Joss Whedon - Nice Guy among Nice Guys

I have a somewhat childish reaction when something I dislike becomes popular. I'm quite happy to dislike something quietly until I keep seeing on Facebook or having conversations turn to how it's ORIGINAL or WITTY or GROUND-BREAKING. Like Avatar. The special effects were very pretty, and Sigourney Weaver was there. That doesn't come near trumping the fact that there was no plot to speak of, and the dialogue was bad, and it wasn't an interesting retelling of the story it was telling, and it created a world which it failed to make interesting or explore well, and if you're going to make up science you need to explain why it's not stupid or I will judge your film as stupid unless you save it by making the rest of the film not stupid, and during one of the SPLOSIONS battle scenes at the end I consciously thought "Oh god, I am so bored, when will this end," and I am not easily bored, plus I saw it in 3D, a medium which has, worryingly, failed to die a death.

All that said, the only reason I have all of those flaws to hand is because people responded to my "Eh, the special effects were good but I didn't think it was a good film," with "But what about X?" X WAS BAD. IF X IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES A FILM GOOD, AND I DIDN'T ENJOY THE FILM, IT MEANS I THOUGHT X WAS BAD.

And so it is with Joss Whedon! I like his shows, but I do not like the man. If I watched his shows and never heard anything about him, or by him, I could just switch off my brain for the misogyny and laugh at the cleverly-constructed lines.

But no. Did you know Joss Whedon is SO FEMINIST? Because his shows are absolutely no indication of that, and it seems like if you believe in something, you should maybe have you art which is directed at teeenagers express that message! And did you know he writes STRONG FEMALE CHARACTERS, it's not just that tiny girls beating people up are what he's into, he is PROGRESSIVE.

No.

The fact that there is one conventionally hot girl who wears glasses or studies science or both!, instead of being conventionally hot and a cheerleader, in his shows and she is meant to be the Thinking Man's Hot Girl is quite skeezy in itself. It comes with the implication, as in the link, that sure, Anya and Buffy and Cordelia (and every female character in the show, seriously, where are the strong ugly characters) might be hot in an OBVIOUS sort of way, but with Willow and Fred, Nice Guys like Joss Whedon see through the outer hotness to the mind underneath that shares their specific interests! Enjoy learning new things from your total bimbo girlfriends who have hobbies and aspirations different to yours, jocks!

In Cabin In The Woods - with which I might be falling into my Avatar trap, because I though it was a diverting horror film that didn't do enough with the scope it gave itself, and the internet thought it TOTALLY TURNED THE GENRE ON ITS HEAD - rather than do something clever with the Stupid Slut Who Dies First trope, he... turns a med student into the Stupid Slut Who Dies first. (... ON ITS HEAD, SUCH A TWIST.) You could argue that his hands were tied by the genre, and he makes a feeble attempt to misdirect by having somewhere say her hair dye is making her stupid, but given the misogyny of the trope, if he really cared, he could have done something clever and non-sexist with it.

There's nothing that makes my skin crawl like the early seasons of Buffy though. I get that it's a lot of wish fulfilment - the most important girl in the world befriends the hottest losers in the school! (But doesn't have anything to do with Jonathan or those creepy losers, ew gross.) The hottest losers in the school fling zingers (or what are meant to be, whatever!) at lumbering jocks who are no match for their wit! It is a bit weird to work your sixteen-year-old esprit d'escalier into a TV show you make as a grown-up, obsessive even, but whatever makes you happy! 

What I can't look past is the treatment of Cordelia. She exemplifies the self-congratulatory pseudo-feminist maxim of "I have nothing but respect for women whom I deem respectable." She's mean for no reason, shallow, vapid, gets poor grades, and probably spurned Joss Whedon in high school. In the pilot, Jesse follows her around even though she has told him to leave her alone (but she's mean, and he's friends with the people who'll be the protagonists, so it's HILARIOUS, not creepy). In the next episode, Vampire Jesse appears behind her when she's dancing, leering and getting creepily up in her space. When she tells him to go away, he tells her to shut up. She looks confused. "Okay, just one dance, she says." Because bitches like that like jerks, not Nice Guys like teenage Joss Whedon! They deserve the abuse that's coming to them! Get it? FEMINISM!

Cordelia later redeems herself by going out with Joss Whedon, I mean, Xander, which compounds, rather than diminishing, the misogyny.

