Joss Whedon’s Penis and Other Feminist Musings

Joss Whedon is the creator of Buffy and some show called Firefly which is apparently the best television show in the world and there are some hardcore fans who insist on “bringing it back.” Why do we care about Mr. Whedon?  Apparently he’s now a piece of shit who lied about being a feminist (albeit one who wants to redefine feminism) and only spoke about gender equality in Hollywood to get in a bunch of different women’s pants.

Screen Shot 2017-08-22 at 2.04.19 PM.png

Whedon has recently split from long time wife Kai Cole and there’s a pretty crazy interwebs shit storm after Cole wrote a very intense essay detailing that her ex is not the feminist you believe him to be due to his extra marital affairs.

Do I believe that Whedon’s cheating on his wife makes him a shitty person, considering  how much he obviously hurt her, and damaged her emotionally? Yes.

Do I ACTUALLY think this fact somehow makes Whedon a “fake feminist”? No.

Whedon’s public persona has been one of the “feminist” often lauded for his creation of strong kick ass characters who escape the myriad of tyrannical tropes that relegate women to one dimensional characters whose only motivations are to serve at the behest of their male counter parts. The word feminism or feminist comes up when describing his work and even describing the man himself. There’s a famous quote when he was asked why he still writes strong female characters, his response was, “Because you’re still asking me that question.”

Whedon’s work specifically, should be re-examined for its issues with women. Of course we should always consider the intersection of race and class when looking at women, and I will say there is something that irks me about the idea a man who “does” a woman well. Whedon’s work and its own complications, lead to conversations about how feminism is branded, articulated, represented, and manipulated should be had.

But I don’t think it matters who Joss Whedon has fucked or fucks currently.

Understandably though, his ex-wife does. You know, considering he was fucking a whole lotta ladies during the course of his marriage and lied to her for YEARS. Girl, that fucking blooooooowwwwsss, I would never wish that on my worst enemy. Especially since you suspected that he was “too close” (your words) to many female friends and he said this was because he was a feminist, like DAT SUX.

BUT, I hate to make this about Cole specifically, but her self-aggrandizing statement that Whedon’s feminism card is revoked because as she states, he “took away my choice” by lying about sleeping with other women does not a non-feminist make.

Consent, violence, cohersion, and abuse MATTER, but that’s not the issue here is it? Is that what we are talking about?

The issue is a moral failing on Whedon’s behalf and it’s his sexual life where again I will point at that AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME there seems to be nothing that seems illegal or non consensual. Since we have not heard from any of these women he cheated with, we do not know if he used his position or power to exploit or coerce.

From twitter to the AV Club, many are taking Whedon’s transgressions a reason to discount his work as the modus operandi of a lying trash bag using feminism for his own sordid agenda. It’s an all-or-nothing attitude that he was either a feminist or he was duping us the whole time, and the fact he likes to fuck other ladies than his wife somehow proves the latter.

I think it’s because we all know THAT GUY. We can fucking relate to the fake ass feminist who whispers sweet nothing Judith Butler quotes into our ears and then turns around and treats our bodies and minds as though we are an extension of his male ego. We know that dude who claims to be “woke” to try to put his P in your V.

We all also know the “good guy” who pretends to be all about your and your agency, but then quickly warps your mind with some cray gas lighting bullshit and you end up apologizing for something he did.

I think the reactions to this revelation are way out of proportion you would think he was a government leader in charge of leading women’s initiatives or on some sort of morality and marriage panel.

I understand that Cole is taking what she see very rightly as a lack of respect for her and her body as a way to unveil some kind of extension to his entire persona, “Now that it is finally public, I want to let women know that he is not who he pretends to be. I want the people who worship him to know he is human, and the organizations giving him awards for his feminist work, to think twice in the future about honoring a man who does not practice what he preaches.”

Did he every preach monogamy? Does feminist include, by definition, the adherence to wedding vows?

I am weary of taking the sexual lives of people to determine their inherent social and political values. It’s a double-edged sword to say that just because a man sleeps with a lot of women outside of marriage that makes him non-feminist. It could cut both ways to somehow suggest that a woman’s sexual promiscuity might betray her feminist values.

Men, and women, both feminists and non-feminists alike (or maybe they just want to be called “humanist” UGH THAT TERM DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES) cheat on their spouses. It’s not nice. However, I think Whedon’s work should be judged on its own merit, not because his ex-wife wants us to know he is bad at monogamy.

Or at the very most, maybe we send his penis to attend a first year Women’s Studies class?

