Battlestar Galactica- 1st 4 episodes (spoilers)

(written with the disclaimer that I'm bleeding knackered and really can't tell if this is good writing or not, I just needed to get it off my chest)

I watched the first 4 episodes last night. On the whole it’s still good and still gripping. Episodes 1 and 2 were great, episode 3 I really didn’t like and episode 4 had a lot of flashbacks which were shot in that really bright light which makes everyone’s skin look really really smooth. A peculiarly American thing I think, or is that just cos I only watch (old) American (sci fi) shows? With no TV licence and a distinct aversion to learning how to download stuff I stick with watching only a few old shows.

Anyway, episode 3. I really did not like this. I do not like my TV shows
preaching at me
patronising me
moralising at me.

I watch TV shows to be entertained, I do not want some lesson in real life problems from them. If I want to be made to think and emote I will read a book or visit the internet, or watch the news. TV is my escapism and I dislike heavy political subjects intruding into it. With that in mind I was never going to be keen on this episode.

I heartily disliked the discussions concerning
Terrorism vs Freedom Fighters. I hate the phrase ‘we do not negotiate with terrorists’ – it’s overused and it’s too close to real life. No one came to a conclusion and it wasn’t looked at in any depth.
Whether it is prison that makes a man bad or whether he chooses to act that way. Again, no depth. At any rate, given the circumstances of the show it doesn’t bleeding matter. Just shoot the cunt.
And of course there was a lovely rape threat scene. Of course, because how else do you show the extreme evilness of men?

At least the intended victim bit the attackers ear off (good for her). On the other hand, they could have shot it completely differently – when the black lady (I’ve forgotten her name) said to the presidential aide dude that Callie can look after herself because she’s been trained, she could have sounded like she meant it. She could have been relaxed and less panicky. Callie could have been less scared and more in control. Then again, I guess that’s not in Callie’s nature, she’s a bit of a nervous one, very much like Kaylee in Firefly. It’s in Starbuck’s nature (who, if we’re going to be doing comparisons, is I guess more like Zoe from Firefly), but that’s why on these shows a character like Starbuck will never be abducted like this. Because apparently rape only ever happens to ‘weak’ women. Because apparently it will always be a threat and we have to constantly watch out for ourselves wherever we go.

I know BSG is very much about real people who haven’t changed that much between now and the year it’s set, so I’m not asking for some utopian ideal of society, I’m just asking if maybe for once we could leave the rape threats out please? There’s enough to contend with in real life, which may be why I’m taking this to heart so much.

But mostly, I disliked this episode because it brought nothing new the the 3 debates. It was lazy writing, reliant on cliches and I was expecting more. So far the show has been layered and has depth, it's been intelligent. They could have taken the stance that actually, there's a few precious people being held hostage, so we will negotiate. That would have allowed them to examine the morality and possible ways forward. The again I guess in a post 9/11 America being seen to even consider to kow tow to terrorists is an absolute no no isn't it?

Unfortunately this attitude led to a stifled, boring, trope filled plot by numbers episode that really wasn't very bright. Except for the last bit, which was...

...The exchange between Apollo and the President about the legality of her tenure and the promise of an election. That was ace. It was looked at in depth, it held arguments and counter arguments, it was an actual discussion and it contributed something to the make up of the show. It solidified the characters and add extra nuance. And it is fresh and new – how many other (sci fi) shows debate shit like this? The other 3 things that I’ve mentioned had none of that; they’ve all been overdone and overused.

The other plus point is Starbuck – is her real name Kara? If it is that’s fucking sweet. I heart Starbuck in a big way: cigar smoking, top pilot piloting, best (human) sniper in the universe, confident, butch wonder. Love love love her.

Coming out: Obsidian + Nuklon, Fire + Ice

I thought I’d share with you all some comings out scenes from comics.

First up, we have Obsidian (Todd) and Nuklon (?) (Albert) from the pages of Justice League America, #s 110 and 111 from 1996:



In the same run we have Ice (Sigrid) coming out (#110) and a hint that maybe Fire (Bea) isn’t as straight as we’d hitherto thought (#112) :



Was anything ever confirmed one way or the other with Bea?

Does anyone know of other coming out scenes in comics? I know of the Piper in the Flash v2 run - he came out to Wally but then it was ignored for quite a long while.

Speaking of the Flash, the end of the JLA run was very much about relationships. Yazz, a ‘lil blue alien spent a lot of time winding Wally up by refusing to state his/her sex:

We also had Constance (Crimson Fox) dealing with the animal inside her and sorting out her relationship with Metamorpho, Blue Devil dealing with the aftermath of his murder of Kid Devil’s aunt, Power Girl dealing with the birth and loss of her baby, Guy Gardener and Fire dealing with the loss of Ice.

I found it unusual, but enjoyable, to have the focus be so much on relationships and not big giant aliens. It wasn’t always written particularly well, sometimes it was handled clumsily, but overall we got a feeling of rawness and uncertainty. There were so many emotions in the air from nearly every member of the JLA.

