I am a fan of the series firefly as are a lot of people on this board. Which is why when I heard about a review of firefly written from a feminist perspective I went ahead and read the review.
Do people actually think like this? This is not pro-women, it's anti-men. Is this what people mean by feminist?
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Oh, mercy, I saw this a while back. For what it's worth, I consider myself a feminist, and I find this so offensive in so many ways.
I can't stand it when people toss the word "rape" around like that - it's incredibly insulting to rape survivors. I can't find the comment now, but I feel like I remember a rape survivor commenting on the post to say it was offensive, and the post's author pretty much said, You're not worth listening to if you don't agree with my definition of rape.
And I know that people are inclined to consider their experience to be universal, but don't you love the sweeping generalization that there are no healthy relationships between a black woman and a white man? Just because she hasn't seen any?
Such bile. People irritate the hell out of me sometimes.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
Here is one comment that confused me.
"I know that you hate my sex, but would you take it as a compliment from a gay man to say he enjoyed this review?"
In essence a compliment. However the author's response was:
"I don't hate your sex, I hate your gender. Do your feminist homework before trying to take up space on my blog."
In essence she takes a compliment and turns it into an insult. So my question is: What is the difference between sex and gender that she is referring to?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
* amused by the Nazi reference preceding even the OP by virtue of being in the title Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sex is biological, having to do with penises and vaginas. Gender is cultural, manifesting as (eg) macho, liking football or beer, calling friends sluts if they sleep with people, realising that you're gay - the sort of thing that goes into self-identifying as male or female. You can determine sex by looking at a body (in most cases), gender only by talking to the person. I'm not convinced it's as useful a distinction as most feminist theorists appear to believe, but that's what they say.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think what sickens me the most is the comment sections, especially where people (including rape victims) say "Um, your definition of rape is kinda stupid," and the author's response is "This topic is not about the Radical Feminist Definition of Rape, if you have a problem with that you should start your own blog."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: I am a fan of the series firefly as are a lot of people on this board. Which is why when I heard about a review of firefly written from a feminist perspective I went ahead and read the review.
Invoking Godwin's Law is just stupid, Phil. The nut who wrote that is just that -- a nut. She doesn't represent feminism, but calling her particular brand of lunacy Neo-Nazism makes you sound almost as demented as she is.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Oh, I wouldn't go that far.
Now, if he wrote an essay several pages long on the subject...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Re: Sex and Gender - I do think the distinction between Sex and Gender is important, not so much from a "feminist" perspective as a just plain "what types of people actually exist" perspective. There are people who appear biologically male but feel psychologically female, and vice versa. There are people who psychologically identify with one gender but are biologically ambiguous (ranging from large or small sex organs that are mislabeled at infancy to actual XXY chromosomes where there is literally no way to choose a sex for them).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Also, I'm gonna side with Lisa on the "invoking Godwin's Law doesn't help your case" thing.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...Jeezum Crow.
Is it evil of me to hope the author will inadvertently see an episode of Charlie's Angels and suffer the inevitable stroke...?
Okay, for what it's worth: the author is not a conventional feminist, or even a conventional feminist's evil twin. This is the kind of anti-communication, anti-compromise extremism that's only comfort for the reader is it will inevitably push itself to the fringe.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
P.S. I do sometimes feel like Joss Whedon takes the "violence against women is bad" to a slightly voyeuristic place, and it makes me uncomfortable. Cf. that episode of Buffy (spoilers for the sixth season of Buffy) where they kill Katrina, as one example.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Comparing certain feminists to Nazis might not be as offensive as it might seem. Some (hopefully not many) feminists come dangerously close to preaching that women are superior to men for biological reasons.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: (Technically, women are superior to men for biological reasons in certain pretty important areas)
This man speaks the truth.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(BlackBlade didn't make that up, I did post it although I thought it might not be the best place to lead the conversation. But its ok, you don't need to delete it. Unless you really want to.)
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Is it bad that I'm offended more as a fan of Firefly than I am as somebody who associates with the male gender?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think the writer is an equal-opportunity offender. What's more, your offense-identity is a social construct, and you may reasonably construct it however you like; confining you to only being offended in your persona as a male is exactly the sort of thing that feminism opposes. With a bit of practice, you might even learn to be offended as someone who identifies mainly as a female, and then you'll be well on your way to breaking down the hetero-normative narrative structure of the patriarchy!
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I highly recommend not reading the nuts. Might I suggest...
I consider myself a feminist, and I think she (the subject of the OP) is crazy. The whole point of Feminism and Women's Lib is giving women a choice, and according to her, there is only one option women should pursue. Which is empowering to women exactly how?? Lame.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I recommend taking sarcasticmuppet's advice. I read some of the crazy, and wowser, is it crazy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Interesting stuff sarcasticmupptet, thank you!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
From reading 2 of her articles, I get the impression that the author is, not so much a feminist, but a separatist.
Which is all fine and dandy. I certainly understand getting so angry at men that it would be fine if you never saw one again. (or at least, I understood that before I met my hubby...)
But don't think that the rest of all women should automatically think that way. Many of us actually *like* men and (some of) their quirks.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Having had a little more time to think about it, I'm coming to the conclusion that the appropriate response to the author is pity.
