Sexual Assault in Back to the Future or "I'm totally about to ruin your nostalgic love for this movie, so get ready"

[Trigger warning]

For the first time in probably more than ten years, I watched Back to the Future with my boyfriend, who had never seen it.  I remember it being not that great, but it's one of those classic 80s movies that everyone should see once.  I guess.  Watching it as an adult was very different than that first viewing as a kid.  Much of that had to do with my change in how I perceived the sexual assault in the movie.

I think we all know how the story goes: Marty's inventor friend, Doc, invents a time machine, Marty is sent back in time in his escape from scary brown terrorists, whom Doc cheated out of a proper bomb in exchange for time-traveling necessary plutonium.  Before he locates Doc in 1955, Marty inadvertently prevents his parents from their fateful meeting.

Let's stop here for a sec because this is where the sexual assault first enters: Marty's mom, Lorraine, falls in love with George after her dad hits George with the car.  Lorraine in 1985 still never knew what George was doing in the middle of the street in the first place.  Well, Marty follows George in 1955 and we find out that George was in a tree with binoculars watching Lorraine undress.  Lorraine's dad hits him, or is supposed to hit him, when he falls out of the tree.  However, Marty pushes him out of the way and is hit by the car, thus becoming the love-interest to his mom.

At any rate, during the course of events where Marty tries to figure out how to return to 1985, and also how to ensure his existence by getting his parents to fall in love or at the very least "park the car," we observe more sexual assault.  In the cafeteria, Lorraine is sitting with friends, and Biff (who in 1985 is George's boss, or at least more successful coworker) has his hands on Lorraine.  She is clearly uncomfortable.  She tells him to go away; she is cowering away from him.  Marty encourages George to stop them, but George is afraid, and slinks away.  So Marty steps in (which further cements Lorraine's attraction to him).

Later in the movie, Marty comes up with a plan to get George with Lorraine, a plan which involves Marty being not so nice to a nice girl (his mom), and he tells George to rescue her.  George points out that that is not a very nice thing for Marty to do, but he assures George that's it's totally cool cuz it's pretend and stuff.  Hear that everyone?  Sexual assault is okay if you're only pretending to assault the woman to act as wingman to your buddy (or father!), but it's gotta be believable, so scare the shit out of her.  Ugh.  I can't believe I just wrote that.

Anyway, the plan goes wrong.  Turns out Lorraine is totally hot for Marty, but quickly changes her mind when she finds kissing him feels like kissing her brother.  Biff interrupts, and in an act of revenge against Marty for a sweet skateboard escape attempt that earlier trashed Biff's car, Biff hands Marty over to his thugs, and jumps in the car with Lorraine, presumably to "have his way" with her.  Yeah, it's called rape, but it's not really treated as such in the movie.  It does, however, mean that George can really prove himself a man because Lorraine is really being sexually assaulted by Biff (and not just pretend sexually assaulted by Marty).  Long-ish uncomfortable scene short: George rescues Lorraine.  Seriously, this scene was really uncomfortable to watch. I mean, after all the other assaults that Lorraine endures, it's made even more disgusting by the fact that I'm made to think "omg will no one save her?"  That's what these assaults are all building up to, right?  George has a chance to protect her, and eventually does before it can escalate anymore. But it's just a prop to motivate George, which falls into that cliche of women dying / being assaulted / or being in any other form of danger to cause a man to act (I think one of the best examples of this is Wolverine in the X-Men movies, since the women are basically required to die twice to get Wolverine to do stuff).

Oh, but after George proves his manliness by saving Lorraine's virtue, George gets another chance to really hang on to that manliness because (guess what!) Lorraine is assaulted AGAIN.  Some random dude on the dance floor shoves George out of the way and has his hands on Lorraine even though she, again, says no, and even tries to get away.  At this point I believe I was throwing things.  Apparently the character of Lorraine exists solely for the purpose of being sexually assaulted.  I mean, she like goes around doing Lorraine things, and gets assaulted.  And it's okay, because eventually some upstanding man will defend her.  Maybe.  And even when she's sitting with friends, her friends just carry on like nothing is happening.  Can I get some damn female solidarity please??

Oh yeah, George eventually reclaims Lorraine for a second time.  Marty still exists.  Hooray.

But there's one more thing I want to talk about before I wrap this up.  Marty returns to 1985 to find that his and his family's lives have significantly improved because George is now a Man.  We have several signifiers that tell us about the family's success: Marty's brother is wearing a suit and not a fast-food uniform!  His sister has several boyfriends.  SEVERAL!  His mom is not fat!  That's like, the best kind of mom, right?  And his dad is the boss of other people!  Including (omg you're so not ready for this) Biff.  BIFF EVERYONE!!  You know, the man who consistently sexually assaulted his mom in high school, including a near-rape!  Yep.  They keep him around to wax the car because it's an indicator of MANLY SUCCESS and is not at all triggering to Lorraine having her attacker so close every day of her adult life.  Because Biff is subdued now, and is not at all likely to you know, attack her again despite having shown a propensity for just that behavior.

As a kid, I think I sort of glossed over these attacks.  They're treated so callously in the movie that I didn't process it as something out of the norm.  I simply accepted that Biff was a jerk, and Lorraine needed someone to save her, and then everything was okay.  I didn't think of George as a predator, even though he  is, because the movie still frames him as a hero.  When I saw Biff at the end waxing the family car, I thought it was a funny sort of justice--ha, serves him right!  Only as an adult do I see how utterly fucked up it is that Lorraine has to have him in close proximity, and how fucking unrealistic it is that she would be okay with that.

