Before I make any more detailed postings: Has it been determined yet if this is satire or genuine?
I think its genuine, espcially with the comments and the blogger talking to people who read it.
it's totally real, unless the blogger spent a shitload of time setting herself up as a someone who actively hates men and has a weird obsession with whedon's shows
I am more concerned about the kneejerk loathing and dismissal and contempt of any expression of radical feminism, without bothering to even investigate the ideas, that I see in this thread and in any discussion of these issues, than I am with radical feminists themselves.
i'm just talking about this one person, not radical feminists in general. although i would say that anyone who hates all men has some serious problems
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I'm definitely not a radical feminist - it would be hard, since I'm a man, and I'm not that ashamed about it - but the radical definitions of rape and the radical interpretations of just how far patriarchy and female subordination reach into our culture and the way we interact aren't just crazy talk. I disagree with the blogger in question, mostly, but Joss Whedon is definitely not a feminist, in my opinion, and the sexism that can be found in his work is all the more disturbing because he thinks he is. People like this blogger are working with perfectly valid tools, but their only crime is taking it way too far.
i think you can find just about anything in virtually any context if you're given enough material. if you pick and choose and then blow up things to a ridiculous degree, then yeah, it's gonna look like the evidence supports your theory. what's hilarious about this lady is that even after doing that, she still looks like a crazy person.
how can you take any of that seriously, even a little bit?
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
I'm definitely not a radical feminist - it would be hard, since I'm a man, and I'm not that ashamed about it - but the radical definitions of rape and the radical interpretations of just how far patriarchy and female subordination reach into our culture and the way we interact aren't just crazy talk. I disagree with the blogger in question, mostly, but Joss Whedon is definitely not a feminist, in my opinion, and the sexism that can be found in his work is all the more disturbing because he thinks he is. People like this blogger are working with perfectly valid tools, but their only crime is taking it way too far.
i think you can find just about anything in virtually any context if you're given enough material. if you pick and choose and then blow up things to a ridiculous degree, then yeah, it's gonna look like the evidence supports your theory. what's hilarious about this lady is that even after doing that, she still looks like a crazy person.
how can you take any of that seriously, even a little bit?
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
I'm definitely not a radical feminist - it would be hard, since I'm a man, and I'm not that ashamed about it - but the radical definitions of rape and the radical interpretations of just how far patriarchy and female subordination reach into our culture and the way we interact aren't just crazy talk. I disagree with the blogger in question, mostly, but Joss Whedon is definitely not a feminist, in my opinion, and the sexism that can be found in his work is all the more disturbing because he thinks he is. People like this blogger are working with perfectly valid tools, but their only crime is taking it way too far.
i think you can find just about anything in virtually any context if you're given enough material. if you pick and choose and then blow up things to a ridiculous degree, then yeah, it's gonna look like the evidence supports your theory. what's hilarious about this lady is that even after doing that, she still looks like a crazy person.
how can you take any of that seriously, even a little bit?
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
So, by your defenition, that joke is racist/sexist unless the victim is also the same sex/race? That way there is no undercurrent of sexism, just the restraint and violence? Is that a correct interpretation of your position?
I'm definitely not a radical feminist - it would be hard, since I'm a man, and I'm not that ashamed about it - but the radical definitions of rape and the radical interpretations of just how far patriarchy and female subordination reach into our culture and the way we interact aren't just crazy talk. I disagree with the blogger in question, mostly, but Joss Whedon is definitely not a feminist, in my opinion, and the sexism that can be found in his work is all the more disturbing because he thinks he is. People like this blogger are working with perfectly valid tools, but their only crime is taking it way too far.
i think you can find just about anything in virtually any context if you're given enough material. if you pick and choose and then blow up things to a ridiculous degree, then yeah, it's gonna look like the evidence supports your theory. what's hilarious about this lady is that even after doing that, she still looks like a crazy person.
how can you take any of that seriously, even a little bit?
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
But the joke itself has no gender specific speech to it if Kaylee were the same annoyingly cheery character but male the joke would still be the same and work the same.
That's a good point. I don't think Whedon is either a feminist or a misogynist, or at least not pointedly either. I think he's just a writer and accidentally displays one or the other which is up to interpretation. I don't think there is any feminist or misogynistic agenda in his writing whatsoever.
Whedon has proclaimed himself a feminist. Also, the whole reason for season 2 of Buffy, supposedly, was the idea that men can be evil once they get what they want from somebody.
Also, he let Marti Noxon run the show, and she's pretty much single handedly responsible for season 6. Which is about how men are evil, however much they say it's about "life being the Big Bad."