The run ended with issues #113 and I can’t help but wonder if all this stuff was brought up because the League was about to be reincarnated.

Jeez, I'm such a cynic.

In other news, To egg or not to egg? The F Word debates the egging of BNP leader. I think I'm still for it. however I am not particularly fond of some of the self righteous comments popping up in that comment thread, nor this one. I appreciate Jess' comments about derailing, but it seems to me that some commenters are dismissing Lorna West because she's a Tory. That's not really on.

Dan Jurgens run on Justice League America

This run was pretty bad. Writing issues 61 to 77 Jurgens did some really odd things. It’s not the plots in particular that are bad, it’s the characterization and the art. When read immediately after the glorious Keith Giffen run (issues 26 to 60) the plots look staid, boring and very run of the mill. The humour went. Jurgens writes dark serious stories and takes all the jokes, lightness and a lot of the warmth out of the characters.

For instance, from issue 63 Fire is suddenly saying ‘like’ in every other sentence. What the fuck? She’s always spoken well in the past, did not use slang and isn’t a vapid American valley girl. Sure she’s vain, and conceited and wants to me a model, but she never ever acted dumb. She’s an ex spy from Brazil, she’s got a good command of English. Ugh, the near constant use of ‘like’ was horrible.

Secondly, Blue Beetle suddenly starts imitating an insect. Check these panels out:
(click to enlarge)
(Both from issue 63)

(Issue 66)

Since when does Beetle crawl on all fours? I don’t know much about his origin, I assume he has a link to the scarab, but i’ve never seen him having any affinity for insects before.

Lastly, I can only assume Ted is doing some sort of crazy jive thriller dance here (bottom left panel):

(Issue 76)

Superman turns up in this run and becomes the unofficial/official leader of the group. The effect is somewhat ruined by Supes being so angry, rude and just downright short tempered. I am very much aware that Superman gets angry, I know he’s not always polite, but he is usually written as having patience and grace, and not as if he thinks he’s morally superior. This Kal appears to find a lot of anger in everything – he’s lost a lot of the humanity.

Maybe I was just tainted by my bad feelings on the previous issues, maybe he’s not so inhuman after all. He does display a massive amount of deliberate superdickery though. For example, he apparently believes he can dictate how women on earth should dress:
In all credit to Maxima though she doesn’t take too kindly to this and chooses a suit more to her tastes and more in line with previous outfits:

Good for her! Check out the length of that skirt and the extra cleavage :D (Issue 66)

Guy Gardner is given unfair treatment as he suddenly develops murderous impulses, threatening Ted with a yellow (he’s been kicked out of the corps by this point) drill at one point (also issue 66). Guy may be angry, he may be violent, he may like fighting but up until this point I wouldn’t have said he was murderous. Has something happened in another comic to make him this way? If there was it would have been helpful to have a recap box somewhere. [EDIT – Now I’ve got to issue 85 I see that it was some sort of clone of Guy. Whew.]

To be fair, I should point out that there are good things about this run. Blue Beetle’s investigative and curious nature is brought to the forefront – he invents new gadgets to track all members of the JLA and is trying to work out who Bloodwynd is. He’s working in his lab a lot and being far more of a scientist. I also like the Martian Manhunter as Bloodwynd sub plot, and the Pawns of the Weaponsmaster story – the first time Beetle really starts to use his brains in this volume of the JLA. The Destiny’s Hand arc was also good and it was nice to see what the Atom can do. And some of the covers were absolutely gorgeous, but I shall include those in a later post consisting entirely of notably art from this volume.

Overall though, the negative parts outweigh the positives for me. While the overall themes and ideas worked, the inclusion of some odd (and quite obviously odd) character quirks did ruin it for me. I expected better things from the current writer of Booster Gold, but evidently 20 years ago he still had a lot to learn.

*SEE! I have no problem with cleavage and sexiness so long as it’s done in context with the story and in line with characters’ personalities.

Joss Whedon and feminism part 4

Ok so first of all I want to say thanks for everyone who's left comments so far. I really didn't expect my posts to get picked up or have people responding, especially not multiple times. I'm surprised and flattered! Also, these last two posts have been focusing on Firefly because they've been prompted by Allecto's writing. I will do another one on Buffy, but I'm not sure when - I've had the last week off work so have had a lot more spare time than I usually do.

I also wrote those last posts quite late at night so again I'm stunned they made sense ;) And a qualifier - my views sometime change day to day so I may contradict myself today.

In response to people's comments so far:
Male feminists - I don't think I explained myself clearly enough before. I have said in post number 1 that I know men can be feminists, I know men who are. This is a good thing, a very good thing! I said before:
"I do not think that they are well placed to pick up on and recognise internalised misogyny and societal sexism because by and large it doesn't affect them."

