![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And I found it so boring that the whole thing went by in kind of a blur.
This J2 version is much better.
This J2 version is much better.
Aug. 17th, 2009
When engaging in a discussion about racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc. in popular culture (or in life, for that matter), there may be many reasonable points of view.
That said, "You know, no matter what you do, people will object, so don't worry about it and just do what you want," is never, ever a valid response.
(No, I don't have the energy, but you can read about further horrors at SGU here regarding the disabled thin scientist episode which, apparently, will involve bonus scenes of rape - but don't pay attention to that, that it's rape doesn't seem to concern anyone - and lesbian characters having sex with men, because that's a perennial favorite).
That said, "You know, no matter what you do, people will object, so don't worry about it and just do what you want," is never, ever a valid response.
(No, I don't have the energy, but you can read about further horrors at SGU here regarding the disabled thin scientist episode which, apparently, will involve bonus scenes of rape - but don't pay attention to that, that it's rape doesn't seem to concern anyone - and lesbian characters having sex with men, because that's a perennial favorite).
Yes, it really is rape.
Aug. 17th, 2009 10:32 pmI lied, I'm commenting on the SGU thing.
There are many, many things wrong with this defense of the episode (including the bullshit claim that they're raising questions which is so obviously an after-the-fact justification it isn't even funny; they may be raising questions but they aren't questions about sexual orientation, or real-life consent, etc. - they're building other questions on the bodies of women, people of color, and gay people, and ignoring that their "fantasy" scenarios bear very close resemblance to real-life dangers for particular groups of people) but mostly, I'm fascinated by the many comments by people claiming it isn't rape.
And, of course, this is the same creative staff that brought us SGA's Irresistible, about the hilarious guy who drugged women into servicing him in his own personal harem. Good times.
(Which is exactly why Dollhouse can't work, why Dollhouse's refusal to use the word rape is absolutely inexcusable, despite the claims of the show's defenders that Dollhouse isn't endorsing the rape. The problem is that we're not working from a blank slate or even a common definition. People don't recognize rape when they see it. They don't recognize it without the name, and even then they work very very hard to define the word as narrowly as possible. Dollhouse makes this kind of rape look slightly more sinister than every other instance of it on TV ever, and then offsets this with constant rape, 2 to 4 instances per episode - and still spends an inordinate amount of time on the rapists' good sides and their philanthropic ambitions. And I keep trying not to rant about Dollhouse again, except that this sort of casual portrayal of rape is so very, very common, and when it comes up it's hard to talk about it in a vacuum.)
I should add -![[livejournal.com profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sheafrotherdon is blogging this whole thing extensively.
There are many, many things wrong with this defense of the episode (including the bullshit claim that they're raising questions which is so obviously an after-the-fact justification it isn't even funny; they may be raising questions but they aren't questions about sexual orientation, or real-life consent, etc. - they're building other questions on the bodies of women, people of color, and gay people, and ignoring that their "fantasy" scenarios bear very close resemblance to real-life dangers for particular groups of people) but mostly, I'm fascinated by the many comments by people claiming it isn't rape.
And, of course, this is the same creative staff that brought us SGA's Irresistible, about the hilarious guy who drugged women into servicing him in his own personal harem. Good times.
(Which is exactly why Dollhouse can't work, why Dollhouse's refusal to use the word rape is absolutely inexcusable, despite the claims of the show's defenders that Dollhouse isn't endorsing the rape. The problem is that we're not working from a blank slate or even a common definition. People don't recognize rape when they see it. They don't recognize it without the name, and even then they work very very hard to define the word as narrowly as possible. Dollhouse makes this kind of rape look slightly more sinister than every other instance of it on TV ever, and then offsets this with constant rape, 2 to 4 instances per episode - and still spends an inordinate amount of time on the rapists' good sides and their philanthropic ambitions. And I keep trying not to rant about Dollhouse again, except that this sort of casual portrayal of rape is so very, very common, and when it comes up it's hard to talk about it in a vacuum.)
I should add -
sheafrotherdon is blogging this whole thing extensively.