Insane Feminist Review on Firefly

[Dark Sage]

http://allecto.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/a-rapists-view-of-the-world-our-mrs-reynolds-part-one/

Read the article and try not to gawk. By the way, this woman is convinvced that men are evil pigs who are out to demoralize and hurt women. She also has a thin skin and is extremely pro- censorship. I tried to give a critical comment and she deleted it. And apparently I'm not the only one.

God this is awful. And my definition of feminism is that of men and women are both equally awesome, should BOTH be treated well, should both have equal oppurtunites, and the act of one person should not reflect on the whole gender.

Good god, why does this exist?

[Kintenbo]

There are crazy people out there, in many shapes and forms. Some just tend to be more vocal than others. There's PETA for the vegans, the Westboro "Baptist" (I'm a Baptist, and these guys are genuinely overboard) Church for the anti-gay agenda, and the 9/11 conspiracy makers. There is no avoiding it.

[Inactive Account]

And of course, loud crazy people are heard of more than loud sane people as well, because crazy gets attention.

I couldn't even read past the first couple of paragraphs... made my head hurt. Oh gosh I speak to men I must be one of those self-hating patriarchal sheep-women... yeah, think I'll get back to that computer science education I'm working on now.

[BEST TRYNDAMERE PLAYER]

Now, I've seen extreme feminists before but this one is just...wow

[General Spoon]

[Esau of Isaac]

An idiot with an idiotic opinion.

Don't get hung up on it; there are a lot of others with just as stupid thoughts.

[Crysta]

I don't consider this very "insane", just the overreaction/overanalyzation of a chick who is far too wound up and uses blogging as an emotional outlet, apparently. As a consequence, she completely misses a lot of her points which could be conveyed a lot clearer:

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.

Now, let’s see, do you actually show women getting away with being disloyal to men?

If he did that, it'd be horribly unrealistic imo. It's not only disloyalty, it's murder.

Calling it "insane" also strikes me as an overreaction. Haha.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Crysta

[Hero]

Nothing about this is new, these are ideas that have been bouncing around since the early '70s. Don't make too much of it, this "hardline" feminism is a lot less popular now than it used to be 25-40 years ago and it never had much of a following in the first place. In a generation it will have gone the way of postmaterialism, Eurocommunism and the mullet.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Hero

[Dark Sage]

I know I shouldn't get angry, it's not worth it. But GOOD GOD is that woman insane. She can be really rude. Like one person posted that she was interested in the review and not in her feminist idealog nonsense, so allecto told her to get out of her blog in one of the snottiest, yet tragically common way possible. Also does this woman even know what the point Firefly is?

Apparently she's so bad, she even was referenced on Tvtropes (negatively I might add, thank god).

Actually if you do some homework on feminism and the social fabric and lawmaking today, people are actually more racist and sexist towards white middle class men. I don't say that much, because most people are reasonable, but it happens all around the western world. In fact, some country tried to make a law in favor of letting people be biased against white men in the workplace because, I swear I am not making this up, "we can't trust men to run things anymore." Some equality.

"Men's" Rights aren't much better though, being obnoxious and condescending to both genders.

In fact, so are the radical feminists.

In other words, they should leave us alone.

[General Spoon]

I would comment by posting a link to meatspin (if you don't know what it is, DO NOT try and find out), but I can't seem to access the the narrow-minded woman's blog now. Dang.

Edited February 18, 2010 by General Spoon

[Fireman]

The Whedon fan in me is strongly disgusted by this woman. Huh. Funny. Especially since Joss Whedon is a well-known and feminist himself. Can't imagine this woman's reaction to other writers' works.

[Original Alear]

I don't consider this very "insane", just the overreaction/overanalyzation of a chick who is far too wound up and uses blogging as an emotional outlet, apparently. As a consequence, she completely misses a lot of her points which could be conveyed a lot clearer:

If he did that, it'd be horribly unrealistic imo. It's not only disloyalty, it's murder.

Calling it "insane" also strikes me as an overreaction. Haha.

I think she's obsessed with sexism - that is, she sees sexism where it isn't along with where it is. She also has a tendency to extrapolate any sign of sexism into an ad hominem attack on Joss which makes her seem pretty immature. She's also a racist who thinks that black/white sexual relations can't or don't ever work out. However, a fair number of her points are pretty good, and overall the article made me think about Firefly differently from before.

There's an argument someone made once (I think it might have been Amartya Sen, commenting on a book about international aid by Frank Easterly) that whether a critique is good or bad can be based entirely on what's good in the critique, and that bad analysis can be ignored without harm to the piece. In that light, I think it's a pretty good article overall.