A Quick THOT


There was a hot minute in grade five where I got to sit next to the cutest boy in our class. His name was Damien. With his long blonde locks, tear away Addidas pants, and too cool for school attitude, he was deemed the most desirable candidate by all the girls, most of whom he dated. To be clear, by “date” I mean hold hands at recess. Maybe over the shirt stuff at parties.

I can vividly recall one day sitting next to Damien and his crystal blue eyes, one of which was lazy, and he confided in me that he had a crush on someone. “Who?” I ask, my heart fluttering. He motioned over to Laura, a very sweet, pretty girl at the other side of the classroom.

“I don’t know if I want to date her” he said coolly tossing his hair away from his eyes. “Too tight.”

“Too tight?” I asked, unfamiliar with this term. He opened his notebook and drew two brackets in the corner of the page.

“Like her pussy” he whispered, “I wouldn’t be able to get in there.” I stared at the parentheses that represented Laura’s vagina. Tight. Too tight. Not loose.

I can’t recall the first time I heard the word slut, whore, tramp, or the plethora of other terms used in a way to demean someone, specifically a woman, for their actions in the boudoir. But at this point I had an inherent knowledge that to be sexually promiscuous, or even to be perceived as such was a bad thing. But now, privy to the information communicated by this lazy eyed twelve-year-old that there was such a thing as being too virginal. Too unavailable.

Prude, cock tease, hard to get, goody goody, or blue-baller, all came next into my lexicon of names directed specifically at the woman who is unwilling to give it up. In conjunction with the aforementioned terms for a libidinous woman, it presented me with the task of the all to familiar balancing act: to be desirable, but don’t possess too much desire.

Needless to say this is bullshit.

The virgin/whore dichotomy is fraught with these labels meant to bully, insult, and degrade women based in a system where their bodies—and what they do with them—are seen a public property. I’ve written before that I’m okie dokie with calling myself a slut, because I have the freedom and privilege to take a word and construe its meaning to meet my own personal preferences.

Picture 9

But sadly, this is not the case for many and on both sides of the good girl/bad girl spectrum it seems that all too often you just can’t win.

Paying attention to the memeification of linguistics, new terms for all kinds of things comes up in my daily life. Like when I was on the train and overheard a group of young women using the term “ratchet” and I thought they were saying rat shit, but I eventually caught on. Or when someone texted me that they were too “turnt” and I had to Google it. There’s all kinds of new monikers and usages that are part of the English language’s evolution.

However, there is a new word that I’ve recently encountered through the interwebs that I’m just not happy about. It’s not as fun and fancy free as describing my eyebrows as on “fleek”, or describing things as “hype” the new term THOT.

Picture 10

What fresh hell is this?


THOT is an acronym for “Thirsty hoe(s) over there” or “That hoe over there”. A synonym for slut. Easily punned, a flurry of memes arise when you Google the term describing these women as untrustworthy, trashy, dirty, etc.

Oh great, another word that refers derogatorily to a sexually promiscuous woman. FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC.

Originally credited to rapper Chief Keif, it first came to my attention when news broke Chris Brown was warning Karruche Tran not to be one after she posted a pick of herself in a bikini.

Picture 3

Given that fact that Chris Brown is a highly regarded feminist and respecter/non-beater of women, perhaps this is a momentary lapse in judgement? Oh wait…

There too much proof that this is a negatively applied term.


Picture 5

Have some respect for women. #dummy.


Picture 4

Literally has nothing to do with you. #misogyny


Picture 6

Why must we pit women against women in the pursuit of a man. #raiseeachotherup


It seems to be everywhere, and it’s casual usage is something that’s being too casually used like when this interviewer decided to quiz Will Farrell about it, and Kevin Hart thinks it’s so fucking hilarious to have him repeat it over and over.

Something that bothers me about this acronym (besides its inherent misogyny, etc…etc…) That Hoe Over There functions in such a way that said Hoe is assessed from the outsider. The way it operates suggests that she is outed, seen, marked by those who have deemed her to be available for shame and degradation. There leaves little room for her to connect with any kind of agency with the term, as the language suggests it is something to be inflicted upon her because she is over there, and not right here.

The moniker THOT follows in a long tradition of a double standard with no parallel for a way to describe a man. And I’m not saying that there should be. I try not to practice misandry.

I’m not suggesting that we should say, call a man who enjoys going out on the town having a few drinks and bringing someone home a “Sloppy Joe.”

I would never ask for the general public to start addressing sexually active men “Dick Tricks.”

There’s nothing that would give me joy about insulting a guy at a club looking for some action a “Hungry Man.”

All I’m asking is that maybe, just maybe instead of inventing more ways to shame someone for their sexual desire we can, maybe NOT?

Just a thot though. (sorry I had to)