-
-
dani (
_allecto_) wrote,
A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly
***
I have become increasingly interested in examining Joss Whedon’s work from a feminist perspective since I had a conversation with another lesbian feminist sister at the International Feminist Summit about whether Joss was a feminist. I am really quite shocked by how readily Joss is accepted as a feminist, and that his works are widely considered to be feminist. I decided to start re-watching Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and also to watch Firefly and the movie Serenity.
I have to say that now that I have subjected myself to the horror that is Firefly, I really am beyond worried about how much men hate us, given that this was written by a man who calls himself a feminist.
I find much of Joss Whedon’s work to be heavily influenced by pornography, and pornographic humour. While I would argue that there are some aspects of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer that are feminist and progressive, there is much that isn’t and I find it highly problematic that there are many very woman-hating messages contained within a show that purports itself as feminism. But Firefly takes misogyny to a new level of terrifying. I am really, really worried that women can call the man who made this show a feminist.
For myself, I’m not sure that I will recover from the shock of watching the malicious way in which Joss stripped his female characters of their integrity, the pleasure he seemed to take from showing potentially powerful women bashed, the way he gleefully demonized female power and selfhood and smashed women into little bits, male fists in women’s faces, male voices drowning out our words.
There is so much hatred towards women contained within the scripts and action of the series that I doubt very much that this post will even begin to cover it. I am going to try to focus on the episodes that were written by Joss Whedon but I will also refer to the series as a whole. As Joss Whedon was responsible for the concept development and was a producer, ultimately I hold him accountable for the depiction of women in the entire season. Only one episode was written by a woman. It was no better or worse in its depiction of women than the ones written by men.
The pilot episode, Serenity, was written and directed by Joss Whedon. The basic plot of the series is Malcolm Reynolds and his second in command Zoe, have made a new life for themselves after fighting a war against the Alliance, which they lost. They bought a Firefly, an old space ship, and Mal calls it Serenity, after the last battle they fought for the Independence. The pilot of the ship, Wash, is Zoe’s husband. Kaylee is the ship’s mechanic and Jayne, the final member of the crew, is the brainless brawn. This bunch of criminals go around stealing things and generally doing lots of violence.
They also take on board passengers. There is Inara, a Companion (Joss Whedon’s euphemism for women in prostitution). She rents one of the ship’s shuttles. Simon, a doctor and his sister River. And a Shepherd (which means preacher), a black male character.
The first scene opens in a war with Mal and Zoe. Zoe runs around calling Mal ‘sir’ and taking orders off him. I roll my eyes. Not a good start.
The next scene is set in the present. Mal, Jayne, and Zoe are floating about in space. They come into some danger. Mal gets all panicky.
Zoe says, “This ship's been derelict for months. Why would they –”
Mal replies, (in Chinese) “Shut up.”
So in the very second scene of the very first episode, an episode written and directed by the great feminist Joss, a white man tells a black woman to ‘shut up’ for no apparent reason. And she does shut up. And she continues to call him sir. And takes his orders, even when they are dumb orders, for the rest of the series.
The next scene we meet Kaylee, the ship’s mechanic. <- Lookee, lookee, feminist empowerment. In this scene Mal and Jayne are stowing away the cargo they just stole. Kaylee is chatting to them, happily. Jayne asks Mal to get Kaylee to stop being so cheerful. Mal replies, “Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.” Yes, that is an exact quote, “Sometimes you just wanna DUCT TAPE HER MOUTH and DUMP HER IN THE HOLD FOR A MONTH.” Kaylee responds by grinning and giving Mal a kiss on the cheek and saying, “I love my Captain.”
What the fuck is this feminist man trying to say about women here? A black woman calling a white man ‘sir’. A white male captain who abuses and silences his female crew, with no consequences. The women are HAPPY to be abused. They enjoy it. What does this say about women, Joss? What does this say about you? Do you tell your wife to shut up? Do you threaten to duct tape her mouth? Lock her in the bedroom? Is this funny to you, Joss? Because it sure as fuck ain’t funny to me.
Our first introduction to Inara the ‘Companion’, Joss Whedon’s euphemism for prostituted women, is when she is being raped/fucked/used by a prostitutor. I find it really interesting to read the scripted directions for this particular scene:
We are close on INARA's face. She is being made love to by an eager, inexperienced but quite pleasingly shaped young man. She is beneath him, drawing him to his climax with languorous intensity. His face buried in her neck.
He tightens, relaxes, becomes still. She runs her hand through is hair and he pulls from her neck, looks at her with sweaty insecurity. She smiles, a worldly, almost motherly sweetness in her expression. He rests his head on her breast, still breathing hard.
So, Joss Whedon refers to rapist/fuckers who buy women as sex, as ‘eager, inexperienced but pleasingly shaped’ who ‘make love’ to women in prostitution. Obviously, ‘love’ to men like Joss Whedon, requires female powerlessness, force and coercion. Women in prostitution enjoy the experience of being bought for sex. They feel ‘motherly’ towards the men who have just treated them as property and bought them as sex.
In Joss Whedon’s future world prostituted women are powerful and respectable. They go to an Academy, to train in the arts of being a ‘Companion’. They belong to a Guild which regulates prostitution, forces women to endure yearly health tests and comes up with rules to make prostitution sound empowering for women. For example, one Guild rule is that the ‘Companion’ chooses her rapist, not the other way around.
But there is one really big question that does not get answered. The women who ‘choose’ to be ‘Companions’ are shown as being intelligent, accomplished, educated, well-respected and presumably from good families. If a woman had all of these qualities and opportunities then why the fuck would she ‘choose’ to be a man’s fuck toy? Would being a fuck toy for hundreds of men give a woman like Inara personal fulfillment? Job satisfaction? A sense of purpose? Fulfill her dreams? Ambitions?
Money doesn’t seem to be the motivation behind Inara’s ‘choice’ to be a ‘Companion’, presumably she just ‘enjoys’ swanning around in ridiculous outfits. And being used as a fuck toy by men is seemingly a small price to pay for the pleasure.
At any rate, Inara’s apparent ‘power’ is merely a figment of Joss Whedon’s very sick imagination. In a later episode, Inara is shown to have set down three very specific rules in relation to her arrangement to hiring one of Mal’s shuttles as her base of operations. 1) No crew member, including the Captain would be allowed entrance to the shuttle without Inara’s express invitation. 2) Inara refuses to service the Captain nor anyone under his employ. And 3) the Captain cannot refer to Inara as a whore.
Mal agrees to all of these rules but he breaks every single one of them. Blatantly and deliberately. The third thing that Mal says in the first interaction between Inara and Mal is, “She’s a whore…” Does Inara stop him from calling her a whore? Nope. She just goes on smiling and being gracious. So he calls her a whore again. Lovely man this Mal is, dontcha think?
And in regards to her first rule, Mal takes every opportunity he can to break it. In the first episode Mal barges into Inara’s shuttle. The interchange goes like this:
Inara: What are you doing on my shuttle?
Mal: It's my shuttle. You rent it.
Inara: Then when I'm behind on the rent, you can enter unasked.
Scenes like this continue to occur for the rest of the series. Mal never apologises for breaking the terms of his agreement with Inara. And although Inara gets a little annoyed, she does not get really angry at the Captain for consistently undermining her power and invading her space. She tells the Captain to get out but he rarely complies. The point is that a man should never invade a woman’s personal space to begin with. Especially when he has been told expressly that he is not invited. But Mal delights in pointing out Inara’s powerlessness, it makes him feel all manly.
In regards to her servicing the crew, she begins to service the Captain and the male passengers of the ship from day one. The following is an excerpt from the script of Serenity. Book is a black male character. He is a Preacher and disapproves of Inara’s ‘profession’.
BOOK Is this what life is, out here?
INARA Sometimes.
BOOK I've been out of the abbey two days, I've beaten a Lawman senseless, I've fallen in with criminals... I watched the captain shoot a man I swore to protect. And I'm not even sure if I think he was wrong.
INARA Shepherd...
He is shaking a bit, tearing up.
BOOK I believe I just... (a pained smile) I think I'm on the wrong ship.
INARA Maybe. Or maybe you're exactly where you ought to be.
He lowers his head. She puts her hand on it, a kind of benediction. We hold on them a second.
It is clear from the outset that a large part of Inara’s service involves addressing issues of male inadequacy and fulfilling many other emotional needs of her clients. The ability to do this IS a resource and it is therefore a service that Inara must perform. BUT Inara services all of the male passengers and the Captain in this way. She also services Kaylee but the relationship between them is a little more reciprocal. In any case, Mal makes it pretty obvious that he expects his emotional needs to be serviced by Inara and she willingly obliges. Mal also allows the male passengers to demand her emotional services and does not tell them to stop, despite the terms of his agreement with Inara. Inara is not paid by any of these men for her time, energy and emotional support.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Joss uses his own wife in this way. Expects her to clean up his emotional messes. Expects her to be there, eternally supportive, eternally subservient and grateful to him in all his manly glory. I hope the money is worth it, Mrs. Whedon. But somehow I doubt that it is. No amount of money can buy back wasted emotional resources.
Aside from women being fuck toys, property and punching bags for the men, the women have very little importance in the series. I counted the amount of times women talk in the episode Serenity compared to the amount of times men talk. The result was unsurprising. Men: 458 Women: 175. So throughout the first episode men talk more than two and a half times as much as women do. And women talk mainly in questions whereas men talk in statements. Basically, this means that men direct the action and are active participants whereas women are merely observers and facilitators.
Given the fact that women are largely absent from the action and the dialogue of the majority of scenes it is unsurprising that the action onscreen is highly homoerotic. Men jostle with each other for power. Pushing each others buttons, and getting into scuffles. This intense homoeroticism is present from the outset as Mal asserts his rights as alpha male on the ship.
Completely unnecessary and unprovoked violence is a spontaneous result of this hypermasculinised male character. In Serenity, Mal enjoys using a character called Simon as his personal punching bag. In one scene he walks up to him and smashes him in the face, without any provocation or logical reason. In another scene Simon asks Mal a question and Mal smashes him the face again. No reason, no explanation, just violence. Violence is a part of the landscape throughout the whole series and Mal is often the instigator. He is constantly rubbing himself up against other men, and punishing wayward women, proving and solidifying his manliness through bashing the shit out of anyone and everyone.
Zoe, the token black woman, acts as a legitimiser. Her role is to support Mal’s manly obsession with himself by encouraging him, calling him ‘sir’, and even starting the fights for him. Zoe is treated as a piece of meat by both her husband (Wash, another white male) and the Captain. Wash and Mal fight each other for Zoe’s attention and admiration, both relying on her submission to them to get them hard and manly. In fact there is a whole episode, War Stories, devoted to Wash and Mal’s ‘rivalry’. By the word rivalry, I mean violent, homoerotic male/male courtship conducted over the body of a woman.
Zoe is not shown to have a personality of her own. She has no outside interests, no ideas or beliefs, no conversation with anyone other than Wash or Mal. She has no female friends, in fact she tends to dislike women. For example, she is the first one to insult Saffron in the episode Our Mrs. Reynolds, calling her ‘trouble’.
Zoe, of course, is meant to be our empowered, ass-kicking sidechick. Like all sidechicks she is objectified from the get go. Her husband, Wash, talking about how he likes to watch her bathe. Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour. I have known a black woman whose white husband would strangle and bash her while her young children watched. My white grandfather liked black women because they were ‘exotic’, and he did not, could not treat women, especially women of colour, like human beings. I grew up watching my great aunts, my aunty and my mother all treated like shit by their white husbands, the men they loved. So you will forgive me for believing that the character, Wash, is a rapist and an abuser, particularly considering that he treats Zoe like an object and possession.
Joss Whedon does not share my view, of course, and he paints the relationship between Zoe and Wash as a perfectly happy, healthy union. If anyone is interested in portrayals of relationships between white men and black women written from black women’s point of view, I would suggest watching Radiance, Rabbit-Proof Fence and Serenades, skip Joss Whedon’s shit.
