This post is a response to _allecto_’s interpretation of Joss Whedon’s Firefly-verse (including Serenity) as anti-women, pro-rape, misogynistic hate propaganda. I disagree with her stance almost entirely, and I find her reading of this sci-fi masterpiece close-minded and offensive, not to mention a gross oversimplification of the complicated relationships, hierarchy, and society portrayed in Firefly.


To begin, I feel it is important to point out _allecto_’s biases, as well as my own. I’ll start with myself: I am a teenage female with a genuine interest in the sociology behind sexual and racial inequality, and I consider myself somewhat of a work-in-progress when it comes to speaking up and speaking out about sexism, homophobia, and racism in popular culture. I don’t take stands often enough, this is true; also true is the fact that I tend to prefer male characters, as female characters often lack depth and reality in my eyes. (I consider this a flaw in the industry, and in society, not within women themselves.) I am not an expert on sociology, feminism, sexism, or inequality, but I do consider myself an apt interpreter of fictional works, and I approach all subjects with a willingness to consider other positions.


I do not know _allecto_ personally or via the internet. My only experience with her journal has been her interpretation of Firefly, so my information about her comes directly from her profile. She describes herself thus: "26, radical feminist, lesbian, descendant of a First Nations people, vegetarian, child-care worker, creative, passionate, alive, inspired, woman. I am a Spinster, a Virgin, a Nag. I am a Harpy, a Fury, a Fate. I am a Witch, a Webster, a Muse (and I read too much Mary Daly). I believe that Sisterhood is the most powerful force in the Universe." She welcomes those who disagree with her opinions to say so, but warns she will delete any comments that she considers to be "pro-porn, pro-prostitution, woman-blaming, racist, misogynist, lesbophobic, pro-capitalist . . . or otherwise woman-hating."


The entirety of _allecto_’s Firefly post can be found here, and I will quote portions of it as I address her points, but I feel that a basic understanding of the characters and plot of Firefly will be useful (race and sex are specified because they become points later in _allecto_'s argument):

Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds is a white male, but more importantly he is the captain of the spaceship Serenity. He served as a commanding officer in a failed war against the Alliance -- a governmental union between the United States and China, which took control of the civilized galaxy. Mal is at the center of the story; Serenity is the realization of his dream, and it becomes a refuge for those on the outskirts of society, his ragtag family.

Zoe Washburne, black and female, serves as Mal’s second-in-command. She also fought alongside him in the war against the alliance; she is a more than capable fighter, and works loyally under Mal.

Hoban "Wash" Washburne, Zoe’s husband and the pilot of Serenity, is a white male. Though he has shown little prowess in physical combat, he is portrayed as a skilled pilot, and often serves as comic relief.

Inara Serra, a white female, is the only member of the crew considered by the futuristic society to be respectable. She works as a Companion, a career that can be likened to a courtesan or a geisha, but which many ignorantly simplify as prostitution. She is very intelligent, cultured, and beautiful.

Jayne Cobb, a white male, is the brawn of the operation. He is hypermasculine, violent, and reckless; he has shown tendencies of disloyalty, but is essentially on Mal’s side.

Kaylee Frye is the ship’s mechanic, a white female known for her innate understanding of Serenity’s inner workings, her bright and optimistic personality, and her disregard for propriety.

Simon Tam, originally a passenger on Serenity became the ship’s resident doctor. He is a white male, and has an aristocratic background.

River Tam, Simon’s sister, is a white female who is also at the center of the plot. It is an understatement to call her a genius. She was held captive by an organization which experimented on her, inducing psychic powers and exaggerated agility and fighting abilities. As a result, however, she is mentally unstable and the others worry she is a harm to them.

Derrial Book, or Shepherd Book, is a black male who works as a shepherd, a kind of preacher. He also begins as a passenger on Serenity who makes the ship his temporary home.

One of the first complaints made by _allecto_ is that

"the first scene opens in a war with Mal and Zoe. Zoe runs around calling Mal ‘sir’ and taking orders off him. I roll my eyes. Not a good start."

However, given that Zoe and Mal are in battle, are members of the military, and that he outranks her, I find nothing worthy of eye-rolling in this scene. It is a legitimate reason for Zoe to call Mal "sir." Furthermore, taking orders from him is her job -- it's how things get done on the front lines. He isn't targeting her because of her gender or race; he is working within the hierarchy of the military, as is she. Why she continues to call him "sir" after the war is probably the combination of many aspects: she's gotten used to doing so, and it's become a habit; and he is her captain, an outranking position even outside the confines of a military setting.


