Would Zoe be a good mother?
POSTED BY: Bytemite
UPDATED: Sunday, December 11, 2011 16:00
VIEWED: 26237
PAGE 5 of 7
I was interested in joining this discussion, about twenty posts or so earlier, before it got quite so contentious!
I agree with much of what Browncoatmidwesterner has written, and find the Bytemite has made some valid points as well. (I'm so gosh darn agreeable. You can see that I absolutely stink at debates.)
I think Zoe would make a good mother. I think that while some people are "natural" parents, many people do not find the parenting side of themselves until they are faced with it. That is, they become a parent and learn how to parent at the same time. Elements of character that they displayed pre-child can be seen in their parenting style. Zoe has a number of characteristics that would be very positive for parenting, among them warmth of heart (we saw that with Wash), a sense of humor (very dry, but definitely present), self-discipline (does she ever), loyalty to family (very strong loyalty). I can see her doing a very good job at it.
Would raising a child on Serenity be dangerous? I ask: relative to what? It's not inherently more dangerous than raising a child on any spaceship, and we know Zoe herself was born (and most likely raised) "vesselside." Why would she think raising a child on a spaceship to be unacceptable? I grant that if Serenity's crew were to continue to engage in risky, dangerous work (stealing for Niska, anyone?), then, yes, things could be dangerous and unsuitable for raising a family. But as Inara pointed out (also in Train Job), not all their work is illegal. It's just that the bulk of their routine shipments were not detailed on the show, but mentioned in passing only. (Possibly because "Space Truck" makes for less exciting television than "Thrilling Heroics.") I'd also argue that Mal's sense of responsibility for the people of his crew is very high, and that would include Zoe's baby if she were to have one. He would modify his choice of work in order to protect his most vulnerable crew member. I think it's also worth keeping in mind that, Mal already tried the experiment of leaving his family behind on a supposedly "safe" planet while he went off and did something risky (fight in a war), and he lost EVERYTHING--Shadow was destroyed. Zoe knows this, and (in the absence of Wash) Mal's argument that no planet is safe, and at least on Serenity they can defend and help each other, would carry some weight with Zoe.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, not siding with anyone, just bringing up some dissonance I have about Zoe's impending parenthood.
The logistics of Zoe having an infant/baby/ child on Serenity without Wash’s support has never seemed very realistic to me, although I think she will be a fine mother, and yes, I know they have a family thing going.
But, Zoe's role on the ship has always been clearly defined, she's a fighter, she's Mal's chosen back-up. My question has always been who watches the baby while Zoe's out working? Do they hire Super Nanny, if something happens to Zoe (she's in a dangerous line of work) are there designated members of the crew who adopt the baby? Will Zoe continue to watch Mal’s back at the expense of leaving her child parentless?
If Mal thought Zoe’s relationship with Wash caused loyalty conflict, how will he feel about a vulnerable baby when considering jobs he needs to do to keep flying? Mal relies a lot on Zoe for actions that aren’t conducive for her to be the resident Mommy on the ship, they’re not married, nor is it his child, she still takes orders from him, it’s her job…I dunno, it’s an awkward situation at best, now, if Zoe was Captain of her own ship…
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would have to agree with Platonist, IF the status quo were maintained. If Zoe were to continue as fighter, primarily; if Mal never grew past the point he was at when he and Wash clashed over Zoe's loyalty; if Zoe were to be considered in isolation, a single mother, widowed with no family. In that case, yes, it's very hard to see a baby (anybody's baby) fitting into life aboard Serenity.
But I hold that a fundamental element of the Firefly ’Verse is that there is a capacity for change. I think Joss Whedon showed that himself, in his willingness to kill characters off and to introduce new elements. Situations can change, and characters can evolve.
We could argue til the cows come home about whether these changes would tend toward a situation suitable for raising a child aboard Serenity, or against such. We'll never know what Joss intended in this regard, although we can guess not, simply because the realities of TV production make it difficult to portray small children characters. I do think the elements are there to make it possible (I'm not saying likely, and I'm not saying Joss would have done it this way) for the situation to evolve such that a child aboard Serenity might not be impossible. Zoe is not just a fighter, she is the ship's first officer. A first officer's job is not inherently incompatible with parenting. She's Mal's back-up, but back-up for what? It depends on what kinds of work he chooses. Does it have to involve shooting? Maybe not. Yes, single parenting is difficult, but the view in the U.S. tends to be slanted towards viewing the parent/child unit in isolation. In isolation, yes one parent vs two parents is a steep ratio. But in many parts of the world, raising a child is an activity engaged in by an extended family, and extended family minus one vs extended family with that one is not so steep a ratio. It's possible to see Zoe as being in a very good situation on Serenity regarding extended family, vs what she would be planetside among strangers.