Her writing is a "dissection" only like someone whacking a dead frog repeatedly with a machete and then saying, "You see? I told you a frog is full of green goop!" can be described as a dissection- she came in with an expectation of what she was going to find, found nothing else, learned nothing, changed in no way except feeding her ire.
And while she has little to say about Firefly, and even less of merit to say about Joss Whedon, she does pretty strongly suggest something about herself. Namely, that at some point in her life, a man did something really horrible to her.
Whatever happened, she's turned herself into a seething ball of resentment and anger that produces nothing a more moderate person would willingly consume, and thus virtually eliminated any possibility that she will effect a change in the real world, let alone bring about the kind of matriarchal-feminist utopia she apparently envisions.
That she allowed whoever did this to her to make her into this grants him power over her for the rest of her life- or at least, as long as she clings to such a fanatical level of rage.
She is unlikely ever to see things this way, and I don't doubt she'd simply be further infuriated by pity. But pity is what I feel.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I think I misinterpreted Pixiest. Sorry. *edited out comment*
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think there could be some worthwhile criticism of Whedon's apparent attitudes toward women, but this ain't it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Philosofickle, if you even for a moment took this woman's writing as indicative of anything except her own opinion, you really oughta re-examine your preconceptions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Do people actually think like this?
Apparently, yes. But there's an old joke - you likely know it already - which has some bearing here:
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.
The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish sheep are black!" The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black." The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."
So to analogise: There exists at least one human, who considers herself a feminist, who is utterly nuts. I suggest that this does not generalise to an interesting result about feminists.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
Sarcastic Muppet, thanks for the links. Especially the third one down, when put like that I suppose that I could even call myself a feminist.
As far as using the term neo-nazi I find it appropriate because the woman in the blog that I first linked to shows the same blind hate and desire for change/destruction of anything different to her. She does this to the point of openly admitting to deleting most of the comments that disagree with her. Sounds like she would have been right at home in WWII Germany. Except of course for the whole Hitler was a man thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Expressing myself carefully, like the mathematician in the joke, I think the moral difference between deleting comments on a blog post and killing 14 million people just in the concentration camps has a nonzero lower bound.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
What's sad about blogs like the one in the original post is that they attract commenters who are even more sincere and less funny than the bloggers. But that's true about Rush Limbaugh et al., too. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Having had a little more time to think about it, I'm coming to the conclusion that the appropriate response to the author is pity.
Her writing is a "dissection" only like someone whacking a dead frog repeatedly with a machete and then saying, "You see? I told you a frog is full of green goop!" can be described as a dissection- she came in with an expectation of what she was going to find, found nothing else, learned nothing, changed in no way except feeding her ire.
And while she has little to say about Firefly, and even less of merit to say about Joss Whedon, she does pretty strongly suggest something about herself. Namely, that at some point in her life, a man did something really horrible to her.
Whatever happened, she's turned herself into a seething ball of resentment and anger that produces nothing a more moderate person would willingly consume, and thus virtually eliminated any possibility that she will effect a change in the real world, let alone bring about the kind of matriarchal-feminist utopia she apparently envisions.
That she allowed whoever did this to her to make her into this grants him power over her for the rest of her life- or at least, as long as she clings to such a fanatical level of rage.
She is unlikely ever to see things this way, and I don't doubt she'd simply be further infuriated by pity. But pity is what I feel.
QFT, Sterling.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I wanna know what she thinks about Dollhouse.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I haven't been watching Dollhouse, but I can't imagine that Whedon doesn't acknowledge the ethical problems with the 'dolls.' However, I find it unlikely that he does so in a sufficiently radical-feminist way as to avoid allecto's condemnation.
(There will probably be something about how the male dolls are clearly only written in to provide an insincere cover for the het male rape fantasy that the female dolls represent, and which constitutes the entire purpose of the show.)
Edit: and I think there might be something to the idea that the show - based only on the trailers and first episode, which might be unfair, but just tell me if I'm wrong - that the show, while it does make explicit that it's wrong to brainwash and program women (and men) to be sex toys or assassins or whatever, might revel in the portrayal a bit. The voyeuristic tendency that Fyfe identified, in other words. Can you really condemn something when you simultaneously glam it up? Would be interesting to read an analysis along these lines, but "rape rape he wants to rape everyone he's a rapist" is not quite as interesting.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Here is a pretty interesting review of Dollhouse from a feminine perspective:
In what units do you measure condemnation, so that you can be sure behaviour X is being sufficiently strongly condemned? We know the pornography of rape when we see it; I think that, if your doubt is on the level of an author possibly reveling a bit in the portrayal, you have not found a very evil work. If nothing else, who would write on a subject they found boring? And who would write strawman villains, doing evil things for the sake of being evil? Somebody in the Dollhouse universe must believe that the dolls are justified. It would be a poor show that did not at least give him a chance to present his view; and it would be an unrealistic one that made him say "I just plain enjoy exploiting women", even if that perhaps were the truth.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Are you rebutting the imaginary essay I mentioned, KoM?