Also if you are interested in the reality of women in prostitution/prostituted women rather than the candy floss version that Joss Whedon has produced, I highly recommend Rebecca’s story Lie Dead. Skip Joss Whedon’s women-hating bile.
I can assure you that this is just the beginning of my rant on Firefly. There is so much more disturbing stuff later in the series. In particular, an episode called Our Mrs. Reynolds, another episode written by Joss, which completely demonises women as well as pornifying male violence against us.
More ranting about Firefly here
...and here.
Objects in Space: Black Masculinity through the paradigm of whitemale lust
Very articulately written. You've really untangled the woman-hating mess of this show, not an easy thing to do when there's so many levels of it.
I'm looking forward to the next instalment.
I'm looking forward to the next instalment.
Hey thanks. I think I'll start dissecting Our Mrs. Reynolds
tomorrow.
*rubs hands together in gleeful anticipation*
*rubs hands together in gleeful anticipation*
Deleted comment
I never got the Buffy=Feminism thing. Joss undoes a feminist message about every 6 seconds.
He's popular because he gives the feminist-lites hope they can still reap patriarchy accolades for being sexyay WHILE saving womyn. Wrong.
Great LJ, btw.
He's popular because he gives the feminist-lites hope they can still reap patriarchy accolades for being sexyay WHILE saving womyn. Wrong.
Great LJ, btw.
Glad someone agrees with me. Most feminists tell me that Joss and Buffy are SOOOO liberating. sigh.
And thanks. I'm loving your blog too.
And thanks. I'm loving your blog too.
" Joss undoes a feminist message about every 6 seconds. "
God... so true. I have never understood the hype.
I did like watching Firefly in the way that I like pretty much anything that is science fiction and has a pulp-action story that moves along. But, yeah, it's fucking poisonous.
God... so true. I have never understood the hype.
I did like watching Firefly in the way that I like pretty much anything that is science fiction and has a pulp-action story that moves along. But, yeah, it's fucking poisonous.
Unfortunately no. Joss Whedon did really write and direct the misogynist, racist trash Firefly. I wish that I had made up all of the info in this post but I'm sorry to say that Joss Whedon's
Firefly
was actually inflicted upon millions of innocent women.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree. Firstly I think that's the laziest interpretation of Whedon's work I ever read. It reads of a person who refuses to leave their biased nature behind and has watched with a view to hate it regardless of its content. I'm not even sure you watched the whole series properly, or gave it any time.
To go into a rebuttle of your tedious points would take longer than I have. However taking one to emphasise my point; Inara's career as a companion is fraught with problems, as Whedon points out. She is less akin to a prostitue and more akin to a courtesan - a highly educated woman who does sleep with men, but is not simply a walking vagina sold into slavery and raped continously, as you suggest. Whedon is also careful to point out that she has not been sold into sexual slavery. She choses her clients (and whether to accept clients), dines with them, teaches them and companies them to balls. She is given the chance to give up being a companion and refuses. Whedon's depiction of the companion shows that no matter how unionised and careful the women may be, there are always problems (such as the treatment Inara endures at the Ball).
I am however disapointed that you have not bothered to detail the character of Jayne.
To go into a rebuttle of your tedious points would take longer than I have. However taking one to emphasise my point; Inara's career as a companion is fraught with problems, as Whedon points out. She is less akin to a prostitue and more akin to a courtesan - a highly educated woman who does sleep with men, but is not simply a walking vagina sold into slavery and raped continously, as you suggest. Whedon is also careful to point out that she has not been sold into sexual slavery. She choses her clients (and whether to accept clients), dines with them, teaches them and companies them to balls. She is given the chance to give up being a companion and refuses. Whedon's depiction of the companion shows that no matter how unionised and careful the women may be, there are always problems (such as the treatment Inara endures at the Ball).
I am however disapointed that you have not bothered to detail the character of Jayne.
Hmm... Considering I watched the whole series twice, read through every single script, read through Serenity
about five times, counted the lines that men spoke and women spoke, then worked for about three weeks trying to write this I think it is interesting that you call me lazy. But anyways, courtesan is just another name for a woman in prostitution. I don't distinguish between women who are bought by men as sex and other 'feminine' resources. If you do, and you think that there is a nice way for men to buy women as sex, that there is an empowered way that women can sell themselves as sex then my journal is the wrong place for you. If you are pro-prostitution then you are not a feminist and pro-prostitution/women-hating opionions are not welcome on my journal. All prostitution is rape. The men who buy Inara ARE selling her into sexual slavery. For the time that they buy her she is 'theirs'.
I will be talking more about all of the characters. I was particularly concentrating on Serenity in this post. And Mal and Jayne's relationship definitely begs for a feminist examination.
Oh, and any more pro-prostituion comments will be deleted.
I will be talking more about all of the characters. I was particularly concentrating on Serenity in this post. And Mal and Jayne's relationship definitely begs for a feminist examination.
Oh, and any more pro-prostituion comments will be deleted.
You're awesome and I can't remember my password.
m Andrea, the feminazi. :)
Also, LJ just confuses the hello outta me.
Your point on prostitution was well put. What is the point of having sex with a thousand men who all taste like sardine juice if you have other options? Saying women like that crap is kinda up-is-down Orwellian doublespeak.
m Andrea, the feminazi. :)
Also, LJ just confuses the hello outta me.
Your point on prostitution was well put. What is the point of having sex with a thousand men who all taste like sardine juice if you have other options? Saying women like that crap is kinda up-is-down Orwellian doublespeak.
My personal recommendation for your next deconstruction of eye-wateringly horrifying brutish misogyny in action? Skip "Our Mrs Reynolds" and go straight to the episode "Heart of Gold".
Knowing what the past was like, all its cultural biases and prejudices, and understanding how the future can be as much a dystopia as a utopia depending on our decisions now, it makes me appreciate what I have now, and the marginally more enlightened times we live in.
Just as the past is a foreign country, and they do things differently there, so too the future is an alien land, and we may never know which of the cultural assurances we enjoy here - good health, freedom of association and expression, the vote - we may lose, or see changed as time marches.
One point I'd like to note, however, is to remind the readers here that science fiction, like all fiction, holds a mirror up to life. It reflects the cultural dreams, and also the prevailing cultural prejudices, of the time.
Consider the 1960s, and observe how Star Trek was an attempt to reflect the hopes and dreams of the optimism of that time - but also reminded us of the struggles of that time, too, with the rise of feminism and black civil rights, and the anti-war movement.
Look at the downbeat SF films of the early 1970s such as The Stepford Wives, Phase IV and Soylent Green, when people were convinced that the lunatic leaders of the day were hell bent on bringing nuclear war down upon us all.
Now compare the fin de siecle bouncy optimism of the late Nineties and see it reflected in Babylon 5. But also note a warning on the rise of dictatorship if we're not careful. JMS was ten years ahead of his time.
And now, think about all that was going on back in 2002 when Firefly aired, with the post-9/11 buildup to war, the Patriot Acts, Homeland Security and a general backsliding to a hardline government governed by a small, misogynistic hegemonic cabal - the return of Star Chamber government. And see it reflected in the Alliance.
I really wouldn't want the future to turn out like the 'Verse of Firefly, though. And I really wouldn't want to live there if it did. But I fear that we may have little choice, because the grim Neo-Medieval mores of that future are with us in life, right now.
Knowing what the past was like, all its cultural biases and prejudices, and understanding how the future can be as much a dystopia as a utopia depending on our decisions now, it makes me appreciate what I have now, and the marginally more enlightened times we live in.
Just as the past is a foreign country, and they do things differently there, so too the future is an alien land, and we may never know which of the cultural assurances we enjoy here - good health, freedom of association and expression, the vote - we may lose, or see changed as time marches.
One point I'd like to note, however, is to remind the readers here that science fiction, like all fiction, holds a mirror up to life. It reflects the cultural dreams, and also the prevailing cultural prejudices, of the time.
Consider the 1960s, and observe how Star Trek was an attempt to reflect the hopes and dreams of the optimism of that time - but also reminded us of the struggles of that time, too, with the rise of feminism and black civil rights, and the anti-war movement.
Look at the downbeat SF films of the early 1970s such as The Stepford Wives, Phase IV and Soylent Green, when people were convinced that the lunatic leaders of the day were hell bent on bringing nuclear war down upon us all.
Now compare the fin de siecle bouncy optimism of the late Nineties and see it reflected in Babylon 5. But also note a warning on the rise of dictatorship if we're not careful. JMS was ten years ahead of his time.
And now, think about all that was going on back in 2002 when Firefly aired, with the post-9/11 buildup to war, the Patriot Acts, Homeland Security and a general backsliding to a hardline government governed by a small, misogynistic hegemonic cabal - the return of Star Chamber government. And see it reflected in the Alliance.
I really wouldn't want the future to turn out like the 'Verse of Firefly, though. And I really wouldn't want to live there if it did. But I fear that we may have little choice, because the grim Neo-Medieval mores of that future are with us in life, right now.
Yeah, Heart of Gold was incredible in its portrayal of women. But it wasn't an episode written by Joss Whedon. I am particularly concentrating on the episodes that were written by him as he is the one going around calling himself a feminist.
As to the future, I have to believe that the Women's Movement will once again gain momentum and stop the madness that men have created. I have to believe that. If I didn't then life wouldn't really be worth living.
As to the future, I have to believe that the Women's Movement will once again gain momentum and stop the madness that men have created. I have to believe that. If I didn't then life wouldn't really be worth living.
All prostitution is rape.
Does that apply to male prostitutes as well? Or does that not apply to men?
Does that apply to male prostitutes as well? Or does that not apply to men?
I do not in anyway show support for prostitution, however, I would like to see what you have to say about the ball scene in "Shindig." Atherton Wing begins to call Inara a whore, and Mal punches him (because that's how he reacts) and Inara questions him on why he did that when Mal calls her a whore. Mal says that "I don't respect your job, but he didn't respect you."
All prostitution is rape.
Does that apply to male prostitutes as well? Or does that not apply to men?
Does that apply to male prostitutes as well? Or does that not apply to men?
I do not in anyway show support for prostitution, however, I would like to see what you have to say about the ball scene in "Shindig." Atherton Wing begins to call Inara a whore, and Mal punches him (because that's how he reacts) and Inara questions him on why he did that when Mal calls her a whore. Mal says that "I don't respect your job, but he didn't respect you."
Allecto's arguments are well-formed and I think she may have a point. However, I also think that will all the patriarchy and misogyny in the series, Joss was intentionally pointing out flaws in our own society. I think we must recognize that he was hardly upholding this as a bright and shiny future, but more a dystopian as another commenter said.
In particular, while the Alliance culture perceives companions as studied, high-caste, hyper-sexualized (nee objectified) women of influence, it is the violent, hyper-masculine Malcolm Reynolds who recognizes the inherent hypocrisy of her prostitution. Whatever his motivations, and regardless of his bull-headedness, he does not approve of this profession. The way he voices this opinion is to do away with any of the more flower-y descriptions of "companion" or "geisha" or "escort" and cut straight to "whore", which, bottom-line, is a person who trades sex for money.
In particular, while the Alliance culture perceives companions as studied, high-caste, hyper-sexualized (nee objectified) women of influence, it is the violent, hyper-masculine Malcolm Reynolds who recognizes the inherent hypocrisy of her prostitution. Whatever his motivations, and regardless of his bull-headedness, he does not approve of this profession. The way he voices this opinion is to do away with any of the more flower-y descriptions of "companion" or "geisha" or "escort" and cut straight to "whore", which, bottom-line, is a person who trades sex for money.
This is a great post! I'm glad to finally see someone else who feels the same way about Firefly as I do. When I first saw it, I thought it was okay (interesting enough to keep watching basically), but some things about it bothered me. Then I later found out it was supposed to be feminist, and now everything about it bothers me.