That's a good point. I don't think Whedon is either a feminist or a misogynist, or at least not pointedly either. I think he's just a writer and accidentally displays one or the other which is up to interpretation. I don't think there is any feminist or misogynistic agenda in his writing whatsoever.
Whedon has proclaimed himself a feminist. Also, the whole reason for season 2 of Buffy, supposedly, was the idea that men can be evil once they get what they want from somebody.
Also, he let Marti Noxon run the show, and she's pretty much single handedly responsible for season 6. Which is about how men are evil, however much they say it's about "life being the Big Bad."
But the Big Bad spent most of the time personifying women, if memory serves.
Sure you can, it just has to be between these guys:
You would have to find a way to edit out Andie Macdowell (to remove any undercurrent of sexism) without being accused of trying to keep womyn off television though
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
I am more concerned about the kneejerk loathing and dismissal and contempt of any expression of radical feminism, without bothering to even investigate the ideas, that I see in this thread and in any discussion of these issues, than I am with radical feminists themselves.
I think radicalism should always be rejected unless there is some kind of revolutionary military end. Which I hope to God isn't some kind of hidden aspect to the radical feminist agenda.
Idealistic radicalism is absolutely worthless and it should be stomped out whenever possible. It ends up hurting movements more than it helps.
Most radical feminists that I know of would see military revolution as a typically male, patriarchal means of achieving change, but I also know of some who wouldn't mind toasting all the breeders.
Regardless, I'm not a fan of radicalism at all, but wholesale rejection of feminist ideas always disturbs me. When a geek on a forum goes "she's fucking nuts," instead of going "that's crazy, but why does she think that way?", it reminds me of the middle-aged woman I worked with who told me that her son failed his English class because his teacher was a "feminist" who hated boys.
Partly that proves your point; radicalism is harmful. There are much more convincing ways to expose people to the ideas and methods of feminism and feminist analysis, without alienating them. But it's not just the responsibility of the feminist in question to present the ideas. It's the responsibility of the audience, any audience, to be honest, critical, and thorough in their evaluation of the ideas they're examining.
You can be sexist against your own gender and racist against your own race.
EDIT: Dammit beated
MORPHEUS on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited March 2008
You know what gets me?
That John Adams show. All the powerful characters are dudes. And almost all the lines are spoken by dudes. It's one huge dude-fest that just marginalises women.
I'm definitely not a radical feminist - it would be hard, since I'm a man, and I'm not that ashamed about it - but the radical definitions of rape and the radical interpretations of just how far patriarchy and female subordination reach into our culture and the way we interact aren't just crazy talk. I disagree with the blogger in question, mostly, but Joss Whedon is definitely not a feminist, in my opinion, and the sexism that can be found in his work is all the more disturbing because he thinks he is. People like this blogger are working with perfectly valid tools, but their only crime is taking it way too far.
i think you can find just about anything in virtually any context if you're given enough material. if you pick and choose and then blow up things to a ridiculous degree, then yeah, it's gonna look like the evidence supports your theory. what's hilarious about this lady is that even after doing that, she still looks like a crazy person.
how can you take any of that seriously, even a little bit?
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
But having a racist character make a racist joke isn't racist. Which is the context - you're not supposed to like Jayne, and he's mostly sexist.
Regardless, I'm not a fan of radicalism at all, but wholesale rejection of feminist ideas always disturbs me. When a geek on a forum goes "she's fucking nuts," instead of going "that's crazy, but why does she think that way?", it reminds me of the middle-aged woman I worked with who told me that her son failed his English class because his teacher was a "feminist" who hated boys.
Partly that proves your point; radicalism is harmful. There are much more convincing ways to expose people to the ideas and methods of feminism and feminist analysis, without alienating them. But it's not just the responsibility of the feminist in question to present the ideas. It's the responsibility of the audience, any audience, to be honest, critical, and thorough in their evaluation of the ideas they're examining.
Yeah, but if I say "Kill all the fags with this here spoon knife" you're going to say "that guy is fucking crazy", before you jump to "as a member of his audience, how do I properly address society's issues with regards to marginalizing homosexuals"
I am more concerned about the kneejerk loathing and dismissal and contempt of any expression of radical feminism, without bothering to even investigate the ideas, that I see in this thread and in any discussion of these issues, than I am with radical feminists themselves.
I think radicalism should always be rejected unless there is some kind of revolutionary military end. Which I hope to God isn't some kind of hidden aspect to the radical feminist agenda.
Idealistic radicalism is absolutely worthless and it should be stomped out whenever possible. It ends up hurting movements more than it helps.
