slightly redeeming

March 27th, 2008

by vito_excalibur

So by now you’ve heard about the crazy lady calling Joss Whedon names. Whatever. Someone is wrong on the internet, stop the presses.

What I want to point out is that, despite our pessimism on the subject, the actual effect has been much less “this is why I only like to hang out with straight men! Bitches crazy!” and much more sane discussion about female characters, feminism, media portrayals, and Mr. Whedon’s very very real race and gender issues. My god, it’s like we’re mostly acting like grownups or something. Who knew? Maybe my standards have been lowered, but it’s kind of nice.

(x-posted to my journal)

Share and Enjoy:

- More blogging by vito_excalibur at http://vito_excalibur.livejournal.com

Previous: SFBookswap News and Award Time Again --- Next: The Fantasy of Rape: The Use of Rape as a Catalyst on Female Protagonists in SF/F

Filed under Online, Race & Racism, TV & Film, fandom, female characters, feminism | Comments (100)

100 Responses to “slightly redeeming”

Ide Cyan on March 27, 2008 2:16 pm
I have seen a lot more “this is the kind of feminist who gives feminism a bad name” towards her (hello, scapegoating) than I wanted to.
vito_excalibur on March 27, 2008 2:19 pm
Me too. But much, much less than I expected. Which I don’t know whether it says more about the kerfuffle or my expectations.
Thene on March 27, 2008 6:29 pm
I have seen a lot more “this is the kind of feminist who gives feminism a bad name” towards her (hello, scapegoating) than I wanted to.

The OP is well-known for scapegoating others in exactly that manner – I could link to some of her contempt-filled comments about women who don’t agree with her viewpoints, but I guess that would be on the wrong side of wanky…
the angry black woman on March 27, 2008 7:31 pm
My god, it’s like we’re mostly acting like grownups or something.

Ha! I know, it’s like a parallel universe or something. but refreshing.
Constance on March 27, 2008 7:51 pm
There are some points allecto made that I cannot agree with, particularly the one that she’s never seen a healthy interracial relationship. Sure, this is merely personally anecdotal, but I’ve seen so many, particularly in the Caribbean and Brasil, for instance, where peoples of all colors have been carrying on with each other (inside and outside of rape) for centuries. I’ve been in one myself at one time and another.

She also went too far in characterizing Whedon’s relationship with his wife. No one can know the intimate information of a relationship except the people in it.

I’ve also felt that Inara gets a worse rap as a character than she deserves (or perhaps I am dazzled by her, because I am dazzled by the actress’s beauty and the feeling I always got that she was a wonderful person that I’d enjoy spending time with — she knows so much).

That all said — there is more slavery in place on the planet today than at any time previous in history, slavery of every sort, but sexual service slavery is the number one institution of slavery. Rape is a way of political expression in many cultures, as well as entertainment, at a level we’ve never seen previously.

Allecto raised a lot of questions, again, about a universe that so many of us love. Yes, so many of us do love it, whether we approve of it or not. If we didn’t there wouldn’t be so much anger.

There was so much about Firefly that disappointed. From the very first viewing of the Buffy seasons it seemed to me that there was too much pleasure in seeing a girl get beaten up, and the beating acclerated as the seasons accumulated. Seasons 5 & 6 were nearly unbearable in the punishment and the humiliation of Buffy. This was particularly so for someone like me who stays far away from most movies that feature violence, and who has lived without a television all her adult life. (I didn’t start seeing any of these shows until dvd technology came around that allows one to bypass television and the world of commercials.). The shock to the system for someone who was bombarded by imagery of violence, sexual violence, the violence on women, the humiliation of women, the average television viewer is bombarded by a thousand times a day is hard to describe. I often had to pause and just leave the room. Sometime I skipped.

So again, one wonders about this fetish so many men like Whedon appear to possess, of making a very young girl subject to, and wielder of, supreme violence. It’s seems more and more a real fetish, a subset of porn.

Love, C.
Constance on March 27, 2008 7:55 pm
By the way, the original screed was written and posted last year. What brought it to the attention of the outraged masses yesterday?

Love, C.
vito_excalibur on March 27, 2008 9:01 pm
Somehow it got linked from her friend Dissenter’s post on slash and why she believes it’s antifeminist, which was posted a couple weeks ago.

There’s been discussion in the slash fandom world about that too, but it’s much less provocative so it hasn’t hit the big time.

Absolutely there are a lot of things to dislike about Firefly and to a lesser extent Buffy. The saying-one-thing-and-showing-an-unpleasant-other presentation of the Companions is maybe the most blatant. The fact that, as one commenter said, she’s trying to do a Zoe vid and there just isn’t the screen time is another. The fact that everyone in the ‘verse speaks Chinese and writes Chinese but nobody IS Chinese is another. The by now extremely familiar and growingly disturbing Joss archetype of a cute, skinny, unstable little girl with improbably violent powers is another. Etc. My point is, I’m psyched that people are managing to talk about this stuff despite the context it was brought up in.
Constance on March 28, 2008 2:30 pm
Thanks for the info as to how this round of WhedonBadFeminist started.

I’ve brought these issues up elsewhere at times, with more than Buffy. Particularly on Deep Genre my brother bloggers are outraged at any suggestion that graphic novels, any sf/f, and Whedon could be sexist and porn-related.
Generally I suspect them of being rather sexist themselves — because of their reactions and what they write. It’s hard not to reach such conclusions (just as similar behaviors, outrage, etc. get exhibited in any discussions of racism). If anyone has suggestions as to how to look at their outrage differently I welcome them.

[ "The fact that everyone in the ‘verse speaks Chinese and writes Chinese but nobody IS Chinese is another." ]

The audience noticed this immediately, didn’t it?

The worldbuilding for the Firefly ‘verse clearly needed more reflection prior to writing and shooting scripts.

Too a degree, perhaps, some of these gaping errors are partly consequence of the bad treatment of the show by the network even before it started broadcast? This isn’t something someone like me can know, of course.

Love, C.
laura quilter on March 28, 2008 3:46 pm
The outrage about racism, sexism, or any suggestion that Joss Whedon may be less than the perfect ultimate person — may be human, in fact — is defensiveness about racism & sexism, yes, but there’s also a really significant element of hero worship / cult of personality going on.

That’s obvious, but it needs to be said, because cults of personality all too often get in the way of productive interactions and criticism. Acknowledging that Joss Whedon has created a lot of products that many feminists have enjoyed, and felt as a relief from incredible sexism, ought to be able to hand-in-hand with saying that Joss Whedon has blinkers just like the rest of us, here’s what they appear to be, here’s where we think he’s trying and missing, here’s where it’s not apparent that he’s trying, here’s where he appears to be utterly fucking clueless. But you can’t say that without the Cult of Personality folks jumping all over you.

Cult of Personality and Hero Worship really distort a lot of things. I was amazed to hear all the fulminating over baseball players’ use of steroids, “because my little boy hero worships these guys!” Well, jesus, please wake your kid up and get them over that crap. It’s just going to get them into trouble when they unquestioningly accept what some Authority Figure says about The Enemy Over There, or that it’s okay to just shred these documents, or whatever.

And yet a lot of folks in and out of fandom have defended this instinct to me: “But people need heroes!” I don’t get it. Why? What is a hero, and why do we need one, and if we do have them, why can’t we acknowledge their clay feet when they put them in their mouths or step in something gross? Any thoughts about this, and where the fan-wankery on this issue out there might have discussed this issue?
Thene on March 29, 2008 6:04 pm
Laura – is this even a departure from the usual pattern of the ‘People need heroes!’ thing? ‘Build ‘em up, then knock ‘em down’ is pretty classic.
Foul Papers » Blog Archive » In case you need a laugh… on March 29, 2008 6:14 pm
[...] from the Feminist SF [...]
vito_excalibur on March 29, 2008 6:41 pm
Laura, the outrage is mostly not because the OP pointed out that Joss has his blinkers; it’s because she said she was quite sure that he rapes and otherwise abuses his wife, and that the poor woman is only with him for the money.

I agree that it ties into the Cult of Personality in that if she’d said that about, oh, Larry Niven, the fandom reaction would have been much smaller, a lot more “The hell did that come from?” and a lot less “JESUS CHRIST WOMAN I HOPE HE INTERNET SUES THE PANTS OFF YOU”, because Niven (blessedly) doesn’t have a giant corps of Nivenites. But the point I was trying to make in this post is that, when I first heard about this, I too pessimistically assumed that the Cult of Personality reaction would make it impossible for a while to criticize Whedon in any way; and instead I’ve seen – see links above – discussion springing up about, as you say, Mr. Whedon’s many misses, and the fact that he’s not the ultimate perfect feminist producer.
Anna the Pirate King on March 29, 2008 7:05 pm
I am really surprised at the following

a) that so many feminists are supportive of this blogger and

b) that it does not occur to anyone that there are reasons to criticize her that have nothing to do with Joss Whedon or his Cult of Personality.

As both a rape survivor, and as someone who has been in more than one enthusiastically consensual interracial relationship, I am utterly astonished that she conflates the two. I’m here to tell you one of these things is not like the other and I am disgusted and horrified that she throws the word rape around to make a point about sexual relationships she does not approve of.

I have to assume she knows nothing whatsoever about what rape really is!
(And I wish she goes on in blissful ignorance, because really, as someone who does, I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.)

Far from being a “feminist who gives feminists a bad name” I can’t consider someone a feminist who is horrifyingly sex-negative and insensitive to the difference between a consensual if unconventional relationship and a violating and forced sexual assault! And I’m shocked that so many people give her a pass on that!

Whatever the merits of Joss Whedon’s work may or may not be, I ask you: is this post feminist at all … because I say it is not.

To say nothing of the racism in her post. With a very little rearranging of her wording, the Klan could have written her polemic on interracial relationships.
vito_excalibur on March 29, 2008 7:31 pm
Anna, I can do no better than quote commodorified: “if your coalition doesn’t have any people in it who drive you RIGHT UP A WALL, it’s not broad enough.”
Laura Q on April 1, 2008 3:27 pm
You know, I really, really love this quote from commodorified. it’s my new motto. it’s what i wanted for this blog.
Rob on April 1, 2008 3:46 pm
A couple of issues, if you don’t mind.
First, in the “slightly redeeming” category, the post brought me here, where I was unlikely ever to wander by myself and intend to while away some hours surfing, and I too have been enjoying the interesting (and real!) discussions and debates generated by it; not to mention also being pleased that while it caused huge outrage and anger, it didn’t manage to generate much counter-hate. I think part of that is learning by negative example: people read the post and and say, “I do not want to be that person.”
That said, it’s more than personality cult response. The content and language were incredibly hate-filled and attack oriented.(and simply crazy, of course) In no uncertain terms she called me a rapist and declared my relationship with my girlfriend(black) to be crap. That is a vicious personal attack. It’s hard to imagine a more personal attack without bringing my mother into it. Her post was filled with such things, like the trivialization of rape, that people just couldn’t sit still for.
Personally, my gf is much more a Whedon fan than I. I enjoyed Firefly, but can take or leave Buffy. Still, I read the post middle of last week, and haven’t been able to let it go. For instance, it made me determined to find an intelligent and reasonable feminist site to counter the poisonousness. So far, based on this first page, I am optomistic.
Ide Cyan on April 1, 2008 4:10 pm
I see we’re back to talking about the poster rather than female characters, feminism, media portrayals, and Mr. Whedon’s very very real race and gender issues.
vito excalibur on April 2, 2008 12:25 am
Rob:

If you really can’t let the post go, one thing to do might be to say to yourself, “Okay, I know that all this stuff isn’t true. But she clearly believes that it is true. What is causing her to believe this? What is she seeing in the world around us that I don’t see – and what am I seeing that she doesn’t see? And why are our sets of perceptions so disjoint?”