Anyway, the way I view it, that's what fanfiction is for: take the same canon starting point and let different authors take it different directions ("nine people seeing nine different things," anyone?). One will have it evolve so that Zoe has a child and stays aboard Serenity and the crew acts as her extended family as they take safer jobs with less risk. So long as the evolution to that point makes sense, it won't bother me as a reader. Another author will have it evolve so that Zoe cannot have a child aboard Serenity, the crew takes riskier jobs, perhaps they even break up or die: this is fine too, again so long as the author reaches that darker place in a way that makes sense.
I think the answer to Bytemite's original question depends entirely on which elements of canon one decides to emphasize.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
EB:
Quote:
I was interested in joining this discussion, about twenty posts or so earlier, before it got quite so contentious!
>_> Sorry.
Quote:
I think Zoe would make a good mother.
Actually, I agree based on that definition. But she might make some choices that I would consider to be a mistake, because I think they might carry with them greater risk of a negative outcome. I also question some of her stated expectations about the kid in the comic books. But neither of those make someone a bad mother, that just means someone makes questionable choices. If it turns out all right, I don't have any grounds to stand on. If it doesn't turn out all right, I'd probably feel sympathetic.
I'm hoping that the new comic coming out might shed some light on precisely what it is she decides to do. Right now we have the movie, which suggests she stays, and the current comic books, which might suggest she goes.
On the other hand, Zoe could always try asking the resident psychic what SHE thinks is safe. Provided River wasn't speaking River-ese, whatever choice Zoe makes based on River's input would presumably be the best possible outcome.
Though it's possible that might not be saying much, because for River the best possible outcome might be "some people die" versus "everyone dies." I suspect that might be what happened with Wash and Book.
Quote:
It's not inherently more dangerous than raising a child on any spaceship, and we know Zoe herself was born (and most likely raised) "vesselside."
Well... Wash has also worked a lot of jobs on ships, and seems to think that Serenity has been less safe than many of those due to management. His viewpoint is also valid, and worth considering.
However, it's also possible he made up that objection because he didn't want his biological kid having two daddies: Papa Wash and Papa Mal.
Quote:
Why would she think raising a child on a spaceship to be unacceptable?
It would be interesting to know more about Zoe's upbringing, because considering the way she is, well, I'm not so sure that the war is Zoe's only traumatic experience, or even THE traumatic experience. Something in Zoe's past made her pretty scary during the war too.
I don't think it's IMPOSSIBLE to raise a kid in the Firefly verse vesselside. I'm just not sure it's a good idea on Serenity, and I'm also not sure that Zoe is really the model of a good and loving upbringing vesselside.
Quote:
But as Inara pointed out (also in Train Job), not all their work is illegal. It's just that the bulk of their routine shipments were not detailed on the show, but mentioned in passing only. ...Mal's argument that no planet is safe, and at least on Serenity they can defend and help each other, would carry some weight with Zoe.
True. I suppose it's ultimately kind of a balance.
Although I suspect that if the characters could see past the fourth wall and knew that JOSS WHEDON was writing their lives, they'd ask her to take the baby and run before something really sadistic happened to both of them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Riona: Just because something is a traditional/majority view, or because it seems right, doesn't mean it is factual.
The statement "ALL people have a drive to procreate" is not scientific fact. You can't have a universal or inherent anything if there are exceptions. If a universal statement is made, and exceptions are found, that universal statement becomes false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
Quote:
A categorical syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion.
Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms.[4] In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form "All A are B," "Some A are B", "No A are B" or "Some A are not B", where "A" is one term and "B" is another. "All A are B," and "No A are B" are termed universal propositions; "Some A are B" and "Some A are not B" are termed particular propositions. More modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, it is the minor term (the subject) of the conclusion. For example:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are men.
Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
The unfortunate implication of the statement "All humans have the drive to procreate" is:
Major premise: All humans have the drive to procreate.
