![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenI'm sure the Whedon-files have read this already
Not to dismiss the Joss' opinion on the matter, but womb-envy is no more a predominant explanation for sexism and misogyny than penis-envy explains the psychology of women. It is, no doubt, a secret fear and source of mistrust, but the biological imperative of survival is more complicated than simply "You have what I want."
In fact, biologically speaking, men don't envy women; they envy other men (Bateman's Principle). This is true in non-sentient species as well as man, hence the multitude of adaptations of both male and female members of different species to select for and against particular individuals. Females, because of their larger investment of energy in the production of offspring, have to be choosey about partners, and the ones best evolved to select for favorable traits among partners will produce the most, healthiest progeny. Males must then evolve to compete for their fewer females in such a way that they both succeed in winning and mating and prevent other males from undoing their hard work.
Otherwise? Not a bad article from the Joss. I just wish that the Pandagon thread about it hadn't immediately de-volved into fans shouting down fans about whether or not his works count as feminist or not. As far as feminism goes, Whedon claims too much to say that Firefly's universe is gender-equal (not even true on the most civilized worlds), but he does a lot with the genre he set out to write and forwards it without completely losing the source material (I'll be able to write more and better about this once I take my class on Westerns). As for Buffy, I give him both more and less credit. Is it still about ogling the hot chick who, despite conforming to the Hollywood standard of beauty and stick-thinness, kicks ass? Sure. Does it also make a point to include characters with atypical gender roles? It does indeed.
You just have to weigh the good against the bad, and you'll find, I think, that Whedon comes out ahead. Having a "masculine" defender role placed on the shoulders of a teenage girl with girly-girl clothes and romantic leanings helps, and so does having Xander, who plays a "feminized" man--the weakest physical link in the army but still very much loved and loving despite that. Exposure to things such as homosexuality/bisexuality and unapologetic female sexual desire (Willow and Tara; Anya; Kennedy in season 7) goes a long way, too.
Womb-envy or not, there's nothing he's saying about how stupid and perverted the treatment of women is that is anything but right and righteous. It's been said before, true, and we shouldn't make a bigger deal of a guy saying this than a girl (equality is the goal, remember), but I support spreading this message around if only because it a) ends optimistically with a call to (positive) action; b) is being said by someone with the attention-getting power of a hundred or thousand voices; and c) is coming straight from one of geekdom's idols and thus is deserving of my fannish praise.
Not to dismiss the Joss' opinion on the matter, but womb-envy is no more a predominant explanation for sexism and misogyny than penis-envy explains the psychology of women. It is, no doubt, a secret fear and source of mistrust, but the biological imperative of survival is more complicated than simply "You have what I want."
In fact, biologically speaking, men don't envy women; they envy other men (Bateman's Principle). This is true in non-sentient species as well as man, hence the multitude of adaptations of both male and female members of different species to select for and against particular individuals. Females, because of their larger investment of energy in the production of offspring, have to be choosey about partners, and the ones best evolved to select for favorable traits among partners will produce the most, healthiest progeny. Males must then evolve to compete for their fewer females in such a way that they both succeed in winning and mating and prevent other males from undoing their hard work.
Otherwise? Not a bad article from the Joss. I just wish that the Pandagon thread about it hadn't immediately de-volved into fans shouting down fans about whether or not his works count as feminist or not. As far as feminism goes, Whedon claims too much to say that Firefly's universe is gender-equal (not even true on the most civilized worlds), but he does a lot with the genre he set out to write and forwards it without completely losing the source material (I'll be able to write more and better about this once I take my class on Westerns). As for Buffy, I give him both more and less credit. Is it still about ogling the hot chick who, despite conforming to the Hollywood standard of beauty and stick-thinness, kicks ass? Sure. Does it also make a point to include characters with atypical gender roles? It does indeed.
You just have to weigh the good against the bad, and you'll find, I think, that Whedon comes out ahead. Having a "masculine" defender role placed on the shoulders of a teenage girl with girly-girl clothes and romantic leanings helps, and so does having Xander, who plays a "feminized" man--the weakest physical link in the army but still very much loved and loving despite that. Exposure to things such as homosexuality/bisexuality and unapologetic female sexual desire (Willow and Tara; Anya; Kennedy in season 7) goes a long way, too.
Womb-envy or not, there's nothing he's saying about how stupid and perverted the treatment of women is that is anything but right and righteous. It's been said before, true, and we shouldn't make a bigger deal of a guy saying this than a girl (equality is the goal, remember), but I support spreading this message around if only because it a) ends optimistically with a call to (positive) action; b) is being said by someone with the attention-getting power of a hundred or thousand voices; and c) is coming straight from one of geekdom's idols and thus is deserving of my fannish praise.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-25 01:59 am (UTC)That said, I do think it's at least rarer than you claim. If such a large percentage of society was making such bad decisions with such regularity, everything would've fallen apart by now.
Sure they're all gradients, but while saying that everyone's a little bit racist might be great for a comedic musical, it's not a terribly useful way of looking at things. You mention our actions, and those are often binaries. The extent to which people should try to keep racist or sexist tendencies in check is just the extent to which they should try to keep all wrong-headed decision-making to a minimum. Fortunately, the latter accomplishes the former.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-26 02:46 am (UTC)A nice idea, but I don't think it really holds. The world is alarmingly tolerant of bad decisions for a surprisingly large chunk of time. I suppose Mother Nature (or Father Reality or what have you) likes to give you plenty of rope before suddenly pulling it short.
while saying that everyone's a little bit racist might be great for a comedic musical, it's not a terribly useful way of looking at things.
Actually, it's a necessary way of looking at things. Otherwise it's far too easy to let oneself complacently believe one isn't racist, sexist, classist, etc. Obviously there's a difference between being a completely unreconstructed bigot and just having the occasional tendency, but the occasional tendency can do plenty of damage as well.
As for wrong-headed decision-making, see other reply.