Incidentally, there are just a shitload of intelligent and reasonable feminist blogs and other sites on the web. Quite a few of them are over on the right hand side of the front page, in our blogroll. Some of them are explicitly about feminism; some of them do another thing, but in a feminist way. Either way, it’s really not hard to find huge numbers of feminists on the web; and frankly, despite the occasional colorful exception, most of the feminists you find are going to be awesome people. So I hope you understand that when you say that you became “determined” to find one, as though it were going to be a long and difficult slog, it raises some questions as to what assumptions you’re coming in with, and what your criteria for a “reasonable” feminist site are.
allecto on April 2, 2008 6:01 am
Ok, I’ll bite.

I find it really interesting that the author of this blog post, on a supposedly feminist journal, chose to describe me as a ‘crazy lady’. I’m pretty sure that I have never blogged about having mental health problems, because I don’t have mental health problems, so I really don’t understand how it is that I could be called crazy. And really, even if I did have mental health issues, I find it really troubling that the word crazy is being used as an insult on a feminist blog. I have deep friendships with women with mental health problems; many of my sisters (in the feminist sense of the word and the biological) struggle with eating disorders, chronic low-self esteem, depression, PTSD, self-harm. I would never, ever refer to them as crazy in a disparaging way. They suffer from an affliction called oppression, a social/cultural disease called male supremacy.

Whatever problems you have with the way I blog, I have never called another feminist crazy when linking to her blog. I can’t believe that women would so casually use this word in the feminist blogosphere.

On the issue of racism, what I actually said was:

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.

I stand by what I said here because it is true. Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I should have been that I was speaking from my own experience, as a multiracial woman, who has suffered violence at the hands of a succession of white men. I was speaking of watching my mother, my grandmother, my aunties, my great aunts all being abused in relationships with white men. I was speaking of my Black sisterfriends who have suffered from white male violence, the Aboriginal woman I saw on the train, her white partner talking about he used violence against her to keep her in line. I was speaking about how white men who use women as objects and possessions are not capable of having healthy, egalitarian relationships with Black women. I did not say anything about my opinion on interracial relationships. And, yes, I do have an opinion on interracial relationships. I know of many lesbian interracial relationships that are beautiful, loving and egalitarian. I have never seen a white woman treat her woman of colour partner like an object or a possession. If I did see this, however, I would believe this to be racism and misogyny and I would conclude that the white lesbian was abusive.

I also did not draw any conclusion from this that all relations between white men and Black women were abusive. I did not say this; therefore I did not mean this. I do know a Black separatist feminist who believes that all Black women in relationships with white men have deep unresolved issues of self-hatred. I can understand where she is coming from, but I don’t agree. By the way, I do not believe for one second that her opinion indicates that she is racist, I don’t believe she is. I think that women of colour/multiracial feminists can disagree on things without resorting to calling each other racist. But back to the point, I do believe in the possibility of Black women forming egalitarian relationships with white men. BUT I think that the venture is fraught with difficulties because of the massive social conditioning that white men are subjected to from the day of birth, into white male supremacy.

Going back to the issue of Joss Whedon and his portrayal of an interracial relationship, I take issue with this portrayal because it is written by a white man, who obviously has absolutely no understanding of the way in which race and gender impact on the sexual and racial politics between a white man and a Black woman. I don’t think that many white men, even white men who are in respectful relationships with Black women, would ever fully grasp what it means to be born Black and female under white male supremacy. I think that the only peoples who have this complex understanding of the world are Black women themselves. If you will notice, in my original post I linked to three movies that were made by Black women (or had serious creative involvement by Black women). Two of these movies were negative portrayals of the way in which white men have colonized and slaughtered Black women. The third movie, Serenades, is a romance between a white man and a Black woman, and ends with the budding potential for a revolutionary alliance; a white man following a Black woman’s lead.

The difference with the movie Serenades, is that it was written by a woman of colour, who knew exactly what she was doing. She knew exactly the world, and the romance, that she wanted to believe in. Serenades is the only heterosexual romance that I have seen so far that I consider unproblematically feminist.

Also, as a multiracial woman, I have no choice but to be in an interracial relationship. The only people I know that have exactly the same racial background as myself are my siblings. I doubt very much that I am going to find another woman who is: Finnish, Papuan New Guinean, German, Irish, Polish, Chinese (with a bit of Arab and Jewish thrown into the mix). Of course I am supportive of interracial relationships. How the hell could I not be? I have been in a relationship with a white woman and she did not treat me like an exotic object or possession, unlike the many, many white men who have shown an interest in me over the years.

As to rape: I have never said that I consider all heterosexual sex to be rape. I have said that under male supremacy, sex and rape do not exist as discrete concepts or acts. That does not translate into thinking that all heterosexual sex is rape. I referred to a discussion that I have participated in recently on the rad fem blogosphere (mostly straight radical feminists were participants in this discussion) where we discussed whether all male-initiated sex was rape. It is my feeling that most male-initiated sex should be considered statutory rape, as men have political, social, psychological and economic power over women. Again, that does not translate into all heterosexual sex being rape.

I have been raped. A man committed sexual acts upon my person, without my consent and against my will. I did not say no at first, when I did he ignored me. I did not scream or resist. I call it rape because for me this was not a trivial occurance. If you want to call it something else, fine, but it is my belief as a radical feminist that we should respect women’s stories and respect the language that she uses to express her lived reality. I will use the word rape to describe my reality. If you choose not to believe me that is your decision. Although I will say that I am quite bewildered by the fact that you feel that you need to deny my lived reality in order to make your own more tangible.

My mother was driven into suicidal depression by my father’s sexual use of her. She submitted to him and acquiesced to him as that is what a good wife is supposed to do for her husband. My mother’s tangible and very real suffering is just one of the many, many reasons that I believe that women’s acquiescence to men cannot be considered consent. Many other women have shared their stories with me throughout the years, and after coerced sex disclosure after coerced sex disclosure (which none these women dared name rape), I have come to believe that this form of rape is highly common and almost ubiquitous.

I have no idea why anyone would consider that saying what I have said above, trivializes rape. I have seen the effects of coercive marital rape. Watching my mother starve herself, constantly talk about suicide and self-hatred, never knowing whether my mother would still be alive when I got home from school. Yeah, great, fun-filled, trivial times, they were.

What I would like is an apology from the author of this blog post who dismissed me as a crazy lady. Just because the author of this post doesn’t agree with the view of the world that I choose to espouse on my journal, does not give her the right to disparagingly refer to me as crazy. I don’t think I deserve the epithet.

I would also like an apology from the women here who have misrepresented my opinions. I know that I probably won’t get either of these, and by the by, I fully support the right of the author of this blog post to delete this comment. I believe all women have the right to safe space and support all women to take on board criticism or not, depending on how she safe she feels and how strong she feels at the time. I hope I have not hurt any of the women who blog here with my words. It is not my intention. I just wanted to clarify my actual position on certain issues which have been misrepresented here.

Love, sisterhood and respect,

allecto
Me wasting some time « Gorgon Poisons on April 2, 2008 6:22 am
[...] Me wasting some time April 2, 2008 So I was called crazy and racist and anti-feminist over on the Feminist SF Blog and for some reason I couldn’t help taking the [...]
Rob on April 2, 2008 10:26 am
“when you say that you became “determined” to find one, as though it were going to be a long and difficult slog, it raises some questions”

Ha! Point taken.
OTOH, finding what you’re looking for on the net often involves wading through vast amounts of what you are not looking for. At least that’s the spin I’d prefer to credit myself with.
Laura Q on April 2, 2008 10:53 am
allecto: glad you joined the conversation.

i don’t speak for vito_excalibur, but i will say that i didn’t read her post as calling you a crazy lady, but rather referring to the discourse on the internet that generally called you a crazy lady. i don’t know which way she meant it, but i think there are at least two ways to read it.
Owain on April 2, 2008 4:51 pm
“Crazy? How dare you call me crazy?! That is an unsubstantiated claim that you have absolutely no proof for, and I am insulted by the premise.”

This is fine though:

“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.”
vito excalibur on April 2, 2008 5:31 pm
Allecto:

That’s fair. I had a hard time believing some of the stuff you were willing to say about other people on your blog, too.
vito excalibur on April 2, 2008 10:15 pm
Owain:

True, but enough of this. As Ide Cyan reminds us, the real point of interest here is not Allecto herself or her more bizarre accusations. It’s the way some people managed to find a starting point for discussion in there and ran with it.
Ide Cyan on April 2, 2008 10:22 pm
I would like to say that Joss Whedon’s “candid” “humour” (the kind he uses when he’s speaking as himself) as exemplified in the Battlestar Galactica: The Phenomenon TV special, where he goes on about Starbuck flirting with him when she’s onscreen, creeps me the hell out.
Hecate on April 3, 2008 12:18 am
I agree with allecto that any inequal relationship must necessarily result in rape. Further, I agree that men are incapable of forming equal relationships with wymmyn. Ergo, all men are rapists. I’d wager many lesbian wymmyn that don’t actively strive to maintain absolute power balance in their relationships are rapists (the dominant partner is; the subordinate is the rape victim.)

I believe that the only way to achieve absolute power-equality is to eliminate sex from the partnership entirely. My partner and I have been together for 25 years and we have never had sex. I truly believe that more can be conveyed by the touch of a hand or a simple look than by sex.
vito_excalibur on April 3, 2008 12:30 am
Hecate:

Are you shitting me?
Thene on April 3, 2008 1:23 am
allecto – as far as I know, no one on the internet has questioned your own experiences of rape. What has been questioned is your entirely unfounded accusations of rape within a relationship that you are not part of and that you know nothing about.

It’s funny you should be here demanding apologies – that sounds like a tone argument to me. You’re saying people who offhandedly call you names can’t have valid points to make against you. Suppose everyone else said they wouldn’t consider your arguments unless you apologised for calling JW a rapist? Fortunately people didn’t do that – they were generally put off by your tone, but took up the conversation anyway.

hecate – I’m confused; how does eliminating sex from a relationship with someone eliminate power also? I don’t know about you, but I’ve experienced several harmful relationships – family relationships, toxic friendships – that involved a lot of power but no sex at all. The two don’t correlate. I’d also like to know what your stance has to do with Firefly, if anything.
Diana on April 3, 2008 10:43 am
“I see we’re back to talking about the poster rather than female characters, feminism, media portrayals, and Mr. Whedon’s very very real race and gender issues.”