I'd just like to clarify that I don't mean men can't pick up on blatant or subtle misogyny and sexism, they can and do. It's just that unless discrimination affects someone directly. or they are specifically looking out for it, then I think it usually gets missed. HOWEVER, many women also do not pick up on discrimination, or will disagree on what discrimination is. Some men will be better at getting it than some women, and vice versa. I also think that there is a danger in stating that the men will never get it like the women do, because it implies that if you're a woman your opinions are automatically more valid than a man's. And that's bollocks. Everybody's opinions are valid and everyone can learn from each other. There are as many different views and takes on feminism as people and that's great.

To me, feminism can also mean humanism, i.e. treat people, both men and women, like human beings. This means do not objectify, do not buy their bodies, do not beat, do not dismiss. Both men and women are perfectly capable of doing this. I consider all my friends, male and female, feminist because they are not jerks and they believe in treating people fairly. If they didn't believe in this I wouldn't be friends with them.
To say that one sex cannot understand a whole raft of theory is divisive and patronising. I do not believe there are inherent differences between men and women's personalities and make up - I believe we are socialized into gender specific roles from birth and it's damn hard to get out of the mind set.
I guess I do believe in Unicorns then. I hope they're shiny.

Ok onto Allecto's last post.
First off, I think people have got the hump with Allecto's posts for two reasons. The first one is that she's very confrontational and aggressive in the posts and the second one is that people have misunderstood the purpose of her blog. Her post titles are 'A Rapist's view of the world' and 'A wife-beater's view of the world', both referring to Joss Whedon. However at no point does she explain why she thinks Joss is a wife beater or rapist. And y'know, I think her lack of an explanation is ok. This is her blog, it's not intended to be a radical feminism 101, it;'s not intended to educate people to radical feminism or convert them to her way of thinking, it's Allecto putting down her thoughts about issues she sees in the world. I think the intended audience are those people who already share her world view.
On this page she writes:
Men who know little of feminism, this is not the space for you. If you wish to educate yourself further on the women’s liberation movement then, by all means, read what I have to say. Until you have a deeper understanding of feminist thought, however, I do not welcome your comments or questions. I am not here to educate men on feminism.
(Emphasis mine).
On this page she writes:
The women who comment here come from all walks of life. We represent a highly marginalised and vilified group and we are often viciously attacked for our views. I will not allow comments from women who are not supportive of Radical Feminism. I will not allow male-apologist comments.
(Emphasis mine)

So I'm not surprised she hasn't published all comments received and I'm not surprised she hasn't responded to criticisms. That's not what she uses her internet space for. Unless a blog is described as an educational spot, or states that it welcomes discussions and sharing of ideas there is no reason to expect this to happen.

As for the rapist and wife beater descriptions - I assume that Allecto believes that all men are potential rapists, a view I think is shared by members of the radical feminist community, as opposed to accusing Joss of personally raping or beating his wife (or any other woman). (I happen to agree with it but I also think that all women are potential rapists (of men and other women) too, but that's a whole different topic).

Of course if I've got this theory totally wrong please let me know.

OK onto the actual content of the post. As I said before, I'm no literary critic and I don't know the techniques for dissecting texts. But I do know that I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that all texts always represent the world view of the writer. To say this would surely mean that the writer can only create characters and situations they know? Surely people can write from the point of view of someone they despise in a manner they don't approve of? Or am I missing something more subtle? Please someone tell me if I am.

Allecto says:
"What makes me even more annoyed about this scene is the fact that Mal, as always, does all the talking, leaving Saffron’s potentially interesting history unexplored. This is typical of stories written by misogynists. They are not interested in women’s stories; women are only there to further understanding of the male characters."
Re Mal doing all the talking, I think the scene was written this way to demonstrate Saffron's character. She's meant to be submissive and think herself unworthy. Also, as we find out later, Saffron is a construct, therefore there is nothing real to find out about. So she wouldn't want to dwell on her male believe past.
In regards to women only being there to further understand male characters. This does happen an awful lot in fiction, and yes it is typical of stories written by misogynists. (For a comic centric view of this, see the Women in Refrigerators website.) But I don't think it is happening here. I think we are still getting to know Saffron and the exchange prompting Allecto's comments helps us do this. But again, I'm no literary critic and tend to look at things from within the universe, ie.e. if it makes sense within the boundaries of the story then I'm fine with it.

"the....scene where Zoe shows herself to be completely unsympathetic to Saffron’s slavery and blames Saffron for her own subjugation."
I am not one who believes in a sisterhood. I don't see any reason, given what we know of Zoe's character, why she should rush in and defend Saffron. Zoe is an military woman, she's a loner and she cares for her own, in this case meaning primarily Mal and Wash. Mal because he was her captain in the war and old bonds like that do not die, and Wash because he's her husband and they're in partnership together. Zoe cares for the rest of the crew because they're crew and the Captain brought them on board but she isn't going to take a new person under her wing freely. I get the impression that you need to earn Zoe's loyalty, it is not given freely.

