![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptIt’s rare that something aggravates me enough to devote a single entry to it, but I have to say, this has done it. I think our Unabashed Feminism department would also be interested in reading the source material from these points and drawing their own conclusion. I think they alerted me to the original in any case, so here we go.
The original powder keg was the bold assertion that Joss Whedon's Firefly is as antifeminine as it gets, according to the view of the author, because Mal disregards Inara, despite loving her, Jayne is a lech and a womanizer, the frequent use of violence as a cure to problems, Inara’s presence and profession, Zoe’s position between the man she loves and the captain who kept her alive, and the jokes are supposed to be taken seriously, apparently. Ah, and apparently Wash is a rapist, because he and Zoe have sex. Did I miss anything?
Well, she takes quite a bit of offense at the episode Our Mrs. Reynolds, where Saffron tricks Mal into believing he married her, so that she can steal his ship and do stuff with it. So, let’s follow her through this episode and see what she has to say.
Our radical feminist endears herself to very few persons in part one of her screed against Joss, claiming heavy comment moderation, equating the existence of male feminists with unicorns (throughout the episode, she refers to Mal becoming a unicorn when he does something in defense of the equality of both sexes), and mocking the idiots who told her that she would be better off dead. (Actually, on mocking idiots who would tell someone to go kill herself because she has strong opinions, we agree. Which no doubt would horrify her to no end.) Once she gets to the episode, she apparently doesn’t like that Mal cross-dresses for the purpose of the plot, and appears to enjoy doing so. The laugh that Zoe and the crew have at Mal once he finds out that he has Saffron is apparently not funny, because Saffron in this domestic disguise is a sexual and domestic slave, and no black person or woman, not even in the future, would joke about slavery. Confronted with the idea that some men kill women, rather than recognizing Mal saying “What kind of backwater do you come from where that happens?”, our authoress finds Mal’s advice to Saffron to fight back to be useless, because women who defend themselves are killed, or locked up, or have their lives taken from them. If Joss truly believed that, she says, he’d write a character that did just that and got away with it. But no, because The Patriarchy endures, there aren’t any characters that do that. (Except River does it in the movie. And possibly elsewhere...) Then Book’s advice about burning in hell with child molesters, should Mal take advantage of her, is apparently an indication that Joss reads Hustler and likes to joke about child sexual abuse. I’m trying to figure out these left turns, I really am, but my knowledge and deductive skills just aren’t up to the task.
This taking the jokes seriously continues through Saffron’s dinner and Wash’s joking about Zoe cooking dinner, which nets him a glare of death. Because Mal didn’t want Saffron to cry of feel useless, he let her cook dinner and ate it. This is apparently confirming Mal’s status as rapist slime. Jayne, being the oaf he is, offers to trade Saffron for his prized gun, for which Mal smacks him upside the head. But this is apparently not enough, as our authoress only sees Mal masquerading as someone who believes in equality for women. As she puts it, “I see two rapists. Only difference is that one is in a two-dollar-shop disguise as a unicorn.” And thus ends part one.
With that lovely taste, let’s get to part two of the analysis of Our Mrs. Reynolds.
Rather than taking Saffron’s dismissal of her history as a way of keeping Mal and others from looking into her past too deeply, the authoress considers it use of a misogynist writing technique on Joss’s part, and then pairs it with Zoe’s objections and Wash’s unwillingness to comment on local practices and impose his or Zoe’s view on Saffron. A very Prime Directive sort of thing, but for our writer, it turns into a defense of how men do all sorts of things to women to try and break them, and how in the face of all that, women are then called weird if they try to conform, or if they try to buck the system. A fair point, but I think that’s heavy subtext reading to get there from Wash’s wishy-washiness.
And then Saffron’s plans are finally revealed. Her skillful manipulation of Mal’s eye and weakening of his will are transformed into how the authoress does not find any sort of submissive attitude sexy, and Saffron’s submissive attitude, deceptive that it is, is yet another example of Joss Whedon’s anti-woman writing style. Then, when Saffron knocks Mal out, the revelation that she’s actually quite competent and has been playing Mal for an idiot is also anti-woman, with the implications apparently being that Joss is telling us that all women are liars. Her further manipulation of Wash, to which Wash is resisting, although acknowledging that it’s difficult, subsequent knocking out of Wash (to which our authoress says is the very first remotely feminist bit in the whole script) and then her attempt to manipulate Inara are all judged by this same damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t strategy. I’m guessing that nothing short of storming on and kicking everyone’s butt would be sufficiently sexy and feminist for our authoress. Even though it would be a really stupid plan, and not very likely to work.
Mal’s revenge on Saffron for her tricks is then spun into a justification for domestic violence because of Mal’s appropriation of the marriage theme running through the entire episode and playing up the “jilted husband” angle. Apparently, it’s Mal taking out his frustration on her for being capable and not the feminine submissive she was acting as, not for tricking him and trying to steal his ship. After a parting shot at Inara, whose “sexuality is neatly controlled by patriarchal institutions...the good whore: the wife”, as opposed to Saffron’s apparent use of her skills against those institutions, in her own self-interest, the episode and the commentary end.