It’s kind of hard not to focus on the OP, as her personality shines so beautifully through her post, comments, and responses. And that is a part of why we’re here, is it not? Someone posted something we either agree with (to some degree) or don’t (to varying degrees) and it causes us to think about why we agree or don’t. And in so doing, our opinions become reflections of the OP and her opinions.

IMHO, as a (feminist) fan of Mr. Whedon’s work, all of this has caused me to boil it down to this: do Whedon’s shows have race and gender issues? Of course. He is a white male working in an industry that still thrives on racism and sexism. Is that a pitiful excuse? Of course. But I would still rather watch or read anything he produces over 99% of the crap that’s out there. I would love to see Whedon grow as a writer and filmmaker and see where these nascent seeds of feminism bring him. And yes, I use the F word with conviction. We are all working from within our own perceptual filters that are based on personal experience and expectations. I would rather my kids watch Buffy and Firefly and discuss those shows with them, including the aforementioned issues, than attempt to negate everything they may see in professional wrestling (“entertainment”, my ass), any “reality” show, and almost anything on the Disney channel.
Rob on April 3, 2008 11:25 am
“real point of interest here is …the way some people managed to find a starting point for discussion”

I’ve always thought the purpose of science fiction, at least most of it, was to examine and challenge our attitudes, beliefs, and institutions; see how the world looks through Ferangi eyes, etc. etc. That’s its power.
So Joss postulates a form of prostitution embedded into future culture: legal, codified, even prestigious. The point isn’t whether you agree with the portrayal, the point is EXACTLY to think about it.
Could it work and be non-exploitive? How does it fail?
What were the differences between the senator and the lordling who tried to pervert it?
In Heart of Gold it was class differences, and how the situation changed when the women lost their power and control.
I’ve had long discussions on the relation of class. There are big differences in attitude and situation between a street hooker, an escort, a call girl, and a geisha.(which service, as I understand it, is much broader and less sex oriented) Costs vary from <$20 to $1,500/hr (which was the quote I saw for Spitzer’s girl) Generally, the more you charge, the more respectable you are. What is the justification for that?

If you want to discuss the OP, there are literally hundreds of other forums you can do that in, some quite insightful.
KiplingKat on April 3, 2008 12:27 pm
Sorry Allecto, but the demand for “an apology from the women here who have misrepresented my opinions” sounds more than a wee bit hypocritical from someone who accused someone she did not even know of being a rapist and wife abuser, and also accused their wife of being a gold digger. Twice, once in the post and repeated the accusation in stronger terms in the comments section.

And as many women pointed out, your repeated use of the word “rape” as, in your own words:

“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.”

…trivilizes the word for women who have actually suffered sexual violence.

No one misrepresented your opinions. While your post had some validity you crossed a line at several points, qualifying yourself as a “crazy lady”.
KiplingKat on April 3, 2008 12:30 pm
I would also like to say that your deleting every comment that challenged your assertions about Firefly did not do anything to garner more validty for your stance. If anything, you came off looking like an intellectual coward who does not have enough faith in her opinions to stand up for what she believes.
vito_excalibur on April 3, 2008 12:54 pm
Diana:

I would go so far as to say that Mr. Whedon has a little bit more than “nascent seeds of feminism” in his work! For all that can be said about the imperfections, it’s gotta be remembered that there was TV pre Buffy and Xena and then post Buffy and Xena. And that in Buffy he explicitly set out to subvert the female horror movie victim trope. Now the claim could be made that this is just another example of the final girl, but I disagree: there are two strong elements arguing against that interpretation. The first is that Buffy gets to have sex. The second is that she’s not, in fact, alone: despite the “she alone can fight the monsters” propaganda, one of her major strengths is that she disregards that and pulls together a strong coalition to help with the job. Was Buffy perfect? No. Close? No. Wonderful show anyway? Hells yeah. Feminist? Damn straight.

Firefly isn’t another Buffy, of course. And Lord, I think he’s trying: I think he heard the criticism that hey, how come in Southern California there aren’t any Latinos? How come there’s like one black guy and he’s dead? So in Firefly he seemed to try to fix that; and then of course then he fucked up with the Chinese. I can hardly wait to see what he’s going to try to fix in Dollhouse. :) (For discussion of the new problems that will be coming up in Dollhouse, see here and here and here.)
vito_excalibur on April 3, 2008 1:13 pm
Rob:

Exactly! THERE ARE OTHER PLACES TO DISCUSS _ALLECTO_ HERSELF, THANK YOU EVERYBODY. IF YOU FIND THAT SORT OF THING INTERESTING.

At Wiscon 30 I went to a very interesting paper presentation: “Body of Work: Sex, Prostitution, and the Women of Firefly” by Jennifer Spirko. One of the things she brought up is that apparently there was a deleted scene in Serenity in which Inara is talking with a fellow Companion about how it’s dangerous on frontier worlds because even high-class men don’t recognize the difference between Companions and “common whores”.

To me this suggests that the fragility of the Companions’ apparent status and power was deliberate; Whedon must have been aware that he was accepting the underlying premise that selling sex in the ‘verse is still a shameful activity that signifies its practitioners as legitimate victims; and that the Companions get a rather unreliable form of respect because of their class markers, not because sex workers are now given the respect that everybody deserves.

But then that makes nonsense out of the subversion that he was apparently trying to create, in that Mal rents out the shuttle to Inara because Serenity needs the respectability that a Companion can provide! I think maybe he was trying to have it all: stuff all those issues in there; and they were not mutually compatible.

One other excellent point is brought up by joandarck here: she’s the least sexy fanservice ever! “…she can’t get off on the sex because that would mean she’s a male fantasy wish fulfillment happy hooker, she can’t hate the sex or be obviously bored by it because that would mean she’s a victim without agency, that kind of thing. Somehow the result does come off kind of neutered, as you say.” An extremely problematic character premise, and in the end I think unsuccessful. (Though – as many have said – it might well have gotten better if they had been allowed more than 13 damn episodes. I usually hate the entire first season of a series! The bugs haven’t been worked out. I mean, think of the first season of B5, cute as it was, when compared to season 2-4. (We will not speak of the madness that was season 5.))
Diana on April 3, 2008 3:11 pm
I guess I should’ve used another term than “nascent” to describe Whedon’s brand of feminism. And I do agree with everything you said. But both Buffy and Firefly were to me more humanist shows than feminist. While he did reinvent the female hero for television (and created more than one, each with her own strengths), what I saw was the development of very human – and flawed – characters I could identify with. Seasons 6 and 7? I apparently stand alone as one of the few non-haters, and that’s okay. I got something out of it most people didn’t (referencing my earlier comment about perceptual filters here).

And he brought these human characteristics even more to the forefront in Firefly; these characters were not only undeniably human and therefore flawed, they were also adults living in a ‘verse that was unkind and as varied and flawed as they were. And for that I loved it. But do I think Whedon put as much thought into his initial character development as those who criticize? I doubt it, even though character development is one of his strongest points (given more than one season in which to do it). AND, I’ve always considered Firefly to be Mal’s show – his was the character which changed and grew the most because, like Buffy’s, it had to in order for Mal to become an effective leader for his crew.

Does thinking all this and not really caring much about Inara’s portrayal make me a “bad feminist”? Hell no. One, I preferred Zoe anyway. Two, I figured Whedon was just doing what Whedon does – present legalized prostitution in a future setting so that we may examine the complexities contained within, apply such complexities to our own beliefs about prostitution, learn and move on.
Diana on April 3, 2008 3:14 pm
“I usually hate the entire first season of a series!”

I totally agree and offer for your examination:
ST: DS9 season seasons 1-2
ST: TNG seasons 1-3 (though I despised most of the female characters on that show regardless of season)
Oh, I’m sorry, is my Trek geek showing?
Thene on April 3, 2008 4:53 pm
“…she can’t get off on the sex because that would mean she’s a male fantasy wish fulfillment happy hooker, she can’t hate the sex or be obviously bored by it because that would mean she’s a victim without agency, that kind of thing. Somehow the result does come off kind of neutered, as you say.”

The bit that most vexed me was the lesbian scene, where Inara and her temporary friend say how sex with women is ‘relaxation’, because the mens are so demanding, rah rah rah. God forbid that women fuck women on TV because they like women, find women hot, think tits and vulvas are damn great to play with…and see being queer as something other than an opposite, an ‘escape’ from someone’s ‘normal’ life and responsibilities.
Laura Q on April 3, 2008 5:39 pm
The bit that most vexed me was the lesbian scene, where Inara and her temporary friend say how sex with women is ‘relaxation’, because the mens are so demanding, rah rah rah.

so true. and how often do we actually see hot sex between women in any media? thank god for susie bright consulting on “Bound”. most of the time it’s just like that: oh with the metaphors and the sameness and the smooth gentle whatever. pure male fantasy, and frankly, boooring.
Thene on April 3, 2008 6:24 pm
-heck, how often do you see women wanting hot sex and getting it in media? As opposed to nurturing UST [unresolved sexual tension] til the next to last episode, or saying ‘yes’ after a man makes the first move? How often are women sexual subjects? Inara ain’t helping, that’s for sure. (Zoe arguably is, but I’m kinda bothered that JW could only portray that sort of thing when it involved a married couple).
vito_excalibur on April 3, 2008 8:24 pm
Diana:

So are you saying that you don’t think Whedon’s shows are deliberately feminist, only humanist? Because I disagree. I mean, obviously he – well, again, blinkers, and failure in many respects, but I think that the intent is explicitly feminist as well as humanist. In my opinion the media status quo is so stacked against women, that if and when a creator doesn’t think about it, if they try to be humanist without thinking about feminism, they may raise the general level of quality but even so they perpetuate gender inequalities. I don’t think you get characters like Buffy without specifically setting out to address feminist issues. Not to mention other things both major and minor, like the fanservice for women in his shows (thank you Capt. Tightpants!), etc.

I won’t call you a bad feminist for not caring much about Inara’s portrayal if you won’t call me petty for caring about it, how’s that? We all have our things that trip our registers. It’s okay, we don’t all have to have the same specific concerns to be on the same side in general.
vito_excalibur on April 3, 2008 8:40 pm
Thene:

Ha! I was just about to link you to Bitchy Jones’ Diary because someone had written exactly what I wanted to say about “I can’t imagine anything drearier than trying to have sex with a woman who thought I was ’soft’ and ’smelt nice’.” Went back to check, it turns out that someone was you. :) Well said, my friend.

She’s totally right: and what’s more, it ties into what I call the Diesel Sweeties trope, where men are attracted to women, and women are attracted to any goddamn thing up to and including robots, little tiny birds, and Jabba the Hutt. Because our sexuality is so fluid. That shit burns me up.

The marriage thing doesn’t bother me: actually, I thought it was kind of nice, because in my experience most media portrays only the initial UST and NRE portions of a relationship as at all attractive or fun; and then once you’re married to someone, you’re pretty much expected to be bored by them and chasing other people. Speaking as someone in a 6-year relationship and counting, it’s nice to see the occasional hot long-term couple onscreen.

But I do wish poor Kaylee had actually gotten to patronize the thoughtfully provided boy whores!
kiplingkat on April 3, 2008 11:22 pm
I’m sorry, but there are no other places to address _allecto_, she deliberately deletes all comments that refutes what she is saying on her own threads/blogs and that “demand” was pretty ridiculous.