Minor premise: Bytemite does not have the drive to procreate.
Conclusion: Bytemite is not human.
According to Logical Conjunction, if a conclusion is false, then one or both of the premises is false. The premise about me I know is true. So that leaves the major premise.
If Midwesterner had said "Most humans have the drive to procreate", we would not be having a problem here. I recognize Midwesterner did NOT intend this, but I'm trying to explain why the statement is contentious. Ultimately I'd like to see that premise abandoned because it is not necessary for this discussion. Whether or not Zoe chooses to procreate has nothing to do with a conversation about whether or not all humans have the drive to procreate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Platonist: Depending on whether or not Inara stays and what exactly that exchange between them means,
Quote:
My question has always been who watches the baby while Zoe's out working? Do they hire Super Nanny, if something happens to Zoe (she's in a dangerous line of work) are there designated members of the crew who adopt the baby? Will Zoe continue to watch Mal’s back at the expense of leaving her child parentless?
I imagine it'd be Inara who'll end up watching the baby, because I imagine after something like Miranda (assuming she stays), she's going to end up wanting to be a lot closer to the crew and not going off on her own so much. So she'll be around, with not much to do but worry about them while they're off on a job, so she might as well.
Plus, it's not like she doesn't already watch after "the kids" (River, Kaylee, and Simon) while the other crew are off doing something dangerous as it is.
Of course, this would probably lead to another Mal and Inara huge argument, but even after that, she'd still step up.
And if Zoe were to fall, I guess it would be between Simon and Kaylee if they showed themselves to be a responsible and stable relationship, or Mal and Inara. Zoe wouldn't have any qualms like I have about Mal's judgment, and she'd think it's pretty funny watching Mal sputtering about being paired up with Inara like that, but on the other hand Zoe might have some reasonable concerns about how much the two of them fight.
Good points though.
And as always, I like the Zoe with her own ship idea.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are taking your simple logic far too literally.
All life forms have a drive to procreate, it is a definition of life. Even if you don't have a child, your CELLS DIVIDE. If they didn't you would die very quickly.
Potentially, not all of your cells divide before they die off. That still doesn't disprove that biological cells replicate as a rule, and are inherently driven by the fact that they are alive, to divide by mitosis, if they survive long enough to do so.
Just as the cells in your body multiply, a group of like organisms, what science calls a species, procreates. Some asexually, like Mitosis, some sexually with two DNA sources for a distinct genetic offspring.
A species would die off very quickly if the members of that species didn't reproduce, as a rule. A biological drive exists to compel a species to continue beyond one generation.
Over-riding those drives on a species-wide, eco-system wide scale... brings extinction. The people on Miranda are an example of that. The Reavers will likely make themselves extinct for other reasons associated with violence and cannibalism. Mal told the Operative that he had no idea how true it was that innocent people were dying in the air. I take that to mean, both a reference to Wash particularly... and also to the reavers, who were once innocent citizens on Miranda themselves, who were victimized by the parliament thinking they could make people better by manipulation.
Manipulation that disrupted the natural course of life, unbalanced it, and destroyed it, whether killing those citizens directly by shutting them down, or turning them into monsters that will kill others and themselves, or will need to be put down. That is why the 'verse needed to know what happened.
Sidebar: I have been libertarian (constitutional-conservative/federalist-in-the-Jeffersonian-sense) and in favor of small government for a long time. Well before Firefly. and Mal's speech to his crew on Miranda, is one of the best concise examples of libertarianism, EVER. I have no material to support my theory, but I think the libertarian anti-big-government sentiment threaded throughout Firefly was instrumental in getting it cancelled, and quickly. Hollywood is Liberal, not Libertarian./sidebar
One person, or a small minority in the population of a species. doesn't have a statistical impact on the propagation of the species, so exceptions for ANY reason, aren't significant to the species as a whole. We are all just dust in the wind, dude.
That is why your logic problem doesn't work, and doesn't really matter. The premise of your logic problem isn't accurate, as it doesn't allow for exception, where nature in reality has exceptions than can be identified, but don't statistically impact the species, nor changes the definition of the species, or biology as a whole.
Just because you feel a certain way, does not negate the obvious, demonstrable, provable in biology and sociology, and readily apparent drive to procreate in Humans, as well as any other species. Humans just happen to be sentient enough to control or even defy their urges, if they decide to, and are complex organisms.