I think this pair of commentaries is a classic example of reading your conclusions into the source material. Starting from the perspective that all the men want to subjugate and rape women, it becomes very easy to read all sorts of intent and style into the work. In the comments to this entry, Joss and all men are “probable rapists”, for example. If the conclusion in these pieces were that men are often unaware of the potentially sexist and misogynistic way their writing could be interpreted, especially when making jokes, there might be a case for it. Or a commentary on how societal expectations of women in “the past” or “backwards planets” are way screwed up, sure. But I just don’t see how this episode confirms, creates, or reinforces a lot of the ideas expressed here.
Not to mention, now that I’m looking at it, I find lots of places where doing one thing is useless, but doing the other thing is useless, too. Mal’s advice to Saffron to fight back is useless, because women who fight back get put in their place, but Saffron’s particular fighting style is wrong because she doesn’t stomp every man into the ground from the beginning. Instead, she prefers tactics that succeed by utilizing the very assumptions that our authoress hates against Mal and his crew. When Wash floats the idea of Zoe taking on some of Saffron’s submissive tendencies, Zoe rebuffs him. Mal expresses progressive ideas in the face of Saffron’s submissiveness, but being Companion-trained, she’s very good at manipulating him. Wash doesn’t fare any better. And really, the only remotely feminist thing in the episode is Saffron planting a boot in Wash’s head? Yet Mal’s justifiable anger at Saffron lying to him is an endorsement of male violence against women? Saffron’s lies are Joss being misogynist, and the reward she reaps for lying and deceiving is also misogynist? These are no-win situations. The conclusions have already been drawn - men cannot write feminist works, men are all probable rapists, all rape is sex, and all jokes are really windows into the author’s soul and must be taken seriously.
Of course, since I enjoyed Firefly and Serenity, I’m probably blind and biased on these conclusions. Being male as well, I’m probably beyond the pale and not supposed to be even worthy of deigning to give my opinion. I read through this to see how far things would go. I wanted to see what the justifications were. I find that picture of the characters, the writers, and men in general to be an unfair portrayal, based on the evidence being presented. I do not share the underlying assumptions. And I felt the need to say something about it. So, I suppose this is the bleating of a unicorn. What do you think? Does the horn fit?
The original powder keg was the bold assertion that Joss Whedon's Firefly is as antifeminine as it gets, according to the view of the author, because Mal disregards Inara, despite loving her, Jayne is a lech and a womanizer, the frequent use of violence as a cure to problems, Inara’s presence and profession, Zoe’s position between the man she loves and the captain who kept her alive, and the jokes are supposed to be taken seriously, apparently. Ah, and apparently Wash is a rapist, because he and Zoe have sex. Did I miss anything?
Well, she takes quite a bit of offense at the episode Our Mrs. Reynolds, where Saffron tricks Mal into believing he married her, so that she can steal his ship and do stuff with it. So, let’s follow her through this episode and see what she has to say.
Our radical feminist endears herself to very few persons in part one of her screed against Joss, claiming heavy comment moderation, equating the existence of male feminists with unicorns (throughout the episode, she refers to Mal becoming a unicorn when he does something in defense of the equality of both sexes), and mocking the idiots who told her that she would be better off dead. (Actually, on mocking idiots who would tell someone to go kill herself because she has strong opinions, we agree. Which no doubt would horrify her to no end.) Once she gets to the episode, she apparently doesn’t like that Mal cross-dresses for the purpose of the plot, and appears to enjoy doing so. The laugh that Zoe and the crew have at Mal once he finds out that he has Saffron is apparently not funny, because Saffron in this domestic disguise is a sexual and domestic slave, and no black person or woman, not even in the future, would joke about slavery. Confronted with the idea that some men kill women, rather than recognizing Mal saying “What kind of backwater do you come from where that happens?”, our authoress finds Mal’s advice to Saffron to fight back to be useless, because women who defend themselves are killed, or locked up, or have their lives taken from them. If Joss truly believed that, she says, he’d write a character that did just that and got away with it. But no, because The Patriarchy endures, there aren’t any characters that do that. (Except River does it in the movie. And possibly elsewhere...) Then Book’s advice about burning in hell with child molesters, should Mal take advantage of her, is apparently an indication that Joss reads Hustler and likes to joke about child sexual abuse. I’m trying to figure out these left turns, I really am, but my knowledge and deductive skills just aren’t up to the task.
This taking the jokes seriously continues through Saffron’s dinner and Wash’s joking about Zoe cooking dinner, which nets him a glare of death. Because Mal didn’t want Saffron to cry of feel useless, he let her cook dinner and ate it. This is apparently confirming Mal’s status as rapist slime. Jayne, being the oaf he is, offers to trade Saffron for his prized gun, for which Mal smacks him upside the head. But this is apparently not enough, as our authoress only sees Mal masquerading as someone who believes in equality for women. As she puts it, “I see two rapists. Only difference is that one is in a two-dollar-shop disguise as a unicorn.” And thus ends part one.