The discussion about Inara and prostitution is a valid one and one I think Whedon meant to raise. Firefly is not a utopian world. It is a dystopia, and purposely so. There was no “deleted scene” in which the dangers of all forms of prostitution were discussed, it’s was the paramount point in episodes like Shindig and especially Heart of Gold.

When discussing various forms of prostitution, one has to be aware of the historical forms of courtesan-ship, because that is what Inara is. She is not a street hooker dependent on a male pimp, she is a courtesan. Up until the 20th century, being a courtesan or was the very rare ways for a woman to take charge of her own sexuality and her own life without being directed who and when to marry by her male relatives. “Companions” are not analogous to prostitution as we know it in the U.S. in the 21st century, but to the Greek Hetaerae of the ancient world. Like those, Inara is highly educated and chooses her clientèle based on whether or not there is a connection between them. In short, whether or not she likes them.

I agree that the suggestion that a prostitute’s life can be one to be desired is an offensive one and protests against it are valid, but I don’t think “happy hooker myth” is what Whedon was aiming for. As we saw in Serenity the film, the final end game for the character was for her to leave the life of a companion. It’s debatable, I agree, but it’s not as simple as “prostitution is bad, ergo Whedon is a sexist pig!”

I can understand some eyebrow raising of Mal’s treatment of Inara, but when you actually watch the show and look at the character as character rather than ciphers of socio-political statements, you realize that Inara is the one who holds the power in that relationship. She is clearly more intelligent and educated than Mal is. Her sophistication, as well as what she does for a living, clearly makes Mal uncomfortable. Being an imperfect anti-hero, Mal reacts like the little boy shooting spitwads into the hair of the prettiest girl in class. He likes her, but has no idea how to approach someone so clearly in control, so he takes childish pot shots. There is no malice or sexual dominance at play. Ianara knows this is what is happening and is amused by as much as she is annoyed, which is why she allows it.

What allecto also forgets to mention is that in Shindig when Inara is publicly insulted by one of her clients calling attention to the fact that he paid for her, ergo she “belongs” to him for the night, Mal challenges the notion that Inara is to be treated as “property” by her clientèle. He does so in a traditional machismo manner, challenging the client to a fight, which is how he was raised in the frontier colony worlds on the outer rim. Inara has to teach Mal how to fight with a sword (since Mal is only good with his fists and firearms), and repeatedly makes the point that Mal had no right to interfere in her affairs no matter how good his intentions maybe. A point to which he agrees by the end of the episode.

While Ianara may not be helping female sexist “tropes”, Kaylee is. She is a woman who does enjoy hot sex with whom she pleases without shame, but one would ever call Kaylee “sluttish” in her behavior.

As for allecto’s assertions about how Zoe is used to show male abusive dominance, sorry. Way off base. While opening the discussion about prostitution is valid, allecto’s arguments about Zoe are not. For one thing, the “opening scene” she refers to is when Zoe and Mal are still in the military in the middle of a battle. Calling your superior officer “sir” is not a reflection of racial or sexual inequality. The same goes for the “present”. Mal owns Serenity, he is her captain. No ship, be it military or commercial, is a democracy. (In fact, if you watch “The World’s Deadliest Catch” you will see Captains making that statement a couple times: “This is not a democracy.”) The sea, like space, is an extremely dangerous place where having to take time out to discuss decision can cost everyone’s life. In a crisis orders must be followed instantly, so there is a clear hierarchy established. But Mal is no tyrant. If time does permit and the proposed plans are risky enough, he opens the floor to discussion. Following the tradition of not criticizing fellow soldiers in front of the troops (and that is S.O.P. in the military: “Build up in public, dress down in private”), Zoe pulls Mal aside a couple times to question his judgment. While he may not agree with her, he is never dismissive of her or her opinion.

Another thing allecto rather glaringly avoids talking about is the character of Jayne. Odd. One would think as Jayne is the most obviously Neanderthal and offensively sexist one of the bunch, and ego most open to criticism. Why does she avoid talking about Jayne? Because Mal’s treatment of Jayne blows allecto’s accusations about Mal’s relationship with Zoe out of the water. Mal tells Jayne to “shut up” at least once an episode. He is repeatedly tearing Jayne down, insulting his rather limited intelligence, and keeping Jayne on a tight leash, to the point of almost killing him when he betrays Simon and River to the Alliance. He treats the very machismo Jayne worse than any other person on the ship. Mal is not a nice person, he was never meant to be a nice person, he was never meant to be a perfect hero. (And in fact in the Director Commentary on the film “Serenity” Whedon reveals that Mal ultimate journey is redeeming him from the anger and cynicism he garnered from the shattering of his faith in the very first episode to being hero again). But because of his and Zoe’s long association, he actually shows her more respect and actually listens to her more than anyone else on the crew.

So it seems to me that “equality” is not something allecto wants, but entitlement. Zoe is not to be treated like anyone else. She has to be put on a pedestal and treated much better than everyone else on the crew.

Isn’t the very notion of inequality, no matter who is being put on the pedestal, the very essence of discrimination and anti-feminism?

Allecto also misses the fact that Zoe repeatedly proves herself the most accomplished fighter of the group and a keen judge of character. Yes, she called Saffron “trouble”, well guess what? Saffron tried to kill the entire crew. That hardly shows Zoe as a misogynist. What is also nice about Zoe is for all her “tough girl” attitude, she is still a feminine character who loves slinky dresses and wants to be a mother someday. Whedon does not need to make his strong women men in order to make them strong. They can be strong while retaining their various versions of femininity. (Another nice point about Whedon’s work: There is no universal standard for being “feminine”. Each of the female characters on the crew show a very different form of femininity, yet no one would call any of them “unfeminine”.) She also missed the dynamic between Wash and Zoe which is clearly role reversal from the traditional male-female roles of relationship. Zoe is physically stronger and emotionally more confident. While Wash is an accomplished pilot, he is weaker physically than his wife and he is more emotionally insecure, as proven by War Stories, another episode Allecto missed the point of entirely.

Whedon’s point in this episode is clearly *not* Mal and Wash “fighting” over Zoe, but to establish that there is no sexual tension between Zoe and Mal. Using Wash to project any notion the audience might have of the traditional “there is sexual tension in every mixed gender relationship” suspicions, Whedon deliberately proves that Mal and Zoe are friends, comrades. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Wow, a male-female friendship based on mutual respect and shared experiences in which sex is not a factor.

What a horribly sexist thing.
vito_excalibur on April 4, 2008 1:43 am
kiplingKat:

Yeah she deletes them, but she’s reading them. If you want to get a message to her, you can write to her there. If you want to get across a message about her… at this point, it’s pretty much been said.

The figure of the historical courtesan is certainly relevant: however, it is also relevant in that at no time and in no place did it really add up to the kind of independence, sexual or otherwise, that would be enjoyed by a male of client status in the given society. Hetaerae enjoyed status and freedom only by comparison to wives; certainly not independently; completely dependent on the status, wealth and good nature of the clients they managed to attract.

And that should be kept in mind too.

Also, as long as Mal is the captain of Serenity, and wanders in and out of Inara’s cabin at will despite her repeatedly telling him not to, saying that she has all the power in the relationship is a misleading fairy tale. As you keep saying, a ship is not a democracy. And that’s even leaving aside the power he has over her feelings; do you remember the beginning of “Our Mrs. Reynolds”?

Now with regards to Zoe being treated better than anyone else…well, actually, she has a point there. Five thousand people have made the point that in an army you call your superior officer “sir.” No one that I’ve seen has made the point that once again, the white dude was the superior officer.

Mal does get treated better than anyone else, in terms of screen time, character development, etc.; because the show is about him. How come it’s about him? I’m not saying that made it a bad show, but I am saying that I wonder whether Whedon considered making it a show about Capt. Zoe Alleyne, her pilot husband Wash, and her loyal subordinate Mal, who’s been with her since the war. I’m a big Firefly fan, but I gotta tell you, I would have liked to see that show. I think some of us need to see that show, and no one’s making it. And before anyone says that Whedon did just do a show about a woman, I’d like to point out that people make show after show after show about white guys and nobody says they’re being “pigeonholed”.

And incidentally, no. No, the notion of inequality “no matter who is being put on the pedestal” is not the essence of anti-feminism. The essence of anti-feminism is the oppression of women. When it’s a different kind of inequality, then it’s called something else.
Ide Cyan on April 4, 2008 2:20 am
vito_excalibur: And before anyone says Whedon did just do a show about a woman, when talking about Buffy as coming before Firefly, I would like to remind people that when he created Firefly, the last show he’d created was a little thing called Angel, which wasn’t about a woman.

Whedon has hired Sarah Fain and Elizabeth Craft as producers (and probably as writers) for Dollhouse, about a month ago (they’d both previously worked on Angel), but the reason they were employable by him is that they’d just been fired (by the network) off of their own show (which they’d co-created for television, based on a series of novels by a male big-name author), Women’s Murder Club, in the wake of the writers’ strike. And *that* was a show about four women: a cop, a forensic medical examiner, an assistant district attorney, and a reporter.
Cellycel on April 4, 2008 10:29 am
I frankly wouldn’t blame Allecto for not publishing comments. There were over 700 of them with the vast majority critisizing and insulting her. I wouldn’t have published them, certainly not on my personal blog.

I beleive the issue with Zoe is that she wasn’t written in a vaccum. Given her military background it makes sense that she would call her cpatain Sir, but as a fictional construct it seems a bit of a shame that Zoe had some stereotypical aspects for a black woman, and that she deffered to a white male.
The characterization makes sense, but since its entirely fiction I still question the decision to write the character of a black woman in that way.
Cellycel on April 4, 2008 10:31 am
Err. Where over 700 stands for “A lot” – I don’t know the actual number. Just thought I’d clarify that.
Diana on April 4, 2008 10:32 am
vito:

Oh see, I’m terrible at this commenting thing because I never feel I get my point across accurately. Of Course Buffy is a feminist show. Even if I hadn’t seen it as such, Joss Whedon has made it a point to explicitly state that was his intention. Then again, a lot of people think they’re making feminist shows just because the main characters are women. I could go all out and say something such as: While the original intent was good, ST: Voyager was NOT a feminist Trek just because the Captain was female. Conversely, just because a show has a male lead doesn’t mean it can’t also be feminist.

I was referring more to the effect the show had on me personally, because that’s what started this whole discussion was allecto’s deeply personal reaction to a television show couched as pop culture critical theory.

My point was that just because Whedon made one great feminist show doesn’t mean he now has an obligation to women everywhere to make every show like Buffy. No one can do that without becoming tiresome. What he did do was to make a show he wanted and populate it with a cast of very diverse characters – male and female – that could have become something amazing (the show, I mean) if given half a chance because of its very HUMAN character. While I think Whedon is a feminist, I believe his main inspiration for all of these shows is what it means to be human in this world (Angel and Buffy) and how to fight against those aspects of your humanness that cause one to either fail or rise above (Firefly, Astonishing X-Men).

I have a great appreciation for both things. And as a writer, I am always fascinated first by inspiration.

