Both are laughed at. Both are derided people who know the bare minimums, if that, of their basis. Both are treated like a joke, like fluff, like something unimportant, like only the most stupid, uninformed people could be interested in it. Both are treated like a bad, sad joke.

Both have a full range of people involved in them, that fill a spectrum of differing opinions. Both are heavily criticized in their own circles even as they circle the wagons against outsiders. Both have members that profess their perfection, ignoring the problems that yes, they both have. Both have opinionated, strongly worded, beautifully written arguments for the pros and cons of each community, just as they both have members who just quietly go about their business – reading romance and promoting feminist ideals – who don’t give a flying fuck about what the “leaders” (and who elected these people?) have to say or think. Both cross lines, of class, of race, of ideology and sexuality and religion and mobility and citizenship and all the other things.

But both, to be clear, are heavily populated by women.

In fact, both are created and maintained by women.[3]

And, shocker, *hands to face in horror movie scream*, that’s why they are derided, even by people who read romance[4], even by people who promote feminist ideals. Because when something is created and continued by women, well, something must be wrong with it. Fluff, junk, a waste of time, totally unimportant.

I became a romance reader and a feminist around the same time – about age ten. And though my introduction to both weren’t connected, they have definitely informed each other as I have grown into each label. Mostly what I have learned when I claim either label amongst people who don’t share that label is that I better be able to handle arguments, jokes, and/or harassment for daring to claim “that embarrassment”. Because I get a lot of shit for reading romance, and I get a lot of shit for being a feminist.
__

[1] Some good posts on the subject of the feminism of romance is found here and here and here and here and [TW warning] here.

[2] This is not to say that a. all romance books are feminist (good fucking god no), or that b. there are not other, even better, forms of medium feminism is portrayed in (a slide show of certain artists are passing through my head in glorious color). This is to say that out of the different mediums – art, books, movies, so on – available as entertainment, romance books (rather than books in general) is one of the most consistent forms someone can find feminism in.

[3] To be clear, the “beginnings” of each are rooted in white, middle-class, heteronormative, cis, abled body women. And both have issues about inclusion of people who fall outside of that group, from beginning to today, who have created their own fractions of the promotion they weren’t getting inside the mainstream storyline. But both have people inside and outside of that narrative who claim, created, promoted, and encouraged these two labels.

[4] Which, whether you read “romance” or not, you’ve read romance. In case it hasn’t occurred, almost EVERY STORY WE TELL has a romance in it, the only difference being the main focus isn’t on the romance. (Okay, and also that a lot of them are so damn bad; check out basically any romantic comedy or action-adventure made in the last fifteen years for an example.)

My Volvo is a tank. If I’m in a car fight, I’m not worried, I’m preparing my victory speech. And considering my car is from 1991 and has a whole bunch of dings (which is what happens when you park in a college parking lot for three years, apparently) and, again, is built like a tank, and your car is shiny and new, I’m assuming you’ll back away quicker from the fight. All of this is to say, while I’m a safe driver, and I am careful with my car, I have a belief it can handle damage.

Then there’s the helicopter, which is fragile. A bird can destroy me. Not even a big bird, but one of those tiny ones. I hit a bird, and depending, I’m probably going down. A wire comes loose, a leak appears, a crack…I may, to put it nicely, be kissing ground real soon. I have to be careful in how I wash the windows or I can crack them; I have to be careful where I put my hands and feet because I can break something. I have to be careful lifting it off the ground, because one wrong motion in the wrong time and I can roll over, or fall and crash.

So here’s my first post about flying, which I love and can’t wait to have my next lesson and yadda yadda ya – helicopters are FRAGILE. My Volvo, on the other hand, is ready for a game of chicken.

Happy Flying!

You have been hounding me for a few days now. On Monday, you tried to take me out. But I prevailed, with the help of some nice drugs and a chiropractor and ice on my back until my skin was frostbitten. You are still here, lurking under the surface, striking every time I try to change positions, but I am able to sit up now (and therefore sit at my computer and type), and am on my way to recovery. HA HA ASSHOLE! *knock on wood*

Sincerely,

Go to Hell

P.S. You ruined my week alone in the house. GO TO THE DEEPEST SECTION OF HELL FOR THAT!

__

Dear Newspaper Stealer,

Look, seriously, I wouldn’t mind all that much, considering I tend to get my news from more reliable better other sources, and the people in this house who do read the newspaper are off frolicking on a beach somewhere enjoying the sand and surf and margaritas and why couldn’t they take me with th- but this isn’t about my vacation jealousy, this is about your thieving ways. Look, I get it. It’s an easy target. An elephant could have been rampaging my lawn and I wouldn’t have cared on Monday. And since I’m too busy feeling guilty for not being able to lean down and pet my dog (the look she gives me!), the newspaper will continue to be on the back burner. Still, I miss certain sections (oh comics and sudoku), and I did get some news from the newspaper (funny that), so I would like you to stop stealing from me. Please and thank you. Asshole.

Sincerely,

Just Go Away

___

Dear TV,

You like captive audiences, right? Well, I’m captive. True, I often forsake you for a book (look, I think books are better than you, okay? I’m sorry to add to the self-esteem issues, but there ya go), but since I’ve been laying on my stomach my arms had some trouble getting into good positions holding up your sworn enemy a different option. Now that I can sit up and/or lay on my back more often, you better get some good programming or I am gone.

Sincerely,

Almost Gone

___

Dear Back Drugs,

You are so pretty, yes you are.

With All My Love,

Your Devoted One

ETA: Ok, so I finally heard back; turns out the newspaper wasn’t stolen, the subscription was cancelled. So apologies to the not real thief. Whoops.

“Dad, I have OCD, I’m not germaphobic.”

- Conversation between me and my father every few months.

I was diagnosed with having obsessive-compulsive disorder when I was young. I also have a chronic tic disorder where I physically twitch my nose, like a bunny or Samantha from Bewitched, though apparently I can’t do magic. (Dammit.) Though I was diagnosed with both around the same time (tic disorders usually accompany other disorders, like ADHD, sleep disorders, and OCD), my father only really understands how one works. The tic disorder is simple and something he can see: I randomly and often twitch my nose, which I have no control over. That’s basically it. It takes less than a second, I don’t have to stop the world – or whatever I’m doing – to do it, and it doesn’t really affect me personally. It’s lessened as time has gone on, and though its back it disappeared for a good few years of my life. My tic is not obtrusive to other people, because it is a small motor change that people don’t necessarily notice, or care about when they do.[1] My brother, who had Tourette syndrome (or TS, which means both verbal and motor tics), was a lot more noticeable, and a lot less accepted. I lucked out between the two of us, though I suppose that could be argued since his tics have completely disappeared and mine has recently come back with a vengeance.

I also lucked out with my OCD. I have – and always had – a mild case. I really do not think that my frequency or amount of time I have to spend on rituals has gotten worse. *knock on wood*[2] But this does not mean it’s rainbows and pretty music and prancing unicorns about to send me to a My Little Pony video. It’s mild, but it’s still a fucking mental disorder.

It’s also damn misunderstood. (Hence this post, and others like it in the blogosphere.) Most people associate it with a cleanliness that is seen as abnormal, or organizing with an attention to the tiniest detail, or labeling every item in the fridge. Sometimes they go a step further and realize it’s about a number, that the person with the disorder has to do X two times or for forty-nine seconds, and if they screw up they have to do it again or they think they’ll die. Or maybe they realize people with OCD wash their hands a lot, both in frequency during the day and in quantity for each individual hand wash. And yes, this can be part of someone’s OCD. They could also be confusing the person with someone who has obsessive-compulsive personality disorder; the basic difference between OCD and OCPD is that people with OCD are anxious and realize something is “abnormal”, while people with OCPD usually derive pleasure and/or see nothing wrong with their “rational” obsessions and compulsions. (While I have accepted that I have OCD and probably always will to some degree, I do not see my obsessions or compulsions as rational, nor do I derive any pleasure from them. I accept them; I do not like them.) And sometimes the person is just neat, or clean, or organized, or like their label gun. These are not signs of OCD in and of themselves.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is broken into two parts: the obsessions, and the compulsions. Obsessions “are recurrent, persistent, intrusive thoughts, images, ideas, and/or impulses which seem to arise from out of nowhere.” [2] Common obsessions include “thoughts about contamination,” “repeated doubts,” “a need to have things in a particular order,” “aggressive or horrific impulses,” or “abhorrent sexual imagery.” [3] Compulsions are “repeated behaviors or mental acts performed in order to decrease the fear and anxiety generated by obsessive thoughts or images…The compulsions may initially lessen the anxiety and have a calming effect, but over time this positive effect lessens and persons with OCD find that they must alter and/or increase the rituals in order to obtain relief [from the fear and anxiety]. Common compulsions involve cleaning or washing, checking, hoarding, requesting or demanding assurances, repeated actions, counting, and ordering.” [4]

Now, for me personally, my obsessions run across the board. The quote in the beginning of this post refers to contamination. I obsess over being “contaminated.” My fears about contamination are directed at only a few things though; I am not afraid of germs in general. For instance, my parents’ garbage cans contaminates me when I am near them. I don’t even have to touch them; someone else opening one up and having the lid slam so that air blows on me contaminates me. I have to take a shower. I mean, I HAVE to. If I don’t, I will sit and grow more and more anxious, my breath will get heavy, I can get hot flashes, my chest will be tight, I’ll start to sweat, my heart will race…in other words, if I don’t shower after taking out the trash at my parents’ place, I will have a panic attack. Which means while it can take my mom or dad about two minutes to take out the trash, it can cut into my time by a good half hour, if not more.

And that’s just one example of many. I have the thoughts about contamination, I have the repeated doubts (like having to physically recheck the locks I can see are closed, that I in fact just closed), I have the need to have things in a particular order (though this is my least likely obsessive thought), I have the aggressive and/or horrific impulses, I have the abhorrent sexual imagery. Out of all of them, the worst for me personally is the abhorrent sexual imagery. These thoughts especially sneak into my head before I fall asleep. At this point, I’ve gotten used to some of the vile images and can continue into slumber land. Other times they can make me cry. The contamination, doubts, and organization are time-consuming; the impulses can send me into a fight or flight response, making them tiring; the sexual images are emotionally draining and disturbing. Give me a repeated doubt over an abhorrent sexual image any day of the week.

My compulsions don’t run across the board quite as much as my obsessions. I wash my hands often during the day, and depending why sometimes two or three times for each individual hand-washing incident. I’m a checker – locks especially, but closed doors too. I’m not really a hoarder nor do I request or demand assurances nor do I have a great need for orderliness. I do repeat actions, but I don’t have to count them.

Right now, I’m living with my parents. (Hello crappy economy.) In my parents’ home, my bedtime ritual is simple but most be performed every night. I close my closet doors. Then I close my bedroom door, usually pushing against it to make sure its shut all the way. Then I turn out the lights. Then I make sure my closet doors (they slide) are completely closed again. Depending on a number of things, sometimes I have to do this more than once; check my closet doors are closed, check my bedroom door is closed, turn the lights on and off, check my closet doors are completely shut again. Once, twice, maybe thrice. I don’t think I’ve ever gone beyond six times, and usually its once or twice. This is me repeating an action, not counting them. (To clarify: I don’t have to shut my lights out four times every night; sometimes I do have to repeat the action four times though.)

I saw the movie Phoebe in Wonderland recently, which had the title character as a young girl with OCD and TS. Though I wasn’t paying the strictest attention when I watched it, watching Phoebe cry because she couldn’t stop, she just can’t and she doesn’t know why and she doesn’t want to but she has to, has to has to has to…that resonated with me. I’ve accepted my OCD at this point. It can be time-consuming, it can be tiring, and it can be draining. It can be scary and it can be boring. I’ve worked on defeating it. But accepting it doesn’t mean it doesn’t hurt to have it.

__

Related Links and Notes:

Ableist Word Profile: You’re so OCD! – This is about using the phrase “you’re so OCD,” some of the author’s obsessions and compulsions, and some offshoots of OCD (such as trichotillomania)

Wiki: mysophobia – I’m including this because it mentions the same difference I do, which isn’t necessarily made in books about OCD: germaphobia is different from a person’s fear or anxiety about contamination.

Side note 1: This post is very much “this is what OCD is and this is how it affects me,” which means I didn’t really talk about issues such as the image of someone with OCD, how it is treated in certain demographics, and so on. Partly because I was writing this post specifically about my experience, and partly because I’m unqualified and/or don’t know anything about those areas. But if you do please leave a comment or link about it because I do think that is an important topic, I just haven’t as yet done research on it.

Side note 2: I didn’t really talk about how people use OCD in sentences (if only because I am completely unqualified to do the grammar part well or correctly), but I think it’s important to note how some people say “I’m OCD” and some say “I have OCD.” I have this disorder; I’m not this disorder. But for some people, where OCD really does restrict their movements in extreme ways, they are the disorder; it’s not just a part of their lives but an overwhelming facet. So that’s one side. But I think the other is that people don’t think “I’m obsessive-compulsive disorder” when they say “I’m OCD,” they think of it the same way as saying “I’m sad/angry/happy/etc.”

__

[1] This is my personal experience. Someone with the exact same tic disorder may have had a completely different experience. But I was never teased all that much (at least to my face) and I have – even at such a young age – a very healthy “fuck you” attitude to stranger’s opinions about myself, so staring and/or asking me about it didn’t bother me much. I got more shit for my last name (which I never actually minded because I love my real last name) than I ever did about my tic disorder. Again, MY experience. I have an ability to make friends easily, and I’m not really shy, so a tic disorder didn’t really affect my self-esteem or how I interacted with other kids my age. It can be very difficult, considering kids make fun of anything “different,” but it wasn’t really my experience.

[2] BTW, when I say or think that, I have to knock on something. Not necessarily wood, but when I don’t knock on something the anxiety builds inside until I am one step away from a panic attack, and I have to perform a counter-ritual. It’s the same reason someone – even if it’s just myself – has to say “bless you/me” when I sneeze. Do I actually believe anything bad comes from not saying it? No. But if I don’t, then the anxiety builds, my muscles tense, I clench my jaw, and I am once again a step away from a panic attack. Fun, huh?

[2] Using quotes is not a recommendation of this book. This was the first book I grabbed off the library shelf when I decided to write my post about OCD, and I always planned to use it only for definitions (mostly so I wouldn’t have to spend five hours trying to word them), not as a reference. It seems okay, but again, not a recommendation. For all I know a later chapter talks about how you should sacrifice water bottles to save your OCD love. I doubt it, but considering some of the drivel published, who can be sure. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: New Help for the Family by Herbert L. Gravitz, Pg. 43

[3] Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: New Help for the Family by Herbert L. Gravitz, Pg. 44

[4] Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: New Help for the Family by Herbert L. Gravitz, Pg. 44

*Warning Trigger*

The court actually let a rapist suggest that if the two women he raped had just locked their doors, it never would have happened. It is their fault he raped them. May that be their lesson.

I hoped he got life. He got eight years.

As one of the victims said, ““Rape is like a tattoo; it may fade away with time, but it will never be gone.”

And he got eight years. Maybe this should really be “More Proof that You Really Can’t Make This Shit Up Presents…Easy Sentences for Life Changing Events.”

Twenty bucks says he’ll do it again when he’s out.

*Trigger Warning*

“Missing the Mark of Consent”

Savvy audiences expect to find certain tropes in works by Joss Whedon. His humor is a well-known trademark among his TV shows, he will usually kill a fan favorite character, and he, a self-proclaimed feminist, will have a level of feminist thought running through his work. Part of the goal in Dollhouse was to blur the line between fantasy and real-world situations, and to see how far viewers would let it go.[1] The problem is that Dollhouse continually stepped over the line, and went from an exploration of rape to an advocate of rape. Through the architecture, the gender divide between Dolls and Actuals, what is given the label of rape and what isn’t, and who the Dolls are, the show ends up normalizing rape and rape-culture.

The Dollhouse Structure

The intention of the artist does not always match how the reader interprets the art. This is especially seen in film and TV, where camera angles can subvert, avert, invert, or enforce the dialogue and action of the scene. If the audience comes fresh to a scene where two characters are pointing a gun at each other, and the camera is at eye level, we expect them both to be on equal footing. However, if the camera is showing one character from above (high angle) and the other from below (low angle), we assume the character shot at low angle will win the gun fight. The camera angle dictates which of the two neutral characters will win by showcasing one at low angle, making the person appear powerful, and one at high angle, making the person appear smaller. When the latter character dies, the subconscious expectation created by the camera angle is met.

In Dollhouse, it is not only camera angles but the actual setting that dictates how we look at each character. Besides being beautiful, the architecture of the dollhouse sets up who is in control and who is being controlled. Focusing specifically on the LA branch, the dollhouse can be broken into three levels: the ground floor, where the Dolls live, the second floor, where Topher imprints the Dolls, and the top floor, where Adelle has her office.[2]

Dolls live on the lowest level. They get massages, take showers, sleep in pods, and eat on the bottom floor of the dollhouse. They are only allowed above this designated space when they are called up to be imprinted into a person. That Dr. Saunders is really the Doll Whiskey should not come as a surprise; Whiskey works and it is suggested lives on this floor with the Dolls. The first time we see Whiskey enter the floor above, she was called into Topher’s office to help control Dominic, who revealed that Dr. Saunders is actually the Doll Whiskey. It is after this point, when she – and the audience – realized she is an active Doll that she begins to enter into Topher’s space (both his office and bedroom) without permission. As shown again with Echo, it is only after a Doll realizes they are more than a Doll (and therefore become more than a passive body and blank mind) that they can start to enter the space originally reserved for Actuals.

The floor directly above (and more importantly, overlooking) where the Dolls live and interact with each other is Topher’s space. Though Handlers transverse the Dolls’ space and Topher’s space, Topher rarely does the same, preferring that the Dolls are brought to him. Throughout the first season there are a number of shots of Boyd and Topher standing watch over the Dolls in Topher’s office as they talk about the Doll’s blank state and how Echo is fighting this unawareness. This space is considered Topher’s domain, and acts as the center of what happens inside the dollhouse. Without this space, Dolls can not be imprinted. It is here that Topher creates and changes personalities, playing God. Like his trampoline, the Dolls are another type of toy for him to play with, something Adelle later calls him on (“Belonging,” 2- 4). He may get a parameter for the game (spy hunter, midwife, thief, party girl), but he is allowed control over what happens inside that parameter. Though he has been forced to give up his toys – Sierra to Nolan; Echo, Victor, and Sierra to the Attic; November when her contract was up – he is still in control of who they are when they get in the chair and who they are when they get out of the chair.

At least one floor above[3] is Adelle’s space. Not only is it positioned above all others, her space is also separate from the main quarter where the Dolls reside and are allowed in. With the exception of Whiskey when she was assumed to be Dr. Saunders, only Dolls reaching some kind of self-actualization are allowed in her space. Her space is used continuously as a power struggle, and blank Dolls do not have the mental capacity to take part in this struggle. Adelle uses this space to control Handlers, to control her head of security, and to address the core group against Rossum Corporation. However, as much as Adelle is in control of this space, she is also controlled by her bosses, by self-actualized Dolls like Alpha and Echo, and even by Boyd (as when he threatens her if she doesn’t stop drinking). When Harding takes control over this space, it is only by stealing Topher’s design for remote wiping that she gets it back. It’s important to note she did not take it, she was given both the space and control over the LA branch once again by her boss. Despite her beliefs, she can not act on them unless she is given permission to by her boss – as seen when she gives Sierra to Nolan though she doesn’t want to – until she and the others start moving towards taking Rossum down. When that happens, the core group moves outside of her space of “authority” and into the larger world.

The main Dolls are female; the main Actuals are male. With or without meaning to, just like camera angles, the way the characters move through space creates certain assumptions with the audience. The Actuals watch over the Dolls, but specifically and visually we watch as Boyd watches with a paternalistic care for Echo, Dominic watches them with mistrust and distaste, Topher watches them with a sense of detached ownership, and Ballard watches the Dolls – especially Echo – with a hero-complex complicated with romantic undertones. Adelle, the female Actual, does not watch them but rather gets reports from these men. Though she gets final say and repeatedly says she cares about the Dolls, she almost exclusively relies on reports about the going-ons in her house. Adelle is out of touch on what is really happening with the Dolls and what is happening inside the dollhouse. Hearn, after he is discovered raping Sierra, tells her “And you don’t get how it actually works down there…Did you think this wouldn’t ever happen?” (“Man on the Street,” 1-6). Though there is plenty of proof beginning in season one, where Boyd, Topher, and Whiskey discover how Sierra and Victor are grouping together, it is only when Victor, imprinted as Roger, overrides his programming later on in season two that Adelle realizes the ramification that Victor and Sierra remember each other when imprinted, in their Doll state, and as their original personalities. This dynamic – that the only female Actual is also the most ignorant – is illustrated by the fact that Adelle’s office, while physically higher, is also detached from the rest of the dollhouse. Many of the power struggles between Adelle and her boss occur in her office, but the power struggle of identity actually goes on under the noses of the men as they watch Echo, and to a lesser extent Victor and Sierra.

The Dolls are given to the care of the men in this series, and as the series progresses the men all try – or at least desire – to save the Dolls, especially Echo, from their own control. This is in no way diminished by the big reveal that Boyd is really the founder of Rossum. Adelle and Topher are invited because they are family, while Ballard and Mellie are dragged along because it is easier than getting rid of them at that moment; but who he really wants is Echo, because he believes her body has a specific gene that can be used as a cure for wiping. It is clear throughout the series that Boyd watches with care over Echo, not the Dolls.

The controllers are the ones championing the dialogue of the savior; a problem of the show is that the dolls, when trying to save themselves, don’t point out this contradiction. The second season ends with the dolls teaming up with the people who put them in the position of needing to save themselves in the first place in order to save the world from Rossum. The only controller we see suffering for how he treats the Dolls is, surprisingly, Topher. Adelle explains, “You, Topher, were chosen because you have no morals” (“Belonging”, 2-4). Yet it ends up being Topher who realizes the horror he placed Dolls like Sierra in, and he slowly goes mad so by the time he can save the world, he is ready to kill himself to escape his own guilt. Boyd[4], Dominic, and Hearn show regrets, but not about the underlining factor of pimping dolls. Ballard positions himself as against this, yet uses Echo to go after his own personal list of bad guys that escaped the FBI.

The show divides the controller and the controlled along strict gender lines which reinforces ideas about the patriarchy that Whedon previously, especially on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, tried to contradict. The visual of controller and controlled plays out not just by the visual clues of the architecture of the dollhouse, but also through the dialogue of what is and isn’t rape. The myths about what rape is can be seen by the distinct treatment of three Dolls: Sierra, November, and Echo.

The Dolls and Rape

Priya was pursued by Nolan, who was told no. Nolan then drugged her so she appeared to be schizophrenic, committed her to his own mental institution, and later sold her to the dollhouse so he could repeatedly have her imprinted with a “willing” personality. All of his engagements with Sierra were about having the sex Priya denied him, and taking pictures of her used for sickening proof of the number of times she “willingly” came to him. The dollhouse makes it clear that Nolan’s actions are to be condemned. There is a running gag that Topher, of all people, is bothered by it, and Adelle even says directly to Nolan “you’re a raping scumbag one tick shy of a murderer” (“Belonging,” 2-4). Nolan is the cause of an emotional trauma that still causes the blank slate Sierra to react. Added to this is the subplot of Hearn, Sierra’s original Handler. While in Doll form Hearn rapes Sierra. (Hearn continues his actions with November, when he breaks in and attempts to rape and murder Mellie. While it was a way to kill Hearn, it was really a way to punish and psychologically screw with Ballard.) Both of these men are rapists. They are called such by the dollhouse and by the audience. Priya/Sierra and Mellie/November are the victims.

These names are written specifically. Both Priya and Sierra are “real” people. Priya is the original person and Sierra is the basic version, the underlining personality or soul Priya has even without her memories and experiences. Both are victims of different rapes, so while they both share the experience they each also have their individual experience to tell. November, who is the same basic version of Madeline as Sierra is of Priya, is the person behind the Mellie mask, and so she too was an attempted rape victim.  However, “Mellie”, while existing on a harddrive, has been created as a person who thinks what she is experiencing and feeling is real. Mellie is also the victim of an attempted rape, and the character Mellie – for as long as she exists inside a body – must go through the trauma and processing of an attempted rape victim.

In the cases involving Nolan and Hearn, an easy consensus was reached by both the characters in the dollhouse and the audience. Rape, in this case, is rape. However, Echo is used to show both the characters of the show and the audience a different form of rape. Where the show fails, however, is showing that there are many different ways of raping someone (through force, through coercion, through drugs, etc), and they are all rape. It’s not that the dollhouse leaves it to the viewer to make that connection, but rather even as they say things about certain situations being rape, the rest of the action and characters do not back up what is being shown. This is clearly seen in the depiction of rape relating to Echo.

Actives do not give consent. The majority of them are coerced into joining the dollhouse. Sierra was put into the dollhouse by Nolan, but even if her cover story of “being crazy” was the reality, she had no way of giving informed consent to what she would be forced to do. Topher saw her and decided what would be good for her; her opinion was neither solicited nor needed. Echo is coerced into signing the contract because she has to sign or she’ll be killed. Her intention was always to bring down Rossum, not join its forced labor. Alpha was a prisoner and was simply exchanging one form of prison for another. Victor, and even to an extent November, were promised help in exchange for signing. The same situation can sometimes play out with rapists, especially in situations of fathers/father-figures raping daughters, who buy their victims things they want in exchange for their silence so the rapist can say the victim wasn’t coerced but complicit.

When people argue that the Actives willingly signed over their bodies, they ignore that they were forced to do so. They did not give original consent, nor can they give consent for each assignment. But because they signed a contract, the audience is given permission to believe they gave up all control over their body willingly. Because we are shown the Actives as enjoying and/or initiating the sex, the audience is once again given permission to believe that they consented to sex, ignoring that they are programmed to give consent. Adelle explains to a new client, “An Active doesn’t judge. Doesn’t pretend” (“Epitaph One,” 1-13). Unstated and unrealized is that an Active doesn’t judge nor pretend because they are unable to. And even if an Active is able to mentally move against their imprinting as Echo did, the threat of the Attic can still act as a sufficient deterrent to keep any Active complacent.

To be fair, the writers work to say that what happens to the Actives is rape, and therefore wrong. The message just doesn’t come across. In the episode “Man on the Street” (1-6), Echo is hired to be the wife of internet mogul Joel Mynor. Joel is portrayed as a sweet, lonely guy, recreating the moment he wanted to give his wife, who in reality died on her way over and never got the chance to see that her husband made it big. The idea of this perfect moment he recreates once a year in her memory is brilliantly demolished when Ballard says, “And then you sleep with her” (“Man on the Street,” 1-6). Whatever the day may have been about, it is still just prettying up a rape scene. However, the writers then divert this point at the end of the episode. Echo, back in her doll state, tells Adelle “It isn’t finished.” Adelle asks Echo if “You’d like it to be finished?”, and then the scene cuts to Echo once again pulling up in front of Mynor’s house as Rebecca (“Man on the Street,” 1-6). While this shows Echo still retains some of her imprinted memories, it suggests that she wants to help her rapist and is okay with having sex with Joel.

This normalization of rape is the problem, as is the absolution of the rapists. Topher and Adelle, charged with sending out the Dolls to be raped, and the clients who are paying for the Dolls, are portrayed with sympathy, likeability, and/or humor. This causes the audience to acquit these people from the crimes they are committing. The characters exonerate themselves by explaining either that they don’t think they were doing anything wrong or by saying they don’t care. On the other hand, Boyd and Ballard do realize the actions they take are endorsing a wrong, yet they still work there. Ballard, who originally played the role of pointing out that any of the sexual contact on assignments are rapes, begins to actually use Echo to fight his personal list of bad guys. When the “hero” Ballard falls under the same thinking of the dollhouse, the audience is allowed to ignore any twinges they may have had about sex on assignment. Echo tells Ballard “Is this about the sex? I know for you the act of love is the most intimate and precious thing two people can share. But it’s just bodies. It’s useful” (“Vows,” 2-1), and the audience is allowed to agree it is just sex, not rape. Once again, the programmed response of consent acts as consent for both the characters and the audience. When November and Victor finished their contract, they expressed no horror over what had been done. Echo, even as she grows self-aware, is not bothered by the rapes so much as being imprinted. The victims express no horror which means the audience doesn’t have to express horror.

When looking at narratives about rape, it is not just the rape but the aftermath that is talked about. The myth that rape victims can not experience physiological responses to sexual contact that read as pleasure (i.e. the body creates natural lubricant and/or can experience orgasm) is false.  By expressing the rapes as love-making and casual hook-ups that the Dolls enjoy and/or initiate, the writers feed into this myth rather than denounce it. This creates the atmosphere that there is no trauma because the Dolls enjoyed their rapes, ignoring the fact the Dolls are programmed to enjoy their rapes. Rape is a trauma that usually provokes flashbacks, triggers, self-blame, and/or stigmatizations; the show depicts none of this. Beyond the emotional trauma is the physical trauma of being raped. While Dr. Saunders was around – and notice that her position was apparently superficial since they never filled it after she runs – she performed vaginal and hopefully oral and anal exams to check for physical injuries. There is, however, no mention of STDs or contraceptives, and it’s ludicrous to believe all clients even attempt to use condoms, which are not a 100% effective anyway. If a Doll gets pregnant, will an abortion be performed? If a Doll contracts an incurable STD, will the Doll be released from the program or sent to the Attic? If a Doll gets a client pregnant, what happens to the client’s pregnancy? Will the Doll be told they created a child while at the dollhouse?

Victor and Alpha

Contrasted to Sierra and Hearn, which is clearly labeled rape, Victor and Adelle’s arc ignores Victor’s rape and focuses on how pathetic Adelle is. Part of this is the same reason Echo’s rape stories while on assignment are ignored: the show normalizes the rapes that the Actives “enjoy” while with a client, as Victor and Echo are, and condemns rapes that happen against the dolls and their inability to offer even programmed consent. Yet Adelle and Hearn both occupy positions of authority and are charged with protecting the Dolls they rape; there are more similarities than differences between Adelle and Hearn.

The other reason Victor’s rapes as Roger are ignored is because Victor is male. There is a myth that only females can be raped, as all males always want to have sex, and once again the show endorses this myth rather than acknowledge that it is false. Adelle as a rapist is ignored even more than the usual male clients as rapists are ignored. Instead, the storyline of Roger and Miss Lonelyhearts becomes Adelle breaking the rules of the business. What she is actually doing is conforming to the same rules as the other clients: it’s not rape if they offer the programmed consent. When Victor breaks it off with Adelle because he is in love with someone else, Adelle drops the relationship. Like most of the other clients of the dollhouse, she needs the feel of informed consent.

Like the other Dolls, Alpha was a rape victim. Unlike the other Dolls, the audience is never shown this role. Even as a Doll Alpha is granted some measure of control over his movements. His violent psychopathic tendencies always come through, whether he is in Doll state or imprinted with a different personality. The show has only a very limited number of scenes where male Dolls are raped, and Adelle is one of the few female clients, and the only one who hired a Doll for sexual pleasure. Both of these circumstances are very telling about how prevalent the myth that men cannot be raped and females cannot be rapists is.

Beneath the narrative of rape mentioned above is another prevalent theme: that the women rape victims must be saved. Even though Victor and Alpha are rape victims like Sierra, November, Whiskey, and Echo, they are also allowed to occupy the space of savior. Alpha runs parallel to Ballard in season one as both use extreme and illegal moves to free Echo from the dollhouse. Victor is allowed to watch out for Sierra, so that when they both go to confront Nolan it is Victor who punches him, not Sierra.

The Doll-Rape Myth

The problem with Dollhouse blurring what is and isn’t consent is that it is not contradicting but rather reinforcing an already set rape-culture. FBI Agent Tanaka says “This the alleged victim? Guy said she had a face. Damn. No wonder you’re foraging for hand cream. Had a million bucks, I could blow it on that” (“Man on the Street,” 1-6). He sums up the experience a lot of the audience is having: not only is the exploitation and rape of people okay, but if he had the money he would be a client.

The show sets up a very specific dynamic of who is being raped and how, and the dynamic is closely aligned to real-world myths about rape and rape victims. The show depicts myths that rape is about sex and so only beautiful, able-bodied people are raped. When Whiskey’s face is scarred, she is no longer “number one”, and it is implied that Victor – without his scar removal surgery – would also be put out of commission (“Omega,” 1-12). The majority of the Dolls are white (Sierra being a notable exception), female, and young, which fits the myth about who is a rape victim without actually fitting the reality of who is a rape victim.

Dollhouse may have wanted to explore the different forms of rape and what it means, pushing the envelope of what we find acceptable and what we don’t. But instead the show ends up glamorizing rape, because it doesn’t make the distinction between programmed consent and real consent clear, it falls to prey to a number of rape myths, and it consistently displays rape as a form of entertainment. There were a number of enjoyable debates that take place in Dollhouse’s narrative, but on the subject of rape they failed to do anything but promote a destructive standard already in place.

[2] There is actually one more main level to the Dollhouse: the Attic. There are factors pointing to the Attic being below the bottom floor where the dolls live, however the show never actually shows its placement in regards to the rest of the dollhouse. When Echo first exits from the Attic in her nightmare, the staircase positions the Attic at the top of the staircase. However, when she uses the trap door above her head, she exits onto the bottom floor where the dolls reside (“Attic,” 2-10). Because this is a nightmare, nothing can be taken literally, including how she positions the architecture of the dollhouse.

[3] They arrive by elevator, but the window view overlooks at least several levels.

[4] After seeing that Boyd is the master behind Rossum Corp., we can assume that the moral dilemma he spent season one commenting on, saying “We’re pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way” (“Spy in the House of Love,” 1-9) is not real. He may explain that he seems them as a family, but he doesn’t mind using Echo’s body to produce a “cure” with or without her permission.

****

Now, this is barely a tip of the iceberg of the portrayals of rape on that show, but I had limited word space. It was very narrowly focused on rape, in which I only talked about a few of the realities of rape; there is so much more. I also did not go into depth about a number of issues that intersect rape. And, I kind of lied; I don’t necessarily think Whedon’s previous shows were the epitome of feminism. Or even necessarily close. It scares me that he did not realize he was writing a show about human trafficking until someone pointed it out.

I leave you with this:

Someone shows you 44 minutes of rape and you start talking about the deeper commentary on patriarchal values entrenched in mass media culture, and somehow overlook the fact that millions of people are sitting in their living rooms watching 44 minutes of rape. – Joseph Lewis

***

Just as a quick aside, because I forgot about this quote when I originally wrote about him. “I’m sorry for your loss, Mr. Mynor. It doesn’t make you anything other than a predator.” – Paul. Does this not remind you of Roman Polanski? He was in the Holocaust/his wife died/etc, he suffered enough. Yeah, well, you’re still a rapist you piece of shit. And it is not just Polanski. There is such a narrative in our rape culture about how the rapist is suffering. I can never find a small enough violin for those raping pieces of shit, as they talk about their ruined life and how jail will affect them and how why won’t their victim think of them? HATE HATE HATE.

So I finally went to a movie recently, and at my friend’s choice we saw Clash of the Titans. For the most part, it was okay. I mean, Edward Cullens would be jealous, and the cast was once again white with a few exception extras, and of course the person who agrees with the Gods is the one who gets thrown under the bus (big surprise there), and they actually had a King Kong reference, which is one too many for me, but overall, it was basically a superhero revenge fantasy with CGI effects. In other words, it would have been familiar even if it wasn’t a remake and, oh yeah, based (however loosely) on a Greek myth.

For the most part, I spent the movie trying to figure out if it was one actor or two playing Zeus and Hades, and questioning how I felt about the role of Prokopion, and rolling my eyes at some of the more annoying moments in the movie (anything with the family in the first twenty minutes of the film, for example), and wondering when it would be possible to play hologram-Risk that looked like Zeus’s floor. (One word to describe that: Awesome.) Also, I would like my Pegasus now, thank you very much, my wait has gone on too long.

But there was one scene that has me sitting down to write the following criticism and almost-review above. Not even a scene, but one line.

“Let’s get this bitch.”*

The bitch in question is Medusa, who according to the movie asked for sanctuary in a temple, was raped on the floor, was then punished for being raped by turning into the creature she becomes, and is called a monster for turning men trying to kill her into stone.

So depending what route you took to get to this blog, some of you are already nodding, and some of you are going, “um, what is your point?”

My point is this: movies reflect us in the United States. Media, I should say, reflects us. They are written by people in our culture, and they are written about our culture. Let me be clear, this does not mean the media gives us an open view of all things; media is very directed by and for certain groups of people, making all others invisible, or in the role of extra. Media is racist, misogynistic, queerphobic, ableist, cisgendered and, for the most part, in my opinion, pretty damn bad. Media is a huge influence on how we think, and is easily used to uphold the status-quo. You cannot study culture in the U.S. without also studying media, because media – especially as technology advances – is so entrenched in our lives. Media matters, as does the criticism of it.

So, moving on, to recap this part of Medusa’s life: she was raped, was asked for comfort after being raped, was turned into a “monster”, and then turned men trying to kill her into stone. I forgot, why is she the bitch in this situation?  And I’m sure someone reading this is going, wait a second, she was laughing when she tried to turn Perseus and his colleagues into stone. Frankly, if I was her, I’d probably be laughing too. Did you see the number of stone men in her cave? There’s the phrase I’m laughing so I don’t weep that comes to mind. Also, so she laughed? Let’s weigh the sides: one has a person laughing and defending herself, and the other has a large group of murderers. I think she wins that moral argument.

Among the many narratives of rape culture comes arguments like “that bitch deserved it,”it’s not a big deal,” and “she should have just taken it.” All three applied to Medusa. She deserves to die, its not a big deal, so why is she fighting? Dude, next time let them cut your head off without all the drama, mkay? It’s for a good reason. You know, not like they’d tell you, or ask for help, cause hello, much better to kill ya. But just assume the next time someone wants to chop your head off, they’re doing it for a good reason. I don’t know why someone whose been living with such a peaches and cream lifestyle wouldn’t, just, like, assume the best. Dude, trust issues much?

Do you know why this line bothered me? Because the same thought happens in real life to real rape victims. We blame them for being raped. We put them in the wrong, because they wore a skirt or tight pants or had something to drink or were flirting or were asking for it, with their yes eyes and no means yes and all girls want to be fucked and why are they making this such a big deal and it is all their fault. Like Medusa, they should just stand there and take it. And when they fight back, when they gather such enormous courage to fight back, they are a bitch, out to ruin their rapist’s life.**

__

*Interesting enough, this line isn’t in the script (though I’m not sure if the May 28th, 2008 script is the final copy, so it could have been added by the screenwriter as opposed to the actor/director, but either way, it was added.) Also, this may not be word for word, but I can’t find the quote yet online, and I’m not spending twelve bucks and a few hours of my life to sit through the whole movie again to find it.

** This is NEVER to say a rape victim is at fault when she doesn’t fight back, or that they aren’t courageous enough. IT IS NOT A RAPE VICTIMS FAULT S/HE IS RAPED. EVER.

I’m trying to work out the factors that have gone into my utter silence on both the holidays and deaths. Part of it, let’s be honest, is that I don’t write out the post (or any posts) in what one could call a timely fashion. I didn’t even think about saying on my blog Happy New Year until the beginning of February, and by then the phrase too little, too late began to play in my head like an ear worm. It’s not even necessarily procrastination, of which I am big follower of, but that sometimes it doesn’t even occur to me till I go through other blogs and realize, oh yeah, there was a holiday, haha, explains the candy on sale.

Another factor is the politics of it. I noticed for some sites that mentioned the different writes that died in January, such as Erich Segal and JD Salinger and Robert B Parker, they didn’t mention that Howard Zinn died, even though he is also a well-known author. Was that because they didn’t realize he died? Because he was controversial? Because they didn’t like his work? Which lead me to think – which deaths would I mention? I liked Love Story (possibly the only “classic” book with a dead heroine I enjoyed), hated Catcher in the Rye, and didn’t really read the Spenser series; so would I have mentioned when all three authors died, or just the two whose work affected me (positively or negatively), or just the one I liked? What’s it mean if I only remarked on Segal’s death? What’s it mean if I didn’t mention any of the three fiction writers but did mention Zinn’s death? I don’t really want to get into who deserves to be mentioned, or the worth of the person who died.

And what happens when someone I hate, I mean someone who I think is just completely horrible and disgusting and harmful, dies? Most people, I have discovered over my life, do not believe talking bad about the dead is done. I do. Just because they are dead does not mean they suddenly become all wonderful with sunshine and rainbows and ponies. Death does not make a nasty person nice, it just makes them a nasty person who is dead. People, it turns out, generally seem to think death deserves some kind of respect. So another factor in my silence is limiting the amount of times I won’t have to have the same argument over again; I don’t mind arguing, but this is a conversation that is basically the same, and one I’ve already had too many times.

I’m not sure why else I keep silent. The late factor, the political factor, stopping the “respect the dead” arguments by not starting them…there may be other reasons. Truthfully, I probably won’t always be silent, head’s up readers. But for now, just assume I hope that if you are celebrating a holiday or mourning a death, or visa versa, know I hope it goes well for you and your loved ones.

I’ve been thinking a lot about why, out of the things I read that day (some of them truly disgusting, some interesting) I made a comment about DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell). I’ve actually had a post about DADT in the works for a few days, so its not a matter of writing about DADT but the timing of what I wrote about DADT. Or not even the timing, since it obviously had to follow Lt. Choi and Cpt. Pietrangelo being arrested, but why out of the things I read that day this was the one that bothered me the most.

When I’ve seen narrative about soldiers, the word sacrifice is thrown around a lot. Other words too – hero, wounded, American, patriotic – but almost always sacrifice. And not just sacrifice, but their sacrifice. The people serving on the front lines (to clarify, this does not always mean people serving in other countries, and this does not mean all soldiers, but those serving on the front lines)  are told to sacrifice months of their time, to sacrifice being with loved ones, to risk life and injury, to sometimes face horrible spiritual and mental problems…*

Soldiers are, over and over, told and made to sacrifice in big and small ways, to do things that can haunt them for the rest of their lives, to have things happen that will affect the rest of their lives. We don’t just expect them to sacrifice but demand they do so for their country.

And when they want something back, better health care, better resources, better opportunities, or, in this case, to be treated as full citizens for the country they are fighting for, the government turns its back on them. Lt. Choi and Cpt. Pietrangelo are basically saying, “stop saying we are to be punished for something we are as we sacrifice for you.” Suddenly, our narrative of the sacrificing soldier – the patriotic, happy to sacrifice soldier as they do their duty to country – is wrong. And like the country does when that narrative becomes problematic, it turns its back on the soldiers. Or, in Lt. Choi and Cpt. Pietrangelo’s case, arrests them.

* I’m still working on how I feel supporting troops. There is a narrative – that I think comes directly from what happened when soldiers returned home from Vietnam – that a person may or may not support the war, but they support the troops. And I definitely do not support the war, for a number of reasons, and I do support the troops. I think we should be providing health care to soldiers for physical and emotional scars attained during the war, and I think we should do all we can to help soldiers transition between military life and civilian life. And I definitely believe we should be doing all we can to make all military life obsolete in this world. But I do not support the troops in the sense that I cannot ignore atrocities that are committed over there, I cannot ignore the number of rapes soldiers commit against their female counterparts and civilians, I cannot ignore the terror tactics used while there, and I cannot ignore the rates of domestic violence amongst soldiers. So they have my support, in the sense I think groups like Books for Soldiers and Cell Phones for Soldiers and Help A Soldier and Hire a Soldier and all the others are doing great things, but they don’t have my support in covering up and punishing women who are raped by soldiers, in punishing pregnancy in soldiers, in promoting violence among soldiers as the only way, in ignoring atrocities by soldiers.

ETA (April 20th): And again they – and others -were arrested.

And let’s be clear – repealing DADT still doesn’t help all GBLQT service members.

Lt. Dan Choi, Cpt. Jim Pietrangelo, and Robin McGehee were arrested.

This is not necessarily the most disgusting thing I’ve read today, which really says something right there, but it is the one I think will get the most outrage. Which, now that I’m thinking about it, probably means I should have written about the other stuff…