Firefly/Serenity from the perspective of a "Feminist."

[Recoil]

I will say this about the blog. I looked into it, and the blog only allows people on the author's "friends" list to post responses. So basically, the author controls who can and can't type a response to her blog, so yes, the author is clearly keeping people with similar opinions and mindsets enabled to post, and all other opinions are silenced.

 

[Galahad]

Fascist as well as mysandrist.

Nice. What a lovely mix of personal attributes.

Frankly if they block opinions that they don't agree with then they aren't a true blogger. I've attacked such stupid blogging attitudes on my own blog.

As far as I'm concerned, if you write in the public domain... the only things you should moderate are posts that are personal attacks, trolling, flaming, or use language that isn't suitable to your audience... and blatant product advertising comments placed by robots.

Anything else is fair game...you have to take the rough with the smooth.

Plus publishing opposing views gives you a chance to engage in intelligent debate wih your political opponents.

 

[GKarsEye]

Where am I being anti-feminist?

Ok- while we're accusing each other of not reading the others' posts, I'd point out that I never accused you of being "anti-feminist." I'm relating my own personal experience of encountering varying strains of feminist thought, as you claimed to have, and how we come to different perceptions of the state of feminism today.

The point of yours that I'm arguing is that most feminism today is comparably silly to this Firefly thing, nothing else, really.

 

[Cell]

Ok- while we're accusing each other of not reading the others' posts, I'd point out that I never accused you of being "anti-feminist." I'm relating my own personal experience of encountering varying strains of feminist thought, as you claimed to have, and how we come to different perceptions of the state of feminism today.

The point of yours that I'm arguing is that most feminism today is comparably silly to this Firefly thing, nothing else, really.

Well, my mistake then, but the way you worded your post made it seem as if you were accusing me of anti-feminism.

As for your other point, I made my points on that earlier.

 

[KoshFan]

I will say this about the blog. I looked into it, and the blog only allows people on the author's "friends" list to post responses. So basically, the author controls who can and can't type a response to her blog, so yes, the author is clearly keeping people with similar opinions and mindsets enabled to post, and all other opinions are silenced.

That wasn't true when I first encountered the essay, but when I went back and tried to post again, she'd changed the rules. Probably a few Whedon fans like me had found the thing and were going into their attack runs. And restricting comments to friends-only often happens on these personal blogs, especially if it gets personal... and some of my fellow Whedonites don't have my moderate nature.

That being said, just because it's common doesn't mean it's right.

 

[GKarsEye]

The whole thing all prostitution = rape... gah! So ign'ant- and dilutes the power and meaning of the word "rape." I was about to launch into a whole diatribe about how ridiculous and hypocritical that point is, but... meh. I'll just say it's stupid. Really really stupid.

You know, here's the thing, folks- a lot of people type a lot of really really stupid stupid things on the internet. The only real shame of this case is that it's going around and getting attention. I mean, why not my "the Minbari suck" thread from a couple of years ago that Chili referenced in another forum. It's equally stupid and meaningless, and about a TV show. Where's my 15 minutes, damnit?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

You know two or three, which supports my statement. I never said all feminism, I actually made sure to say that there are still some people who understand what feminism is and follow its tenets. However the great majority of feminists, or people who call themselves feminists do not, instead views such as the ones posted in the article are now the predominant view. It is a sad state of affairs, but the smart feminists, or the ones that actually understand feminism and what it means are having their voices and views squashed down by the extremists like this one that have now become the majority. That is the state of feminism today, and it is quite sad.

The two I "know," I have never met, I just know them from reading the news. I repeat, they are a tiny minority of feminists. Your proofs otherwise are are no proof at all. Name one organization of of these radical pseudofeminist wackos, if you can. How many people belong to it? NOW has over 500,000 members. I doubt that 1% of NOW members would subscribe to those views. I repeat, I go to NOW meetings, and have lots of discussions with the women there, and NONE would subscribe to the opinions on that post. Just because the media likes to parade those wackos doesn't mean that they are the dominant viewpoint.