And I see nothing petty in examining how any female-dominated profession is portrayed on TV. Pop culture has too much importance in today’s world in influencing people’s opinions and outlook to NOT examine such things as Inara’s characterization. I was just explaining why I was choosing not to engage in that particular discussion, in an off-handed and petty way myself. I never really cared for Inara’s character because she was the least interesting member of the crew.
Laura Q on April 4, 2008 2:57 pm
Another point about Firefly, Angel, and Buffy: Part of our problem with these and with any other show is that no single work can meet all of our needs for feminist works and works about women. We need shows with female protagonists, and we also need shows with male protagonists and strong female secondary characters, and so on. We need shows with Black women as the protagonist and also as strong secondary characters who subvert some aspects of a stereotype. (I note in passing that you can only subvert a stereotype if you partake of some elements of it.)

The real problem is that the pie is so limited. This is the same situation we had with lesbian film in the 90s, and still today although much less so. When all you have is “Clare of the Moon” and “Personal Best” and “Lianna” you can bitch about them all day. The fact is that if they were part of a diverse and flourishing media culture they might be perfectly okay for representing and speaking to some niche set of interests and experiences. But they will inevitably fail in many other respects.

As usual, I read all these fascinating & true & thoughtful commentaries about various works, and I just end up thinking: I just want more. I don’t want to change Firefly, but I also want the show that vito_excalibur described with the woman as captain-hero and the male hetarae. Both shows offer unique opportunities for examinations of sexism.
Zahra on April 4, 2008 5:03 pm
Vito, thank you so much for making the point that the hetaerae of ancient Greece were not independent and able to choose their clients. I study this topic, and it bothers me how often it’s misrepresented.

Yes, these women were highly-educated, but that’s very different from having power. Your point that the position of these women only looks good in comparison to that of upper-class wives (who were very severely restricted) is an excellent one–but even more so the fact that they never had the power of the high-status men who were their clients.

And yes, by all means we should have this history in mind when working with the figure of a courtesan. Not that a courtesan can’t make a fascinating feminist figure, but there has to be some sense of the power differentials that created the position.

In Greece, there’s the added factor that the image of hetaerae was set by male-authored texts that focused on a few high-profile exceptions. Although it’s not my field, I understand that archaeology has done a lot to overturn this view by uncovering just how restricted the living conditions of most hetaerae were.
kiplingkat on April 4, 2008 9:31 pm
Trust me Vito, I’ve tried getting a message to her. My post on her site was essentially the same as what I wrote here (with more detail). She deleted it and did not respond to me and many, many other people who tried to refute her arguments in a respectful manner. You can even see it in the posts she did put up. “I don’t know why my last post was deleted but…”

Honestly, she has shown nothing but cowardice in this. She has no interest in having her opinions challenged.

As for a historical discussion of prostitution, as an anthro-history double major, this is my field of expertise. The majority of hetaerae started out in the slave population and were hand picked and sent to special training schools where they were taught to read, politics, philosophy, music, dance and public speaking. After they “graduated” they usually made enough money within a year to buy their freedom. After that the only “restrictions” they had on them after that was that they had to wear a certain type of dress. They were usually the best dressed women in the place as slave girls and purely sexual prostitutes are almost always portrayed nude. They also had to pay taxes (because many of them became quite wealthy). They were the only women allowed to take part in the symposia and they did chose their clients. They had no male pimp making them sleep with anyone. It is also noteworthy that the masculine form of the word “hetaeros” referred to business and political associates, not male prostitutes.

And those were the only options for autonomy women had. You can’t criticize women in ancient Greece for taking a hold of the only opportunity for autonomy they were presented with. (You can’t judge an ancient society by modern standards.) We don’t know what Inara’s situation was before she entered the academy as a child, it may have been the only option she had. And as I said, it is a life that Whedon obviously eventually meant for her to leave behind. As noted in “Out of Gas” and “Heart of Gold”, Inara leaving the companion houses of the central planets to ship out with the crew of the Firefly is highly unusual. Her mere presence on Firefly seems to be an act of rebellion.

And actually, Iannra does have the power to lock her door. Which she does not seem to do despite knowing Mal’s tendancy to wander in. In fact, given that Mal eavesdropped on her conversation with her friend in Heart of Gold, and given how loud those doors are (and whenever we do see them close there is a loud grinding noise of metal on metal), it appears that Inara doesn’t even close her door much of the time.

Book wandered in while she was taking a bath, we didn’t hear the door then either. She doesn’t seem to close it.

But I don’t get get your point about “Our Mrs Reynolds”. Mal wasn’t even aware of Inara’s feeling for him at that point. He did not become aware of Inara’s feelings until Heart of Gold (sorry, but some people, myself included, are rather dense in figuring out someone has feelings for them, we’re not all Dr. Phil). And Mal has no more or less control over her feelings than she does over his. Remember Shindig?

And Diana has a point, Whedon spent 7 or 8 season writing a show with a a female main character. Why does every show he writes have to be that way? Why is he not allowed to write a show with a male main character?

As for the definition of feminism, both of my grandmothers worked while they were mothers. My mother’s mother (a single Mom BTW, yes, they did get divorces in the 1940’s) was one of the first women to pass the bar in Washington D.C. My father’s mother was the top selling encyclopedia salesman in the state and started a real estate business. We’re a “shut up and do it” family. For me feminism in this country is about getting equal treatment. Equal pay for equal work, not being discriminated against in the job market for maternity leave, equal opportunities in all area of employment, women in combat, equal legal rights in divorces, encouraging rather than discouraging young women in mathematics and sciences, etc. When one speaks about “oppression” I turn to other countries where women are actually being oppressed. About the only issue of oppression in this country is spousal abuse, which continues to be a problem, but this is a TV show. How is Mal being a star of the show oppressing anyone? The women in this show are not being oppressed. Zoe is not oppressed, Kaylee is not oppressed (except by one evil character for one show), River was oppressed but rescued from it by her brother and she definately acts with massive amount of autonomy (whether the crew likes it or not), while Inara’s “oppression” is highly debatable, she obviously has a great deal of autonomy.

Other than the debatable role of prostitution, I’m just not seeing what the problem is.
vito_excalibur on April 4, 2008 10:17 pm
kiplingKat:

Since she must be reading her comments in order to know which ones to delete, she must have read yours, but then she deleted it. So it sounds like what you want is not so much to get a message to her, as it is to get your refutation up on the web somewhere. Okay. Here it is.
KiplingKat on April 4, 2008 10:18 pm
If you want a medium that really deserves feminist ire, you want comic books.

I enjoy ‘em, but those really have some sexist issues. For instance, do you realize despite the plethora of “geniuses” (The Reed Rochards, Tony Starks, Bruce Waynes, etc.)in the characters of both the major comic book houses of Marvel and DC, there is only one, count ‘em, one female genius? Oracle, that is the only female intelligentsia in the hundreds of characters of the mainstream comic book world. Sure there are plenty of female characters that have “genius” in their bio, but Oracle is the only one that acts like it, that we actually see displaying her high level of intelligence.

That’s sexist.
KiplingKat on April 4, 2008 10:19 pm
vito – What I wanted was a discussion with her about it.

She refused.
Ide Cyan on April 4, 2008 11:05 pm
KiplingKat: so you’re stalking her by proxy?

Also: “[Inara] does have the power to lock her door. Which she does not seem to do despite knowing Mal’s tendancy to wander in.” That’s blame-the-victim territory, there.

And: “Whedon spent 7 or 8 season writing a show with a a female main character. Why does every show he writes have to be that way?” This being the guy who’s famous for his “Why do you keep writing these strong women characters?” video!

Laura is right, upthread, in saying that we need more diversity. Of course, we can’t expect Whedon to do everything. But that is also incompatible with the view that holds Whedon as the male feminist saviour of television. Because if only he can save us, and he shouldn’t be counted on to do so because it’s not fair (to him), then we’re screwed.
Yonmei on April 5, 2008 3:00 am
kiplingkat; For me feminism in this country is about getting equal treatment. Equal pay for equal work, not being discriminated against in the job market for maternity leave, equal opportunities in all area of employment, women in combat, equal legal rights in divorces, encouraging rather than discouraging young women in mathematics and sciences, etc. When one speaks about “oppression” I turn to other countries where women are actually being oppressed.

Are you claiming, seriously, that women in the US* are not being oppressed? Dude, what are you doing here?

*I’m assuming you’re American. If I’m wrong, I apologize.
Laura Q on April 5, 2008 7:28 am
When one speaks about “oppression” I turn to other countries where women are actually being oppressed.

Look, nobody is saying the US is Saudi Arabia, or denying the very real differences between cultures and places and times in the world. But the US is certainly not “equal” in all the things you say it is. Are you making a distinction between “unequal” and “oppressed”?
Yonmei on April 5, 2008 8:10 am
KiplKat: If you want a medium that really deserves feminist ire, you want comic books.

You obviously haven’t read very far down this blog: nor checked out the categories: nor indeed done any reading on feminist comic book sites. May I suggest that in future when you jump into a pre-existing blog to make prescriptive statements, you check out the back reading so that you don’t make a complete fool of yourself telling the regulars what they “ought” to discuss?
allecto on April 6, 2008 3:35 am
An email I sent to Laura Quilter, advising her of the discrepancies between what the moderation guidelines state, and what happens on the blog. As I have recieved no reply, and the moderation guidelines have not changed to make it clear that radical feminist perspectives are not welcome and are subject to ridicule, I am assuming that no action has been taken.

We strongly promote and welcome perspectives and voices that may be marginalized in public discourse: Meaning, the voices of women, youth, and people of color, particularly, and other identified perspectives.

Hi Laura,

I am writing to you as I have serious problems with the way that the Feminist Si Fi community respresents itself. The above moderation comment in particular is not representative of what I have experienced on the Feminist Si Fi boards. I am not white, my perspective as a radical feminist lesbian is highly marginalised and I have been treated with disrespect quite a few times on the board. I have been called crazy more than once and labelled racist. I would respectfully ask you to rewrite your moderation policies to say that your space is not safe for non-white lesbian feminists. That on your boards a non-white radical lesbian feminist perspective is considered crazy and that name-calling, though discouraged, is routinely exercised against marginalised viewpoints.

If no further action is taken I will publically draw attention to the discrepancies between the Feminist Si Fi moderation guidelines and the actual practice that takes place on the blog.

Thank you,

allecto
allecto on April 6, 2008 3:40 am
An email I sent to vito excaliber asking her to delete the link to my personal livejournal and the reference to me being crazy. As yet vito has not replied and the link and the comment are still intact I am assuming that no action is being taken.

Hi vito,

I really don’t know what I have done to make you, and many other women, so very angry that you would publically, on a communal feminist blog, call me crazy, and otherwise personally insult me. As far as I know, I have not had any previous contact with you, and have never made any comments or attacks against you. I am utterly confused by why you have posted a link, on a public communal blog, to my personal live journal calling me crazy.

I would please ask you, as one feminist sister to another, to remove the link from the blog post, as well as the reference to me being crazy. There is no reason why you cannot start a discussion about the racism and sexism in Joss Whedon’s work without linking to my blog post and insulting me.

The post you have made about me, as well as the discussion that you have facillitated goes against many of the principles that are supposed to govern communication on the Feminist SF blog.