But no one cares about a woman's discomfort if it means her predator-turned-hero-turned-husband is all confidant and shit.  Yay for manliness!

News flash: Seth MacFarlane sucks

Now, before any of you fanatics of Seth MacFarlane's monopolization on the adult cartoon front wish to attack me or tell me I'm being too sensitive: this post is about why Seth MacFarlane sucks on a very basic level.  All isms aside (which include but are not limited to sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, slut-shaming, and fat-hating), MacFarlane's shows just suck.

Why, do you ask?

Because his comedy has just about run its course.  He's officially out of jokes, and you dudebros are hailing it as some extradinary work of comedy.

Um.  No.

If 10 minutes of a given MacFarlane show episode isn't being spent on some character engaging in mindless noise making  or repetitive fight scenes, then you can bet that those ten minutes are being used for some other exponentially obnoxious scene.

And even the "edgy" humor is nothing special.  Hahaha domestic violence. Oh man that racism sure is (not) fresh.  Fat people are totes gross?  Nice job utilizing gay stereotypes.  Note: there's absolutely nothing original about relying on stereotypes for jokes.  Can anyone say "cliche?"

It goes on.  So go ahead: tell me about how Seth MacFarlane is a comedic genius.  Just know that it's all bullshit.  You douchebags eat up the same fucking jokes (and not just on Family Guy--Cleveland show too--except with Black people!!) and have the temerity to say it's original?  In what way, exactly?

I am expecting a slew of MacFarlane defenders. Just know that this thread will be heavily moderated.  Just because I'm criticizing a beloved (HA!) t.v. show doesn't mean I'm giving bigots a free reign on what's posted here--and don't bother giving me that free speech bullshit, because that's not gonna fly here (hate speech ≠ free speech).

P.S. Anyone else notice how lovers of Family Guy will often measure it's supposed awesomeness by comparing it to The Simpsons?  What the hell is up with that??

Presentations of violence and gender in the Twilight novels

Note: While I do not give a full plot summary, some of the analysis may touch on topics that reveal the plot.  Also, I embrace "the author is dead" perspective, since I do not know anything about the author or her motives.  This analysis is strictly an analysis of the novel in question, and is not a criticism of the author, though I do criticize the author's writing, which I consider to be two different things.

I recently finished Stephanie Meyer's vampire romance, Twilight.  While it wasn't the most fantastic novel (certainly it took a lot of reading before reaching anything remotely climactic), it wasn't all that horrible.  But it wasn't all that good, either.  I didn't have high expectations for a romance novel as it was (admittedly I have read few, not having acquired a taste for the genre--yeah, studying literature makes you elitist.  I'm no exception).  This post will examine gender roles and gender presentations in the novel, as well as other problematic themes.

I. Gendering Monsters

In Twilight, we are introduced to the world of vampires.  From the moment we meet the Cullens, we are made aware through Bella's eyes that they are special:

I stared because their faces, so different, so similar, were all devastatingly, inhumanly beautiful (11).

Though all of the Cullens are stunningly attractive, there's a clear gendered difference in their appearances.  The men are large, and strong, while the women are small and graceful.  Though the women are also impeccably strong, they do not look it.  Several times Alice is referred to as being lithe and graceful in her movements:

Alice reached for Emmett's hand and they darted toward the oversized field; she ran like a gazelle.  He was nearly as graceful and just as fast--yet Emmett could never be compared to a gazelle.

[...]

[Edward's] run was more aggressive, a cheetah rather than a gazelle (192).

The males are not only less graceful, but more aggressive.  The exchange between Edward and James when James first catches Bella's scent is a prime example, complete with "feral snarl," "bared teeth," and "aggressive poses" (197).  The females, all of whom obviously feed at some point, are not depicted as so aggressive even though they are (presumably) just as strong and capable as the males.  Even Victoria, who in later books hunts Bella out of revenge (posing an obvious aggressive threat), is described in more traditionally feminine terms:

[Victoria] was wilder, her eyes shifting restlessly between the men facing her, and the loose grouping around me, her chaotic hair quivering in the slight breeze.  Her posture was distinctly feline (196).

We are presented with clear-cut male and female roles.  Within the Cullen family there even seems to be a hierarchy, with Carlisle being presented as the head of the vampire family.  And even Esme, who's presented as the mother figure for the Cullens, seems to be ranked below Edward, though this is perhaps a combination of gendered leadership and seniority, since Carlisle created Edward prior to creating Esme.  We also have the whole creation of vampires.  In the case of most of the Cullens, Carlisle created them, yet it seems that it's in a godlike sort of way rather than a full embrace of the father identity.

II.  Violence is romance

If I were to ever read this book again (I won't) I would count how many times Edward tells Bella he's dangerous, or outright threatens her.  It's deeply disturbing to me that the stalking, the death threats, and the constant mentioning of Bella as food is somehow supposed to be romantic.  I suppose this is just another product of our rape culture, where we inextricably link sex and violence, and the threat of violence is somehow supposed to be endearing.

There's also the vast power disparity, which is also a threat.  In the meadow, Edward demonstrates his strength as further evidence of why Bella should be frightened.  This creates an obvious illustration of Bella's fragility: in any given moment Edward could accidentally crush her.

