Joss Whedon, his body of work, and Feminism. OK, Go! :)

[jayhuck]

I originally planned to have a private discussion with a friend regarding the place where Feminism and Joss Whedon's body of work, specifically his characters, intersect/overlap (or don't intersect/overlap as the case may be). We both thought it might be more interesting to have that discussion here where more people could comment on the topic. I'm

Comments

[jayhuck]

Does he actually tout himself as a feminist? I honestly don't know. I actually do see him as one and I think Buffy was one of those examples I see as a very strong female character - not just a female character, but a strong individual/person. I wish I could speak better to his other shows but I don't know them as well. Dollhouse, well, I think his issue there, like most of his other issues isn't truly about prostitution, its about mind control and brainwashing, themes you find running throughout almost all of his stuff - the prostitution thing seems incidental. And I will say this of Dollhouse, in terms of the characters, it did have both female and male "dolls", if that means anything. I wish we could discuss Buffy in more detail. And, despite the fact that there are obvious flaws in his characters, that doesn't mean he doesn't write strong individuals both male and female. RE: Buffy, no worries Clever - It it quite a bit to take on. As for most of the criticism of her I've seen to date however its most often coming from people who have not watched all of the show, which I find disheartening, because all of the characters in that show change SO much, so significantly over time, you can't pull out one or two episodes or seasons as a way to bolster an anti-feminist argument

[clevermanka]

Does he actually tout himself as a feminist?

I would say, yes, he does.

the prostitution thing seems incidental

But it isn't. It isn't incidental. It's crucial to the plot of the show that she sells her body. If it was "incidental," she could have been a plain old spy. Or a cop. Or something. But no, she's a sex worker. And that is problematic, Jason. It is not incidental. And it is something he chose to make crucial to the character.

I think you can afford to be less...diligent? about this sort of thing (saying it isn't really about prostitution, or that only happens in a few episodes) because you are viewing it from a place of male privilege. And there's nothing wrong with being in a place of privilege. You just need to be aware that you have it, and that it will always color your perceptions.

And obviously, Whedon is writing from a place of privilege, too. I'm sure he finds it okay to think "Well, this rape issue doesn't happen very often in the story, and rapes really do happen in real life, so I'll use it to promote this plot point by doing X." The problem with that is that women, those people he's supposedly interested in Writing As Strong, are constantly attacked with rape and rape culture issues all the time in our everyday lives. We do not want or need to see purportedly Strong Female Characters defined by sexual assault. THAT IS A PROBLEM. Read that article if you're unfamiliar with the problems of rape-as-plot-device.

So of course as a man writing it, and you as a man consuming the product, the issue simply isn't as glaringly problematic to you.

To address the issue of the existence of male dolls, and to nip any potential "but men get raped, too" arguments, I'm just going to put a link to Derailing for Dummies here. In particular the But this happens to me, too, argument. It's not the same.

[jayhuck]

Well, I'm not actually trying to be diligent here, or at least I don't think I am, but I have touted myself as a JW apologist before so who knows my true motives ;), but what I said about there being an overriding theme of brainwashing and mind control in almost all of his works is still very much true. Is it less problematic, from your perspective, that he has both male and female "dolls"? I didn't watch this show much so I don't know a great deal about how he approaches some of these issues.

[clevermanka]

No, that doesn't make it less problematic at all. Far and away women are more affected by the issues that spring from sex work in our culture.

[jayhuck]

I'm not really going to go there, to the "men get raped too" argument, but isn't it different in a show like this where men are purchased for the same sorts of things that the women are?

[clevermanka]

No, it isn't. You cannot legitimately make that comparison because men simply aren't affected the same way by the current culture of sex work. That's like saying it's just as bad for a white person to be called cracker as it is for a black person to be called nigger. Or that it's just as bad for a heterosexual person to be called breeder as it is for a gay man to be called faggot.

[jayhuck]

That is an excellent point. Thanks :) Would it make a difference if (and i'm waxing somewhat hypothetical here - I have an idea he went to this place with Dollhouse but I can't remember) the female characters rose up and over came their situation? Overthrew their captors and gained freedom? Or would he and all the other writers, female included, be at fault for permitting the women to be put in that sort of position in the first place? It may or may not be important to point out that the dolls were used for things other than sex, but regardless, I get why thats a problem.

[clevermanka]

No, it doesn't make a difference (and yes that is supposedly the theme of the show) because he still put her there to begin with, when there are so many other options to portray the themes of coercion and control.

This is the exact same complaint I have with 99.9% of the fantasy crap that's out there. HELLO I AM LOOKING AT YOU GAME OF THRONES. Oh, sure, you can say "but the ladies are totes powerful eventually." But the premise of their story is still based on the age-old trope of women being used as bargaining chips. As an author, you have the power to create an entirely new world, and yet this is the thing you continue to incorporate in order to inject realism? Well, fuck you.

And as for those (douchewad mouthbreathers) who say they need something to make them believe in the world, and women were really treated like that, so of course it's okay to continue to portray them as chattel because that makes it real? I say if you can believe in a world with dragons and magic but can't believe in a world that doesn't treat women as property, then there is something seriously, seriously wrong with you.

[jayhuck]

I can completely and "totes" appreciate that Clever! :)

[jayhuck]

I was thinking about a few more things. I don't need to have a fictional world where women are treated as property to believe in it - that's a non-issue for me. I am wondering though if you feel that not dealing with the issue at all is somehow disingenuous, that in a way its not fair to women to pretend it doesn't exist? Or do you feel that to treat women like this is so cliche, so overused as a "device" as to not warrant its appearance in fiction any longer? I apologize, I'm not sure I'm making my point clear. And if we were to exclude this horrible thing that that does occur to women in real life in our fiction, regardless of whether or not they overcome it, why not call for the removal of other terrible things that occur in real life like slavery, murder, betrayal, etc. I'm honestly more concerned with your answers to these questions and responses to these ideas than I am about trying to support a position that its ok if such things occur occasionally in fictional worlds.

[clevermanka]

if you feel that not dealing with the issue at all is somehow disingenuous, that in a way its not fair to women to pretend it doesn't exist

If you are an author creating a brand new world, no, you don't have to address it at all. Because it is a fantasy world and it's entirely possible that those issues never existed in it.

I'm not asking people to remove terrible things that occur. Good god, there'd be no plots. I'm asking people to give up tired, misogynist tropes in the telling of their stories.