Most radical feminists that I know of would see military revolution as a typically male, patriarchal means of achieving change, but I also know of some who wouldn't mind toasting all the breeders.
Regardless, I'm not a fan of radicalism at all, but wholesale rejection of feminist ideas always disturbs me. When a geek on a forum goes "she's fucking nuts," instead of going "that's crazy, but why does she think that way?", it reminds me of the middle-aged woman I worked with who told me that her son failed his English class because his teacher was a "feminist" who hated boys.
well, i mean, this is almost exactly what i asked right at the beginning of the thread
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
I am more concerned about the kneejerk loathing and dismissal and contempt of any expression of radical feminism, without bothering to even investigate the ideas, that I see in this thread and in any discussion of these issues, than I am with radical feminists themselves.
I think radicalism should always be rejected unless there is some kind of revolutionary military end. Which I hope to God isn't some kind of hidden aspect to the radical feminist agenda.
Idealistic radicalism is absolutely worthless and it should be stomped out whenever possible. It ends up hurting movements more than it helps.
Most radical feminists that I know of would see military revolution as a typically male, patriarchal means of achieving change, but I also know of some who wouldn't mind toasting all the breeders.
Regardless, I'm not a fan of radicalism at all, but wholesale rejection of feminist ideas always disturbs me. When a geek on a forum goes "she's fucking nuts," instead of going "that's crazy, but why does she think that way?", it reminds me of the middle-aged woman I worked with who told me that her son failed his English class because his teacher was a "feminist" who hated boys.
Partly that proves your point; radicalism is harmful. There are much more convincing ways to expose people to the ideas and methods of feminism and feminist analysis, without alienating them. But it's not just the responsibility of the feminist in question to present the ideas. It's the responsibility of the audience, any audience, to be honest, critical, and thorough in their evaluation of the ideas they're examining.
And I disagree. I feel that there is a compromise in communication. I agree that the "audience" (i.e. humanity) has a moral obligation to be as well-aware of reality (and, in particular, society and its various ailments) as possible, but I think that radicalism disrupts that compromise almost every time and as such the moral obligation of the listener goes away.
That may sound convoluted, but I think you see my point. And I do not reject feminism. In fact, I try to view things from a reasonable feminist perspective whenever possible. But the "gag reflex" is a very real biological reaction in the human body and an analogous property exists in the human mind as well. Radicalism trigger's my mental "gag reflex" so I reject it. It's not the feminism I am rejecting, but the radicalism, and frankly I think that's what everyone else is experiencing here too. And I don't think they are at all wrong in responding this way.
Before I make any more detailed postings: Has it been determined yet if this is satire or genuine?
I think its genuine, espcially with the comments and the blogger talking to people who read it.
Well in that case I'm going to deconstruct the quoted examples in the OP.
The next scene we meet Kaylee, the ship’s mechanic. <- Lookee, lookee, feminist empowerment. In this scene Mal and Jayne are stowing away the cargo they just stole. Kaylee is chatting to them, happily. Jayne asks Mal to get Kaylee to stop being so cheerful. Mal replies, “Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month.†Yes, that is an exact quote, “Sometimes you just wanna DUCT TAPE HER MOUTH and DUMP HER IN THE HOLD FOR A MONTH.†Kaylee responds by grinning and giving Mal a kiss on the cheek and saying, “I love my Captain.â€
Classic case of quote mining, with the context being entirely misconstrued. It's obviously a joke, but apparently this woman doesn't have a sense of humor. (Oh shit I'm a misogynist now for insulting her.)
What the fuck is this feminist man trying to say about women here? A black woman calling a white man ‘sir’. A white male captain who abuses and silences his female crew, with no consequences. The women are HAPPY to be abused. They enjoy it. What does this say about women, Joss? What does this say about you? Do you tell your wife to shut up? Do you threaten to duct tape her mouth? Lock her in the bedroom? Is this funny to you, Joss? Because it sure as fuck ain’t funny to me.
"Black people can't call white people 'sir', ever." is what that bolded bit equates to. Is the author black? It doesn't make the point any more valid if she is or is not, but if she is black, then I can make a note that not only is the author someone who is looking to find fault with men every chance they can get , they also love playing the race card every chance they get.
So, Joss Whedon refers to rapist/fuckers who buy women as sex, as ‘eager, inexperienced but pleasingly shaped’ who ‘make love’ to women in prostitution. Obviously, ‘love’ to men like Joss Whedon, requires female powerlessness, force and coercion. Women in prostitution enjoy the experience of being bought for sex. They feel ‘motherly’ towards the men who have just treated them as property and bought them as sex.