Bella is willing to accept the constant threat of Edward's presence, and even goes so far as to blame herself for tempting Edward to kill her.  In Twilight Bella even goes well out of her way to not implicate Edward should he kill her--and she willingly walks to her possible death.

There are several instances where Edward is committing criminal acts: watching Bella sleep (breaking and entering), stalking her, obsessing over her to the point where he views her as a possession.  All of which is filtered to us through Bella, who finds this type of attention flattering and romantic.  These are highly problematic, once again driving the point that romance irrevocably involves fear and violence (or at least the constant threat of violence).

These issues are also evident in the later books: hyper aggression in the male characters, Bella's inferiority and apparently fragile nature, traditional gender presentations for the female characters.  Women are consistently presented as a hindrance to the male characters (think of Leah, who seems to be this unwanted burden on the rest of the male pack in Eclipse).

This is all worsened when we think of this in hindsight--yeah, it's great that he followed her all those times.  I mean, think of how she would have been smooshed or raped or murdered, and if he hadn't followed her he couldn't have rescued her.  At one point he even forces her into his car when she tells him to leave her alone.  But later, she resolves to tell him to leave her alone and "mean it this time" (71), which effectively negates any previous sincerity, which in turn adds to the stereotype of women not saying what they mean, which is often twisted into an argument of a gray area concerning consent.  Yeah, it's all connected, okay?

III. Likes

Before anyone accuses me of being an angry feminist who finds joy in nothing, I will admit to some likes:

• Bella is an awkward and clumsy teenager.  I can relate to that!
• It's a decent enough story.  Unfortunately Stephanie Meyer isn't a great enough writer to make it more than decent.  
• Bella's brief feminist moment: in Twilight she mentions writing a paper on female gender roles in Shakespeare's plays.  I really really wish there was more of this more.
• Oh, at the end she mentions something about needing equality in relationships.  Thank you!!!
• I did find it hilariously absurd whenever Jacob warned Bella (or whoever) not to make him anger.  LOL! JACOB SMASH!
• Bella's dad's name is Charlie (which is pretty similar to Charles, who stares at you every time you visit this site--yes, I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel here.  It's not a great literary work.  What the fuck do you want from me?)

Miscellaneous Complaints:

• Jacob was likable up until he turned werewolf.  He was happy and sweet to Bella.  For a time I was rooting for him because Bella could have been with a great guy.  Then he got all hairy, aggressive, and just as possessive as Edward.  Which means she then had a choice between Douchebag 1 and Douchebag 2.  And Jacob was actually worse in my mind because it seemed like he thought he deserved Bella, like she owed him something, which is totally creepy.  And the forced kiss between her and Jacob clearly lacks consent (and her father laughed and was all cool with it.  You can bet if I went home with the same scenario, Mommy and DaddyGrandeur would be kicking someone's ass--hint: not mine).  
• After Jacob's monsterization, so-to-speak, any description of Edward and Jacob is entwined in aggression.  Their issues with anger become so central to their characterizations, it's disturbing.  
• Bella's hearing Edward's voice scolding her like some errant child in New Moon.  God, even when he's not there his hold over her is totally creepy.  And she willingly (again) put herself in danger just to hear that voice--and relished the imagined anger.
• Stephanie Meyer's writing is...lacking.  Had she not tapped into a provocative premise (human girl falls in love with a vampire--sounds pretty sweet) she probably would never have had anything published.  Her writing is pretty substandard.  I mean, does she really have to have a character say the book's title in every fucking book?  If you have to have your characters explicitly state the name of the book, it kind of kills whatever metaphor you think you were going for (which speaks volumes of the anticipated thinking capacity of the intended audience).  Speaking of metaphors, did anyone else want to do a *headdesk* every time Bella mentioned the damn "hole" in her chest in New Moon?  Okay, we fucking get it--you got dumped, it hurts.  Think of some other way to describe that pain.  Fuck.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that's all I got.  But here are some other fun Twilight links.  If anyone else has written or come across any other good Twilight links, analyses, open threads, etc., drop them in the comments.

Bloody Conclusions

Edward Cullen, Face Of Girl Power: On the Girliness Of Pop, And Why It Matters

Third Twilight Flick to be Guy-Friendly  (okay, not so fun in terms of it's failtastic assumption that women don't get into action and men can't find joy in romance, but every now and then we gotta add logs to our fires, right?).

Works Cited:

Meyer, Stephanie.  Twilight.  New York: Little Brown and Company, 2005.

crossposted

Only pretty women should be murdered in a jealous rage, apparently

I'm continually astounded by how easily we judge women's bodies, and I'm even more astounded that women judge other women. This is a terrible cycle in which we've all engaged in, at least once in our lives. Women's bodies are continually put on display, mostly for the heterosexual male gaze, but women see these images too. They're everywhere. We've gotten to the point where men don't even need to police women's bodies anymore, because we do it ourselves.

I overheard a conversation earlier today in the break room at work. One woman was reading an article from People about the murder of Jasmine Fiore. What she said caused me to stop reading my book and listen in: "You know, she wasn't even that pretty."

So...only "pretty" women get to be obsessed over, murdered in a jealous rage, dismembered, and discarded in a dumpster? A woman's life was taken, and we're discussing her looks? Why even say she's not that pretty? Is this to imply she wasn't worth the effort of murdering? That Jenkins could have found someone "hotter" to kill?