Edit: looks like maybe you're responding to the essay linked in the next post. Never mind.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Actually, I think it's more likely he was responding to you (or possibly the imaginary essay you mentioned) since the essay I linked is actually very much in favor of Dollhouse.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, then. Let me offer a half hearted and snarky rebuttal.
quote:And who would write strawman villains, doing evil things for the sake of being evil?
WHEDON WOULD!
Haven't you heard of the Evil League of Evil?
Sheesh.
yeah, KoM, I don't know. I think it's interesting to think about. I do get a creepy vibe out of Whedon sometimes and I don't know if it's intentional (to make us think) or if I'm picking up on something I don't like about Whedon.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, well. I do not necessarily recommend the following procedure, and it is definitely NSFW, nor indeed safe for sanity. But you can put Whedon in perspective by going to TV Tropes, navigating to the 'other' category of High Octane Nightmare Fuel, and clicking on the third link in the Webcomics section. (I trust this is sufficiently indirect to be within the forum guidelines.) Then come back and tell me about your creepy vibe. If, on the other hand, you wish to profit by my experience rather than learn about what darkness hides in the far corners of the interwebs, you will instead go to Google and search for fluffy bunnies. As an incidental aside, this site made me think that the people who want Internet censorship may conceivably have a point; it is not as though I went searching for this thing, I was clicking on random (and not well described, gah!) TV Tropes links. Any child might have done the same.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
No thanks.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You are wise. My point is, there is stuff which is so obviously the product of precisely the sort of male rapist fantasy that our friend the feminist rants about, that to see it in the works of Whedon is a bit - how can I put this - your worry is going for a rather nonoptimal target.
[ July 15, 2009, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I always wonder how people like the blogger survive the world. Do they hold jobs at bookstores specializing in feminist literature? Do they just swallow all their disgust at the pro-men world every time they step out of the house? Is every other sentence about rape?
Has anyone met someone like this in the real world?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: * amused by the Nazi reference preceding even the OP by virtue of being in the title
Mucus, this is exactly what I was thinking too!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That review was a waste of paper.
Even online.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Has anyone met someone like this in the real world?
I don't think a woman like that would give me the time of the day, much less her name. So it may actually be impossible for me to know any radical feminists personally.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You are wise. My point is, there is stuff which is so obviously the product of precisely the sort of male rapist fantasy that our friend the feminist rants about, that to see it in the works of Whedon is a bit - how can I put this - your worry is going for a rather nonoptimal target.
What you imply here, I think, I disagree with.
I think whatever foul thing you've encountered that is clearly and blatantly pro-rape and the product of a sick mind is unlikely to influence society. However, the safe-seeming, slightly marginalizing but popular cultural influences are far more likely to actually affect the way people think.
Now, I'm not married to the idea that any of Whedon's work is worthy of concern; there're plenty of worse examples. I just (though I hate to admit it) saw parts of "Van Wilder: Freshman Year" and that movie objectified women and laughed at violating their privacy and their persons to an extreme degree.
So I'm not really concerned about whether Whedon's work is an unusually bad influence. I am interested in the question of whether it contributes to unhealthy attitudes toward women, even if to a slight degree. And I'm willing to entertain the idea that it does the opposite (as claimed in the essay linked by Raymond a few posts back).
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
What are unhealthy attitudes towards women?
I'm getting married on August 11th and both I and my fiance expect me to go out and be the bread winner. She would work if necessary and I have no objections to that. Our primary guiding line is the LDS Family Proclamation which can be found here:
This is an unashamedly religious document, and if you are leery of reading the entire thing that's okay. I'd be interested in the perspective over whether or not this is would be perceived as an "anti-feminist" document. On one hand it says preside, on the other it talks about equal partnership.
Perspectives?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think it's an excellently crafted round hole, and probably works very well for round pegs of the appropriate diameter.
It is anti-feminist in that it prescribes gender roles and advocates (well, sort of declares) patriarchy. This is tempered by the assertion that husbands and wives should be "equal partners", but how that can be possible when one person "presides" is unclear.
(I am actually very familiar with the document since I grew up LDS but have since left the fold, so I'm giving you an inside-outside perspective. )
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:And I'm willing to entertain the idea that it does the opposite
I think that in terms of actual effect on society, Dollhouse will come out pretty neutral. It's certainly doesn't rock the boat with gratuitous use of the female body to attract an audience (in fact possibly exacerbating that problem in the short term), and much of its truly good messages are too subtle to be picked up on by anyone who wasn't already familiar with feminism. My roommate hadn't the slightest clue he was watching a feminist show and didn't believe me when I told him he was. Soon afterwards I realized how cleverly multi-layered the show is. The really deep, interesting messages are there for the people who want to decode them, everyone else is free to appreciate action plot, and yes, the seemingly gratuitous sex, without feeling like they're beaten over the head with crazy radical feminist theories.
Yet there are enough "obvious" good messages (such as when the FBI agent who's trying to rescue Echo realizes that he's objectifying her in his own way) that most people will have learned something. I think that "something" is basically enough to cancel out the voyeuristic nature of the show.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: So I'm not really concerned about whether Whedon's work is an unusually bad influence. I am interested in the question of whether it contributes to unhealthy attitudes toward women, even if to a slight degree. And I'm willing to entertain the idea that it does the opposite (as claimed in the essay linked by Raymond a few posts back).