She doesn't have a clue about the relationship between Inaria and her clients, though of course she doesn't have a clue about any of Firefly. The episode "Shindig" clearly demonstrates that the consort is the one who calls the shots, and it's also an episode that gives lots of insight into how Mal feels about Inaria and the profession.
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.
This one is too easy. The author has "never personally known of a healthy relationship" between a white man and a black woman, so therefore, no relationship of that kind can ever be healthy. Textbook case of anecdotal evidence.
I can assure you that this is just the beginning of my rant on Firefly. There is so much more disturbing stuff later in the series. In particular, an episode called Our Mrs. Reynolds, another episode written by Joss, which completely demonises women as well as pornifying male violence against us.
"Women can never be antagonists, especially if against men. It is her right, nay, her duty, as a woman to kill all the men aboard Serenity for their crimes against wymminkind."
I'm definitely not a radical feminist - it would be hard, since I'm a man, and I'm not that ashamed about it - but the radical definitions of rape and the radical interpretations of just how far patriarchy and female subordination reach into our culture and the way we interact aren't just crazy talk. I disagree with the blogger in question, mostly, but Joss Whedon is definitely not a feminist, in my opinion, and the sexism that can be found in his work is all the more disturbing because he thinks he is. People like this blogger are working with perfectly valid tools, but their only crime is taking it way too far.
i think you can find just about anything in virtually any context if you're given enough material. if you pick and choose and then blow up things to a ridiculous degree, then yeah, it's gonna look like the evidence supports your theory. what's hilarious about this lady is that even after doing that, she still looks like a crazy person.
how can you take any of that seriously, even a little bit?
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
If this is so, then you have stripped racism of moral content. Just as people of different ethnic groups may exchange racially-charged jokes in good humor, so can people of different sexes joke with each other. To do so is a sign of their humanity and trust in each other. Objecting to this reveals a lack of both qualities, or that a Puritannical obsession has overwhelmed them in the objector.
It's even worse if you read the whole article. She starts of by saying how the show starts with them in the war and Zoe is already calling him sir and how its just so awful. No really, its war and there are sirs being said and orders being taken, in war? Really? thats so surprising.
God dammit. I never lime things, but I'm going to lime this. It's such an obvious point and I forgot to make it.
Though, granted, the blogger in question is not talking about Jayne specifically but rather that the entire ambiance of Firefly is "misogynistic." Even so, your point is true.
I'm definitely not a radical feminist - it would be hard, since I'm a man, and I'm not that ashamed about it - but the radical definitions of rape and the radical interpretations of just how far patriarchy and female subordination reach into our culture and the way we interact aren't just crazy talk. I disagree with the blogger in question, mostly, but Joss Whedon is definitely not a feminist, in my opinion, and the sexism that can be found in his work is all the more disturbing because he thinks he is. People like this blogger are working with perfectly valid tools, but their only crime is taking it way too far.
i think you can find just about anything in virtually any context if you're given enough material. if you pick and choose and then blow up things to a ridiculous degree, then yeah, it's gonna look like the evidence supports your theory. what's hilarious about this lady is that even after doing that, she still looks like a crazy person.
how can you take any of that seriously, even a little bit?
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
But having a racist character make a racist joke isn't racist. Which is the context - you're not supposed to like Jayne, and he's mostly sexist.
This is 100% true. It is incorrect to assume that an author shares all or any or even any part of his character's psyche. It is entirely possible that an author is just fictionalizing completely and/or he or she is using a negative trait to make a point. The audience, in this scene, is supposed to be endeared to Kaylee and groan at Jayne, aren't they? So does that suggest that Whedon is supporting male dominance, or the opposite? Or maybe neither?
Also in the same episode when Jayne is making fun of Kaylee at the dinner table and Mal kicks him out, the audience is supposed to go awww poor Jayne he got kicked out of the dinner.
Look Out it's Sabs! on
NNID: Sabuiy
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited March 2008
It's the "make the idiot character say things that are stupid" deal. Like how in "Chasing Amy," the character Banky (the insecure guy who is confused about his own sexuality) says "All every woman needs is a good deep-dicking." The audience is supposed to be able to recognize moronic characters and separate their moronic beliefs from those of the author. Clearly that's a little deep for some people.
It's people like this that make my former lawyer, successful business owning (who makes more money than I), Harley riding, betrothed who believes that men and women should be equal (the real definition of a feminism) openly state, "I fucking hate feminists!"
The only Whedon production I'm familiar with is Firefly and it came across to me as much more of a western than a sci-fi show. In a male dominated world, the female characters were all very strong in one way or another. If one accepts the the setting as is, it would be rather difficult for Whedon to have given women any more prominence without most viewers rolling their eyes.