Within those constraints, which make a safe space for all to speak openly and honestly, we promote vigorous & open discussion, from a broadly feminist and anti-racist perspective.

I believe that calling a multiracial radical lesbian feminist crazy is not the way to facillitate a space that is safe for all feminists.

We anticipate intense discussions and disagreements. The core principle is respect for each other as individuals, who are entitled to their own statements of their experiences, intentions, and beliefs — even if you do not respect the belief itself, or question their representation of their intentions. For example:
Name-calling is almost always simply disrespectful, and not helpful (”You’re not a feminist!” “You’re racist!”).

I have been called anti-feminist, racist and crazy by women who have participated in the ‘conversation’ you started by posting a link to my blog labelling me as crazy.

We strongly promote and welcome perspectives and voices that may be marginalized in public discourse: Meaning, the voices of women, youth, and people of color, particularly, and other identified perspectives.

As a multiracial woman, a lesbian and a radical feminist I’d say that my voice is pretty bloody marginalised. I do not feel like this blog post you made promoted or welcomed my perspective and voice.

Finally, I really don’t mind if you do think I am crazy, racist and misogynist. You have the right to make up your own mind about that. You have the right to post on your personal live journal or blog about that. What I have a problem with, is the fact that you have posted this on a communal, public, feminist blog, which openly states that it welcomes marginalised voices and perspectives. The post that you made about me was not a welcoming or empowering one. As I stated in the beginning, I have no idea why you seem to be so angry with me as a person, as I have never had any kind of contact with you before, either personally or politically.

Please take down the link and the statement calling me crazy. I don’t believe this is an unresonable request.

In sisterhood,

allecto
Yonmei on April 6, 2008 5:18 am
Allecto, I want to sympathise with you about your feelings about being referred to as “crazy lady on the Internets”, and I go back and re-read your post about Firefly, and once again I read the personal attack you made on Kai Cole. You didn’t even bother to look up her name: you depersonalized her as “Mrs Whedon” and you said “I hope the money is worth it”.

If a feminist ought not to personally attack another feminist, Allecto, you ought not to have said that about Kai Cole. Having said it, you are still standing by your comments about Kai Cole, I can’t see your request “in sisterhood” that you should not be referred to as “the crazy lady calling Joss Whedon names” as anything but hypocrisy.

Fortunately, there were many more other interesting things to discuss in your anti-Joss rant, and I think it would be entirely appropriate to your standards of debate to have all your comments making this about you personally put in permanent moderation. Of course, that’s up to Vito Excalibur, not to me.
Thene on April 6, 2008 5:40 am
vito – LOL, small internets. And Bitchy is a Whedon fan too!
Allecto’s Joss Whedon Rant Raped My Miiiiind « Natalia Antonova on April 6, 2008 7:05 am
[...] see her on Feminist Sci Fi – angry at the notion of being referred to as “crazy,” while completely forgetting the [...]
vito excalibur on April 6, 2008 11:12 am
Allecto:

I didn’t get any email from you. Did you send it to vito dot excalibur at gmail dot com?

It rather depends on what you mean by “safe space”. From my point of view, it doesn’t mean a space free of criticism. It means a space where some effort is made to ensure that you’re judged on who you are, not prejudged on what you are.

I will not take down my post. If you like, however, I will remove the link to your personal website, and replace it with a link to the Fandom Wank page on the event in general. Please let me know if you would prefer this be done; by comment, I guess, since I don’t know why I didn’t receive your email.
vito excalibur on April 6, 2008 11:15 am
Thene:

After that scene with Angel and Willow in the Wish-verse? How could ~~anyone~~ she not be? :)
Rob on April 6, 2008 4:39 pm
Nomenclature:
Shouldn’t there be distinctions?
Laura Q asked Kiplingkat: “Are you making a distinction between “unequal” and “oppressed”?” I ask: Isn’t that an important distinction to make? In Spain women are granted 3 years paid leave for having a child. In the US the Family & Medical Leave Act guarentees 12 weeks unpaid leave for the same. In Saudia Arabia women are allowed to burn to death rather than risk a partially clad body being seen by males. Losing perspective risks losing focus. The ‘glass ceiling’ exists. It should be fought. But that fight is different from the struggle against hardcore oppression, and requires different tools and strategies. The promise of America is the ability to break those barriers. If the promise is unfullfilled, you have to identify where, and how, and how to overcome it. “Inequality” seems to me a more intellectual appeal while “oppression” is more emotional, but that’s arguable.
Similarly with ‘rape’ definitions. The criminal statutes are finely divided, and often don’t even use the word rape, but rather: “sexual imposition” vs “sexual assault”, modified by terms like “gross”, “aggravated”, 1st degree”, etc. Do not mistake me: they are ALL crimes, and rightly so. But overly broadening the definition, while it provides shock value and some emotional appeal, also trivializes more serious crimes while demonizing ‘lesser’ offenses. (touchy phrase that last one, but should your hand be cut off for shoplifting a candy bar?) Again, perspective and focus. Or you end up declaring all hetero encounters (or even all encounters) rape. As has been extensively seen, this angers and alienates all the men and almost all the women, causing them to reject and dismiss the arguments out of hand. This is obviously counter-productive.
It’s probably unnecessary, but I recomend MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” where he rails against the “white moderate.” This is to aknowldge that I do have my own blinkers. I recognize some, and am self honest enough to consider others when they are pointed out. As a white, male, middle-aged, middle-class American, complacency is an easy trap to fall into. (Yes, I’m trying to reduce any ‘flames’)
And finally, a more cynical and hostile suggestion: Perhaps instead of trying to control the content in other’s journals, one could maybe, just maybe, lock one’s own private journal? If one could scale back the martyr complex long enough to do that.
KDBryan on April 6, 2008 6:24 pm
While I don’t disagree that there is an ugly streak of misogyny running through Firefly – due in part to an adherence to traditional tropes of the Western Genre (which I have always loathed) – I feel it is very clear from both Whedon’s words and the causes he supports that Whedon is at least trying – however, stumblingly – to call for equality of the sexes. Yes, the degree of his success should be called into question to encourage improvement in genre fiction – quite obviously – but Allecto’s tasteless, personal speculation about Kai Cole and their marriage crosses a line that negates much of the power of her argument.

Allecto, since you felt the need to stop any future debate in your own blog, I’ll reply to you here. I am frankly amazed that you are posting here at length in a show of anger over somebody half-jokingly calling you “crazy” – after you just labeled a man whom you have never met a rapist and implied that his wife, whom you have also never met, to be nothing but a weak-willed golddigger. While it is doubtful I will read them due to the insulting choices you have made, I sincerely hope that any future arguments you might make against works of fiction will not be weakened by disgusting personal attacks and/or nauseating, ad hominem application of inaccurate labels like “rapist”.

(And kudos to you, Natalia!)
Laura Q on April 6, 2008 7:37 pm
Well, I don’t know what happened to the emails; I’ll look into that. [update: spam filter. thanks, spammers, for ruining email in the pursuit of huckster capitalism.] Feel free to send emails to me at lqonline at lquilter.net . I’m not likely to change our policies or statements based on you feeling hurt, however, and threats to “publically [sic] draw attention to the discrepancies between the Feminist Si Fi moderation guidelines and the actual practice that takes place on the blog” are not going to affect me in the slightest. You can’t seriously have thought it would, so you’re either just making your point here in high rhetoric, or you’re going to post this elsewhere anyway. We’re happy for you to have made your points & engaged in the discussion. Where and what you post elsewhere is your concern.

Your perspectives are welcome here, Allecto, as are those of other perspectives of feminism. However, critiques of your arguments are perfectly fine. The people on this blog have a variety of different feminisms, and disagree with each other as often as we agree. Being a radical feminist, person of color, or lesbian means that your views are welcome; it does not mean they are immune from criticism or even ridicule. The conceived function of this blog is in part to have people of different feminisms engage one another. Robust discussion involves both criticism and, frankly, ridicule. It is often uncomfortable for all concerned, but we’re engaged in adult conversations here, so I expect we can all take it.

As for your specific concerns:

(1) Calling people crazy doesn’t really bother me, and if that makes me a bad feminist, so be it. Surely you realize that it’s not actually calling your sanity into question, but a rather sharp commentary on your argument.

(2) As for calling you racist, the comment that I saw on that was Anna TPKs: To say nothing of the racism in her post. With a very little rearranging of her wording, the Klan could have written her polemic on interracial relationships. That’s a comment on your argument, and is fine, so far as I’m concerned. As you must know, one’s own background does not insulate one from the maladies of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

You are certainly right to take umbrage at the tenor of a lot of commentary on the Internet and, no doubt, on your blog. But the comments on this blog have included support as well as critique. I respectfully submit that some of your anger at the general furor is being directed here.
Laura Q on April 6, 2008 8:14 pm
Rob: Indeed, yes, I do draw distinctions between places and times and actions and attitudes. But I’m not sure about the distinction between “unequal” and “oppressed”: I have no idea what might be merely “unequal” (segregation? wage differentials? gender differences in access to medical care?) as opposed to “oppression”. From my perspective, that’s not a useful way to break things out. But perhaps that’s just what happens when we use generic stand-in words to reflect groups of concepts: we all have different ways of using the generic stand-in words.

However, if you’re simply trying to say that women have it pretty good here in the States but not as good as they do in Europe, and in neither case are they suffering “hardcore oppression” — well, with all due respect, that is not an accurate picture of women’s status in the States. I submit that large numbers of women in a wide variety of circumstances in the States could consider themselves oppressed in very significant ways: Women in the military suffer extensive sexual harassment. Women in most of the states in the US now do not have easy access to abortion. Women under the age of 18 are even more restricted. Queer, transgendered, and gender-nonconforming women continue to suffer legal discrimination in many states in the United States. Wage gaps, glass ceilings, and blatant discrimination in hiring and promotion plague virtually all occupations in the United States, top to bottom. Economic discrimination in other sectors of the economy continues. Women continue to suffer an enormous amount of sexual violence in this country. Ideological “religions” continue to preach women’s inferiority. Women who are arrested for crimes are more likely to serve time than men convicted of similar crimes, and serve more time.

And so on, and so on.

Now, Saudi Arabian clerics can today convict and sentence to death an illiterate woman for signing a confession to “witchcraft” that she could not read, and let young girls burn to death rather than have them come out in “unmodest” clothing. But using imprecise terms like “inequality” and “oppression”, and attempting to distinguish based on them, does itself elide important distinctions.
vito excalibur on April 6, 2008 10:53 pm
Laura:

Well, you’re awesome and you know it, so clap your hands. Both the “more oppressed than thou” and the “you’re less oppressed than they are” are fool’s games, and smart people won’t play. It’s quite easy to tell when people are being honest about bringing up inequalities and oppressions: they bring them up independently, as topics in their own right. They don’t drag them into an unrelated argument by the scruff of the neck as the red herring of “well how can you complain about making $0.75 for every man’s dollar when in other parts of the world women are being burned alive! Shut up & be grateful for what you got.”
KiplingKat on April 7, 2008 12:08 am
Laura, yes I do make a distinction between “unequal” and “oppressed” because there is one.