I never found this relationship in any way sinister, because it was also clear to me that Zoe and Mal respected one another immensely. They trust each other with their lives: they've fought side by side in the past and continue to do so in the present; she is his second-in-command; she is his voice of reason (such as in 1.01 "Serenity", when she insists that dealing with Patience is a bad idea). That this can be interpreted as Mal mistreating and abusing Zoe -- the poor, helpless black woman -- is absurd; it cheapens the depth of both of their characters, and their relationship.


Even if the objection is that Zoe's strength comes from a "male perspective" where violence = strength, I argue that Zoe's impressive gunslinging ability is not the extent of her strength: it is her ability to lead, guide, and support, all at once; it is her unwavering loyalty; it is her capable mind. If all you can see in her is a violent woman, then I think you are viewing the show on a very superficial level.


The next attack is on Zoe's relationship with Wash:

"Zoe, of course, is meant to be our empowered, ass-kicking sidechick. Like all sidechicks she is objectified from the get go. Her husband, Wash, talking about how he likes to watch her bathe. Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour. I have known a black woman whose white husband would strangle and bash her while her young children watched. My white grandfather liked black women because they were ‘exotic’, and he did not, could not treat women, especially women of colour, like human beings. I grew up watching my great aunts, my aunty and my mother all treated like shit by their white husbands, the men they loved. So you will forgive me for believing that the character, Wash, is a rapist and an abuser, particularly considering that he treats Zoe like an object and possession."

First of all, I believe that _allecto_'s plethora of personal examples in this comment is proof that she has refused to watch Firefly with clear eyes; she's already judged beforehand that a black woman and a white man cannot have a healthy relationship, regardless of how it is characterized on screen, or regardless of how the two people define themselves and their relationship. By virtue of their genders and their races, Zoe is a victim and Wash is an abuser. If that isn't racism and sexism at work, then I don't know what is.


Secondly, I am not shocked or offended by Wash's comment about watching Zoe bathe. I find nothing wrong with someone appreciating his or her spouse's body; my definition of love includes physicality, and I think suggesting that Wash is a rapist and an abuser for finding his wife physically appealing is ridiculous. I also think presuming that Zoe is being pressured into a sexual relationship with Wash -- or that "most 'sex' between men and women, in the contemporary 'sex-positive', pornographic, male-supremacist culture, is rape", as _allecto_ suggests here -- does disservice to women and prevents them from being sexually free except within a lesbian relationship. (It also implies that men are the ones at fault -- that men cannot, in fact, love -- and denies the legitimacy of all heterosexual or gay relationships. It is every bit as offensive as suggesting that two women cannot engage in a valuable relationship.)


A woman can want to have sex. She can even want to have sex with a man. It doesn't mean she is self-hating, subservient to men, or brainwashed by a sexualized society. Sex is a part of everyone to some degree, and that degree and how it is expressed should and must be determined by the individual. Allowing a woman to make that choice is essential to empowering her; not judging her for the choice she makes is just as important.


Which brings me to Inara. Inara is an incredibly complex and uniquely powerful woman, yet _allecto_ sees her as nothing more than a "fuck toy":

"In Joss Whedon’s future world prostituted women are powerful and respectable. They go to an Academy, to train in the arts of being a ‘Companion’. They belong to a Guild which regulates prostitution, forces women to endure yearly health tests and comes up with rules to make prostitution sound empowering for women. For example, one Guild rule is that the ‘Companion’ chooses her rapist, not the other way around.

"But there is one really big question that does not get answered. The women who ‘choose’ to be ‘Companions’ are shown as being intelligent, accomplished, educated, well-respected and presumably from good families. If a woman had all of these qualities and opportunities then why the fuck would she ‘choose’ to be a man’s fuck toy? Would being a fuck toy for hundreds of men give a woman like Inara personal fulfillment? Job satisfaction? A sense of purpose? Fulfill her dreams? Ambitions?

"Money doesn’t seem to be the motivation behind Inara’s ‘choice’ to be a ‘Companion’, presumably she just ‘enjoys’ swanning around in ridiculous outfits. And being used as a fuck toy by men is seemingly a small price to pay for the pleasure."

