FWIS3

You know you want to read it:

http://theangryblackwoman.com/2009/04/2 ... -subtlety/

I'm interested in commentary from those who have actually watched Dollhouse; for now I'll not comment on it, because I know zilch about it (yet).

However, I will note something else. That scene from Firefly, Objects in Space, the one with Jubal Early and Kaylee? The really enraging one?

Think about it. Black guy sneaking in from outside to rape the innocent, defenseless white girl? White captain? White director? Not cool, dude. I'm not opposed to having black villains, but context does matter.

I'm not going to call Whedon a bad person, or a fraud; everyone's racist anyway and people screw up etc. But I will call a spade a spade.


Edit: speaking of screwing up

I wrote:white girl

I shouldn't be referring to adult women as "girls." Sorry.

Actually, I don't want to read it. I refuse to be dragged into a world in which I get to presume that I know that Josh Whedon was being a racist and deliberately wrote that whole episode just to pander to the black men rape white women mythos.

I have watched that episode at least 6+ times and not once did it ever occur to me to even consider it from that angle. All I saw and got into was damn good acting. I really believed that Early was a very bad man who just liked to hurt people. He became a bounty hunter so he could hurt people. And he was not above using a bit of psychotic head games to achieve that goal. What really made that character work was the fact that he liked to hurt people, he was good at it, and he was really smart. So, when River outsmarted him it just really put the frosting on the cake that he got what he deserved. The actor may have been black but Jubal Early was more than just a common garden variety psychotic.

And not once have I watched that episode and said "oh look. That's exactly what black men do when they can catch defenseless white girls. They rape them".

Feel free to tell me I am just not culturally sensitive enough. Frankly, I don't care. I really think people read way too much into television shows. It's entertainment folks. If you don'[t find it entertaining then don't watch it. But, FFS, don't presume that it means the director, the producer, the writer, and et al are racist bastards out to demonize one particular group just because they happened to pick a damn good actor regardless of his color.

I gotta figure out a way to vote a post up or how to like a post...

Actually, I don't want to read it. I refuse to be dragged into a world in which I get to presume that I know that Josh Whedon was being a racist and deliberately wrote that whole episode just to pander to the black men rape white women mythos.

I did not say that. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I will agree that Richard Brooks did an extremely convincing job pretending to be a psychopath.

But, FFS, don't presume that it means the director, the producer, the writer, and et al are racist bastards out to demonize one particular group just because they happened to pick a damn good actor regardless of his color.

I did not say any of that either. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

As for racism... I'm racist. Seriously. So are you. Ain't none of us, of any color or creed, without unconscious biases. Therefore it's not about not having those biases; it's about not acting on them. Which in this case I think Whedon kind of failed at. Not because he's a "bastard," but because he didn't think about it.

Gullible Jones wrote:

Actually, I don't want to read it. I refuse to be dragged into a world in which I get to presume that I know that Josh Whedon was being a racist and deliberately wrote that whole episode just to pander to the black men rape white women mythos.

I did not say that. Please don't put words into my mouth.

He didn't. He said he didn't want to read something that appears to be saying that.

Gullible Jones wrote:

But, FFS, don't presume that it means the director, the producer, the writer, and et al are racist bastards out to demonize one particular group just because they happened to pick a damn good actor regardless of his color.

I did not say any of that either. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

Again, he didn't put words in your mouth. It was directed to those who do presume to know another's mind.

Gullible Jones wrote:As for racism... I'm racist. Seriously. So are you. Ain't none of us, of any color or creed, without unconscious biases. Therefore it's not about not having those biases; it's about not acting on them. Which in this case I think Whedon kind of failed at. Not because he's a "bastard," but because he didn't think about it.

disclaimer: I too have not and will not read the linked article, nor have I seen the episode in question