Why do we take it as a given that artistic works which are influenced by certain innate attitudes must necessarily not only convey those attitudes, but also encourage them in others? You might as well argue, and would have a lot more ammunition for arguing, that Ender's Game is an anti-gay, statist apologia for Hi... oh wait that's been done before.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I always wonder how people like the blogger survive the world. Do they hold jobs at bookstores specializing in feminist literature? Do they just swallow all their disgust at the pro-men world every time they step out of the house? Is every other sentence about rape?
Has anyone met someone like this in the real world?
I have a friend who's minoring in Women's Studies (my sister did the same thing, actually.)
I think that if they have sufficient drive, instead of working at feminist book stores they teach Women's Studies at very liberal universities. At least some of them do. And some of them are perpetual Women's Studies students. They go to school for years, part time, and in between work a job that enables them to build up sufficient hate against the Patriarchal Order and Casual Mind-Rapists of the World. So saith my friend and my sister (who nonetheless find the subject interesting, although they wouldn't want to major in it. But they like hearing this point of view, and thinking about it. Yes, it does inevitably color their interactions. Interestingly enough, both of them seem drawn to relationships with abusive men. )
(And as to the article in the OP, I laughed my way through the entire thing. She's so self-deluded it's funny. And obviously she has no critical understanding of the arts. At all.)
[ July 16, 2009, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
The author of the article is not even a radical feminist. I'd agree with KQ - she's self-deluded. A feminist does not need to be a man hater, a lesbian (and, in her case, a lesbian who hates other lesbians who dare to have long hair...) or vitriolic. A feminist can be all those things, of course. ( ) But they're not necessary elements.
That said, I think there is a lot of validity in critical feminist theory. The difference between sex and gender is one of the more basic concepts, but very important. Gendered understanding of situations can often be quite distinct from the biological sex (for example, looking at male-male (often prison) rape: this is often quite distinctly gendered, with the aggressor taking on the "male" role and forcing the victim into the "female" role - though both are biologically male.)
One of the most valuable courses I did in my degree was a Feminist Jurisprudence course. And I think it's important to say that feminist studies are something that can be undertaken by both sexes (and not even at very liberal universities ). For the record, it was about half-half male-female enrollment, and there was equal participation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I love using feminist theory to write papers on literature. It's easy...you can find stuff everywhere. I made quite a few A's in college literature classes quoting people I didn't necessarily agree with.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: What are unhealthy attitudes towards women?
I'm getting married on August 11th and both I and my fiance expect me to go out and be the bread winner. She would work if necessary and I have no objections to that. Our primary guiding line is the LDS Family Proclamation which can be found here:
This is an unashamedly religious document, and if you are leery of reading the entire thing that's okay. I'd be interested in the perspective over whether or not this is would be perceived as an "anti-feminist" document. On one hand it says preside, on the other it talks about equal partnership.
Perspectives?
What you and your fiance both want to do, if it works for you, is great. But that situation is not the case for everyone, or even for all members of the church. My husband and I have discussed it quite a bit. We want kids, and we want one of us to be able to be at home to provide for their needs when they are young, but which one of us that ends up being is still pretty open. It depends entirely on our situation, our needs, and our resources.
Like I said before, Feminism is all about choice, and giving men and women equal choices in what they do with their lives. My mom had far fewer choices even just a generation ago, so I'd say we made significant progress. For some women, being a SAHP is the most fulfilling thing they can imagine doing. They should (and do) have the choice to pursue that. But today women have other choices, if they wish to pursue them, and that shouldn't be hindered.
Guess what, saying that all women should be lesbian man-haters is just as limiting as saying they should all be 50s style Ssay-at-home mothers and housewives.
As to whether or not the Proclamation is a feminist document -- It actually does an okay job of addressing both men and women equally for the first three quarters of the statement. It wavers a bit in the prescriptions given to fathers and mothers, but the line about individual adaptation still allows for choice in the matter. I'd give it a C+, but it's okay, I find plenty of other justification for my feminism in the church...
The professor who introduced me to feminism at BYU is married to another professor, and after having their first child they literally split their schedules exactly in half, so that their teaching and office hours didn't conflict so much that they couldn't BOTH take care of their son for at least half of the day. And it works very well for them. She's apparently gotten nasty feedback from students that she is a horrible mother for not staying home 24/7, but I think she's making a sacrifice in order to be a fantastic teacher for ungrateful students like them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that you cannot preside over an equal partner. But YMMV.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: That said, I think there is a lot of validity in critical feminist theory. The difference between sex and gender is one of the more basic concepts, but very important. Gendered understanding of situations can often be quite distinct from the biological sex (for example, looking at male-male (often prison) rape: this is often quite distinctly gendered, with the aggressor taking on the "male" role and forcing the victim into the "female" role - though both are biologically male.)
I've yet to ever be clued in on why we need "feminist studies" rather than "gender studies," because what you're describing is the study of gender, whereas feminism has taken on the stink of radical reactionary sexism.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: It wavers a bit in the prescriptions given to fathers and mothers, but the line about individual adaptation still allows for choice in the matter.
But does it allow free choice? Or is the word "necessity" a part of the exception clause?