Understanding the historical context of Inara's job is important. Prostitution in its current, "dirty" meaning is not the only kind of sex that has been sold. Furthermore, it isn't just sex that Inara is selling, but companionship: friendship, counsel, love, healing.


A passage from Louis Crompton's Homosexuality and Civilization:

"In Deuteronomy we find the following prohibition: 'There shall be no whore [kadeshah] of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite [kadesh] of the sons of Israel. . . .' (23:17-18). . . .

"The modern reader is startled to find the Hebrew term kadeshah (the feminine of kadesh), which literally means 'holy woman,' translated by the blunt English word 'whore.' But concerning the role of the kadeshah we can be relatively certain. Female prostitution in religious cults was a phenomenon quite familiar in the ancient Near East. Herodotus observed it at Babylon. Temples of Astarte or Aphrodite housed sacred prostitutes Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Sicily. The famous temple of Aphrodite at Corinth had one thousand sacred prostitutes in classical times."

However you may feel about this particular example of prostitution in a historical context, it must be clear that sometimes prostitution is about more than "rapists" and their "fuck toys." Narrowing down the idea to such two-dimensional categories disregards all of the history and sociology surrounding the institution. A more accessible example would perhaps be of that of the geisha: cultured entertainers who develop all aspects of themselves, and who have been known to please their customers sexually, but who are not prostitutes.


Inara's own situation is similar, perhaps even more so. As _allecto_ points out, in Whedon's world, Companions are highly respected. In fact, Inara is the only reason the crew -- as illegitimate as most of their operations are -- is able to land on some planets. Society has sanctioned her career, even if Shepherd Book bristles and Mal calls her a whore.


But society's sanction doesn't mean much, really. Society sanctions many actions I find offensive. What matters is Inara's perspective, and whatever _allecto_ may believe about Inara's motives for working as a Companion ("swanning around in ridiculous outfits"), I think it is very obvious that Inara gains something from her career. In "Jaynestown," Inara soothes a young man through his first sexual experience and teaches him what it is to be a man, guiding him away from the pigheaded violence and ignorance of his father. She is just as strong as Zoe in a different way; where Zoe has physical strength, strategy, and leadership, Inara is nurturing and gentle. Both women are admirable in my eyes.


Inara does not hold stock in the same sexual mores most people do. Sex is important to her, but not in the same way it is with most. She doesn't define, judge, or give value to herself based on who she is or isn't having sex with.


She is a Companion. She has never thought of herself as a whore or a prostitute, and she has taken pride in her job. For Inara, she is not just helping her clients with her mind, or her personality, or her charm, or her body, but with all of these parts of her. And if they are parts she is willing to share, then ultimately that is her choice, and it is one she doesn't have to -- one she never would -- be ashamed of. Problems arise as a result of her career, but her self-definition never changes because of it.


The bottom line is that she has choice. _allecto_ claims that Inara "chooses her rapist"; by definition, this is ridiculous. Rape is not a choice. Unless you are defining rape as _allecto_ does:

"I believe in the radical feminist definition of rape. That is that men who pressure women into sex are rapists. That women who are pressured are not freely consenting and are therefore being raped. There have been a few discussions recently in the rad fem blogosphere debating whether all male initiated sex is rape, given that women are politically, socially and economically subordinate to men."

In which case, it has once again implied that heterosexual relationships are essentially impossible and that all women are victims unless in a lesbian relationship. This truly grates on me as I believe love can exist between members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, as well as those who defy traditional sex identities. To suggest that lesbian relationships are somehow any more meaningful than any other committed relationship is incredibly offensive. Love is love, no matter what packaging it comes in.


Furthermore, this definition forces women into the role of the victim. It essentially says that every time a woman and a man interact, they are doing battle, and inevitably the man will win. The woman has no say in the matter, has no responsibility, and cannot voice her own opinion. It says that a woman cannot consent to heterosexual sex, because she doesn't have the power to do so.


What?


From my perspective, this type of radical feminism is taking power away from women. Because women supposedly cannot "win" against men, they ought to just give up and retreat to a sex-segregated life? It's preposterous, hateful, and sexist.


_allecto_ also briefly touches on the character of Kaylee, mocking the idea that she is supposed to be an emblem of "feminist empowerment" just because she works a trade. (This despite the fact that she says later in a comment that "I love seeing women with physical strength. Women in the trades, handy lesbian women who can use drills, women who have strength from the work of child-rearing." As if strength in women can only be defined in certain "feminine" terms.)


