Joss Whedon Showed Us Exactly What He Thought of Women With Dollhouse

Skanky Vamp

Sniffin' the Slayer
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
26,460
Black Thorn
From The Mary Sue

There is a chapter in the legend of Joss Whedon that we often overlook or forget, but it’s maybe the Rosetta stone of the current Whedon reckoning. After the conclusions of Firefly, Angel, and Buffy and following the highs of Doctor Horrible and Serenity, but before he took on The Avengers, Whedon reunited with Buffy‘s Faith, Eliza Dushku, to helm two seasons of a curious show called Dollhouse.

Debuting on Fox in February of 2009, the series never did well in the ratings and was canceled by the network in January of 2010. It was an interesting show in a lot of ways, especially in terms of what it had to say about technology and identity. But what we mostly missed in Dollhouse at the time that’s become far more clear as more and more allegations of Joss Whedon’s toxic behavior come to light is this: the series gave us an extremely good and deeply troubling idea of what Joss Whedon thought of women, their bodies, and their agency.

For those who haven’t watched or don’t recall much of the story, let’s explore the premise of Dollhouse. Across the world, there are secret facilities known as Dollhouses (run by a shadowy evil corporation, naturally) filled with people called “actives” or “dolls” who have had their minds wiped and who have new personalities and memories uploaded on command into their brains to serve wealthy and powerful clients. The dolls become the person the client needs, be it a sexual partner, a hostage negotiator, a criminal, or even a murder victim solving their own killing. It’s a concept that allowed for some very interesting “case of the week” episodes. The series explored ideas about self and immortality and technology and other themes that were picked up by other (better) shows like iZombie and Westworld.

But Dollhouse also relied on the abuse, exploitation, and objectification of women as its foundation that undercut the show with many pervasive and toxic ideas that went mainly unexplored.

As you might guess from the description, Dollhouse is an incredibly rapey concept. The actives, male and female, are pimped out to be perfect, willing partners for clients, most often for sex and used for sex by their handlers and the leadership of the Dollhouse. The idea is that they have consented to serve the Dollhouse for five years, but as we find out later in the series, the main character Echo (Dushku), as well as another active known as Sierra (Dichen Lachman), were both forcibly made into dolls. In Sierra’s case, she had her personality wiped and her life destroyed for the sole purpose of being raped by a man who was obsessed with her who she rejected. (She later murders him).

And that’s just the beginning. Not only are Sierra and Echo raped continuously as dolls, but Sierra is also raped by her handler in her childlike “tabula rasa” state. Another character, Mellie (Miracle Laurie) is revealed to be a doll known as November and after she’s released from the Dollhouse, she’s then recaptured forcefully, and yep, raped by clients as a doll.

It’s not just the endless rape and exploitation here that’s bad, it’s the casualness with which it is treated in Dollhouse. While what the Dollhouses and their evil parent corporation do is not seen as good per se, the struggle in the series is against the evil of the mind-wiping and personality imprinting technology, not the way it gets used to sexually exploit people. The rapes, like other violence on the show, are depicted as collateral damage. Since most of the rape is shown as non-violent, rather as sex without consent since the Dolls cannot consent, the creators of the show don’t seem to see it as a problem.

And this is where we get to the ways Dollhouse shows us what Joss Whedon, who built his reputation as a consummate feminist and champion of “kickass” women, really seems to think of women: as objects who are only as powerful as their ability to be violent. It wasn’t agency or her heart that makes Buffy a hero at the beginning, but as Robyn Bahr wrote for The Washington Post last weekend, it was her ability to hurt and be hurt. She was “the girl who can deal out punishment partly because she takes so much abuse, one who can absorb everything you throw at her, only to spout a retort while spitting blood and kicking you in the crotch.”

This idea of a woman who can take abuse and remain “powerful” (meaning able to be physically violent) is explored via River Tam in Firefly, where Whedon also made sure one of his lead women was a courtesan who the hero continually called a whore. But it was brought to its apex in Dollhouse where Echo became, in all senses, the ultimate toy for men and for Whedon: she could be anything and still be easy sexual prey, literally living to serve her masters, and at the same time that abuse and suffering made her “strong.” She was able to escape and undo the system only after she had been subjugated, raped, violated, and abused by countless people.

