Post-apocalyptic fiction and aggrieved entitlement

As a feminist, I had high hopes for the Walking Dead. There have been several moments--particularly in the first season--where the writing has shown a clear awareness of feminist issues. The women do laundry at the shoreline and remark on the unfairness of the perpetuation of gender roles after the apocalypse. Jacqui and Andrea deal with patronizing attitudes toward their self-determination. Andrea in particular repeatedly rebels against being relegated to the sidelines while the menfolk go out and protect the women and children. Lori struggles, and ultimately fails, to maintain her conservative ideals of femininity in the face of catastrophe. Michonne is just awesome.

But.

As Rick decides to take on the role of dictator, and the Governor takes his place as the primary antagonist, the show feels like it is veering toward the dominant paradigm in post-apocalyptic literature: a fantasy of white male aggrieved entitlement.

Let me explain.

In Revolution, it only takes a few episodes before a primary female character is threatened with sexual assault. In The Colony, the women who attempt to participate equally with the men are met with derision and contempt, and one of the characters exchanges a sexual favor for resources. In Island in the Sea of Time, a major female antagonist is punished for her misdeeds by being raped by a jaguar. The noble chivalrous West Virginian men save the poar exploited medieval German women in 1632. In A Handmaid's Tale, women are chattel. In Waterworld, women and children are chattel. In Dies the Fire, women must be in constant fear of sexual violence unless they are protected by force of (men's) arms. Are you sensing a common theme here?

In nearly all of the post-apocalyptic stories I have been exposed to, the end of the world goes like this: when the economy and communications collapse, that crazy notion that women are people (which was only a product of our post-industrial society, dontcha know) goes out the window as well, and we return to an age where men are men--the good ones protect the womenfolk through force of arms from the bad ones who want to rape them.

First of all, I reject the idea that force of arms is the only thing preventing us from devolving into a nation of feuding warlords. On the contrary, in times of disaster people are more likely to come together, share with each other, and see everyone as part of their community. But that's a topic for another post.

My primary beef with this kind of story is that it presumes that everyone will just forget that women are people when catastrophe hits. That feminism is a luxury men have allowed women because of an abundance of resources, and that we'll have to sacrifice it for the good of all when resources become limited. That women, having gained control of their fertility, will suddenly say "Gosh,  that was dumb! What I need to do now is make more babies to repopulate the species." That men are just waiting for a catastrophe to hit so they can seize the opportunity to own their own harems. That women would just be so grateful for a militaristic takeover by nice protective men that they would beg to have their equality taken away. It's no coincidence that the protagonists of these stories are almost exclusively white men. With weapons skills. Or, if they don't have weapons skills, they gain them pretty quick.

This is what I mean when I say the majority of post-apocalyptic fiction is a fantasy of aggrieved entitlement. Post-apocalyptic literature (which is mostly an American genre) really took off after World War II, a fact usually attributed to fears of nuclear annhiliation. I attribute it, rather, to the slow eroding of white male privilege, and the desperate struggle to cling onto it, or to return to a prior time where all that privilege was back in place. The existence of this genre in fact convinces people that this vision of the post-apocalypse is accurate. The survivalist mindset--based around the stockpiling of guns and supplies and defensive fortifications--is based on the faulty premise that it will be every-man-for-himself (and his wimminfolk) when the shit hits the fan. So much so that everyone believes it.

What would a piece of post-apocalyptic fiction look like where feminism was preserved? I can't even imagine it. If you've found one, post it in the comments?

Why are people judgmental about weddings?

I don't understand people's entitled attitudes about weddings.

I have a very small family, so I went to one wedding as a child (which I don't remember) and have attended two weddings of friends. My attitude when attending was: Wow, I'm so lucky these people like me enough to invite me to their wedding. I'm really happy for them, so I'd like to get them a gift. I can't wait to spend a nice day having fun with them and seeing them so happy.

It seems like so many people out there have the attitude rather of: I can't believe I have to go to this stupid wedding. They better keep me well supplied with food and alcohol and play the exact music I want, if they expect me to buy them an expensive gift.

My question to you, if this is your attitude towards weddings, is: Why go? If you don't care enough about the people to be happy for them on their special day--if you're going to just sulk if they don't fulfill your laundry list of requirements for attending--why would you even bother? You don't even have to buy them a gift; there's no law that says you have to. I'm not trying to be facetious; I really don't understand.

Let's look at another ritualized social interaction for comparison. When you are invited to visit someone's home as a guest, you feel fortunate to have them think highly enough of you to invite you. You might bring a hostess gift as an expression of your gratitude. You have a reasonable expectation that your hosts will see to your needs, keeping you comfortable and entertained, but you also don't expect that they will, say, install a new sound system for you because you like your music loud. You'll probably do activities together that you both enjoy doing, and eat food you both find palatable.

If you don't like the person enough to want to go to their house when you are invited, you just don't go, you make up some excuse.

So why are weddings different? I acknowledge that, at some point in history, weddings meant something else. They were intended to be displays of the wealth of the bride's father, because he was exchanging her for monetary value (either money he paid the groom, or money the groom paid him, depending on your tradition). So you, as an invited guest to this rich guy's daughter's wedding, had an expectation that you would be feted within an inch of your life, because the bride's father wanted to impress you with his wealth.

I hate to break it to you, but that's not the meaning of weddings anymore. Some couples pay for the wedding themselves, or both families contribute. No one is exchanged for monetary value. The couple chooses each other out of love and compatibility, rather than as a business transaction between their fathers. Couples look at their wedding as a once-in-a-lifetime (hopefully) chance to splurge on things they've always wanted, but thought were too decadent. I don't know anyone who looks at their wedding as a chance to show off their wealth to their acquaintances, though I'm sure there are people that still feel that way. Rather, they look at their wedding as a chance to rejoice in their relationship with their friends and family.

If you don't care enough about the couple to be happy for them on their wedding day, why are you even going to their wedding? Just check the 'No' box on the RSVP.