

I thought about just quoting the whole paragraph on LFN, actually, but it comes late enough in the chapter that it doesn't make a lot of sense out of the context of the terms/argument she's already set up and for which LFN is just one more example of a trend/theme. And she never mentions Madeline at all....

[madamedarque.livejournal.com]

I would be interested to read the paragraph, even out of context. And yeah, it doesn't surprise me that she didn't mention Madeline. I just thought it was an interesting contrast.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Okay, here goes: (Remember this is from chap. 3 of 10.

"Enlightened Sexism" by Susan Douglas, p. 94-95

"Other warrior women would come to inhabit less mythic realms than Buffy and Xena, fighting terrorists or criminals, and doing so reluctantly. This darker, more fatalistic genre of warrior women did not feature hordes of beefed-up bloodsuckers or vandals, but instead included a cold-blooded father figure whose ethos and worldview were completely opposite, and dangerous, to the heroine's. La Femme Nikita, which aired on the US network from 1997 to 2001, starred the lanky platinum blonde Peta Wilson s the "the fatal femme you can't take your eyes from." Falsely accused of murder while she was living as a disheveled, dirty street person with a nose ring, Nikita was forced to join the top-secret group Section One run by the ruthless patriarch "Operations." She bemoans that "I'm only guilty of not taking charge of my own destiny," reminding girls that failing to take control of your life means that others (men) might do it for you in a way you don't like very much. Nikita did not take pleasure in fighting the way that Buffy or Xena did, nor was she invincible. She did not want or relish the power she had; it was a curse. And unlike Buffy and Xena, Nikita did not all the shots; Operations did. Section One trained her to shoot and master kung fu, and they also taught her how to put on black stockings, walk in black patent leather stilettos, and cross her legs seductively, because, as they told her, "You can learn to shoot, you can learn to fight, but there's no weapon as powerful as your femininity." I repeat: "no weapon as powerful as your femininity." This was a turn for the worse."

I haven't finished the book yet, and the overarching argument isn't quite a declension model, that is, while she thinks some things were better in terms of media images in the late 80s to late 90s, other things are clearly better now than ever before, wai hello thar, Secretary Clinton -- and she points to a generational divide that is strange and troubling. Women of 'mature years' like, say, me(!) or more or less 40 and up, continue to have all kinds of kick ass women on TV, in media, in politics.... but younger women have strong reinforcement of consumerism and a constant reminder that they must be perfect in every way, and especially that they should regard older feminists as scary hags to run away from. Which isn't a new narrative, by the way, dates back to at least the 1920s, but Douglas is laying out that it is still very much with us, and the particular forms it is taking now.

[madamedarque.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing. That was fascinating, especially the part about Paul as the patriarchal figure governing Nikita's life. Although I have to wonder if Douglas ever watched the show in full; she seemed to have picked up on the somewhat problematic aspects of the pilot (in terms of turning Nikita into a "femme fatale") which was not really representative of the whole series.

Women of 'mature years' like, say, me(!) or more or less 40 and up, continue to have all kinds of kick ass women on TV, in media, in politics.... but younger women have strong reinforcement of consumerism and a constant reminder that they must be perfect in every way, and especially that they should regard older feminists as scary hags to run away from.

This is spot-on and makes me want to read the book. It is odd; older woman have Laura Roslin and Nancy Pelosi, younger women have...Cosmo. I think I've ranted about this to you before; I can't tell you the number of young women I know who have said, "oh, but I'm not a feminist or anything..." I recently read an article about the (metaphorical) ritual "matricide" that has occurred in the women's movement in terms of rejecting the previous generation's brand of feminism. I can definitely see it in every girl who rejects feminism because gosh, they don't need to be like those scary lesbians who don't shave their legs!

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, the old "I'm not a feminist, but....."

Girls I went to college with said shit like that in the 1980s too. I'm guessing more of them identify as feminists today than did then.

Some of it is totally understandable. Bright young middle class girls, especially if they are cis, het and white or acceptably 'hot' -- are bombarded with messages that they are at the peak of their desirability and power (their femininity/sexuality is their 'most powerful weapon'), and girls/young women with those markers have also tended to not run head on into a much old fashioned, in your face, sexism. And because it is so rare in their experience, they tend not to even understand it or recognize it when they do encounter it. And it is so easy and seductive for them to buy into the mythical scary lesbian hairy legged abortion having harridans, and the message that if they should, daringly, associate with such horrid creatures the ugly cooties will rub off on them.

I get much ruder about the same women pushing thirty still clinging to the same line. At that point it is, IMO, a combination of denial, willful blindness, and a last terrified hope that if they bash enough bad women, they'll be let into the 'almost a man' club.

[madamedarque.livejournal.com]

Bright young middle class girls, especially if they are cis, het and white or acceptably 'hot' -- are bombarded with messages that they are at the peak of their desirability and power (their femininity/sexuality is their 'most powerful weapon'), and girls/young women with those markers have also tended to not run head on into a much old fashioned, in your face, sexism.

I'm know I'm probably going to start dripping privilege all over the place here, but just to go with with my experiences; this pretty much describes me. And while I know the sexism I've encountered has *nothing* on women who are overweight, or poor, and of course the experiences of WOC, I have encountered a lot of sexism in my life, and so have girls like me. But it's insidious, and it's masked behind "empowering" women or it's just less in-your-face, but no less harmful. Men can't slap my ass around the office, but they can still exclude me in subtle ways. The point is that young women will. not. acknowledge. this. And it bothers me, because when you stay silent you're reinforcing oppression and making it inevitable.

Anyway, you're right; it just reeks of wanting to be let into the "honorary man" club. I suppose a lot of it stems from fear--if they don't acknowledge sexism in their lives (he was just joking, guys!) then they don't have to face what it's doing to them, right?