#even when men act misogynistically they are only behaving in ways in accordance WITH patriarchy

[faberown]

IS ADAM A MISOGYNIST?

Answer: NO. And this should be obvious to anyone with some brain.

But let's try to give more explanations. First of all, let's start outside from the show, and answer a more important question:

IS ADAM A MISOGYNIST IN THE BIBLE?

Well, no. Actually, Adam in the Bible is one of the characters that respect and love women the most, which is ironic considering the time when such things were written (let's remember that until less than 200 years ago women were considering PROPERTY of the men). But then, why is Adam considered a misogynist today? Well, because a problem that unfortunately has afflicted us for a long time: people forget that the mentality of people when the myths were written was very different from today, and what means one thing for us at the time meant another. But unfortunately people don't understand this concept, because it is much easier to read and interpret in a literal way, or rather, in a way that conforms to their own thoughts, so as to justify their beliefs.

Let's take for example another famous myth, that of Hades and Persephone. Many modern interpretations see it as a kidnapping, but the truth is that Hades never kidnapped Persephone: before picking her up, in fact, he had asked permission from Zeus, her father (and also his brother... who was the brother of Demeter, the mother of Persephone... so he married the daughter of his brother that was born from an incest between his brother and his sister... yes, the Greek gods were the embodiment of Sweet Home Alabama). Only after Zeus had given him permission to marry Persephone had Hades gone to get her, because again, daughters at the time were PROPERTY of the male parent; not CUSTODY, just PROPERTY. The mother and daughter had no right to say anything. So, in fact, a kidnapping never existed: Hades simply went to take what belonged to him. Not only that, but Hades behaved in an unusual manner for the time: instead of immediately taking advantage of Persephone as was his right, once in the Underworld he courted her and treated her with extreme respect. He has never cheated on her and has always sincerely loved her (they are literally the ONLY healthy couple in Greek myth), and he himself even proposed the deal to Demeter when he realized that she sincerely wanted to spend time on the surface being the goddess of spring.

See? If we don't base ourselves on a literal interpretation of the myth but rather integrate it with the culture and mentality of the time, suddenly what seemed like an act of violence becomes one of the most beautiful couples in all of Greek mythology, which in fact they were. Now, let's try to apply the same reasoning with Adam, Lilith and Eve.

First let's make one thing clear: Lilith DOESN'T exist in the Bible, so here, to avoid too much confusion, we will simply talk about sacred texts, but that doesn't change much since they were written in very close times. Now, was Adam a bad husband for Lilith? Obviously not. That is a modern feminist literal interpretation of the myth, because they wanted to find at all costs a way to criticize religion and patriarchy (and no, I'm not mad at feminists, I'm simply mad at all those who misinterpret something just to justify their beliefs). In this myth, as we well know, Adam and Lilith had to have sex and she didn't want to be under him, and he replied that she always had to be under him. The problem? Again, the mentality of the time was different. To begin with, the idea of ​​the time was that "sacred" sex, and therefore the only sex allowed in Eden given that it was an earthly Paradise, was only that aimed at procreation; and to procreate, according to the mentality of the time (a mentality that has persisted until very recent times), the only right position was that of a missionary, otherwise the child wouldn't be born (in fact the prostitutes stayed on top not to risk getting pregnant). Is this false? Of course, but for the mentality of the time it was absolute reality. So what Adam is saying to Lilith is not "You must be submissive to me, slave woman you must obey me patriarchy blah blah blah", but rather "sorry, but I can't magically change the position of our organs, if we want to have sex we have to do it this way, so just accept it". Basically, it is as if today a woman wanted to get pregnant by only having oral sex, and after her boyfriend points out that it is impossible she accuses him of being misogynistic: who would you side with? So no, Adam never tried to impose himself on Lilith, Lilith was simply a bitch who wanted to do everything as she wanted and thought she could go against even her own nature. And considering what she did AFTER she escaped from Eden, it's very clear how out of her mind she was; I won't go into detail, just know that she has a long history of cannibalism, rape and pedophilia.