The saddest thing about the state of feminism today is that the right wing has made it a dirty word, most younger women take for granted the measure of equality that main-stream feminism has gained for them, and don't participate in continuing the struggle.

 

[GKarsEye]

The saddest thing about the state of feminism today is that the right wing has made it a dirty word, most younger women take for granted the measure of equality that main-stream feminism has gained for them, and don't participate in continuing the struggle.

Most young women I encounter try to distance themselves from the word because they think feminism means hating men, and that it comes off as unattractive.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Most young women I encounter try to distance themselves from the word because they think feminism means hating men, and that it comes off as unattractive.

Exactly. And, that impression has been created by right wing blowhards like Rush Limburger. He and his ilk get more air time in one day than all the wacko-psycho-pseudo feminists get in a year.

 

[GKarsEye]

Exactly. And, that impression has been created by right wing blowhards like Rush Limburger. He and his ilk get more air time in one day than all the wacko-psycho-pseudo feminists get in a year.

I wouldn't just blame the right-wing assholes. These same young women generally don't listen to Rush, et al. And yes I understand you're saying that their bile gets filtered down across the board (this is certainly true with Drudge, who often sets the tone of political discussion these days, sadly), but you also have to look at popular entertainment and how relationships between men and women have changed in a new socio-economic context and zzzzzzz...... yeah I know blah blah but that shit is real.

 

[Galahad]

One thing that annoyed me was the constant appeals for women to get equal pay at Wimbledon.

I didn't disgaree in principle... but I do believe that the women should be made to do the same level of work if they want the same level of pay. They should play best of 5 sets not best of 3. Equal pay for equal play. That is equality.

Wimbledon is of course the reverse example of how the rest of the world operates (where women in the work place do the same level of workfor less pay),and this also is wronbg.

Both scenarios demonstrate different strains of inequality - positive and negative discrimination.

 

[Chilli]

You know, here's the thing, folks- a lot of people type a lot of really really stupid stupid things on the internet. The only real shame of this case is that it's going around and getting attention. I mean, why not my "the Minbari suck" thread from a couple of years ago that Chili referenced in another forum. It's equally stupid and meaningless, and about a TV show. Where's my 15 minutes, damnit?

Nah, that just made too much sense

Soap box time: one thing I've encountered in this thread which annoys me - not to point any fingers at anyone - is people complaining that feminism is "pro-women", and thus not truely humanist, and that we thus need a movement which promotes "men's rights" (too). I've experienced similar opposition to the black culture month in the US, because "there's no white culture month", and opposition to the international women's day because "there's no international men's day", and that thus, these very concemts are discriminatory.

Screw that, really. We don't need a white culture's month, we've already got 11. We don't need an international men's day, we've already got 364. Whining about these things would be justified if there was any danger of western society becoming matriarchal .. which is completely insane.

Oh, and I am going to hit the next person I hear using the phrase "reverse racism".

Which is not to say that I'm a big fan of such events like an "international women's day" - I personally dislike annual events dedicated to stuff which should be everpresent *every day*.

End soapbox. Pet peeve of mine since our own government threw douchebaggery of the sort at us in Austria. We had an own ministry of gender rights from the 70s - a very minor institution budget-wise, with very few imployees, which had the sole purpose of fighting gender-based discrimination. When we got a far-right government a few years ago (which fortunately no longer is in power), a member of the far-right party (whose former boss, Jörg Haider, might ring some bells) was assigned to both the position of the minister of social affairs, and was made "women's minister" too - which was pushed as a proof of how emancipated we've become, as we can have men being women's ministers too now.

A few weeks later, he dissolved the women's ministry completely, because "we don't need it - I mean, we don't have a men's ministry" .. aargh.

 

[GKarsEye]

True, true. Bothers me, too. Thing is, whites and/or men of our generation are resentful of the fact that they have to deal with the racial and gender oppression of the past. But, you know, that's just the way it is.