According to Princeton:

Inequality: lack of equality; “the growing inequality between rich and poor”

Oppression: the act of subjugating by cruelty; “the tyrant’s oppression of the people, the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority: “after years of oppression they finally revolted”, a feeling of being oppressed

Here we have inequality, we are not treated the same as men in several important ways (which I pointed out a list in my post).

But we can speak and march in public, attend schools and gain the same degrees as men, go to the police, testify in court, wear pretty much what we want to, marry whom we like and get divorced and have custody of our children, and we don’t get stoned to death if we break the rules, nor are we or our girls subject female genital mutilation. We have a voice that we can use without fear of legal censorship or socially acceptable violent reprisal.

American women are not beaten into silent submission by America’s legal system or it’s society. Yes, women suffer sexual harassment…and we read about it in the news because they have options for dealing with it, including the press who prints it because we have freedom of speech. And some women do suffer horribly in small sub-cults of religious fanaticism. But the law enforcement services goes after the leaders of those cults, such as Warren Jeffs, the leader of the FLDS who was on the FBI’s “10 Most Wanted List” because America does not tolerate pedophilia and the sexual slavery of women.

So I do think distinctions are valid, because when one starts slinging such terms as “oppressed” around the way Allecto slings about the word “rape”, it loses it’s meaning as well as trivializes what women who have actually been oppressed have and are going through.

And yes, I am American and I am a woman. And honestly, while I have seen and experienced inequality, I have never felt “oppressed” in my life. But then I am aggressive and loud and perhaps the “oppression” others seem to experience here in the U.S. simply rolled off my back and I didn’t notice. I’ve been sexually harassed, and I went to my HR Officer and it was dealt with immediately. I wanted a first trimester abortion and I obtained one without incident. Little girls who are molested can tell a teacher or doctors/nurse and will be removed from the home immediately. Women who are raped can go to the police and the man will serve time.

Women who are harassed, molested, and raped in other countries like Saudi Arabia and the Sudan don’t have those options. We do.

And as for Inara locking her door being “blame the victim” territory as Ide Cyan pointed out, I understand that. It’s is a fuzzy line, I agree. But my point is that it’s obvious by the time the series starts, Inara is welcoming people into her shuttle and leaving her door open. Kaylee wanders in and out, Book wanders in and out, River wanders in and out, Simon wanders in and out, so Mal should be treated differently why?
vito excalibur on April 7, 2008 2:10 am
KiplingKat:

Because she’s asked him to knock, that’s why.

Also, you might want to look into the stats of men actually doing time for rape in the U.S. before you use that one as an example.
Yonmei on April 7, 2008 2:16 am
Laura: awesome response to Rob and to Allecto. Can I suggest that Rob and KiplingKat spend some time reading at Feminism 101 rather than your taking further time at a Joss Whedon discussion thread to explain that yes, water is wet?
KiplingKat on April 7, 2008 3:34 am
You mean:

FEMINISM: the advocacy of women`s rights on the grounds of sexual equality (OED)

I don’t see anything about “oppression” in that.

Nor do I see anything refuting what I have said.
KiplingKat on April 7, 2008 3:50 am
s fr *cnvctd* rpsts, ys th gt t jl, nd th nmbr f thm srvng tm hv gn p n th .S. http://www.jp.sdj.gv/bjs/pb/html/cjsw/p.htm ts th .K. th nmbrs r drppng. s fr wh llgd rpsts r nt cnvctd mr ftn, gd qstn. nfrtntl, vryn kp ctng th nmbrs n ths rprt “Th Rspns t Rp: Dtrs n th Rd t ql Jstc” wtht ctll gvng n f th rsns wh th nmbrs r tht w. mn, d th thrts ct lck f vdnc, s t flr n nvstgtns, hv nstsfd vctms ppld t th D..? bnch f sttstcs ds nt hlp pnpnt whr th prblm ls. n n cs, wmn n th .S. hs fr mr rcrs thn n thr ntns whr sh hs nn. n Sd rb wmn wh hs bn rpd s cnsdrd crmnl. http://hrw.rg/nglsh/dcs////sd.htm Tht’s btng wmn nt sffrng n slnc, tht’s rl pprssn. Nt, “ZMG, Ml wnt nt nr’s qrtrs nnvtd”.
Yonmei on April 7, 2008 5:30 am
KiplingKat: You mean:

I mean the blog that has been set up to educate well-meaning but uninformed men who disrupt feminist discussions with 101 questions/assertions: Finally, a Feminism 101 blog . You need to begin with the post PLEASE READ THIS FIRST. Go for it.
KiplingKat on April 7, 2008 9:16 am
‘m wmn.

Y mst hv mssd tht.

Hrm

“pprssns, Crlts, xplttns nd Hrms:

* .g. mrdr
* cncntrtn cmps
* trtr
* kckng ppps
* lrs
* thft
* kdnppng
* chld sxl bs
* gncd
* njst wrs
* crcn f n knd, bt spcfcll frcd mrrgs frcd sxl ntrcrs frcd chldbrth frcd srgr
+ frcd brtn
+ frcd fml crcmcsn f n dgr
+ rtn mtrnl pstms
+ rtn csrn sctns frcd mntl hlth trtmnts sd s scl cntrl f nn-vlnt ppl trnsgrssng scl nrms [Rfrnc (pdf)]
+ CT (lctr-cnvlsv thrp)
+ nvlntr cmmtmnt t mntl nstttns
+ cmplsr drg rgms ndr thrt f nstttnlstn fr nn-cmplnc
* csmtc Wstrn vgnl lbplst
* fml gntl cttng mr dmgng thn W.H.. Typ )
.. rdcl cltrdctms
.. cltrl xcsn
.. nfbltn
* nn-vdnc-bsd bsttrc prctss
* rpsts
* pdphls
* trrrsts
* thrtrns
* xctns fr dltr
* prsn rp
* rstrctng fml tnm
* thrtnng wmns sft
* dsptc dcttrs”

‘m nt sng “Bd rl mdls n TV” n thr lst f ffnss tht qlf s “pprssn”. ‘m nt vn sng “ql P fr ql Wrk”
Laura Q on April 7, 2008 9:20 am
KiplingKat: Look, I don’t think anyone disagrees on the levels of threats to women in various times and places. I don’t think discussion is well-served by using the words “inequality” and “oppression” to describe and differentiate whole societies. I’ve said enough on this & won’t keep taking up the thread on it.
KiplingKat on April 7, 2008 9:46 am
thnk whn w r dscssng TV shw n th ntd Stts, wht w r dscssng s nqlt, nt pprssn. nd tht s hw ths whl tngnt gt strtd. ws pntng t tht wht sm ppl smd t b cmplnng bt n th cs f Z ws nt tht sh ws bng trtd nqll, bt tht th wntd hr trtd bttr thn vryn ls whch t m s cntr t wht fmnsm s. (T whch smn rpld tht fmnsm ws gnst fml pprssn, whch f tht s ll fmnsm s, thn t rll dsn’t ppl t dscssn bt Z.) f y mk t ll bt trtng ll wmn chrctrs lk frgl flwrs r whtnt tht cn d n wrng nd mst b plcd n pdstls bv vryn ls nd nvr shwn s sbrdnts (nd llct’s cs nvr shwn s vllns) t’s crtng s n nrlstc strtyp s th ld Mdnn-Whr sllnss. Srt f lk th “Sprmm” myth f th ’s tht drv s mn wmn t drnk/ntdprssnts. t’s crtng n nrlstcll hgh br.

Wmn r hmn, mn r hmn. Smtms wmn cn b n chrg nd smtms mn cn. Wht mttrs s nt th gndr, bt wh s th mst qlfd. Whdn hs wrttn shws n whch wmn ws n chrg nd shws n whch mn ws n chrg nd dn’t thnk tht jst bcs mn ws cptn f Srnt tht tks w frm hs bng fmnst wrtr. crtnl dn’t thnk t tks nythng w frm Z. sr s hck wldn’t wnt t crss hr. *chckl*
vito_excalibur on April 7, 2008 10:23 am
KiplingKat:

At this point, you have begun to repeat yourself. Further comments from you on this post will be deleted or disemvowelled.

In matters of moderation, I like to take my cue from the great Ms. Nielsen Hayden. Please see her recent explanation of the moderation policy on Boing Boing, with special attention to points 6) (“Telling people they’re naive idiots for caring about whatever-it-is. Like the ‘I’m bored’ pose, it’s empty attitudinizing, and it’s remarkably unpleasant.”) and 7) (“Posting a remark that’s already been made five times and answered six. Coming back and re-posting essentially the same material after a twenty-message thread has discussed your previous comment. Trying to forcibly wrench the conversation onto one of your own pet topics.”)
Yonmei on April 7, 2008 10:37 am
KiplingKat: I’m a woman. You must have missed that.

The website is good for uninformed people of either gender. (Kipling’s original Cat was male: hence my assumption.)

I’m not seeing “Bad role models on TV” on their list of offenses that qualify as “oppression”.

Your initial comments seemed to argue that women in the US are not oppressed. Now you’re shifting goalposts? Okay. I think Laura’s right.
Rob on April 7, 2008 11:27 am
Laura: a compelling answer! The more so since I’ve railed against the better/worse arguments in others. Push them far enough and they always end up: ‘but Stalin killed more jews than Hitler.’ Ridiculous. For the record, I wasn’t trying to argue that there isn’t oppression in the US. It’s just, something about the generalization/lumping/blurring bothers me. I’m not sure I’ve gotten at the root of why, but…
On a sci-fi note: to quote Ursala LeGuin’s “The Dispossesed”
“Ideas are like grass. They thrive on crossbreeding, grow better for being stepped on.”
While I’ll certainly follow the feminism 101 link, the action is here in an interactive forum where I can test my thoughts, hear arguments, and be called out for mis-steps. Heh, at least until I become tedious or annoying enough to be banned or stripped of vowels.
Laura Q on April 7, 2008 11:53 am
the action is here in an interactive forum where I can test my thoughts, hear arguments, and be called out for mis-steps.

an excellent attitude for all. i have personally learned a lot from my fellow bloggers even — especially — when i was certain they were dead wrong.
vito excalibur on April 7, 2008 12:34 pm
Laura:

It’s not that I object to people being wrong, it’s that I think it destroys the conversation when they insist on being wrong about the same thing over and over. I feel people should branch out and try to be wrong in new and interesting ways!
Kiplingkat on April 7, 2008 2:19 pm
Swt bldng jzs, wht hppnd t m cmmnt? nd ys, m ls rgng tht wmn r nt “pprssd” n th .S, crtnl nt b th stndrds cnsdr pprssn. Ys, w hv prblms, nqlts, bt w cn st hr nd rg vr thm, wrt rtcls bt thm, tlk bt thm n TV, ppl t th gvrnmnt t chng thngs, nd nt hv wrr bt smn rrstng r btng s fr xprssng r vrs pnns.
Kiplingkat on April 7, 2008 2:23 pm
Wll, snc nn f y hv ctll bn bl t prv tht wmn hr n th .S. r pprssd, n n hs bn bl t ctll rft m rgmnt bynd syng thngs lk “Y dn’t knw nythng! G rd!” nd rfrrng m t lnks tht ctll prv m rgmnt, wll tk ths y gys pprssng m pnn. S y hv slf flfllng prphc rght thr. Thnks.
Constance on April 7, 2008 2:31 pm
Some women in this country are in circumstances of inequality. Other women are in circumstances of actual oppression, particularly if one agrees with the defnition of oppression provided above that includes the words, “active cruelty.” At the moment, I am thinking of Native American women who are actively hunted down, beaten and raped, sometimes so badly they die, even with medical treatment. Though Native American men can be guilty of this, mostly it is non Native men, who go cruising the areas where poor Native American women can be found walking, abduct them and beat them and rape them. Perhaps it’s not too strong a term to call this rape-torture. Very little media attention is called to this terrible continued practice. Very few if any go to trial.

