the MANLIEST PAIN OF ALL

[pocochina]

So, we are all up to speed on thingswithwings’ phenomenal Man Pain vid and post? Well worth a watch/read but be warned of spoilers for pretty much everything ever.

It’s one of those wonderfully thought-provoking dark humor/righteous anger pieces, and it crystallized a whole set of my reactions to Man Pain itself, and other peoples’ reactions to

Comments

[ever_neutral]

This poooooost.

What Man Pain isn’t, or at least when it isn’t bothersome to me, is men who are unhappy.

Word. I think I once saw someone complaining about what a "poor little rich boy" Logan Echolls (and others of his type) is, and I think the implication there is that the character's privilege (being white, upper-class, etc.) negates the very real physical and emotional abuse he was suffering. Which makes me HAVE A RAGE BLACKOUT. Like, what. Yes, I think you should care about the character. Not because he's male or white, BUT BECAUSE HE'S AN ABUSE VICTIM. Sheesh.

When they clearly relish having done the bad things, and keep right the hell on doing them, but for some reason or another we’re supposed to support them. When we’re supposed to take the abuse of some power or other as laudable masculine prowess, and therefore hold them above the other characters.

Yesssss. And:

Moreover, it just feeds into the characters’ and audience’s agreement that some people - hypermasculine men, to be specific - not only think they are more

[pocochina]

I think I once saw someone complaining about what a "poor little rich boy" Logan Echolls (and others of his type) is, and I think the implication there is that the character's privilege (being white, upper-class, etc.) negates the very real physical and emotional abuse he was suffering.

Yeah. I mean, there are a lot of legit gripes you can have with the portrayal of abuse in popular culture. But to advertise having skated right past it like that....that's a hell of a thing for people to be so desensitized to. And couching it in social justice rhetoric is appalling. Not having been abused is also privilege at play in that kind of discussion. (Which sounds very SO'S YOUR FACE, I know, but really, though.)

And that ideal of masculinity is what leads the latter characters to act out various sorts of gender performance? But that gender performance is never portrayed by the show as being correct.I never know if it's the fatalist DON'T GET ABOVE YOURSELF attitude, or if it's positive support for diverse gender performance. (Well, I do

[ever_neutral]

But to advertise having skated right past it like that....that's a hell of a thing for people to be so desensitized to. And couching it in social justice rhetoric is appalling. Not having been abused is also privilege at play in that kind of discussion.

THANK YOU. fuck.

Well, I do actually think Bill's gripe with Lee is really about gender performance - basically the only thing Lee has failed at by the miniseries is sufficiently swinging his dick around, but doing that just gets him slapped back into place for the sake of daddy's supremacy, so - and I think the narrative excuses that.

Yep. Pretty much. It is actually astonishing how often Papadama behaves in an abusive fashion with his kids (I include Kara there) and the narrative... invites us to sympathize with him. Because Lee and Kara are never able to not forgive him (because they believe they deserve the cut-downs), therefore we should, too. And now I feel complicit in the cycle of abuse.

This aggravation really takes away from the shows for me, so I'm glad it's not an issue

[pocochina]

It is actually astonishing how often Papadama behaves in an abusive fashion with his kids (I include Kara there) and the narrative... invites us to sympathize with him. Because Lee and Kara are never able to not forgive him (because they believe they deserve the cut-downs), therefore we should, too.

yeah. And I always get why they excuse him - they have to at least go through the motions of being in the family to keep it all together; Lee especially needs a bit to go on to keep up some semblance of self-deception - but it's a fine line between showing them go along with it and encouraging viewers to do so. And that's fine when it's KILLER SPACE ROBOT ZOMBIES, but when it's something so real and common, I do think there's a greater responsibility to be careful.

And now I feel complicit in the cycle of abuse.mmmm. I think his interpersonal awfulness was a potentially interesting avenue the show at least kept open for longer than most narratives would, maybe even up until ADitL (certainly the Point of No Return as far as this

[local_max]

Yes, I think you should care about the character. Not because he's male or white, BUT BECAUSE HE'S AN ABUSE VICTIM. Sheesh.

YES.

As if rich kids can *buy retroactive non-abuse*, or Logan's money/Veronica's Love should make him be okay with *both his parents being dead*. FFS.

[ever_neutral]

SERIOUSLY. What the actual fuck though. Like P said--NOT being abused is also a privilege. Oy.

[angearia]

I've been pondering this for a while. There's this turn in social justice discussions where if you have privilege, your pain is nothing. SHUT UP, YOU'RE PRIVILEGED

[pocochina]

I hate this shit so much you don't even know. Have you read Jill's post on call-out culture - basically this whole "buzzier-word-than-thou" culture.

I think kyriarchy is really the operative word (though unfortunately the post itself feels a bit more "hierarchy of oppressions" rather than "system of interlocking oppressions," which is kind of the visualization I like best) it is so useful in making sense of these conversations.

Logan can have some privileges - race, class - but lack others - mental health, not being abused. And pretending any one of those does not exist for the sake of winning an argument is not a social justice conversation. it is a bad-faith appropriation of social justice language to....whatever, be a dick.