Zoe says the Captain shouldn't be 'babysitting a damn groupie', well no, they've got jobs to do and he shouldn't be married to her - he shoulda realised what the ritual meant or Shepard Book shoulda told him. Zoe also calls Saffron trouble - well she did turn out to be trouble. This comment *could* be read as Zoe knowing something isn't right with Saffron's story, although I doubt it. I think she means Saffron's presence will interfere with the running of the ship and Mal's job.
Wash's inane geese juggling comment only serves to show up Wash - he hasn't realised the gravity of the situation and is trying to dissipate his wife's anger.

In regards to women not defending their own, when we first meet Saffron on the ship and Mal is being exceedingly rude, talking bout her like she isn't there or have ears, Kaylee comforts Saffron and calls Mal up on his rudeness. She does not get punished and if I remember right, Mal looks contrite at Kaylee's reprimand. But that's Kaylee - she cares for everyone, Zoe doesn't.

Allecto's comments about men abusing women for being born female I wholeheartedly agree with. I'm just not convinced that Our Mrs Reynold's so far demonstrates this.

Allecto's next comments are about the scene where Saffron is in Mal's bed. I pretty much agree with Allecto here. It does make submissiveness and vulnerability sexy, and you know, it's not! Saffron has been traded to Mal, Mal pretty much says just that:
"Just’cause you got handed to me by some couldn’t pay his debts, don’t make you beholden to me."

Therefore taking advantage of Saffron is utterly utterly wrong. You could argue that this scene is designed to show Mal being a jerk, but I don't hold with that. There's not enough made of Mal's jerkishness and far far more made of Saffron being teh sexy.

Allecto's comments about Joss writing that women lie about everything I think would only hold true if this were correct for all his characters. But I think that in Firefly (and Buffy) he's created a selection of diverse female characters with distinct personalities, mostly free from stereotypes. cough*except for River*cough. However I forgive River's cliche of mad super powerful teenage girl because she's so fucking awesome at it. And because his other female characters are truly diverse and strong.

Allecto's comments about the Wash/Zoe relationship:
"Wash openly admits that he wishes he could sleep with Saffron a woman who he has just met. He simultaneously believes that he loves Zoe despite the fact that he openly admits to wanting to fuck Saffron. And the primary motivation for him refusing to fuck Saffron does not seem to be because he loves Zoe, it is more because of his life may be in danger if he does. Wow, I really do just love these nice, white husbands. Whatever would women do without all these nice, white men?"
I'm not sure if you can love someone and truly want to screw someone else. I love my boyfriend very very much, I still crush on other people, but I don't think I could actually bring myself to sleep with someone else. I think most people are the same. Or am I naive? And the comment about Wash's life being in danger if he cheats on Zoe - if fear's the primary motivation for not sleeping with someone then you are lame. This seems to be representative of that old cliche that all men are driven by their cocks - kinda cruel and dismissive towards men I think.

The Inara/Saffron moment - Saffron is ruthless yes, Allecto thinks this is a good thing because Saffron gets to kick fuckwit men in the head. Zoe gets to shoot fuckwit men all the way through the series and River singlehandedly takes out an entire army of reavers. Saffron's ruthlessness therefore doesn't appear to me as a feminist moment because she's a bad guy. However, random titillating lesbian scene, yes. Unnecessary. But at least it's established in other episodes that Inara does actually like women.

Jayne's gun Vera is big and phallic yes, that's why Jayne has it. He likes big phallic things. Jayne is not a nice man. He's also not representative of all men because like Joss female characters, the male ones are also allowed to be distinct and different.

While Mal and Saffron are wrestling:
"MAL (cont’d)Looks like you get your wedding night after all."
Sex (rape?) jokes are not necessary. We get the comparison without the dialogue. Also, Saffron's pose and clothes are unnecessarily sexualised by this point. She didn't have to be wrestling with a tiny bra and low cut dress (top?) on. I do not hold that this is justifiable because it is in character, it would be nice to not include women as eye candy at every possible moment. Ok, Zoe, River and Kaylee are not treated as eye candy, so why does practically every other woman in the show have to be dressed like a tavern wench? I know it's a western style show but that's not an excuse. They could all be dressed like Zoe and still be in 'period' costume. Not doing so indicates laziness (and an inability to see women as other than sex objects) by Whedon, the producers and the costume department. (Inara not included her because her job is to look beautiful).

The scripted notes to this scene are pretty horrible too.

"She (Saffron) lets out a breath, smiles at him unfathomably."
"She (Saffron) looks at him… looks away, considering the question… — and he slams the butt of his gun into her chin, knocking her out cold. He stands, regards her genuinely vulnerable form. Says with a kind of sadness"

As Allecto says "The scripted description of Saffron in this scene make it abundantly clear that this scene is supposed to titillate." Titillation is not neccessary. Women do not have to equal sex. Why can't people see this?

"But perhaps most disturbingly this scene can be read as a justification for male violence in the home. Joss frequently references marriage in the scene, to bring on the funnies of course, having Mal acting like a spurned husband and Saffron the wayward wife. If we read the entire episode using this framework of reference we can see that Joss has constructed a vicious argument in favour of male violence in the domestic sphere."
This paragraph and the two following it I think are valuable. If you read the whole episode using the above frame of reference then I think Allecto has come up with some very valuable, interesting points. Of course if you don't think it's appropriate to use this frame of reference you won't agree with her.