Then there are the circumstances of U.S. women in the military, much too often subject to both harassment and rape. Nor do these events often come to trial.

In fact, at this very time here in the U.S., there are courts that have ruled that in rape trials the very word ‘rape’ can be kept out of the proceedings.

If that’s not oppression by active and LEGAL cruelty, what is? This happens here, to far more women than many us want to admit.

This is not an argument regarding who is more oppressed and victimized. It’s an argument that all of us who want to believe in ourselves as active in advancing the active, legal rights of all women everywhere to participate as active, legal and equal members of their society, need to be aware of what really is what, including in our own nation.

Love, C.
Kiplingkat on April 7, 2008 3:01 pm
Ths wll prbbl b dsmvwlld snc t’s .k. f y gys tlk t m, bt t’s nt .k. fr m t cmmnct wth y nymr

…bt ‘m nt rgng “Wh’s gt t wrs thn whm”, ‘m smpl skng fr ccrt trmnlg. Lk llct, th mss f th wrd rp s sc-pltcl jrgn dstrys t’s mnng. Th mss f th wrd “pprssn” wll d th sm thng. cn’t tlk bt “pprssn” n wht th mjrt f wmn n th ntd Stts xprnc. cn tlk bt nqlt, cn tlk bt dscrmntn, bt fr m wrds r mprtnt nd “pprssn” hs vr spcfc mnng.

gr thr s srs prblm wth lw nfrcmnt n th rsrvtns n gnrl. Th ntr systm s scrwd p nd scrwng thm, nd tht s cs f pprssn b dlbrt nglct tht nds t b ddrssd s whl. Mst rsrvtns r th prst rgns n th ntd Stts, nd th nd..wll, vrythng. Th hv n vc th fdrl gvrnmnt nd nl n stt hs Ntv mrcn rprsnttvs f th rsrvtns sttng n th stt lgsltr: Mn. Th, mn nd wmn, r pprssd.

D y hv xmpl f th crts tht hv dsllwd th s f th wrd “rp” n prsctng rp cs?
Rob on April 7, 2008 3:32 pm
There are serious jurisprudence(that can’t be spelled right) problems on the reservations that allow white men to act with impunity. http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/080607WA.shtml
The fact that they do so is disgusting. No doubt there are extensive racist aspects as well. But what are you more likely to hear about? Protests over sports logos: the Indians “Chief Wahoo” mascot or the Braves “tomahawk chop” getting many people riled up over the insult to Native Americans. If you could get them to care about the rape, and the poverty, and the alcoholism, lack of education, etc. you could do some real good. Even just focusing attention embarasses public officials, and hence often induces improvements. Pet peeve of mine. You can argue (legitimately) that those mascots are derogatory and have a negative impact, but they aren’t the serious issues.
(and thank you. Beating a dead horse it may be, but that’s part of what I was trying to express about distinction and focus)
TC on April 7, 2008 4:32 pm
It’s spelled right, Rob. (BTW, Firefox has a wonderful built-in spellchecker, and if you often find yourself fretting, you might switch.)

I do think, though, that the mascots vs. rape discussion is at risk of the same problems that have been pointed out above. It sounds to me as though you’re saying that the mascots aren’t a serious issue, so the people who are offended are misdirecting their energy and should go do something more important.

But there’s another way to look at it. First, your list of problems seems to be based at least in part on life on some reservations, and you seem to be lumping all Native Americans together. There aren’t any reservations in my state, so jurisdictional problems (for example) aren’t a local issue. Someone could reasonably feel that they’re more effective doing activism about the city’s Indians team than they would be trying to be activists for a community in another state. (BTW, the name’s still in place, but the mascot was changed.)

Second, this isn’t always an either-or choice. Your phrasing – “if you could get them to care about rape …” implies that people working the mascot issues don’t care about rape. I doubt this is true. Most people I’ve known have been multi-issue activists. I suspect that many of the same people are working both the major and minor issues.

Third, criticizing “Chief Wahoo” can be about more than just the mascot. It’s also an opportunity to get media coverage to talk about other native issues – for example, contrasting authentic native cultures with the simplistic mascot representations, highlighting the work of actual native people, or discussing other problems in the community. Even if the teams and fans don’t change, you can still get a message out by discussing why the stereotyping is inaccurate.

Fourth … I often hear the idea that we should set aside the smaller issues and tackle the big ones first. Ideally, I suppose, we should identify the single biggest issue and all work on that until it’s fixed, or at least fixed enough that it’s not the biggest issue.

But I don’t think social change works that way. Sometimes, the small wins help pave the way for the big wins. They’re less threatening, so it’s easier to change people’s minds – and once they’ve reconsidered their position on one issue, they might become more open-minded on others.

Additionally, the small and large issues often work in different ways. I probably wouldn’t make casual conversation about rape at a party – not because it’s a shameful subject, but because I doubt it would accomplish anything besides making people uncomfortable (and maybe making them resent me for being a downer.) But I could say that it’s the 21st century, and even if the Indians name was fine when they were founded, its time has passed, and they should move on; smile the whole time; and expect people to nod and smile with me, even if they hadn’t thought of it in those terms before.
TC on April 7, 2008 4:35 pm
Oh, and KiplingKat:

“Last fall, [Judge] Cheuvront granted a motion by defense attorneys barring the use of the words rape, sexual assault, victim, assailant, and sexual assault kit from the trial of Pamir Safi — accused of raping Tory Bowen in October 2004.”

Here’s a Slate article with the details.
Constance on April 7, 2008 6:13 pm
This torture-rape of Native American women isn’t by any means confined to the Reservations.

It takes place in urban areas even more often than on the Reservation.

Why has the conversation, which is about women and rape, turned from the chasing down and torture-rape of Native American women to sports teams mascots?

Love, C.
Firefly: The Trouble With Saffron | the Hathor Legacy on April 7, 2008 9:04 pm
[...] recent bout of feminist critique of Firefly has finally roused me from my prolonged inability to write anything at all about television, which [...]
KiplingKat on April 7, 2008 10:53 pm
TC,

.K. tht s hrrfc. hd n d nyn ws lft n th stnd frm th Vctrn r. “Rp” nd “sxl sslt” r nt lgl trms, th r dscrptv trms nd b dsllwng thr s n crt, th jdg s nt nl hbblng th prsctn, h s syng tht th crt s th n t dcd f wmn hs bn rpd r nt, nt th wmn hrslf. Tht’s sck. Tht, wll gr, s frm f pprssn.

Cnstnc,

thnk th pnt Rb ws tryng t mk s tht th md, nd thrfr th pblc, gts wrppd p n trvlts rthr thn ddrssng mr mprtnt cncrns. hv t wndr f th md ttntn n thngs lk sprts mscts s rthr prpsfl t kp th pblc frm bng wr tht thr r mr mch srs prblms tht nd ddrssng mmdtl. dn’t thnk th mrndns shld hv t wt ntl ll th pblc s mr snstv t thr cltr fr thm t rcv ql prtctn ndr th lw. Th fct tht th hv n rprsnttn n gvrnmnt tht “dmnstrts” whr th lv s xtrml dstrssng (nt t mntn t s wh th ntd Stts rvltd frm nglnd, s th Fdrl Gv’t s bng mr thn w bt hypcrtcl n ths nstnc), nd thnk th rt f mst f th vls f crm, pvrt, tc. tht tks plc n Rsrvtns.
Rob on April 8, 2008 10:34 am
I did say it was arguable, for all the reasons you stated: small victories paving the way, raising awareness, changing base attitudes, getting exposure. All perfectly true, and well stated. I still don’t agree in this instance and in my experience it was none of those things, but that argument gets way off topic. (btw, you are mistaken. Chief Wahoo is alive and well, Jacobs pulled a scam compromise on the protesters)

I must make a couple quibbles, being a quibbler and all.

“lumping together”
Yes, in my 2 paragraph sound bite I did not distinguish between various reservations, but instead generalized the worst and to my understanding most pervasive problems. What else are you going to do?

“if you could get them to care about rape …”
Perhaps that was poor phrasing. I am not insinuating people do not care, but do feel the focus was misplaced and would have liked to at least see some transference.

Otherwise, your post was wonderful, and I expect to be using your arguments myself.
TC on April 8, 2008 11:50 am
(btw, you are mistaken. Chief Wahoo is alive and well, Jacobs pulled a scam compromise on the protesters)

Leaving this thread now, but Rob, when you call me “mistaken” you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The mascot here in Indianapolis – the specific area I’m talking about – used to be a cartoon native. As I said, the mascot was eventually changed – to a furry creature with a baseball nose.
Rob on April 8, 2008 12:19 pm
Oops.
Well you only mentioned the Indians and their mascot, so I assumed.
derivative work » Blog Archive » science fiction & tea on April 8, 2008 9:57 pm
[...] … I would dearly love to recreate the breadcrumbs trail that led me to this, but I honestly can’t remember: It probably started with the kerfluffle over a harsh critique of Firefly. [...]
Melanie E on April 9, 2008 12:23 am
Can I keep it simple and say I like the show and not be shallow? No major subtext for me at all. Someone said that Mr. Whedon does shows that are better than most out there. I agree. Snappy, intelligent dialogue; strong female characters; very entertaining; heroines that never wait for the guy to show up. It has flaws; all shows have flaws. Most reflect a really gross stereotypical, societal view. However, Mr. Whedon tries to break that mold. I’m in it for the entertainment, pure and simple. I guess that does make me shallow. *shrug*
vito excalibur on April 9, 2008 10:47 am
Melanie:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Ain’t nothing wrong with enjoying popular entertainment on a surface level. Unless, of course, by going over to a place where people are analyzing these things and trying to understand them better, and announcing that it is simple entertainment and you enjoy it on a surface level, you are trying to imply that it should only be enjoyed on a surface level, and that we’re doing it wrong.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Recent Trackbacks

Speculative Fiction: Star Non-Violent Civil Disobedience
the Bone: The Thirteenth Carnival of Feminists « Zero
deborahb: Next up: Hugos
Cheryl's Mewsings: Free Spirit

Feminist SF – The Blog!

Feminists blog about science fiction, speculative fiction, and fantasy. Books, movies, comics, games, reason, & ranting.

Pages

feministsf.net

forums we like

FSF blogs

other stuff we read

projects

us, elsewhere

Categories

slightly redeeming

Recent Comments

Recent Trackbacks

Recent Posts

Archives

Meta