Now, of course, this is a drama and of course, heroes in all sorts of shows suffer and are hurt, but Whedon’s oeuvre reveals a particularly yucky obsession with young, beautiful, sexy women who can kick ass who are constantly victimized. As Whedon wrote on Buffy, it’s all about power, because making a woman powerful makes it even more satisfying when you get to have power over her.

Knowing as we do now from statements from everyone to Charisma Carpenter to Whedon’s own ex-wife and former co-workers, that idea of power and putting women in their place seems to have been a theme for Joss Whedon as a person. He liked to hurt people and command, especially women. He didn’t like them stepping out of their place or his ideas of how they should look, act, or be.

And then there’s the obsession with women’s bodies and reproductive lives. There’s incredibly icky stuff in Dollhouse about motherhood and children. Women go crazy because of their lady-parts and bodies, and motherhood is the be-all, end-all, it seems, for some characters. It’s clear from this and other shows and movies (like Natasha Romanoff in Age of Ultron) that Whedon can’t separate a woman as a person from her as a sexual object or a set of reproductive organs. That’s gross and reductive and extremely not feminist.

Loyal Whedon fan that I was in 2009, I watched every episode of Dollhouse and I liked a lot of it. It was smart and new and the cast was great. But looking back on it now, the issues are huge and apparent and the fact that so many of the yuckier elements of the very concept of Dollhouse were downplayed or ignored … well, it’s not surprising now as we look at Whedon and his work in a new light.

Empowerment is not about being able to kick ass. Feminism is not about equal opportunity abuse. Rape shouldn’t be a side effect of your sci-fi concept if you’re not ready to unpack and address that. As we’ve seen subsequently with Westworld and more, themes of personhood and consent and technology can be explored by genre in really interesting ways, but they don’t have to dehumanize and objectify their lead characters to do so, or they can at least address that.

We understand things better now. But we maybe should have known then that maybe Joss Whedon was telling us who he was all along: a man who seemed to view women on and off-screen as dolls for him to play with.
 
"The series explored ideas about self and immortality and technology and other themes that were picked up by other (better) shows like iZombie and Westworld. "

Maybe Dollhouse walked so they could run.
I don't know, I wasn't impressed with either of those shows so... meh.

But whatever, I don't think anyone ever glossed over or downplayed the problematic aspects of the Dollhouse in Dollhouse. The problematic aspects were part of the whole premise and purpose of the show. Maybe the author didn't see it because she is naive, but that is hardly something she can charge everyone else with being.

Honestly, at this point I'm starting to feel exhausted with the WHEDON IS A PROBLEM articles and find it hard to take them seriously, they just seem like click-baity stuff that'll work for the next fifteen minutes while people still care.


This idea of a woman who can take abuse and remain “powerful” (meaning able to be physically violent) is explored via River Tam in Firefly, where Whedon also made sure one of his lead women was a courtesan who the hero continually called a whore. But it was brought to its apex in Dollhouse where Echo became, in all senses, the ultimate toy for men and for Whedon: she could be anything and still be easy sexual prey, literally living to serve her masters, and at the same time that abuse and suffering made her “strong.” She was able to escape and undo the system only after she had been subjugated, raped, violated, and abused by countless people.

Those kind of systems exist, and women are caught in them, so good for those viewers to see that there are stories of getting out of that kind of situation. Even if it isn't perfectly represented on screen. Again, this is like people saying Buffy's depression isn't feminist. They are conflating the supernatural escapism (the super strenght) with real life circumstances (abuse) and using the latter to problematize the former.

But, for some, seeing a supercharged woman being able to get out of situations/circumstances they feel like they can't (because no superpowers), or seeing a heroine going through something emotionally related, is empowering for a lot of us.
This section just seems very priviliged and sheltered.

Now, of course, this is a drama and of course, heroes in all sorts of shows suffer and are hurt, but Whedon’s oeuvre reveals a particularly yucky obsession with young, beautiful, sexy women who can kick ass who are constantly victimized.