Let's talk about Eve now; again, the idea that she was subservient to Adam arises from a modern feminist misinterpretation. Eve was created from Adam's rib to be "more docile", but then again, "docile" thousands of years ago didn't mean "submissive" at all. "Docile" was considered synonymous with "affectionate, loving, faithful, gentle", and did not take into account submission to the master or anything like that, which in fact had another name. Eve was therefore not created from Adam's rib to be his servant, but rather because in this way they would both complete each other and love each other in the purest and deepest way (the classic saying "I love her as if she were a part of me") . It is, in a certain sense, a variant of a Greek myth that saw all people once united, only to be divided by the gods, and therefore destined to seek their other half through love. In fact, Adam and Eve were a united couple and loved each other madly, to the point that Adam, in many variants of the Bible and even in more modern works such as Milton's Paradise Lost, eats the forbidden fruit because he doesn't want to separate from Eve (which places him, by symbolism, in a heroic way but also as a worse sinner than her, given that he chooses mortality and desire instead of divine grace). In some other versions, even, God doesn't free them together but places them in different places on Earth, so that, after the initial quarrel due to the forbidden fruit, they understand how much they need each other and seek each other, and then reunite in love and begin humanity.

Alright, and with that, we're done with the "accurate biblically story" part. Personally, I was very disappointed that Viv didn't use the real version but limited herself to choosing the extremely wrong modern feminist one, given that I think the original one is much more interesting. But now, let's go further and move on to the second big question:

IS ADAM A MISOGYNIST IN HAZBIN HOTEL?

Hazbin Hotel clearly presents many differences with the sacred texts, to the point of creating a mythology more in its own right than being a reflection of the real one; consequently, let's try to look at it without taking into account what actually happened in the Bible. But even in this case, if we exclude the story described in Charlie's book (which has so many holes that it is impossible not to consider it false, especially considering it was written by those who are described as revolutionary heroes, something never confirmed by any other character of the series), then Adam is not a misogynist at all. Let's analyze his character: all his best soldiers are women and he never shows any doubt that they would know how to do what, since time immemorial, has been considered a man's job; his right hand is a woman and he allows her to speak back on him and even boss him around sometimes; his boss is a woman and even when they disagree he still respects her authority; and the list is still long. The only times he seems to despise women is when he talks to Vaggie, but it is clear that in that moment he is despising her more than women, since she is a traitor and an enemy. Haven't you ever seen a movie where the villain takes advantage of the situation to make fun of the hero, behaving in a way he didn't behave with his henchmen or allies? Well, this is basically the same. Should we consider him misogynistic because when he talks to Charlie he makes silly jokes and pranks and proudly talks about his experiences? I expect such behavior from a slightly rude person, certainly not from a misogynist. Based on this logic, Alastor (who slaps Vaggie on the ass in the pilot) and Lucifer (who objectifies Eve and Lilith by talking about them as if they were trophies during the battle) are misogynists too. It's just a ridiculous thought.

In particular there is a scene in which I want to focus to demonstrate his total absence of misogyny, namely the moment in episode 6 when he and Lute notice Charlie and Vaggie in Heaven. In that scene, Lute grabs him by the collar and orders him not to speak loudly, with a very rude attitude to boot. Not only this is a total lack of respect given the different rank that they have (let's not forget that he is her superior, moreover in a military context, where discipline and respect are considered fundamental and absolute), but it also destroys any idea that Adam might be a misogynist for one simple reason: he lets her do it. People tend to forget this because Adam acts like an idiot and Lute acts like the bossy one, but the difference in strength between them is enormous. Lute is good at fighting with an angelic spear, but Adam can summon weapons, shatter magical shields with a punch, open portals, fire beams of power equal to the most powerful laser on Earth, and even defeat Charlie who in power level is equal or even superior to the Deadly Sins except for Lucifer. Adam can literally pick up Lute and break her bones like she's a breadstick, and no one could scold him for anything since he, being the general of the army, has the authority to give punishments if he feels there is a lack of discipline. If Adam had been a misogynist and a woman had dared to treat him that way, he would have immediately reestablished his authority by punching her in the face, or at least threatening her; instead, he lets her do it and listens to her advice, and he even seems genuinely sorry after she makes an offended face because of an unkind comment of his. Let's said it again: Adam, a being who can fight on equal terms with the princess of Hell and win, doesn't get angry after being treated badly and with disrespect by a woman inferior to him, but rather listens to her and follows her advice. Does this seem misogynistic to you?

So, to conclude, no, Adam is not a misogynist, he's just a slightly rude person who thinks his jokes are funny (and it must be said that no one ever contradicts him). He's like the classic pompous friend that any of us have had in life. Calling him misogynistic means to have no clue what misogyny, or patriarchy, is. Viv's problem (as unfortunately with many others) is that she uses words to describe her characters without really knowing what they mean, and she relies on her personal experiences (extremely subjective and without any objective value for the rest of the world) to write them. If Adam is indeed based on an ex-boyfriend, then that ex-boyfriend was just a ridiculous pompous prideful guy who didn't know what education was, certainly not a misogynist. I don't wish for Viv to meet a true misogynist in her life, but if that will happen she will immediately understand how stupid she was to describe Adam as one.

[raceandspeculation]

Ripley vs. Patriarchy and Colonialism

The Alien quadrilogy is a major milestone in science fiction and horror film history. The protagonist of the quadrilogy, Ellen Ripley, goes through major transformations because of her constant battle with the series’ primary antagonist, the Xenomorphs. Although Ripley spends a majority of her time on-screen trying to survive the violent Xenomorphs, she is also contending against enemies that exist off-screen and in our own reality. Patriarchy and colonialism are themes that Aliens and Alien 3 explore in detail, as well as create different narratives and ways for the movies to be understood. These themes play off of each other, allowing for the audience to identify the social implications created by them, and a deeper understanding of Ripley’s reaction to these invisible forces.

The Xenomorphs are similar to beasts and other sci-fi monsters because they kill indiscriminately. As noted by the android Ash in the first film, they do not have “delusions of morality”. They are not mindless creatures, as displayed in the final scene of Aliens, when Ripley points a gun at the queen in order to allow herself safe passage to get to Newt. The queen lets out a roar, and the warrior drones back away, acknowledging the queens warning. Again, we see the Xenomorph in Alien 3 refuse to attack Ripley because she is pregnant with an alien queen. There is a clear and distinct respect among the Xenomorphs, especially for the queen, who serves as the mother of their species. Unfortunately, the human species doesn’t have the same set of values in regards to women.

Vasquez, the only female Marine that the film pays particular attention to, is also framed by her relationship to patriarchy. When the Marines are introduced early on in the movie, misogynist comments are directed at her by some of the male Marines. She casually and humorously brushes them off, proving she can take it and dish it out. It seems as though her bravado and gung-ho attitude are attempts to assimilate herself into an all male military unit. Her occasional use of Spanish expletives seem like a form of resistance against her white and mostly male colleagues.

Despite Ripley’s experience and intelligence, she is constantly ignored by men in charge. In Aliens, she is asked to accompany a unit of Marines investigating a colony on the same planet her crew first encountered the Xenomorphs. Despite her experience with Xenomorphs, her advice on how to deal with them falls on deaf ears. When she explains that the pulse rifles the Marines are using could possibly hit a reactor and cause an explosion that will kill them all, her warning isn’t acted on until Burke, a representative of the Weyland-Yutani corporation, supports this claim. The officer in charge then decides that it would be wise to use other weaponry to combat the Xenomorphs. It is only until a majority of the original crew is killed off that Ripley’s counsel is taken into consideration.

The prison warden in Alien 3 is another example of patriarchy that exists in the film.  When she requests an autopsy be performed on Newt, Ripley makes no mention of Xenomorphs or her past experiences, despite the numerous questions she is asked by the prison’s doctor. She has already been conditioned to understand that men in power either disregard her warnings or don’t believe her. The scene in which some of the prisoners ambush Ripley in an attempt to rape her is important because of the way in which she survived that situation. In an article titled, “You’ve been in my life so long I can’t remember anything else”: Into the labyrinth with Ripley and the Alien”, the author states, “ Dillon, too, rescues Ripley from the three prisoners who are about to rape and perhaps murder her, just as Parker rescued her when Ash attempted to kill her by ramming a magazine down her throat. Without their help, Ripley would not have survived” (Gibson, 47). Ripley is able to successfully defend herself from a vicious Alien species mostly by herself, but is always rescued by another man when she is brutalized by men. Later in the film, when Ripley witnesses the attack of the prison doctor by the Xenomorph, she is yelled at and told to be quiet by the warden when she alerts them of what has just happened. This isn’t the first time he has disregarded her warnings or suggestions, but it proves to be the last. After he is snatched up by the Xenomorph, the surviving inmates and staff decide that Ripley is someone worth listening to, but only because they’ve witnessed what happens to those that don’t. Her sacrifice at the end of the film is not just a means to an end, but also a political statement. The men that wish to possess her body in order to exploit it have been denied by her sacrifice, and the galaxy is all the more safer for it.

The Weyland-Yutani Corporation plays an important role in the telling of the story in these films. They manage to be present in every film by way of proxy. In Aliens, they are represented by Carter Burke. Carter Burke does a good job at fooling Ripley and the audience into believing that the Weyland-Yutani Corportations involvement and interest in the military operation is to righteously eradicate the alien scum that destroyed their colony. We realize later on in the movie that the only reason Burke was dispatched with Ripley and the unit was to oversee the possible capture of the Xenomorphs to study and possibly use as a biological weapon. In the book, Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley, the authors state,“Whereas in Alien, Ash (and Mother) were simply following orders, Burke, the self-serving bureaucrat, pursues only his interests with no consideration for law, morality, or common human decency. In a way, he is worse than Ash, for unlike the android, who was obviously programmed to be scientifically curious (as is Bishop), Burke displays no respect for, or aesthetic interest in, the Alien. He does not even acknowledge its danger; for him, the Alien is just a commodity to be traded for profit.”(Gallardo-C. & Smith, 84). It’s clear that the Weyland-Yutani Corporation is engaging in a futuristic form of colonialism. With access to an unimaginable number of planets, corporations have become their own sovereign states, taking from the galaxy as they see fit. Because of the nature of Xenomorphs and their need for human hosts, Weyland-Yutani is willing to exploit human bodies for a profit. What’s even more telling is the military unit that is dispatched to the colony on LV-426. Although they speak and behave like the Marines we know on earth, these Marines are a bit different. They are actually called the Colonial Marines, and sent on a mission deemed necessary by a corporation. The movie doesn’t make a big deal of it, but it’s worth noting that a governmental organization like the military is doing the dirty work for a mega-corporation.

Alien 3 may not have the presence of the Colonial Marines, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t expose the colonialism practiced by the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. The planet Ripley has crash landed on is actually a penal colony, where the prisoners work as foundry workers. This time, the resource being exploited is convict labor. The Weyland-Yutani Corporation quickly dispatches a unit once they realize that a Xenomorph is alive and present at the prison. The resource to be exploited again becomes the Xenomorph, with the added inclusion of Ripley. Her body, and the body of the Xenomorph, are to be exploited for economical gain. In the essay, The ‘Alien’ trilogy: from feminism to Aids, the author states “In Alien 3, the body, which in retrospect seems to have been remarkably repressed in the first two films, becomes a landscape, obsessively probed and examined with fingers and eyes, pentrated in close-up with needles, knives, and saws” (Taubin, 93). The bodies of both Ripley and the Alien have become “landscapes”, waiting to be pillaged by the invasive scientists of the Weyland-Yutani corporation.

Patriarchy and colonialism are responsible for some of the most exploitative acts and practices in human history, and according to the creators of the film, they manage to live on well into the future. The films exist in a dystopian future, where human lives are considered expendable by the corporations that employ them. Men are still mostly in charge and still manipulate a woman’s body, both figuratively and literally, to serve their own wants and needs. Ripley challenges the status quo, and in the end, gives her own life to reclaim some semblance of power and control. Ripley serves as a symbol of resistance against patriarchy and colonialism, and ends up a martyr that has gained victory over her on-screen and off-screen enemies.

Word Count: 1543

Works Cited

Taubin, Amy. “The 'Alien' trilogy: from feminism to Aids.” Women and Film: A Sight and Sound Reader, edited by Pam Cook and Philip Dodd, Scarlet Press, London, 1997, pp. 93–100.

Gibson, Pamela Church. “"You've been in my life so long I can't remember anything else": Into the labyrinth with Ripley and the Alien.” Keyframes: Popular Cinema and Cultural Studies, edited by Matthew Tinkcom and Amy Villarejo, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 35–51.

Gallardo-C., Ximena, and C. Jason Smith. Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley. London, Continuum, 2004.