All the characters had strengths and weaknesses and there weren't a lot of sexualized stereotypes, especially considering the setting. For example, look at the "whore". In that world, she held all the power over her clients and her biggest weakness was the implication that she would consider giving up her fame, wealth, and power for a relationship with a lowly captain. That's a complete reversal of the normal sexual dynamic, but it worked in that setting.
The reason I believe Whedon is regarded as a feminist writer is that he managed to place powerful women into a man's world so seamlessly. People on Firefly were roughly equal without all being the same. I just can't see him giving women any stronger of a role without it being as painful as watching the end of Munich. (Hey, did you guys get the point? Are you sure? Let's go over that point once again. Did you get it this time?
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I thought Mal made the joke. And as he is pretty clearly not supposed to be sexist, if someone could show how his character is sexist or misogynist, it would reveal the same traits in the author(s).
I'm definitely not a radical feminist - it would be hard, since I'm a man, and I'm not that ashamed about it - but the radical definitions of rape and the radical interpretations of just how far patriarchy and female subordination reach into our culture and the way we interact aren't just crazy talk. I disagree with the blogger in question, mostly, but Joss Whedon is definitely not a feminist, in my opinion, and the sexism that can be found in his work is all the more disturbing because he thinks he is. People like this blogger are working with perfectly valid tools, but their only crime is taking it way too far.
i think you can find just about anything in virtually any context if you're given enough material. if you pick and choose and then blow up things to a ridiculous degree, then yeah, it's gonna look like the evidence supports your theory. what's hilarious about this lady is that even after doing that, she still looks like a crazy person.
how can you take any of that seriously, even a little bit?
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
If this is so, then you have stripped racism of moral content. Just as people of different ethnic groups may exchange racially-charged jokes in good humor, so can people of different sexes joke with each other. To do so is a sign of their humanity and trust in each other. Objecting to this reveals a lack of both qualities, or that a Puritannical obsession has overwhelmed them in the objector.
It's not necessarily objection. The very fact that a sexist joke can be made reveals sexism's presence. It can be done in good humour, and it can be done in self awareness; it can also be done viciously, with intent. I don't think Whedon is mysognistic. I don't think that Mal is a misogynistic character, or that his joke is misogynistic. I think that it accesses misogyny. Where this blogger's analysis fails is in joining together the various instances in the episode to form a convincing tapestry of misogyny. You can find sexism in Mal's comment, but it is isolated and must be provided with a strong textual context to be convincing. I'm simply saying that her reading of Mal's comment isn't, in itself, incorrect or poor. The overall reading of the show isn't convincing, though.
I thought Mal made the joke. And as he is pretty clearly not supposed to be sexist, if someone could show how his character is sexist or misogynist, it would reveal the same traits in the author(s).
Mal always makes jokes with the other crew members, also she joked back by still acting sweet going "Thank you captain" and kissing him on the cheek.
I am more concerned about the kneejerk loathing and dismissal and contempt of any expression of radical feminism, without bothering to even investigate the ideas, that I see in this thread and in any discussion of these issues, than I am with radical feminists themselves.
I think radicalism should always be rejected unless there is some kind of revolutionary military end. Which I hope to God isn't some kind of hidden aspect to the radical feminist agenda.
Idealistic radicalism is absolutely worthless and it should be stomped out whenever possible. It ends up hurting movements more than it helps.
Most radical feminists that I know of would see military revolution as a typically male, patriarchal means of achieving change, but I also know of some who wouldn't mind toasting all the breeders.
Regardless, I'm not a fan of radicalism at all, but wholesale rejection of feminist ideas always disturbs me. When a geek on a forum goes "she's fucking nuts," instead of going "that's crazy, but why does she think that way?", it reminds me of the middle-aged woman I worked with who told me that her son failed his English class because his teacher was a "feminist" who hated boys.
Partly that proves your point; radicalism is harmful. There are much more convincing ways to expose people to the ideas and methods of feminism and feminist analysis, without alienating them. But it's not just the responsibility of the feminist in question to present the ideas. It's the responsibility of the audience, any audience, to be honest, critical, and thorough in their evaluation of the ideas they're examining.
And I disagree. I feel that there is a compromise in communication. I agree that the "audience" (i.e. humanity) has a moral obligation to be as well-aware of reality (and, in particular, society and its various ailments) as possible, but I think that radicalism disrupts that compromise almost every time and as such the moral obligation of the listener goes away.