If they had wanted to write that the reponsibilities can be split betwen the spouses in whatever way they see fit, they could have done that. They chose not to.
Believe what you want, but I don't think this text supports free choice in the question.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would argue that you cannot preside over an equal partner. But YMMV.
I think the definitions of both "preside" and "equal" are massaged as necessary to eliminate any potential contradiction. This is similar to how Mormons use "know" where others tend to use "believe".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm kind of surprised that this it the first time people have come across this meme. It certainly isn't main stream feminism but it's also not just one angry woman blogger either. Radical lesbian feminism was pretty prevalent in women's studies programs back in the 80s. This woman is not a good spokesperson, but her underlying ideas do represent an important faction of the feminist movement. I have personally been called a gender traitor because I married a man. I've been told it doesn't matter what my natural sexual preference is, I should become a lesbian so I can have my sexual and romantic needs met without being raped by men. I haven't heard much from the radical lesbian feminist camp lately so maybe its out of vogue.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I would argue that you cannot preside over an equal partner. But YMMV.
It's a paradox. You cannot do both. There are stranger things. My partner and I do what is best for us, and far be it from me to impose it on anyone else.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This woman is not a good spokesperson, but her underlying ideas do represent an important faction of the feminist movement.
A faction of the radical feminist movement. Of a specific faction of that faction, even. Being a feminist doesn't automatically lump you in with the man-hating lesbians any more than being a conservative lumps you in with Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
No, but being Rush Limbaugh DOES lump you in with the conservative movement. Rabbit's point is that this is not some tiny fringe group, they are (or at least were) a fairly sizeable minority within the feminist movement.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
This "review" seems to be extremely hostile and almost targeted upon every last point that can be deviated from its intent.
"So in the very second scene of the very first episode, an episode written and directed by the great feminist Joss, a white man tells a black woman to ‘shut up’ for no apparent reason. And she does shut up. And she continues to call him sir. And takes his orders, even when they are dumb orders, for the rest of the series."
So Whedon is a rascist because two characters relationship that began while they were in service and reqiured to recognize a chain of command, choose to not alter thier interaction due to the heavy emotional and historical meanings. Maybe this woman is the rascist? so instanty offended by the idea of a white person being called sir by a non white person. FYI to Joss, next time you make a story involving a chain of command, segregate the hell out of it, that way it will be equal.
And to the pro-rape allegations, the times that rape was mentioned, it was in one of these forms: the idiot Jayne who was immediatly theatened by Mal or Zoe (the black woman who apperantly bows down before the white man), the non-crew member bad guy who finds the same response as Jayne, and the reavers. Apperantly Whedon also promotes barbarian on man rape, because Jayne turns into a frightened child every time someone even mentions the word.
"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.”
This is actually one of my absolute favorite early moments, because Mal is surly to everyone. Even with Zoe the cuddliest he gets is a knowing look of agreement. But Kaylee is the exception, if you watch the scene yourself you'll understand the the line is making fun of Jayne's complaining, Kaylee and Mal are smiling at each other because they are laughing at him. Aside from reprimanding her on a dereliction of duty, Mal never raises his vioce to her, let alone use offesive language toward her.
Another point is the episode where a 110 pound woman overpowers and dupes every last member of the crew, including the violent meat man Jayne, and especially Mal. I suppose Wash is sexist too, he is afterall married to a strong amazonian woman who fights while he is weak and sits all safe in his wheel room, so lazy and protected while his wife does the dirty jobs.
Why is it that any mention of rape outside of the Lifetime channel, is immediatly violent and evil. What you keep hidden in the closet is ignored and forgotten, yes Whedon does not shy from the referance of rape because the very knowledge of it should not be feared. Im reminded of a scene very late into the Buffy the Vamire Slayer series, where Spike's forlorn love for the super powered slayer overcomes him and culminates in a traumatic event with Buffy just out of a shower. In a fit of rage, lonliness, and mental instability Spike makes a swift and frenzied attempt to overpower Buffy physically and mentally. It was a representation of rape, Spike was immediatly ashamed and hated himself for it. The interactions between the two was never the same, he could never redeem himself in her eyes, always kept at arms length no matter what he did for her or the world at large.
If we never spoke about rascism, more people would think of it as less of a negative thing, same with rape, elitism, and starvation. But I know one thing for certain, making heavy handed quick and oppisitional attacks upon someone who is not guilty of prejudicial actions simply defuses the valid arguments. Its the boy who cried wolf, accusing a writer of being a sexist-rascist, when he is not, makes your complaints about Rush Limbaugh kinda flacid.
[ July 16, 2009, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: AchillesHeel ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think the definitions of both "preside" and "equal" are massaged as necessary to eliminate any potential contradiction.
I'd be curious to see the resulting definitions. The two definitions seem to be inherently contradictory to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I would argue that you cannot preside over an equal partner. But YMMV.
I can't remember what thread it was, but I and quite a few other LDS members discussed the nuances of "presiding" while still remaining equal partners. Certain posters indicated that to preside is in essence running the ceremonies, such as asking somebody to offer a prayer, or reading the scriptures to everyone, whereas at least initially I argued that it may include acting as a sort of tie breaker.