"First up we have the innocent virgin wife. Mal romances the innocent virgin wife, teaching her to be strong and independent, but still ultimately subservient to him, and obedient to his authority. They come to the marital bed and it turns out that she isn’t quite so innocent after all. She transforms from an innocent country girl into a manipulative, callous woman, who is strong, capable and independent. She works for herself and bows to no one, not even Mal, her husband. In fact, she willfully betrays him and uses his faults and weaknesses to get her own way. It is clear that such a woman must be brought down. By any means necessary.

Saffron leaves Mal and Mal tracks her down, invading her home by force as a husband, pushing her to the bed, using his body to pin her down while he lectures her for not conforming to proper feminine womanhood, before slamming his gun in her face. "

If you view the episode like this, and I think you can justifiably do so, it revels in cliches and smacks of misogyny. It is this presentation which ultimately makes me quite uncomfortable with the episode. Mal, whilst being an anti hero, is still the hero. As such his actions are to be emulated and approved of. I also think Allecto is correct in presenting Inara/Saffron as the Wife(Virgin?)/Whore dichotomy. Again, making me uncomfortable with the episode.

So, while I disagree with the details of Allecto's interpretation of this episode, her overall view argument and conclusion I think has a lot going for it.

I also wanted to include some thoughts about Inara and Companionship. I think prostitution is wrong. The buying and selling of anyone's bodies is just plain wrong. I believe that the majority of prostitution is rape, because I believe the women are coerced into doing it. I don't know how to solve the problem, but penalising the punters not the prostitutes would be a good start.
Inara's job is not as a straightforward prostitute. She is a Companion. she sells her body and her services and her goodwill and her conversation and her ability to entertain. I get the impression Whedon was inspired by Geishas, except that they never ever sold their body.

The first thing I have a beef with is that prostitution, in whatever guise, is still in existence and is celebrated. And Companionship is presented as something desirable. Yes the Companions choose their punters but it's not a perfect system. The episode Shindig shows this - Inara's client does not respect her or her profession and hits her. Mal then wades in as male hero because 'his' woman has been hurt. I'm sure Inara can take care of herself, but by somewhat more subtle means. Unfortunately it seems that attitudes haven't changed much and men's first instinct is to challenger the other man. And when I say men here I mean men, not people. At any rate, Inara is not allowed to take care of herself, she stands quietly by whilst Mal partakes in an extremely stupid swordfight he can't hope to win. This episode could have been written differently with Inara getting revenge on her punter.

Alimaemia said in response to an earlier post of mine that Companionship is a high class social function, not like prostitution as we know it. I agree with both points but it does incorporate prostitution, Inara does sell her body. Now if she enjoys the sex every time then I'd be happier, but no one enjoys their job all the time. We also don't see any safeguards against hurting the women - there are repercussions in that men who hurt the women will be blacklisted but Shindig clearly shows that this doesn't deter some men. The reputation of the Companions does not prevent punters being rude and abusive.

I also wonder if the Companions have to pretend to be someone else in their job? I mean, do they have to grin it and bear it when they are with a boarish oafish punter, do they have to fake enjoying the sex? From the little I recall of a conversation between Inara and one of her female punters I think they do have to fake it. This could have been explored in so much more detail in the show, but it wasn't. Instead it was glamourised and portrayed as a respected profession.

I can see the paralells between Companionship and current day prositution. And I think that Companionship is morally and ethically wrong.

Comments and criticisms please, and thanks for reading!

EDIT: this page has Allecto explaining more fully her views on what constitutes rape and interracial relationships. Worth reading.

Joss Whedon and Feminism part 3

Ok onto part 3. Response to Allecto's second post here.
She's talking about the episode Our Mrs Reynolds. Synopsis nicked from her post:
Mal the captain of the ship finds out that he has married a woman when he finds a stowaway on his ship. The stowaway, whose name is Saffron, was traded to Mal as a gift because he helped the inhabitants of a planet to get rid of some bad guys.

First scene is Mal and Jayne driving a carriage. Mal's dressed as a woman. Allecto comments on the anti feminism of drag. I don't know anything about that myself, although it does seem to me that drag centres it's humour around caricatures of women and stereotypes of femininity. It seems the humour comes from contrasting the exaggerated portrayal of women with the tough natural manliness of men. I think this is what is happening in this episode. In which case, I do take issue with it because these portrayals of women are not real. Real women do not act like Mal-as-women does. And these caricatures piss me off, it's like a safe way to present a very one dimensional view of womanhood, and it presents this view as the truth. Plus yes, jokes about rape are not funny.

"A bit later Mal talks about how he likes to wear dresses with Inara. “Like woman, I am a mystery,” he says of his enjoyment of wearing dresses. Sorry, Joss, score zero for that one. Women aren’t a mystery, WE ARE FULLY CONSCIOUS HUMAN BEINGS."
Unfortunately I know lots of people who think the opposite sex are a mystery. Well they bloody well wouldn't be if people bothered to be honest with each other and quit playing games. Grumble grumble grumble.

