A Post In Which I Review Dollhouse's "Belle Chose"

Episodes like this one are why I adore Tim Minear; episodes like "Omega" (an episode I still haven't reviewed! Gah!) are not. That's the line of delineation. Well, truly, episodes like "Epiphany" and "Out of Gas" and "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been" are why I adore Minear. This one just kind of confirms that I'm right to. First, though, I'm going to jump in with the bad.

Every week I watch Dollhouse, and I see problems. Last week was the whole structural-vs-episodic nature of the show. This week? I'm back to ragging on Eliza Dushku. It isn't that she's bad. Okay, it is that she's somewhat bad, but she isn't totally bad. She just isn't versatile. At all. As a serial killer, she rocks. As a person fighting off serial killer personas and trying to keep some women alive, she also rocks. As Kiki? There is no rocking. What there is are a bunch of stereotypical bounces? and hair twirls? and ending each sentence like it is a question?, but no actual Kiki. There is Eliza Dushku not understanding how to make Kiki a character. There is very clearly Eliza Dushku playing the stereotype of a possible former non-rocket science cheerleader, whose wit (and she does have some, what with the "Scarlet Lady" remark) doesn't make it clearly into the presentation. Which is strange, because Buffy the Vampire Slayer could have easily been Kiki the Vampire Slayer. Going back to the books and watching how Sarah Michelle Gellar or Mercedes McNab or Charisma Carpenter managed to be ditzy and human, recognizing that there is more to that girl than the hair twists and the awkward delivery of sentences would have been a real help. This line:

Okay, so I probably never should have taken this course to begin with. But I figured it was Mid-Evil lit, not Advanced Evil. How hard could it be? So I skipped Intro to Evil or whatever, but how is it I get an "F" when this guy that we're reading, Chauncy, can't even spell?

was so incredibly painful to watch. Made even moreso by the fact that Enver Gjokaj managed to pull off a much more complete Kiki later on in the episode, and most of that was just dancing his heart out - and his tearful reunion with Paul. I long to see Gjokaj in the above scene with the professor, just to show Dushku how to knock it out of the park. As an aside, I join the list of people who think Enver Gjokaj is the most talented member of that cast. That, by the way, is probably the end of the bad from me this time around. Unfortunately, that bad is the star of the show, and should be able to pull off ditzy/dumb-but-beautiful better than she does. The rest of the episode? Aces.

Here's why: this episode succeeds in doing what I just complained the Dollhouse episodes weren't doing in my last review! See how that works? It is an amazing thing. It's more of an amazing thing if you've seen Epitaph One (And if you haven't, what are you waiting for? Go. This review will be here when you get back). But it is amazing all the same in that it is substantially a stand-alone episode that explains a majority of how the Dollhouse works and what it does, and advances the end game. I should also point out that this episode was supposed to be 2.02 and was bumped to 2.03 for the not-so-goodness that was "Instinct", for whatever the reason. We're introduced to a large portion of the procedure part of the Dollhouse through Ballard navigating his first assignment as Echo's handler. The explanation about the "R" for Romantic Engagement, seeing how the Dolls are dressed, all cool, and lead to this tickle-the-funny-bone exchange:

RANDOM HANDLER: I won't even do this for my wife.

BALLARD: I was trained at Quantico.

This brings us to Ballard. Who is, in a word, a creeper. The somewhat pornorific slow shots of "Kiki" taking in her new outfit with pleasure while being watched by Paul wasn't very pleasant. When Boyd came to take Ballard's place as the Handler, I was with Ballard in his "Serial killer? Thank God" remark. What makes the tension kind of wonky (and quite probably in an intentional way) is that the show makes it hard to tell if Paul is upset by the fact a dirty old professor would be making a student to seduce/be seduced by simply because it is Echo and he has a thing for her or if he would be just as revolted if any Doll - say, Victor - were to be put in this play situation. After all, he felt fine making an Echo to be married and sexed up when he was in control. And that, my friends, is why I can't like or trust ex-agent Paul Ballard - too much.

