What has the Internet unleashed?

POSTED BY: emeraldtiara
UPDATED: Thursday, January 29, 2009 08:40
VIEWED: 6131
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:14 AM

Didn't say every. It was mostly just a snark. I have issues with people who I think are feeding hate and contention into society. I'm not to be taken seriously.

Now I'm to be sleeping seriously.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:

Quote:
Now, it is pretty obvious by this point that Saffron has been traded to Mal in exchange for his killing the bad guys. She is a wife in the sense of being a sexual and domestic slave. When Zoe is told that Saffron has been traded to Mal as a wife/slave she begins to laugh. She then calls the rest of the crew and invites them to join her in laughing at Mal’s newly acquired possession.

I don't know about the "obvious" part, but it does put things in a different perspective. I know that it's supposed to be "ha ha, Captain's got a wife," but until Saffron reveals herself to be just another Evil Redhead, she's been treated as property, a "gift" comparable to Jayne's rain stick. The fact that we're supposed to make light of that is not a thought that sits well with me.

I didn't see that seen like that. More like Zoe knew what Mal was going through and decided to make fun of him. That and she probably was a bit taken back by the whole situation. How often does something like that just happen on you? I'd miss or not react to a few detail myself for the first bit. Also, as mentioned above, she did seem more than just a little upset at the idea of Mal actually taking advantage of the girl later in the episode.

(NOTE: I'd have to re-watch the episode, but I don't believe that Zoe knew that Saffron was payment. I believe that she thought that marrying Saffron was just something that Mal did when he was drunk the previous night and Mal didn't find out until moments earlier what he'd done. Thus the laughing and making fun.)

All in all, I found that this issue in the show was dealt with in a very balanced way. At first, when people didn't know about the whole "payment" thing, they were amused. Well, other than Mal, Saffron and Inara (secretly). He took it seriously from the get go and never had any inclination about taking advantage of the situation. In fact, he was going to set her up in a new life and actively sought divorce. And that was displayed directly after the giggling scene.

As for the others, after they found out (or it sunk in) about the "payment," they weren't amused any more. Each had his/her own reactions to it (e.g. "special hell"). Mostly along the lines of Mal being a "lecherous old hump." I believe it was Jayne that was the only one that treated her as something to be traded, etc. And remember Mal's response to that? It wasn't exactly warm. He explicitly stated the opposite in no uncertain terms.

So, in my opinion, the opinion that this episode makes light of trading women is rather cherry picking the data and ignoring the rest of the storyline/commentary regarding that issue. Sometimes we see what we want to see which isn't necessarily the whole picture.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:00 AM

Re: The feminist thing:

It's only like that in the US and largely (getting larger from what I've seen) in Canada as well. In the rest of the world, the feminists have moved into a "post-feminist era." Pretty much meaning that the victim role is largely removed and reality has replaced that. I cite my German Physicist wife for that info.

There might be a reason for that. Perhaps the old style feminism is still alive and well in the US because its society in general hasn't evolved beyond the need for it. Or at least a perceived need for it. Don't know. I'd love for a sociologist to tackle that. But, the question is way too politically incorrect for that to happen any time soon.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

As for Joss: If I were to make a feminist criticism it would be: Why does almost every female character need a man to lean on?

I'd answer it: because it's a two way street. We are a social species. To think that any person can be truly complete without a partner is absurd. Just like a woman needs a man, a man needs a women. Similarly for the same sex people. We need each other. It's how we're built.

Mal and Inara had there thing going. But, when Mal had the opportunity to be with someone he connected with (HoG), he took it. But, at the same time, a bit guilty regarding Inara. Inara having the expected reaction.

Jayne in HoG didn't sex up with the whore like she was a piece of meat. He actually had a good time with her and from what I saw, her with him as well. Remember, he did get dressed up which isn't exactly required if you don't care and just want to "get off."

Kaylee was definitely wanting to connect with someone. And that someone became Simon (with Mal/Zoe old war buddy being an brief exception in the interest department). Simon in turn wanted Kaylee, but had his own way of going about it. Not that these two ways were really compatible.

Wash and Zoe had there own balance. Work Zoe was above Wash and in there private life, there seemed to be a good balance with Wash being "manly" in a few ways.