From there, the conversation turned to how much plastic surgery she's had done, as if this is the issue here. While I cannot say I agree when women decide to take extreme measures in order to conform to some ideal of beauty, I do understand that this can certainly be attributed to the type of culture in which we're drowning. Women's bodies are continually available for visual consumption, and those who do not fit this ideal are viciously criticized and judged. Often, it's overwhelming for women to deal with, and even the worst options are considered and taken.

So part of me empathizes with women who decide to have plastic surgery. But how is this relevant in the wake of Fiore's murder? The woman was dismembered, and only identified by the serial numbers on her breast implants.

And it's not about a woman's looks: it's about a man's disillusioned sense of entitlement to control a woman, and when he realized he had no control, he killed her.

This illustrates how callously we view the death of a woman. A life has been taken, and all we can discuss is her looks? This is utterly disrespectful, judgmental, and diminishing, and further exemplifies how a woman's only as valuable as she is beautiful.

And the media frames this as a crime of passion, which is utter bullshit since it's just another form of victim-blaming ("well, he only killed her because he was jealous she was texting an ex").

It should be noted that after this conversation, another woman noted that if she "were Jon [of Jon and Kate] I would have punched her by now."

To say I'm anything but deeply disturbed that violence against women is so acceptable in our society that we can make light of it, and even rationalize it ("that bitch is asking for it") is an understatement.

And I'm continually disheartened that women's lives apparently mean so little.

crossposted

Tracy Clark-Flory on Chris Brown's Larry King appearance

This was such a great article about Chris Brown's upcoming Larry King appearance, that I had to share it in full (links in the article are all in the original posting):

Half a year after brutalizing his then-girlfriend -- by hitting, choking, biting and threatening to kill her -- Chris Brown is still following the script of domestic abusers everywhere. He loves her, he really does, it was totally unlike him and he promises to never ever do it again. That's the tune the R&B crooner sings in a clip from his pre-taped interview for "Larry King Live," which airs in full this Wednesday at 9 p.m.

The 30-second teaser, which you will find below, doesn't reveal the full extent of Brown's feelings about the attack, but what we are shown can be summed up like so: "It's just like, wow." Softballer Larry King asks: "When you hear about all the things the police reports say you did, what do you think of that?" Brown, clad in a boyish baby blue sweater and bow tie, looking ready for his first day of kindergarten, replies: "I just look at it like, wow. I'm in shock, because first of all that's not who I am as a person and that’s not who I promise I want to be. When I look at the police reports or hear about the police reports, I don't know what to think. I just don't know what to think. It's just, like, wow." On an identical note, CNN reports that in a clip not yet released Brown addresses the widely circulated image of a bruised and battered Rihanna: “When I look at it now, it’s just like, wow, like, I can’t -- I can’t believe that -- that actually happened.” He also says he doesn't remember "doing it," as King so indirectly puts it.

As with his scripted apology, Brown dances around what he did. It's this unspecified thing he can't remember doing -- despite having confessed to it. This all serves to distance him from the image of Rihanna's battered face, which has been burned into our collective pop consciousness. Not only does he not remember unleashing such rage upon his ex-girlfriend, but he can't even believe he did that, you know, thing that he did. The message is that he's a nice boy, a good boy and not an abuser. Never mind that abusers are so often nice boys, good boys -- when they aren't abusing. Let's not forget that he was involved in two prior domestic violence incidents with Rihanna.

CNN also reports that in as-yet-unseen footage, he announces that he still loves Rihanna. The declaration of love, the shock at being overtaken by such uncharacteristic rage and the promise to never do it again -- it's straight out of a domestic violence PSA. The only difference here is that he's telling this to us, the American public, the fans he's trying to win back, instead of his lover. I can only hope -- for his sake and that of his worshipful young fans -- that the full interview reveals Brown as being ready and willing to confront in uncensored detail what he did and begin to work at truly healing himself.

You can view the original posting of this article here.

Oh, and there's this, where he states he does remember the attack.

Is anyone else sick of his excuses?

He is trying to distance himself from this incident by talking about how he can't believe what happened, as if he had no control over the situation. It happened. He is thus removing the agency from this incident, accepting responsibility while simultaneously taking a step back.

Congratulations, Chris Brown--you're just like every other abuser; and you're still a douchebag. Your bow-tie notwithstanding.

H/T: Feministing

Oops, don't care

Chris Brown apparently still loves Rihanna, to which I reply with "So fucking what?"

Chris Brown says he doesn't remember savagely beating Rihanna and claims he still loves his former girlfriend.

In his first public interviews on the subject, the R&B singer told People magazine and CNN's Larry King that his feelings haven't changed for Rihanna since the February beating that left her bloody and bruised.

"I never fell out of love with her," Brown told People. "That just wouldn't go away."

Brown has just joined the ranks comprised of men who claim to love the women they've brutally beaten, as if that has any merit after the fact. Sorry, it doesn't. Too many women have been told this, only to be physically hurt again. A man has no reason ever to hit a woman. Brown's supposed love for Rihanna is inconsequential. This admission doesn't absolve him of his crime.

Oh, you don't remember beating her, and you love her you say? Well, I suppose you want a cookie or something?

I hope his fans aren't so quick to forgive--his youtube video and now this seem to be a sort of desperate scraping for sympathy. Apologizing and saying he still has feelings doesn't take away what he did.

In case we're all having a hard time remembering what Chris Brown is, I've included a visual aid:

Kidnap and rape victim found after 18 years

By now you may have heard of the woman who was found earlier this week. Jaycee Lee Dugard was missing for 18 years, kidnapped in 1991 when she was only 11 years old.

I cannot even begin to imagine what her kidnapper, Phillip Garrido, did to her.

Phillip Garrido, 58, is being held for investigation of various kidnapping and sex charges. Authorities said his 54-year-old wife, Nancy Garrido, was with him during the kidnapping in South Lake Tahoe and she also has been arrested.

[...]

Garrido has a long rap sheet dating to the 1970s.

He was convicted of kidnapping a 25-year-old woman whom he snatched from a South Lake Tahoe parking lot, handcuffed, tied down and held in a mini-warehouse in Reno, according to a November 1976 story in the Reno Gazette-Journal.

He also has a conviction for rape by force or fear stemming from the same incident, and was paroled from a Nevada state prison in 1988, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

In 1991, police believe he was trolling for victims in South Lake Tahoe in a Ford Granada when he snatched Dugard from a bus stop outside her home. The case attracted national attention and was featured on TV's "America's Most Wanted," which broadcast a composite drawing of a suspect seen in the car.

One thing that really struck me from the article is that the day he was caught and confessed, he went to the University of California with the intent to pass out religious literature. His acquaintances said he'd become something of a religious fanatic in recent years. He's described as speaking incoherently, rambling about God, and even stated, "I tell you here's the story of what took place at this house, and you're going to be absolutely impressed. It's a disgusting thing that took place from the end to the beginning. But I turned my life completely around."

Well, that doesn't change anything, does it? I, for one, don't give a shit how he's supposedly changed, or how much he repents. That cannot undo the damage done to his victims. Repenting doesn't give anyone a free pass on their actions.

I can't help but wonder what sort of role Garrido's wife had in all this, since the victim and her daughters were living in the backyard. I can't help but wonder if she was a willing or unwilling accomplice in her husband's penchant for abduction and rape of minors.

At this time, police are investigating whether or not Garrido also sexually assaulted his daughters.

I hope that bastard rots in prison the rest of his life for what he's done.

Drowning in rape culture: victim-blaming and women's bodies as sexual objects

I have written previously about the atrocities committed by George Sodini, and as difficult a subject as this is to address, I thought I'd delve back into it, given the comments I'm still receiving from the first post.

A cursory glance through George Sodini's online diary is nothing less than disturbing. The support of Sodini's actions by other men is frightening.

First off, the victim-blaming is just...astounding. Sodini knew none of the women he murdered, and somehow we're to believe that if a woman does not give men the sex they apparently deserve, any woman can be justifiably killed as retribution.

What this effectively does is remove any semblance of autonomy from women. We have to consistently state that "no means no"; we have the same conversations over and over regarding consent, and what is and is not rape. And just when we think we've gotten somewhere, something like this happens and we're reminded of how little the world thinks of us and our bodies.

And it isn't just about a man desiring the sexual use of our bodies (though Sodini's diary is riddled with dismay at not having had sex in decades, he clearly felt that this was something he deserved--he wasn't frustrated or sad due to a lack of intimacy with another human being). In Sodini's diary, there are many instances where he views women as possessions that legitimize masculinity:

A man needs a woman for confidence. He gets a boost on the job, career, with other men, and everywhere else when he knows inside he has someone to spend the night with and who is also a friend. This type of life I see is a closed world with me specifically and totally excluded.

While he was clearly lonely, it's quite evident that he viewed women as status-boosters. In one entry he mentioned he had a date with a woman, but gave no details. He rated women; he read about teenage girls having sex, and seemed angry that none would have sex with him. More than once he mentioned his looks, his cleanliness, citing these as reasons why women should not have rejected him.

And in response, there have been men who say women should "put out," so this sort of thing won't happen. And there are those that cite this act is reason enough to legalize prostitution. But these arguments, if they can be called such, are weak at best, and seem to be forgetting that 1). men do not have any right to any woman's body without her consent. It doesn't matter how clean or good-looking said man is. It doesn't matter how many drinks he bought her. It doesn't matter how expensive dinner was--nothing gives a man claim over a woman's body. For further information on this, I direct you to bike groggette's "Dear Het Men." And 2). Sodini was obsessed with possessing a woman, not just having sex with someone. He saw other men, especially black men, as competition.

And though we like to tell ourselves that this is just a lone man with issues that do not reflect those of "the rest of us," I can't help but wonder what caused this man, and the scores of men supporting his horrific actions, to view women in such a way.

Women are not to blame; but in a sick way it's not surprising that many are quick to blame us for having the audacity to reject a man, because we live in a rape culture, where women's bodies are constantly on display, where women are portrayed as available, as fuckable, as objects for the heterosexual male gaze, where men assume no means yes, women's bodies are there for the taking, and all it takes is a little persistence coercion.

Because, apparently, we're supposed to have sex out of obligation, not because we like it or have authority over our own bodies (oh, but that would make us sluts).

And saying something as ignorant as "put out or die" is part of the problem, and is not justification to abuse women in any way. Saying, "but men have needs," is not an excuse. And it's not our problem. These attitudes are a small step toward justifying similar horrors against women, and so long as we hold onto these attitudes that women are fuckable objects rather than human beings, then it it'll just breed more of the same.

crossposted

You know what's totally hot, ladiez?

Trigger Warning

Being stalked. And you know what's hot when not actually being stalked? Pretending to be stalked. That's right ladies, your silly feminine desires can be fulfilled, or at least played into, because now you can buy this:
That's right, now you can have this creepy douchebag watchin' you while you sleep, cuz that's totally awesome and not at all creepy. I particularly love what this person has to say (there's another NSFW product at the link that I don't even have the energy to discuss at this point):

Yes, you too can imagine a 100-year-old teenager romantically breaking into your house to stare at you while you sleep! What could be more soothing than knowing a strange man who wants to drink your blood has total access to you when you're utterly unaware and most vulnerable? I can't even imagine!

Just what we need: another goddamn example of romanticizing a criminal act (read: almost every romcom ever).

Fucking. Gross.

I don't know about you, but I'm with this woman:

see more Lol Celebs

H/T: GreenishBlue for pic and links.

Apparently this judge knows something I don't

Trigger warning

Or maybe I know something he doesn't. Cara over at The Curvature has posted about this man.

Three years ago in B.C., Canada, a woman woke up in the bed of the man in the image to the left. She was bleeding and bruised, and though she remembered going out for a night on town, she didn’t remember how she got in this bed, or what had happened to her. Medical examinations determined that a man had vaginally penetrated her, and also found sedatives in her system.

The man’s name is Fernando Manuel Alves, and he pleaded guilty to sexual assault in the rape of this woman. He was initially charged with sexually assaulting three other women, and administering a noxious substance, though those charges were eventually dropped.

Despite pleading guilty, though, to the rape of a woman who has described since feeling the loss of both her will to live and ability to feel safe, Alves is not going to spend a single day in jail. No, instead, he received a 9 month conditional sentence, and placement on the sex offender registry.

Why, exactly, is Alves not being sent to jail for his violent crime, when non-violent criminals are sent there all the time? Well, that would be the point of particular interest:

In sentencing, the B.C. provincial court judge said Alves was not pathologically dangerous but had committed a crime of opportunity.

The judge ordered that Alves be placed on the sex-offender registry for the next 20 years but that he not spend time in jail.

Yes. Seemingly, since the judge felt the need to express as much during sentencing, Alves is not going to jail because he is believed to be not pathologically dangerous. And the way we know he is not dangerous is because his crime, his rape, was one of of opportunity.

One can only assume that when a rape is called a “crime of opportunity,” the “opportunity” in question is a woman being in the rapist’s presence.

I don't even know where to begin with how fucking ridiculous this shit is. Calling this a "crime of opportunity" is misogynist victim blaming which says the victims simply do not matter. I cannot imagine the trauma his victims are now suffering from, and can only assume it has worsened by the lack of punishment. Apparently it was his victims' faults for being in his proximity, which of course removes any agency and responsibility from the rapist.

Cara goes onto point out

We are constantly treated as though our bodies are opportunities for rape. Victims are constantly told that they created an opportunity for someone to hurt them. And it’s absolutely disgusting that a court would buy into and propagate such a notion.

And it gets almost impossibly more disgusting still when you look at the fact that contrary to the judge’s assertion, this man actually is dangerous, not only because he has proven himself to see women’s bodies as an opportunity for rape, but because he has been accused of rape numerous times before.

In a rape culture such as ours, is it any wonder why most victims of sexual assault do not report the crimes, fearing the pervasive victim-blaming? This may be shocking to some people, but the only person responsible for rape is the rapist. It is entirely irrelevant to take into account what the victim was wearing, how much the victim drank, where the victim was, when the victim was there, if the victim was alone or with friends, etc.

No man has any excuse EVER to sexually assault a woman. And this judge is a fucking moron for thinking this man isn't dangerous.

But I guess that's what we women get for FUCKING EXISTING.

H/T: shani-o at PostBourgie

Highly recommended quick-read

I thought this open letter, titled "Dear Het Men," was very appropriate in the wake of the atrocities committed by Sodini, and wanted to share it with you all. While I'm glad that someone wrote this, I'm quite disheartened that we still have to say these same things over and over. With overwhelming support of Sodini, and the sympathy with which the media has bestowed upon his miserable soul, this clearly hasn't been said enough. So, go read it.

On extreme anti-feminism

[Trigger warning]

By now you've undoubtedly heard of the shooting that took place Tuesday night. I've been avoiding writing anything about it because it's deeply upset me. The media has almost been sympathizing with the killer, George Sodini, labeling him a lonely man who just wanted to get laid. This, of course, has brought the MRAs and the anti-feminists out of the fucking woodwork, which has only upset me more.

This man who apparently thought he deserved a woman, and was so obsessed by this that he felt it was his duty to openly murder women at a gym as some sick retribution has been uplifted as a hero. I found some quotes over at Alas, a blog, and while I will not post them here, I feel I should respond in some manner. Just as a warning, I found it difficult to read any of them, and couldn't even bring myself to finish reading them.

I am forced to confront my own fear on a daily basis, a fear that men can never know. They can sympathize, but they'll never know what it's like to wake up, and be afraid. To wonder if the shirt I am putting on will get me raped, or if my challenge to patriarchy by blogging or by speaking up to family and friends will earn me more than ridicule. Every time there is a tragedy like this one, I feel something in me wilt and die. My heart goes out to the victims.