And yet, I do like him. I acknowledge that Tahmoh Penikett, has, as Maia says, "so little range it’s embarrassing". He's an "upset-frown, confused-scrunch up your face" kind of actor. And yet, for Ballard, it kind of works. It could just be that he continually gets lines that are inherently funny, like:

So... Terry. I gotta ask and I think you know I gotta ask. Have you been practicing dentistry on large cats? Leopards? Pumas?

Out of the many things Ballard had to ask or that Terry knew he had to ask, I don't think that was even on the list. He is also one of the most forthright in being able to put in direct terms what Terry is, and as a by-product, what with the intercutting scenes of Echo's engagement, what the Dollhouse is and caters to:

No, you're weird, Terry. But what you're not is special. It doesn't take a criminal profiler to figure you out. Maybe a pimp. It's ordinary. You're ordinary. Maybe you got bottle-fed, maybe you got dumped. It doesn't matter. At some point, you decided real people weren't worth it. You pushed them away. Alienated everyone in your life so you could surround yourself with the fakes, the copies. It made you feel like you had some control.

Since Ballard is both a criminal profiler and a pimp, he is uniquely qualified to diagnose Terry.

Now, let's jump to the very thing Ballard is describing, the engagement. The Dollhouse operates under the premise that it gives people what they need, when instead it becomes clearer and clearer that they generally traffic in what people want. Case in point: the engagement of the week. I can't imagine that a professor ever truly needs one of his students to sleep with him. I can imagine that a weaseling one like the guy we see may want one of his students to sleep with him. To the point where he'll actually make a fake student to seduce through the words of Chaucer and sleep with her, all the while asserting the student is in control of the situation, and making that clear to her:

DIRTY PROFESSOR: No, [Alisoun]'s not a whore.

KIKI: You're saying she uses sex to get what she wants.

DIRTY PROFESSOR: Yeah, I-I'm saying she's a lusty, bawdy, self-aware woman. She doesn't allow men to define her. She knows she's the one with the real power.

KIKI: What power?

DIRTY PROFESSOR: The same power that all women have.

This is one of my favorite scenes, because it demonstrates the lie the professor weaves. The professor is the one with all the power, both because he created Kiki to play out this fantasy and because he is the one who has the option of turning that "F" to an "A". He is the one who wields his intellectualism like a weapon; he is the one who is determined to 'teach' Kiki about this inherent 'power' she has over him. But the only power she has is the power he is willing to grant her. She isn't allowed to have an alternate reading of the text. She isn't allowed to argue her point in a salient manner or to ask if she can rewrite the paper with his critiques in mind, if she can do extra credit. Her power is purely relational to his attraction to her; her power is purely relational to how far he is willing to allow that attraction to go. Her power is wholly contingent upon him. And in one scene, the meme of the sexy worldly woman who successfully seduces the men powerless before her is revealed as a sham. Because the men she seduces aren't powerless, and because her power is determined by how much they are willing to give her - how much they are willing to take. And the professor may truly believe that he - and men - are helpless before the power of women. But that just makes him, well, wrong.

This connects to Terry, the serial killer. He also is under the mistaken belief that women are incredible masterminds - that the women he abducted orchestrated his getting hit with a car and then transferred into Echo. He's the one who the show opened upon, arranging his very own, slightly more mannequinesque fully human dolls. And, by the by, with my mannequin fear, I'm not going to be able to go to a department store for a very long time. It is exceedingly clear who has the power, and it isn't these women being used as Terry's playthings. As Uncle Bradley put it:

There have been other... indiscretions. Women, "survivors", I should call them. And when you have a survivor, you have a person who might be persuaded - monetarily or by other means - to stay quiet.

The rich and the powerful get to do their thing and have their way with the women of the world, and it is swept up and under the rug by money or other means - because the happiness of the Terrys and the Dirty Profs are inherently more important than the women; you know, those women with all the power.

Boyd, either because he's a better person than most in the Dollhouse (and that includes Ballard) or because he's an ex-cop, has issues with that before the whole "potential serial killer" thing comes rattling on out:

BOYD: Do we really want to wake this guy up?

