Leave a comment

Comments 11

darlas_mom October 28 2008, 22:50:30 UTC
I love listening to you write about sexual politics and their place in fandom. It's always so illuminating.

I've never watched "BSG" personally, but I've never had any desire to. I've heard that they play with the rape trope quite often, and I have no interest whatsoever in a show that does that. I've known several survivors of sexual abuse, so it becomes very personal for me, which can make it very insulting. I feel that many writers who bring on the rape trope often go into it not thinking it through, and unprepared to deal with the consequences. I feel like it cheapens a real-life atrocity to tug at their female audience members' fears and heartstrings. After all, what woman wouldn't feel sorry for a woman who had been sexually assaulted? It's cheap and it's slightly degrading. I find it degrading because it seems to me that they thought their audience couldn't identify with a woman who was strong and powerful on her own terms ( ... )

Reply

kangeiko October 28 2008, 23:19:24 UTC
I've known several survivors of sexual abuse, so it becomes very personal for me, which can make it very insulting. I feel that many writers who bring on the rape trope often go into it not thinking it through, and unprepared to deal with the consequences.

Exactly. And the thing is, even when it's done well, when it is over-used, it becomes something different. Even if the rape scenes in BSG and Carnivale were perfect in every way, watching two shows feature sexual violence so heavily - and have them be written by the same writer - makes me pause and wonder. Additionally, I think that the scene in BSG were needlessly graphic, and that if empathy was truly the goal, the viewer could have generated that simply by seeing Gina, who was an abuse survivor. Instead, we had a long, protracted, difficult scene of the attempted rape of Sharon happening more or less at the same time, and the climax of that was Sharon's attempted rescue by Helo and the Chief. It felt like the real point of the scene was to put Helo and the Chief in danger, and ( ... )

Reply


__marcelo October 29 2008, 00:49:03 UTC
Yes to everything, but specially to your identification of the underlying belief that no one can be both raped and strong, the retroactive nature of rape as a (misused) narrative device. I fear that the thought is but too-prevalent, and I thank you for the illuminating analysis of it.

Reply

kangeiko October 30 2008, 13:40:16 UTC
I fear that the thought is but too-prevalent

It is, and it's one of my pet hates, it really does drive me absolutely nuts.

Reply


bluerosefairy October 29 2008, 02:55:35 UTC
While I think you and I have had the "why I do/don't like BSG" discussion before, I do feel the need to quibble with you a bit on Carnivale.

First, I need to point out that Ron Moore was not the writer of "Milfay", the pilot of Carnivale where Sofie is almost raped. Dan Knauf wrote the pilot for the show in the mid-90's, and while it did get changed when it was picked up, that plotline stayed. So if you want to blame someone for the rape issues in Carnivale, blame DK ( ... )

Reply

kangeiko October 30 2008, 13:53:48 UTC
I would have ceded the Carnivale point - that Ron Moore has an unhealthy obsession with using rape in his narratives - if you didn't point a further instance of this in BSG. So I'd argue that my main quibble with Moore is still valid.

with Jonesy's reaction (of saying she was probably asking for it), combined with Justin's rape of Apollonia, I feel that it more serves as a plot device to link her to her mother.That's not something that ever came across to me, I have to say. Jonesy's comment really confused me, as all I could think of was that she had some bizarre power, much like Ben, and was a honey trap or something - so that she knew how men would be affected by her, and had been deliberately reckless in leaving the safety of the Carnival. I spent several episodes waiting expectantly to see more of Sophie's power, and when it never materialised, I had to have a serious re-think about Jonesy's initial comment. I don't know, maybe it was naive of me, but what he said sounded so alien in concept to my understanding that it just didn' ( ... )

Reply


wingsmith October 29 2008, 12:17:49 UTC
Okey dokey ( ... )

Reply

kangeiko October 29 2008, 16:00:06 UTC
I'm going to do a proper answer to this when I am not at work with my boss looking over my shoulder, but just briefly ( ... )

Reply

part 1 kangeiko October 30 2008, 14:22:41 UTC
OK, I have a little more time, now, so some more rambling.

As an emotionally maniupalative shorthand to obtain sympathy for the victim. This too often makes the character into a pitiable and fairly dull generic 'victim', but only in so far as they are a victim of a generic rape. Not sure what you mean by 'generic rape' in this instance. I would argue that something like rape - which requires focus on the victim, rather than murder by shooting or even certain types of violence - is by definition always specific. Like up-close murders, it requires knowledge of the victim - it is difficult to distance yourself away from the act, which is why rapists tend to distance themselves away from the victim, viewing them as inferior (and, in cases of war-rape, as inhuman ( ... )

Reply

part 2 kangeiko October 30 2008, 14:24:01 UTC
I've not read anything in your argument above to demonstrate that rape is neccessarily *feminising*. Passive-making, sure. Victimising, fine. But your point that using rape as a feminising weapon reinforces perceptions of the female as victim and passive, relies upon an assumption that the fact of being raped places the victim in a feminine role. To the extent that this assumption rests upon the fact that it renders the victim passive and victimised, the reasoning *appears* and I stress appears because I might have missed your meaning, *appears* circular.

OK. Trying to build on what I said previously and not repeat myself -

Using Cixous re: binary oppositions of male/female, masculine/feminine, light/dark, active/passive etc. These have been pretty well documented as two groupings, with the female side being dark, irrational and passive.

In the vernacular, the male 'fucks', the female 'is fucked'. The act of fucking can only be done by the male. So, by definition, the person doing the act of fucking, being active, is male, strong ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up