Inara was one of the things that bothered me right off and I actually got into an argument with one of friends about her. I was really irritated that the show was clearly setting them up to have some kind of romantic relationship when he was clearly treating her like crap, and I said so. My friend thought it was "cute". So I said, "but he keeps calling her 'whore'", and her response was "but if Inara doesn't mind, it's not a problem". I pointed out that it bothered her enough to have a specific rule against it and to repeatedly ask him to stop. She just shrugged it off and said "it's not really a big deal". Oh, and this was a woman who self-identified as a feminist.
And that would be the point where I stopped discussing Firefly with other people. Pointing out examples of men mistreating women is ineffective against people who think men mistreating women is just fine.
I'm really looking forward to your other rants about Firefly.
Inara was one of the things that bothered me right off and I actually got into an argument with one of friends about her. I was really irritated that the show was clearly setting them up to have some kind of romantic relationship when he was clearly treating her like crap, and I said so. My friend thought it was "cute". So I said, "but he keeps calling her 'whore'", and her response was "but if Inara doesn't mind, it's not a problem". I pointed out that it bothered her enough to have a specific rule against it and to repeatedly ask him to stop. She just shrugged it off and said "it's not really a big deal". Oh, and this was a woman who self-identified as a feminist.
And that would be the point where I stopped discussing Firefly with other people. Pointing out examples of men mistreating women is ineffective against people who think men mistreating women is just fine.
I'm really looking forward to your other rants about Firefly.
I know. It is so sick that Inara goes around mooning after Mal who treats ALL women like crap, but especially her. So, so wrong.
Yeah, I get not wanting to get into arguements about it. I think that is why I wanted to write this post. So I could get down all my ideas without being interrupted. People seem to get really hurt when you point out the flaws of the tv shows that they like.
Pointing out examples of men mistreating women is ineffective against people who think men mistreating women is just fine.
I totally agree. The problem is that misogyny is so ingrained that most of us are blind to it. It takes a lot of commitment and courage to open your eyes and see the world as it really is.
Yeah, I get not wanting to get into arguements about it. I think that is why I wanted to write this post. So I could get down all my ideas without being interrupted. People seem to get really hurt when you point out the flaws of the tv shows that they like.
Pointing out examples of men mistreating women is ineffective against people who think men mistreating women is just fine.
I totally agree. The problem is that misogyny is so ingrained that most of us are blind to it. It takes a lot of commitment and courage to open your eyes and see the world as it really is.
Um. Perhaps you would be interested in my bloggie, but perhaps not. I don't believe there is much evidence to indicate that men give a sweet patootie about women, and I think women to wake and smell the sardines. Or something.
Anyway, I'm stealing your quote on prostitution (with attribution!) thankies.
http://feminazi.wordpress.com/
Anyway, I'm stealing your quote on prostitution (with attribution!) thankies.
http://feminazi.wordpress.com/
Hey m Andrea. I know you from womensspace. I haven't gotten around to checking out your blog but I will do so soon. Thanks for the supportive comments. And I have no problem with you quoting me. :)
This is a very articulate and informed argument, one I am going to say makes me uncomfortable. I have viewed Joss Whedon and Firefly as feminist friendly series, but you raise some damn good questions.
It has thrown the series in a new light, and I shall be re-watching it with this in mind. I look forward to seeing more of your reviews.
It has thrown the series in a new light, and I shall be re-watching it with this in mind. I look forward to seeing more of your reviews.
I'm sorry this made you uncomfortable. When we are so used to terrible portrayals of women on TV I think we get desensitised to it. And then any woman with fake power shown on TV is like a breath of fresh air and we cling to it.
Thanks for the compliments and the open mind.
Thanks for the compliments and the open mind.
You might be right that there are some legitimate feminist concerns about Firefly, but unfortunately your tone will put a lot of people off. Including me.
I found your assumptions about and judgements of Joss Whedon's wife particularly offensive:
"Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Joss uses his own wife in this way. Expects her to clean up his emotional messes. Expects her to be there, eternally supportive, eternally subservient and grateful to him in all his manly glory. I hope the money is worth it, Mrs. Whedon. But somehow I doubt that it is. No amount of money can buy back wasted emotional resources."
You are judging a woman you have never met, and accusing her of being with her husband for the money. What a shame - I thought feminist women stuck together and supported each other's choices!
I found your assumptions about and judgements of Joss Whedon's wife particularly offensive:
"Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Joss uses his own wife in this way. Expects her to clean up his emotional messes. Expects her to be there, eternally supportive, eternally subservient and grateful to him in all his manly glory. I hope the money is worth it, Mrs. Whedon. But somehow I doubt that it is. No amount of money can buy back wasted emotional resources."
You are judging a woman you have never met, and accusing her of being with her husband for the money. What a shame - I thought feminist women stuck together and supported each other's choices!
Fair enough, but I'm keeping my tone. I'm angry about violence against women and I have every right to be.
I feel awful for Joss Whedon's wife. From what I've read about him and the interviews I've watched, I'm fairly certain that he rapes his wife and abuses her in various other ways. I honestly can't think of anything worse than living with a man like Joss who thinks of women like the way he portrays in his tv shows. How awful. The comment about the money was meant to be about how I personally could see no benefit from being with a man like Joss OTHER than money. Joss uses and abuses her. Probably rapes her and thinks of women as whores etc, etc. Obviously, Ms Whedon has her own reasons for staying. Fear, patriarchal concepts of love, etc. But I would argue that she gives everything and gets nothing. Money is the only concrete thing that she could possibly gain. But as I said money is worth nothing compared with self-integrity, self-esteem, love (sister/lesbian/gynaffectionate love) etc. So she still loses out. Poor woman.
I support women but not their choices. Choice for women is not the same as self-determiniation. I support women to become self-centering and self-determinining. I do not support their patriarchally constricted 'choices'.
I feel awful for Joss Whedon's wife. From what I've read about him and the interviews I've watched, I'm fairly certain that he rapes his wife and abuses her in various other ways. I honestly can't think of anything worse than living with a man like Joss who thinks of women like the way he portrays in his tv shows. How awful. The comment about the money was meant to be about how I personally could see no benefit from being with a man like Joss OTHER than money. Joss uses and abuses her. Probably rapes her and thinks of women as whores etc, etc. Obviously, Ms Whedon has her own reasons for staying. Fear, patriarchal concepts of love, etc. But I would argue that she gives everything and gets nothing. Money is the only concrete thing that she could possibly gain. But as I said money is worth nothing compared with self-integrity, self-esteem, love (sister/lesbian/gynaffectionate love) etc. So she still loses out. Poor woman.
I support women but not their choices. Choice for women is not the same as self-determiniation. I support women to become self-centering and self-determinining. I do not support their patriarchally constricted 'choices'.
Thanks for saying that readers of your journal should read "Lie Dead". I really hope it can be a small nail into the myth of the "Happy Hooker".
I have seen small bits of "Firefly", and am amazed at a vision of a future where women are still sexually serving men. It makes sad that there is such a narrow view of a future. But, I found much of the programme to be dumb, and pretty boring to watch.
As someone who has been involved in the sex trade, I find the media promotes the myth of the "happy hooker". In "Firefly", the "whore" is protayed as a courtisan. This makes her intelligent, can "choose" which men she has sex with and is protrayed as strong. This is a male wet-dream of prostitution. And for the majority of prostituted women and girls is an unrealistic fiction.
Yes, I know "Firefly" is just fiction, but this type of popular TV can put out stereotype views of prostitution. This can encourage the belief that prostitution is not such a bad choice for young women to do. That is safe, and can empower you. If it was one programme saying that, I would not mind. But, all around there is an insistence that prostitution will empower women. That prostitution is a free choice of a woman. That once a prostituted woman, you have control which punter you see. That there some violence, but that is just part of the job.
I don't know where to start with the "happy hooker" myth. First, the vast majority of prostituted women and girls do not choose "freely" what they do. To choose freely, it is important to know the woman's life story. If she was not in poverty; if she had not experienced sexual, physical or mental abuse before entering prostitution; if a "boyfriend" who had said - "Do this to prove you love me"; if she has high self-esteem and more. There are many amd complicated reasons to enter the sex trade, but few are free choices.
Women in prostitution have little or no control of their working condition. They will have to go with any man, no matter how violent. Safety is a low priority, the battering, rapes and murders is not part of the job - but, it is bloody common.
I know most of your reader know the reality of prostituted women's lives - and see through the "Firefly" nonsense.
Thanks for promoting my piece, Rebecca.
I have seen small bits of "Firefly", and am amazed at a vision of a future where women are still sexually serving men. It makes sad that there is such a narrow view of a future. But, I found much of the programme to be dumb, and pretty boring to watch.
As someone who has been involved in the sex trade, I find the media promotes the myth of the "happy hooker". In "Firefly", the "whore" is protayed as a courtisan. This makes her intelligent, can "choose" which men she has sex with and is protrayed as strong. This is a male wet-dream of prostitution. And for the majority of prostituted women and girls is an unrealistic fiction.
Yes, I know "Firefly" is just fiction, but this type of popular TV can put out stereotype views of prostitution. This can encourage the belief that prostitution is not such a bad choice for young women to do. That is safe, and can empower you. If it was one programme saying that, I would not mind. But, all around there is an insistence that prostitution will empower women. That prostitution is a free choice of a woman. That once a prostituted woman, you have control which punter you see. That there some violence, but that is just part of the job.
I don't know where to start with the "happy hooker" myth. First, the vast majority of prostituted women and girls do not choose "freely" what they do. To choose freely, it is important to know the woman's life story. If she was not in poverty; if she had not experienced sexual, physical or mental abuse before entering prostitution; if a "boyfriend" who had said - "Do this to prove you love me"; if she has high self-esteem and more. There are many amd complicated reasons to enter the sex trade, but few are free choices.
Women in prostitution have little or no control of their working condition. They will have to go with any man, no matter how violent. Safety is a low priority, the battering, rapes and murders is not part of the job - but, it is bloody common.
I know most of your reader know the reality of prostituted women's lives - and see through the "Firefly" nonsense.
Thanks for promoting my piece, Rebecca.
I too found the show to be really very boring. Being a committed Buffy
fan when I was younger, dis_senter
and I decided to hire out Firefly
as a bit of light entertainment a few years back. We didn't watch more than half an hour of the show before becoming bored and disgusted. It was only recently that I decided to force myself to watch it all the way through. You send me your pieces of writing, Rebecca, and I stayed up reading them. Your words left me raw.
The next day I started to watch Firefly. I think one of the reasons that Firefly affected me so badly was because I had just been exposed to the harsh reality of what you had lived through. It bore no resemblance to the 'wet-dream' of Joss Whedon's 'happy hooker' world. And so 'feminist' men can wank to their 'empowered' versions of us as whores and feel no guilt. Because men value orgasm and power and power and orgasm far and away above valuing women as human, let alone respecting our Selves and our integrity.
I don't think that 'free choice' can exist for women when our Selves are so often patriarchally conditioned into accepting our roles as sexualised objects of consumption. It is only in a world where no one can see women as human that a TV show like this can be made. Where the reality of what you and many other women in the sex industry have lived through can be coated over in patriarchally poisoned sugar. Dressed up in poison-laced silk and taken to town as empowerment.
We live in a very sick world. You have so much courage and integrity, Rebecca. You are amazing, to have lived through what you suffer and still be alive to stand up and protest what was done to you. Yes, everyone should read Lie Dead not just those who read my journal.
The next day I started to watch Firefly. I think one of the reasons that Firefly affected me so badly was because I had just been exposed to the harsh reality of what you had lived through. It bore no resemblance to the 'wet-dream' of Joss Whedon's 'happy hooker' world. And so 'feminist' men can wank to their 'empowered' versions of us as whores and feel no guilt. Because men value orgasm and power and power and orgasm far and away above valuing women as human, let alone respecting our Selves and our integrity.