ADELLE: Mr. Langton, have you no charity? We are working to reunite a desperate family with their wayward loved one.

BOYD: By "wayward", do you mean that they've been looking for him ever since he skipped his last bail hearing?

ADELLE: A bail hearing over a minor matter which has since been resolved.

BOYD: And, by "resolved", do you mean -

ADELLE: Yes, yes. A judge was bought off. There is no need to continue to translate me.

And is it just me, or is Boyd becoming more and more Oz-like? All I could think of in this scene:

BOYD: What are you trying?

TOPHER: Uh, a remote wipe?

BOYD: Why?

TOPHER: Oh, well... Victor's loose, doesn't have GPS and apparently he's a serial killer?

BOYD: Ah.

was how Oz would have a remarkably similar reaction. Well, that, and how Fran Kranz's nervous, making-statements-into-questions thing also put him in the running for being able to create a more believable Kiki than Eliza Dushku.

And we're jumping to Topher, who I've saved for last (perhaps erroneously, if no one has managed to get this far) because he has become my absolute favorite. Topher is one of the least complicated moral agents in the Dollhouse, and one of the most complex characters. He's one of the least complicated on the moral front because he won't do what he feels is ethically unsound. He's one of the most complex characters, because the list of things he feels are ethically unsound so far begins and ends with purposefully waking up a serial killer. Also, we have learned that Topher is not, in point of fact, a sociopath or a psychopath. Which makes where his ethical divides begin and end slightly more problematic. And, I have to give the scene, because I love Tim Minear's writing:

ADELLE: Good news on the coma front?

TOPHER: Uh... yeah. Good news is that he's in a coma.

ADELLE: I beg your pardon?

BOYD: Just show her what you showed me.

TOPHER: This is a brain - a healthy brain. Frankly, an overly smart brain. It's my brain. And this is Terry Karrens' brain. See these dark areas? How they extend all the way out to here? You know what that looks like that? That's because Terry Karrens doesn't use that part of his brain. And that'd be where you find stored such things as empathy, compassion, an aversion to disemboweling puppies. Basically, this is what some of your more famous serial killers' brains look like.

ADELLE: You're quite certain of this?

TOPHER: Certain enough that I have serious ethical problems trying to wake him up.

BOYD: Topher has ethical problems. Topher!

One of the questions that arises from this scene, as well as from the scene in "Vows" with Dr. Saunders and the broken Topher we see in Epitaph One, is when does Topher's moral code grow beyond that? When does he recognize that just because an idea may be intellectually brilliant, it can also be morally bankrupt? That, and Fran Kranz, is why Topher is my fav.

The other scene I loved with Fran Kranz was when he is encouraged by Adelle to create the tech know how that will eventually bring about the end of the world as we know it, the remote wipe:

TOPHER: A remote wipe? It can't be done!

ADELLE: It can be done. Alpha did it with Echo.

TOPHER: But he used a tonal interface! Serial Killer Victor would need to have a phone. I need to have a tone. I'd have to get him to answer the phone. Do you have his number?

ADELLE: Obviously not.

TOPHER: Well...?

It is odd to know the end game, and to see the beginnings of the evolution of the tech start as a way to save people, and Victor. It is odd that, for all the Dollhouse does that is destructive, that we can assert is actively destructive, it is this thing that is hard to characterize as such that helps bring about the dystopian version of the future.

Now, to the character the show is ostensibly based around: Echo. Echo is able to reassert control just as Terry Karrens is about to kill his next victim. Which inevitably leads to the question: Does Echo have some form of control?

If she does, is her willingness to go along with engagements now a tacit acceptance of that engagement? Is it a coerced (unknown, to the Dollhouse at large) consent based purely on a need to survive and the understanding that if she broke rank under almost all circumstances other than smashing someone's head in with a croquet mallet, she would be either wiped thoroughly or sent to The Attic? Or is her ability to assert control minimal, only in situations that go against the very core of who Echo/Caroline is, that there are certain imprints that won't take simply because they are so far removed from the lingering persona that makes one Active #1 over another?