Like one person posted that she was interested in the review and not in her feminist idealog nonsense, so allecto told her to get out of her blog in one of the snottiest, yet tragically common way possible.

To what extent could someone be interested in the review without being interested in the feminist arguments which pretty much make up the entire argument??

Actually if you do some homework on feminism and the social fabric and lawmaking today, people are actually more racist and sexist towards white middle class men. I don't say that much, because most people are reasonable, but it happens all around the western world. In fact, some country tried to make a law in favor of letting people be biased against white men in the workplace because, I swear I am not making this up, "we can't trust men to run things anymore." Some equality.

Wow, "some country tried to make a law in favor of letting people be biased against white men in the workplace".

"Some country". "tried". "a law". "in favor". "letting people be biased". "in the workplace". I would say roughly half that sentence is so vague that overall, what you've just said has absolutely no real content, and therefore no relevance or persuasive power. Unemployment for black youth at least in the DC area is ridiculously high, estimated to be as much as 14 in 100 employed, most looking for jobs find it nearly impossible. I would guess that among middle income workers, there is a shift by employers to employ a larger proportion of non white-males, but I think you're ignoring the possibility that the proportion of white males is probably higher than other groups. I do agree it's better to let time take care of discrimination in the work place at the level of integration we have for the most part, but I think that to argue that things are overwhelmingly against white males is ridiculous. If you've had problems finding a job, keep the crowd going with you to job fairs in mind - for my part, I'd say the job fairs I've been to in IN - admittdely not overwhelmingly populated by minorities - and NJ - which has a pretty significant minority population - have a disproportionately large number of white males.

You sure have done your homework.

"I apply for jobs every day," he says. "And usually I do it online, 'cause I know before when I used to go in the stores, they used to look at me actually different and weird, and they say, 'Oh we don't have no applications or nothing,' and I never believed them."

I actually applied to work at an A&P in person in my hometown and got a paper application a few years back. A black friend of mine was not given an app when he asked for one at the store. Found this out when I discussed my job search with him. The funniest thing is that the woman who gave me my app was a black lady. Don't know who refused to give him one though.

[Original Alear]

Just one example IMO of where she completely misses the point.

Zoe, the token black woman, acts as a legitimiser. Her role is to support Mal's manly obsession with himself by encouraging him, calling him 'sir', and even starting the fights for him. Zoe is treated as a piece of meat by both her husband (Wash, another white male) and the Captain. Wash and Mal fight each other for Zoe's attention and admiration, both relying on her submission to them to get them hard and manly. In fact there is a whole episode, War Stories, devoted to Wash and Mal's 'rivalry'. By the word rivalry, I mean violent, homoerotic male/male courtship conducted over the body of a woman.

The funny thing here IMO is that the point of that episode is that Zoe's loyalty to Mal is based on choice. Mal does discuss Zoe as though her own willingness is either assumed or irrelevant - tells Wash he's gonna get back to the ship and have sex w/ Zoe as soon as he's free IMO - but in the end, when Zoe gets to make a choice between Mal and Wash, she doesn't even take one agonized second to think about who matters more. Essentially, even if we do take Mal completely or partially seriously, and he really is trying to scrap with Wash over his woman, it really doesn't matter. Zoe's the one in control of herself, even if Mal has a long-repressed urge to screw her and delusions/fantasies that she'd let him. The "rivalry" between Wash and Mal is essentially a juvenile contest to pass the time. It doesn't affect the events of the episode and the people stuck in the rivalry don't have any control over events. If anything, FF is critiquing Wash's jealousy.

Between Zoe and Wash, the former is obviously wearing the pants - there's really no room for discussion.

Edited February 20, 2010 by SeverIan

[Hatari]

Hey Severlan,

When you say, Zoe picked Wash over Mal, are you talking about when that *censored* dude was going to make her pick between who stayed and who got free for the money?

If so, I think it also has to be said, that Zoe might have picked Wash because he couldn't take it anymore. He would have either died or broken under the torture, whereas Mal who's been to war etc. would have had a greater chance to survive. Mal was the one who got him (wash) through the torture.

I agree as well, that author is crazy messed up. I'm a girl and I even think so. Firefly/Serenity is one of my favorite shows/movies...

Just some other thoughts.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Hatari

[Inactive Account]

Why must loons like these make real, legitimate feminists look bad? It's so much easier to make fun of raving misandrists than sensible people who just want proper equality... and then it's easier to dismiss the real feminists as well. Argh.

[Dark Sage]

Wow, "some country tried to make a law in favor of letting people be biased against white men in the workplace".

