Firefly politically incorrect?
POSTED BY: Bugboy
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2004 18:06
VIEWED: 15813
PAGE 4 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by Bugboy:
Legal prostitution? Drakon how does that fit into your black and white view of this reality? (in 20 words or less please) How many scenes deal with the conflict Inara and Mal feel within themselves about her profession.
I can't do it in less than 20 words. My wife tells me that it takes me more than that to simply ask to pass the butter. I want to expand on my eariler statement.
What you see represented in Mal and Inara's sexual relationship is a confluence of a number of interesting cultural issues. Mal is a 19th century man, while Inara is a 21st century woman, so there is bound to be some conflict between the two especially in the area of sexual morality.
People have sex for fun. There is an evolutionary factor at work here, as people who enjoy sex are more likely to have more sex that folks who don't. Sex also causes babies, and along with the accompanying population shift, you can easily see how we evolved into a species that enjoys sex.
But, sex does cause babies. And it is a great disease vector. Both of which are problems for society at large. Epidemics can decimate entire populations, and eliminating one disease vector, even if it through public taboos on promiscuity, is something that everyone in a culture has an interest in.
But babies are perhaps the most important threat to a civilization. First off, they need to be fed, cared for, clothed, kept healthy, etc. It takes a lot of investment in time, energy, and emotions, to raise a child to be, if nothing else, not a threat to the population. You don't want your kid to grow up to kill you, steal from your neighbors, or get involved in other criminal, or perhaps revolutionary actions. This would be detrimental to the culture and society you live in, from which the individual derives much benefit.
Because of this natural consequence of sex, taboos have sprung up around the act. It is limited to between a committed hetrosexual partner. In some cultures, sex for fun is severally frowned upon, even as a concept. It is both seen as something animalistic, and evil, as well as an expression of love and devotion between a man and his wife. Underneath all this is society's interest to see that those who engage in sex, are somewhat set up to take care of the consequences of thier actions. Namely children.
So you have taboos for being a virgin until marriage, so that the husband cannot claim "its not my kid, therefore I will simply bail." Fidelity in marriage and even the idea of marrying for love, all are brought about because a functioning society needs its children raised properly and indoctrinated into the cultural norms of that society. Otherwise, the society is at risk, along with the benefits that society achieves for its individual members.
[There are some less noble reasonings for some sexual taboos and mores, such as political power over women, but this one problem is the major one.]
Now, fast forward to today. What is different? Medical technology for one thing. Now, birth control is something very easily produced, and it is quite effective. [Not 100%, but close enough to convince most folks that the risks are far remote and reduced substantially.] Freed from the threat of children, old ideas on recreational sex are resurfacing. They never really went away, that is human nature. But since the circumstances have changed, the reasons for the old sexual morality gets questioned.
So you see women entering the work force in much larger numbers, the gay rights movement, and the Fox network gradually turning into a hard core sex channel (to quote Marge Simpson) Since the risk to society is far smaller, why not legalize prostitution? Sex is something that adults do to make themselves feel better. (Hopefully their partners as well.)
Inara, coming from a core world, displays for the most part, this modern concept, and it is easy to imagine that her access to birth control technology was far greater than that of Mal's
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That may be.
Originally posted by Drakon:
Not so sure I would agree. I can see why you would say that based on superficial issues with the show, but I think underneath it, there is something else altogether going on.
The supposed bases of postmodern political correctness is personal freedom and social tolerance, which together tend to manifest themselves as moral relativism. (Although social tolerance often takes a backseat to ideological bigotry, which is why political correctness has developed its hypocritical nuances.) Now, you want to argue that Firefly's theme is based on personal freedom, at least in part, and I don't disagree with you, but that is a pretty politically correct idea. It's certainly much more politically correct then Bush's State of Union Address, which tended to strike the PC harbingers as crude and simplistic. I'm not trying to oversimplify Firefly's theme. I realize there may be more to it. I'm simply pointing out that the comparison used may not be entirely accurate, as such the conclusion drawn from it may be lacking.
Although, I think it's interesting (and the topic may have been brought up in the past) that Mal does not seem to be a moral relativist, despite the shows rather grey-area approach to life. He's a moral absolutist. He believes that there are certain absolute truths. In the first episode Mal and Zoe are returning medicine they stole because their morals would not allow them to keep it. When they are approached by the sheriff who states something like "a man has a choice" (moral relativism // personal freedom), Mal responds with "I don't believe he does." (moral absolutism // personal accountability.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Absolutely, Firefly is politically incorrect, and would be in almost any country at almost any time in history.
One of firefly's central themes is the inborn, innate, irrevocable right of every man, woman, and responsible child to say, possess, or do anything, anywhere, at any time, without asking anyone's permission as long as they don't initiate force or fraud against another. That kind of sentiment has been unpopular in this country since Abraham Lenin. He decided he disagreed with the parts of the Constitution that said states have a right to seceede, and that individuals must be given due process without exception--including during wartime.
