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.

We shouldn't have to wank this hard.

We should have had more than 13 episodes too. IJS.

We shouldn't have to wank this hard.

MUST tag. Please?

Oh, do, Fay. Multitudinous are the puns on the word "wank".

And thirteen episodes don't offer enough opportunity for writers to establish that one of the premises of the series makes sense?

It wasn't enough opportunity to establish why the Blue Hand Men are doing the mental modifications on their students. Or to establish the politics surrounding Unification by force. Or even to establish what the deal is with Blue Sun.

Considering the end of HoG, I'm wanking that the next season would have done some serious explaination of these things as well as the role of Companions in the core. For my part though, Companions and all that is shown of them /does/ make sense to me because I have seen it in history books since the 6th grade. Perhaps I just had an unusual education (come to think of it, I know that I did) but I've never had to wank anything concerning Companions and The Guild except to explain it to people who couldn't understand the idea of educated, artistic, cultured, politically connected people who include sex as a part of their list of talents for hire.

YMMV.

Griffyn, I'm sure you're not trying to patronize the rest of us. But you're hardly the only member of this board who's been reading history books since the 6th grade.

But I'm with Nutty and Micole on this issue: I don't think there's enough support for the more generous interpretation yet. It's simple thoughtlessness, I think.

So, yes, my mileage does vary. I'm still on board with the show, but I'm concerned about the depth of thought that went into the Companion concept and gender issues in general (extra-textual commentary aside).