"When Zoe is told that Saffron has been traded to Mal as a wife/slave she begins to laugh. She then calls the rest of the crew and invites them to join her in laughing at Mal’s newly acquired possession"
I think she's laughing at Mal, not Saffron. Laughing at Mal's predicament in acquiring himself a wife. (Not that's necessarily better). I also suspect that Zoe never thinks for one moment that Mal will treat her a slave. I think in this episode the mistake made is that the crew treat Saffron as if she has the knowledge, nous and experience to make her own decisions and choices when if she really were a slave, she wouldn't be able to do so. This storyline was not handled in a very sophisticated way.

I don't think that Mal shouting at his crew is indicative of misogyny or sexism, because I don't think he's shouting at them because they're female. I think he's shouting because he's the boss. I believe that the intent behind the action is important, but it does not always excuse the end result, if that makes sense. Of course, you can argue that the whole military set up is patriarchal and not women friendly, but to do that I think you'd have to argue that men and women are radically different beings. I don't think we are.

"And just a tip Joss....If you believe that women should kill men who try to kill them then, quite frankly, I agree with you. If you want to show your encouragement and support for women who defend themselves from men, then write a female character that kills a man who is trying to kill her AND GETS AWAY WITH IT. "
Agreed. Would not River Tam in Serenity count? She does kill all the Reavers. Something no one else has ever been able to do.

I don't understand why Allecto thinks Joss uses porn, and Hustler in particular, so I cannot comment on this point.

"White male husband wishing his black female wife was more submissive and cooked his dinner. Anyone else see a problem with this?"
I think it's possible to view this exchange without looking at race, that is, I don't think race is a motivating factor in Zoe and Wash's relationship, although I can see the symbolism of what Allecto is saying. And yes, this could have been written better, with more awareness.

Black female wife being jealous of a woman she terms a ‘slave girl’. Anyone else see a problem with this? "
I don't think Zoe is jealous of Saffron, I think she's pissed at Wash for acting like a dick and implying her cooking needs to be improved. Mind you, I can't see Zoe cooking anything for Wash. i reckon he does the cooking and household stuff.

"Given that Mal nobly believes in protecting the female members on board his ship from the ravages of ‘the world’ (read: men), I find it hard to credit that he allows Jayne to stay on board his ship. In this scene Jayne talks of women as sexual and domestic property, obviously unaware that women are human beings. Men who think like this about women ARE DANGEROUS. If Mal did care about the protection of women, he would have spaced Jayne immediately, or at least locked the fucker up."
Playing devil's advocate here, Mal does keep an eye on Jayne and watch what he's doing. But in a realistic setting yeah Jayne should be shot off asap. However, he's a good character to have on the show. From an outside, meta perspective, he's entertaining, his attitudes are ridiculous and we can laugh at him. And we know it's OK to laugh at him because we figure the rules of the show will keep him in line. He wouldn't seriously fuck up one of the female characters because that would be uncomfortable viewing.
From the view within the show we figure the women are safe because of this exchange:

JAYNE: Six men came to kill me one time, and the best of them carried this. It’s a Callahan fullbore autolock, customized trigger and double cartridge thourough-gage. He holds it out to Mal.
JAYNE (cont’d): It’s my very favorite gun.
MAL: The explosive diarrhea of an elephant, are you offering me a trade?
JAYNE: A trade? Hell, it’s theft! This is the best gun made by man, and its got extreme sentimental value! It’s miles more worthy’n what you got.
MAL: “What I got” - she has a name.
JAYNE:So does this! I call it Vera.…
MAL:She’s not to be bought. Nor bartered, nor borrowed or lent. She’s a human woman, doesn’t know a damn thing about the world and needs our protection.

Jayne is asking Mal for permission. He won't step out of line because he knows Mal will kick him to kingdom come if he tries anything. Plus, I think Jayne is a little scared of the female crew. He's definitely freaked out by River, he wouldn't dare lay a hand on Zoe cos he knows she'll kick his ass, Inara is out of his league and has the protection of Mal and the academy and I don't think he quite knows what to do with Kaylee. She's confident, clever and isn't intimidated by him.
Yes there are obviously issues with one man asking another for permission about a woman, but I believe that this used to highlight Jayne's sociopathic-ness (Is that the correct word?). The other characters do not treat women like objects so I don't believe the text as a whole can be read as endorsing Jayne's view.

OK one more to go. As usual, comments and criticisms welcomed. Especially as I'm not a literary critic and wouldn't know those methods of analysis if they bit me on the nose.

Joss whedon and feminsim part 2

I've been re-reading Allecto's posts on Joss Whedon here, here and here. As I said previously when I first read what she had to say I was taken aback by the forcefulness of her feeling. I didn't understand what position she was coming from and the amount of hate in Allecto's text shocked me, nonetheless on first reading I was left feeling uneasy because some of what she was saying seemed to make sense. Now, I like having my views challenged, I like reading new things, but it does take me a long time to mull things over and get my thoughts in order. Anyway, the end result was my previous post.