With any complex organisms, errors can occur. Medicine calls them disorders, diseases, deformities, or mutations. I have some medical issues my own self. Again, it is a classification, and an edification, not a value-judgement or accusation.
Those exceptions don't disprove the rules of the human genome, nor the template of what a human consists of. Physiology is not a perfect template, and we aren't all perfect and un-injured clones of an ideal genome.
Major Premise: All life forms have a difinitive drive to procreate their species.
Supposition: Humans are alive.
Deduction: Humans have a drive to procreate their species.
Supposition: A particular human does not have the drive to procreate
Effect: A particular human does not procreate, but most others of the species do. The species as a whole is not drastically diminished.
Deduction: T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Well, my days of not caring about other people's opinions of me is certainly coming to a middle.
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with my opinion of you. I don't even know you. I've never seen you around here before now.
Quote:
Even if you don't have a child, your CELLS DIVIDE. If they didn't you would die very quickly.
That's really not how cells in a multicellular organism work. A cell that does not stop dividing in a multicellular organism is called "cancer." Or "stem cells." Or "bacteria" (we're not exactly homogenously human).
Also, you're the one who said "All humans have the drive to procreate" and then you also said "procreation is making babies" and "humans aren't asexual."
Quote:
Procreation is a strictly cooperative, hetero (as in different genders) sexual (as in half-DNA re-combinant reproduction) biological function, and it IS a biological drive. That isn't an opinion, that is science, and just flat truth.
Without a biological drive to reproduce ingrained in people as a rule, (which Pax diminishes and eliminates, evidently) humans DIE OUT, as a civilization and as a species. Maybe there are individual people who are exceptions, but Zoe wouldn't be one, by her comments which define this discussion.
Humans are not asexual self-replicating organisms, and same-sex pairings biologically can't reproduce... so having, as in CREATING a CHILD is distinctly "heterocentric."
(Each paragraph has a sentence that is false. The first paragraph has two. The second paragraph might also have two, depending on whether certain technology has been tested successfully)
It's not an argument about whether cells divide or whether species replace deaths to avoid extinction. It's an argument about whether All humans have a drive to procreate (make BABIES), and you knew full well when you first said it that you weren't talking about on a cellular level, and you weren't talking about on a species level.
The Pax didn't stop their CELLS from dividing. The Pax didn't kill off the entire human species, just the ones on Miranda. And the Pax is certainly not MY issue.
Much appreciated if you'd stop bringing the Pax up, because that's particularly offensive.
Quote:
Just because you feel a certain way, does not negate the obvious, demonstrable, provable in biology and sociology, and readily apparent drive to procreate in Humans, as well as any other species.
Uh. YES. According to the definition of "procreate" you were using at first, it DOES. Unless, by your contention, I am not HUMAN. And maybe neuron cells aren't alive (they don't divide at all), and maybe homosexual mallard drakes are not DUCKS.
All you have to say is "MOST humans have the drive to procreate (as in MAKE BABIES)" and it would be correct and no one would have any problem with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who's going to watch the baby? Well it depends on who River is with today. If she's with the job pullers then I'm not sure, maybe Kaylee or Inara, but if she's on the ship and someone is looking after her there ... still Kaylee and Inara, and Simon too of course. Since Inara may or may not continue companioning we can assume it will be either Simon or Kaylee. If someone is looking after River aboard ship they can take care of the baby and River can help too. If River is with others pulling a job then the same people will still be aboardship so they'll look after the baby. Also one can run errands with a baby in toe. One can run errands while looking after River too, I think that would happen more post BDM since I suspect that the list of people after the Tams will be at least a little shorter. The more things River gets to do, errands with Kaylee and Simon, jobs with Mal and Jayne when she's lucid enough and wants to, the better. Its important for her to have lots of interesting things to do. But this thread isn't about her, sorry for the sidetrack.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who's going to watch the baby? I completely agree with Riona here. A ship filled with responsible adults, not all of whom are engaged in the same work Zoe is at any given time? This is a parent's dream. No need to hire supernanny, not when your extended family is available. Also, kids learn from being taken around on the parents' daily business. Zoe would carry her tot in a frontpack or backpack, on routine business both around the ship and planetside. She would not take the child along on the kind of business involving weapons! Having a baby doesn't mean you are confined to your house.
Child-proofing Serenity, on the other hand...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME