Inara: more bad ass than she seems? by Bytemite

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Also, both Inara and Kaylee do laugh after kaylee's "longing" comment, and after Simon goes off on his tirade and tells him off about not thinking much of the people who chose this life, Inara gives him a look as she follows Kaylee out. It's hard to read again, it's not angry, it's not sympathetic, it's seems to me to be somewhere between disapproving, troubled, and unhappy.

http://www.thewb.com/shows/firefly/clip-actually-i-was-being-ironic/e6
4bd01015

Sadly, I can't watch that clip outside the U.S., but I'll popped in my DVD for a quick peek as soon as my roommates disconnect their video game equipement. There's... cables and things. I'm not touching those on my own.

But I will get back to this!

Regarding the orphanage... the more I think about it, the less I can get behind the idea of Inara having shared her female caretaker with other kids. I really think a foster mother or legal guardian is as far as I can see it, everything else leaves her too isolated and integrated into a big group of peers, which I can see for her later at the training house, but not earlier when the foundations for her warm, intimate personality are laid.

I'm not saying I hate the orphanage theory on principle (though I don't see the education there being "rudimentary"), it's just that it doesn't work with how I perceive Inara. Just like I see Mal's leadership style as a reflection of his own mother, I see Inara's nurturing kindness as a reflection of her "mother", something close, intimate, warm and secure.

Not to be down on orphanages, but it's just not something I see them providing to that extend and there's probably a reason things like adoption and foster care are often viewed as healthier for a child, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jackwabbit:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by jackwabbit:

Oh, and yes, Inara can hold her own. And deep down, she ain't as much of a "lady" as she lets on. That IS my honest opinion that ain't likely to change, unlike the mom/past angle.

Perhaps we just differ in our definition of lady, mayhaps?

Indeed. I think Inara does have all the outward appearances of being lady-like, but deep down she does enjoy getting her hands a bit dirty, so to speak. It's Trash that makes me certain of this. She looooooves her role there.

Do you associate weakness, shallowness and emotional passivity with being a lady? Basically, do you consider the term "bad" to begin with, or have a fairly narrow definition? Because to me, Inara IS a lady. Self-possessed, educated, ethical, courages, caring about others, plus all that charm and wit. She's not without flaws (bouts of denial, fear of intimacy) but that doesn't disqualify her.

I think the Saffron thing is actually an exception. Mind, this was a woman who tried to kill them all, and joyfully so, which makes the entire incident rather personal. Plus, Inara's part isn't exactly the fist-fighting, hair-pulling kind. She holds a gun, is a little smug (rightfully so, outfoxing Saffron is a thing to be proud of) and pushes a button.

Sure, there's a smidge of petty joy involved there, but we already know Inara has a sense of humor and occasionally enjoys smugness. That may not be "ladylike" in the way a strict governess might interpret, but it doesn't imply that Inara enjoys getting her hands actually dirty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 8:15 PM

Thank you for sharing, GillianRose!

Quote:
Originally posted by GillianRose:
I keep coming back to Inara's behavior concerning River, from the beginning, but most especially in the BDM. Brave, as I said before; also, consistently nurturing and tolerant, and very adult. Inara acts as one who has clearly defined, deeply felt moral standards and obligations regarding a child in her care. I think that comes from being loved and cared for, day after day, by a woman that she loved - and, importantly - admired very much.

Yes, that.

Quote:

Maybe they weren't congruent as far as temperment; maybe Inara and her mother didn't understand each other very easily, that may be a reason for the reserve, the emotional caution that is so much a part of her.

I think she had to grow up too fast, was among adults a lot. I keep picturing her mother as impaired in some way. Deafness was a theory of mine once, followed by sudden death, or slowly dying from a certain point on. Something that would both develop Inara's emotional self-control, her ability to attune to others, her spirituality and her taking refuge in idealised fantasies. Taking refuge by leaving, in general, really.

Quote:

I also think about the maternal aspect of Inara when I watch her very first conversation with Simon, about the immunization packets and Simon's behavior after Dobson shoots Kaylee. She is gentle with him in word and manner, but she doesn't let him off automatically. I hear a clear moral challenge in her tone when she explains how dear Kaylee is to all of them. I see it in her face when she waits, quietly, while he stammers out his miserable reply. Then she very quickly reads him as sincere, and offers him honest empathy. It's very intriguing to me, as I think about it, what she reveals to him when she describes herself as "lost in the woods" along with everyone else. Hmmm. So very personal. That bears more cogitatin'.

That's well-described, and one of the crucial scenes in introducing her. That ability and also compulsion to "read" others and coax out both information and perhaps things they need to voice in order to deal with a situation. Just like with Book later, she probably cannot not try to help.

Quote:

And, I don't necessarily think Inara had an absentee or unknown father growing up. I don't want to make the assumption that if Inara's mother was a Companion or retired Companion, she couldn't have had a stable relationship with the father of her children. I don't think her family is healthy and whole when we meet her, but there are so, so many ways for a family to fall apart, so many ways for hearts to get broken that have nothing to do with Companioning. Especially in times of political unrest and war.

I'm not making that assumption based in Inara's mother's possible profession, actually. I have no feelings about whether she was one or not, other than that there was no pressure for Inara to follow in her footsteps. The absent father thing, for me, is more based in Inara herself. Actually similarly to Mal, in how they deal with male authority figures or men in general.

I don't think her father was a negative figure, but I don't see him as a strong influence at all.

Definitely agreeing about the Companions and relationships, though. And about the many ways families can crumble.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:38 AM

Okay, I rewatched the store scene on DVD.

To me it seems, like Kaylee still is entirely genuine in defending the carving, keeps her eyes on it, doesn't ironically smile when stating she likes it or starting up with the longing, but toward the end of her explanation, I think she breaks into this grin, partly because of enthusiasm, partly because the sadly funny aspect of "longing to see a swan" catches up with her. Inara starts laughing because of Kaylee's enthusiasm.

On another level, I really like this scene because of the symbolism. Kaylee often considers herself the ugly duckling, has insecurity issues about Simon's world, longs for pretty things like that layercake dress. "Longing to see (or be) a swan" is a big aspect of her.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 4:29 AM

GILLIANROSE

I agree with your read on that little scene, I think Kaylee liked the knick-knacks. And, no one will convince me she did not wheedle at least one bobble-headed geisha doll out of her Captain :)

I'll rewatch Inara's glance at Simon before she and Kaylee walk out, but if memory serves, she is decidedly NOT empathetic with him at that moment. Her expression doesn't lessen his dismay, as I recall, and it's not intended to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...take whatever children they can. For charity, like you said, and because of the spiritual side of the guild. But they would always, always take the orphans of companions, because that would be what the orphanages were originally set up for.

I really like the idea of charity work done by the Guild, as well as the idea that the children get moved on to careers with a few very select ones joining the Guild. I can see that working really nicely.

Quote:
In the event that a companion dies with children and no one to look after them, guaranteed Guild care would be kind of a perk. There might even be some kind of day care component in there too, for the busy practicing companion mother.

This, on the other hand, seems highly unlikely. If dating is complicated for a working Companion, child bearing must be beyond complicated. I very much doubt that it is allowed. As for accidents, I would think that Companions have hella good birth control while they're employed by the Guild.

So they must only have children when they leave the Guild and take on life partners. At that point they would certainly be wealthy and savvy enough to have wills, same as any other couple with children. I just don't see that there would be a large group of orphaned Companion offspring needed an orphanage.

Quote:
But no, I don't see active recruiting of companions out of the program or coercion or brainwashing involved... Unless the child expresses an interest in joining the guild and receiving training. Otherwise, I picture them receiving a general Alliance sanctioned education until they're 12, and receiving scholarship and support to go into whatever programs at the Academy they choose. Hopefully not any of the ones involving surgery, but I get the impression that not all of the curriculum at the Academy involves violations of human rights. River and whoever her classmates were seem to have been special cases.

You've certainly got a plan. Hey, go for it! Write it up.

Quote:
Heh heh, that was one of the few times where I wasn't bringing up the Mal/Inara dynamic. :) I was just explaining how Inara isn't a snob, and why that reflects on her background. The specific example just happened to involve Mal.

Off topic again.

My point is this: you said that Inara "seems very at home in an old trampy freighter", as opposed to Simon who "is often NOT comfortable (at least at first)", and "that suggests she may have come from a different social class than Simon."

I'm saying that there is less difference between them then you are suggesting. Think about that "at least at first" part in regards to what I posted above. Can you see my point?

Quote:
I actually think Inara was very comfortable at least until the fight broke out, which is more an example of Mal's issues than it is an example of normal lower class life. Afterwards, during the fight... I don't know. Clearly she was nervous when the fight started and when they made their get-away. She didn't ACT happy then, I admit, maybe because it was getting too dangerous. But when Mal first steals the money off the slavers, I have a hard time reading her.

Have you listened to the commentary by Jane Espenson?

So - Inara didn't act happy because it was getting too dangerous? Is that the action of a woman who gets off on danger and misbehavior?

Quote:
There are rare times she approves of some of Mal's darker behaviour, like when he shoots Dobson. But other times, like when he catches the kid who picks his pocket in the Message, she just shakes her head in disapproval. There's a lot of contradiction in her, her "Robin Hood" references and what not.

In fact... Now that I think of it, do you think that may be a reflection of how Mal treats her profession? Disapproving face-to-face, but when the other is out of earshot, suddenly the other's job is "honest work" or "noble?"

Not really. First, she does let Mal know when she approves of him. Even about sleeping with Nandi. She wouldn't hide it from him if she liked what he does.

Second, I don't think she admires Mal's thieving ways. But it's Inara's nature to be accepting, and she sees that Mal's life has necessities. It's not her business to pass judgment on him. She will step up when he crosses certain boundaries - spacing Simon and River, for example. That's not acceptable.

Yeah, I think Inara just her own morals. It's not that she likes breaking other people's rules; she just isn't overly concerned with them. Dobson was threatening River. Mal defended an innocent, and Inara supports that. It's not murder to Inara, no matter how the Alliance might see it.

Quote:
Like you said, I think there's wiggle room, and I think sometimes she's more playful about being bad than other times.

Can you give one example where she enjoys being bad purely for the sake of being bad?

Quote:
Saffron deserved it, but where exactly does her "You should let me fence the lassiter for you!" come from in the next episode, if she otherwise disapproves of the thieving?

Because she cares for the welfare of the crew and wants to help them. She'd probably fence the thing without incident, where Mal's likely to get arrested or in a fight with gangsters. Inara's practical, and again, has her own rules. Helping this crew comes above the Alliance's law.

The more I look at it, the more I see that it's all about care-taking with Inara. In every example we've discussed, she chooses to take care of people. Look at the little fight with Saffron: Inara's priority was to get to Mal. There is no instinct to completely defeat Saffron, no attempt to extend the violence in any way. Inara did the minimal to defend herself so she could take care of Mal. I'd think a "rough and tumble" type person, someone who vented violence and anger like the little girl in jackwabbit's fic, would take a half second to at least try to knock Saffron out.

Violence just isn't in Inara's nature.

Quote:
Nah, she can't go up against 20 reavers, disarm them, and take them down with stolen axes, no. Or close her eyes and shoot three guys behind cover in less than a second. But I think Inara was evenly matched with Saffron, a professional thief, liar, and general femme fatale. I think one on one, she'd actually have surprising skill in the martial arts, and that she is normally able to defend herself more than adequately.

I agree re self-defense, as I've said. And as I've written. It makes complete sense that a Companion would be trained to defend herself, same as anyone who deals with horny, drunk men for a living.

You seemed to be implying more in your earlier posts. A certain hidden, violent side to her. I was worried that you were going to turn Inara into some kind of warrior woman. Yeeek!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:04 AM

No. Not Zoe in a dress with perfume. Guns aren't her thing, first of all, and second, unlike Zoe, who fights because it's a necessary part of her life (or so Zoe thinks), Inara would fight only for defense reasons, either herself or people she cares about. Zoe, on the other hand, picks up the fights that Mal starts, and will go on the aggressive for whatever needs doing to get the job done/win the day. In a fight with Zoe, Zoe would win; Inara would know that, and try to talk her way out of it.

Similarly, River would probably only tap into the government training she hates and is terrified of only to protect her "family," but is on an entirely different level of skill than most the people in the 'verse.

I don't think jackwabbit's fic was meant to illustrate a woman who likes violence, who likes to hit people or who is sadistic. Jackwabbit even SAID that wasn't the point. The fic is about a little girl, who gets very mad at a smug little boy, hits the little boy, and is satisfied when the little boy isn't so smug anymore. The fic goes ON to say that she's taught herself restraint, and also how to do that with WORDS. But I think now and then, like when she slapped Mal in the train job, she goes back to that little girl again.

I do think there's a more playful, mischievous side of her that we haven't seen much of. I think we see glimpses of it, but in the first season, she's still keeping that very close, still under the veneer. I think in later seasons, that would have been allowed to come out more. But that's what I mean when I say she likes being bad sometimes. It's not a dark kind of bad, like when Mal is pissed off, or a Jayne kind of bad reveling in violence. It's her not being a perfect Saint Mary. She enjoys when irony/karma/justice bites someone in the ass and they get taught a lesson, and she likes being the instrument of that irony/karma/justice. She also takes great pleasure in outfoxing someone, like when she one-ups Mal. She's okay with breaking the rules so long as it's to get at someone who deserves it, and she'll even taunt someone she's set down a few pegs.

And I think she's a little more tolerant about Mal's profession than she lets on when she's face to face with him.

Quote:
This, on the other hand, seems highly unlikely. If dating is complicated for a working Companion, child bearing must be beyond complicated. I very much doubt that it is allowed. As for accidents, I would think that Companions have hella good birth control while they're employed by the Guild.

So they must only have children when they leave the Guild and take on life partners. At that point they would certainly be wealthy and savvy enough to have wills, same as any other couple with children. I just don't see that there would be a large group of orphaned Companion offspring needed an orphanage.

And I think there's a lot of clients who could turn out to be insensitive bastards or playboys, who might be all flattery, but after having a companion in a long term contract for a while, might decide to cheat, or dismiss the companion and children that they told the companion they wanted, or divorce their retired companion wife/husband, who then wants to take up their career again... Heck, there's a LOT of things that could happen. So a companion should just drop their career, just because they had kids and someone they THOUGHT loved them turned out to be a total bitch/prick? Or what if the companion wanted to be a single parent?

As for orphans, however carefully the Guild might try to protect the companion parents, well, their careers INVITE jealousy. I suspect there isn't a single companion who hasn't been in some really scary situations. And what about unexpected accidents, or medical conditions?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Okay, I rewatched the store scene on DVD.

To me it seems, like Kaylee still is entirely genuine in defending the carving, keeps her eyes on it, doesn't ironically smile when stating she likes it or starting up with the longing, but toward the end of her explanation, I think she breaks into this grin, partly because of enthusiasm, partly because the sadly funny aspect of "longing to see a swan" catches up with her. Inara starts laughing because of Kaylee's enthusiasm.

On another level, I really like this scene because of the symbolism. Kaylee often considers herself the ugly duckling, has insecurity issues about Simon's world, longs for pretty things like that layercake dress. "Longing to see (or be) a swan" is a big aspect of her.

Yeah, I can agree with that assessment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The fic goes ON to say that she's taught herself restraint, and also how to do that with WORDS.

How to vent her anger by hurting people with words? Tearing them down? Really? When does Inara do that? Once she calls Mal a petty thief, but she's instantly sorry.

Sorry, I just can't see a child who drew blood like that fic-child turning into Inara. Inara's instinct is not *ever* violence or harm. She slapped Mal to stop him from talking and blowing her plan. Sure, she saw the humor in it later, but humor was not why she did it. And back to Saffron - Inara did the barest minimum to avoid the attack. She likely had the training to do more, to stop Saffron, but she didn't even try.

Again, no one on this thread is arguing that Inara can't defend herself. (Can you please just acknowledge that we agree on this? You don't need to convince me of it. Four heaven's sake, three years ago I posted a chapter where Inara played weakling then beat the shit out of a bad guy!)

Quote:
I do think there's a more playful, mischievous side of her that we haven't seen much of.

Total agreement as to her playfulness. I haven't seen mischievous though. Where did you see that? Specific examples of Inara breaking rules just for the sake of rule breaking, or enjoying being bad purely for the sake of being bad. I still don't see it.

But here we are getting caught up in a small detail again, and missing the fact that we largely agree. Look, I'm the biggest fan of the idea of a "true" Inara who is quite different than the smooth polished Companion we see most of the time. I'm posted about that quite a lot, and I've quite explicitly written her that way in my fics.

I've also written a sort of similar background for her as to what you're suggesting: a mother who was once wealthy but married a poor man, and the family got poorer as Inara grew up. And the mother wasn't a real good mother. I even have Inara as a bit of a street urchin for a time. This is all to say: it's ok, I agree with you in most respects! I really do.

But as I try to pin down exactly far you mean to go with this "rebellious Inara" idea, I'm finding it hard. You seem to be shifting the lines on the things I don't agree with. Specifically:

"She seems very at home in an old trampy freighter, and in a low-class dive..."

And

"Lastly, sometimes I wonder if she doesn't enjoy some of the thrill and adventure of the crew's law-breaking. Like at the end of Trash, she loved that, and I also wonder if she didn't enjoy it in Shindig when Mal basically mugs the slavers."

I just don't see specific examples of this in the canon material.

Quote:
And I think there's a lot of clients who could turn out to be insensitive bastards or playboys, who might be all flattery, but after having a companion in a long term contract for a while, might decide to cheat, or dismiss the companion and children that they told the companion they wanted,

Whoa. Since when did Companions bear children for clients? I would think this very strictly verboten!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:37 AM

We don't know much about these long term contracts, like the one Atherton brought up. Someone like him, who supposedly hasn't been able to get other women, you don't think he might be very concerned about heirs? And that there might be some contingencies the guild has to deal with that inevitability? There's two possibilities. The companion says no is the first one. In that case, the guild has to protect the companion, and they will.

The second is the companion says yes. In their business, it's not unprecedented, it's one of the jobs that Chinese concubines are hired for. And nobility (or semi-nobility, like on Persephone), you don't think they'd pay out the ear to have children with a pedigree like a companion might have? Especially if they can't get any other women who would want to have their children, or maybe have wives who can't have children despite 25th century fertility treatments? Or what about if they're in a long term contract, and they decide to get married, have children, and it falls apart afterward?

I'm not condoning it, it's actually a little disturbing to think of children being a business commodity. But I am saying courtesans bearing children for their patrons has happened historically. That makes it possible for it to happen with companions.

I recognize we agree that Inara can defend herself, but you keep saying that you think I'm saying she's violent. I'm not, and I'm trying to explain myself.

Quote:
But as I try to pin down exactly far you mean to go with this "rebellious Inara" idea, I'm finding it hard. You seem to be shifting the lines on the things I don't agree with. Specifically:

"She seems very at home in an old trampy freighter, and in a low-class dive..."

And

"Lastly, sometimes I wonder if she doesn't enjoy some of the thrill and adventure of the crew's law-breaking. Like at the end of Trash, she loved that, and I also wonder if she didn't enjoy it in Shindig when Mal basically mugs the slavers."

I just don't see specific examples of this in the canon material.

At the beginning of Shindig:

Quote:
MAL
There's a chance you may wanna head
back to the ship.

INARA
Oh, I'm all right. This is
entertaining, actually.

MAL
(amused, disbelieving)
Yeah? What's entertaining?

INARA
I like watching the game. As with
other situations, the key seems to be
giving Jayne a heavy stick and
standing back.

My impression is that she's actually enjoying being at the bar. Sure, she makes a joke about Jayne, but I don't think that lessens the fact that she's relaxing with a little strawberry daiquiri and watching a billiards game in a seedy dive.

I did not see Simon act like that when they all went to the bar in Jaynestown. Simon did not relax... Until Kaylee got him drunk. I don't think Inara is drunk, or even very buzzed in that scene.

Furthermore, my belief is that the brawls aren't a necessary consequence of life in a lower class, but rather of being in the vicinity of Mal and Jayne.

She DID love getting the drop on Saffron in Trash. Are we debating that?

Now, the rule-breaking is of course something I have less proof of, but Inara does describe Mal as a Robin Hood figure in Jaynestown. She says it in a way that indicates that she finds that aspect of him frustrating because it puts him in undue amounts of danger, but respects and admires that he does have a moral code. If she thinks of him as a Robin Hood character, then doesn't that imply that she thinks that at least some of the people he steals from deserve it, and that she approves?

And, if some of the people they steal from deserve it, could she not also approve of, or even enjoy that the crew has stolen from them and gotten away? After all, she enjoys it when she beats Saffron to the lassiter and takes it out from under her, because Saffron deserved to be double-crossed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:25 AM

JACKWABBIT

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by jackwabbit:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by jackwabbit:

Oh, and yes, Inara can hold her own. And deep down, she ain't as much of a "lady" as she lets on. That IS my honest opinion that ain't likely to change, unlike the mom/past angle.

Perhaps we just differ in our definition of lady, mayhaps?

Indeed. I think Inara does have all the outward appearances of being lady-like, but deep down she does enjoy getting her hands a bit dirty, so to speak. It's Trash that makes me certain of this. She looooooves her role there.

Do you associate weakness, shallowness and emotional passivity with being a lady? Basically, do you consider the term "bad" to begin with, or have a fairly narrow definition? Because to me, Inara IS a lady. Self-possessed, educated, ethical, courages, caring about others, plus all that charm and wit. She's not without flaws (bouts of denial, fear of intimacy) but that doesn't disqualify her.

I think the Saffron thing is actually an exception. Mind, this was a woman who tried to kill them all, and joyfully so, which makes the entire incident rather personal. Plus, Inara's part isn't exactly the fist-fighting, hair-pulling kind. She holds a gun, is a little smug (rightfully so, outfoxing Saffron is a thing to be proud of) and pushes a button.

Sure, there's a smidge of petty joy involved there, but we already know Inara has a sense of humor and occasionally enjoys smugness. That may not be "ladylike" in the way a strict governess might interpret, but it doesn't imply that Inara enjoys getting her hands actually dirty.

No, I don't think being a lady is a negative thing. And Inara is a lady according to all the adjectives you listed. She is the real deal in that way. I merely meant that that's not all she is. She's not JUST the pretty face and the perfect manners and the education. I do think Inara enjoyed her part in Trash and while it wasn't exactly hands-on fisticuffs, I think she relished being a bit bad, so to speak.

Put it this way. I'm a woman. I occasionally like to wear formal dresses and appreciate all the niceties that go with that. My husband opens my doors and says "ma'am" and all that. But I'm also a second degree black belt, and I love a good fist fight. The two things are not mutually exclusive. I'm a lady when I need to be, and not so much when I don't need to be. While I lean toward the not scale and Inara leans toward the pure lady scale, I think nearly everyone has some of both in them, and Inara is no exception.

And getting her hands dirty doesn't have to mean literally - like Bytemite mentioned, what about fencing the Lassiter?

Have to run for now (as always) but honestly it's just different interps of a character, and that's ok. ; ) I'm done here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:31 AM

JACKWABBIT

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

I don't think jackwabbit's fic was meant to illustrate a woman who likes violence, who likes to hit people or who is sadistic. Jackwabbit even SAID that wasn't the point. The fic is about a little girl, who gets very mad at a smug little boy, hits the little boy, and is satisfied when the little boy isn't so smug anymore.

Exactly. Just kid stuff. And actually, I'm pretty sure that little boy said something about someone being a whore. Just sayin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:35 AM

JACKWABBIT

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Sorry, I just can't see a child who drew blood like that fic-child turning into Inara.

Oh, I can. I used to fight all the time, until martial arts chilled me right out. It happens. Perhaps Buddism or Zen did that for Inara.

For the record, I'm 33 and I'm talking about kid fights, not adult fights. That I've never done. I do still spar on rare occasion, though...and I do enjoy it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jackwabbit:

No, I don't think being a lady is a negative thing. And Inara is a lady according to all the adjectives you listed. She is the real deal in that way. I merely meant that that's not all she is. She's not JUST the pretty face and the perfect manners and the education.

Of course, she's also courageous, ethical, caring, charming and witty.

Those adjectives seem much more important to me, aside from the education, than the parts you picked, which could easily have described Banning Miller, who I don't consider particularly ladylike, at all.

Quote:

I do think Inara enjoyed her part in Trash and while it wasn't exactly hands-on fisticuffs, I think she relished being a bit bad, so to speak.

I guess I'm more with Mal4Prez in that I think Inara relished the winning, rather than the being bad.

Quote:

Put it this way. I'm a woman. I occasionally like to wear formal dresses and appreciate all the niceties that go with that. My husband opens my doors and says "ma'am" and all that. But I'm also a second degree black belt, and I love a good fist fight. The two things are not mutually exclusive. I'm a lady when I need to be, and not so much when I don't need to be. While I lean toward the not scale and Inara leans toward the pure lady scale, I think nearly everyone has some of both in them, and Inara is no exception.

I figure that enjoying martial arts (I'm guessing you mean that when you say fist fights, not actual assault) is not at all different from Inara, either. It's a sport, a controlled form of exercise, not aggressive violence for the sake of being bad.

That doesn't mean you stop being a lady in those moments of practicing, right?

Quote:

And getting her hands dirty doesn't have to mean literally - like Bytemite mentioned, what about fencing the Lassiter?

Again I point to Mal4Prez here. In her earlier post she described pretty well what I see, too. An act of caring for the crew. It would get them a ton of money and it would keep them out of danger.

Quote:

Have to run for now (as always) but honestly it's just different interps of a character, and that's ok. ; ) I'm done here.

Or that. I guess we can quit here, then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
We don't know much about these long term contracts, like the one Atherton brought up.

There's a HUGE difference between: "stay with me for 6 months to go to parties and have lots of sex," and: "stay with me to bear my children." Big big huge difference! And nothing on the series or movie or any documents suggest that the Guild goes for that second option.

But really, the biggest problem I have with your scenario is what it would say about the Guild. The Guild is all about female empowerment, about women owning their sexuality and their bodies without shame or weakness. What you're saying, this bit:

"And I think there's a lot of clients who could turn out to be insensitive bastards or playboys, who might be all flattery, but after having a companion in a long term contract for a while, might decide to cheat, or dismiss the companion and children...."

Takes all the power away from the Companion and gives it to the client. The Guild would never never NEVER allow that situation to happen.

This women are counselors and givers of pleasure. They are not wombs for hire. Allowing them to be breeders completely changes the nature of the Guild as Joss has presented it to us.

Quote:
I recognize we agree that Inara can defend herself, but you keep saying that you think I'm saying she's violent.

You say she enjoys breaking the rules for the sake of breaking the rules. Being bad just to be bad. You call her rebellious, stubborn, a spark plug. You say "She likes breaking rules. Thinks it's thrilling." This is what I disagree with.

The violence part is what I got out of the fic you called your inspiration. There is violence in that. A little girl uses violence to vent her feelings. If you're going to go with that idea, you have to explain where that violence and those bottled up feelings went, and when they don't exist in the grown woman.

Jackwabbit says she still spars. Inara doesn't.

Quote:
At the beginning of Shindig:

Of course Inara makes an effort to fit in and accept any situation. That's what she does. That's what she underwent years of training to learn how to do. She's polite and flexible. And yes, she does enjoy getting off the ship and seeing a new situation. It doesn't mean she grew up there!

So, you still haven't listened to the commentary? Here you go, from the mouth of the writer herself:

Jane Espenson (during the opening scene of Shindig): "The point of this is to show that she does not fit into his world. And the rest of the episode is him failing to fit into her world."

The costume designer also talks of Inara's red dress and pink drink against the dark setting. They don't say so explicitly, but given the context of the discussion (the above line), it's pretty clear that they put work into making Inara look very different from the setting.

It is not her world. That is the point. Says Jane.

As for the comparison with Simon: first, Inara is socially ept. Simon is not. Second, Inara has been on the ship a long time and has had time to adjust. Simon has not.

In OoG, she acted very different then she did months later, after she became accustomed to the crew. The cut from past to present shows so clearly that she has undergone quite a change during her time on Serenity. And again, I believe this was pointed out on the episode commentary. Here we go:

Tim: Now this is a great cut because of their performance. I mean, she is so *different* in this scene then she was in that previous scene... and she's so comfortable in this place."

Quote:
She DID love getting the drop on Saffron in Trash. Are we debating that?

We're debating the reason for it. She didn't love it just for the sake of breaking rules, or she'd be out dumping strange women in dumpsters just for the "thrill of being bad". She loved it because Saffron beat her before, and this was payback.

Quote:
Now, the rule-breaking is of course something I have less proof of, but Inara does describe Mal as a Robin Hood figure in Jaynestown. She says it in a way that indicates that she finds that aspect of him frustrating because it puts him in undue amounts of danger, but respects and admires that he does have a moral code. If she thinks of him as a Robin Hood character, then doesn't that imply that she thinks that at least some of the people he steals from deserve it, and that she approves?

She's attracted to Mal, and admires him because there certainly are things to admire about him. You are really stretching though, to say that it *must* be the thieving she admires, the thieving she's drawn to.

Mal is admirable because he is a thief with honor, as Badger pointed out. She sees the honor, and that is what she likes. She's not out to bag a thief just because she goes for the thrill of thieving bad boys. She identifies the nobility in him. That is a cornerstone of her character, of Mal's character, and of the whole attraction between them.

So, no admission that we agree on some things? Are you not interested in agreement?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jackwabbit:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Sorry, I just can't see a child who drew blood like that fic-child turning into Inara.

Oh, I can. I used to fight all the time, until martial arts chilled me right out. It happens. Perhaps Buddism or Zen did that for Inara.

For the record, I'm 33 and I'm talking about kid fights, not adult fights. That I've never done. I do still spar on rare occasion, though...and I do enjoy it.

OK, there's a character from the series Andromeda (yes, with Mr. Hercules himself LOL!) who's a furry critter, part of a race of hive-minded, very violent killers who on some timeline (I didn't follow the series well) may have wiped out the human race. Really bad folks. Kind of Reaver-like. This character regularly practiced some kind of Zen yoga meditation to keep the violence built into his DNA at bay, and was therefore a very peaceful character.

Now, that's an extreme example, but here's why it came to mind: I posted above that you, jackwabbit, still spar, while Inara does not. When Mal barges in on her, she's never swinging an epee or kicking a dummy. She's doing calligraphy or drinking tea or something quiet like that. Does that mean that she must not have had children mix-ups like you did? No. She might be after peaceful pursuits particularly to quell the bottled up feelings that used to make her act out.

See, I want an explanation like that. The adult Inara is a peaceful creature whose first instinct is to care for people. To me, that's indisputable. She might very well have a violent past, but if so, I need that change to be accounted for. Like the furry guy from Andromeda.

But, most importantly to me and the reason I'm mixing it up with Bytemite, I don't think the present Inara should be reinterpreted to allow for any particular back story. Inara is what she is: gentle and peaceful. A caregiver, not a rebel. She can have any damned past we care to give her, but that shouldn't change what she is.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:16 PM

Doh! Bytemite: I have to post this, even though I hope you know me well enough that it isn't needed...

I want you to write whatever the hell you want in fanfic. Really. Anything. I will never ever come into a fic and rip it up for not being canon. I write outside canon myself LOL! But this is a thread where opinions were asked for, not a posted fanfic. And I am very opinionated!

So please don't take anything I say too seriously, or make it into fic discouragement. The most I hope for is this: your readers might experience the doubts that I'm telling you about, and if you're prepared you can write in explanations to take care of it, and they'll enjoy your fic that much more for having all angles covered.

N'est pas?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:40 PM

I've loaned out my firefly DVDs (Yes! Finally able to fulfill part of my duties as a newbie browncoat!) so I don't have access to the commentary. Been reviewing scenes on Hulu.

As for the Contracts and nuptials involving children, in my view the companion will always get custody. It will have to be one of the conditions for the guild to approve at all. And it'll also keep the client in question behaved. AND it has to be the companion's choice.

In regards to the Bar... I understand what Jane intended, but I disagree with her that brawling is an inevitability of people at Mal's socio-economic level. So long as Inara feels safe, I think she can, and does, fit into Mal's world. That's what I take away from that scene. It's not what Jane intended, but I think it's a more accurate interpretation.

And I'm not saying that it's ALL that she admires about Mal, I think I've talked elsewhere on what I think is the real specific attraction between them. But there is SOME admiration there for his being a noble thief. Sometimes.

Basically I think she can be both a caretaker AND a rebel. I don't think one prohibits the other. Maybe my definition of rebel includes a little bit of stretching, or maybe that was just a poor word choice. But mischievous and playful, as well as loving and nurturing, I see both of those in her.

I agreed on whether Inara is violent or not, and that she's capable of defending herself. And I also agree with you on some aspects of your imagining of her background. Which, BTW, are we going to get to see more of that? I like seeing people try to deconstruct her. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:15 PM

NCBROWNCOAT

This whole Companions owning their own sexuality and female empowerment thing really hit a cord with me.

There are some women who don't feel complete without a child. If a Companion felt that way would she have to retire or would there be some mechanism?

Also, no birth control is 100 per cent, except one(maybe by the 25th century though?). What would happen if a Companion became pregnant? I'm sure options would be offered.

If she went through with the pregnancy (with compensation to the Guild for the time off) that a foster family (or nanny away from the House) or adoption would be the only options.

If Inara is the child of a Companion she was likely raised with Companionship being the ultimate goal in life, but I don't think she was forced into it. She enjoys her clients and status too much.

And Companions practice. Nandi said that there was no end to the practicing. I think that would include caligraphy, musical instruments, the tea ceremony and self defense.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:38 PM

See, all I'm trying to do is come up with different scenarios and question my own assumptions, and right now I'm asking myself "how would a companion or the guild deal with various situations?"

My views of the 'verse are still very fluid, and it could be in a couple of weeks or so you'll hear me saying, no, I was wrong, that was a dumb idea.

But I do think there HAVE to be practicing companions who are mothers. I mean, isn't that part of the feminist movement, demands for maternity considerations from employers? If the guild is as liberated about women's rights as it seems like most of us think it is, then doesn't that HAVE to be a consideration?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

But I do think there HAVE to be practicing companions who are mothers. I mean, isn't that part of the feminist movement, demands for maternity considerations from employers? If the guild is as liberated about women's rights as it seems like most of us think it is, then doesn't that HAVE to be a consideration?

I really really really REALLY agree with that. I also don't think it's that difficult to achieve. Take a year off for pregnancy and short maternity leave... why would that necessarily kill a career? Maybe have fewer clients, work with a Companion daycare or move out of the House (like Inara did) and hire a nanny. I'm sure just like relationships are merely "complicated", not expressly forbidden (how emancipated would that be, really?), having a baby would be something to work around but not at all impossible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:16 PM

Yes, exactly. The guild has to be very careful about it, so much that many people outside the guild have the mistaken idea that the guild doesn't allow relationships (as in a scene deleted from War Stories). The guild may have to keep married couples a secret, to protect them from jealous clients.

I might even go so far to say that it can be so complicated and sometimes guild rules so difficult to navigate that maybe a lot of companions do decide to retire to settle down. But I don't think it's impossible to be both a practicing companion and a mother/father. Or a wife/husband.

Which, just to illustrate how I can change my opinion on what I think of things in a short amount of time, is just about the opposite point of view I had when talked to GillianRose about this about a month or so ago!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I've loaned out my firefly DVDs (Yes! Finally able to fulfill part of my duties as a newbie browncoat!) so I don't have access to the commentary.

I posted direct quotes. Wish it was all written up somewhere!

Quote:
As for the Contracts and nuptials involving children, in my view the companion will always get custody. It will have to be one of the conditions for the guild to approve at all. And it'll also keep the client in question behaved. AND it has to be the companion's choice.

OK, with the caveat that nothing in canon suggests that the Guild provides the service of "live-in moms", I do see this as something to explore in a fanfic. But I think there are pretty basic issues you need to deal with to make it work.

First, the Guild would only allow such a contract with pretty serious protections for both Companion and child. If you do as you say and give custody to the Companion, then it's suddenly a lot less attractive to the client. Your idea that men who can't find a mother to their heirs otherwise - why would they commit so much time and money to a child that can be taken from them at any time? It's a fundamental problem in the business model. How does the Guild sell this service, and why would men buy into it?

So maybe the client gets joint custody, but he must legally commit to providing support and long term care should anything happen to him and/or the Companion. So that, legally, he really is a dad, and even if he turns asshole he still has to pay alimony. But in this case there would be no need for an orphanage. The child would be provided for.

That's where I see the problem (well, other the changed nature of the Guild if they really did provide a "quality wombs for hire" service.) Your earlier posts suggested rather a bustling orphanage, so that abandoned or orphaned children are systematic. But why would it be so common if the Guild exerts it's considerable power to keep the Companion - and her child - protected and empowered?

There must be a way to make it work, but I don't see it at the moment.

And really, the wombs for hire thing really does bug me. Not because of personal disagreement with the principle, but because it doesn't fit what I know of the Guild.

Quote:
In regards to the Bar... I understand what Jane intended, but I disagree with her that brawling is an inevitability of people at Mal's socio-economic level. So long as Inara feels safe, I think she can, and does, fit into Mal's world. That's what I take away from that scene. It's not what Jane intended, but I think it's a more accurate interpretation.
LOL! Oh, you've got some gumption! To say you see the scene better than the person who actually wrote the script - with Joss's guidance. Good luck with that!

Um... so, what's this about "brawling is an inevitability of people at Mal's socio-economic level"? That has nothing to do with anything Jane said, or anything I've said. Kinda coming out of nowhere with that.

Inara doesn't fit. She doesn't fit before the fight starts, and she doesn't fit after. It's not about the fighting.

Quote:
And I'm not saying that it's ALL that she admires about Mal, I think I've talked elsewhere on what I think is the real specific attraction between them. But there is SOME admiration there for his being a noble thief. Sometimes.
I think you might be getting a bit shifty. I believe Inara admires Mal for the lengths he goes to for the sake of his crew - she admires his noble side. This is very different from what you've said, that she admires his thieving because she finds thieving a thrill.

So, which is it?

Quote:
Basically I think she can be both a caretaker AND a rebel. I don't think one prohibits the other. Maybe my definition of rebel includes a little bit of stretching, or maybe that was just a poor word choice. But mischievous and playful, as well as loving and nurturing, I see both of those in her.
Again I think you're changing from what you said before. You said she "enjoyed being bad for the sake of being bad." There's no stretching there, that's flat out rebellion. So you don't think that any more?

Quote:
I agreed on whether Inara is violent or not, and that she's capable of defending herself. And I also agree with you on some aspects of your imagining of her background. Which, BTW, are we going to get to see more of that? I like seeing people try to deconstruct her. :)
I hope so! I'm stuck, but this thread has gotten me energized to work on a few of the funner scenes. If only I could figure out the scenes in between that are oh so necessary but oh so boring to write - blech!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 8:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But I do think there HAVE to be practicing companions who are mothers. I mean, isn't that part of the feminist movement, demands for maternity considerations from employers? If the guild is as liberated about women's rights as it seems like most of us think it is, then doesn't that HAVE to be a consideration?

I really really really REALLY agree with that. I also don't think it's that difficult to achieve. Take a year off for pregnancy and short maternity leave... why would that necessarily kill a career? Maybe have fewer clients, work with a Companion daycare or move out of the House (like Inara did) and hire a nanny. I'm sure just like relationships are merely "complicated", not expressly forbidden (how emancipated would that be, really?), having a baby would be something to work around but not at all impossible.

I agree as well - that there must be a policy for Companions to have children. (I do think this is a far cry from child-bearing as service to clients, though!)

In fact, this is an issue I've been pondering for some time for my own fic, which is likely why I'm so damned opinionated. I've got my own system quite well defined, and it's hard to make my brain stretch! I will try harder.

But I can't say any more about my theories, for fear of spoiling my fic. Hmm, maybe I ought to work on it so I can FINALLY finish posting. Really - I've been working on the same damned plot line for over 3 years. Yikes!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 8:51 AM

I don't really think I've shifted... If I seem to have, it's because you talking this over with me has refined more what I think, or that I've had to try to better describe what I mean.

I came in this thread with some vague ideas that I wanted to talk about and explore, and I've gotten that back in spades. :) And I have to thank everyone who's participated for that, because I think this is a good - and hopefully fun - bit of characterization to talk about.

Quote:
And really, the wombs for hire thing really does bug me. Not because of personal disagreement with the principle, but because it doesn't fit what I know of the Guild.

I do know what you mean. It's disturbing, and I've admitted that myself. Yet with the Guild, we're already getting into a bit of prickly business JUST with the hiring out sex to rich people.

The thing that I have trouble with the Guild... I see it as both a religious organization, with hierodules and worship of sexual union, powers of creation, and affirming of life and etc. But I ALSO see it as a commercial enterprise offering some important services, legally, to an upper-class. So I asked myself, what other important services might upper-class posturing as nobility require that something like the Guild might provide? And the obvious one is a huge concern about heirs, and I have serious doubts that petri-dishes would be involved, because I also see the guild as having a naturalistic side.

Like I said, the only way this could EVER happen is if the companion WANTED to have children with the client in question.

I don't know if dual custody would necessarily have to be the case for the offer to be attractive. If the person is JUST looking for heirs eligible to inherit their property, keep the family name going, they might not be interested in custody, it might be enough just to have heirs. Perhaps alimony would be paid, something to support the child through school and later establishing a living, but I think the guild would be taking on too much risk if children went to live with their client parent in the event of a companion's death. That seems like something that could set up abuse, and the guild would be interested in protecting the children of it's companions. Maybe the client could visit the children, but they would remain wards of the guild, and continue to stay in a guild orphanage/daycare. That is, if the other parent wanted contact at all.

Quote:
LOL! Oh, you've got some gumption! To say you see the scene better than the person who actually wrote the script - with Joss's guidance. Good luck with that!

Um... so, what's this about "brawling is an inevitability of people at Mal's socio-economic level"? That has nothing to do with anything Jane said, or anything I've said. Kinda coming out of nowhere with that.

Inara doesn't fit. She doesn't fit before the fight starts, and she doesn't fit after. It's not about the fighting.

I know... That sounded really arrogant, and I was wincing as I wrote it. But though I like the scene and how it was directed, I just don't like that INTERPRETATION of that scene. I don't think that interpretation is true to real life.

When I see that scene.... Yes, Inara stands out. She's beautiful, wearing her red two piece with the skirt, and she had that almost matching drink. She's classy, she's elegant, and her surroundings are... not.

But she would stand out ANYWHERE I think, really. So what I focus on, before the fight, is how relaxed she is. To me, she feels confident. At home, almost. Certainly more so than she was on Atherton's arm, smiling fake greetings at all the other people attending the party, and being quietly horrified by his creepy flirtation.

So until the fight starts in the bar, I do see her as fitting in. She wouldn't be the first pretty woman to go to a bar. It's not like people are staring at her (though maybe they did at first, see previous paragraph). It's not like, after she's there, that she is so out of place that it seems wrong for her to be there.

When the brawl starts, that's when she doesn't fit in anymore. And I don't think the fight is a necessary part of the bar. Mal's brutality and violence is where she doesn't fit, and that's an aspect of him and his lifestyle that I think she always dislikes and disapproves of.

Quote:
I think you might be getting a bit shifty. I believe Inara admires Mal for the lengths he goes to for the sake of his crew - she admires his noble side. This is very different from what you've said, that she admires his thieving because she finds thieving a thrill.

I think I may have to reread what I said. ^_^' I think what's happening here, though, is a misunderstanding about what I mean when I say I think Inara likes being "bad" sometimes and what I mean by Inara's particular brand of "bad girl."

GillianRose I think said it best in her recent fic "Coming Clean." Sorry, Gillie, been using you a lot here for examples, don't hold it against me. :)

Anyway, what she said is that Inara is sweet, but Inara is also "wicked." She has a sense of humour, she's a tease, and she likes to one up people if they deserve it, and is okay bending the rules to do so. I agree with that.

She found stealing the lassiter from Saffron thrilling because Saffron deserved it. Obviously, as you say, the nobility is the bigger draw.
And perhaps there's a component of ethics that has to be present in any stealing she might approve of. But I think that sometimes she approves of stealing. And sometimes, she does think it's thrilling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I do know what you mean. It's disturbing, and I've admitted that myself. Yet with the Guild, we're already getting into a bit of prickly business JUST with the hiring out sex to rich people.

Read again what I wrote - I pointedly said that my own opinion of right/wrong is NOT the basis of my doubts. It's a matter of story-telling. I believe the "womb for hire" scenario doesn't fit the Guild. It would be an inconsistent characterization of the organization.

As for providing heirs as a service - even today people can go buy eggs and sperm with a full medical history of the donors. In 500 years any wealthy man will be able to purchase a fully DNA mapped egg, or possibly even an embryo with a women to carry it to term for him, and that would cheaper and simpler and more dependable than hiring a Companion.

And perhaps baby-making is a side business of the Guild, but I see absolutely no reason why they'd combine this with Companion services. It's just not good business. It puts them in a very difficult position as far as protecting their Companions and also protecting themselves, legally.

Again, it's also far outside anything we've seen of the organization in canon material.

Quote:
Like I said, the only way this could EVER happen is if the companion WANTED to have children with the client in question.

Of course. That goes without saying. But that doesn't remove all the other complications. As much as Companions are "empowered" and "free", their behavior is also quite limited in some ways. Someone posted a contract of Inara's that had all kinds of limits on working Companions. It's not like a Companion says: "But I want to do THIS!" and they are automatically allowed.

Quote:
I don't know if dual custody would necessarily have to be the case for the offer to be attractive. If the person is JUST looking for heirs eligible to inherit their property, keep the family name going, they might not be interested in custody, it might be enough just to have heirs.

You think there's a steady market of men willing to spend lots of money just to know they have a baby out there somewhere? They can achieve that pretty cheaply and with much less fuss at a local bar...

Quote:
Perhaps alimony would be paid, something to support the child through school and later establishing a living, but I think the guild would be taking on too much risk if children went to live with their client parent in the event of a companion's death. That seems like something that could set up abuse, and the guild would be interested in protecting the children of it's companions.

The Guild would trust the client to impregnate a Companion and form the long-time bond of parentage with her, but don't trust leaving a child alone with him? Such a Guild would be incredibly irresponsible.

Quote:
I know... That sounded really arrogant, and I was wincing as I wrote it. But though I like the scene and how it was directed, I just don't like that INTERPRETATION of that scene.

Jane didn't direct it, she wrote it. The interpretation in the commentary is her own, of her writing. She openly states that the scene has a point, and she says what the point is.

By all means, continue to see it your way, but you ought to be aware that it wasn't the way it was written!

Quote:
But she would stand out ANYWHERE I think, really.

Yes she would, and she would take steps to be comfortable, to mix socially, etc., in any environment whether trashy or high-class. Because that is what she does. She is a trained socialite. Which makes it all the more evident that there's no reason to come out of the Shindig scene saying: she MUST have been born and raised in that environment because she looks so relaxed in it!

That was your original point. It still makes no sense to me!

Quote:
I think I may have to reread what I said. ^_^' I think what's happening here, though, is a misunderstanding about what I mean when I say I think Inara likes being "bad" sometimes and what I mean by Inara's particular brand of "bad girl."

What I'm debating is when you said she might "enjoy some of the thrill and adventure of the crew's law-breaking", and "She likes breaking rules. Thinks it's thrilling."

I still haven't heard of any example when Inara enjoyed breaking rules just for the sake of breaking rules.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:54 AM

You're probably right about the guild and legal issues and children/heirs with clients. It's just a what-if I'm toying with.

I think, if this were something that happens, that the draw for a client to get a companion would be, like I said, the pedigree, and the... Hands on experience.

Quote:
Yes she would, and she would take steps to be comfortable, to mix socially, etc., in any environment whether trashy or high-class. Because that is what she does. She is a trained socialite. Which makes it all the more evident that there's no reason to come out of the Shindig scene saying: she MUST have been born and raised in that environment because she looks so relaxed in it!

That was your original point. It still makes no sense to me!

But you were saying how she doesn't fit in, and pointed out how she was deliberately dressed to draw the eye and be the only colour in the scene.

I kind of think maybe she did that on purpose. :) >_> I mean, just how often does Mal invite Inara along with him on an outing like that? It clearly wasn't business. It wasn't a DATE, no, neither of them would go for that, at that point, but there's kind of an ambiguity there.

I suppose I'm making an assumption, that if she did not at least have some experience in a bar like that, that she would be uncomfortable, even before the fight broke out. The patronage was kind of rough looking. But to me she seemed comfortable, and non-judgmental of the other people there. And it's the part where she's non-judgmental that makes me think maybe there's more there than just some brushing with that culture. Criminals and ruffians and "untouchables" so to speak are usually only understood and tolerated by people near them on the socio-economic scale.

Quote:
What I'm debating is when you said she might "enjoy some of the thrill and adventure of the crew's law-breaking", and "She likes breaking rules. Thinks it's thrilling."

I still haven't heard of any example when Inara enjoyed breaking rules just for the sake of breaking rules.

What about if she ever got involved with Mal? >_> <_<

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But you were saying how she doesn't fit in, and pointed out how she was deliberately dressed to draw the eye and be the only colour in the scene.

The fact that she's socially capable and open to new situations doesn't mean she has personal experience in them, or that she fits. She simply does not fit in that bar. No way anyone said: "Oh her? Yeah. She might have been in here last week, not sure. She's just like all the rest of these women."

Quote:
I kind of think maybe she did that on purpose.

I think she's just being herself. That's how she dresses. That's what she drinks. She could make the attempt of dressing down and drinking rotgut just so she'd blend, but then she wouldn't be herself, and then she'd be uncomfortable.

Quote:
I mean, just how often does Mal invite Inara along with him on an outing like that? It clearly wasn't business. It wasn't a DATE, no, neither of them would go for that, at that point, but there's kind of an ambiguity there.

Hmm... interesting point. I doubt it was a date, given the state of their relationship, but one does wonder how she happened to go along... Probably just bored. Or maybe Mal thought having her there would impress the contact.

Quote:
I suppose I'm making an assumption, that if she did not at least have some experience in a bar like that, that she would be uncomfortable, even before the fight broke out. The patronage was kind of rough looking. But to me she seemed comfortable, and non-judgmental of the other people there.

I think that's just her nature. Doesn't matter if she has personal experience with any class of people or type of establishment, she's one of those rare people who will look for what's common and what's positive, rather than standing in a place of judgment. I think that's part of her role as care-taker and mother figure. She's incredibly accepting, and not just across social lines.

She is trained to make a wide variety of people comfortable around her. That would not be possible if she wasn't damned good at being comfortable with herself, no matter her situation.

Quote:
What about if she ever got involved with Mal? >_> <_<

She would do that because she's drawn to him for him, and not because: "Hey, here's a bad guy I can get with just to piss off dad!" You know?

I feel like I'm having a hard expressing this, but there's a difference between being open to breaking the rules when you have a good reason to do it, and breaking the rules for no reason other than breaking the rules. I think Inara is the first. You have stated the second. If that's not what you meant, just say so!

As to the child-bearing: I was just out running errands thinking about it, and I got it to work for me. Woo-hoo! I'll write up another post with my theories.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:42 AM

OK: what made it work was the idea of child-bearing being a separate part of the Guild. I see a whole different branch where women join later in life (btw I really want the Guild to have males in all roles as well as females, but I'm going to ignore that option for now) Like maybe women can't join this branch until they're 18, because they're committing to something long-term and pretty challenging, emotionally speaking. They have a few years training--a very different kind of training than regular Companions, but let me get back to that later.

So, a client comes in wanting a child, one who's of good "stock", well-educated, and socially skilled. Ready to take over the family business or follow Daddy into Parliament. (No reason the client can't be a woman, but for simplicity I'll go with a male.) This branch of the Guild takes a looong time matching the client with one of these... um... Compani-Nannies. CN's. It's not as simple as what Inara does - there is a pretty intense period of making sure the parties get along. Maybe a trial live-in period and time with psychological evaluators.

Then the CN gets pregnant. There's different options in the contract, there could be sex involved, it could be test tube. Whatever the client chooses and the CN accepts. But this young woman is not trained to be a sex goddess who's good at parties. She's trained to handle pregnancy, to nurse a baby, to educate him/her. She's a surrogate/wet-nurse/nanny/governess all in one. Her life for the term of the contract is all about this child, about giving him/her all the skills the client wants in his offspring.

The "term of contract" is, say, 12 years. Or whatever. When the child turns some contracted age the CN has completed her responsibilities, is paid richly, and can choose to contract again or to pursue her own way. And she'd probably do pretty well, considering she's in her mid 30s, has a lot of cash, some very useful skills, and probably quite a few contacts from her time with the client and his child.

I intentionally say "his" child, because I think it would work best--practically and dramatically--if the client was the primary custodian of the child. He can end the contract at any time and raise the child on his own, though he would have to pay the CN for the full term of contract. But, to be a bit crass, the child is what the client bought. He owns it. The services of the CN he can end at any time. (Remember - it's not about whether I like this in principle. I don't. But I think it works as a story.)

Of course, there would be ways that the CN can protect the child if the man was a monster, but that's no different than any other parent/child situation. We trust that a parent is ok until we have evidence otherwise, then we take action. And the regular law would cover this. I don't think this issue needs further pursuing.

Where was I? Oh - At the end of the term of contract, the CN can stay on if all parties want that, though new terms and payment would need to be negotiated. More likely, they part with fond wishes, stay in touch in the future, but the CN goes on with her life separately. She has no legal rights to the child or the client. Just like a governess.

What I like about this is that it does make sense practically--the client, the CN, the child, and the Guild all benefit from the transaction. More importantly, it makes sense dramatically. It appeals to my story-telling sense. The role of the CN would be very similar to that of the Companion. While with clients, Companions can seem to have this amazing, deep connection. They and their client are lovers. But, no matter how Inara protests that what she does is deep and meaningful, it is at heart a business transaction. The time runs out, the client goes his way, and Inara goes to her next client.

The CN would have that same strange dichotomy. She seems part of the family, a mother. But there is always the understanding that when the time ends and the clock dings, so to speak, she will move on. She is part of the family, but not really. Just like Inara is a lover, but not really.

Oh - as to the training. The CN would not be near so glamorous as the Companion. Her focus--and as a representative of the Guild she sure hell would be a professional who focuses on her job--would be the child. Companions put the pleasure of the client first (after their own safety, of course), but to a CN the child is first. I suppose it's not out of the realm of things that she sleep with the client, act as wife as well as mother, but I think that would be a carefully negotiated thing. The child is what the client is paying for, and the child is her job.

In fact, I think the Guild would have to put a lot of thought into how to handle this. The CN is, after all, not a wife. That separation would need to be preserved for the well-being of everyone involved. Because if she's going to act like a wife in all ways, she ought to quit the Guild and marry the guy.

I think the Guild is wise enough to arrange things so that some degree of separation is maintained, so that when the contract ends the grief is as little damaging as possible.

Now, applying this to what I think Bytemite is imagining, there might be situations where a Companion petitions to become a CN. I think it'd be rare, because the training of a Companion is very different. It would also be something of a demotion. Companions make more money and are more glamorous. But some women might tire of their lives and want to settle with a client they're fond of. It would happen from time to time, and there'd be ways of allowing it.

Of course, the Compainon would have to accept that the child she will commit years of her life to is not hers, and the man is not her husband. It is, as always, a business deal.

Yeah, dramatically, it just works for me. Same challenges, same difficulties, that Inara faces.

Sadly, I don't see how the orphanage fits in my scenario, because few of these children would be left with no care-taker. It would very rare. But perhaps Inara's mother was one of these Companions turned CN, and the client died or just completely flaked. If the latter, he would have been black-listed, sued in court, etc. Inara and her mom would have returned to a Guild house, where perhaps Inara had the run of the place. A child in a grown-up world...

She wouldn't exactly be a street urchin, but that could be arranged. Perhaps her mom was disillusioned and left the Guild, and came on hard times. I don't know.

OK, I think that's the sum of it. Just to stress: what made this work for me was the separation between Companion and Compani-nanny. They would need to be very different creatures! Training, style, legal contracts... just about everything would be very different. But the challenges thay face would be similar.

Whew. Long post!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:01 PM

Mal? Having a business meeting with slavers? No, I don't think that was business, but Mal, Jayne and Inara unwinding. I also don't think Mal would have stolen from them if it was business, even if they were slavers. The slavers just happened to come along and they decided to play some pool together before Mal knew who they were. That's what I think.

Quote:
I think that's just her nature. Doesn't matter if she has personal experience with any class of people or type of establishment, she's one of those rare people who will look for what's common and what's positive, rather than standing in a place of judgment. I think that's part of her role as care-taker and mother figure. She's incredibly accepting, and not just across social lines.

She is trained to make a wide variety of people comfortable around her. That would not be possible if she wasn't damned good at being comfortable with herself, no matter her situation.

...Yeah, okay.

So, wait, how come you like her as being from lower classes as opposed to upper classes? :D I'd love to hear that, maybe you have a better reason than I do! Or is that something you just wanted to explore?

I mean, I saw how you said you wanted that to explain why she runs to Serenity, just wondering if you could elaborate, and whether there was something in canon that got your wheels turning in that direction.

Quote:
She would do that because she's drawn to him for him, and not because: "Hey, here's a bad guy I can get with just to piss off dad!" You know?

I feel like I'm having a hard expressing this, but there's a difference between being open to breaking the rules when you have a good reason to do it, and breaking the rules for no reason other than breaking the rules. I think Inara is the first. You have stated the second. If that's not what you meant, just say so!

No, that's not why Inara being with Mal would be breaking the rules. I think her being with Mal would be breaking the rules because of 1) perceived social status, whatever Inara may have started out as, 2) the unspoken rules Mal and Inara have established between them, and 3) the guild wouldn't approve of the relationship. I don't know what the consequences of reason number three would be, but I think that they would be something that Inara would have to think very carefully about.

She wouldn't be with him JUST to break the rules, but being with him WOULD be breaking the rules. That's the difference.

So no, I don't think she's bad JUST to break the rules... I don't THINK I said that, but maybe I was being unclear somewhere, or gave the wrong impression. But when she does break the rules, it is for good reason, and would be thrilling.

Most rebels have a reason. The ones who don't are either teenagers or a joke.

But I also think... She likes breaking rules. Thinks it's thrilling.

I suppose this debate came from that? Ooh. I was being kind of general and non-specific then, referring to her Saffron double cross. But no, though I said she likes breaking rules, I didn't mean to imply that when she breaks rules, she doesn't have reason to... Or that I don't think there's case by case considerations.

As a Buddhist, killing is breaking the rules. She doesn't like killing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:12 PM

I dunno.

This Companion-Nanny scenario seems to entirely disregard the emotional impact and risks on the young woman in question. It's an entirely different committment than short term sexual/emotional bonding, wetnursing, being a nanny or surrogate mother.

And it's certainly a long-term committment that a person as young as 18 could barely make a reasonable judgment about. It's apparently not something she can just get out of when it turns out not to be for her.

Custody battles would be the most likely outcome, and I think the Guild would be smart enough to even try and invite that sort of heartbreak.

I also find the whole idea of "ordering an heir" pretty silly. The fewest people would want to have a child and then not be the ones to raise it. It's too volatile to hand the family fortune to practical stranger. If they want the kid to have a great education and pretty genes, there are easier ways to go about it, with fewer risks attached and less financial burden.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So no, I don't think she's bad JUST to break the rules... I don't THINK I said that, but maybe I was being unclear somewhere, or gave the wrong impression. But when she does break the rules, it is for good reason, and would be thrilling.

I guess it's this assumption that it would be thrilling that I have the biggest problem with.

I think it's actually the opposite for her. Breaking the rules is generally undesirable for her, but sometimes excusable for good reasons. Some rules won't pain her to break, but I definitely do not see any instance where it would give her actual pleasure to do so, in and of itself. I see it only in the results when it is done for a just cause.

If being with Mal would cause her to break any rules outside of their own, it would actually be a cause of displeasure and stress for her. Inara hates complications, after all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:34 PM

Isn't that what rich people do already though? Most of them don't care for their children, they hire someone else to do it.

And the guild would have to approve any sort of long-term client contract with children, after the Companion expressed wanting to add that into the contract. If the companion was too young or had shown bad decision making tendencies in the past, the guild would deny the application.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Isn't that what rich people do already though? Most of them don't care for their children, they hire someone else to do it.

Is this going to go into the rich people are all evil and bad parents vein? :( Because that's a generalization I cannot support. I guess hiring a nanny or sending kids off to boarding school is more prevalant among those who can afford it, but neglect happens in all economic spheres, and it's still a different animal to the scenario Mal4Prez proposed. I say the majority of rich people still want to have children for the sake of having children, however it is that they intend to be parents.

And why would the Guild want to support something that promises more harm than good - especially to the resulting child, if your opinion of non-hands-on parenting is apparently low?

Quote:

And the guild would have to approve any sort of long-term client contract with children, after the Companion expressed wanting to add that into the contract. If the companion was too young or had shown bad decision making tendencies in the past, the guild would deny the application.

My reply was specifically to Mal4Prez's scenario with an entire different Companion branch set up. That's the thing I especially disagree with because I don't see it as remotely related to the Guild's business, and as an inefficient to downright unethical idea.

I can maybe imagine very very rare individual contracts, the way a "Personal Companion" contract might work but with further arrangements specifically set up between the Companion and Client in question.

But I can not imagine something actually institutionalized or more common than extremely rare. I mean, seriously, why would a Companion even want that? If they wanted to work with children, they would have gone into a childcare profession, right? If their genes are the thing most sought after, a donation of eggs would be easier. And the interruption and physical burdens of pregnancy would probably be a lot less tolerable for a Companion when it's not done for herself and for love. It's like a ballerina being a surrogate mother - highly unlikely. Why study to be a Companion and then become breeding stock and nanny?

So whether a separate branch would be set up or whether regular Companions supposedly would do this.. I find both scenarios extremely unlikely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Mal? Having a business meeting with slavers? No, I don't think that was business, but Mal, Jayne and Inara unwinding. I also don't think Mal would have stolen from them if it was business, even if they were slavers. The slavers just happened to come along and they decided to play some pool together before Mal knew who they were. That's what I think.

Good point. I guess I just always assume that when they're out at a bar it's for business, since it usually is.

Quote:
So, wait, how come you like her as being from lower classes as opposed to upper classes? :D I'd love to hear that, maybe you have a better reason than I do! Or is that something you just wanted to explore?

Let's see, it's been a long time since I worked out my plot for Inara...

Primarily, I wanted to explain why she chose Serenity. It's been made clear that she's running from some pretty awful events, (though, in the OoG commentary, Tim says that she's either running from something or to something... to something? Interesting...) She must have been badly hurt and needed to go somewhere safe. In OoG, when talking to Simon, Inara says: "I love this ship. I have since the first moment I saw it." Why? Why would a wealthy, pampered woman love such a junker? Why would she think a dirty smuggling ship a safe place to go and heal?

So I thought she must have had personal experience with a Firefly, something very positive. It seemed unlikely that a wealthy young girl would have ever been on such a ship, or would have loved it at first sight. So it was easy for me to consider her as much poorer once.

I think family is also a big part of Inara's secret. In Bushwhacked, Wash says the wreck had several families on it, and Inara repeats: "families?" in a shocked, pained way. In OMR, when Mal starts talking about passels of children, she suddenly gets all defensive. And in HoG, when rejecting Mal's overture, she talks about loving, family-like relationships as if they're a trap she can't let herself get into.

This all fit together for me when I made her birth family a trap, and her foster family on the Firefly an escape. As a grown woman who just went through something awful, she would jump at the chance for the same kind of escape.

It wasn't about class issues for me. It was more about her history with family, and her draw to Serenity.

Quote:
She wouldn't be with him JUST to break the rules, but being with him WOULD be breaking the rules. That's the difference.

Breaking the rules is secondary. See - we agree!

And look at what this says about what motivates Inara: rule-breaking, or other things? The other things come first. The fact that rule-breaking doesn't stop her says a lot, but it is not her motivation. She's not a rebel as much as a free spirit.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 1:07 PM

AR: Non-hands on parenting isn't bad. I have intimacy issues; I may not have had a nanny, but that was pretty much the kind of parenting I got that I was comfortable with.

I was making a statement. I guess I don't see what's so different between hiring a companion to be the mother of your children and hiring a surrogate mother or a nanny or other caretaker.

It's strange. I see it as a very likely thing that a companion might be hired for... Unless the Guild has rules against it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 1:12 PM

Mal4Prez: I can get behind that.

Ooh! Yeah, that makes sense now. For some reason, when I read about your version of Inara and her foster family, for some reason I didn't see the connection between Inara and Serenity.

Funny how she doesn't act like she likes it in the OOG flashback, but I take her word for it when she says she did. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
AR: Non-hands on parenting isn't bad. I have intimacy issues; I may not have had a nanny, but that was pretty much the kind of parenting I got that I was comfortable with.

I was making a statement. I guess I don't see what's so different between hiring a companion to be the mother of your children and hiring a nanny or other caretaker.

It's strange. I see it as a very likely thing that a companion might be hired for... Unless the Guild has rules against it.

But why would a Companion agree to this, when what she trained for is rather different? Why would it be likely?

And why not hire a nanny, then? A well-educated nanny, well-educated teachers, send the kid to Companion school when it's twelve.. why the complication of a Companion "mother"? For the genes? I'm sure there would be systems of egg donation and surrogate mothers set up that would cause a lot less legal trouble, not to mention emotional trouble.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 1:31 PM

AR -

I should say that I don't think my scenario is anything canon, but something that could be presented in an at least slightly believable way in fanfic.

And I find it not completely preposterous. Perhaps because I don't believe in the nuclear family as the only or even the best way. I'm also harkening back to the way of old European nobility: they brought in a governess to raise and educate the children. For the governess, it's her ticket out of obscurity. She raises someone else's kids then has the means to marry or perhaps to live independently.

And I don't see it as inherently evil ont eh part of the wealthy parents. I think that, like the Companion/client relationship, this Nanny/client relationship could in general be a friendly, positive thing, where the forged relationships lasts throughout their lives. Only a few would go wrong, and they would be dealt with as Inara dealt with Ath. Sucks for the kids, but do you really believe that the nuclear family is a full guarantee that the kid will never get hurt? Odds are the same any way, I say.

Besides - the Guild is not perfect. Inara gets hurt while doing her job. It's a business that means well, but it's still a business. Shit happens, no matter where you go.

Again though, I tend to see the man/woman/child family model as one that's sure to get out-dated. I see no reason why this set-up "promises more harm than good", anymore than wealthy Victorian children were scarred by being raised by their governess. That was how it was done, and that's how they did it.

So you can get hung up on families being exactly what our current society defines them to be, but in 500 years that might not be the case.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
My reply was specifically to Mal4Prez's scenario with an entire different Companion branch set up. That's the thing I especially disagree with because I don't see it as remotely related to the Guild's business, and as an inefficient to downright unethical idea.

Many people in our present call Inara's business unethical. The Guild sees things differently. Who's to say they wouldn't change more than sex?

Hey, I have no interest in being part of the Nanny thing, but I would find it horrifying to have Inara's job too. The Guild is the one setting this up, not me. And the Guild redraws lines.

The funny thing is, I'm bothered more by the idea of a Companion crossing the line to Nanny. They are such completely different jobs.

Quote:
But I can not imagine something actually institutionalized or more common than extremely rare. I mean, seriously, why would a Companion even want that?

Guess what - it's already real, it's already done. Women and men contribute eggs and sperm. There are websites where you can search out donors based on all kinds of personal attributes, then you can read letters from them about why they are donors and how involved they want to be in their child's life. Seriously - I've seen it.

There are also surrogate mothers, adoption services. This stuff is real.

As for the Nanny--hey, I don't even like egg donation because it really messes with the donor's body, which is never part of the advertising. Adoption can cause serious emotional problems for the birth mother, again something that is usually not spoken of.

Come to think of it, all of this is similar to prostitution, in that in current times it's unregulated and bad things can come of it. Perhaps if it's regulated it wouldn't be so harmful. The Guild regulated whoring and made it something respectful and positive. You really think they couldn't do the same with childbirth?

Quote:
Why study to be a Companion and then become breeding stock and nanny?

Exactly why it has to be a very separate thing from canon Companioning. A different kind of woman signs up to be a Nanny, the training is different, the career path is different. I knew women is high school who wanted nothing more than to have babies, and had no real other skills to build a career on. Would you tell them that Nannying is a horrible, amoral thing to do? How is this different from telling Inara that being a Companion is a horrible, amoral thing to do?

Ha-ha-ha. This is why I like this - it presents the same challenge to the viewer/reader as the Companion job. More extreme, since a child is involved, but still....

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 12, 2009 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
AR -

I should say that I don't think my scenario is anything canon, but something that could be presented in an at least slightly believable way in fanfic.

Not believable to me, but I guess that's what fanfic is for?

I didn't think you considered this canonical fact, and I'm only arguing against it in terms of what seems illogical to me. :)

Quote:

And I find it not completely preposterous. Perhaps because I don't believe in the nuclear family as the only or even the best way.

Do you realize that you are making a big assumption about this playing a role in my thoughts?

Quote:

I'm also harkening back to the way of old European nobility: they brought in a governess to raise and educate the children. For the governess, it's her ticket out of obscurity. She raises someone else's kids then has the means to marry or perhaps to live independently.

Which wouldn't really be The One Way for a young woman coming out of Companion school to make it in life.

Quote:

And I don't see it as inherently evil ont eh part of the wealthy parents. I think that, like the Companion/client relationship, this Nanny/client relationship could in general be a friendly, positive thing, where the forged relationships lasts throughout their lives. Only a few would go wrong, and they would be dealt with as Inara dealt with Ath.

But this wouldn't be just a nanny. This would be the biological mother of the child who basically raises it and is then expected to just hand it over. Whether relations might still be good afterwards, is a maybe, and it is entirely different from a governess with no such ambiguious ties to the child. My concern here is in the inevitably developing emotional ties, feelings of entitlement, regret, disputes in parental philosophies and the bazillion other sources of conflict. I don't see a few cases going wrong. I see most of them fraught with pain for the Companion involved, the child involved, the father involved...

Quote:

Sucks for the kids, but do you really believe that the nuclear family is a full guarantee that the kid will never get hurt? Odds are the same any way, I say.

Where did I ever mention the nucliear family or what would be better for the child? Where do you even get this from?

I'm not arguing about this in terms of family models. I'm arguing about inefficiency, lack of consideration for obvious factors and unethical pressure on the young women in question.

Quote:

Besides - the Guild is not perfect. Inara gets hurt while doing her job. It's a business that means well, but it's still a business. Shit happens, no matter where you go.

When does Inara get hurt doing her job? I see a vague potetial for it when people like Wing pass muster but end up aggressive, but we know very little about what the Guild is capable of doing in cases of actual attacks. Besides, those would indeed be rare incidents, whereas in a 12-year-committment motherhood rental relationship, there is hardly a question of "hurt" not arising, with no quick and flexible solutions.

Quote:

Again though, I tend to see the man/woman/child family model as one that's sure to get out-dated.

And again I wonder why you think this has anything to do with my argument.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
My reply was specifically to Mal4Prez's scenario with an entire different Companion branch set up. That's the thing I especially disagree with because I don't see it as remotely related to the Guild's business, and as an inefficient to downright unethical idea.

Many people in our present call Inara's business unethical. The Guild sees things differently. Who's to say they wouldn't change more than sex?

And I'm not many people in our present.

There's an exploitative quality to essentially raising young women who cannot truly make that judgment toward a very long-term committment that involves not just their minds and bodies but indeed their entire emotional household. I think it is unethical to have so many sources of pain and conflict on your plate and disregard it for monetary gain. And I do not see the Guild as short-sighted, uncompassionate or "just a business". I don't see them institutionalizing this and I don't see their interest in this field. The Guild business we have seen so far is about psychological and sexual respite, not selling perfect children on a grand scale.

Quote:

The funny thing is, I'm bothered more by the idea of a Companion crossing the line to Nanny. They are such completely different jobs.

Which is why I find that, too, very unlikely.

Quote:

Quote:
But I can not imagine something actually institutionalized or more common than extremely rare. I mean, seriously, why would a Companion even want that?
Guess what - it's already real, it's already done.

Guess what - I already referenced that in my reply to Bytemite, and especially to underline that there are already avenues in place - ones fraught with less conflict.

Particularly because the jobs are more divided. You eliminate the factor of biological parenthood by using donated eggs, you eliminate the attachment of pregnancy by using a surrogate mother and then you hire an experienced nanny who doesn't enter the job with pre-set emotional ties that she couldn't have anticipated before and also has the option to quit anytime she wants. The primary parental figures would remain the official parents.

THAT's what I would call a process with far less source for conflict.

Quote:

As for the Nanny--hey, I don't even like egg donation because it really messes with the donor's body, which is never part of the advertising.

Unlike pregnancy where everyone knows it does.

Quote:
Adoption can cause serious emotional problems for the birth mother, again something that is usually not spoken of.

Unlike raising your biological child and knowing it's never truly yours, that you're a hired help to its education, that after 12 years things might blow up in your face.

I see the greater disadvantages in your proposed Companion system than I do in more separated donation systems already in place.

Quote:

Come to think of it, all of this is similar to prostitution, in that in current times it's unregulated and bad things can come of it. Perhaps if it's regulated it wouldn't be so harmful. The Guild regulated whoring and made it something respectful and positive. You really think they couldn't do the same with childbirth?

At best, I can see the Guild give charitably to organisations that already do this. Though, not really with the in-built nanny contract...

Besides, the Guild added the feature of regulated, glamorous prostitution. It didn't turn the entire thing into something positive and respectful. Poor prostitutes without protection likely still exist in the Core.

But, as you rightly point out, the Guild came into being and rose to power as an institution protecting its prostitute members, educating carefully selected teenagers and giving them the option of entering the business of high class prostitution (with a spiritual, highly psychological angle) and that is their business.

For the same reason I don't see them involved in orphanages outside of charitable giving, I also don't see them involved in infertility treatments, surrogacy, Nanny-work, nursing, geriatric care or funeral business. Professionals exist for all of those fields. There is no need for the Guild to get involved, unless indeed the genetic material of Guild members or the attached glamor was going to bring them extra money, which would reduce the whole concept of the Guild to a market for breeding stock - not a union of educated professionals and their unique skills.

Quote:

Quote:
Why study to be a Companion and then become breeding stock and nanny?
Exactly why it has to be a very separate thing from canon Companioning. A different kind of woman signs up to be a Nanny, the training is different, the career path is different.

It's not really a career path, you have to admit. And what 12-year-old has the judgment to make that kind of choice about her future biological children?

Quote:
I knew women is high school who wanted nothing more than to have babies, and had no real other skills to build a career on. Would you tell them that Nannying is a horrible, amoral thing to do? How is this different from telling Inara that being a Companion is a horrible, amoral thing to do?

Who sayd anything about the job itself being horrible and amoral? I surely didn't. I find the concept unethical, especially toward the young (YOUNG!) woman in question. I find it exploitative in the way the very flexible Companion job is not.

Plus, you're talking here about women with no others skills to build a career on. Do you really think that it would be ethical to recruit among the desperate and lazy, who have idealized visions of what motherhood will mean for their lives? Lure them into long-term committments without actual legal rights to the child they end up producing?

If that's how you see the Guild, then there are deeper issues we disagree on, really.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2009 3:00 AM

AR -

Re the nuclear family, all I saw in your reply to me was that you assumed "more harm than good" without saying specifically why, so that's what I went with. I'm glad that wasn't your argument!