My response is that Kaylee is a symbol of empowerment because she doesn't allow herself to be victimized. Though she is shot in the very first episode, she ignores her pain and her injury in order to ensure the ship escapes attack by Reavers (space cannibals). She doesn't allow this experience to keep her physically or emotionally down; she doesn't allow anything to change her own opinion of herself. She likes herself, and even when Simon (her love interest) says something which emphasizes her lack of propriety, or when her dress is laughed at by other women at a ball, or when Jayne insults her, in the end Kaylee is always happy with herself.


_allecto_ fails to address the characters of Shepherd Book, River Tam, Simon Tam, or Jayne Cobb. This greatly weakens her argument, particularly when it comes to River and Jayne.


River is perhaps the most important female character on the show; her story in the main arc of the plot. Like most people in real life, she is neither strong nor weak, but a combination of both: she's brilliant, gifted, and powerful; but because of what has happened to her, she has difficult controlling her emotions, thoughts, and actions, and it is often up to her brother (male guardian) to take care of her.


Meanwhile, Jayne is at first a typical tough guy. He treats women poorly (look only to his comments to Kaylee in the pilot) and relies on violence and verbalized hate almost exclusively. However, these actions are not condoned by the other characters -- they are seen as flaws which come to a head in "Jaynestown," when Jayne's self-serving attitude leads to a young man's death. Jayne's reaction is absolutely poignant, because we see for the first time his estimation of his own self worth: he cannot understand why anybody would die for him. After this episode, he does not change or become saintly. That isn't the point. The point is that the viewers understand quite clearly that these characters are terribly complicated and full of depth, and far more dynamic than the stereotypes _allecto_ is making them out to be.


Before _allecto_ is done, however, she makes one last outrageous claim, the one that takes it much too far. Insulting fictional characters and questioning the relative feminism of a show is essentially okay with me, even if I disagree with the results. But it is deeply offensive to assert without offering a shred of evidence that:

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Joss uses his own wife in this way [as Inara is used]. Expects her to clean up his emotional messes. Expects her to be there, eternally supportive, eternally subservient and grateful to him in all his manly glory. I hope the money is worth it, Mrs. Whedon. But somehow I doubt that it is. No amount of money can buy back wasted emotional resources."

When asked about this later in comments, she adds:

"I feel awful for Joss Whedon's wife. From what I've read about him and the interviews I've watched, I'm fairly certain that he rapes his wife and abuses her in various other ways. I honestly can't think of anything worse than living with a man like Joss who thinks of women like the way he portrays in his tv shows. How awful. The comment about the money was meant to be about how I personally could see no benefit from being with a man like Joss OTHER than money. Joss uses and abuses her. Probably rapes her and thinks of women as whores etc, etc. Obviously, Ms Whedon has her own reasons for staying. Fear, patriarchal concepts of love, etc. But I would argue that she gives everything and gets nothing. Money is the only concrete thing that she could possibly gain. But as I said money is worth nothing compared with self-integrity, self-esteem, love (sister/lesbian/gynaffectionate love) etc. So she still loses out. Poor woman."

What _allecto_ knows about the Whedons' marriage comes from, she says, interviews and articles she's read. She has not interacted with them, spoken with them, or known them, yet she is damning their marriage, calling Joss Whedon a rapist, and accusing his wife of subservience and possibly money-hounding. This all without providing any more evidence than that Joss Whedon is a man (albeit one she feels writes misogynistic material) and that his wife is a woman. She also (again) says that the only important love is that between women.


I must add that while I of course realize that there are many issues in our society regarding gender and race that need to be addressed, I cannot in good conscience allow this kind of irrational and sexist attack to simply go unchallenged.


I am glad that the questions are being asked: much as I love Firefly, I do realize that there are within it many of the same socialized traps we see in other, more blatantly sexist/racist/heterosexist media. But I also think that tearing apart something which has also made great strides in the portrayal of women and men (as well as in storytelling and creativity) without even bothering to consider it with an open mind is foolish. Point out the problems (for example, Inara's infatuation with Mal despite the way he treats her), but to call every woman a victim and every man a victimizer -- to work under the assumption that every woman is a victim and every man a victimizer -- is to perpetuate those issues.


I still admire Firefly and its creator, and that is my conclusion.


Disagree if you like. I won't delete your comments.

- - -