Having biases based on someone's ethnicity is not necessarily racism. Biases are part of human nature, there is not a person alive that does not have them, and there is no way that you will *ever* eliminate them, at least until there is some kind of cosmic shift in our perception of the universe. What makes one racist is realizing these biases, believing that they are right, or not caring whether they are or not, and consciously acting on those biases, whether by speech or by deed (i.e., using the word 'nigger' when the connotations of that word are well known). And I will add that IMO it would have to be a sustained pattern of speech and/or action, and not merely the occasional slip of the tongue, or the lack of taking the time to think to oneself "Gee, if I write these characters and scenes in this way, will someone, somewhere, somehow interpret that to mean that I think all people of a particular ethnicity behave this way?". Should a different actor have been chosen to play the role based on the color of his skin for the sole reason that someone may think that? That in itself is racist, wouldn't you think? I would imagine that he wrote the character as a bad guy who just happened to be played by a black actor. If it had been a white actor, would that now be misogynistic because it was violence perpetrated against a woman? If the victim had been male, would it have been gay-bashing because all gays want to force themselves on other men? I think you see where I am going with this.

Being hyper-vigilant for any microscopic sign of racism, sexism, ageism, any other ism you can think of is counterproductive. It numbs people to the bigger picture that these are still issues and we do need to address them. It carries these issues to ridiculous extremes, and only serves to make the general population roll their eyes and think "oh god, it's another one of *those* people". We have enough of these isms that are in your face and systemic that we don't have to try and interpret every minute detail of an individual's life as an indication that they are some kind of 'ist'.

Hap wrote:He didn't. He said he didn't want to read something that appears to be saying that.

It doesn't "appear to be saying that." It's a critique of an entirely different Whedon show, Dollhouse, which I've never seen (which is why I didn't comment on it).

Really, I probably shouldn't have mentioned the Firefly episode; that's my own pet peeve, and the message from the blogger above is different. I should have started a different topic for my own stuff... anyway don't let my opinions dissuade you from reading her blog, which is opinionated but also very much on point IMO.

Gullible Jones wrote:Again, he didn't put words in your mouth. It was directed to those who do presume to know another's mind.

I don't presume to know Whedon's mind, or what he intended. I'm just saying that, intended or not, the scene comes off as maybe a bit racist. My example was more to make a point that Whedon can and has gotten things wrong before.

disclaimer: I too have not and will not read the linked article, nor have I seen the episode in question

The article is about a different show. And you should read it, and the blog, because the blogger has some interesting things to say.

Having biases based on someone's ethnicity is not necessarily racism. Biases are part of human nature, there is not a person alive that does not have them, and there is no way that you will *ever* eliminate them, at least until there is some kind of cosmic shift in our perception of the universe. What makes one racist is realizing these biases, believing that they are right, or not caring whether they are or not, and consciously acting on those biases, whether by speech or by deed...

"Racism" by the academic definition specifically refers to a bias that serves the current power structure. It can be unintentional. A white guy portraying a black guy as a psychopathic sex criminal definitely has racist undertones, IMO.

Real racism is evil and insidious, but the people who engage in it are not necessarily evil and insidious.

Being hyper-vigilant for any microscopic sign of racism, sexism, ageism, any other ism you can think of is counterproductive. It numbs people to the bigger picture that these are still issues and we do need to address them. It carries these issues to ridiculous extremes, and only serves to make the general population roll their eyes and think "oh god, it's another one of *those* people". We have enough of these isms that are in your face and systemic that we don't have to try and interpret every minute detail of an individual's life as an indication that they are some kind of 'ist'.

On the contrary, I think that
- You are what you eat (metaphorically speaking)
- It helps to know what goes into your food, even if you don't change your diet as a result

Also, being some kind of 'ist' doesn't mean one is a bad person... Up to a point, anyway.

That blog was retarded. Dollhouse does have rape in it. It also has human trafficking in it. But it is not about, celebrating, or endorsing any of those things.

The one flaw in Dollhouse was that they took too long to get to the main arc, but I don't blame Joss for that, because networks often insist on episodic shows so that new audience members can drop in at any time. That just didn't work for Dollhouse.

However, if you watch the two seasons all together on Netflix, it works beautifully.