"Some country". "tried". "a law". "in favor". "letting people be biased". "in the workplace". I would say roughly half that sentence is so vague that overall, what you've just said has absolutely no real content, and therefore no relevance or persuasive power. Unemployment for black youth at least in the DC area is ridiculously high, estimated to be as much as 14 in 100 employed, most looking for jobs find it nearly impossible. I would guess that among middle income workers, there is a shift by employers to employ a larger proportion of non white-males, but I think you're ignoring the possibility that the proportion of white males is probably higher than other groups. I do agree it's better to let time take care of discrimination in the work place at the level of integration we have for the most part, but I think that to argue that things are overwhelmingly against white males is ridiculous. If you've had problems finding a job, keep the crowd going with you to job fairs in mind - for my part, I'd say the job fairs I've been to in IN - admittdely not overwhelmingly populated by minorities - and NJ - which has a pretty significant minority population - have a disproportionately large number of white males.

You sure have done your homework.

Yeah I was a bit vague. This bill is trying to be passed in the UK by Harriet Harman. She does say the above quote. She seems to be intelligent and genuinely wants to help everyone, but it seems ineffective and misogynistic. It doesn't help her case that one of Labor's top posts should always be held by a woman, no matter how ineffective they are.

As for your argument about how the blacks in DC can't find jobs, this has more to do with today's economy then racism. There are racists, but they aren't the majority, and anyway, racism in general is few, it's just some extreme liberals (which there are some in power) can be a bit vindictive about white middle class males. There are a majority in the work place, but it has to do with genetics then racism. Whites are the dominant population in America. This is fact. But it doesn't have to do with imperialism, it's just white people, having been living in this country longer than anyone else (sans the Native Americans of course), so there are lots more white people as a result. Sorry if this sounds unclear, but mostly, if it's because there are many more whites than anyone else, it's due to population.

The point is, some people (which there are very few of) are in positions of power and believe that white men are too entitled and that everyone else is helpless. They occasionally try to pass some extreme law but ot rarely gets through due to most people disliking it, including- surprise- women and minority groups.

Racism in general is few though. There's a bit of bias towards whites among

certain groups and some blacks still suffer from racism. Most of it is based on individuals.

Oh dear, I hope I'm not repeating myself.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Dark Sage

[Defeatist Elitist]

Yeah I was a bit vague. This bill is trying to be passed in the UK by Harriet Harman. She does say the above quote. She seems to be intelligent and genuinely wants to help everyone, but it seems ineffective and misogynistic. It doesn't help her case that one of Labor's top posts should always be held by a woman, no matter how ineffective they are.

As for your argument about how the blacks in DC can't find jobs, this has more to do with today's economy then racism. There are racists, but they aren't the majority, and anyway, racism in general is few, it's just some extreme liberals (which there are some in power) can be a bit vindictive about white middle class males. There are a majority in the work place, but it has to do with genetics then racism. Whites are the dominant population in America. This is fact. But it doesn't have to do with imperialism, it's just white people, having been living in this country longer than anyone else (sans the Native Americans of course), so there are lots more white people as a result. Sorry if this sounds unclear, but mostly, if it's because there are many more whites than anyone else, it's due to population.

The point is, some people (which there are very few of) are in positions of power and believe that white men are too entitled and that everyone else is helpless. They occasionally try to pass some extreme law but ot rarely gets through due to most people disliking it, including- surprise- women and minority groups.

Racism in general is few though. Just a bit of bias towards whites among

certain groups. Most of it is based on individuals.

Oh dear, I hope I'm not repeating myself.

Actual understanding of majorities/minorities, the poverty trap, and what constitutes racism would probably help you a bunch.

First of all, there still exists a fair amount of racism today, and it is not all towards white people. Sure, some people are racist towards white people, but the fact is, THERE ARE MORE WHITE PEOPLE. One of the many reasons for such things as Affirmative Action is to counteract the fact that the MAJORITY is white. If everyone is equally racist, and there are more of one group, then ultimately the other group gets the short end of the stick.

Then of course there is the fact that originally black people were essentially second class citizens, and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there is a poverty trap, and it can be quite "effective".

[Original Alear]

Hey Severlan,

When you say, Zoe picked Wash over Mal, are you talking about when that *censored* dude was going to make her pick between who stayed and who got free for the money?

If so, I think it also has to be said, that Zoe might have picked Wash because he couldn't take it anymore. He would have either died or broken under the torture, whereas Mal who's been to war etc. would have had a greater chance to survive. Mal was the one who got him (wash) through the torture.

I agree as well, that author is crazy messed up. I'm a girl and I even think so. Firefly/Serenity is one of my favorite shows/movies...

Just some other thoughts.

That's true I suppose; however, when you look at it that way, Mal is seen as playing along w/ Wash's "competition" over Zoe in any case, which still weakens the author's point.