I mean, it was Eliza's show and she brought Joss on board, so of course this was going to be about a young, beautiful, sexy woman who could kick ass. That's what the network wanted from Eliza and it was probably what Eliza wanted to do at the time.

One persons "constantly victimized" is another persons "telling a gripping narrative" because I don't want to watch a strong female character only be a strong female character, how am I supposed to relate to that? Yes, I want a story where something happens and where yes, sometimes women get victimized, or traumatized, or all the other things that happen to women in real life too, because that's what I can relate to.

I then want her to get back up and keep fighting but it inspires me to do likewise, with a lot less ass-kicking however. Since I'm watching out of Hollywood I'll also expect her to be abnormally beautiful in one way or another. These parts are escapism from reality that is not as beautiful in its endings.


And then there’s the obsession with women’s bodies and reproductive lives. There’s incredibly icky stuff in Dollhouse about motherhood and children. Women go crazy because of their lady-parts and bodies, and motherhood is the be-all, end-all, it seems, for some characters. It’s clear from this and other shows and movies (like Natasha Romanoff in Age of Ultron) that Whedon can’t separate a woman as a person from her as a sexual object or a set of reproductive organs. That’s gross and reductive and extremely not feminist.

Wow, talk about cheapening those plots. There was not icky stuff in DH about motherhood and children, there was incredibly powerful stuff about motherhood, about physical changes, and about the loss of children. Seriously, some online feminists (sorry to group you all together) seem so neurotic about anything that portrays motherhood, whether positive or negative, that I'm starting to think they wish they literally could just remove all female bodied organs so as to remove it as a concept from their theories entirely. That way the theories would be neater and they wouldn't have to think about "their lady-parts" or the idea of motherhood.

Not everyone wants to be, or is suited to be, a mother, that is fine, but please don't read your neuroses into any and all plots written by men.

I'm sorry, but this is exaxctly the kind of article that makes me feel like I want nothing to do with feminism. It lacks nuance, is sloppy, attention-seeking, and mostly comes across as an emotional rant by someone who spends more time overthinking about their lady-parts then does the writer who is mostly looking for a good story to tell.
 
someone who spends more time overthinking about their lady-parts then does the writer
I don't know. The writer admitted he thinks a lot about lady-parts with his little womb envy comments.
 
Taake
Taake
Missed that it was a he, that makes it even worse for me.
Still not watched it, but I'm sure this has been discussed before on here, so it's certainly not new news.
 
@Taake
Whedon from 2008:
"Everybody makes fun of Uncle Joss when he brings up womb envy! But I still believe in it. It’s a very simple theory and I gave it a silly name, but basically it just seemed to be a fundamental thing that women have something men don’t, the obvious being an ability to bear children, and the resilience to hang in as parents. I don’t understand why or how anyone ever pulled off the whole idea of “women are inferior.” Men not only don’t get what’s important about what women are capable of, but in fact they fear it, and envy it, and want to throw stones at it, because it’s the thing they can’t have."
source

Makes the whole Black Widow scene about being a monster for not being able to have children an interesting take.
 
@Taake
Whedon from 2008:
"Everybody makes fun of Uncle Joss when he brings up womb envy! But I still believe in it. It’s a very simple theory and I gave it a silly name, but basically it just seemed to be a fundamental thing that women have something men don’t, the obvious being an ability to bear children, and the resilience to hang in as parents. I don’t understand why or how anyone ever pulled off the whole idea of “women are inferior.” Men not only don’t get what’s important about what women are capable of, but in fact they fear it, and envy it, and want to throw stones at it, because it’s the thing they can’t have."
source

Makes the whole Black Widow scene about being a monster for not being able to have children an interesting take.

I thought you meant the article writer.

I still interpret the Black Widow scene as her being a monster for being essentially a killing machine, not only for not being able to have children. I look at it similar to the way Buffy is constantly afraid that she is getting emotionally cold, this is about what the character fears, not what is true, and she will learn to get over it/understand it differently. But that is part of her journey.

@Spanky I don't read it that way, but since you only commented and didn't quote I imagine you just wanted to make a point, not discuss.
 
Last edited:
Skanky Vamp
Skanky Vamp
What she had to give up to become a killing machine: her womanhood... what made her human.
I have new off screen information so must look for on screen problems to match my current mood 🙄.