I don't think that 'free choice' can exist for women when our Selves are so often patriarchally conditioned into accepting our roles as sexualised objects of consumption. It is only in a world where no one can see women as human that a TV show like this can be made. Where the reality of what you and many other women in the sex industry have lived through can be coated over in patriarchally poisoned sugar. Dressed up in poison-laced silk and taken to town as empowerment.
We live in a very sick world. You have so much courage and integrity, Rebecca. You are amazing, to have lived through what you suffer and still be alive to stand up and protest what was done to you. Yes, everyone should read Lie Dead not just those who read my journal.
I feel awful for Joss Whedon's wife. From what I've read about him and the interviews I've watched, I'm fairly certain that he rapes his wife and abuses her in various other ways.
Please link to these interviews and stories, because if your analysis is accurate, I will rethink my views of Joss's work.
Please link to these interviews and stories, because if your analysis is accurate, I will rethink my views of Joss's work.
I believe in the radical feminist definition of rape. That is that men who pressure women into sex are rapists. That women who are pressured are not freely consenting and are therefore being raped. There have been a few discussions recently in the rad fem blogosphere debating whether all male initiated sex is rape, given that women are politically, socially and economically subordinate to men. So, in my understanding of Joss Whedon as a rapist is hinges on my definition of rape. I would argue that most 'sex' between men and women, in the contemporary 'sex-positive', pornographic, male-supremacist culture, is
rape.
So, I think Joss Whedon is a rapist because it is impossible for me to believe that a man who produces a show like Firefly, a man who openly objectifies women in his interviews, a man who based the character of Xander Harris (a pro-porn, sex-obsessed teenage male in Buffy) it is imposible for me to believe that this man does not pressure his wife for sex. If he has pressured his wife for sex even if she eventually consented he is still a rapist. I know far too many women who have been, and are being, forced, coerced, manipulated, pressured into sex that they do not want with their male partners. I'd bet anything that Joss is one of these men. And if he is then he is a rapist in my books.
So, I think Joss Whedon is a rapist because it is impossible for me to believe that a man who produces a show like Firefly, a man who openly objectifies women in his interviews, a man who based the character of Xander Harris (a pro-porn, sex-obsessed teenage male in Buffy) it is imposible for me to believe that this man does not pressure his wife for sex. If he has pressured his wife for sex even if she eventually consented he is still a rapist. I know far too many women who have been, and are being, forced, coerced, manipulated, pressured into sex that they do not want with their male partners. I'd bet anything that Joss is one of these men. And if he is then he is a rapist in my books.
I also am interested to read your source materials -- I haven't heard a lot from Mr. Whedon in which he objectifies women, but I've read very few of his interviews.
Full disclosure: I am a white woman, a staunch feminist, married to a white man (whom I also consider a feminist, but who would never, ever claim the term himself, because he is aware of the disempowering nature of a man claiming a women's cause). We have one daughter. I'm also a writer, though, and I have to take exception to your claim that he must practice in life what he writes about in fiction. Part of good writing is being able to write characters who do things that you would never do, that you would find abhorrent, even. I've written knuckle-dragging rapists in my work. I've also written lesbian nuns, teenaged war heroes, corporate attorneys turned agents provocateur, and mad scientists. I'm not any of those things. But a story in which every character is a white upper-middle-class mother of a toddler girl is, well, not much of a story.
Full disclosure: I am a white woman, a staunch feminist, married to a white man (whom I also consider a feminist, but who would never, ever claim the term himself, because he is aware of the disempowering nature of a man claiming a women's cause). We have one daughter. I'm also a writer, though, and I have to take exception to your claim that he must practice in life what he writes about in fiction. Part of good writing is being able to write characters who do things that you would never do, that you would find abhorrent, even. I've written knuckle-dragging rapists in my work. I've also written lesbian nuns, teenaged war heroes, corporate attorneys turned agents provocateur, and mad scientists. I'm not any of those things. But a story in which every character is a white upper-middle-class mother of a toddler girl is, well, not much of a story.
I found this paragraph to be as interesting as your original post. I have to admit, I have not been exposed to this more radical definition of rape, but it does ring true to me. Any element of coercion does tend to remove the possibility of true consent. The stronger the coercive element, the less consent is possible.
That said, I still see no reason to suppose that Whedon rapes his wife. You're confusing the art with the artist. He paints realistic characters Firefly, or at least the male ones are pretty realistic, and what gives them that quality is their flaws. That doesn't mean that Whedon shares those flaws - not beyond a shadow of a doubt, as you said.
To me, in order to know one way or another if I consider any act to be rape, I'd have to know more about the context. Is Whedon's wife able to work and support herself? If so, then she did have options other than marrying him. He's not a particularly imposing man, either in physical stature or in demeanor. So if it wasn't coercion based on money or violence, then what was it based on? And if there was no coercion, then how can it be rape?
That said, I still see no reason to suppose that Whedon rapes his wife. You're confusing the art with the artist. He paints realistic characters Firefly, or at least the male ones are pretty realistic, and what gives them that quality is their flaws. That doesn't mean that Whedon shares those flaws - not beyond a shadow of a doubt, as you said.
To me, in order to know one way or another if I consider any act to be rape, I'd have to know more about the context. Is Whedon's wife able to work and support herself? If so, then she did have options other than marrying him. He's not a particularly imposing man, either in physical stature or in demeanor. So if it wasn't coercion based on money or violence, then what was it based on? And if there was no coercion, then how can it be rape?
I don't disagree with some of your points. I do however, have a few questions. Please know that I am not flaming or attacking, I'd truly like your take on these questions.
These women you know that "are being, forced, coerced, manipulated, pressured into sex that they do not want with their male partners"... Why are they with their male partners if this is the case? Unless they are locked in a house with no phone, Internet, or TV there is more than enough information available to them to find a way out of that situation. Would you considered women who allow themselves to be pressured into sex to be complicit in their own degradation? I don't, but I'd like to know where you feel a woman's personal responsibility for her own life and safety come in. How do we educate women to take a stand for themselves and leave those who pressure them in the dust?
I also think you are entitled to whatever opinion you like. However, I think that naming a particular person , whom you do not know, as a rapist just because you disagree with him and his self-proclaimed views on feminism is dangerous. First of all, it is libel. Secondly, I think many people who read this would take what they view as rape less seriously, because in their minds you are making an accusation with no knowledge of the parties involved or their behaviors. Believe whatever you want, but because of the way you have framed the conversation, accusing someone you don't know of raping his own wife, many people will take the issue as a whole less seriously, which I don't believe was your intent.
Finally, and this is just my opinion, your statement that "I would argue that most 'sex' between men and women, in the contemporary 'sex-positive', pornographic, male-supremacist culture, is rape." actually belittles women. It seems like the assumption is no woman can possibly consent to sex because she has been brain-washed and is not intelligent or strong enough to break free from the culture in which we have been raised. I, and my friends, are strong, vibrant women who decide who, when and where we want to be with someone. I know not everyone does, so how do we fix that problem? How do we educate men about what is okay and what isn't?
These women you know that "are being, forced, coerced, manipulated, pressured into sex that they do not want with their male partners"... Why are they with their male partners if this is the case? Unless they are locked in a house with no phone, Internet, or TV there is more than enough information available to them to find a way out of that situation. Would you considered women who allow themselves to be pressured into sex to be complicit in their own degradation? I don't, but I'd like to know where you feel a woman's personal responsibility for her own life and safety come in. How do we educate women to take a stand for themselves and leave those who pressure them in the dust?
I also think you are entitled to whatever opinion you like. However, I think that naming a particular person , whom you do not know, as a rapist just because you disagree with him and his self-proclaimed views on feminism is dangerous. First of all, it is libel. Secondly, I think many people who read this would take what they view as rape less seriously, because in their minds you are making an accusation with no knowledge of the parties involved or their behaviors. Believe whatever you want, but because of the way you have framed the conversation, accusing someone you don't know of raping his own wife, many people will take the issue as a whole less seriously, which I don't believe was your intent.
Finally, and this is just my opinion, your statement that "I would argue that most 'sex' between men and women, in the contemporary 'sex-positive', pornographic, male-supremacist culture, is rape." actually belittles women. It seems like the assumption is no woman can possibly consent to sex because she has been brain-washed and is not intelligent or strong enough to break free from the culture in which we have been raised. I, and my friends, are strong, vibrant women who decide who, when and where we want to be with someone. I know not everyone does, so how do we fix that problem? How do we educate men about what is okay and what isn't?
Several people linked me to this through various sources, and several other people encouraged me to give you this response, so I am.
I really don't like using my own personal experiences as entitlement or anything. I really don't even like talking about them anymore. It was a long time ago and is no longer a significant part of my life – to be incredibly clichéd, I no longer consider myself a victim, but a survivor.
However, I think you should know, as you seem to be so pro-women, that as a female rape victim (and hey, rape can happen to men too! it does!), the way you are throwing around the word 'rape' is something I find incredibly offensive. You (and the radical feminist blogosphere in general, though I know you're only one person and not representative of a whole) should really seriously reconsider the way you're using the word like it means nothing.
(And before anyone jumps on the chance to comment about Stockholm syndrome or conditioning or anything like that, my attacker was male, and I'm a lesbian. Are those two things related? I don't know and I don't particularly care.)
I really don't like using my own personal experiences as entitlement or anything. I really don't even like talking about them anymore. It was a long time ago and is no longer a significant part of my life – to be incredibly clichéd, I no longer consider myself a victim, but a survivor.
However, I think you should know, as you seem to be so pro-women, that as a female rape victim (and hey, rape can happen to men too! it does!), the way you are throwing around the word 'rape' is something I find incredibly offensive. You (and the radical feminist blogosphere in general, though I know you're only one person and not representative of a whole) should really seriously reconsider the way you're using the word like it means nothing.
(And before anyone jumps on the chance to comment about Stockholm syndrome or conditioning or anything like that, my attacker was male, and I'm a lesbian. Are those two things related? I don't know and I don't particularly care.)
This post was about Joss Whedon, Firefly and misogyny. Please address the topic. If you have a problem with the Radical Feminist view of rape then make a post on your own blog argueing against Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon and Robin Morgan. This is a Radical Feminist space and as such I support the Radical Feminist definition of rape.
Clearly, we have some divergent viewpoints. I have seen the argument before that all het-sex is rape, given the social sphere we live in. I understand the arguments for it.
Nonetheless, I think it's pretty clearly wrong, and in line with the line of feminism that says that if you're a feminist, you should be a lesbian, because otherwise, you're submitting to the patriarchy.
As a bisexual woman, currently in a happy relationship with a man, I think this is absurd. If you are sexually interested in women, then do that. But if you're sexually attracted to men, which is just as natural, then I don't think that relationship should be necessarily wrong.
I know personally, I find my boyfriend sexually attractive, and he is kind and supportive to me. If I don't feel like having sex on a given night, we don't. I am not alone in this. Also, I've known girls who were pressured to have sex by their girlfriends, so it's not like it's only male-female relationships where this happens.
Aside from a general defense of het-sex, I could argue more about why I don't think Joss is as bad a person as you say he is, but I'd rather not get my comment deleted, so I'll stick to saying that Joss is not fantastic when it comes to dealing with race (and many people agree here, that he tries, but often fails, to handle things well), but from your post and subsequent comments, neither are you, imo. You made some sweeping generalizations that I don't agree with, and find offensive. And other than Zoe and Inara, you largely ignore his other female characters.
Nonetheless, I think it's pretty clearly wrong, and in line with the line of feminism that says that if you're a feminist, you should be a lesbian, because otherwise, you're submitting to the patriarchy.
As a bisexual woman, currently in a happy relationship with a man, I think this is absurd. If you are sexually interested in women, then do that. But if you're sexually attracted to men, which is just as natural, then I don't think that relationship should be necessarily wrong.