With that lovely taste, let’s get to part two of the analysis of Our Mrs. Reynolds.
Rather than taking Saffron’s dismissal of her history as a way of keeping Mal and others from looking into her past too deeply, the authoress considers it use of a misogynist writing technique on Joss’s part, and then pairs it with Zoe’s objections and Wash’s unwillingness to comment on local practices and impose his or Zoe’s view on Saffron. A very Prime Directive sort of thing, but for our writer, it turns into a defense of how men do all sorts of things to women to try and break them, and how in the face of all that, women are then called weird if they try to conform, or if they try to buck the system. A fair point, but I think that’s heavy subtext reading to get there from Wash’s wishy-washiness.
And then Saffron’s plans are finally revealed. Her skillful manipulation of Mal’s eye and weakening of his will are transformed into how the authoress does not find any sort of submissive attitude sexy, and Saffron’s submissive attitude, deceptive that it is, is yet another example of Joss Whedon’s anti-woman writing style. Then, when Saffron knocks Mal out, the revelation that she’s actually quite competent and has been playing Mal for an idiot is also anti-woman, with the implications apparently being that Joss is telling us that all women are liars. Her further manipulation of Wash, to which Wash is resisting, although acknowledging that it’s difficult, subsequent knocking out of Wash (to which our authoress says is the very first remotely feminist bit in the whole script) and then her attempt to manipulate Inara are all judged by this same damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t strategy. I’m guessing that nothing short of storming on and kicking everyone’s butt would be sufficiently sexy and feminist for our authoress. Even though it would be a really stupid plan, and not very likely to work.
Mal’s revenge on Saffron for her tricks is then spun into a justification for domestic violence because of Mal’s appropriation of the marriage theme running through the entire episode and playing up the “jilted husband” angle. Apparently, it’s Mal taking out his frustration on her for being capable and not the feminine submissive she was acting as, not for tricking him and trying to steal his ship. After a parting shot at Inara, whose “sexuality is neatly controlled by patriarchal institutions...the good whore: the wife”, as opposed to Saffron’s apparent use of her skills against those institutions, in her own self-interest, the episode and the commentary end.
I think this pair of commentaries is a classic example of reading your conclusions into the source material. Starting from the perspective that all the men want to subjugate and rape women, it becomes very easy to read all sorts of intent and style into the work. In the comments to this entry, Joss and all men are “probable rapists”, for example. If the conclusion in these pieces were that men are often unaware of the potentially sexist and misogynistic way their writing could be interpreted, especially when making jokes, there might be a case for it. Or a commentary on how societal expectations of women in “the past” or “backwards planets” are way screwed up, sure. But I just don’t see how this episode confirms, creates, or reinforces a lot of the ideas expressed here.
Not to mention, now that I’m looking at it, I find lots of places where doing one thing is useless, but doing the other thing is useless, too. Mal’s advice to Saffron to fight back is useless, because women who fight back get put in their place, but Saffron’s particular fighting style is wrong because she doesn’t stomp every man into the ground from the beginning. Instead, she prefers tactics that succeed by utilizing the very assumptions that our authoress hates against Mal and his crew. When Wash floats the idea of Zoe taking on some of Saffron’s submissive tendencies, Zoe rebuffs him. Mal expresses progressive ideas in the face of Saffron’s submissiveness, but being Companion-trained, she’s very good at manipulating him. Wash doesn’t fare any better. And really, the only remotely feminist thing in the episode is Saffron planting a boot in Wash’s head? Yet Mal’s justifiable anger at Saffron lying to him is an endorsement of male violence against women? Saffron’s lies are Joss being misogynist, and the reward she reaps for lying and deceiving is also misogynist? These are no-win situations. The conclusions have already been drawn - men cannot write feminist works, men are all probable rapists, all rape is sex, and all jokes are really windows into the author’s soul and must be taken seriously.
Of course, since I enjoyed Firefly and Serenity, I’m probably blind and biased on these conclusions. Being male as well, I’m probably beyond the pale and not supposed to be even worthy of deigning to give my opinion. I read through this to see how far things would go. I wanted to see what the justifications were. I find that picture of the characters, the writers, and men in general to be an unfair portrayal, based on the evidence being presented. I do not share the underlying assumptions. And I felt the need to say something about it. So, I suppose this is the bleating of a unicorn. What do you think? Does the horn fit?
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 06:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 04:39 pm (UTC)*snicker*
Seriously, though. As though 'normal' sexism didn't already try to constrain women into a certain mode of behavior--this is the same shit in a different sandwich.
(also, it's not just Fighting the Man In All Forms At All Times--it's Fighting the Man By Kicking Him In the Face. That's it. That's all.)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 04:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 05:09 pm (UTC)That needs to go on a shirt somewhere. I feel this very strongly.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 06:26 pm (UTC)Plus, the unicorns are male feminists - they don't exist. I don't quite think the phrase fits, interesting that it is.