Now I've had time to think I've decided I want to go through Allecto's posts and respond to them. This will not be an attack on her, as I've said I think a lot of what she's written is valid. I mostly want to get my thoughts in order and exchange ideas. Like Allecto, I think Joss as producer and in charge of concept development of both Firefly and Buffy he should be held accountable to the content of each show. Fine. Let's get some general points down first:

• I do not think that Joss is a misogynist, neither do I think him sexist. I think he is trying to overcome sexism and misogyny, however being male he is always coming from a vantage point of male privilege and so will always always overlook some issues and representations etc. Lacking the lived experience of being female he will also not be able to fully understand what it means to be female in patriarchal society.
• Buffy and Firefly are two very different shows, with different characters and different moral standpoints. Both demonstrate different world views and I don't think either should be used as an indicator of the writer/producers mindset and worldview. what goes for Buffy may apply for Firefly.
• No matter how much I love this show or others I think we should always call out those responsible when we see errors and offensive material included in the show. Both programmes were written by a man in a patriarchal society and will undoubtedly reflect that society.

Ok, let's go:
Post number one: A Rapist's View of the World: Joss Whedon and Firefly
Allecto stated in the first line that this a rant. To me this means it is angry and not necessarily well planned out. Don't give her grief over the presentation of her arguments ok? (Quotes from Allecto are in italics).

"Zoe runs around calling Mal ‘sir’ and taking orders off him....a white man tells a black woman to ‘shut up’ for no apparent reason. And she does shut up. And she continues to call him sir. And takes his orders... for the rest of the series."
I don't see this as an issue of race. I think it is clearly set up in the episode that they are in the army together and Mal is the Captain. In an army setting you take orders from your boss or you risk getting killed. You trust that your orders are good ones because if you start arguing and breaking the cohesiveness of the unit you put your squadron/unit/whatever in danger. Although we could ask why not have a black female captain and a white male subordinate.

I don't think Firefly is very good on issues of race, not because of scenarios like the one above, but because for a show set in the future where there's a huge Chinese/Asian influence on the culture there are remarkably few people of Asian descent included. This has been rectified slightly in the comics, but really should have been recognised and rectified when casting the show. Also, I suspect that a lot of the Asian cultural references, e.g., furniture, dresses, background stuff etc, are based on stereotypes and may not actually reflect the true diversity of Asian culture in existence today. I say suspect because I'm cynical - I know next to nothing about Asian culture.

"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.” Kaylee responds by grinning and giving Mal a kiss on the cheek and saying, “I love my Captain.”
What the fuck is this feminist man trying to say about women here? A white male captain who abuses and silences his female crew, with no consequences. The women are HAPPY to be abused."
I read Mal's quote as Mal showing up Jayne's inherent ridiculousness. Jayne probably would see no problem with duct taping Kaylee and shoving her in the hold for a month. Kaylee recognises this, hence her response. Jayne is the counterfoil in a lot of Firefly - he's a real selfish git who doesn't give a stuff about anyone else and is something of a sociopath (I think that's the correct phrase). He's out for number one and he truly doesn't understand why duct tape and imprisonment are bad things. Mal is also flawed, he's got a dubious morality (more on that later) but he's not as much a low life as Jayne.

Now Mal and Inara. Mal behaves awfully towards her. He consistently calls her a whore because he's uncomfortable with her job. He says he respects her not the job and does stand up for her when another guy gets too possessive, yet he calls her a whore and ignores her requests to give her privacy. I'm totally with Allecto on her views on Companions and Mal and Inara's relationship. I diverge a bit regarding Inara servicing the entire crew.

I think there are implied differences between Inara with a client and Inara talking to the crew. I think Inara is a thoughtful, diplomatic person and that she talks to the crew and supports them because it's in her nature to do so, she also argues with them when disagreements arise. I don’t think she’s being exploited here, I think Inara and the crew are having natural normal relationships and I don’t read it as a problem. However you could argue Inara’s training has shoehorned her into being this way and as such she is being exploited, but on a more subtle level.

Regarding Allecto’s points about the series being action centred and homoerotic, personally I like action. I like gunfights, I like fist fights and I like explosions. Whether it is homoerotic I think is debatable. Mind you I have issues with the term homoerotic anyway – yet again it places sexuality with men not women. There’s a picture of a hot topless male – it must be homoerotic, because of course only men have sex drives! Women could never be turned on by pictures of naked or near naked men. ‘Homoerotic’ takes away women’s sexual legitimacy and engagement. It implies that we are passive. And that’s bollocks.

“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.”

I’m sad to hear that. Allecto’s experiences are terrible ones. Without meaning to denigrate Allecto’s experiences I would argue that it is possible for white men and WoC to have healthy relationships. Obviously not all relationships go well, most end badly (for partnerships of all colours), but in mixed race relationships problems and failure within the relationship may not be down to race. I don’t think race has an impact on Wash and Zoe’s relationship. However, I am white and I am coming at this from a position of white privilege and I am fully aware that this affect my readings of any text. As such, I will not pick up on all or any issues, particularly not subtle or hidden ones.