That may sound convoluted, but I think you see my point. And I do not reject feminism. In fact, I try to view things from a reasonable feminist perspective whenever possible. But the "gag reflex" is a very real biological reaction in the human body and an analogous property exists in the human mind as well. Radicalism trigger's my mental "gag reflex" so I reject it. It's not the feminism I am rejecting, but the radicalism, and frankly I think that's what everyone else is experiencing here too. And I don't think they are at all wrong in responding this way.
You didn't strike me as having the same kneejerk reaction as most, and I wasn't referring to yours.
What it comes down to for me is that, yes, radicalism is a poor way to go about anything, most of the time, but part of why it's so dangerous is that it stimulates that gag reflex. You might puke up something that's good for you. For me, the moral obligation on the personal level is disrupted by radicalism, sure, but the radicalism of a given speaker does not invalidate the core ideals underneath that radicalism, and those core ideas must be evaluated on their own terms. I worry that they are not. I also worry about the response of people on this forum to feminist ideas that are not nearly that radical, and that's probably what informs my responses here.
Evil Multifarious on
0
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
I thought Mal made the joke. And as he is pretty clearly not supposed to be sexist, if someone could show how his character is sexist or misogynist, it would reveal the same traits in the author(s).
Except that there are times when Mal is supposed to be sexist, as in most of his interactions with Inara, which is intended to reflect his insecurities re: his obvious feelings for her. He also demonstrates in Our Mrs. Reynolds that he doesn't want to be a misogynist asshole by doing what he thinks is the right thing in refusing Saffron's advances and trying to convince her that she isn't just a piece of property. This is in contrast to Jayne who tries to trade his favorite gun for her. A gun named Vera that is his very favorite gun.
Mal's a complex character. It's a complex issue. On a complex show.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
I'm definitely not a radical feminist - it would be hard, since I'm a man, and I'm not that ashamed about it - but the radical definitions of rape and the radical interpretations of just how far patriarchy and female subordination reach into our culture and the way we interact aren't just crazy talk. I disagree with the blogger in question, mostly, but Joss Whedon is definitely not a feminist, in my opinion, and the sexism that can be found in his work is all the more disturbing because he thinks he is. People like this blogger are working with perfectly valid tools, but their only crime is taking it way too far.
i think you can find just about anything in virtually any context if you're given enough material. if you pick and choose and then blow up things to a ridiculous degree, then yeah, it's gonna look like the evidence supports your theory. what's hilarious about this lady is that even after doing that, she still looks like a crazy person.
how can you take any of that seriously, even a little bit?
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
If this is so, then you have stripped racism of moral content. Just as people of different ethnic groups may exchange racially-charged jokes in good humor, so can people of different sexes joke with each other. To do so is a sign of their humanity and trust in each other. Objecting to this reveals a lack of both qualities, or that a Puritannical obsession has overwhelmed them in the objector.
It's not necessarily objection. The very fact that a sexist joke can be made reveals sexism's presence. It can be done in good humour, and it can be done in self awareness; it can also be done viciously, with intent. I don't think Whedon is mysognistic. I don't think that Mal is a misogynistic character, or that his joke is misogynistic. I think that it accesses misogyny. Where this blogger's analysis fails is in joining together the various instances in the episode to form a convincing tapestry of misogyny. You can find sexism in Mal's comment, but it is isolated and must be provided with a strong textual context to be convincing. I'm simply saying that her reading of Mal's comment isn't, in itself, incorrect or poor. The overall reading of the show isn't convincing, though.
Which joke is this exactly? The one about duct taping her mouth and locking her in the cargo hold?
It has no relationship to sexism at all. It loses nothing in the translation if the character in question is a man, a woman, a trannie or an obscure alien with no apparent gender whatsoever - so long as the character is aggresively cheerful about everything.
The humour is derived from the fact that Mal is not a happy person and this would be a disproportionate and entirely over-the-top reaction to anything, let alone someone being annoyingly happy all the time.
Apothe0sis on
0
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
I regarded her views in an analytical and unbiased fashion and came up wanting. Why? While I will freely admit sexism still exists in society (oh Lord knows it does) this does excuse personal attacks and hate filled diatribes even on the "interwebs". I find it disgusting that she would accuse him of raping his wife, ignorant of the possibility of a very loving marriage, as well as the presence of offspring who's very existence is called into question as the product of a violent act. Does she believe that every depraved, bigoted, homicidal maniac in written history was only conceived through some personal experience that the writer perpetuated upon a loved one?
Beren39 on
Go, Go, EXCALIBUR! - Trent Varsity Swim Team 2009, better watch out for me Phelps!
Posts
it's totally real, unless the blogger spent a shitload of time setting herself up as a someone who actively hates men and has a weird obsession with whedon's shows
edit:
i'm just talking about this one person, not radical feminists in general. although i would say that anyone who hates all men has some serious problems
It's legit, the blogger also has other websites similar to this one.