Just as central to Firefly's philosophy, and just as unpopular, is the belief that two people, or two million, do not have any greater rights than one. We see Mal giving orders and mostly expecting them to be followed, not because a majority of the crew elected him to be boss but because each and every crew member individual agreed to his command. In our majority-dominated, democratic system, try telling your local tax collector that you disagree with how your property taxes are being spent in your public school district, so you'd like to just stop paying them and in exchange you won't ask for any public schooling for your kids. Then you'll understand how deeply "The Tyranny of the Majority" is ingrained in our society. The Serenity's crew operates on the fringes of their civilization precisely to escape this tyranny.
www.freestateproject.org -- You don't need to leave Earth to win your freedom!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sorry dude, but this is essentially one of the bases of postmodern political correctness. :D Now if you're talking about some other political correctness, then I don't know what to say. I only know of one. :) There could be facets of Firefly that are politically incorrect, but I don't think it's the explanation you offer.
Originally posted by gadsden:
One of firefly's central themes is the inborn, innate, irrevocable right of every man, woman, and responsible child to say, possess, or do anything, anywhere, at any time, without asking anyone's permission as long as they don't initiate force or fraud against another.
Quote:Well actually his name was Abraham Lincoln, and he had nothing in common with Lenin. Abraham Lincoln was not a Marxist. Although I do agree that he may have overstepped his bounds in arguing against the Succession, but that's another whole hill of beans.
Originally posted by gadsden:
That kind of sentiment has been unpopular in this country since Abraham Lenin. He decided he disagreed with the parts of the Constitution that said states have a right to seceede, and that individuals must be given due process without exception--including during wartime.
Quote:The Tyranny of the Majority? You prefer, instead, the Tyranny of the Minority? You prefer Despotism to Democracy. I don’t see this as being central or even a theme of Firefly, but whether it is or not, it is also a fairly politically correct idea often imbued by the Left. Political correctness is often a champion of the minorities and special interests, and it is often the case that PC leaders would be very happy if they could get rid of this pesky Democracy and replace it with a government where they have power over the majority. If that happens, I can almost promise you that there will be another civil war and another ring of Successions, and I'll have my gun in my hand for sure. But fortunately we are still a Democracy, and a fairly successful one, as far as Democracies go, so I'm not too worried.
Originally posted by gadsden:
Just as central to Firefly's philosophy, and just as unpopular, is the belief that two people, or two million, do not have any greater rights than one. We see Mal giving orders and mostly expecting them to be followed, not because a majority of the crew elected him to be boss but because each and every crew member individual agreed to his command. In our majority-dominated, democratic system, try telling your local tax collector that you disagree with how your property taxes are being spent in your public school district, so you'd like to just stop paying them and in exchange you won't ask for any public schooling for your kids. Then you'll understand how deeply "The Tyranny of the Majority" is ingrained in our society. The Serenity's crew operates on the fringes of their civilization precisely to escape this tyranny.
You have an interesting view on political theory. On one hand you argue that Abraham Lincoln is Marxist for his disagreement with Succession, then on the other hand you embrace Marxist ideals of minority rule.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am with Gadsden on this one. The other problem we seem to have these days is the idea that we are all entitled to support of some kind. I like the fact that the crew make their own way, and rely on each other without expecting someone to take care of them. The "Rugged Individual" is the central character in any western. Whether he is a gun for hire, a sod-buster, a rancher, or a law-man, the western hero takes care of himself and his own. I do not think the morals are as gray as some think. It is just that the law is not the measure of morality
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am with Gadsden on this one. The other problem we seem to have these days is the idea that we are all entitled to support of some kind. I like the fact that the crew make their own way, and rely on each other without expecting someone to take care of them. The "Rugged Individual" is the central character in any western. Whether he is a gun for hire, a sod-buster, a rancher, or a law-man, the western hero takes care of himself and his own. I do not think the morals are as gray as some think. It is just that the law is not the measure of morality
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree with you. Well put.
Originally posted by Gunslinger:
I am with Gadsden on this one. The other problem we seem to have these days is the idea that we are all entitled to support of some kind. I like the fact that the crew make their own way, and rely on each other without expecting someone to take care of them. The "Rugged Individual" is the central character in any western. Whether he is a gun for hire, a sod-buster, a rancher, or a law-man, the western hero takes care of himself and his own. I do not think the morals are as gray as some think. It is just that the law is not the measure of morality
And in terms of PC speak, this point that you bring up is particularly politically incorrect, from the point of view of the Postmodern Left. Freedom does not necessarily mean that one can do anything that crosses one's mind, as is often prescribed in "personal freedom." That's not freedom. That's anarchy, or more often it ends up being dependence on the Government.