I know personally, I find my boyfriend sexually attractive, and he is kind and supportive to me. If I don't feel like having sex on a given night, we don't. I am not alone in this. Also, I've known girls who were pressured to have sex by their girlfriends, so it's not like it's only male-female relationships where this happens.
Aside from a general defense of het-sex, I could argue more about why I don't think Joss is as bad a person as you say he is, but I'd rather not get my comment deleted, so I'll stick to saying that Joss is not fantastic when it comes to dealing with race (and many people agree here, that he tries, but often fails, to handle things well), but from your post and subsequent comments, neither are you, imo. You made some sweeping generalizations that I don't agree with, and find offensive. And other than Zoe and Inara, you largely ignore his other female characters.
This post was about Joss Whedon, Firefly and misogyny. Please address the topic. If you have a problem with the Radical Feminist view of rape then make a post on your own blog argueing against Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon and Robin Morgan. This is a Radical Feminist space and as such I support the Radical Feminist definition of rape.
I don't disagree with some of your points. I do however, have a few questions. Please know that I am not flaming or attacking, I'd truly like your take on these questions.
These women you know that "are being, forced, coerced, manipulated, pressured into sex that they do not want with their male partners"... Why are they with their male partners if this is the case? Unless they are locked in a house with no phone, Internet, or TV there is more than enough information available to them to find a way out of that situation. Would you considered women who allow themselves to be pressured into sex to be complicit in their own degradation? I don't, but I'd like to know where you feel a woman's personal responsibility for her own life and safety come in. How do we educate women to take a stand for themselves and leave those who pressure them in the dust?
I also think you are entitled to whatever opinion you like. However, I think that naming a particular person , whom you do not know, as a rapist just because you disagree with him and his self-proclaimed views on feminism is dangerous. First of all, it is libel. Secondly, I think many people who read this would take what they view as rape less seriously, because in their minds you are making an accusation with no knowledge of the parties involved or their behaviors. Believe whatever you want, but because of the way you have framed the conversation, accusing someone you don't know of raping his own wife, many people will take the issue as a whole less seriously, which I don't believe was your intent.
Finally, and this is just my opinion, your statement that "I would argue that most 'sex' between men and women, in the contemporary 'sex-positive', pornographic, male-supremacist culture, is rape." actually belittles women. It seems like the assumption is no woman can possibly consent to sex because she has been brain-washed and is not intelligent or strong enough to break free from the culture in which we have been raised. I, and my friends, are strong, vibrant women who decide who, when and where we want to be with someone. I know not everyone does, so how do we fix that problem? How do we educate men about what is okay and what isn't?
These women you know that "are being, forced, coerced, manipulated, pressured into sex that they do not want with their male partners"... Why are they with their male partners if this is the case? Unless they are locked in a house with no phone, Internet, or TV there is more than enough information available to them to find a way out of that situation. Would you considered women who allow themselves to be pressured into sex to be complicit in their own degradation? I don't, but I'd like to know where you feel a woman's personal responsibility for her own life and safety come in. How do we educate women to take a stand for themselves and leave those who pressure them in the dust?
I also think you are entitled to whatever opinion you like. However, I think that naming a particular person , whom you do not know, as a rapist just because you disagree with him and his self-proclaimed views on feminism is dangerous. First of all, it is libel. Secondly, I think many people who read this would take what they view as rape less seriously, because in their minds you are making an accusation with no knowledge of the parties involved or their behaviors. Believe whatever you want, but because of the way you have framed the conversation, accusing someone you don't know of raping his own wife, many people will take the issue as a whole less seriously, which I don't believe was your intent.
Finally, and this is just my opinion, your statement that "I would argue that most 'sex' between men and women, in the contemporary 'sex-positive', pornographic, male-supremacist culture, is rape." actually belittles women. It seems like the assumption is no woman can possibly consent to sex because she has been brain-washed and is not intelligent or strong enough to break free from the culture in which we have been raised. I, and my friends, are strong, vibrant women who decide who, when and where we want to be with someone. I know not everyone does, so how do we fix that problem? How do we educate men about what is okay and what isn't?
Several people linked me to this through various sources, and several other people encouraged me to give you this response, so I am.
I really don't like using my own personal experiences as entitlement or anything. I really don't even like talking about them anymore. It was a long time ago and is no longer a significant part of my life – to be incredibly clichéd, I no longer consider myself a victim, but a survivor.
However, I think you should know, as you seem to be so pro-women, that as a female rape victim (and hey, rape can happen to men too! it does!), the way you are throwing around the word 'rape' is something I find incredibly offensive. You (and the radical feminist blogosphere in general, though I know you're only one person and not representative of a whole) should really seriously reconsider the way you're using the word like it means nothing.
(And before anyone jumps on the chance to comment about Stockholm syndrome or conditioning or anything like that, my attacker was male, and I'm a lesbian. Are those two things related? I don't know and I don't particularly care.)
I really don't like using my own personal experiences as entitlement or anything. I really don't even like talking about them anymore. It was a long time ago and is no longer a significant part of my life – to be incredibly clichéd, I no longer consider myself a victim, but a survivor.
However, I think you should know, as you seem to be so pro-women, that as a female rape victim (and hey, rape can happen to men too! it does!), the way you are throwing around the word 'rape' is something I find incredibly offensive. You (and the radical feminist blogosphere in general, though I know you're only one person and not representative of a whole) should really seriously reconsider the way you're using the word like it means nothing.
(And before anyone jumps on the chance to comment about Stockholm syndrome or conditioning or anything like that, my attacker was male, and I'm a lesbian. Are those two things related? I don't know and I don't particularly care.)
This post was about Joss Whedon, Firefly and misogyny. Please address the topic. If you have a problem with the Radical Feminist view of rape then make a post on your own blog argueing against Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon and Robin Morgan. This is a Radical Feminist space and as such I support the Radical Feminist definition of rape.
Clearly, we have some divergent viewpoints. I have seen the argument before that all het-sex is rape, given the social sphere we live in. I understand the arguments for it.
Nonetheless, I think it's pretty clearly wrong, and in line with the line of feminism that says that if you're a feminist, you should be a lesbian, because otherwise, you're submitting to the patriarchy.
As a bisexual woman, currently in a happy relationship with a man, I think this is absurd. If you are sexually interested in women, then do that. But if you're sexually attracted to men, which is just as natural, then I don't think that relationship should be necessarily wrong.
I know personally, I find my boyfriend sexually attractive, and he is kind and supportive to me. If I don't feel like having sex on a given night, we don't. I am not alone in this. Also, I've known girls who were pressured to have sex by their girlfriends, so it's not like it's only male-female relationships where this happens.
Aside from a general defense of het-sex, I could argue more about why I don't think Joss is as bad a person as you say he is, but I'd rather not get my comment deleted, so I'll stick to saying that Joss is not fantastic when it comes to dealing with race (and many people agree here, that he tries, but often fails, to handle things well), but from your post and subsequent comments, neither are you, imo. You made some sweeping generalizations that I don't agree with, and find offensive. And other than Zoe and Inara, you largely ignore his other female characters.
Nonetheless, I think it's pretty clearly wrong, and in line with the line of feminism that says that if you're a feminist, you should be a lesbian, because otherwise, you're submitting to the patriarchy.
As a bisexual woman, currently in a happy relationship with a man, I think this is absurd. If you are sexually interested in women, then do that. But if you're sexually attracted to men, which is just as natural, then I don't think that relationship should be necessarily wrong.
I know personally, I find my boyfriend sexually attractive, and he is kind and supportive to me. If I don't feel like having sex on a given night, we don't. I am not alone in this. Also, I've known girls who were pressured to have sex by their girlfriends, so it's not like it's only male-female relationships where this happens.
Aside from a general defense of het-sex, I could argue more about why I don't think Joss is as bad a person as you say he is, but I'd rather not get my comment deleted, so I'll stick to saying that Joss is not fantastic when it comes to dealing with race (and many people agree here, that he tries, but often fails, to handle things well), but from your post and subsequent comments, neither are you, imo. You made some sweeping generalizations that I don't agree with, and find offensive. And other than Zoe and Inara, you largely ignore his other female characters.
This post was about Joss Whedon, Firefly and misogyny. Please address the topic. If you have a problem with the Radical Feminist view of rape then make a post on your own blog argueing against Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon and Robin Morgan. This is a Radical Feminist space and as such I support the Radical Feminist definition of rape.
I think you can agree with lots of the points here without getting all up to the eyeballs in highmindedness about "taking the wrong tone". It's a rant. Nothing wrong with writing and posting in anger. Disagree with the bits you think go too far, but don't use that as an excuse not to hear the message.
Let's talk about Whedon's "tone" instead.
Let's talk about Whedon's "tone" instead.
I have the DVD set with all the episodes. One of the disturbing things about it was an audio commentary. I think it was for "War Stories" they have the actor who plays Mal and the actor who plays Walsh talking to each other. They keep talking about how sexy the woman who plays Zoe is, and how lucky her recent husband was to have married her. Actually throughout the whole commentary people talk about Gina's looks as though they're her only attribute - but in this bit they talk about it so blatantly sexually.
N'they call Inara's character a Space Hooker. "Space Hooker" Funny term, Right? Right? They laugh.
Another thing I didn't like was the bit where they introduce Kaylee's character. The bit where she's all "I noticed the problem while I was on my back there" there wasn't no need to sex her up like that. I mean, there's a difference between showing that women can and do have sex drives and weakening the character of a smart girl by showing her having random sex with some guy who is clearly an idiot. They didn't need to do that and I didn't like it.
What else? There's loads... Oh yes. There's that bit where Inara has that governor lady as a client. The audio commentary on that. I don't remember who it was, but when Inara was saying she'd only service a very special woman the commentary person was all "there's Inara playing her games, she doesn't mean it here just like she doesn't with any of her client" or something to that effect, which cheapened the character to me.
(That's ignoring the whole prostitution things.)
As a note: I like firefly. I find so many problems with it, but I still like it. There's not much media about that I read/watch which I don't have problems with.
So much wrong with it though.
>.>
<.
N'they call Inara's character a Space Hooker. "Space Hooker" Funny term, Right? Right? They laugh.
Another thing I didn't like was the bit where they introduce Kaylee's character. The bit where she's all "I noticed the problem while I was on my back there" there wasn't no need to sex her up like that. I mean, there's a difference between showing that women can and do have sex drives and weakening the character of a smart girl by showing her having random sex with some guy who is clearly an idiot. They didn't need to do that and I didn't like it.
What else? There's loads... Oh yes. There's that bit where Inara has that governor lady as a client. The audio commentary on that. I don't remember who it was, but when Inara was saying she'd only service a very special woman the commentary person was all "there's Inara playing her games, she doesn't mean it here just like she doesn't with any of her client" or something to that effect, which cheapened the character to me.
(That's ignoring the whole prostitution things.)
As a note: I like firefly. I find so many problems with it, but I still like it. There's not much media about that I read/watch which I don't have problems with.
So much wrong with it though.
>.>
<.
Wow. That is seriously screwed up. Now I want to go and listen to the commentaries.
'Space Hooker'???!!! Argh! I hate men.
I like firefly. I find so many problems with it, but I still like it. There's not much media about that I read/watch which I don't have problems with.
So much wrong with it though.
I don't like Firefly but I did like Buffy even though I think there is loads of problems with that show too. I have no problem with liking things as long as I'm not confused and thinking the show is feminist or something. I think it is dangerous to like something without realising its flaws. I too find it hard to find anything to watch or read that isn't seriously racist and misogynist. But I still hate Joss Whedon for making this show. And for calling himself a feminist.
'Space Hooker'???!!! Argh! I hate men.
I like firefly. I find so many problems with it, but I still like it. There's not much media about that I read/watch which I don't have problems with.