She also does poetry and art. http://spinningspinsters.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/ecofeminism-by-allecto/
On the one hand, that's a valid stance to take when you're looking at any radical interpretation of any art, especially literature or film. On the other hand, those things are still there. When a man says "sometimes I want to duct tape her mouth and lock her in the hold," as a joke, there is still reference to an undercurrent of sexism, restraint, violence, etc. That's part of why it's funny, but that's also why a racist joke, for example, even if told by someone who is themselves not "racist" in any overt or direct way, is still in itself racist.
He is being sarcastic
I guess we can't have humour anymore then.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
So, by your defenition, that joke is racist/sexist unless the victim is also the same sex/race? That way there is no undercurrent of sexism, just the restraint and violence? Is that a correct interpretation of your position?
But the joke itself has no gender specific speech to it if Kaylee were the same annoyingly cheery character but male the joke would still be the same and work the same.
Whedon has proclaimed himself a feminist. Also, the whole reason for season 2 of Buffy, supposedly, was the idea that men can be evil once they get what they want from somebody.
Also, he let Marti Noxon run the show, and she's pretty much single handedly responsible for season 6. Which is about how men are evil, however much they say it's about "life being the Big Bad."
But the Big Bad spent most of the time personifying women, if memory serves.
Sure you can, it just has to be between these guys:
You would have to find a way to edit out Andie Macdowell (to remove any undercurrent of sexism) without being accused of trying to keep womyn off television though
I think he's pissed off that they didn't want the Irish.
Most radical feminists that I know of would see military revolution as a typically male, patriarchal means of achieving change, but I also know of some who wouldn't mind toasting all the breeders.
Regardless, I'm not a fan of radicalism at all, but wholesale rejection of feminist ideas always disturbs me. When a geek on a forum goes "she's fucking nuts," instead of going "that's crazy, but why does she think that way?", it reminds me of the middle-aged woman I worked with who told me that her son failed his English class because his teacher was a "feminist" who hated boys.
Partly that proves your point; radicalism is harmful. There are much more convincing ways to expose people to the ideas and methods of feminism and feminist analysis, without alienating them. But it's not just the responsibility of the feminist in question to present the ideas. It's the responsibility of the audience, any audience, to be honest, critical, and thorough in their evaluation of the ideas they're examining.
Case in point: Uncle Ruckus. Sure he's a parody but there are African Americans out there with that complex, albeit to a lesser degree.
EDIT: Dammit beated
That John Adams show. All the powerful characters are dudes. And almost all the lines are spoken by dudes. It's one huge dude-fest that just marginalises women.
But having a racist character make a racist joke isn't racist. Which is the context - you're not supposed to like Jayne, and he's mostly sexist.
Yeah, but if I say "Kill all the fags with this here spoon knife" you're going to say "that guy is fucking crazy", before you jump to "as a member of his audience, how do I properly address society's issues with regards to marginalizing homosexuals"
well, i mean, this is almost exactly what i asked right at the beginning of the thread
And I disagree. I feel that there is a compromise in communication. I agree that the "audience" (i.e. humanity) has a moral obligation to be as well-aware of reality (and, in particular, society and its various ailments) as possible, but I think that radicalism disrupts that compromise almost every time and as such the moral obligation of the listener goes away.
That may sound convoluted, but I think you see my point. And I do not reject feminism. In fact, I try to view things from a reasonable feminist perspective whenever possible. But the "gag reflex" is a very real biological reaction in the human body and an analogous property exists in the human mind as well. Radicalism trigger's my mental "gag reflex" so I reject it. It's not the feminism I am rejecting, but the radicalism, and frankly I think that's what everyone else is experiencing here too. And I don't think they are at all wrong in responding this way.
Well in that case I'm going to deconstruct the quoted examples in the OP.
Classic case of quote mining, with the context being entirely misconstrued. It's obviously a joke, but apparently this woman doesn't have a sense of humor. (Oh shit I'm a misogynist now for insulting her.)
"Black people can't call white people 'sir', ever." is what that bolded bit equates to. Is the author black? It doesn't make the point any more valid if she is or is not, but if she is black, then I can make a note that not only is the author someone who is looking to find fault with men every chance they can get , they also love playing the race card every chance they get.
She doesn't have a clue about the relationship between Inaria and her clients, though of course she doesn't have a clue about any of Firefly. The episode "Shindig" clearly demonstrates that the consort is the one who calls the shots, and it's also an episode that gives lots of insight into how Mal feels about Inaria and the profession.