But I cannot ever act like it has not affected me because I wasn't there, because I wasn't one of the victims. Horrors such as this serve as constant stinging reminders of how men like Sodini, and men in support of Sodini, feel just in their violence against women. Women should never have to have sex with a man without consenting (it's rape, no matter how you skirt around it). Women should never have to be in fear for living their lives, for having autonomy over their own bodies. Rape and violence is never justifiable, and to say that women (feminists in particular) should simply "put out" whenever the fuck a man wants is absolutely sickening. The sheer numbers of people defending this sick man is frightening in itself.

Not only is there victim-blaming (even though Sodini never knew the women he shot) but we have men saying that they deserve to use women's bodies as they wish, and if the women refuse, then suddenly there's this right to take sex. Buying me a drink does not give anyone the right to rape me, nor does my rejection warrant my murder, and this is true for all women.

Tragedies such as this are perceived as punishments to women. To show us what will happen if we have the audacity to speak up for (deserved) equality. We are in constant threat, where acts such as this serve as reminders: "See what could happen?" the media seems to ask, and anti-feminists applaud.

But these sickening reminders only reaffirm a determination to fight for women's rights because we're human, not some fuckable toy which men get to use as they please. We have rights to safety and autonomy, and assholes like Sodini, and the ones guilty of uplifting him as a goddamn hero need to learn that.

This just illustrates how far we really haven't come at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The commenting policy is strictly enforced, and this post will be no different. Anti-feminist comments and comments inciting / commending violence against women will not appear on this page.

File under "things that piss me off"

First, I want to apologize for the scant postings recently. My fiance had the weekend off, and trying to write anything of worth while he's in my face is...difficult (seriously--last night he made me watch "He's just not that into you." I spent the duration of the movie banging my head on the floor, screaming "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME??" and trying to get the cat to play with me, just so I wouldn't have to watch that shit-fest--the only good thing about that movie was I got to stare at Jennifer Connelly here and there. Needless to say, I will not be writing my usual review, since I've deemed it not worth so much of my precious precious time).

Anyway, here are a few things I thought I'd share with my readership in place of an actual post.

First, Chris Brown apologizes, but...it's less than convincing:



While I'm all about men seeking help and guidance to correct their behavior so that they do not lay hand upon a woman again (though it shouldn't happen in the first place), I have mixed feelings about this apology. Now, I don't know Chris Brown, so I have no idea how sincere any of this is; but I am intimidated by him when he says "I told Rihanna..." Even without that, I still feel like this is lacking. He talks about how all of this has affected him; not once does he acknowledge that what he did to Rihanna was wrong, that she didn't deserve such treatment from him. He instead says that his "mother and spiritual teachers" have taught him better than that without really acknowledging why these people might have taught him not to hit a woman. He's interested in maintaining regaining his status as a role model without delving into what that means. He's just apologizing, but isn't doing his audience any favor by not going into the whys. I don't know; perhaps I'm expecting more from him. A 2-minute video just doesn't seem like enough.

H/T to PostBourgie

Trigger warning for this next one:

Yet another example of victim-blaming when a woman has the audacity to leave her husband. Thanks to CaitieCat for the link, who also offers this:

Next time someone says "Why didn't she just leave?", send them this link.

Seriously. I know I'm sick of some man telling me how stupid women are for staying in abusive relationships, absolving the man of any semblance of responsibility for his own actions. Not to mention that women are well-aware of these consequences of leaving a man in a patriarchal society that unthinkingly engages in victim-blaming, and clearly doesn't give a shit about our lives.

I'm done. I will get back on track this week, I promise.

Rape of the Heroine: examining rape as a tool in Sara Douglass' fantasy novels

SPOILER ALERT: This post will examine parallels in Sara Douglass' various fantasy series, including The Wayfarer Redemption, The Troy Game, and DarkGlass Mountain. Though I do not give a plot summary of any of them, I discuss events in the novels that can be considered spoilers. I will try to maintain "the author is dead" examination since I know nothing of Douglass' personal convictions; thus I will only discuss the "facts" as presented in the novels--any topics I challenge or take issue with will not reflect an opinion on the author.

I've been a fan of Douglass' work for some time now, having read all six books of Wayfarer, the first three of Troy, and two of DarkGlass (note that the third has not been released yet).

What all of these series have in common is rape and violence against women. It makes me uncomfortable each time I pick up a novel because each one in the series involves rape and violence. Granted, the novels describe epic battles, and fantastic wars against such enemies as demons, wraiths, and even beings with no real "life," as in the pyramid in DarkGlass, or the labyrinth in Troy. These enemies commit horrific atrocities against the characters (of course, because they're enemies), but we also have characters on the same side hurting one another.

Think of how Axis beat Azhure when he thought she might betray him, nearly killing her. Think how Axis used Faraday for his own gains, which ultimately cost her her life.

Think of how Brutus raped Cornelia, an act that made her his wife.