So much wrong with it though.
I don't like Firefly but I did like Buffy even though I think there is loads of problems with that show too. I have no problem with liking things as long as I'm not confused and thinking the show is feminist or something. I think it is dangerous to like something without realising its flaws. I too find it hard to find anything to watch or read that isn't seriously racist and misogynist. But I still hate Joss Whedon for making this show. And for calling himself a feminist.
I get that.
Having women on the team. Especially strong women, like say Zoe or Buffy doesn't automatically make the work feminist.
Really early on in my feminism someone (not feminist) was asking me what I thought about Buffy and how feminist it was. I'd never seen much, but to their shock my answer was "Not very"
I decided early on that a show about a strong woman is hardly feminist if the strong woman is shown as being sexy. N'especially Buffy's blonde whiteness. Why do women have to fit that "sexy" box no matter who they are or what they do?
Same with Zoe. God forbid the female fighter who's been in the war be shown as physically tough as her primary physical trait (like Jayne) rather then showing her as super sexy (and also she's tough you know, but that makes her feisty)
I don't like that treatment.
So... I don't know. It's nice of Joss to say women are important at that big old place where he said it - but pretty words don't mean nothing to the messages that are being sent. Not a thing.
Having a "sexy, feisty strong female" doesn't make a show feminist.
Having women on the team. Especially strong women, like say Zoe or Buffy doesn't automatically make the work feminist.
Really early on in my feminism someone (not feminist) was asking me what I thought about Buffy and how feminist it was. I'd never seen much, but to their shock my answer was "Not very"
I decided early on that a show about a strong woman is hardly feminist if the strong woman is shown as being sexy. N'especially Buffy's blonde whiteness. Why do women have to fit that "sexy" box no matter who they are or what they do?
Same with Zoe. God forbid the female fighter who's been in the war be shown as physically tough as her primary physical trait (like Jayne) rather then showing her as super sexy (and also she's tough you know, but that makes her feisty)
I don't like that treatment.
So... I don't know. It's nice of Joss to say women are important at that big old place where he said it - but pretty words don't mean nothing to the messages that are being sent. Not a thing.
Having a "sexy, feisty strong female" doesn't make a show feminist.
Yeah, And I think another problem is what type of strength, where the strength comes from and what the strength is being used for. For example, Zoe's 'strength' is physical and violent. Now that is a male view of strength according to me. I love seeing women with physical strength. Women in the trades, handy lesbian women who can use drills, women who have strength from the work of child-rearing. But I have serious problems with the male view that physical strength is measured by the capacity for violence. So that is a major problem I have with Zoe's character. Every black woman I have ever met has abhorred violence. The black feminist books I read are very anti-violence. How can showing a black woman being violent be feminism? Zoe's strength, her capacity for physical violence is not being used for any kind of good. First she is fighting a war (and I believe that no war is good), then she is stealing things and committing crime under the orders of Mal and usually against her will. Her strength is not being used in self-defense, for protection or anything really justifiable, her strength is being used for gain, not even her own gain, but gain for Mal. I can't see this as being feminism either.
That's true. Zoe's strength is definitely the typically masculine violent kind. In and of itself I wouldn't mind that, because women are people and in a world where women aren't gendered they'd be able to do typically masculine things, even if they're things I'd disagree with doing.
But this masculine strength is the only kind of strength they show isn't it? N'well. Firefly clearly _isn't_ a world without gender roles.
In a world where black people are depicted as being violent and brutal, and when black women in particular are stereotypically depicted as being sexually aggressive and strong so they are considered 'unrapeable' how is showing that stereotypical aggressive overly sexual stereotype progressive for black women?
I'm... not very good at talking about race issues though.
That Zoe utterly, utterly defers to everything Mal does, just because Mal does it - even when its to her detriment. Yeah. Not good. I understand that she's supposedly only doing it because Mal was her captain and they had a close bond, but I don't think that story device makes up for the result: Seeing a black woman defer to everything a white man has to say.
Also regarding showing women in trades as strong: they had a woman in a trade right there to work with. Kaylee. They didn't choose to show her as particularly strong though, when they easily could have. They showed her as unnaturally gifted with machines, but not really strong, and not even especially clever. Which is a shame. </3
But this masculine strength is the only kind of strength they show isn't it? N'well. Firefly clearly _isn't_ a world without gender roles.
In a world where black people are depicted as being violent and brutal, and when black women in particular are stereotypically depicted as being sexually aggressive and strong so they are considered 'unrapeable' how is showing that stereotypical aggressive overly sexual stereotype progressive for black women?
I'm... not very good at talking about race issues though.
That Zoe utterly, utterly defers to everything Mal does, just because Mal does it - even when its to her detriment. Yeah. Not good. I understand that she's supposedly only doing it because Mal was her captain and they had a close bond, but I don't think that story device makes up for the result: Seeing a black woman defer to everything a white man has to say.
Also regarding showing women in trades as strong: they had a woman in a trade right there to work with. Kaylee. They didn't choose to show her as particularly strong though, when they easily could have. They showed her as unnaturally gifted with machines, but not really strong, and not even especially clever. Which is a shame. </3
I'm a Black woman who practices a martial art.
I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive.
I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive.
"Another thing I didn't like was the bit where they introduce Kaylee's character. The bit where she's all "I noticed the problem while I was on my back there" there wasn't no need to sex her up like that. I mean, there's a difference between showing that women can and do have sex drives and weakening the character of a smart girl by showing her having random sex with some guy who is clearly an idiot. They didn't need to do that and I didn't like it."
Yeah, kidna' a big shocker to me to. I still internally hate this part. It was interesting that each of the women was showcasing alternate views commonly proported to be harmful male sex.. Inara being ok with prostitution.. Kaylee freely having sex without regard to anything but immediate sex is whatever whenever oblivion... and then the warrior woman what would rape her husband (the whatever whenever I want portion that wash seemed to enjoy for the most part although somewhat stinted on the crazy during that discussion).
I think it's confusion on how to portray a woman sexually when portraying the men in equal unfavorablity. It's not like everyone with one type of anatomy agrees on the appropriate ways to use their parts. Although if your argument is that the relationships weren't perfectly healthy, that's kinda' obvious. And the characters spend multiple hours pontificating that. Although it's often the guys.. looking in on the behaviors and being put off by them and eventually coping with them.
Guy judges girl and accepts. Why portray girl like that?
Girl judges guy and accepts. Crazy girl portrayal.
meh
Yeah, kidna' a big shocker to me to. I still internally hate this part. It was interesting that each of the women was showcasing alternate views commonly proported to be harmful male sex.. Inara being ok with prostitution.. Kaylee freely having sex without regard to anything but immediate sex is whatever whenever oblivion... and then the warrior woman what would rape her husband (the whatever whenever I want portion that wash seemed to enjoy for the most part although somewhat stinted on the crazy during that discussion).
I think it's confusion on how to portray a woman sexually when portraying the men in equal unfavorablity. It's not like everyone with one type of anatomy agrees on the appropriate ways to use their parts. Although if your argument is that the relationships weren't perfectly healthy, that's kinda' obvious. And the characters spend multiple hours pontificating that. Although it's often the guys.. looking in on the behaviors and being put off by them and eventually coping with them.
Guy judges girl and accepts. Why portray girl like that?
Girl judges guy and accepts. Crazy girl portrayal.
meh
From a black woman's point of view, I would warn you against making such terribly generalized statements. I have been in a happy, loving relationship with my white partner for over two years. I sympathize with your experiences, but you cannot possibly assume that everybody in the world will share these same experiences. To do so is unbelievably racist. I know that past experiences can alter our perceptions of all relationships we witness, but I urge you to give every individual the opportunity to prove themselves to you on their own merits, and not to fall victim to prejudice based solely on race.
Thank you
K
Thank you
K
Allecto:
So, if I to understand you (and I know my Dworkinian feminism too) the only way for women to be treated as autonomous agents is for us not to treat them as autonomous agents.
I will also note that above, in your discussion of interracial relationships you are making a feminist anti-miscegenation argument which is, at its heart, racist. Now, I know that you will say that you were only talking about heterosexual relationships (which, of course, is merely a way to dodge your racist perceptions of the unsuitability of people of color to date whites). I'm also willing to bet that of ALL of the possible bad configurations of interracial relationships, the WORST of them are--sing it with me--black men and white women. No need to engage in the altogether predictable denials of racism. I've heard it from white feminists before and as a black woman, I know a racist sentiment when I read it and your sentiment that there are no healthy interracial relationships (at least heterosexual ones) is fundamentally racist. Dress it up in feminism if you wish, ultimately it still comes down to "black men and women should not date white men and women".
Cheers
So, if I to understand you (and I know my Dworkinian feminism too) the only way for women to be treated as autonomous agents is for us not to treat them as autonomous agents.
I will also note that above, in your discussion of interracial relationships you are making a feminist anti-miscegenation argument which is, at its heart, racist. Now, I know that you will say that you were only talking about heterosexual relationships (which, of course, is merely a way to dodge your racist perceptions of the unsuitability of people of color to date whites). I'm also willing to bet that of ALL of the possible bad configurations of interracial relationships, the WORST of them are--sing it with me--black men and white women. No need to engage in the altogether predictable denials of racism. I've heard it from white feminists before and as a black woman, I know a racist sentiment when I read it and your sentiment that there are no healthy interracial relationships (at least heterosexual ones) is fundamentally racist. Dress it up in feminism if you wish, ultimately it still comes down to "black men and women should not date white men and women".
Cheers
"'m also willing to bet that of ALL of the possible bad configurations of interracial relationships, the WORST of them are--sing it with me--black men and white women."
Where the hell do you get that?
Where the hell do you get that?
I have to strongly agree with K here.
As the child of mixed parents (white father, black mother), as well as having a large mixed family, I know that the scenarios you described do not in any way relate to their relationships. They may not be perfect, but they are each healthy and respectful, and honestly throwing this argument into your opinion on the show detracts from the respect I can give your essay as a whole.
As the child of mixed parents (white father, black mother), as well as having a large mixed family, I know that the scenarios you described do not in any way relate to their relationships. They may not be perfect, but they are each healthy and respectful, and honestly throwing this argument into your opinion on the show detracts from the respect I can give your essay as a whole.
Hi. I found your essay insightful and very well researched. I have never quite thought about Firefly, Serenity, or Buffy in these ways. Then again, I imagine most viewers today don't put that much thought into the fiction that they watch.
What this makes me feel, is that perhaps Mr. Whedon was not raised in the most peaceful or ideal of environments, and he was attempting to go against the grain to portray a gang of criminals that have certain character traits which a wide variety of today's non-criminal population could identify with. I'm not sure it's exactly fair to assume that Mr. Whedon abuses his wife, just because these criminals he writes about are so verbally (and sometimes physically) abusive to their female acquaintances... Writing impelling fiction that appeals to a prime-time audience without employing some of that kind of drama can be difficult to do, depending on the writer. (Though I'd personally like to see more audience-appealing-yet-empowering sci-fi!) But that Whedon likes women(whom he portrays as calm, clean-handed, and accomodating) more than men(that he portrays as criminals, werewolves, and teenage porn addicts) should be no surprise. I know some women who like women more than men.
Regardless, the characters he writes are still criminals. The way Mal, Jayne, and Zoe deal with the rest of the world (and even among themselves) portrays this. I think the choice of adding a character of Inara's line of work to the main cast was a bold move, for prime-time non-cable-access television. Her character alone could be the reason the show was cancelled. Then again, so could the fact that it was a gang of criminals, or the fact that it was a space opera. I hear space operas (especially of the criminally-oriented, "Stick-it-to-the-Alliance" variety) don't always do so well on prime time.