 

[Recoil]

one thing I've encountered in this thread which annoys me - not to point any fingers at anyone - is people complaining that feminism is "pro-women", and thus not truely humanist

I agree as well, but at the same time I COMPLETELY understand why a wide variety of people would associate feminism with pro-women. I mean come on, its very name is based on FEMININE which is is based on FEMALE. You want people to understand it for what it truly is...the name is as good a start as any. Perhaps the term feminism should be abolished and it should be called Humanism or something to that effect. Hey, its as good a name as any.

And...just to add onto this. I'd be willing to bet that for each person who considers themselves feminists (such as Chlli or GKE) and who get the REAL modern-day movement for what it is, there are many more feminists that would disagree with you, saying that to describe it as such is to take away from its original purpose, which was focused on women. So the movement itself in this day and age, is quite fractured it seems to me.

 

[Galahad]

I'm just tired of the endless need for legislation.

All it does is underline the notion that as a species we are unable or unwilling collectively to treat people fairly. Why can't humanity be bothered to regulate itself on such matters?

Because we are selfish... we all want our cut. When we don't have something, we want it, when we have it... we want more or don't want to lose what we have already.

Bear in mind I'm not saying that desire for equality on issues is bad. I am saying that we have a selfish tendency to skew things in our mind.

 

[Chilli]

I agree as well, but at the same time I COMPLETELY understand why a wide variety of people would associate feminism with pro-women. I mean come on, its very name is based on FEMININE which is is based on FEMALE. You want people to understand it for what it truly is...the name is as good a start as any. Perhaps the term feminism should be abolished and it should be called Humanism or something to that effect. Hey, its as good a name as any.

Well .. yes, feminism *is* pro-women. Just that I don't think that that in any way is "anti-men", just like Martin Luther King wasn't anti-white due to being pro-black.

I, of course, agree that nutty stuff like this post needs to be ripped to pieces. But we don't need "masculism" for that .. common sense does quite nicely

And...just to add onto this. I'd be willing to bet that for each person who considers themselves feminists (such as Chlli or GKE) and who get the REAL modern-day movement for what it is, there are many more feminists that would disagree with you, saying that to describe it as such is to take away from its original purpose, which was focused on women. So the movement itself in this day and age, is quite fractured it seems to me.

That's definitely true.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Originally Posted by GKarsEye View Post
Most young women I encounter try to distance themselves from the word because they think feminism means hating men, and that it comes off as unattractive.

Exactly. And, that impression has been created by right wing blowhards like Rush Limburger. He and his ilk get more air time in one day than all the wacko-psycho-pseudo feminists get in a year.

The authoress of the review of Firefly comes over as a man hater.

 

[GKarsEye]

There already is a thing called "humanism," and it's different. Sure, some of us subscribe to both, but they're separate things.

When feminism is gone, we won't need the word anymore. But it sure as hell ain't gone. Some of the type of women I described, who have distanced themselves from the word, are having a bit of a feminist re-awakening due to the horrible treatment from the media and some people towards Hillary Clinton. Here's a good column about it:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Nah, that just made too much sense

Soap box time: one thing I've encountered in this thread which annoys me - not to point any fingers at anyone - is people complaining that feminism is "pro-women", and thus not truely humanist,

I agree as well, but at the same time I COMPLETELY understand why a wide variety of people would associate feminism with pro-women. I mean come on, its very name is based on FEMININE which is is based on FEMALE. You want people to understand it for what it truly is...the name is as good a start as any.

Feminism means pro equality for women. It does not mean favoritism for women. IMO, affirmative action to reverse mistreatment isn't favoritism. Race is very similar. At one time, those in the civil rights movement were called "nigger lovers" by the racist establishment. I don't have to "love" someone to want them to be afforded equal rights, and equal justice, under the law, and equality at work.

The authoress of the review of Firefly comes over as a man hater.

That's what I would call understating the obvious.
But my point is that she, and her ilk, are not really feminists, and only a tiny minority, compared to real feminists, regardless of how much exposure the wackos get in the media.

 

[GKarsEye]

Not just a "man hater," but also has a problem w/ race. The whole bit about how a white man can't have a healthy relationship with a black woman... well let's just say I know for a fact that's just wrong.