Joss Whedon is a profound feminist and he is not racist. I'm very tired of people nitpicking his work to try and make him into a misogyinist or a racist when, in fact, there are plenty of film makers out there who are obviously racist and misogynistic.

My first thought here is that, if I want to get a view of what tacit racism and sexism look, I might want to listen to someone who is black, a woman, and a feminist, and probably deals with this stuff a lot. Because I have no idea what it's like myself, being white and male and middle class and all.

SciFi Chick wrote:That blog was retarded.

So, aside: at the risk of being pigeonholed as "politically correct," I feel like maybe we neurotypical types shouldn't be using that word in that context. I know I've used it a lot in the past, and I regret that - because, when you think about it, using it as an insult is pretty disparaging towards people who have a legit medical issue.

Hell, I have a thyroid disorder. A few hundred years ago I could have wound up in the same boat.

Dollhouse does have rape in it. It also has human trafficking in it. But it is not about, celebrating, or endorsing any of those things.

I don't think that's what she was saying. More that depicting such things badly can inadvertently serve to glorify them, or desensitize people to them. It seems to me that she's annoyed with Whedon not for being malicious, but for not knowing what he's doing.

"Don't attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity... Or ignorance."

The one flaw in Dollhouse was that they took too long to get to the main arc, but I don't blame Joss for that, because networks often insist on episodic shows so that new audience members can drop in at any time. That just didn't work for Dollhouse.

However, if you watch the two seasons all together on Netflix, it works beautifully.

Like I said, I haven't seen it. Might take a look though, when/if time permits.

Joss Whedon is a profound feminist and he is not racist. I'm very tired of people nitpicking his work to try and make him into a misogyinist or a racist when, in fact, there are plenty of film makers out there who are obviously racist and misogynistic.

Just FYI I actually think Firefly was bloody awesome. One of the best SF shows to grace television. It got some things wrong, but it got most things right. What I don't think is that it, or its author, should be above criticism.

BTW, an example of Firefly getting things wrong... Janestown. Remember the boss dude's wimpy son, the one who eventually defies his dad and lets Serenity get away?

He starts out as a naive virgin and a total wimp.
Boss-man hires Inara to have sex with him.
She does so, and he magically becomes a Grown Man with Confidence In Himself overnight.

That right there is a hoary old macho cliche. One I've come to loathe, too, on a deeply personal level.

There was a lot of awesome stuff too; but yeah. When you work with archetypes you sometimes risk evoking stereotypes. As I said, I like Firefly, but I thought that part of that episode was sloppy.

Gullible Jones wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:That blog was retarded.

So, aside: at the risk of being pigeonholed as "politically correct," I feel like maybe we neurotypical types shouldn't be using that word in that context. I know I've used it a lot in the past, and I regret that - because, when you think about it, using it as an insult is pretty disparaging towards people who have a legit medical issue.

I don't care. The reality is that no matter how many times we remove one disparaging term, another one will arise in its place. It's human nature. To me, that blog came across as retarded in the sense that the thinking behind it is ridiculous and not worthy of debate. And yes, you picking on every term any of us uses is politically correct in the worst sense of the word, and, contrary to popular belief, it won't change anything.

I don't think that's what she was saying. More that depicting such things badly can inadvertently serve to glorify them, or desensitize people to them. It seems to me that she's annoyed with Whedon not for being malicious, but for not knowing what he's doing.

"Don't attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity... Or ignorance."

I disagree. The show Dollhouse is all about the nature of identity. What makes us human? What makes us real? Most of the characters in the show volunteered to become "dolls" of their own free will. Is it still rape when one volunteers for it? For a big fat paycheck?

Like I said, I haven't seen it. Might take a look though, when/if time permits.

Joss Whedon is a profound feminist and he is not racist. I'm very tired of people nitpicking his work to try and make him into a misogyinist or a racist when, in fact, there are plenty of film makers out there who are obviously racist and misogynistic.

Just FYI I actually think Firefly was bloody awesome. One of the best SF shows to grace television. It got some things wrong, but it got most things right. What I don't think is that it, or its author, should be above criticism.