All in all, I see that although the women seemed to need a man, the opposite is true as well.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:00 PM

I disagree on the needing a partner thing. Some people choose chastity, other people are born to it. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality (although I hate that term because, you know, bacteria).

Solitude is not any less valid a lifestyle than any other, and people who live it have nothing wrong with them. Even looking at it with respect to evolution, there are plenty of exceptions to the "survival of the fittest" and "selfish genes" rule, such as biological altruism.

And /off topic.

SASDIE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:47 PM

I really tried to read the article, but couldn't. It's just Da shiong La Se La Ch'wohn Tian.

Nuff' said.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigRichard:

So I assume that whoever wrote this article/blog/rubbish has never heard of FRIENDSHIP?

I'm sure she's heard of it, but it's pretty clear she doesn't think it's possible between man and woman. of course, it doesn't look like she has any positive views of men in general.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I disagree on the needing a partner thing. Some people choose chastity, other people are born to it. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality (although I hate that term because, you know, bacteria).

Solitude is not any less valid a lifestyle than any other, and people who live it have nothing wrong with them. Even looking at it with respect to evolution, there are plenty of exceptions to the "survival of the fittest" and "selfish genes" rule, such as biological altruism.

And /off topic.

This is a complex issue. As such, there will always be exceptions to rules. But, that is not to say that those exceptions are even remotely anywhere near common. In other words, stop cherry picking your data.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:36 PM

Huh?

You said: "I'd answer it: because it's a two way street. We are a social species. To think that any person can be truly complete without a partner is absurd. Just like a woman needs a man, a man needs a women. Similarly for the same sex people. We need each other. It's how we're built."

My response was to indicate that some people are exceptions.

You agree there can be exceptions, then accuse me of cherry picking data.

I'm just relating my own experiences, which is probably a different perspective than yours. What data have I cherry picked?

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:00 AM

It's instructive that divisive topics generate far more traffic than constructive ones.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:49 AM

@Bytemite:

To me your reply made it seem as though you were saying they were more than an exception. So, I responded as such. Since we seem to be on the same page on that topic, I imagine this was just a case of miscommunication.

(EDIT: Btw, chastity - by choice - rarely works out for the best. There are always repercussions for oneself if not others as well. Just ask the Catholic church.)

But, to add to the reply, I'll say that such asexual beings might not actually be asexual. But, rather the effects of some sort of life event or disorder or abuse or... As in, something that isn't in there nature, but rather something that needs to be fixed. There are certainly childhood events that would lead to such behaviour.

Now I'm not saying that these people don't exist. Humanity is diverse enough for such anomalies to exist. Rather, I am saying that at least some of these cases aren't really cases of asexuality, but something else. I won't conjecture about percentages. But, I think that it is reasonable to say that even though this is rare, it is even more rare than we think.

Similarly for other things.

To further diverge off topic, I think as a society, we're in for a ruff ride in the next couple decades. More and more people are thinking that they can get away with focusing on there career and then after that is established, they can go out and find a husband/wife. This isn't exactly reasonable.

These people will never have learned how to live a balanced life and will have been conditioned to work, work, work. Work will also have come to expect it. So, starting to not work so much will tend to put that job in jeopardy. There are also many social skills that are learned about dealing with the opposite sex (or the same sex if you're into that) in a more romantic way that isn't going to be learned in the boardroom. I could go one.

But, what I see happening is that these people will find someone that they get along with to have children and live together. Please note that this doesn't mean that they love each other, nor does it mean that they want kids. They're just doing it to do it and think this is what life really is.

So, what happens is that these people don't really raise there kids, and there kids grow up in a loveless home. The kids are likely to be dysfunctional and the parents aren't likely to know how to cope. This has obvious effects, both in the short and long term.

We are actually already seeing this and it is getting worse. What I think needs to be hammered into peoples heads is that life is not something that can be planned in stages. If you find someone you want to be with at 22, then do so. There is less and less a chance of finding someone and one gets older. Also, kids are not status symbols. If you don't want kids because you want to have and raise kids with your spouse, then do the world a favour and don't have them. Also, marriage isn't about companionship. It's about so much more. If you only feel like you could live with that person for the rest of your life, then your marriage is doomed to fail and/or be cold and heartless. One needs to actually click with the other person and that click is not just sex.

There are many more problems with the above that I could get into. But, I'm hungry. So, I'm going to eat now.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE