ReviewsBtVS and Consent Issues: Episode 4.07 – “The Initiative”

Posted on July 3, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[Note: I’m writing a series about consent issues in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will post a new entry in this series every other Tuesday – or perhaps on a weekly basis, if I have the time. In this series, I will look at an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that deals with rape, sexual assault, or consent issues as a main plot point or as a featured event of the episode. I will examine these episodes in chronological order. If, in my writing of this series, you feel that I have skipped an episode that should be a part of this series, feel free to submit a guest post, and I will consider publishing it.]

EPISODE: “The Initiative”
INCIDENT: Attempted vamping framed as an attempted rape
PERPETRATOR: Spike
VICTIM: Willow Rosenberg

The specifics: Willow, sitting in her dorm room that she shares with Buffy, hears a knock at her door. She says, “Come in,” without checking to see who’s on the other side. Spike enters and pushes her against her desk. He tells her that he’s going to kill her, but he’ll give her a choice about the aftermath. He can either kill her permanently, or turn her into a vampire. She threatens to scream. Before she can, he clamps his hand over her mouth, turns up the music on the radio so no one can hear her yell, and shoves her onto the bed. After a struggle, he holds her down and tries to bite her. She screams, and no one in the hall hears her.

Then there’s a cut to a commercial break. When we come back, Spike is seated at the opposite end of the bed, and Willow has no obvious bite marks on her neck. He couldn’t bite Willow. He tries again, but gets a searing pain in his head. Willow thinks that Spike was unable to bite her because he wasn’t really interested, but Spike assures her that it isn’t the case.

The mind of the perpetrator: Spike’s looking to have a confrontation with Buffy. When he escapes from The Initiative, he hacks into a computer, tracks her down and finds her dorm room. When he’s invited in and sees Willow instead, he isn’t the slightest bit fazed or disappointed. He makes a violent play for her instead and is frustrated when he doesn’t succeed.

The victim’s perspective: Willow is scared when Spike tries to kill her, but when he’s unable to attack her, she assumes that his inability to bite has something to do with her. She’s already heartbroken and sad because of her breakup with Oz, and she thinks that Spike can’t bite her because he’s not interested in her the same way he’s interested in Buffy.

What does this episode say about misogyny and rape culture?

Technically, this incident in “The Initiative” doesn’t involve a sexual assault. Technically. After all, vampires are constantly trying to bite, kill, and/or turn humans on this show. But this episode has a sexual component that many other episodes don’t. There’s the fact that Spike attacks Willow in her room and shoves her onto her bed in a way that looks very much like an attempted rape. And, well, there’s the conversation they have after the commercial break. I’m just going to re-post it here in its entirety:

“SPIKE: I don’t understand. This sort of thing’s never happened to me before.

WILLOW: Maybe you were nervous.

SPIKE: I felt all right when I started. Let’s try again. (He attacks her again, but pulls back before he can bite, yelling and cursing.)

WILLOW: Maybe you’re trying too hard. Doesn’t this happen to every vampire?

SPIKE: Not to me, it doesn’t!

WILLOW: It’s me, isn’t it?

SPIKE: What are you talking about?

WILLOW: Well, you came looking for Buffy, then settled. I–I… You didn’t want to bite me. I just happened to be around.

SPIKE: Piffle!

WILLOW: I know I’m not the kind of girl vamps like to sink their teeth into. It’s always like, ‘ooh, you’re like a sister to me,’ or, ‘oh, you’re such a good friend.’

SPIKE: Don’t be ridiculous. I’d bite you in a heartbeat.

WILLOW: Really?

SPIKE: Thought about it.

WILLOW: When?

SPIKE: Remember last year, you had on that fuzzy pink number with the lilac underneath? (He raises his eyebrows significantly.)

WILLOW: I never would have guessed. You played the blood lust kinda cool.

SPIKE: I hate being obvious. All fangy and ‘rrrr!’ Takes the mystery out.

WILLOW: But if you could…

SPIKE: IF I could, yeah.

WILLOW: You know, this doesn’t make you any less terrifying.

SPIKE: Don’t patronize me.”

The metaphor couldn’t be more obvious. Turning someone into a vampire (or “vamping”) is the equivalent of sex, and Spike’s inability to bite Willow is a metaphor for impotence.

The scene after the commercial break is played for laughter, and effectively so. Alyson Hannigan and James Marsters are both funny, and Spike’s frustration when he tells Willow not to patronize him is especially amusing.

Yes, the scene makes me laugh. That’s the problem. Also problematic is the way the conversation delves into the “rape as a compliment” trope.

One of the most common misconceptions about rape is that rape is always about sex, that men only rape women they find attractive. This misconception is harmful to all rape survivors. An unattractive rape survivor’s allegations are dismissed when people say, “Why would anyone want to rape you?” An attractive rape survivor will be told that she should take it as a compliment or be flattered by the attention. (Obviously I’m only talking about female rape survivors here – I’m not sure if male rape survivors get similar comments or if their version of victim-blaming is different.)

Knowing that this misconception is so prevalent, I cringe a little when Willow and Spike engage in that “I’d bite you in a heartbeat” conversation. Pretend the conversation isn’t about biting at all – and it’s not hard to pretend, because the double meaning in the script is completely intentional. Replace a few words, and Willow is basically lamenting that she’s not pretty enough to fuck, while Spike is insisting that she is, and in fact, he almost fucked her the year before!

Isn’t that sweet? Except, well, Willow didn’t want Spike to bite her, so if “bite” basically means “fuck,” and the biting is unwanted…you see where I’m going with this, right?

Now, obviously, the writers didn’t write this scene with the intention of perpetuating the “rape as a compliment” misconception. That’s not what the scene is about. The scene is playing with a common trope of vampire stories, and in vampire stories, sex and violence are almost always interrelated. Willow having an insecurity attack about not being “biteable” is definitely in character for her, especially so soon after Oz broke her heart. And I don’t think anyone is going to watch this scene and think, “Hmm, I guess guys only rape girls they think are pretty!” That’s not why I’m writing this post. I’m writing it because, for the first time, I noticed a disturbing element to a scene that only ever made me laugh before.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 7 Comments

Blog PostsLady T Recommends “License to Pimp”

Posted on July 1, 2012 by Theresa Basile

“What would you do if the strip club you worked in turned into a brothel?”

This is a question that “License to Pimp” intends to answer. Hima B is a filmmaker and former stripper who is making a documentary about the lives of sex workers in San Francisco, California. Here is a link to the project. From the description:

“License to Pimp is a feature documentary about the choices that three San Francisco strippers make as their workplaces engage in illegal labor practices.  Strip clubs refuse to pay strippers even minimum wages & actually charge them for the privilege to work.  I worked in half of San Francisco’s strip clubs during the 1990s and witnessed their transformation into brothels as a result of these fees.  Now as a filmmaker, I uncover current working conditions & try to find out how strip clubs are able to operate outside the law.

…This documentary shows how each of the featured women approach various labor violations. The irony is that strippers are in fact entitled to the same labor protections as the average American worker—the laws just aren’t enforced.  This documentary isn’t about the morality of doing sex work, but follows the paths of women trying to remain within the sex industry on their own terms.  Through each worker’s situation, License to Pimp offers tangible ways that sex workers try to better this industry so it’s safer, fair, legal, & less violent.”

Why I’m recommending this project: Even reading the description and watching the fundraiser video was an eye-opening experience for me. I didn’t think strippers or other sex workers had an easy time, but I didn’t realize it was so bad that clubs charge strippers to work there. I like that the film is going to explore the perspectives of three different people within the industry and see how they each take a different approach to their work.

I really want to see this documentary succeed. I think it has the potential to influence many people and change people’s mindsets about sex work. The film has a $30,000 goal and has currently reached $3,921 of its goal. It has 17 days left to reach the goal. If you can donate money, please do – and if you don’t have the means, please consider recommending it to someone you know.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Blog Posts“Unwind”: High Payoff, Weird Concept

Posted on June 29, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Set in the future, the second civil war is fought over abortion. To end the war, a compromise is reached that ends the practice of abortion but creates an alternative called “unwinding.” Between the ages of 13 and 17, parents or guardians can choose to have their children unwound, which involves having every part of their bodies harvested to be “donated” to another person so, technically, they don’t really die. – Amazon.com book description of Unwind, by Neal Shusterman

Sounds terrifying, doesn’t it? Well, this is the premise of a young adult dystopian novel by Neal Shusterman published in 2007. The three main characters are a rebellious teenage boy whose parents give him up for unwinding because he’s too difficult, a ward of the state who is given up for unwinding to make more room for the system, and a religious kid who was born for the sole purpose of being unwound so his family could tithe 10% to the church.

Soon enough, these three characters come together and run from the law, trying to change their fate.

For obvious reasons, I was attracted to the premise of this book as soon as I saw it on the young adult shelf in the library. The story was gripping and the shifts in perspective were believable. Most of all, I found the concept of unwinding to be frighteningly plausible in a not-too-distant future.

The problem is, I don’t find it to be a plausible result in a battle over reproductive rights.

Dystopian sci-fi novels can be difficult to write. The author has to present the reader with something fantastical and over-the-top while also making the reader believe that this future could exist. There are many aspects of Unwind that I find plausible.

The culture makes a point of using euphemisms to downplay the horror of what they’re doing. When a person is unwound, society doesn’t call the unwound person “dead,” but “living in a divided state.” The society also makes a point of only allowing unwinding from the ages of thirteen to eighteen, and I can easily believe that premise in a culture that fetishizes children but views young adults and teenagers as untrustworthy and easily disposable – especially angry, problematic teenagers, the one with tempers and the ones who clutter the state system with too many extra bodies. I especially like that Shusterman gives a whole chapter that describes the actual process of unwinding – it’s a horrifying procedure and we read it from the perspective of the patient undergoing it.

Still, I have a hard time believing that this procedure would be suggested, and widely accepted, as a solution to the abortion debate.

I spend a lot of time reading articles about abortion and looking at opinions from the pro- and anti-choice sides of the issue. Arguments become heated and compromises are never found. While I think a small group of individuals from each side might latch onto the concept of unwinding, I can’t see the majority of either the pro-choice or pro-life sides agreeing to it.

Much of pro-choice philosophy is based on the idea that a woman should not have to be pregnant against her will; the culture in Unwind makes it easier for women to drop off their unwanted babies, but doesn’t take care of that forced pregnancy issue that is, well, really important to pro-choicers.

As for the pro-life side, they’ve often been accused of only caring about unborn children while advocating cuts in prenatal care and education. (As George Carlin put it, “If you’re preborn, you’re fine. If you’re preschool, you’re fucked.”) This contradiction comes up quite often, especially with our increasingly radical right in Congress. Even so, there are plenty of pro-lifers whose hearts I believe truly are in the right place and really do care about “the children,” and I can’t imagine a majority of them supporting a procedure that would take children apart and harvest their organs.

That doesn’t mean the story isn’t still strong, but it doesn’t work for me as a commentary on abortion. I think it works better as a story about human trafficking and how certain people who don’t fall into a certain mold are viewed as disposable.

The sequel to Unwind, Unwholly, is being released in two months. I look forward to seeing where the story goes and reading about the horrifying twists to come. I just hope the reproductive rights issue is downplayed, because that concept doesn’t completely work, not when you consider the arguments most frequently made by people on different sides of the abortion issue.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 4 Comments

ReviewsWhy More Rom-Coms Should Be Like “When Harry Met Sally…”

Posted on June 27, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Last night, Nora Ephron passed away, and the world lost a talented writer who was known for (amongst other things) romantic comedies that were smarter than the av-er-age bear. While I’m not particularly fond of You’ve Got Mail or Sleepless in Seattle, I admire her for other films like Silkwood and Julie and Julia. Above all, I’ll remember Nora Ephron best for one of my favorite movies, When Harry Met Sally…

Why More Rom-Coms Should Be Like “When Harry Met Sally…”

1. The leads don’t fall in love or instant hate immediately.
Many romantic comedies begin with one of two obnoxious tropes: love at first sight, or hate at first sight. Usually the “love at first sight” movies will lead to one person obnoxiously following another person around, convinced that stalking is romantic. The “hate at first sight” connection will lead to bickering until the characters eventually fall in love. Harry and Sally avoid both of those pitfalls. No, they don’t particularly like each other when they first meet, nor when they meet a second time in an airport, and they have disagreements both times, but they don’t result in loud bickering matches that turn into public spectacle. Both times, they part amicably, if not in a friendly way, with no intention of seeing each other again.

2. Conversations take time and are always entertaining.
I didn’t notice this aspect of When Harry Met Sally… until someone pointed it out to me, but the entire movie is just people talking. There are no wacky montages, no displays of un-funny physical comedy, nothing. All of the scenes focus on conversation, and the lines reveal so much about the characters while being entertaining and clever. Harry completely won me over when he said he liked to read the ending of books in case he died before he finished it, and Sally’s turn was when she explained that “they don’t make Sunday” underpants “because of God.”

3. Women aren’t the only ones talking about relationships.
The film doesn’t pass the Bechdel test. There are scenes with Sally and Marie that are all about men and relationships. But Harry and Jess talk about women, relationships, and romance just as much as Sally and Marie do. The movie doesn’t try to pretend that all women want relationships and men are just dogs who only want sex. There’s a very human need for connection and comfort lying underneath both Harry and Sally’s (and Jess and Marie’s) actions. Harry may talk a good game about how men only want sex, but it’s clear he’s all talk.

4. There’s good acting and believable chemistry from the leads.
I’m not sure why movie audiences were falling over themselves in delight when Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks reunited for You’ve Got Mail, because for me, the real magic was between Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal. They have to believably play off of each other while also believably aging ten years. The era-specific haircuts help, but there are also subtle differences in their performances. College graduates Harry and Sally are very committed to the personas they’ve created for themselves. Harry is dark because he thinks dark is cool, and Sally is upbeat and chirpy because that’s how she’s decided to live her life. Ten years later, they’ve both changed. Harry has lost the youthful poseur darkness and developed the wiser, more solemn air of someone who now understands real pain, and Sally is less chirpy and more grounded, now knowing she can no longer plan everything in her life. These changes are clear in the writing, but Crystal and Ryan bring it in the acting department as well.

5. The public declaration has no listeners.
Public declarations of romantic feeling make me uncomfortable. They seem really sweet, but I always cringe because I worry that the person on the receiving end of the public declaration might be shy, or not comfortable with someone else airing relationship dirty laundry in front of listeners. Fortunately, Harry’s declaration to Sally at the end of the movie takes place on New Year’s Eve, where so many people are talking and chatting around them, involved in their own conversations, that no one can hear what he says to her and vice-versa. They get a private moment in a public crowd and I love it.

6. The movie doesn’t go from hate to love, but from mild dislike to friendship.
When Harry Met Sally… gets criticized for proposing the question, “Can men and women ever really be friends?” and then seeming to answer that question with a, “Well, no. I guess they can’t.” I’m not sure I agree. I see the movie as saying that men and women can be friends, and some of the best romantic relationships come from friendship. Not insincere friendships where one person is secretly attracted to the other but won’t admit it, or fakes sincere friendship when s/he really wants to get the other person into bed (hello, Nice Guy/Girl Syndrome!) REAL friendships. Harry and Sally find the friendship they need in each other and it happens to develop into romance later on – but they don’t lose that core of friendship by the end.

That’s not to say the movie is without its flaws. Even though I laugh during their conversation about “high-maintenance women,” I hate that the high-maintenance label seems to only be used against women and never men. Despite that, When Harry Met Sally… is still one of my favorite romantic comedies, and one of my favorite movies, period.

Rest in peace, Nora Ephron. Thank you for this movie and I hope other screenwriters will learn a thing or two from you.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Blog PostsThere and Back Again

Posted on June 25, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Hi, everyone! I’m back from my self-imposed break with a new FAQ page. A new “real” post will be coming by Wednesday.

Posted in Blog Posts | Leave a comment

ReviewsHaberdasher Theatre’s “The Wizard of Oz” Has Endearing Charm (But Could Use More New Yawk)

Posted on June 20, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Sometimes all a person wants from a night at the theater is to giggle and enjoy silliness. Haberdasher Theatre’s production of The Wizard of Oz supplies those giggles with an adaptation of the classic story that stays true to the spirit of the original text while sneaking in a few moments of more adult humor.

Directed and adapted for the stage by Hollie Elizabeth Klem, this version of The Wizard of Oz takes us to a Kansas where Auntie Em (Christen Madrazo) is a Queens transplant struggling to raise her niece Dorothy (Tami Soligan) as a single mother on a farm, but the girl and her dog Toto won’t stop getting into trouble (as evidenced by Em’s loud squawking of “DAWTHY!” that opens the play). Dorothy, knowing that her dog will be exterminated for being a troublemaker, tries to leave the farm, but comes back when she fears for her aunt’s safety. The house is swept up in a tornado and lands on top of the Wicked Witch of the East Village, rescuing the NoHo villagers from her evil reign, but Dorothy draws the ire of the Wicked Witch of the West Village (Taylor Zito), and soon has to follow the Yellow Brick Road to reach the Wizard, and…well, you know the rest of the story. Girl meets boys, boys help girl meet a mighty powerful wizard, girl fights with witch over shoes, powerful wizard turns out to be a fraud, etc. etc.

Updating The Wizard of Oz for a modern audience isn’t an easy task. L. Frank Baum’s tale is one of the most memorable stories of all time, and with Wicked appearing on Broadway (and its songs appearing on Glee), many potential audience members might feel all Oz-ed out. Fortunately, Haberdasher Theatre wisely avoids the trap of trying to out-do Wicked by going too over-the-top and meta, and stays truer to the original story. Oz is still Oz, Dorothy is still Dorothy, the Wicked Witch of the West is still evil, and the Wizard is more of a slick-tongued schnook than a tiny dictator.

But there are still a few contemporary twists in this production that keep the story fresh and interesting for an adult audience that grew up with the 1939 movie. The mix of modern music played in the theater as the audience takes their seats, including songs from Vampire Weekend and a group that sounds like She & Him, alerts us that we won’t be watching a carbon copy of the film. The impressive costume design by Katie Grammes combine the classic and the contemporary, keeping Dorothy in her patterned blue dress and making the angry apple-throwing tree (Jennifer Michaels) a force to be reckoned with, but giving more of a modern edge to a character like the Tin Man (Brian Ogston), who has a few holes in his costume with grey fabric peeking through, as though someone scraped through his metal exterior just to find more metal. The production also has fun playing with the sincere dialogue from the original text – when Dorothy chirps to the Scarecrow (Jeff Foley) and the Tin Man that they are the “best friends any girl could ever have!”, the Tin Man responds with a deadpan, “I’d say we were more partners than friends.”

The cast, meanwhile, is clearly making a goal to have as much fun as possible with their roles. Christen Madrazo is a scene-stealer as Auntie Em and Glinda the Good Witch, trying on different accents the way one would try on hats and succeeding every time. Matthew Giroveanu adds sleazy charm to his role of the Wizard, but is grounded enough that the audience can believe that the characters will buy what he’s selling. Melody Cheng, Joseph Dale Harris, and Nicholas Panagakos play a variety of ensemble roles, from the NoHo villagers to the Emerald City citizens to the Witch’s flying monkeys, and inject a different kind of energy into each part. (I won’t spoil their take on the flying monkeys – that’s something that has to be seen.) Nicole J. Lippey as the Lion is the MVP of the strong cast – jumpy, paranoid, and endearingly neurotic, always on her game and increasing the energy of the performers around her. I imagine that, of all the performances from the original movie, Bert Lahr’s campy Lion would be the most tempting for an actor to want to imitate, but she puts her own spin on the part and gets the biggest laughs of the show.

The cast is strong, the costumes are impressive, and the sweet charm of the production is infectious. I only wish that the production had taken a little more advantage of the New York City setting when updating the text. Auntie Em’s Queens accent is a good start and the take on the flying monkeys adds a bridge & tunnel flavor to the show, but most of the story takes place in original Oz that’s not too different from the original story. The production could have gone a little farther in giving a more New Yawk feel to the show, perhaps by turning Emerald City into the Fashion District, or making the Wizard into a parody of Mayor Bloomberg. There’s a bit of a missed opportunity in setting the show in New York without making the location central to the story.

At the same time, I appreciate Haberdasher Theatre and Hollie Klem’s mission to stay true to the original spirit of the story. Too many New York jokes could have distracted us from the sweetness ofThe Wizard of Oz.I’d rather see a show that appreciates and respects the original Wizard of Oz instead of one that peppers the dialogue with too many “aren’t we clever?” jokes, and Haberdasher Theatre’s production shows nothing but respect for L. Frank Baum’s vision.

Haberdasher Theatre’s The Wizard of Oz is running from June 14-June 30 at The Drilling Company Theatre, on 236 West 78th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam. Performances on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays at 8 PM. Tickets are $20.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged | 3 Comments

Reviews(500) Days of Unrealistic Expectations

Posted on June 15, 2012 by Theresa Basile

This month in The Rom-Com Project, I’m looking at romantic comedies that fall into the Manic Pixie Dream Girl category. Usually, I save my wrap-ups for the end of the month, but occasionally I have more complex thoughts about individual movies and will want to write about them in individual posts. (500) Days of Summer is one such movie. I saw this movie in the theaters when it first came out in 2007 and loved it. After watching it for the second time, I still loved it, but for a different reason.

The first time I watched (500) Days of Summer, I saw the film as a story about two people who had a good relationship while it lasted but ultimately were not each other’s The One. After watching it again, I saw the film as a story about a misguided hopeless romantic who falls into a self-indulgent funk after a breakup, mopes obnoxiously for a while, but ultimately gets over it and moves on with his life.

One of the strengths of (500) Days of Summer is the way it allows and encourages us to empathize with Tom and laugh at him at the same time. There are moments where I truly felt sorry for him because I remember how I felt when my heart was broken. There are moments where I laughed at him because he was moping and grieving for an inappropriate length of time, and then stopped laughing and cringed because I thought, “I didn’t act like that back in college, did I?” And then blushed because suddenly Tom’s moping seemed all too familiar for comfort.

Ultimately, Tom has to accept that Summer is not The One, she never was The One, and that he needs to move on with his life. It’s an unusually healthy plot for a romantic comedy.

What I object to, however, is the idea that Tom was the only person in the wrong.

I’ve seen some feminist criticism of (500) Days of Summer that has criticized Tom for having unrealistic expectations of Summer while defending her for being upfront with him from the beginning. After all, she told him that she didn’t believe in love and that she didn’t want a relationship, so he has no right to bethat upset when she ends things with him – right?

Well, that criticism didn’t sit right with me the first time I watched the film, and I agree with it even less the second time. I think the assessment of Tom is correct – he put unrealistic expectations onto Summer and wanted her to be someone that she wasn’t. The fact that he couldn’t see beyond that is his own fault. But I also couldn’t help but think, several times, “Wow, Summer’s kind of a jerk.”

Please note my choice of phrase. She’s not a harpy bitch. She’s not the worst human being of all time. She’s not a soul-sucking succubus who crushes men’s hearts for fun and then laughs as she eats them alive. But she’s kind of a jerk.

Seriously, who invites an ex-boyfriend-of-sorts to a party, barely talks to him all evening, and lets him find out she’s engaged by having him glimpse her ring from across a crowded room?

I’ll tell you who: someone who’s kind of a jerk!

Now, as I said before, Tom is unquestionably responsible for his own heartbreak. Summer told him that she didn’t believe in love, didn’t want a boyfriend, and wanted something casual. He agreed to her conditions, but clearly took it for granted that she would eventually change her mind. That’s not fair to her, and he certainly set himself up. But I think Summer equally took for granted that Tom’s feelings wouldn’t change, that he would be able to keep things casual and not develop a stronger attachment to her, because that’s what she wanted him to do.

My favorite sequence of the movie is where Tom goes to Summer’s party and the story is split into two screens showing the difference between Tom’s expectations of the evening and the reality of the evening. The differences between “expectations” and “reality” are subtle at first but become more pronounced over the night. I bet if we saw Summer’s split-screen, we’d see Tom enthusiastically congratulate her on her engagement and promise that they’d always be friends, when the reality is his abrupt departure from her apartment.

Ultimately, I think Summer was dishonest about her feelings – not in a horrible, unforgivable way, or even an intentionally misleading way. But she came across to me as someone who wanted to reap the benefits of a romantic-esque relationship without actually committing to anything until she knew how she really felt about Tom.

And trust me, the last thing I want to do is participate in Nice Guy apologia. But I’ve been a Tom before, getting unrealistically excited and hopeful after meeting someone interesting and setting myself up for a fall, where I’ve been an active participant in breaking my own heart – but at the same time, I’d have a Summer who would kiss me at a party and then say he can’t pursue anything “right now,” while still sending series of flirty text messages and calling me after I wrote a Facebook status about dating. I’m more than willing to accept responsibility for my part in getting crushed, but my Summer is still partially to blame for sending mixed messages.

The bottom line is that leading someone on, even unintentionally, is a not-nice thing to do regardless of sex or gender. And I can’t help but feel that if the sexes/genders were reversed in this film, if a woman named Tina had fallen for a guitarist named Steve in (500) Days of Strummer and Steve acted the way Summer did, some feminist criticism would be more sympathetic to Tina than it is to Tom. (I’m saying “some” because obviously feminism is not a monolith and feminist reactions to this movie are varied.)

In the end, I loved this movie because the two characters who had such unrealistic expectations for each other didn’t end up together. And they didn’t end in bitterness or hate. Nor did they end with the implication that they were each other’s true loves all along, and that they were permanently separated by fate because it’s too late oh noes! No, they said goodbye, on peaceful terms, and moved on with their lives. I wish more movies about relationships ended like that.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Blog PostsSpinoff of the Smurfette Principle

Posted on June 13, 2012 by Theresa Basile

On Friday night, I finally saw The Avengers at a late-night showing with my boyfriend (who wore a Batman shirt, because of course). We both enjoyed it immensely, I was able to follow along with the story without having seen any of the previous films, and as a Joss Whedon fan, I was thrilled to see that he had his name attached to TWO well-received movies in the same summer. (Now can someone PLEASE release his version of Much Ado About Nothing?!)

Anyway, because I’m me, I started thinking about the Black Widow’s role in the film and how much I enjoyed her character. She’s the least supernatural of the six Avengers whose powers are less flashy than the others, but no less important or helpful to the group. She comes across as a real human being instead of an Action Girl stereotype that’s so typical of “ass-kicking” women in action films, a master of interrogation who still shows genuine fear of the Hulk (because who in her right mind wouldn’t be afraid of the Hulk?) She wasn’t my favorite Avenger – unexpectedly, my favorite might have been Captain America with his innocent, boyish charm and excitement over understanding the “flying monkey” reference – but she left a good impression, was an important part of the film, and I would love to see a Black Widow/Hawkeye movie somewhere down the line.

In short, the Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff is a pretty cool character, which is why I was confused to see her labeled as a Smurfette. Yes, The Avengers has been mentioned as a film that uses The Smurfette Principle.

If you’re unaware of The Smurfette Principle, TV Tropes has a good explanation of the trope. If you don’t want to get sucked into the too-entertaining-for-your-own-good world of TV Tropes, though, here’s a brief summary: The Smurfette Principle is at work in male-dominated texts where a female character is thrown in for the sake of having a female character. She’s a token female with very little personality, she’s the only girl or woman in the story, and she doesn’t exist except as an extension of the male characters or to be a romantic/sexualized interest. (Smurfette in particular doesn’t have a personality attached to her name – she’s just “Girl Smurf.”)

On the surface, Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow seems to be an example of the Smurfette Principle at work – she’s the only female Avenger. But the other aspects of the Smurfette Principle don’t apply to her. She’s not a female extension of a male character, she’s not overtly sexualized or a love interest of any of the male characters (although, again – I want her to have a movie with Hawkeye right now), and she has a personality and a fairly compelling backstory. She may be the only female Avenger, but she’s treated with the same respect and care as the male superheroes.

Another character who has been pinged as a Smurfette is Miss Piggy from The Muppets, which I find completely unfair to the character. Yes, Miss Piggy is the only prominent Muppet who isn’t a member of Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem, but she has the most dominant personality of the entire cast and is arguably the most complex of the group. Miss Piggy is the best – don’t you dare call her a Smurfette.

This has me thinking that we need to create a spinoff for the Smurfette Principle, because describing characters like Black Widow and Miss Piggy as Smurfettes is just plain WRONG and inaccurate. We need a name for a trope that describes a lone female character in a male-dominated text who nonetheless has good characterization and isn’t held up as an example of the Exceptional Woman.

Any suggestions?

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 5 Comments

ReviewsBtVS and Consent Issues: Episode 3.15 – “Consequences”

Posted on June 12, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[Note: I’m writing a series about consent issues in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will post a new entry in this series every other Tuesday – or perhaps on a weekly basis, if I have the time. In this series, I will look at an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that deals with rape, sexual assault, or consent issues as a main plot point or as a featured event of the episode. I will examine these episodes in chronological order. If, in my writing of this series, you feel that I have skipped an episode that should be a part of this series, feel free to submit a guest post, and I will consider publishing it.]

EPISODE: “Consequences”
INCIDENT: Sexual assault followed by attempted murder
PERPETRATOR: Faith Lehane
VICTIM: Xander Harris

The specifics: Two episodes before “Consequences,” Faith and Xander had sex, after which she kicked him out of her apartment. In the episode after, Faith accidentally killed the Deputy Mayor while she and Buffy were out patrolling and slaying vampires. She tried to blame the incident on Buffy, but Giles, Willow, and Xander saw through that defensive lie immediately. Xander, thinking he had a connection with Faith due to the fact that they slept together, showed up at her apartment and tried to offer her his support. He even says he’ll testify for her in court if she gets into trouble over the Deputy Mayor’s murder. Faith rejects his offer of help and aggressively kisses Xander, who shows considerable less enthusiasm than he did when they first slept together. She pushes him onto the bed, holds him down, in a way that suggests she might try to rape him, but instead, she puts her hands around his throat and begins choking him. She almost kills him, until Angel comes up behind her and knocks her unconscious.

The mind of the perpetrator: Faith, still in deep denial over having taken a human life (by accident), responds to Xander’s offer of help with disgust, defensiveness, and sarcasm. She assumes he’s come over for a second round of sex, even though he insists several times that he hasn’t. She thinks that Xander wants to defend her so that he can use the opportunity to tell everyone that they slept together:

“XANDER: See, you’re trying to hurt me. But right now, you need someone on your side. What happened wasn’t your fault. And I’m willing to testify to that in court if you need me.

FAITH: You’d dig that, wouldn’t you? To get up in front of all your geek pals and go on record about how I made you my boy toy for a night.”

She laughs at him when he tells her that he thought they had a connection, kisses him, throws him onto the bed, using her force and sexuality to keep him in his place. Now, Faith is a Slayer, and Xander is probably the physically weakest male character on the show at this point, so if she wanted to kill him, there’s no reason why she couldn’t have, say, broken his neck or beaten him. The fact that she combines sexuality with force makes it clear that she wants to taunt him and hurt him emotionally before hurting him physically. I still can’t tell, though, if she thinks Xander is lying and feeding her another line, or if she knows he’s sincere when he talks about their “connection.”

Later, Angel talks to Faith about the incident. She tries to play off the incident as meaningless:

“FAITH: The thing with Xander; I know what it looked like, but we were just playing.

ANGEL: And he forgot the safety word. Is that it?

FAITH: Safety words are for wusses.”

She also makes a sexual joke about Angel “tying her up.” This exchange of dialogue is one of many that makes me believe that Faith is a survivor of sexual abuse as a child or young adult, even though the show never stated this explicitly.

The victim’s perspective: Xander is sincere when he says he felt a connection with Faith (or at least he thought he felt it). After they slept together in “The Zeppo,” we saw a brief shot of them lying side-by-side as he stroked her hair and shoulders, looking at her with tenderness. He was never in love with her, but he felt something for her. Even though Buffy told him that Faith doesn’t take her sex partners seriously, he didn’t believe her, and he goes to Faith out of a sincere desire to help, and to maybe find some validation that the sex does mean something to him. Instead, she throws him onto the bed and tries to kill him.

Later, after Faith escapes from Wesley and the Watcher’s Council and the Scooby Gang gets together to discuss the problem, Xander is leaning against the wall on the top of the stairs, shrinking away from the rest of the group, not looking or talking to anyone, with a haunted look in his eye. Chatty Xander doesn’t say a word for the entire scene, making me think that it was probably Angel who told Buffy and the others about Faith’s assault.

What does this episode say about misogyny and rape culture?

This is the first (but not the last) time that Buffy the Vampire Slayer had a female perpetrator – or male victim – of sexual assault or consent violation on the series. Of the incidents I’ve written about so far, this one is (to me) the most disturbing to watch and the hardest one to write about. The previous incidents were also disturbing, but this one is the most “real-life” representation of sexual assault so far, where no one was under the influence of a spell or any supernatural forces. There’s a lot to unpack with this one, so I’ll do my best to cover what I think are the most important points.

To me, “Consequences” is significant in that it shows how sexist stereotypes can be just as damaging to men as they are to women.

One of the most pervasive stereotypes about men and sex is that men always want it, whenever they can get it, no matter what. They’re horny, sex is always on their minds, especially when they’re around pretty girls, they can’t help themselves, yada yada yada. The “men are horny dogs” mindset is often used to excuse or dismiss men who rape women, but what happens when the rape victim is male?

First, let’s look at how the other characters react when they find out that Faith and Xander had sex. Willow, knowing Xander better than anyone else, realizes it before Xander says it directly, and then Buffy and Giles follow shortly.

“BUFFY: Alright. Look, I know that you mean well, Xander, but, um, I just don’t see Faith opening up to you. She doesn’t take the guys that she has a… ‘connection’ with very seriously. And they’re kind of a big joke to her. No offense.

XANDER: Oh, no! I mean, why would I be offended by *that*?”

Buffy doesn’t expect Xander’s feelings to be hurt by this, but the quick look Xander gives to Giles, and the bitter, sarcastic tone in his voice, indicates that he is hurt. Because Xander is on the receiving end of the “big joke” comment, he’s the only one who seems to think that it wasn’t a nice thing of Buffy to say. But can you imagine if the situation had been reversed, if Buffy had slept with a man, assumed they had a connection, only to have Xander reply that “the girls he sleeps with are kind of a big joke to him?” Willow and Giles would have jumped down his throat. But Xander’s not expected to be offended, because he’s a guy – he doesn’t care if Faith doesn’t take him seriously, because he still got laid, right?

Next, let’s look at Xander’s interaction with Faith. She assumes he’s there for sex, even though he sincerely assures her that he’s not. She thinks all men only want sex. Again, I believe that Faith was sexually abused, perhaps repeatedly, so her perspective on men is bound to be skewed. Even when Xander tells her that he would stand up for her if necessary, Faith assumes that he wants the opportunity to brag to all his friends about sleeping with her. The viewers know this isn’t true, as Xander didn’t tell anyone about sleeping with Faith until he thought the information was necessary (when she got into trouble and he wanted to help her).

Finally, let’s look at how the others react to the information about Faith and Xander. Angel, to his credit, is the only character who even hints that it was a sexual assault, with his “safety word” comment. Willow only says that Faith “hurt” Xander, and Buffy and Giles don’t comment on it at all.

Earlier, I wondered if Angel was the one who told the gang about the assault so that Xander wouldn’t have to, but now I’m wondering if the rest of the gang didn’t even know about the sexual assault – maybe they only know that Faith tried to kill him.

Anyway, when Willow points out that Faith has done a lot of damage and perhaps should be locked up, Buffy only agrees that Faith is “out of control.” Her primary concern is to help Faith. I think she’s right to want to help Faith, both for Faith’s sake and for the sake of anyone who gets on the wrong side of a mentally unstable Slayer, but she doesn’t address Xander’s feelings on this at all. In fact, she tells Willow and Xander to look for Faith in her haunts and to “be careful.”

I can’t imagine that, if Willow or Cordelia had been assaulted by a man, Buffy would have ordered either one of them to then go looking for their assailant with a perfunctory “be careful.” That would never have happened in a million years. Xander is expected to actively seek out the woman who sexually assaulted him and tried to kill him.

But I want to know why. Does Buffy think assault is less of a big deal because it was her male friend who was attacked? Or is she afraid of insulting Xander’s masculine pride even further by suggesting he stay behind and recover?

Personally, after watching this show several times, I believe the latter option is more likely. I think if Buffy had advised Xander to stay behind, he would have aggressively insisted on helping.

I also don’t believe that Xander, insecure enough in his masculinity, would ever describe himself as a victim of sexual assault or attempted rape. There’s a poisonous belief that a male rape victim is “less” of a man, especially if his rapist is a woman. Xander’s utter silence on his own sexual assault is proof of that.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Blog PostsThere is a Prize at the End of This Post

Posted on June 11, 2012 by Theresa Basile

So, on Saturday night, I got a comment on the blog post I wrote about “Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls.”

“Um. wow. You know, I sometimes do get the sneaking suspicion that when people defend stuff like this video (which was, at best, hypocritical and in poor taste, and the fact that she isnt being AS nasty as she could be does NOT make it nice) and related things that the author has an undercurrent of nasty implication that because over 100 years ago many blacks were enslaved and most thereafter still were mistreated, that blacks have a right to be racist to white people and cracker/redneck are in some magical way “not as bad” as the n-word (see, it’s bad to type that but not the white terms) and the even more hateful idea that whites dont have feelings/should not be offended by anything racist… but wow, you pretty much do say that defend this overrated article with that “blacks were all enslaved many many many years ago” BS and one reply outright SAID those racist words “dont carry as much weight”! again I sat WOW, I cannot believe our culture is so hideously afraid of not bending over backward for minorites that it totally warps its own sense of right and wrongin doing so. honestly, I feel sorry for your students if this is how you really think. how horrible to be lucky enough to be an influence on kids yet apparently if you heard a black student call another a redneck cracker or something you wouldnt be offended or take proper action. what happened almost 200 years ago has absolutely NOTHING to do with today. I sure hope it isnt history you teach, because you seem to think segregated bathrooms were just invented, apparently. this embarrassing excuse for an argument is equal to Jews hating on germans for something the ones today have absolutely nothing to do with. yeah, it’s that painful to read.

and btw… pointing out that you are white does not make you less of a racist, same as women making a nasty sexist joke/statement about their sex does not make it or them less sexist, in fact, it is moreso because it sets feminism back a good few years, exactly as you all are doing with racial equality (which is generally what the western world has, a few racists on all sides aside). Unlike you lot, I’m not dehumanizing you by saying what you went through, if you really did, doesnt matter, but that is EXACTLY what you are doing to white “girls”, dehumanizing them by basically saying “screw you! your feelings arent important in any way because my ancestors I never met or knew probably were enslaved and yours werent oppressed at all, even if they were Nazi victims or something”. dont you DARE undervalue someone else’s feelings to justify your own and your hypocritical racism.

I’m also unsure how white “girls” are responsible for all these other races in the videos (and what, guys never do this to blacks either? or was ramsey just smart ebough to hang out with some dumb white girls exclusively?) and why they aree lashing out in such thick anger, which has turned these supposedly lighthearted videos into a glob of racist, sexist, hypocritical stereotyping angerfests. wow. how civilized our world is when it’s white vs. black, men vs. women., etc. still, and the socalled majority is threatened into silence with accusations of hatemongering hanging over their heads. well, God help us, then.”

This comment has inspired me to do a first-ever prize giveaway contest on my blog. Are you excited? You should be, because the prize is AWESOME.

First, go back to the original post: A White Girl Responds to “Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls.” Watch the video and then reread the post. Look carefully for the following statements:

– Franchesca Ramsey calling a white person a “redneck cracker”

– Me calling other white people “redneck crackers”

– Me saying I would allow my (former) students to call white people “redneck crackers”

If you can find any one or all of those things in the video or in my post, guess what? YOU WIN THE INTERNET!

That’s right – this amazing, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity can only be found on this blog for a very limited time offer. You have twenty-four hours to reread that post and find those extremely difficult-to-find statements, and if you find them, I will give you the ENTIRE INTERNET.

You might wonder how I managed to get my hands on the ENTIRE INTERNET, but trust me – I’ve got the goods. The characters from The IT Crowd gave it to me:

And if you can magically find these comments that I have never at any time written on this blog, you too can be the owner of the little box that used to be on top of Big Ben.

In all seriousness, though, I will give many thanks and props to whoever can translate this rant into a coherent argument, particularly the second paragraph, because I’ve been staring at it for several minutes and I still have no clue what she’s talking about.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 8 Comments