I still don't have a firm stance on the issue.
---- I am not sure how simply assigning gender roles is anti-feminist, if gender roles are wrong, they are as much a misandrist institution as they are misogynist.
If I get nothing else out of this thread, having the impetus to find out the opposite of misogyny is valuable enough. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
BlackBlade: I think feminism is at odds with prescribed gender roles, therefore prescribed gender roles are anti-feminist. That is actually irrelevant to how it affects men; I don't think anti-feminist equates to "pro-male" or masculinist or anything like that. It also doesn't equate to misogynist.
This is my understanding but I have not taken any courses on gender studies or anything like that, so I suppose I could be missing some connotations of the words I'm using.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I think the definitions of both "preside" and "equal" are massaged as necessary to eliminate any potential contradiction.
I'd be curious to see the resulting definitions. The two definitions seem to be inherently contradictory to me.
Well, for one thing "equal" can be seen as a bottom-line "net" measurement - "I get to be in charge while you have the gift of producing life."
This is sentiment that you hear with some frequency - that the priesthood of the men is balanced by the woman's gifts in producing and nurturing children.
It's not doctrine, but it's an example of how one can create a local definition of a word that may vary from popular conceptions of it without being completely foreign in concept. A quarter is equal to seven pennies - if you are comparing the cost of producing the currency rather than the face value.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
scifibum: but if feminism is at odds with any gender roles than by definition masculinity ought also to be at odds with them. It's only when we assume that not all roles are bad, that we can be selective about which are and are not.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Im tempted to make an account on that site, just to ask the woman that wrote that if there is such a thing as a fair and equal man. Or if the mind control of our evil penises of death is too strong and we all secretly hate women and thier impossibly Godlike ability to make life.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP:
quote:This is sentiment that you hear with some frequency - that the priesthood of the men is balanced by the woman's gifts in producing and nurturing children.
I doubt you agreed with that sentiment, but let me just say it drives me nuts when it's used.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Im tempted to make an account on that site, just to ask the woman that wrote that if there is such a thing as a fair and equal man. ...
quote:*I’ve finally finished the damn thing. I won’t be allowing comments from anyone who is not a radical feminist (or pro-radical feminist) or a lesbian feminist/separatist. Yes, I am pro-censorship. Boohoo.*
quote:I doubt you agreed with that sentiment, but let me just say it drives me nuts when it's used.
Given my belief about the existence of the power of the priesthood, that would be a correct assessment. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
This woman is like fodder in the argument against radical feminism, I just found one post where she calls Wash a rapist and an abuser. Directly citing her own volatile and oppressive family history, this begins to write her story and explain why she is a radical feminist and is unwilling to consider a man as a man, and not as a gender responsible for her childhood.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
I am wondering if it can be explained how this is not contradictory?
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I highly recommend not reading the nuts. Might I suggest...
I consider myself a feminist, and I think she (the subject of the OP) is crazy. The whole point of Feminism and Women's Lib is giving women a choice, and according to her, there is only one option women should pursue. Which is empowering to women exactly how?? Lame.
I was browsing that last link, and read this, as well as her response.
I can't help thinking she's being a bit harsh, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't remember what thread it was, but I and quite a few other LDS members discussed the nuances of "presiding" while still remaining equal partners. Certain posters indicated that to preside is in essence running the ceremonies, such as asking somebody to offer a prayer, or reading the scriptures to everyone, whereas at least initially I argued that it may include acting as a sort of tie breaker.
What reason would you have for thinking that "preside" doesn't mean what the ordinary, English definition of it means?
Definition: To hold a lead position and authority to direct an organization and its members.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because it has been pointed out to him that this would, in fact, be rather unfair; he does not believe in an unfair god; consequently the plain English interpretation cannot be the right one. Which is sensible logic if you start with the axiom of a Christian god, which is why that axiom, if left to operate unchecked on moderately intelligent people, tends to lead to minds whose wiring diagrams look a bit like an Escher drawing. With that said, one can say, for example, "The high priest presided over the ceremony" without necessarily implying any actual decisions being made by him.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: With that said, one can say, for example, "The high priest presided over the ceremony" without necessarily implying any actual decisions being made by him.
We may not be deciding much, but he is directing. I heard once about a Catholic priest who wouldn't tolerate sung music during the presentation of the gifts; because once he was ready to start the mass portion, he would start, even if the choir was in the middle of a verse. And if the priest decides that he's going to end his sermon with a song, and he won't go onto the next part of the service until he gets enough response from the pews...then the people in the pews have to go along.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is a really terrible argument. I say "X without Y is possible", and you give some examples of X with Y and apparently think you have refuted the possibility! Use the try again, Luke.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
swbarnes2: ... I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Father, the Son, and the Holy d'Artagnan being "one" god either ...
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I'm surprised she managed to write so many long posts about work that she hated so much. She must have had to will herself to do it for the greater good.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That is a really terrible argument. I say "X without Y is possible", and you give some examples of X with Y and apparently think you have refuted the possibility! Use the try again, Luke.
