Not yet the big post I'm planning, but something interesting that crossed my mind as I was getting to bed (ugh, why always right before sleep?)
[*L Word spoilers*]
I was watching The L Word earlier today (2nd time watching the series), and it was in either S02E11 or S02E12 where Mark, Jenny and Shane's roommate, reveals that he's been video taping everything going on in that house through hidden cameras (so sketch, talk about invasion of privacy). At one point,he tells Jenny that he's sorry and that he's changed, that Jenny and Shane have made him a better man. Jenny replies "Oh fuck off, Mark. It is not my job to make you a better man and I don’t give a shit if I’ve made you a better man. It’s not a fucking woman’s job to be consumed and invaded and spat out so that some fucking man can evolve!" So so sooo so so true, but what stuck in my mind a little is the following part, when Jenny tells Mark that she wants him to "write FUCK ME on your chest. And then I want you to walk out that door, and I want you to walk down the street, and anybody that wants to fuck you, say 'Sure, no problem.' And when they do, you have to say 'Thank you very much' and make sure that you have a smile on your face, and then, you stupid fucking coward, you’re going to know what it feels like to be a woman."
[/spoilers]
I can't help but say that I'm a little shocked by Jenny's main point here. I understand that objectification of women is commonplace, but is it so powerful that any woman, simply by walking down the street, feels as if she has acquiesced to rape at every encounter with another person? Or is this Jenny exaggerating simply because she's dramatic/fucked up/"so entrenched in her own darkness" (quote by Carmen)? I could not possibly know from personal experience. What boundaries are crossed in simple interactions between a woman and another? Is it the same when two women--gay, straight or otherwise--have an encounter along the road? Do they feel so violated? And what causes a woman to feel as though she has a giant sign that said "FUCK ME" on her at all times? And, supposing Jenny's cumulative statement is the voice of the writers coming out, how hypocritical is it to show all the mad fucking that goes on in this show? Is it not objectification if lesbians are watching? I really would like to know what Jenny's point was really all about.
Another observation I've had between this show and Queer as Folk. While the L Word simply had much more interesting plot lines, (and barring the fact that I'm obviously much more interested in all the half-/fully-naked men parading around on QAF) I feel as though QAF was more inclusive to its audiences. I completely bought (though I'm rewatching to see if I still do buy) into Melanie and Lindsay's relationship including all the ups and downs, etc., and their sex scenes were not skimpy (though certainly fewer in proportion to the m4m sex scenes). Perhaps I'm missing something, though? QAF also gave a huge amount of balance to the entanglement between its female and male characters, whereas the L Word tends to have very few significant male roles that are completely intertwined with the core cast. On the other hand, the L Word did a much, much better job portraying a more varied spectrum of lgbtq-blablabla alphabet soup-people.
What I wonder, then, assuming that this observation is indeed valid, is why L Word would be less inclusive to a wider audience. Is this a slice of a secret world where men (a) dare not tread, (b) are dismissed, are (c) unwanted or (d) unneeded? I would understand (a) and (d), but (b) and (c) still cause me pain. I once commented to a group of lesbians that my favourite of all the characters on the L Word was Shane, and I was laughed at and scorned with accusations, "That's so MALE!" Yet, I truly love Shane's character not because she has so much sex (seriously...), but rather because I think she shows the most depth, humanity and thoughts with a balance of conflicting emotions, needs and desires. She seemed like someone I would actually like to know in real life. Alas, I was dismissed. These two moments link together in that I wonder how often men are lumped together by lesbians/gay women (depending on how they self-identify), and how often lesbians/gay women are lumped together by (straight or otherwise) men. For all my questions about the ousting of men in lesbian culture, it seems like there is a parallel among gay men in their treatment and unilateral categorization of lesbians. Is there an antagonism between gays? Why is this, and is this rift being healed somehow? I suppose as a (gay) man that is actually trying to better understand women not for crap reasons but simply to become a better person, I feel hurt. Still, as Jenny said, it's not a woman's job to help men evolve. And yet on the other hand (again), why can't we help each other understand and become a more cohesive community one by one as an avocation instead of as a job? How else are we going to heal the wounds that don't heal with time? Maybe I'm too much of a hopeless sentimentalist, but things can change only when we work from the interior to the exterior. Let's educate our own community, too. This is called "internal marketing," apparently.
I'm sure I've made several assumptions/wrong turns. Please tell me if I went wrong somewhere.
[In retrospect: Leave it to me to write more about why I feel on the outside rather than embraced by the lesbian community than on anything else. Also amazing that a tv series has this much of an effect on me despite my insanely numerous, positive interactions with lgbtq women.]
Jenny is full of drama. She likes to take reality and twist it just enough to go too far. You'll see later on when it becomes overt -- this is really interesting actually, because I actually hadn't realized that aspect of her nasty personality started so early. I think she's talking about herself there -- it's more an aspect of her experience of reality (she has no balls, she is willing to let men into her life and her bed just because they are interested in her body) than something that all women everywhere experience.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, all women everywhere structure their lives so it's less likely that they will be in environments where acquiescing to rape is required. It's constantly there in terms of where you live, whether you have a dog (and how big), where you go after dark, where you go alone, where you travel to, if you lock yourself in three times (even in a hotel or on a top floor), and so on.
>>how hypocritical is it to show all the mad fucking that goes on in this show? Is it not objectification if lesbians are watching?
lolololol the fucking in the show is done very much also for the benefit of teh mens -- just look at those lesbians? do they look like the lesbians YOU know?
For me, I think the L Word is portraying mostly women for these reasons:
-- it's escapism (lots of people want lives like this -- not ones that necessarily exclude men, but ones that are that close with women)
-- it reverses the ratio of TV attention (when I watch the show, I don't want to see more focus on men. Men get 99% of the TV time devoted to their plots and their actions and their issues; it's nice to a have a show where the % of people with narrative power is completely reversed)
-- it's a safe space -- any men you introduce are potentially threatening until they are proven otherwise (see that spying guy in season 2, see that lesbian-in-a-man's-body, see all of Kit's failed relationships)
-- women are pretty and attractive to all audiences this show was trying to get (real lesbians and lesbian chic), so having a cast made up entirely of women is okay; to keep appealing to "open-minded" men and have a cast mostly of gay men, you are going to need at least some opposite sex couples
>> Still, as Jenny said, it's not a woman's job to help men evolve. And yet on the other hand (again), why can't we help each other understand and become a more cohesive community one by one as an avocation instead of as a job?
Part of the problem with women helping men evolve, is that men don't need to help women evolve. Women, like most oppressed groups, are already very aware of the group with power -- its foibles, its narratives, what it considers important, how you get attention, how you get perceived as competent, in essence, how that society works. That society is replicated all around us and in lots of media and in the workplace and so on. Women generally don't have to "try" to understand a man's experience. That's the nut of this for me -- men have to try to understand women and even want women to hold their hand as they take their first steps that direction, but women have never had that sort of help from men, women are just thrown into the fire. That's the kernel of unfairness that people are reacting against.
thanks for holding my hand, but isn't that required for anyone in a majority group trying to understand the human condition of a minority group? however, i do believe that there are more immediate incentives (sex) for straight men to understand women than ot understand other groups.
ReplyDeletei liked your explanations a lot. they made sense to me =)
Ha ha, I am so not holding your hand. =D But yeah, it helps in understanding if someone holds your hand -- but the anger is mounted because of the expectation or the desire to have a hand held. I guess it's that it needs to be given, not asked for -- asking for is just more majority entitlement, or can easily come off that way. Yeah.
ReplyDelete