As for the attachment the biological mother forms: this is exactly what I find dramatically interesting, and this is where I find the similarity to Inara.

Inara is hurt by the client in the pilot episode. They have this nice sex and this nice talk and seem to be connected and intimate - emotionally I mean - but then he was that thing about rigging the clock. What an insult! So much for connection. Then the female client in War Stories - they have this nice talk about how we're connecting in a way men can't, and isn't this special, then (in a cut scene, but I find it important) Inara goes to the client's house to try and get help for Mal, the client doesn't even want to let Inara in.

Inara gives more than her body to these clients, she really puts herself into it and tries to make it a "bond". The only thing she's guaranteed to get in return is payment. Sometimes she gets more, sometimes she gets a little slap in the face. Companions have to be trained to be emotionally prepared for that.

So there - I think the Guild is already pretty heartless in expecting young girls to commit to this kind of life. I don't see it as a much bigger step to let them be surrogate moms. Again, surrogate moms happen already, as well as adoptions. And this happens with woman who have no idea of the terrible grief of separation awaiting them. At least in my version of Nannying, they can be fully prepared for what's to come.

I think this much kinder than allowing it to continue to happen as it does today. The surrogate mother is given power, preparation, and support.

And - please note that I specifically ruled out girls making such a choice at the age of 12. I also said there would be training and psychologists involved.

It's not like any girl off the street can walk in looking to make a buck. That situation would be exactly what the Guild is trying to avoid!

Quote:
Which wouldn't really be The One Way for a young woman coming out of Companion school to make it in life.

I never said it was. It would be a small group who wanted to do this and a smaller group who were deemed emotionally and physically capable of it.

Quote:
Quote:
Many people in our present call Inara's business unethical. The Guild sees things differently. Who's to say they wouldn't change more than sex?

And I'm not many people in our present.

There's an exploitative quality to essentially raising young women who cannot truly make that judgment toward a very long-term committment that involves not just their minds and bodies but indeed their entire emotional household.

And how is this so very different from Inara's job? Sure as hell that's exploitive. It doesn't mean to be, and it tries to prevent Companions from being hurt, but it happens.

I set the age to start this training at 18. Young woman can get married and have babies at 18 today. (Even younger really.) They can choose to give their baby up for adoption at that age or younger. It would be a lovely world where we can protect everyone from bad decisions, but we can't. What we can do, what an organization like the Guild can do, is provide the support and training to make sure the girl knows what she's getting into and has the best chance of success.

Quote:
I think it is unethical to have so many sources of pain and conflict on your plate and disregard it for monetary gain.

Exactly true of Inara's job, isn't it? Oh - but Inara's out to make clients happy, not to make money. So why does she charge?

Quote:
And I do not see the Guild as short-sighted, uncompassionate or "just a business". I don't see them institutionalizing this and I don't see their interest in this field.

I don't either, but I'm going with Bytemite's idea of "what if?" What if the Guild did have other projects? What would be their approach and motivation?

Quote:
Quote:

The funny thing is, I'm bothered more by the idea of a Companion crossing the line to Nanny. They are such completely different jobs.

Which is why I find that, too, very unlikely.

But you do see that it is not systematic to the Nanny thing. I specifically addressed this problem - it would be very rare, require special consideration.

Quote:
Guess what - I already referenced that in my reply to Bytemite, and especially to underline that there are already avenues in place - ones fraught with less conflict.

Tehy exist, but few (that I know) support the surrogate mother, or give her a place in her child's life, the way the Guild would.

I'm not saying this thing has no conflict, but I'm saying it has a conflict that's already present in the job of Companion.

Quote:
Quote:
Adoption can cause serious emotional problems for the birth mother, again something that is usually not spoken of.
Unlike raising your biological child and knowing it's never truly yours, that you're a hired help to its education, that after 12 years things might blow up in your face.

Not any different than real life. Things surely can go wrong, what you're doing is assuming things will ALWAYS go wrong in this situation. I could make an argument that things will ALWAYS go wrong for Companions, that every single client will be Ath, and therefore Inara's job could never work without tearing her up.

Quote:
Besides, the Guild added the feature of regulated, glamorous prostitution. It didn't turn the entire thing into something positive and respectful. Poor prostitutes without protection likely still exist in the Core.

Huh?

Try this...

[The Nanny branch of the] Guild came into being and rose to power as an institution protecting its [surrogate mother] members, educating carefully selected [older] teenagers [and young women] and giving them the option of entering the business of high class [surrogate mother] (with a spiritual, highly psychological angle [to protect them from the physical and emotional demands of their role]) and that is their business.

Very very similar. Again - I'm not saying I like it. I see where it would be horrible and painful, but I think it's no less so than for Companions. What I'm saying is that the two situations are very very similar, and makes story-telling sense.

The Guild is a myth after all. If the myth can make Companion-ing work, why not Nannies?

Quote:
There is no need for the Guild to get involved,

... unless they saw the need to provide protection and support to young woman who were otherwise exploited in an unregulated business of surrogate motherdom.

...just like they saw the need to provide protection and support to young woman who were otherwise exploited in an unregulated business of prostitution.

Am I getting repetitive enough?

Quote:
Who sayd anything about the job itself being horrible and amoral? I surely didn't.

You said it was "unethical". Maybe I shouldn't have expanded that to "amoral". OK, I shouldn't have.

But my point is: It is different from Companions how? Are Novices not young? Are they not trained from a very, very young age of 12, when any girl can get blinded by the glamour and wealth of the job to devote her formative years to a career she'll hate and regret? When she gets out there and realizes that her clients all use her and insult her (pilot episode), or claim ownership of her (Ath)? How exploitive is that, tricking girls into committing to that kind of painful life!

(See what I did - assumed all the bad and only the bad would happen, just like you are doing with Nannies.)

Quote:
Plus, you're talking here about women with no others skills to build a career on. Do you really think that it would be ethical to recruit among the desperate and lazy, who have idealized visions of what motherhood will mean for their lives? Lure them into long-term committments without actual legal rights to the child they end up producing?

You asked what woman would be interesting in this job, I provided an example. Doesn't mean this woman would get it. Because you're the one making assumptions now.

The Guild chooses only Companions who are emotionally and psychologically up to the job, and provides lots and lots of training. Why do you assume it would be different for Nannies? Of course there would be a hella tough selection process. Of course no women would be sent out to do this unless she was deemed to be ready.

And if things went bad, as things sometimes go bad for Companions, a support net would be there.

Sheesh. I need to stop writing long posts!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2009 4:36 AM

The Guild as a group that deals with human rights and exploitation in a number of different settings... By helping make it safe (hopefully) to practice potentially exploitive work.

I mean, my "what if" scenario was a narrow one... but an expanded version, operating as the guild's creed... Disturbing AND intriguing. Much like the whole idea of Companions.

It's always kind of weird to me how Companions are seen as empowered. The Guild has made things safe enough for them that they can feel self-confident, yes, and they can use sex and desire in positive ways... But in the end, aren't they being reduced to sex/desire objects by their profession?

We don't consider prostitutes in our world empowered, no matter how caring, protective, and respecting of their wishes that their pimps might be. What makes the Guild different? All I see is the current system we have, subtract out the hitting and unwillingness, and add in spiritual and psychological conditioning to convince the companions that they're doing something good that should make them feel good.

Ha. I just kind of go back and forth on this. The Guild: do I admire the near religious respect of sex and feminine power? Or do I think it's a justification and delusion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2009 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Ha. I just kind of go back and forth on this. The Guild: do I admire the near religious respect of sex and feminine power? Or do I think it's a justification and delusion?

I hear you. All I can conclude is that it's all kinds of shades of grey, and will work for some but not for others.

I think the Guild knows this too, and tries very hard to preserve choice and personal freedom for everyone involved. That's it's saving grace to me.

Why am I still posting? Damn! Things to do!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2009 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Inara is hurt by the client in the pilot episode. They have this nice sex and this nice talk and seem to be connected and intimate - emotionally I mean - but then he was that thing about rigging the clock. What an insult! So much for connection. Then the female client in War Stories - they have this nice talk about how we're connecting in a way men can't, and isn't this special, then (in a cut scene, but I find it important) Inara goes to the client's house to try and get help for Mal, the client doesn't even want to let Inara in.

You're ignoring here, as many people very often do, that Persephone is not the Core. It's not Inara's "natural habitat" and her clients are less familiar with Companions, more prone to old-fashioned judgment, even if they want to get with the Core fashions. The Councillor, also didn't really hurt Inara's feelings with regard to connecting. She was married and trying to keep her affair secret.

Even so, small slights from ignorant people are hardly comparable to the heartbreak potential of being a biological mother for hire with a built-in nanny contract.

Quote:

So there - I think the Guild is already pretty heartless in expecting young girls to commit to this kind of life. I don't see it as a much bigger step to let them be surrogate moms.

I see it as a huge step. If a young woman finds that Companion life is not for her, she can stop RIGHT then. Try that with your proposed scenario.

Quote:

Again, surrogate moms happen already, as well as adoptions. And this happens with woman who have no idea of the terrible grief of separation awaiting them. At least in my version of Nannying, they can be fully prepared for what's to come.

But then why not a counselling service for women thinking about surrogacy? Why this whole 12-year Nanny business attached?

Quote:

I think this much kinder than allowing it to continue to happen as it does today. The surrogate mother is given power, preparation, and support.

Except she's also expected to contract for over a decade. There is only so much you can prepare - especially at the young age you proposed - and you allow for very little flexibility after the event.

Besides. Just because the Guild would offer this service wouldn't make any other surrogacy or adoption service go away. It's like with Companions, a parallel option, not a replacement of a bad system. Unless the Guild is willing to enforce a monopoly all over the central planets, they do not prevent anyone's suffering, really.

Quote:

It's not like any girl off the street can walk in looking to make a buck. That situation would be exactly what the Guild is trying to avoid!

So why get young girls and train them up at all? Why not offer a councelling service about all these things instead of a rigid program? THAT would be more helpful.

Quote:

Quote:
Which wouldn't really be The One Way for a young woman coming out of Companion school to make it in life.
I never said it was. It would be a small group who wanted to do this and a smaller group who were deemed emotionally and physically capable of it.

And how would such a small number justify opening an entire second branch of Companion schooling?

Quote:

And how is this so very different from Inara's job? Sure as hell that's exploitive. It doesn't mean to be, and it tries to prevent Companions from being hurt, but it happens.

I don't consider Inara's job exploitative. She chooses it every day, could get out whenever she wants. She works with her body and mind, and it's - to me - no more exploitative than washing dishes in a restaurant, possibly less so because Inara receives ample compensation.

The key, for me, is in the length and flexibility of the committment. That's where the potential for grievous harm is.

Inara is obviously up to the small slights that she receives while travelling outside her usual cultural norm, and if she wasn't, she could quit any day. No so possible with a "Nanny". A Nanny is stuck for over a decade with a much greater emotional involvement than Inara ever has with her clients. Institutionalising such a thing would be irresponsible.

Quote:

I set the age to start this training at 18. Young woman can get married and have babies at 18 today. (Even younger really.) They can choose to give their baby up for adoption at that age or younger. It would be a lovely world where we can protect everyone from bad decisions, but we can't. What we can do, what an organization like the Guild can do, is provide the support and training to make sure the girl knows what she's getting into and has the best chance of success.

I honestly fail to see the demopgraphic of 18-year-olds who want to sell their reproductive system and their private lives for 12 years. There is a big difference between young women getting married and retaining full rights to their children, or women giving children up for adoption because they aren't ready to be mothers - and signing away the next 12 years of your life. I honestly don't think that this would be a viable choice for 99.99% of women who would actually be eligible for such a choice (i.e. have the emotional maturity to fully understand it, have obvious other economic options, etc.)

Quote:

Quote:
I think it is unethical to have so many sources of pain and conflict on your plate and disregard it for monetary gain.
Exactly true of Inara's job, isn't it? Oh - but Inara's out to make clients happy, not to make money. So why does she charge?

It doesn't strike me at all like Inara's job.

It would be unethical on part of the Guild as the facilitator, not on part of the girl who ends up getting some of the money, in case there was a misunderstanding about that.

Quote:

Quote:
And I do not see the Guild as short-sighted, uncompassionate or "just a business". I don't see them institutionalizing this and I don't see their interest in this field.
I don't either, but I'm going with Bytemite's idea of "what if?" What if the Guild did have other projects? What would be their approach and motivation?

Honestly, going by the Guild now, this is not where I see them focusing their energy. They have a very specific business at the moment, and just randomly adding Nannying as a new branch seems too.. well, random. I can more easily see them expanding their psychological services, sexual therapy services, hell, religious education even. But nothing as specific and deeply conflict-ladden as long-term motherhood contracts for very young women.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:

The funny thing is, I'm bothered more by the idea of a Companion crossing the line to Nanny. They are such completely different jobs.

Which is why I find that, too, very unlikely.
But you do see that it is not systematic to the Nanny thing. I specifically addressed this problem - it would be very rare, require special consideration.

I do see that. I have stated that I consider both options unlikely to the extreme, with the rare, individual Companion-turned-mother SLIGHTLY less unlikely than a whole institutionalized branch.

Quote:

Quote:
Guess what - I already referenced that in my reply to Bytemite, and especially to underline that there are already avenues in place - ones fraught with less conflict.
Tehy exist, but few (that I know) support the surrogate mother, or give her a place in her child's life, the way the Guild would.

And that wouldn't or couldn't have changed in 500 years? Reproductive science is still fairly young and even adoption services are, compared to human history. It's no wonder things aren't perfectly set up yet. I see that as having vastly changed by then, at least in terns of options. Sure, there would be cases going wrong, still, but no Guild-run program could prevent that.

Quote:

I'm not saying this thing has no conflict, but I'm saying it has a conflict that's already present in the job of Companion.

And I disagree with that.

It's not even comparable, in terms of scale, flexibility or emotional involvement.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Adoption can cause serious emotional problems for the birth mother, again something that is usually not spoken of.
Unlike raising your biological child and knowing it's never truly yours, that you're a hired help to its education, that after 12 years things might blow up in your face.

Not any different than real life. Things surely can go wrong, what you're doing is assuming things will ALWAYS go wrong in this situation. I could make an argument that things will ALWAYS go wrong for Companions, that every single client will be Ath, and therefore Inara's job could never work without tearing her up.

I find it really odd that you don't see how much more LIKELY conflict would be in such a situation than with extremely short-term contracts that do not revolve around biological children and their rearing.

Quote:

Quote:
Besides, the Guild added the feature of regulated, glamorous prostitution. It didn't turn the entire thing into something positive and respectful. Poor prostitutes without protection likely still exist in the Core.
Huh?

Try this...

[The Nanny branch of the] Guild came into being and rose to power as an institution protecting its [surrogate mother] members, educating carefully selected [older] teenagers [and young women] and giving them the option of entering the business of high class [surrogate mother] (with a spiritual, highly psychological angle [to protect them from the physical and emotional demands of their role]) and that is their business.

Actually, not surrogate mothers, biological mothers. We keep mixing that up.

And no, still not working for me. Mainly and in particular the age you mention, the long-term contracts you propose and the regulation of custody that you mentioned.It's too volatile and too unflexible.

Quote:

Very very similar. Again - I'm not saying I like it. I see where it would be horrible and painful, but I think it's no less so than for Companions. What I'm saying is that the two situations are very very similar, and makes story-telling sense.

Which I keep disagreeing with.

Quote:

Quote:
There is no need for the Guild to get involved,
... unless they saw the need to provide protection and support to young woman who were otherwise exploited in an unregulated business of surrogate motherdom.

...just like they saw the need to provide protection and support to young woman who were otherwise exploited in an unregulated business of prostitution.

Hardly. The Guild is not a charity that searches the streets to pick up 12-year-old girls of above-average intelligence who so happen to look like they might want to fall into a life of unprotected prostitution. That's not how the recruit, I'm 100% sure. I even doubt it was the truly optionless and exploited who founded it, either.

The Guild is exclusive, selective, demanding. Ethical, yes, and they look out for their members, but they aren't the Every Prostitute Ever union. They aren't out to save souls but to offer a parallel, high-class service.

Quote:

But my point is: It is different from Companions how? Are Novices not young? Are they not trained from a very, very young age of 12, when any girl can get blinded by the glamour and wealth of the job to devote her formative years to a career she'll hate and regret?

Even if their selection, observation and training process was not careful enough to prevent that, a Companion who was wrong about it could quit at the drop of a hat without losing anything in the process.

Quote:
When she gets out there and realizes that her clients all use her and insult her (pilot episode), or claim ownership of her (Ath)? How exploitive is that, tricking girls into committing to that kind of painful life!

They would hardly be ignorant of potentially bad clients. The key here being the nature and flexibility of the committment to that life, and the comparable smallness of the pain involved. THAT is something you can prepare someone else for.

Not to mention those examples being both Persephone, both not Core clients.

Quote:

(See what I did - assumed all the bad and only the bad would happen, just like you are doing with Nannies.)

I saw. I still point to flexibility and the scale of emotional involvement being entirely incomparable.

Quote:

Quote:
Plus, you're talking here about women with no others skills to build a career on. Do you really think that it would be ethical to recruit among the desperate and lazy, who have idealized visions of what motherhood will mean for their lives? Lure them into long-term committments without actual legal rights to the child they end up producing?
You asked what woman would be interesting in this job, I provided an example. Doesn't mean this woman would get it. Because you're the one making assumptions now.

I actually asked what Companion would be interested in the job. Very different.

And unless you can provide an example of women wanting the job who would actually be eligible, it's kind of a useless example to give in the first place.

I think that eligible demographic would be so miniscule that there would be no sense in setting up an entire branch for this sort of institution.

Err, ditto on the long post thing.

ETA: Oh God. It looks even worse posted. Please feel free to cut this down with a chainsaw.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2009 8:50 AM

I'm not sure if I could make another proposition to amend this, since my last one has seemed to be so controversial, but I think the way I see it would be that this is an option for women who are more mature. 30s or 40s, and actively interested in having children. Who have enough experience and wisdom to govern whether they want to enter into a long term contract with any children related side-conditions. And who, hopefully, have contracted with the client in question for a number of years.

I actually imagine Companions as having to take classes on childhood psychology, because surely some of their clients might have children that they might interact with? What if the Companion were to join a family outing in the course of an assignation with a client? I think a client would be very displeased with a Companion that upset their children. And I imagine that a Companion who wants children might be offered some very useful pregnancy and childcare educational programs, courtesy of the Guild, should the Guild approve their request.

Going back to the daycare/orphanage idea I had, maybe trainee Companions spend at least some of their time in between classes helping with extra-curricular-but-still-guild-related activities, such as tending children, in addition to classes they might take on the subject?

And I'm back to the church comparisons again, but in a convent/abbey, the acolytes and novices, between their lessons, contribute a little bit to the day-to-day running of the facilities. Whether cooking, or cleaning, or maybe tending younger children when their caretakers are busy. It's often a good form of teaching patience and discipline.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2009 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You're ignoring here, as many people very often do, that Persephone is not the Core.

Inara has clearly known Ath for a long time.

I understand that Inara is out of her habitat, but the treatment from her clients is never presented as something unusual. She never makes any statement about how it's different in the Core. I think the writers have taken care to show that her clients sometimes show a degree of callousness toward her. It's the strange thing about her job, this combination of intimacy and distance.

Quote:
I see it as a huge step. If a young woman finds that Companion life is not for her, she can stop RIGHT then. Try that with your proposed scenario.

This is why there would be a much longer and more demanding process of matching client with nanny. As I said, perhaps there's a full year of live-in as a test to see that they are compatible.

Quote:
But then why not a counselling service for women thinking about surrogacy? Why this whole 12-year Nanny business attached?

Because the Guild offers particular things that are available no where else.

Of course the other surrogacy options would be available, just as the advent of Companions didn't make whores go away. That's yet another parallel between the two. The Guild does not prevent the suffering of whores who are taken advantage of, but they try to make better options available.

Quote:
I don't consider Inara's job exploitative. She chooses it every day, could get out whenever she wants. She works with her body and mind, and it's - to me - no more exploitative than washing dishes in a restaurant, possibly less so because Inara receives ample compensation.

So - ample compensation makes it not exploitative?

Quote:
The key, for me, is in the length and flexibility of the committment. That's where the potential for grievous harm is.

And I think the length of commitment would be an expected part of it, something the nanny obviously knows about in advance. It is part of the draw. The young woman gets to be part of her child's life to whatever degree she puts in the contract.

I do see that there is difficulty is having the client able to end the contract. That is part of the storytelling for me, what makes it a drama rather than a fairy tale. I don't think the Guild is perfect, and I don't think it always acts for the maximum possible benefit of its members. As I said, I like the drama of exploring its weaknesses. I know you disagree, but I think this weakness is comparable to the demands it puts on Companions, which is why I put it in there.

Now, if I were to put together a nanny business myself... no way in hell I would LOL! This isn't me, this is some AU version of the Guild we're talking about. It's imperfect. Flawed even.

By the way, I didn't put something in my original post because it was too long already, but I said that the child could be the result of sex (I don't like this option, won't get into it now) or test tube. I didn't say, but was thinking, it could be her baby or not. You've said that you see it as much much less damaging for surrogates than for a woman having her own DNA'd baby. I don't really see the difference. If I carry a baby to term, I'm interested in it, whether my DNA or not. I'd want to be a part of it's life.

Anyway, all these options would be open to the nanny to choose what she wants to do. If she has severe discomfort about having her own DNA involved, then she doesn't do it that way.

Quote:
I honestly fail to see the demopgraphic of 18-year-olds who want to sell their reproductive system and their private lives for 12 years.

But it makes plenty of sense to you that a 12 year old decides that she's going to sell her body for a living? Yeah sure, the Companion can quit. After spending all her formative years training. The Nanny can quit too. It would be at least a few years before she contracts, and a responsible Guild would not allow her to do it until they believed her ready. As I said, it would be a looong process before she's locked in. A helluva lot longer than process than any regular parent goes through.

I think you really are not allowing for what this would be like in the majority of cases. The nanny gets to bring a new life into the world, see it into a happy, comfortable home, has everything she needs to raise and educate it, can spend all her time and energy being a mom, and helps this child grow to a young man or woman with full support from the father and the Guild. She forms a very real bond to the child, and stays in contact with him or her for the rest of their lives, even after she moves on.

That's the fairy tale version--but no less fairy tale than the life of a Companion. Only in rare cases would this scenario not happen. Just as rare as bad clients happening to Companions.

What I'm wondering is how you're so easily convinced that the Guild can make the Companion life into this myth, but not the nanny. Is it the *young* woman part that you don't like? So, as Bytemite says, they don't do it until they're older. How about a 35-45 year old who's never had a child and really, really wants to? Would you allow for that?

As to the Guild's business - sure, in canon, I think they do nothing but the Companion business. But in fanon they may be some conglomerate with many, many different things they pursue.

As to "Every Prostitute Ever" etc... I wasn't suggesting that. Not sure where it came from.

Quote:
Even if their selection, observation and training process was not careful enough to prevent that, a Companion who was wrong about it could quit at the drop of a hat without losing anything in the process.

Except all those years lost to training. Except the ownership of her body, the loss of feeling it something precious that she alone owns. You see danger in the long term contract of a nanny, I say the same exists in a woman who starts working as a Companion... at 18? 20? How many woman have a complete understanding of their own sexuality at the age? I think it highly likely that it might be 5-10 years at least before a Companion realizes that she's selling not just her body, but her precious love and caring, to wealthy men who give her nothing but cash in return. How damaging is that? To be 30 and realize you spent the last 20 years on this, rather than pursuing your own love and family. You expect an 18-20 year old to know enough about love and relationships to understand how that could damage her?

I think you're being pretty biased in allowing one situation to be completely ethical, and the other not. I think it's oversimplifying to say that a bit of incense and calligraphy and fancy massage techniques makes a woman maintain ownership of her body after selling it 100s of men, but I accept this situation in Firefly because it's a nice myth, and it makes me ask questions about sexuality and such. Nannying would be the same about a different topic.

Quote:
I actually asked what Companion would be interested in the job. Very different.

Check again - when I gave that example I was explaining that it would be a different kind of woman who'd want this than would want to be a Companion. The kind of woman who wants to be a nanny is one who's very very into raising babies.

As for the numbers game: (Sheesh, you do take things beyond the context!) The example I gave was a woman who would want the job. Perhaps, in a given year, there's 1000 candidate women in a city of millions and millions. Only ~20 are deemed psychologically right for it, and only 5-10 are still around after years of training and preparation.

That's not much different from the Companion selection process as I picture it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2009 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I actually imagine Companions as having to take classes on childhood psychology, because surely some of their clients might have children that they might interact with?

Ew! No. As much as I'm mixing it up with AR about this nanny thing, my gut still rebels at any attempt to mix Companions and children. Companions are not there to play stepmom.

As to trainees working with children - sorry, but ew! again. I don't see it happening. I still can't imagine the raising of orphans as something combined with the training of Companions. The two just do not mix.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2009 12:37 PM

Aw. ._. *Goosesteps*

I think it'd be a fulfilling thing for trainees to be doing, taking care of little sisters or brothers in the guild in their free time.

I can imagine a tiny Nandi with a tinier Inara, chasing each other around, girl chatting... Back to the original topic of the thread, now that I think of it, if Inara ever got up to any kind of mischief, I bet Nandi would be the one goading her on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 13, 2009 1:22 PM