The definition of "preside" means to control or direct. Priests direct worship services. They control what happens when. They want a vigrous audience response before moving on, they stop until they get it. They want a long pause after some prayer, they get it. They want to move on while the chorus is still being sung, that happens too. If the priest accidently skips a part and doesn't notice it, it gets skipped. All of that stuff is dependant on when the priest decides he wants things to happen. That's why the word "preside" is used. It's not an exceptional use at all.
Yes, it's possible to have a religious free-for-all with absolutely no direction at all, but no one would say that the guy in the shiniest robe "presides" over that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You may want to have another look at your dictionary; what you have quoted is not the only definition, although it is the most commonly used one. It is quite possible to say that the guy with the shiniest robe, who is only there for show, presides; this is not to say that nobody is making the decisions, just that it's not the one formally presiding over the, um, proceedings. For example, if the Pope attends a Mass as an honoured guest, he may be said to preside over them, but it is not likely he is making the administrative decisions on what hymns to sing. Similarly for a constitutional monarch attending a meeting of 'his' parliament.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jamio:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: link snip
I was browsing that last link, and read this, as well as her response.
I can't help thinking she's being a bit harsh, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
I didn't have a lot of context until I read through the Con Anti-Harrassment Project and about the problems women face regularly at cons. In that context, a public badge campaign of "groping is awesome, we should open it up to all!" seems insensitive at best, and completely open to abuse at worst. I thought Laura Mellin's article on the subject was pretty even-minded, trying to explain just why the guy was getting the backlash he was getting.
Is the warning from your first link a joke?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
I am wondering if it can be explained how this is not contradictory?
Clearly they mean separate but equal. As long as the mother never drinks out of the Fathers Only fountain, she's an equal partner.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: One of the most valuable courses I did in my degree was a Feminist Jurisprudence course. And I think it's important to say that feminist studies are something that can be undertaken by both sexes (and not even at very liberal universities ). For the record, it was about half-half male-female enrollment, and there was equal participation.
I have no problem with Women's Studies or Feminist Studies or Gender Studies programs. I was thinking of/talking about a very specific kind of teacher of a very specific kind of course at a very specific kind of university when I poked fun in my previous post. Just FTR. Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
quote:Clearly they mean separate but equal. As long as the mother never drinks out of the Fathers Only fountain, she's an equal partner.
I couldn't disagree more. I as thinking about this quite a bit at work. Wondering if it was possible for a husband to preside and still be equal partners with his wife. I think I've figured out the meaning behind that statement. I think it applies to children in the home. I've known families (and seen the results in the homes) where the husband thinks of himself as the breadwinner, and when he comes home from work it's essentially time off for him to nap, play games, fish, whatever it may be. It is the responsibility of both parents as equal partners to preside over their children and home. I'd say that the document takes that for a given, the way it prescribes women as they primary caregivers, but I don't think that the children are leashed to the mother and the mother is leashed to the Father.
A Father is expected to provide a loving example and be a leader to his children and to preside over his home. Just as a mother is to be a loving example and leader to her children.
So no, MC, I don't think that your interpretation is correct at all. Rather just the opposite, it's an extra reminder to the men to follow through on their responsibilities, not an affirmation of superiority.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If the mother is only a leader to minors, and the father is the leader of everybody, I don't see how that can possibly be an equal partnership.
Bottom line, the mother doesn't get to preside over the father, ever.
I understand why people support it, and it may be a preferable situation for some people, but I don't think there's any way that it's equal.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Is the warning from your first link a joke?
I don't know what this was referring to.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by imogen: One of the most valuable courses I did in my degree was a Feminist Jurisprudence course. And I think it's important to say that feminist studies are something that can be undertaken by both sexes (and not even at very liberal universities ). For the record, it was about half-half male-female enrollment, and there was equal participation.
I have no problem with Women's Studies or Feminist Studies or Gender Studies programs. I was thinking of/talking about a very specific kind of teacher of a very specific kind of course at a very specific kind of university when I poked fun in my previous post. Just FTR.
I actually figured as much, KQ. And I have come across such people (and they irritate the living daylights out of me - and I call myself a feminist! How dare I!).
I just wanted to stress the point that, radical crazies aside, feminism is well worth studying/learning about.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Is the warning from your first link a joke?
I don't know what this was referring to.
I got a malware warning (from AVG, I think) when I visited that link. I assume Philosofickle (man, that's a long name. Can I call you Phil or something?) got something similar.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't know which link we're talking about. I don't think I got a malware warning from any of it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's quite possible it was a false positive.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Huh. It gave me an error this time. In any case, weird.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
*Dumps the grapes out of a wooden bowl and chomps on the bowl. "Call me Phil."
I'm not saying that the father always presides over the wife, but that they are equal partners in every respect. And that it is the father's duty as well as the mother's to preside over the children.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
???
The text seems pretty clear:
quote: By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.
Father's "preside over the family". Mothers are "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." Mothers are clearly one step lower on the heirarchy here, being members of the family, which fathers preside over, but not explicitly said to preside over anything higher on that hierarchy than the children.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability. An apple and an orange are equally fruit, but don't function in the same way and aren't interchangable. I'm not saying I buy into the point of view (or that I don't, really), but that's my understanding of it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability. An apple and an orange are equally fruit, but don't function in the same way and aren't interchangable. I'm not saying I buy into the point of view (or that I don't, really), but that's my understanding of it.