I honestly do like Joss Whedon's shows, but I'd enjoy them more if not for the hypocrisy. I can switch off my brain for a certain amount of misogyny - a girl's gotta leave the house and consume some media, after all. It's the hypocrisy of writing lazy sexism and then crowing over how feminist he is. He has described himself as a "lesbian in a man's body", which is something that some people do have to deal with in daily life, but coming from him sounds like the "I wish I were oppressed" or someone who thinks their privilege is so unhip.

From here.

But every time I see that quote floating around fandoms, and I want to sit Joss Whedon down and explain some things to stop ruining not-being-sexist for the people who put thought into not being sexist, and, while he's at it, to stop being sexist.

A complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about Metor's transphobic ad.

So Meteor's new ad for free wifi, it is pretty transphobic, amirite? I have until I run out of credit to decide whether to switch networks, but since just no longer giving them custom without an explanation wouldn't feel terribly effective, I've submitted a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.

(The Advertising Standards Authority make you fill in boxes with your details, I don't just lack the ability to write a formal letter. Here's what went in the "Your complaint" box.)

"Meteor's recent ad for free wifi shows individuals going to ridiculous lengths to obtain free wifi, such as cycling after a bus providing this service. Having established this premise, the ad goes on to show a teenage boy dancing in a bar with a woman while using his phone. The woman turns around, revealing a 'masculine' jawline and stubble. As soon as the boy learns of Meteor's free wifi, he runs from the bar.

This cheap joke is, at best, small-minded and bigoted - in a country where transgendered individuals must receive a formal diagnosis of mental illness in order to have their correct gender legally recognised, it may easily be actively harmful. Meteor have argued that the person the boy is dancing with is a male drag artist - however, the joke contained within the ad only makes sense if the audience has been 'tricked' into misidentifying the boy's dancing partner as a woman, relying on the idea that transgendered women are impostors, and not real women. 

As Meteor have failed to apologise for this ad, or even to acknowledge any wrong-doing on their part, I hope you will see fit to prohibit screening of the ad."

You can complain about the ad here.

Words are tricky, except when they're not.

The internet's crush on Stephen Fry is perfectly understandable.  No-one, hive-minds included, shouldn't have a crush on Stephen Fry.  That said, I rather wish he hadn't said this.

I understand not caring that someone is 'offended' by gay couples existing right there in public, or by schools not being segregated, or by God being removed from the constitution (not that that's a concern in Ireland, ever.  And yet some people are concerned about the lack of Jesus in daily life!).  Like this woman.  This woman is a small person, and if I met her and she made me a cake and let me play with a puppy I wouldn't like her.  The problem is that in these cases, the word is being misappropriated, and thanks to this "I'm offended" has come to mean "I'm whining because the world isn't to my sensibilities, wah."

The word "offended" needs to exist, though, or there needs to be a word to replace it.  I know words change in meaning, but "I'm offended" is a nice, blame-shifting way of calling people out on thoughtless or plain abusive language or behaviour - an attack on their personhood, an offensive act in the "opposite of defence" sense of the word.  Needlessly thoughtful, actually, no-one says "I'm punched" after you give them a bloody nose.

The most bizarro thing is that even with the thoughtful "I" and shift in responsibility and use of a watered-down term, people go on the defensive if you suggest they've caused - performed - offense.  "I didn't mean actually retarded/I'm not racist/My gay friend laughed."  Good for you, knowing or blithely assuming that you're not a bigot.  Not everyone you meet knows that, and it's not their responsibility to give you the benefit of the doubt - you need to show it.  Not using dehumanising terms, or purely descriptive words as insults, is a bang-up start.  Otherwise, however cluelessly or unintentionally, you're attacking them.  Going on the offensive, one might say.  And then, through your actions and yours alone, they're attacked.  Offended, to use a slightly old sense of the word.

-

My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit.  I read the title of this post and thought "Wow I want to tattoo that on my face put that on some form of clothing," then I read the post itself, and felt sad and squirmy.

I'm not very fussy about labels.  If I find something that describes something I already feel like, I'll adopt that, but only because it sometimes saves on wordy descriptions.  I love learning, guess I'm a nerd.  I have girl parts, guess I'm a girl.  I like making things, guess I'm a craftster.  I believe people of all gender and sexual identities are equal, guess I'm a feminist.

The feminism one has always been a little inconvenient because it's a subset of what I believe about equality.  I also believe people of all skin colours, all physical and mental capabilities, all classes are equal.  Everyone is people, all the time!  These things aren't strictly covered by the term "feminist".  But my first feminist blog was Fugitivus)which discusses feminism, race and class - perhaps more extreme than I am now, but I have a fondness for the blog and author, though sadly it seems to have fallen out of use) which led me to my first anti-racism blog ,Stuff White People Do (mainly race-based but has some elements of feminism, as WoC get it from both directions - again, no longer updated but remembered with fondness), where I came across Womanist Musings (race, gender and sexual identity, class, religion, most aspects of social justice, really).  I don't know if I'm bad at logic and assumed people who used the same label as me felt the same as me, but or if the route I took to this section of the internet led me to believe so, but I always assumed that 'feminist' really meant 'social justice-ist, including feminist'.  You don't have to act on all the issues ever, but how can you care about one and not at least see the rest to be wrong.  Then stuff like this happens:

and some people actually defend it and try to call it a feminist act.  So maybe I need a new word.

-

My little brother, who has just started studying in the same college as me, texted me today to ask if he could come heat up some food in my microwave.  When he got here, he had milk, tea, biscuits (two packets as he didn't know what kind I like), and two packets of pasta.  It made me feel all fuzzy inside.  Nice things happen too!

This sentiment needs to die a death.

There's been a good deal said about the Nice Guy™ Complex.  I don't have anything new to bring to the table.  But holy God is it annoying.

Aside from the creepy self-entitled skeeziness of the attitude, here's what gets me: I will not give you brownie points for being nice to me.  I expect you to be nice to me.  Not to go out of your way, but yeah, hold the door if I'm right behind you, and feel kind of bad for me if I'm having a crummy week, and not tune out if I talk about hobbies we don't share.  This doesn't make us friends - this is what I expect from acquaintances.  If you dislike me, I expect you to avoid me, and I'll do the same for you, and we won't rub each other up the wrong way.  This doesn't make us friends - this is what I expect from acquaintances.

When I say I expect this, I don't mean to say that someone can fail to live up to my standards and fall in my esteem - this is my experience of how the world works, so it's kind of conspicuous by its absence.  It's what the reasonable people have done so far in my life, so for as long as these things remain pretty unchanged, it's what I'm going to expect from future reasonable people.

I don't understand if Nice Guy™s have never had any friends, or if they've only had guy friends and their are different rules for girls because boobs.  If you are my friend, of course I'm going to care and try to make you feel better if you're upset.  If it's your birthday I'm buying or making you food, because food is how I show affection.  If I can help you out I will, with varying degrees of inconvenience to myself depending on how close we are.  None of this should be read as an indication that I am attracted to you.

The Nice Guy™ Complex comes with a sneery attitude that women (all three billion!  Each and every one!) don't know what they want.  They say they want someone who's nice or funny, but then how come they don't settle down with the first nice, funny guy they meet?  Why do they go out with anyone with whom they might occasionally argue, as people will do in relationships?  They're shallow is why, they're just waiting for someone rich and handsome.  It doesn't seem to register that when, people are listing their ideal person, "and whom I find attractive" is implied.  The people I'm friends with and the people I get a crushes on can probably be described in similar terms, because that's the type of person I enjoy being around - the difference is that some will make me feel all fuzzy in my tummy, for reasons I can't define.  Girls are such harpies, having subjective tastes that you can't control.

What Nice Guys don't seem to understand is that they're cock-blocking themselves.  If you resent someone for not sleeping with you after you totally empathised when their cat died, they can tell.  Women in particular might be a little more tuned in to this because we're conditioned to be nice without leading anyone on.  I don't mean this in some nonsense PUA Roissy "Women can tell when you're interested and once they know you have lost!" way.  I'm far too socially oblivious to know when someone likes me - I didn't realise my first date with my boyfriend was a date, and when my ex asked me out I thought he was making small talk.  I'm not too clueless to realise when someone is viewing me as parts, as a girl before a person.  It makes me uncomfortable, even if it's not sleazy (old-boy professors who distinguish between women and people, anyone?), and  it makes me not want to be around you.  And it's really hard to sleep with someone who won't be around you.

And anyway, the fact of getting annoyed about having another friend is a bonus layer of creepy.  Why can't you be like these nice folks?

Gay mutant minority persecution: Action films with ambition.

Spoilers!

I saw X-Men: First Class last night.  I actually attempted to start this post then, but it turned into talking about how awful the film was.  To get it out of my system, the following things were wrong with it:

• Its understanding of genetics and evolution.
• The plot.
• The acting.
• Everything else.

I realise "Everything else" is a pretty broad category, so here are some examples.

• James McAvoy's hair greying (to show the passage of time, I initially thought), then being brown again, then having a definite grey streak, then being brown again...
• Conservation of energy being a superpower, and then not existing.
• hiuojnqwiqfrnfiqo DON'T MOVE SOMEONE WHO JUST GOT SHOT IN THE BACK.  DON'T TAKE THE BULLET OUT WITH YOUR SUPERPOWERS.  STOP LIFTING HIM AND PUTTING HIM DOWN AGAIN.  CHILDREN LEARN THIS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, DON'T MOVE SOMEONE'S WHO'S INJURED JUST WAIT FOR A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.  GOD.  (This one I do consider to be a "Think of the children" flaw, it will put the wrong ideas about saving someone's life into their little heads.)
• How do you grow up in upstate New York and end up with a British accent?
• For a telepath, Xavier sure has no idea how people work.

Now that that's out of the way:  X-Men follows a pretty standard superhero film plot.  There are individuals with superpowers, and there's a group for whom we're meant to root, and then there are a group of super-powered people who use their powers for evil, and we don't like them.  And then the goodies win the day!  The problem arises when X-Men tries to Make A Point about persecution.  The most obvious parallels are between being a mutant and being queer ("How long have you known you were.. um..."  "That's your real name, isn't it, Raven?"  "You didn't ask, so I didn't tell."), so I'll probably mostly use that.

I think using your superheroes to teach kids acceptance is a great idea.  The blue furry guy who has adventures just wants to be loved and have friends, just like you!  And so does the kid who gets a funny feeling in his tummy over boys rather than girls!  The evil mutants make things a bit blurrier though.  The Good Mutants just want to fit in and get along with Normal People ("You're not one of those gays."); the Bad Mutants are a threat to our way of life.  In the first film, Magneto turning that politician into a mutant looks a lot like a vocally anti-gay spokesperson turning out to be gay, but in this case he was turned gay mutant by the Bad Gays Mutants.  Problematic.

My general discomfort with the Bad Mutants is that the group is comprised of the ones who don't feel they should have to hide and conform.  At the end of the new film, Magneto is joined by the villains of the film (one of whom looks like Satan and is named for a demon), Mystique (who wants not to have to hide her true form) and Angel (who was a stripper before being found, so, y'know).  None of the 'good guys' go with him, which could have shown the issue to at least be a little fuzzy.  Also, the good guys are the human-looking ones, who won't make Normal People uncomfortable or anything, I mean it's not like they're bigoted, it's just, you know, it's not normal, is it?  Throughout the films, when humans are trying to pass anti-mutant laws, we're expected to root for humans and the Good Mutants, and against the Bad Mutants who react badly to being persecuted.  Lots of the plans aren't even particularly harmful.  (Like turning all the world leaders into mutants.  Aside from the lack of consent, what was so wrong with that?)  First Class clumsily makes much of the fact that Magneto's experiences in the concentration camp shape his view of humans, but a WWII film painting a group of Jewish resistance fighters as the wrong kind of Jew would be in incredibly poor taste.

It is certainly sweet of the films to try, and I don't think it's tactless in any meaningful way,  but to be successful in what they're doing they should ideally shed some genre tropes, or accept being nonsense action films.

For the sake of balance, the positives of the films:  James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence were there.  Unfortunately, everything else.

Posting someone else's thoughts to seem insightful

Sometimes there is no other side - a very good post from a very good blog.

I won't elaborate because the post makes the point very well, and belabouring it would be me talking for the sake of hearing my own voice. A slightly related point, though, is that I really don't like the idea of promoting tolerance. The fact that an individual has to struggle in daily life for people to put up with them is a tragic affair, and law- and policy-makers shouldn't have "barely putting up with someone" as an end goal. You can't force acceptance on people, but in, say, a workplace, if there's a policy in place that says you have to, then the onus is on bigoted people to hide their unpleasant selves, rather than on the target to make themselves bearable for not being The Norm.