I don't think they should be above criticism either, but when your criticism has no apparent basis in reality, it should be pointed out. Hap did a good job of that.

Gullible Jones wrote:BTW, an example of Firefly getting things wrong... Janestown. Remember the boss dude's wimpy son, the one who eventually defies his dad and lets Serenity get away?

He starts out as a naive virgin and a total wimp.
Boss-man hires Inara to have sex with him.
She does so, and he magically becomes a Grown Man with Confidence In Himself overnight.

That right there is a hoary old macho cliche. One I've come to loathe, too, on a deeply personal level.

There was a lot of awesome stuff too; but yeah. When you work with archetypes you sometimes risk evoking stereotypes. As I said, I like Firefly, but I thought that part of that episode was sloppy.

We all bring our own perceptions to what we watch and read. That doesn't make those perceptions objective fact. I took that episode very differently. He liked Inara and didn't want anything to happen to her. Also, it was pretty apparent to me that his rebellion had been brewing for some time, and this was the final straw.

Maybe my take on it is incorrect as well, but it's certainly supported just as well as yours is.

That one I'll concede. I just thought the sexual act was... gratuitous. Not because it was sex, but (again) because of context. The interaction between him and Inara could have served exactly the same purpose without him actually going through with that IMO.

I dunno though, I may be expecting too much of TV...

Gullible Jones wrote:That one I'll concede. I just thought the sexual act was... gratuitous. Not because it was sex, but (again) because of context. The interaction between him and Inara could have served exactly the same purpose without him actually going through with that IMO.

I dunno though, I may be expecting too much of TV...

Maybe you're just expecting something different from TV.

Maybe you’re forgetting that it’s.....

FICTION!!!!!!!!!!

No, I'm not; fiction is just powerful stuff. If you doubt me, take a look at the world's major religions.

Gullible Jones wrote:No, I'm not; fiction is just powerful stuff. If you doubt me, take a look at the world's major religions.

And I take them about as seriously...

You, yes, but many people take them very seriously indeed.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:BTW, an example of Firefly getting things wrong... Janestown. Remember the boss dude's wimpy son, the one who eventually defies his dad and lets Serenity get away?

He starts out as a naive virgin and a total wimp.
Boss-man hires Inara to have sex with him.
She does so, and he magically becomes a Grown Man with Confidence In Himself overnight.

That right there is a hoary old macho cliche. One I've come to loathe, too, on a deeply personal level.

There was a lot of awesome stuff too; but yeah. When you work with archetypes you sometimes risk evoking stereotypes. As I said, I like Firefly, but I thought that part of that episode was sloppy.

We all bring our own perceptions to what we watch and read. That doesn't make those perceptions objective fact. I took that episode very differently. He liked Inara and didn't want anything to happen to her. Also, it was pretty apparent to me that his rebellion had been brewing for some time, and this was the final straw.

Maybe my take on it is incorrect as well, but it's certainly supported just as well as yours is.

You are also overlooking the fact that they have to portray his maturing into a man who can stand up against his overbearing father in the space of about 48 minutes of air time. While sharing his story with several other stories at the same time. It seems formulaic and stereotyped because it's the only way they can fit 10 years of maturing into 15 minutes and still have the audience buy into the fact that the son now has the cojones to stand up to his father. It's the price we pay for having such a short attention span that we would refuse to watch this same process occur over about 20 hours of air time. Unless it was Dallas. Then everyone watched it just to see if anyone was going to whack JR or beat him at his own game.

Gullible Jones wrote:I don't think that's what she was saying. More that depicting such things badly can inadvertently serve to glorify them, or desensitize people to them. It seems to me that she's annoyed with Whedon not for being malicious, but for not knowing what he's doing.

"Don't attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity... Or ignorance."

And if she had not used Dexter as an example of doing it right, you might have a point. But Dexter gleefully glorifies violence and celebrates serial killing as okay as long as you only kill other serial killers. I enjoyed this show too, but if you're worried about people finding violence glorified and getting desensitized to violence, Dexter is NOT the example you use to tell us that Whedon is getting it wrong with Dollhouse.