Wash and Kaylee, in my eyes, are the innocent ones, just along for the ride. And among a gang of mercenaries, you're going to get taken hostage and punched in the face by good guys and bad, a hell of a lot. Personally, I don't see why Kaylee stays aboard Serenity(or Simon for that matter). Sure, when you're unemployed, any job might sound like a good job... For a minute or two. But as you implied, I guess Kaylee(or Simon for that matter) ain't supposed to be the brightest character(s) of the bunch.
Which brings me to River. Apparently 'psychic' in a way far worse than Deanna Troy, River was dragged into the mix by her negligent brother... I wouldn't say that being a Savant is necessarily empowering. Then again, I've never known many (or any) Savants.
Between a situationally-abused 'Companion', a very subordinate first-officer (perhaps subject to unspoken 'racist' undertones, as you say), a soft-spoken machinist, and a girl savant who can't always, if ever, control her every move or even her every thought, I'm not exactly sure just where the feminist message is supposed to come from.
I'm going to go take a closer look at episode 7x22 of Buffy...
-S
What this makes me feel, is that perhaps Mr. Whedon was not raised in the most peaceful or ideal of environments, and he was attempting to go against the grain to portray a gang of criminals that have certain character traits which a wide variety of today's non-criminal population could identify with. I'm not sure it's exactly fair to assume that Mr. Whedon abuses his wife, just because these criminals he writes about are so verbally (and sometimes physically) abusive to their female acquaintances... Writing impelling fiction that appeals to a prime-time audience without employing some of that kind of drama can be difficult to do, depending on the writer. (Though I'd personally like to see more audience-appealing-yet-empowering sci-fi!) But that Whedon likes women(whom he portrays as calm, clean-handed, and accomodating) more than men(that he portrays as criminals, werewolves, and teenage porn addicts) should be no surprise. I know some women who like women more than men.
Regardless, the characters he writes are still criminals. The way Mal, Jayne, and Zoe deal with the rest of the world (and even among themselves) portrays this. I think the choice of adding a character of Inara's line of work to the main cast was a bold move, for prime-time non-cable-access television. Her character alone could be the reason the show was cancelled. Then again, so could the fact that it was a gang of criminals, or the fact that it was a space opera. I hear space operas (especially of the criminally-oriented, "Stick-it-to-the-Alliance" variety) don't always do so well on prime time.
Wash and Kaylee, in my eyes, are the innocent ones, just along for the ride. And among a gang of mercenaries, you're going to get taken hostage and punched in the face by good guys and bad, a hell of a lot. Personally, I don't see why Kaylee stays aboard Serenity(or Simon for that matter). Sure, when you're unemployed, any job might sound like a good job... For a minute or two. But as you implied, I guess Kaylee(or Simon for that matter) ain't supposed to be the brightest character(s) of the bunch.
Which brings me to River. Apparently 'psychic' in a way far worse than Deanna Troy, River was dragged into the mix by her negligent brother... I wouldn't say that being a Savant is necessarily empowering. Then again, I've never known many (or any) Savants.
Between a situationally-abused 'Companion', a very subordinate first-officer (perhaps subject to unspoken 'racist' undertones, as you say), a soft-spoken machinist, and a girl savant who can't always, if ever, control her every move or even her every thought, I'm not exactly sure just where the feminist message is supposed to come from.
I'm going to go take a closer look at episode 7x22 of Buffy...
-S
Personally, I saw "Chosen" as incredibly, beautifully feminist. The entire point of the episode (of the arc) is the empowerment of women, no?
The only point I would argue is that "sir" is a legitimate form of address to a superior officer. Zoe obviously adopted the habit while in the military and saw no reason to change it when Mal became captain of a ship.
My biggest problem with the series is that it's Lost Cause romanticizing all over again.
The losers of the Galactic Civil War are the ones telling their story, just as the Confederate PoV dominates discussion of the American Civil War.
My biggest problem with the series is that it's Lost Cause romanticizing all over again.
The losers of the Galactic Civil War are the ones telling their story, just as the Confederate PoV dominates discussion of the American Civil War.
that's my primary problem with the series. well, that and the cultural imperialism.
I might point out, as a sidebar, that the Civil War POV issue is largely due to the fact that it was the South, and not the North, that lost literally everything in the war, rather than the fact of losing the war itself. Livelihoods, homes, land, security, states' rights, pride, dignity, were all completely destroyed. I'm certainly not saying that slavery was right, but neither was the way the war was handled. There's a deeper sense of bereftment and of violation in the South as a result of the war. That's why that specific POV dominates discussions of the South.
Thank you for saying this. As a Southerner and a woman of mixed race, I'm glad
that the South lost the war. That said, the way the war was handled, and what happened afterward, has bred poverty-stricken generations filled with grief and bitterness. The South has never truly recovered, and possibly never will.
It’s true that the losing side in a conflict tends to romanticize the lost “Golden Age”, but since, as is often said, “The victors write the history books,” the only thing LEFT for the losers is romanticism and legend. And, in fact, much of our most enduring folk-myths are romanticized tales of the losers, which are often later embraced by the winners.
As examples, consider a Celtic war-chieftain in 5th – 6th century Britain fighting an ultimately losing battle against Anglo-Saxon invaders. He held for a time, then he lost, and all that is remembered is the loss of the golden age of “King” Arthur and Camelot. Six hundred years later, after the Anglish invaders – now calling themselves English – were defeated in there turn, and treated as they had the Celts, they started telling romances of a thief, a “Rob o’ the Wood” who stole from the Norman overlords and gave to the downtrodden English subjects. And need one even mention the cult of Yeshua ben Yosef from a couple of thousand years ago, and his distant spiritual “descendent”, Jeanne d;Arc…?
Many of our heroes grow larger in defeat than they could ever have been in victory, and this is the core of much of our cultural heritage, for better or for worse.
As examples, consider a Celtic war-chieftain in 5th – 6th century Britain fighting an ultimately losing battle against Anglo-Saxon invaders. He held for a time, then he lost, and all that is remembered is the loss of the golden age of “King” Arthur and Camelot. Six hundred years later, after the Anglish invaders – now calling themselves English – were defeated in there turn, and treated as they had the Celts, they started telling romances of a thief, a “Rob o’ the Wood” who stole from the Norman overlords and gave to the downtrodden English subjects. And need one even mention the cult of Yeshua ben Yosef from a couple of thousand years ago, and his distant spiritual “descendent”, Jeanne d;Arc…?
Many of our heroes grow larger in defeat than they could ever have been in victory, and this is the core of much of our cultural heritage, for better or for worse.
I don't hate your sex, I hate your gender. If you don't understand what I mean by that then go and do your feminist homework before attempting to take up space on my blog.
If a comment from an outsider is of any interest...: I haven't seen the series or related film, but from a number of things you describe, it certainly doesn't sound feminist in the least. I haven't ever seen the show, or the Buffy show, just the Buffy movie. I'd been curious to see the film Serenity because of the high ratings it got, but it being three years old and my still not having seen it says it hasn't been a priority for me.
Have Whedon or others associated with the show claimed it is feminist, or is it just that other people have claimed that about it? It might be interesting to deconstruct one or more instances they identify as ones they feel are feminist.
I was confused by this paragraph: "The first scene opens in a war with Mal and Zoe. Zoe runs around calling Mal ‘sir’ and taking orders off him. I roll my eyes. Not a good start." Don't crew members usually call the captain "Sir" (if he is a man) and take the captain's orders? Or do the male crew members not address Mal as "Sir" and do they disregard his orders? If there is a double standard, I would join you in rolling my eyes. If not, then I'd be looking quizzical. I guess since it's a piece of speculative fiction, they could create a society in which a ship's crew is democratized to the point that there is no captain, no "sir," no orders that need to be made. Is that what you meant?
In the biographical information you shared: "Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour." I am very sorry to hear that; the ones you describe sound terrible and I hope are not representative. You mean dating/marital relationships specifically, I guess. I'm sure there are healthy ones, ones without physical violence or fetishes, but in truth I don't happen to personally know of any either (though I know of no unhealthy ones: I know of no such relationships, in short).
Which episode was scripted by a woman? It might be interesting to interview her about it, if she could be found.
Is there feminist Firefly fanfic that purges it of the problems you identify? (That would seem to be relatively impossible without reinventing the characters and series more radically than is customary for fanfic, AFAIK.) Is there a science-fiction television show or movie you would recommend as feminist, or has one yet to be made?
Have Whedon or others associated with the show claimed it is feminist, or is it just that other people have claimed that about it? It might be interesting to deconstruct one or more instances they identify as ones they feel are feminist.
I was confused by this paragraph: "The first scene opens in a war with Mal and Zoe. Zoe runs around calling Mal ‘sir’ and taking orders off him. I roll my eyes. Not a good start." Don't crew members usually call the captain "Sir" (if he is a man) and take the captain's orders? Or do the male crew members not address Mal as "Sir" and do they disregard his orders? If there is a double standard, I would join you in rolling my eyes. If not, then I'd be looking quizzical. I guess since it's a piece of speculative fiction, they could create a society in which a ship's crew is democratized to the point that there is no captain, no "sir," no orders that need to be made. Is that what you meant?
In the biographical information you shared: "Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour." I am very sorry to hear that; the ones you describe sound terrible and I hope are not representative. You mean dating/marital relationships specifically, I guess. I'm sure there are healthy ones, ones without physical violence or fetishes, but in truth I don't happen to personally know of any either (though I know of no unhealthy ones: I know of no such relationships, in short).
Which episode was scripted by a woman? It might be interesting to interview her about it, if she could be found.
Is there feminist Firefly fanfic that purges it of the problems you identify? (That would seem to be relatively impossible without reinventing the characters and series more radically than is customary for fanfic, AFAIK.) Is there a science-fiction television show or movie you would recommend as feminist, or has one yet to be made?
I think someone accidentally responded to me rather than the OP.
I'm not sure where my other post on homoeroticism went, since it had been approved earlier. I was wondering if the term gets used too loosely by those of us who aren't gay men and thus don't know what they would consider erotic. I've been curious about that question for years, actually.
After thinking about knowing of any relationships between black women and white men whatsoever (healthy or unhealthy, I did recall I knew one about twelve years ago. I knew the woman from an adoption-related organization we both belonged to. She and her husband had adopted several older children who had been floundering in the foster care system. It seemed to be a healthy relationship, but I didn't observe them together as he was out mowing the lawn while we were talking. Just FYI. Anyway, it doesn't pay to overgeneralize from good or bad relationships to all of them, tempting though it may be.
I'm not sure where my other post on homoeroticism went, since it had been approved earlier. I was wondering if the term gets used too loosely by those of us who aren't gay men and thus don't know what they would consider erotic. I've been curious about that question for years, actually.
After thinking about knowing of any relationships between black women and white men whatsoever (healthy or unhealthy, I did recall I knew one about twelve years ago. I knew the woman from an adoption-related organization we both belonged to. She and her husband had adopted several older children who had been floundering in the foster care system. It seemed to be a healthy relationship, but I didn't observe them together as he was out mowing the lawn while we were talking. Just FYI. Anyway, it doesn't pay to overgeneralize from good or bad relationships to all of them, tempting though it may be.
The episode was "Shindig," written by Jane Espenson, who has an LJ feed and is quite easy to find: 
janeespenson.
Please know that while I am
a Joss Whedon fan, I am not making this comment as someone who is trying to defend his work. I am making this comment as someone who was raped when she was eight years old by her older brother.
I won't go into the details of what happened to me, but it was violent, it was against my will, and though I tried to stop it, I couldn't. It was the most helpless and, more importantly, hopeless that I have ever felt in my life. I wouldn't wish that feeling on anyone in this world, man, woman, or gender neutral.
What happened to me was rape.
Your definition of rape:
While I respect that you have the right to believe this, I have to say that as someone who was a rape victim, I am offended by it.
There is a very large difference between what happened to me, and the things that happen to other rape victims that are even worse, and "No, honey, not tonight…well, all right." Do you see the difference?