Freedom implies responsibility and accountability. It implies morals and decent, disciplined behavior and the right to choose that behavior, but it also (and this is the part the PC harbingers don't seem to understand) implies the right to suffer the consequences of poor choices or even random event. Now maybe that's what Gadsden meant, I didn't follow a lot of what he said to be honest, and that may be my fault. But that much I feel is a central them of Firefly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Tyranny of the Majority? You prefer, instead, the Tyranny of the Minority? You prefer Despotism to Democracy. I don? see this as being central or even a theme of Firefly, but whether it is or not, it is also a fairly politically correct idea often imbued by the Left. Political correctness is often a champion of the minorities and special interests, and it is often the case that PC leaders would be very happy if they could get rid of this pesky Democracy and replace it with a government where they have power over the majority. If that happens, I can almost promise you that there will be another civil war and another ring of Successions, and I'll have my gun in my hand for sure. But fortunately we are still a Democracy, and a fairly successful one, as far as Democracies go, so I'm not too worried.
Do you seriously think there is no middle ground between Tyranny of the Majority and Despotism? The Bill of Rights is all about preventing a Tyranny of the Majority. They're there to protect fundamental human rights. Otherwise, there'd be nothing to protect the rights of minorities. Special interests? What, you mean the special interest for everybody to be treated like people and not some subhuman class of citizens? There already is something with power over the majority and that's called the Constitution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well said both of you. One of the counter-examples that was used to explain why democracy in and of itself does not work is that if two people decide to take all of the possessions of a third and divide them up, that is democracy. The whole point of the Bill of rights, and the Constitution is to tell the government what it cannot do.
The point that freedom does not mean you will not have to bear the consequences of your actions is well taken too. A couple of Hollywood types are up in arms right now because they have lost a couple of roles because of some things they said or did recently. They seem to think this is infringing on their freedom of speach. You can say whatever you want, but no one has to listen, no one has to agree with you, and no one has to hire you.
I think Thomas Payne would have loved Firefly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gadsden left a lot of holes in his post, which Finn was kind enough to point out. Here are a few patches:Quote:
Originally posted by gadsden:
One of firefly's central themes is the inborn, innate, irrevocable right of every man, woman, and responsible child to say, possess, or do anything, anywhere, at any time, without asking anyone's permission as long as they don't initiate force or fraud against another.Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Sorry dude, but this is essentially one of the bases of postmodern political correctness.
Actually, the belief that you are free to do anything that does not initiate force or fraud against another is decidedly politically incorrect, to both the Left and the Right. Consider these actions, which do nothing to initiate force or fraud, which the Right considers unacceptable:
-Recreational drug use.
-Homosexual marriage.
Consider these actions, which do nothing to initiate force or fraud, which the Left considers unacceptable:
-Possessing and carrying a personal weapon, whether it be a handgun, rifle, shotgun, or machine gun. Notice I said "possessing and carrying," not "brandishing."
-An adult deciding which experimental, unproven medical treatments or medicines that adult wants to try, while the adult resides in this country.
Consider these actions, which do nothing to initiate force or fraud, which both the Left and Right consider unacceptable:
-Voluntarily withdrawing from social safety net programs, and having your taxes reduced by the amount used to fund those programs. For example, voluntarily giving up all claims to benefits from social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and Welfare, and discontinuing paying into those programs.
-Doing with your property as you wish, as long as it does not affect another's property (harming another's property is considered initiating force). Two examples: you can't build a shopping center on your farm if it's zoned agricultural, even if you take steps to ensure that the noise and traffic do not spill over onto your neighbor's property. And, if the local government decides that your property would generate more tax revenue for the community if it were turned into a shopping center, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is reason enough to justify eminent domain. Anyone here live in a house that wouldn't generate more tax revenue if it were taken over and turned into a car dealership? Then guess what, you don't own your property; the government does and you use it at their largesse. Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well actually his name was Abraham Lincoln, and he had nothing in common with Lenin. Abraham Lincoln was not a Marxist. Although I do agree that he may have overstepped his bounds in arguing against the Succession, but that's another whole hill of beans.
1. Lincoln and Lenin both suppressed criticism of the war they declared. Abraham Lincoln's order to General John Dix, issued on May 18, 1864: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . The editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers."
2. Lincoln and Lenin both claimed the power to accuse individuals of sedition or treason, and have them held without being charged or seeing a lawyer. That is, they both suspended habeus corpus.
3. Lincoln and Lenin both used military force to keep territories under their power that wanted to seceede. By the way, in January of 1848 Lincoln said, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better."
4. Lincoln oversaw the slaughter--without regard to age, gender, or combat status--of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the shelling and burning of entire cities. Lenin, with better techn
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME