Yeah, I've been sick. Apologies for dropping off LJ for a bit. I'm still under the weather, but I did manage to type this sucker up.

There's a long-standing trend in fandom for people to discount Joss as a feminist. It's a thing. Specifically, it's a thing that irks me, as a feminist.

I don't think I can sum up why in a few paragraphs, so forgive the huge post on this one. It be necessary.

Let's start basic and get more substantial from there:

Joss is a writer who is a feminist

He's not necessarily a feminist writer. That's an important distinction.

I consider myself a feminist. However, I've no doubt that my various works of writing could be ripped to shreds with a feminist critique. That's because I'm not trying to write feminist fan fiction. I'm writing fan fiction. Will my feminism play a role? Of course.

Like Joss, I'm fond of female characters. Lots of them. Lots of varied female characters who interact with each other and carry the plot.

Feminist stuff may not always happen to them, but I'm not writing feminist treatises in fanfic form. Much like I doubt Joss is writing feminist allegories via TV (excepting BtVS, which he has stated is meant to have a feminist message).

Okay, so that last bit deserves more than a parenthetical. If Joss failed in his goal of creating a feminist TV show in Buffy, does that mean he's not a feminist or does it mean he failed in his goal of creating a feminist TV show?

That question leads to this next part here:



The Feminist Police

Let me reference No true Scotsman first.

What does it mean to be a feminist? And who has the power to decide whether any one person "counts" as a feminist or not?

These aren't rhetorical questions. So let me attempt to answer them.

To be a feminist means applying a label to oneself. It's an indicator of a specific ideology. Feminism is a large boat, though. It's been around for centuries and has a myriad of different strains to it. There's no platonic ideal of a feminist because feminism is the continuing dialogue of ideas. It's not a destination, it's a progression.

That means that a person who labels themself as a feminist is not presenting themself as The Ideal Feminist, but is presenting themself as someone who Believes in Certain Ideas. Can you see the difference?

I'm not an ideal feminist. I make less-than-feminist choices as presented to me by the patriarchy just because it's easier than fighting the system all the time. I work on my own internalized misogyny. Perhaps most relevantly, I have some fictional kinks that would cast some iffiness on my feminist cred were a Feminist Police to exist.

This leads to the next question: Who has the power to decide whether any one person "counts" as a feminist or not?

Answer: No one.

Sarah Palin

I'm sorry. I know. I try to avoid talking about her or reading about her or even acknowledging her existence. But she's relevant in this particular conversation.

For those not in the know, Palin has been attempting to spark off a feminist movement for conservative women. It's come under a lot of criticism from liberal feminists, often with good reason. There's plenty to criticize. I'm right there with them.

However, one thing I can't (and won't) do is deny Palin her right to label herself as a feminist.

Her brand of feminism just isn't my brand.

Just like the more transphobic strains of radfeminism aren't my brand of feminism.

And I'll debate with them on it.

Because feminism isn't one idea. It's a nexus of ideas in constant flux. And no one strand of feminist thought has the monopoly on the feminist ID cards.

But Joss isn't presenting new ideas

No, he isn't. At most, he's regurgitating some basic feminist ideology into BtVS.

That's really kinda the point. From all appearances, Joss subscribes to fairly mainstream feminist philosophy. People who wish to disregard his feminist labeling aren't doing so because they disagree with his ideology. They're doing so because they believe he fails at feminism.

This makes me uncomfortable.

We don't know Joss the Person. All we know is Joss the Artist. If it's possible to pass judgment on a person's aptitude at feminism, it would surely be done at the personal level. Excepting cases of outright misogynistic works, I don't think it's feasible to weigh a person's feminism - which is a personal ideology - on the basis of the fictional works they produce.

I'm not sure if it's even feasible to weigh a person's feminism. At what point does a person fail so badly at feminism that they get the label taken away? How about the white, middle-class, cissexual feminists who routinely ignore issues pertaining to people of color, trans folks, and poorer classes? Can we stop calling them feminists? On an individual level, how many high heels can a woman own before getting her feminist card revoked? Am I betraying the cause because I share Joss' affinity for tiny chicks who kick ass?

Judging a person's feminist cred based on their fictional creations is even trickier. Works of fiction, no doubt, display a creator's philosophies to some degree. However, they're also works of fiction. They're just as likely to display a creator's id.

Women - even feminist women - sometimes have rape fantasies. Fandom is typically welcoming of works that explore these fantasies, even though they may be offensive to feminist sensibilities. Do the women who write them - who own these fantasies - fail at feminism? Should their cards be revoked?

At what point can a person's fictional kinks override their conscious adoption of an egalitarian philosophy? Does the ownership of the latter mean that it's impossible to explore the former?

These are all questions that come to my mind when I see people question Joss' feminist label on the basis of his shows. I'm then left staring nervously at my fanfic, hoping that I don't get judged so harshly.

But Joss is a man

Aye, there's the part that gives me pause.

There is a genuine difference between women embracing feminism and men appropriating the label without actually following its ideas.

There is the primary question of whether men should call themselves feminists. If you ask ten different feminist women, you'll get ten different answers. Personally, I don't have a problem with it.

There is the following question of whether male feminists should be under stricter standards than women feminists. Also, what is a man's place in feminism?

I think of how the most prominent anti-racist spokesperson at the moment is...Tim Wise - a white man. This is problematic.

If you look at a list of noteworthy feminists, you'll find two people involved in the TV industry: Tina Fey and Joss Whedon. I believe this is also problematic.

However, I see this more as a problem for the industry than for Joss. People talk often about how he uses his "feminist cred" to move ahead, but I'm not sure I buy into it. Is feminist cred really a desirable thing in the industry? If it's in reference to his appeal to the audience, I'd need examples of him doing this. I'm honestly not sure what this would look like.

Putting all this aside, though, that's neglecting the fact that this judgment as to whether Joss is "really" a feminist is based on a perception of him failing at feminism. As discussed in the previous section, this only makes sense to me if we're talking about Joss the Person. And I don't believe any of us know him.

The question I turn to at this point is whether Joss is helping feminism or hurting it by labeling himself as a feminist. Personally, I think more people taking on the feminist label is a good thing given the current backlash feminism is receiving. I also think that Joss' shows ultimately help the status of women on TV (Note that I didn't say the status of feminism. That's something wholly different). Improving women's roles on TV go hand in hand with improving the status of women in reality. I consider that a net boon for feminism.

How is he harming feminism? Well, his male privilege blinds him at places. In his shows, he does uphold some patriarchal and harmful tropes.

So, yes, Joss makes mistakes. Oh! This goes to my next section quite nicely.

Joss is NOT God

Don't anyone think that I'm saying Joss is flawless or above criticism. I've engaged in a good amount of criticism of the guy, myself. A portion of it feminist in nature. Unerring positivity towards Joss irritates me just as much as relentless negativity. Joss is a regular dude. He fucks up. It happens.

On the whole, though, I think Joss is a good writer and that he's a net benefit for feminism and for the representation of women in television.

The comics

Don't bring them up. I don't read them. I don't discuss them.

What's the final conclusion?

The conclusion is simply this: Judging Joss' personal identity as a feminist on the basis of the fictional works he produces is misguided. Feminism isn't something that can be judged in such a fashion. His works can be criticized from a feminist perspective (and should be), but those criticisms have little bearing on Joss' own self-label.

Why? Because taking on the feminist label isn't about perfection. Because not everybody who calls themselves a feminist is a perfect paragon of feminism, either in their own life or in any creative endeavors they take on. To expect them to be as such is unrealistic. In fact, I think it's dangerous to do so, as it sets an impossibly high bar for people to call themselves a feminist. Feminism is for everyone; not only for those who have achieved egalitarian nirvana.

Let me end with a quote from Yes, You Are, one of my favorite essays on what it means to be a feminist.