How many times is rape used to advance the story? Quite a bit, actually. It seems that the heroines in these novels are doomed to experience sexual assault. Cornelia is repeatedly raped by Brutus, her "husband." Faraday is raped by Borneheld (well, she doesn't seem all that willing even though it's her "fate"). Zephyr is raped by WolfStar; WolfStar by the Timekeeper demons; Salome by every man and beast with a dick in Coroleas as punishment; Inardle is raped, given as a prize to a soldier; SummerStar is raped by a wraith (Skraeling).

These rapes all serve a purpose: advance the story so the hero can do his thing. Sadly, even the heroes committing the rapes are portrayed in a sympathetic way, as if saying, "Yeah, he's a rapist, but that's just his flaw." Like Brutus--the conquering hero, rapist of his wife. He's ambitious. Later, he learns that he loves Cornelia, after he's lost her. Oh, and he's lost her (this is me discussing Book Three of Troy) to another abuser of hers, Weyland. Inardle lets herself get raped so she can be rescued by Axis, and thus gain his confidence (nothing turns on a man more than being allowed to play the hero, rescuing the wounded woman in an act of uber-manliness). Inardle is powerful, capable of enchantments that can heal herself; she acknowledges that she could have saved herself, in an admission that she allowed the rape to happen.

What's extremely troubling in all these instances of rape is that the majority of the time the victim eventually comes to love her rapist or abuser. Zephyr loves WolfStar; Cornelia loves Brutus and Weyland, respectively; Azhure loves Axis. For Zephyr and Cornelia, relationships didn't come first--what was first in these interactions was either rape or other physical abuse, and love grew. It reads as if rape is okay, because the women don't seem so affected by it. Certainly, after it has happened, the women carry on almost as nothing happened.

While the victims falling in love with their abusers may be realistic, it is problematic in the novels. The reader is perched on the shoulder of the woman. WE experience her fear, abuse, and humiliation, and so it follows that we experience her eventual love of her abuser. We sympathize with the abuser, recognizing his deep emotional pain that caused him to rape or beat the woman (in the case of Cornelia and Weyland, the cause is the heartbreak of betrayal by another woman). Even Brutus, whose rape of Cornelia mirrors his conquest of the Troy Game, is sympathetic.

I remember my own emotional response when reading these novels. I was disgusted with the rapes and abuse, and nearly stopped reading. But as the woman's emotions changed from fear to love, mine did too. I remember rooting for Cornelia to love Weyland--afterall, his was a sad story and he just needed to be loved--she had to love him to change him. And the Cornelia-Brutus relationship (I use this word loosely) was equally depressing--why couldn't they both love each other?

These were my thoughts (which I didn't challenge or confront for a long time, so oblivious to the rape culture I was (am) in) despite the crimes of Brutus and Weyland. Weyland especially, since he also raped and beat Genvissa in one body, then came to her as the Minotaur and offered kindness until she no longer realized that the two bodies were the same person. In another life cycle (The Troy Game takes place over several time periods, where the main players are reborn) Weyland rapes Genvissa the first time before she's a teenager, then sells her body to other men. And still I actually wanted Cornelia to love him.

This all reads as rape apologism. These men are portrayed in such a way that their abusive tendencies are just their "flaws"; flaws in heros serve as a grounding, something that makes them more human. In this case, what makes these heros more human is they participate in the rape and abuse of women. In the case of the victims in these novels, rape is inevitable, and the only thing they can do is accept their task to "fix" their rapists by loving them.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There are other issues I have with Douglass' novels. I'll try to be brief:

• The Icarii are male-centric, so much so that the very births of them are dependent on the father, or should I say the life of the woman giving birth is dependent on the father of her child. If the father is not present to sing to the baby as it's born, then the mother will die in childbirth.
• Though the women are powerful, the stories are often hinged on that one male hero: Axis (Starman); Maxel (Lord of Elcho Falling); DragonStar; Brutus; etc. Axis couldn't have won his battle against Gorgrael without Azhure, yet he's still the hero.
• The heros are not just conflicted with their tasks: they also have lady troubles. Axis is torn between Azhure and Faraday; Maxel between Ravenna and Ishbel; Brutus with Genvissa and Cornelia. The man uses both women for his gains, casts one off, loves only one. There's also a clear virgin/whore dichotomy in them, the "good" one being the one the hero keeps (though Azhure and Faraday are both sort of good, so that doesn't really work here--but it's understood that Faraday is expendable in the first half of Wayfarer). However, Genvissa and Ravenna are the more "treacherous" women, using their sexuality for their own gains.
• In The Twisted Citadel, the One represents perfection incarnate, and is gendered male.
• The Lealfast are a race created by the Icarii mating with Skraelings, but this is pinned to one father and one mother; one "mating" created an entire race. This "mating" is really the brutal rape of SummerStar, who then bears more than 200 Lealfast before dying from exhaustion.
  
• Events often depend on taking or not taking a woman to bed (as in the case of Maxel and Ishbel). Trusting women and sleeping with them is risky because they could be the hero's downfall.
• Unrelated to gender, the irritating word "literally" appears 12 obnoxious times in Citadel. I'm not sure if it's in the other novels, since it's been some time since my reading of them, but due to the prevalence of the word in Citadel, I'm sure it's there too. I think this has something to do with why I hate that word so much.
  

Sara Douglass' novels are riveting stories. The reader is made to experience what the characters experience. However, the portrayal of women and the rape and abuse of women to progress the stories is a damaging sort of apologism--nothing more than a tool for the stories. The uplifting of abusive heros is equally damaging.

Links to this post: Racialicious