All thoughts and criticism welcomed.

Joss Whedon and feminism - part 1

I've reading Allecto's analysis of Firefly, latest installment here, and find myself reluctantly agreeing with a lot of what she has to say. I say reluctantly because I love Buffy and Firefly and am rather gutted that there is so much wrong with it.
When I read the first installment of Allecto's analysis I was rather taken aback. I didn't understand where she was coming from and as the piece was not intended as a radical feminist 101 it took me a while to understand it. Although I don't agree with everything she writes she makes a damn good argument for all of it.

I do believe that men can be feminists. I do not think that they are well placed to pick up on and recognise internalised misogyny and societal sexism because by and large it doesn't affect them. But men can identify as feminists. They cannot however preach to women about how the bets way forward to advance women's rights. They will never know what it is like to be a woman and to be treated as a second class citizen. When I went to get my mortgage with my boyfriend the mortgage advisor directed 90% of his spiel to my boyfriend. Despite the fact I was asking the questions, despite the fact that I earned the most. The boyfriend did not notice this, because he has never had to, because he's never been in that position. However, he fully supports feminism. This is fine. He, and all the other men out there, just don't notice 95% of the crap women deal with.

Anyway, I'm slowly going through all my Buffy videos, (I know, videos, get me not with the technology), and am currently on season 2. Bearing in mind what I'd just read from Allecto certain things, say, problems, were occurring to me whilst watching it.
During Innocence, where Angel loses his soul after he's slept with Buffy. The blame for this is put squarely on Buffy's shoulders. By Giles, by her other and by Buffy. By the time Willow tells her it's not her fault in I only have eyes for you, several episodes later, Buffy is thoroughly convinced it's all down to her. She's completely internalized the guilt and won't give any of it to anyone else.

She had been in a relationship with Angel for a pretty long time now. 6, 8 months, a year? She's 17 years old. In the UK, it's legal to have sex when you're 16. I'm not sure about the law in America. She knew she couldn't get pregnant, he couldn't give her STDs cos he's dead, they loved each other. She knew nothing about the curse. Jenny knew something, but couldn't tell anyone. What exactly was wrong with them having sex?

Giles later said to her "Do you want me to say you acted rashly and wag my finger at you? You did and I can." Buffy then looks destroyed. This is her one trusted and knowledgeable authority figure in her life, her stability, and he tells her that? She did not act rashly. Having sex is not a crime. Later on her mother finds out about it and is unimpressed. But that makes more sense, mother's don't like to hear about their daughter's having sex. But then in Passion Joyce puts the blame on Buffy again for Angel changing. How is this Buffy's fault? How is it ever the woman's fault? Angel's behaviour reads like a stalker. Yet this isn't picked up on, Joyce doesn't help Buffy stop it, just blames her. The two people Buffy cares most about have told her it's her fault that her boyfriend changed after sex. If she hadn't had sex with him everything would be still be all honey and roses.

Why is Joyce not showing her it's Angel's fault he's changed? Did he not have anything to do with it? Why is Giles not placing the blame squarely on the Romany tribe who put the curse on Angel? Everyone hates Ms Calendar but I get the impression that's because she wasn't open with them about spying on Buffy and Angel. Not because it's her tribes fault he's changed. Jenny calls her uncle out about the curse, but that's the only time it's mentioned.

This whole storyline makes a pretty shit morality tale - it removes all culpability from the man. I understand that maybe Whedon wanted to show how teenage girls feel after sex when their boyfriend turns into a jerk, but it could have been down without everyone blaming Buffy. She didn't know. How could she have known? And as such, how is it her fault? Angel wasn't raped, it was fully consensual.

Maybe there's other reasons the story was written this way. Maybe instead of intending to show how it's always the woman's fault and that sex for teenagers is bad, Joss wanted to show the difference between teenagers and authority figures (Buffy and Joyce/Giles) as opposed to peer to peer relationships(Buffy/Willow). Maybe.

Still, it's not all bad. Although in Firefly's Our Mrs Reynolds, Mal is obviously taking advantage of and abusing Saffron, in the Buffy episode Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered, Xander cast a love spell and inadvertently makes every woman in Sunnydale want him. Including Buffy. He doesn't however take advantage, and he clearly states that it would be wrong and he does the right thing. So, I am thinking that Mal's behaviour in Our Mrs Reynolds is not symptomatic of Joss being a misogynist.
Mal is a bit of a grey area when it comes to morals. He happily kills people, he steals and he beats people up, and he enjoys it. His behaviour with Saffron then indicates further that he is a jerk. Contrast this with Xander, who is most definitely a good guy, though a bit of a sleaze, he generally does the right thing. Ergo, Joss can write good feminist texts. Except that the Buffy episode in question was written by Marti Noxon, and Our Mrs Reynolds was written by Joss. Damn.