This makes far more sense to me than trying to pretend that power distribution is actually equal.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability.
Sure. And the "I preside, you have babies" idea is just one of many formulation that satisfies this concept of equality, assuming you see equal dignity/value/etc. on both sides of that equation.
But that's not what Philosofickle seemed to be suggesting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability. An apple and an orange are equally fruit, but don't function in the same way and aren't interchangable. I'm not saying I buy into the point of view (or that I don't, really), but that's my understanding of it.
This makes far more sense to me than trying to pretend that power distribution is actually equal.
It is rather unconvincing to me, because it does take two people to have a child. The pregnancy and giving birth look to me like rather a lot of work, and arguments for the superior spirituality of them look a bit suspect to me. It smacks of the nobility-of-labour theories put forth by aristocrats who didn't, themselves, have to work in the factories 14 hours a day, but needed some reason why other people should. In any case, dignity is, as a general rule, not enforceable without power; which is why we tend to care more about power relationships than equal dignities. To take a rather more extreme examples, suppose the Congress of 1950 had agreed to insert an additional clause into the Constitution specifying that blacks had equal dignity to everyone else, and were worth just as much; and then everything else continued as it was doing. Would this be a victory worth speaking of for the Civil Rights movement?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh I agree, my point was that that if there was a genuine intent to achieve some kind of equality in the document's wording, "equality of value" makes more sense to look for than "equality of power." (The argument was directed towards those already starting with the document's validity as an axiom)
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
To be clear -- I'm not Phil, and may not be coming from the same place. Were you (MattP) talking to just me, I'd point out that I didn't say that the roles themselves are of equal dignity/value -- just the persons fulfilling those roles. But that's also why I wouldn't be balancing an equation the way you believe Phil is doing (I think).
To Raymond, yes I think it does, but I'm also of the opinion that something far more foundational is awry if "power distribution" is a concern.
(Edit -- started writing before KoM's post.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It takes two, most of the time, to conceive one, not have one. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In the Victorian era, it was possible for a man to marry a rich heiress, gain control of her fortune, and, on the word of two doctors, have her locked in an asylum for the rest of her life, while he spent her money. This sort of thing happened for two reasons: First, some men were (and are) evil; second, all men had (and now do not have) such power over their wives. Which of these two causes do you think is easier to fix? When people worry about an imbalance of power between the sexes, it's not because of some sort of idealistic devotion to radical PC equality. It's because we ran the experiment of inequality, and by golly, it turned out bad!
[ July 17, 2009, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not sure who's directing their arguments toward who. I already agree with everything King of Men is (and others appear to be) saying. And I think that Phil largely does too. The point of disagreement is whether or not the document in question was written with the intent to agree as well.
Phil: I think history has generally shown that regardless of whether a fair God exists, the people who claim to speak for that God are fallible individuals who are prone to seeing things through the lenses of the time. I'm not sure what the history of the document in question (who wrote it, when, and whether they were supposed to be divinely inspired). But I think it's reasonable to consider that even if the document itself was divinely inspired, those who translated God's vision into the English language did not do so perfectly. I think it's a more reasonable approach than assuming that language that pretty explicitly gives more power to men than women somehow does not.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
This has gone on long enough.
I have a gun that shoots marshmellows, and its loaded.
Your move.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Um, I have lightning fast reflexes that allow me to eat any marshmellows that might get shot at me?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dudes! You're marshing my mellow!
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: I'm surprised she managed to write so many long posts about work that she hated so much. She must have had to will herself to do it for the greater good.
Wonder how many will have to rent the DVDs in order to watch what she's criticizing?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think the language of the Proclamation is meant to be inclusive. People who feel strongly that there should be absolute equality between husbands and wives can read it and be happy about the equality clause. People who think men need some sort of sop so they don't feel superfluous can read it and be happy about the word preside. To me, it's clearly a transitional document.
The great thing about LDS doctrine is that it changes over time. The way it happens, though, is usually not by outright refutation of a previous doctrine, though that has been known to occur. Usually, though, it happens by having some doctrines stressed and others gradually dropped over a period of time. I believe that whatever the next clarifying revelation is about the roles of men and women in families, whenever it may come, will strengthen the equality idea and weaken the part about presiding. We're getting there, brothers and sisters. It's just happening as a process rather than a sudden stroke. The genius of our religion is in its ability to change.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I have the Shield of Cocoa. Shoot your marshmallows into my steaming shield of rich dark chocolate flavor, and I shall absorb them, first into my shield, then into my tummy. Yummy.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I really wish God would get around to revealing a lot more stuff about equality, he's really dragging his feet on this, and it's sub-par work. Consider this a verbal warning, God. I don't want to have to write you up.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
What if God was actually Wikipedia?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
He'll be needing more citations
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
With reference to the original post, I thought it was worth going through her arguments on a point for point basis, and found these links which have already done it.
The one thing that comes to my mind in allecto's rant is the irony that comes from not recognizing that Whedon created the Inara character specifically to explore the myth of prostitutes who believe they are in control of their environment. Another example of this exploration is the Jane Fonda movie "Klute." Arguably her greatest role.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)