As for your argument about how the blacks in DC can't find jobs, this has more to do with today's economy then racism. There are racists, but they aren't the majority, and anyway, racism in general is few, it's just some extreme liberals (which there are some in power) can be a bit vindictive about white middle class males. There are a majority in the work place, but it has to do with genetics then racism. Whites are the dominant population in America. This is fact. But it doesn't have to do with imperialism, it's just white people, having been living in this country longer than anyone else (sans the Native Americans of course), so there are lots more white people as a result. Sorry if this sounds unclear, but mostly, if it's because there are many more whites than anyone else, it's due to population.

I agree that the total number of whites in any given field/position would be larger than any other field. I also think that a certain male/female disparity is going to exist as long as we agree that females make better mothers than males. This is an advantage feminists often seem loathe to surrender, and as long as they don't I don't think they can expect income equality in the workplace.

However, the point isn't the total number employed, it is the rate of employment. I agree that the disparities are disperse - in 2000, a larger percentage of black men than white men had full-time employment. However, what I am pointing to is that a RIDICULOUSLY low number of black youth - and these are young blacks seeking jobs, too - are unable to find even part-time employment. I guess it is probably true that it is more of a rich/poor than a white/black thing at this point.

And sorry for being rather insulting in my last post. You responded rather politely all things considered, so the best thing I can do is say sorry.

[lolDeath]

what's firefly

[General Spoon]

what's firefly

That's a good question.

[Crystal Shards]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=firefly

First link.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[lolDeath]

Is that a delicious turkey sandwich?

[Esau of Isaac]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+that+a+delicious+turkey+sandwich%3F Edited February 24, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[lolDeath]

You aren't a woman, it is not your job to fill me with scrumptious meals.

[Dark Sage]

Actual understanding of majorities/minorities, the poverty trap, and what constitutes racism would probably help you a bunch.

Ok first, I do know about the poverty trap and how it's caused. I'm betting it may have to do more with the poor-subpar educational system and infrastructure than racism, but I'm not putting past that there are corrupt officials biased against blacks.

The simple definition of racism is mistreatment of people based on race. The major effects include:

-Harrasment by law enforcement

-Unequal civil rights

-Segregation such as ghettos, black water fountains, black seats etc. (this was solved in the late sixties-early seventies)

-Physical, Verbal, or Sexual harrasment based on race

-Unequal wage or refusal of employment based on race

-Laws, rules, and regulations to beat down those of a different race

So as you can see, I understand the terms quite fine.

First of all, there still exists a fair amount of racism today, and it is not all towards white people. Sure, some people are racist towards white people, but the fact is, THERE ARE MORE WHITE PEOPLE. One of the many reasons for such things as Affirmative Action is to counteract the fact that the MAJORITY is white. If everyone is equally racist, and there are more of one group, then ultimately the other group gets the short end of the stick.

I never said there wasn't racism and the ones on white males is generally minor and not to get worked up about. This may sound contridictory to my previous statements but I don't mean it to be and the racism is only by a few extreme radicals.

Nor did I say it's ALL directed towards whites. For the whole get rid of the majority thing, majority is usually based on population. The fact is, as you said, there are more white people. That's the main reason they're the majority. To get rid of the majority, you'll have to whittle down the white population and make the rest make more babies.

If the employed majority is what you meant, then it's a lose-lose situation. Either you'll leave blacks unemployed or you'll fire people for no reason other than they're white. Of course there is the third option of simply adding new oppurtunities or jobs for employment but for some buisnesses, that may not be possible.

Then of course there is the fact that originally black people were essentially second class citizens, and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there is a poverty trap, and it can be quite "effective".

Again, I never said blacks didn't suffer racsim. They WERE second class citizens. I know the history. There is a poverty trap as I said before and that there problaby are corrupt racist officials holding them down. A theory I have is part of the poverty trap (around 25-35%, maybe even 40%) is caused unintentionally due an unconcious (racist) belief that ALL blacks are poor and have bad home lives. This is a myth that must be dispelled to help end the poverty trap and I don't think THAT many officials are out to get blacks.

It seems that you assume I'm an entitled white citizen in denial about blacks. I'm not. I believe racism is a horrible thing and that it certainly does exist, but there is definetly less in America. In other parts of the world (but mainly the third) it definetly does and in high quantities.

I know what I'm talking about. I've had the pleasure of meeting a black man named Barry Scott who was a teenager during Martin Luther King Jr.'s stand for civil rights and was bullied by a cop. He has said that things have been a LOT better than 40 years ago and that those who say that it hasn't just thinks that way about himself (I may have gotten the exact quote wrong) and that as with everything, there's always room for improvement. And I've taken those words to heart.