I'm with Burrell on this.

If VK thinks that gender roles in 1960 are something to be nostalgic about, I say he's an asshat. It really doesn't matter what he thinks about the Whedonverse.

But also what Fred Pete said. The kid thinks he's going to have input into a character in a 'verse that he didn't bother to research?

I don't think he is saying it was better--he is saying it was simpler. Less choices for both men and women. More complexity makes things harder. Not worse, but harder.

Robin, point taken, but I got the distinct feeling that he had a fondness for simpler.

To take a specific character point from his character, I don't know if I would consider it simpler or better to be whored out by my newlywed husband over an item of ambition based in petty jealousy.

I bet VK was just trying to be clever with that "things were kinda nice" comment. After typing that I realize it's when I'm trying to be clever that I tend to reveal what a dork I actually am. Maybe failed attempts at cleverness are a window to our true nature.

Probably wasn't meant as seriously as I'm taking it. However, "Weren't things nicer then..." is a big ping for me. Because in general, yeah, things were nicer then (for any given value of then or there). For a very small, select class of people, at the expense of the much larger class of people.

I can't help but respond to the "things were simpler" comment as, well, things were simpler if I wanted to exist within a very codified structure and I didn't have any interests or desires outside of that structure. Things were simpler if I didn't want to worry my pretty little head about things like property ownership or voting rights or the ability to marry. (Yes, I'm extrapolating outside of the particular era, but that's because it's my Big Red Don't Push This Button Button.)

Things were always nicer when we didn't have to be aware of the consequences of our actions. Things were nicer when the people we oppressed were quieter about it. Things were nicer when a subservient class existed to cater to our whims and didn't complain. Things were nicer when people knew their places.

You see? That's the road I'm staring down that starts with the comment, "Weren't things nicer then..."

To me.

He says the women say it was kinda nice. And for young women who grow up thinking about earning a living, and trying to look like Paris Hilton while being very smart and successful but also sexy and fit yet sweet and appealing, it SEEMS nice. My 17-year-old niece, wrestling with college and life choices, told me she wished she lived back when all you had to do was "meet someone nice, get married, and then you didn't have to worry about a career." She told me a lot of her friends feel the same way. These are smart kids (and many of her friends are minorities) who know rationally that things weren't "nicer," but who feel they are under way more pressure these days. Hearing this shocked feminist me to my core, but in speaking more with her, it was clear they were idealizing having a clear path, instead of having to figure it out for themselves--because figuring it out is overwhelming sometimes. She is going to college and thinking about what she wants to do and I am sure will have a successful life, but the idea of not HAVING to seems idyllic.

I guess I'm more forgiving of the "things seemed nicer then" comments. Not that I agree--I'm with Liese on asking "Nicer for who?"--just that I'm more forgiving.

There is an appeal about simpler, well-defined roles. Expectations are a lot clearer. Though Burrell's capsulization of Liese's comment trumps clearer expectations for me. If you aren't built to meet the narrow range of expectations, life can be hell.

This is the part of VK's response that really bothers me:

I just had a conversation with a friend today. He called me and wanted me to know that last night I was a little aggressive with him and he felt he needed to talk about his feelings. And it’s like Jesus Christ dude! You weight 210 pounds and spend all day long in the gym. Are you really this much of a pussy? And it’s true, we are.

Being "a man" means you aren't supposed to value your friendships enough to be concerned that you may have stepped over the line and hurt the friendship? Caring about your friends' feelings makes you a "pussy"? (And VK's use of that particular word is revealing in its own way.)