What your definition of rape does is trivialize what happened to me and other victims around the world. If that is rape, then you'd have to invent a whole new word for what happened to me.
I'm not going to try and persuade you to change your mind, because it seems quite clear that you have formed your own opinions and don't intend to change, but as a victim of rape, I am appalled and offended at your definition of rape, and the subsequent trivialization of my experience that it causes.
I won't go into the details of what happened to me, but it was violent, it was against my will, and though I tried to stop it, I couldn't. It was the most helpless and, more importantly, hopeless that I have ever felt in my life. I wouldn't wish that feeling on anyone in this world, man, woman, or gender neutral.
What happened to me was rape.
Your definition of rape:
I believe in the radical feminist definition of rape. That is that men who pressure women into sex are rapists. That women who are pressured are not freely consenting and are therefore being raped. There have been a few discussions recently in the rad fem blogosphere debating whether all male initiated sex is rape, given that women are politically, socially and economically subordinate to men. So, in my understanding of Joss Whedon as a rapist is hinges on my definition of rape. I would argue that most 'sex' between men and women, in the contemporary 'sex-positive', pornographic, male-supremacist culture, is rape.
While I respect that you have the right to believe this, I have to say that as someone who was a rape victim, I am offended by it.
There is a very large difference between what happened to me, and the things that happen to other rape victims that are even worse, and "No, honey, not tonight…well, all right." Do you see the difference?
What your definition of rape does is trivialize what happened to me and other victims around the world. If that is rape, then you'd have to invent a whole new word for what happened to me.
I'm not going to try and persuade you to change your mind, because it seems quite clear that you have formed your own opinions and don't intend to change, but as a victim of rape, I am appalled and offended at your definition of rape, and the subsequent trivialization of my experience that it causes.
I tried to say the same thing twice, but my comment got deleted both times. And I wanted to thank you for making this distinction. Because, as a survivor of rape, it angered me to see something that trivialized my experience. My experience wasn't nearly as violent as yours (I was practically unconscious and heavily intoxicated when it happened), but I still feel that, if the radical feminist definition of rape is rape, then there would need to be a whole new word for what I went through.
So, anyway, thank you for trying to describe the difference between what happened to you and that definition of rape because I think it's an important distinction to make.
So, anyway, thank you for trying to describe the difference between what happened to you and that definition of rape because I think it's an important distinction to make.
I'm curious. Given your definition of all prostitution as rape, and also most heterosexual intercourse as rape -- is a woman who pays another woman for sex raping her, in your view?
While I do not agree with the idea of prostitution. I would like to inquire of you, what sexual act is not rape? (by your definition)
I have written on sex/intercourse/rape here
and on the use of objects in lesbian sex here.
The best book analysing sex from a radical feminist standpoint would have to be Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse. The best book theorising something radically other than patriarchy would have to be A Passion for Friends by Janice Raymond.
The best book analysing sex from a radical feminist standpoint would have to be Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse. The best book theorising something radically other than patriarchy would have to be A Passion for Friends by Janice Raymond.
What about River? You only breifly mention her once, even though she's sort of the catalyst for the action in the show (and definately the film).
Is there going to be another installment? I'm curious to hear your views about 'Our Mrs. Reynolds'?
Is there going to be another installment? I'm curious to hear your views about 'Our Mrs. Reynolds'?
“Sometimes you just wanna DUCT TAPE HER MOUTH and DUMP HER IN THE HOLD FOR A MONTH.”
This is appalling. I think this calls for a pretty vicious rant and important action alert.
This is appalling. I think this calls for a pretty vicious rant and important action alert.
Okay, now for the iffy topic. Bear with me on this because I don't really feel like I know enough about the issues involved to be very specific and I'd appreciate any fallacies pointed out.
Regarding prostitution, it seems to me that in real life you've got a large pool of women in awful situations being exploited along with a tiny minority of women for whom the work fits in nicely with their worldview and lifestyle, so. On the one hand you can't lump Inara in with the former when she's clearly the latter, but on the other hand the media does GROSSLY over-represent that category of sex-workers, which doesn't do much for the public having a realistic concept of the issues involved.
So what I'm basically saying is, it wasn't the most SENSITIVE portrayal of prostitution, what with all the "whore" comments and whatnot, but I also don't think you're justified in using the words "fucktoy" or "rape" in this instance. I imagine that most prostitutes make a distinction between what they do and rape, otherwise it would be impossible to rape a prostitute, wouldn't it? It would be like... theft. Which it clearly isn't. Inara's ability to choose her partners and the Guild policies on excluding clients (eg Atherton) suggest that her position is more like that of a dance teacher. She's good at it, her clients may or may not be but they come to her in a position of deference and at least outward respect (once again: Atherton), and once there it is a mutual activity even though it is also a transaction. It may be more physical than dancing but if she's that comfortable with her body and sexuality (and some people are, I'm told) then it's her business. Contrast to the girls in House Of Gold who were, now that I think about it, somewhat more realistic as sex workers.
I think Whedon was being waaaay too optimistic/idealistic (for once!) with the idea that the companion/geisha system would be an acceptable system of prostitution. I think that too would be open to abuse, and it's glamourised a bit too much in the show. However House of Gold does show that he's at least aware of the problems surrounding prostitution in the real world. It's certainly an improvement over some TV shows I could think of.
Regarding prostitution, it seems to me that in real life you've got a large pool of women in awful situations being exploited along with a tiny minority of women for whom the work fits in nicely with their worldview and lifestyle, so. On the one hand you can't lump Inara in with the former when she's clearly the latter, but on the other hand the media does GROSSLY over-represent that category of sex-workers, which doesn't do much for the public having a realistic concept of the issues involved.
So what I'm basically saying is, it wasn't the most SENSITIVE portrayal of prostitution, what with all the "whore" comments and whatnot, but I also don't think you're justified in using the words "fucktoy" or "rape" in this instance. I imagine that most prostitutes make a distinction between what they do and rape, otherwise it would be impossible to rape a prostitute, wouldn't it? It would be like... theft. Which it clearly isn't. Inara's ability to choose her partners and the Guild policies on excluding clients (eg Atherton) suggest that her position is more like that of a dance teacher. She's good at it, her clients may or may not be but they come to her in a position of deference and at least outward respect (once again: Atherton), and once there it is a mutual activity even though it is also a transaction. It may be more physical than dancing but if she's that comfortable with her body and sexuality (and some people are, I'm told) then it's her business. Contrast to the girls in House Of Gold who were, now that I think about it, somewhat more realistic as sex workers.
I think Whedon was being waaaay too optimistic/idealistic (for once!) with the idea that the companion/geisha system would be an acceptable system of prostitution. I think that too would be open to abuse, and it's glamourised a bit too much in the show. However House of Gold does show that he's at least aware of the problems surrounding prostitution in the real world. It's certainly an improvement over some TV shows I could think of.
You raise some very interesting points.
Out of curiosity, would you be able to recommend any television programs -- not necessarily science fiction, since I imagine it would be difficult to find anything in that genre -- that you feel do promote feminism?
Out of curiosity, would you be able to recommend any television programs -- not necessarily science fiction, since I imagine it would be difficult to find anything in that genre -- that you feel do promote feminism?
Not really. The films that are recced in the original post are incredible representationsa of women's lived realities but television shows, no I don't know of any that I don't have serious problems with.
Howdy!
I'm a fan of counter-intuitive thinking, so I was intrigued by your post when I was directed to it by someone who disagrees with your conclusion. What you've presented is obviously well-researched - I was particularly amused by the verbal analysis, which appears to have revealed some subconscious archetyping on the part of the script-writers. You got me thinking: what sort of plot would you find to not be anti-feminist? Every plot of which I can conceive can be construed as hateful to women from the perspective of your blog post:
"Pretty girls fight evil and save the day." -> "Why do female heroes have to be reduced to eye candy?"
"Ugly lesbians fight evil and save the day." -> "Whedon has created his female heroes as carictures of everything men find hateful, and through that correlates the image of strong, heroic women with what men find hateful."
"Neutral-looking women of no apparent sexual orientation fight evil and save the day." -> "The female leads are all stripped of their female characteristics and fade into the scenery, essentially putting them into the kabuki role of female servitude in which they should be neither seen nor heard."
"No women are in the show at all." -> "Buffy presents a world in which women have been wiped out, and the guys run around wisecracking and fighting evil and having a grand old time. They are winking at genocide."
. . . do you see where I'm coming from? As much as I love counter-intuitive thinking, I wonder if your admitted biases have put you in a position where everything is anti-feminist, nothing is pro-feminist, and anti-women subplots can be found lurking behind every bush. If there's a plot that would pass your scrutiny, I'm curious what it would be.
Thank you for your time.
I'm a fan of counter-intuitive thinking, so I was intrigued by your post when I was directed to it by someone who disagrees with your conclusion. What you've presented is obviously well-researched - I was particularly amused by the verbal analysis, which appears to have revealed some subconscious archetyping on the part of the script-writers. You got me thinking: what sort of plot would you find to not be anti-feminist? Every plot of which I can conceive can be construed as hateful to women from the perspective of your blog post:
"Pretty girls fight evil and save the day." -> "Why do female heroes have to be reduced to eye candy?"
"Ugly lesbians fight evil and save the day." -> "Whedon has created his female heroes as carictures of everything men find hateful, and through that correlates the image of strong, heroic women with what men find hateful."
"Neutral-looking women of no apparent sexual orientation fight evil and save the day." -> "The female leads are all stripped of their female characteristics and fade into the scenery, essentially putting them into the kabuki role of female servitude in which they should be neither seen nor heard."
"No women are in the show at all." -> "Buffy presents a world in which women have been wiped out, and the guys run around wisecracking and fighting evil and having a grand old time. They are winking at genocide."
. . . do you see where I'm coming from? As much as I love counter-intuitive thinking, I wonder if your admitted biases have put you in a position where everything is anti-feminist, nothing is pro-feminist, and anti-women subplots can be found lurking behind every bush. If there's a plot that would pass your scrutiny, I'm curious what it would be.
Thank you for your time.
Ugly lesbians fight evil and save the day.
Hey, I'd love to see this show. Especially if the ugly lesbians are 'fighting' rapists and wife-bashers.
Hey, I'd love to see this show. Especially if the ugly lesbians are 'fighting' rapists and wife-bashers.
Deleted comment
If it makes you feel better, I've known several. For real.
I'm glad. My intention was not to say that they cannot exist but to say that from what I have seen I find it very difficult to believe that a white man who views his wife as an object and possession could possibly treat her well. Zoe is doubly disempowered by her race and her sex and her white male husband takes advantage of this. In one of the movies I linked to Serenades, the end pretty much shows the potential for a feminist white male/woman of colour relationship. I think it is one of the most beautiful and feminist movies that I have ever seen. So the misinterpretation of that comment was unintentional.
Thank you for making me feel less crazy too!
I'm glad. My intention was not to say that they cannot exist but to say that from what I have seen I find it very difficult to believe that a white man who views his wife as an object and possession could possibly treat her well. Zoe is doubly disempowered by her race and her sex and her white male husband takes advantage of this. In one of the movies I linked to Serenades, the end pretty much shows the potential for a feminist white male/woman of colour relationship. I think it is one of the most beautiful and feminist movies that I have ever seen. So the misinterpretation of that comment was unintentional.
Thank you for making me feel less crazy too!
This essay is a brilliant example of the state of feminist thought about 40 years ago, the "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"1
era. Thank you!
1. Irina Dunn, 1970
1. Irina Dunn, 1970
I know. I SOOO wish that I had been around in the 70s. I hate the fact that the strong anti-porn, anti-prostitution radical feminist movement seems to have been driven to the margins. All that we are left with is shit like Firefly
that tries to pass itself as feminism. And women fall for it!!!! That is what I find so heartbreaking.
No, it's another TV show, this time about a working-class teenage girl detective in a super-wealthy SoCal town.