Bloody good point about the Greek prostitutes -- I remember Sophocles left all his goods to his own Companion, and she was supposed to be hella intelligent, airc.

It's the ambassador part that loses me, the political influence

But that's a joke, isn't it? Mal's joke -- I've never heard Inara refer to herself as an ambassador.

In truth, based on Firefly canon, the ME folks haven't given us a very developed idea of what the Companion role is within the society -- or indeed a fully developed picture of the 'verse society. Which is entirely understandable and inevitable, given 13 episodes, and given that they're not making a documentary-style thing. I have no problem with the basic concept -- there are lots of precedents for sex workers having different kinds of status to those extant in 21st Century America.

Plus, society is a very fluid thing. We have been views into three seperate societies, the frontier worlds, Persephene and the Core. Seperating out which role fits into which society is also part of that.

While it is true that courtisans in France (and elsewhere), like the Greek hetaira, had no direct power, it is easy to see that they could sway entire nations and even history itself. Add this to the strong Sino-Japanese culture in the Core and the background of Geisha as an independant class unto themselves and the concept of Companions as persented becomes quite possible indeed.

But all of these classes--hetaira, high-class European courtesans, and geisha--existed only in conditions of extreme gender inequality. They contained ambitious women exercised power indirectly because their cultures allowed them no opportunity to exercise it directly.

What many of us question is how and why such a class should exist in a society which otherwise shows markers of gender equality: women exercise power (Patience and the Counsellor who was Inara's client), serve in the armed forces, and perform roles traditionally restricted to men in societies with well-defined gender roles. Sometimes the societies are as casually sexist and misogynist as they are in traditional Westerns (eg, "Heart of Gold"), but even if you assume that the border is more sexist than the core (in itself a stereotype of Westerns that is not supported by American history), the Companion role depends that gender inequality existing in the core.

Because of the hairstyle, Ken?

Yup. I figured it was named for her, but it still looks absurd, like Col. Condom.

the Companion role depends that gender inequality existing in the core.

I'm not sure that because these things existed in inequal cultures they can only exist in them.

However, even a gender equitable society does not eliminate the wants needs, and desires of humans. It apparently has not gotten rid of jealousy, low self worth, the need for companionship, and other reasons to seek out a sex partner without the social dealings.

However, a free marketplace could produce a glut and poor policing of disease, and various other ills. So what to do? Start a brand name, shroud it in mysticism, sanctify the process.

By elevating the Companion™ Brand, they created an organized self-contained policing system, and provided the customers with a sense of trust in that brand.

How do we feel about it all if Companions are both male and female, and service both male and female clients? With the male Companions having the same level of opportunity for promotion as the female ones?

And why do we even assume that all Companions are female? Because the two (1 and a half?) we've seen are female? Who says there's not a number of Houses within the Guild made up entirely of men?

ETA: X-postly goodness with Fay.

We assume Companions are female and their clientele are largely male because all the Companions we've seen have been female, the only references we've heard to training Companions were to sisters or daughters, and the only one we've had much exposure to had a largely but not exclusively male clientele.

The whorehouse had a few male whores, but Nandi and Inara explicitly stated the whores were not Companions, repeatedly.

Serial: I'm not nearly as unhappy about the whole thing as Nutty, mainly because I don't think the problem is really sexist blinkers at ME so much as thoughtlessness. My take is that they picked a bunch of genres--western, regency for Shindig, and ... other stuff i'm forgetting--where tropes depend on gender inequality, tried to set them in a world of gender equality, and didn't think about the problems they'd have.

But all the explanations people have been offering about how Companions might actually work require really elaborate explanations that may not be directly contradicted by the text, but that are not supported by more than minimal and contradictory textual clues, either.

Nutty, do you think it makes a difference that on Firefly, the writing staff is overwhelmingly male? Also, where does Zoe fall into the gender stereotyping dynamic?

I don't know. One assumes, given Buffy, that these people know how to write women who are not sniveling weaklings. Buffy never really had to deal with the day-to-day beatdowns of life, so we have no M.E. data on that front. I will say, as I mentioned previously, the M.E. team has said rather impolitic things on this board, in the past, relating to sex and gender.

Would female writers help? I don't know! Hire me and we can find out!

Who knows. Certainly, there are women who don't agree with me politically, like Camille Paglia and foolish people like that. But I'd like to think that there are people, both male and female, who are sensitive to, you know, the patterns of gendered behavior. I don't go jump up and down every time Zoe makes bao for her husband; and I was willing to give Saffron a pass on that whole "I'm married off to a random stranger" bit, as a comedy of misunderstandings (or not, as it turned out); but on a hot-button issue like misogyny or sexual exploitation, I have a hawk's eye.

By elevating the Companion™ Brand, they created an organized self-contained policing system, and provided the customers with a sense of trust in that brand.

That explains why a bunch of prostitutes would combine to form a guild, but not why that guild would have great reknown and awe follow it. I do not stand in awe of the executives of the company that manufactures my toothpaste; and if I didn't use toothpaste myself, how much less would I accord respect to those executives?

But all the explanations people have been offering about how Companions might actually work require really elaborate explanations that may not be directly contradicted by the text, but that are not supported by more than minimal and contradictory textual clues, either

What Micole said. We shouldn't have to wank this hard.