Dollhouse was far superior to Westworld and iZombie, no point pretending otherwise just because it's got Whedons name on it. The whole damn show was about how awful the dolls were treated, clearly wasn't presented as a manifesto.
 
I loved Dollhouse! I know a lot of people don't. I like the fact that nothing could hold them down and the storyline shows that. Yes there is abuse but there is also empowerment and revenge.
 
Yeah its cleanly a satire. Its too easy to be smart in hindsight and link it to whats come out about Whedon in the last week. His work holds up well (as does the work of others on that show) even if his personal actions don't.
 
As you might guess from the description, Dollhouse is an incredibly rapey concept. The actives, male and female, are pimped out to be perfect, willing partners for clients, most often for sex and used for sex by their handlers and the leadership of the Dollhouse.

So this synopsis is basically wrong in a couple of respects Handlers do not have sex with the dolls, Topher- as far as I can see- does not have sex with the dolls (on his Birthday he pals around with and plays games with one I think).
Adele is the only one who does and she does it secretly. It's not policy.

The other houses? Possible and even probably but then Rossum is always portrayed as incredibly shady until its revealed that its downright evil and plotting world domination.

The idea is that they have consented to serve the Dollhouse for five years, but as we find out later in the series, the main character Echo (Dushku), as well as another active known as Sierra (Dichen Lachman), were both forcibly made into dolls.

Yes to Sierra, no to Echo/Caroline. Caroline was given a choice. You could say that she was coerced, but not forced. That's part of how the Dollhouse justifies itself; it targets the vulnerable and coerces them to sign over their life for a set amount of time with sweet promises of a golden future after. That's how they get willing people to become dolls, its more complex/fascinating than this idiot depicts things.

And that’s just the beginning. Not only are Sierra and Echo raped continuously as dolls, but Sierra is also raped by her handler in her childlike “tabula rasa” state.

Victor was also raped as well, by Adele. Many, many times. But this article doesn't care about men. I mean, about male characters. I mean, it probably just forgot about Victor.
Oh look, its The Mary Sue.

It’s not just the endless rape and exploitation here that’s bad, it’s the casualness with which it is treated in Dollhouse.

It's casual because the show is 'inside' the dollhouse with a bunch of morally screwed up people. They all have their justifications, they all turn out to be wrong.

Since most of the rape is shown as non-violent, rather as sex without consent since the Dolls cannot consent, the creators of the show don’t seem to see it as a problem.

No, its foundational. That's why we have Ballard going after them, because what they're doing is a crime.

It’s clear from this and other shows and movies (like Natasha Romanoff in Age of Ultron) that Whedon can’t separate a woman as a person from her as a sexual object or a set of reproductive organs.

Some people can't separate exploration of idea from condoning it. I think this show is too smart for the writer, which is saying something, and the show is pretty clear that the ideas its exploring are incredibly problematic. The show gives us a morally murky situation with a bunch of comprimised characters (that includes how Caroline is depicted, she's not that nice) and then asks us to think for ourselves about what's going on.

Something like Westworld just hits you over the head again and again with messaging its such a dull bore to sit through. 'There's a kick-ass female robot, there's another kick-ass female robot, look at the kick-ass female robots, don't you feel the empowerment shining brightly from your tv screen...' 🙄

Does this reader think that when Thomas Harris writes about Hannibal Lector then he thinks serial killers are really cool, that he condones cannibalism and secretly wishes that he could go around murdering anyone he wanted, outwitting the FBI at every turn.
Wow, this writer is such an absolute child.
 
Skanky Vamp
Skanky Vamp
That's why I find these articles so interesting, seeing how other people, people that aren't "superfans" experience(d) the show.
Puppet
Puppet
Yeah, it's difficult to take it serious when it's only about the women - have they even seen the show?
So this synopsis is basically wrong in a couple of respects Handlers do not have sex with the dolls,
I read that "used for sex by their handlers" differently. In that handlers were basically pimps and used the dolls for sex. Didnt take it as literal sex with handlers.
 
thetopher
thetopher
Ah, well for me this writer gets no benefit of the doubt. :P
Back
Top Bottom