This one is too easy. The author has "never personally known of a healthy relationship" between a white man and a black woman, so therefore, no relationship of that kind can ever be healthy. Textbook case of anecdotal evidence.
"Women can never be antagonists, especially if against men. It is her right, nay, her duty, as a woman to kill all the men aboard Serenity for their crimes against wymminkind."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
If this is so, then you have stripped racism of moral content. Just as people of different ethnic groups may exchange racially-charged jokes in good humor, so can people of different sexes joke with each other. To do so is a sign of their humanity and trust in each other. Objecting to this reveals a lack of both qualities, or that a Puritannical obsession has overwhelmed them in the objector.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
Though, granted, the blogger in question is not talking about Jayne specifically but rather that the entire ambiance of Firefly is "misogynistic." Even so, your point is true.
This is 100% true. It is incorrect to assume that an author shares all or any or even any part of his character's psyche. It is entirely possible that an author is just fictionalizing completely and/or he or she is using a negative trait to make a point. The audience, in this scene, is supposed to be endeared to Kaylee and groan at Jayne, aren't they? So does that suggest that Whedon is supporting male dominance, or the opposite? Or maybe neither?
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
The only Whedon production I'm familiar with is Firefly and it came across to me as much more of a western than a sci-fi show. In a male dominated world, the female characters were all very strong in one way or another. If one accepts the the setting as is, it would be rather difficult for Whedon to have given women any more prominence without most viewers rolling their eyes.
All the characters had strengths and weaknesses and there weren't a lot of sexualized stereotypes, especially considering the setting. For example, look at the "whore". In that world, she held all the power over her clients and her biggest weakness was the implication that she would consider giving up her fame, wealth, and power for a relationship with a lowly captain. That's a complete reversal of the normal sexual dynamic, but it worked in that setting.
The reason I believe Whedon is regarded as a feminist writer is that he managed to place powerful women into a man's world so seamlessly. People on Firefly were roughly equal without all being the same. I just can't see him giving women any stronger of a role without it being as painful as watching the end of Munich. (Hey, did you guys get the point? Are you sure? Let's go over that point once again. Did you get it this time?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It's not necessarily objection. The very fact that a sexist joke can be made reveals sexism's presence. It can be done in good humour, and it can be done in self awareness; it can also be done viciously, with intent. I don't think Whedon is mysognistic. I don't think that Mal is a misogynistic character, or that his joke is misogynistic. I think that it accesses misogyny. Where this blogger's analysis fails is in joining together the various instances in the episode to form a convincing tapestry of misogyny. You can find sexism in Mal's comment, but it is isolated and must be provided with a strong textual context to be convincing. I'm simply saying that her reading of Mal's comment isn't, in itself, incorrect or poor. The overall reading of the show isn't convincing, though.
Mal always makes jokes with the other crew members, also she joked back by still acting sweet going "Thank you captain" and kissing him on the cheek.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
You didn't strike me as having the same kneejerk reaction as most, and I wasn't referring to yours.
What it comes down to for me is that, yes, radicalism is a poor way to go about anything, most of the time, but part of why it's so dangerous is that it stimulates that gag reflex. You might puke up something that's good for you. For me, the moral obligation on the personal level is disrupted by radicalism, sure, but the radicalism of a given speaker does not invalidate the core ideals underneath that radicalism, and those core ideas must be evaluated on their own terms. I worry that they are not. I also worry about the response of people on this forum to feminist ideas that are not nearly that radical, and that's probably what informs my responses here.
Except that there are times when Mal is supposed to be sexist, as in most of his interactions with Inara, which is intended to reflect his insecurities re: his obvious feelings for her. He also demonstrates in Our Mrs. Reynolds that he doesn't want to be a misogynist asshole by doing what he thinks is the right thing in refusing Saffron's advances and trying to convince her that she isn't just a piece of property. This is in contrast to Jayne who tries to trade his favorite gun for her. A gun named Vera that is his very favorite gun.
Mal's a complex character. It's a complex issue. On a complex show.
This thread is giving me a complex.
When she was crying in the "Trash" episode you couldn't help but go d'awwww.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
Which joke is this exactly? The one about duct taping her mouth and locking her in the cargo hold?
It has no relationship to sexism at all. It loses nothing in the translation if the character in question is a man, a woman, a trannie or an obscure alien with no apparent gender whatsoever - so long as the character is aggresively cheerful about everything.
The humour is derived from the fact that Mal is not a happy person and this would be a disproportionate and entirely over-the-top reaction to anything, let alone someone being annoyingly happy all the time.
I don't know whose argument this supports.