I don't think she ever will have the ability to accept or reject an engagement while she is in the Dollhouse, but I do wonder if she is making a deal with the devil on a conscious level or if she only comes out to play when she glitches or when something occurs like a serial killer tries to murder some people whilst in her body. Either way, it is pretty interesting.

Grade: A

Quote(s) of the Episode:

BOYD: Then what? Just leave him out there in his Doll-State? Totally wiped?

TOPHER: He'll be an empty-headed robot wandering around Hollywood. He'll be fine.

ADELLE: We cannot allow Victor to be used as Terry Karrens' vehicle for abduction and murder.

TOPHER: I'm personally against it.

Saturday Sesame Street

I like how Ernie carelessly throws Rubber Duckie over his shoulder once he finds out he doesn't have to give up the duck for good. It is just so odd for a guy who ten seconds ago refused to put down the duckie.

Also, all of the great guest stars. Those are fun too.

Happs, Birthday, John Lennon

The Beatles, I'm more than happy to admit, played a pretty large role in my life. In a long and much beloved bedtime ritual, my father would read me books, spin his own stories, and sing songs. "Yesterday" is one of the ones I remember most clearly him singing, because that's the one I gravitated to. "Big Yellow Taxi" was a bit complex, especially with all that talk about Joni Mitchell's "old man". "For What It's Worth" may have been a bit too dark, at times. "Piano Man" was awesome and long, but it had that confusing part about tonicingin - I later was able to translate that as tonic-and-gin, which makes a lot more sense (if a bit reversed) but for years that line confused me.

And, yes, "Yesterday" was written by Paul. But because of "Yesterday" and my insistence my father sang it better than whoever that original guy did, I discovered what are commonly referred to as The Red Album and The Blue Album. And I played those records over and over and over and over again, much to the consternation of my mother. I was entranced, enchanted, ensorcelled by the spell The Beatles wove. And though I have never truly developed a favored Beatle, I do think John's voice may be the most vocally interesting. I have become particularly obsessed with The Beatles' version of Please Mister Postman:

It may just be the sandpaper quality of John Lennon's vocals, but this is my favorite version of this song.

And so, I'm pretty glad John Lennon was born. I'm fairly happy I share a birthday month with him.

Friday Random Ten

1) Limelight - Rush

2) The Kids Don't Stand A Chance - Vampire Weekend

3) Memories - Eisley

4) For The Life of Me - The Wallflowers

5) The End of the World - Herman's Hermits

6) Do What You Want - OK Go

7) Koka Kola - The Clash

8) You May Be Right - Billy Joel

9) So Nice So Smart - Kimya Dawson

10) Help Me - Joni Mitchell

Male Bands: 7

Bands with Women: 1

Female Bands: 2

Men: 29

Women: 4

Coffee Beans for Starbucks

Chris Hayes and his wild gesticulations amuse me:



Also, Tuesdays With Rahm.

I have to admit that I have a love for Rahm Emanuel. I'm not sure why. It may be because he studied ballet. And because he was the basis for Josh Lyman, one of my favorite television characters ever, which also explains my love of Bradley Whitford. It's a cyclical thing.

Say, What?

Or, a post where I cowardly voice my confusion here instead of actually at Shakesville, due to the whole "Luddite"/"flight animal" thing. I'm sure both play a large part in this decision. I'm going to err more on the side of the "flight animal" instinct though.

In a post called Rape Reports Hit Two-Decade Low, a regular of Shakesville e-mailed Melissa McEwan a USA Today article detailing, obviously, how rape reporting has hit a two decade low. All's on the up and up, and all past this point is on the up and up, but this one comment by the Shaker who sent in the article? Not so much on the up and up:

Rape prosecutions have improved dramatically over the past two decades because of advances in DNA testing to pinpoint a rapist rather than forcing prosecutors to rely solely on a victim's identification of her attacker, says Kim Gandy, past president of the National Organization for Women and a former prosecutor.

Oh yes, god forbid we have to rely on the testimony of a victim, of a woman. No wonder conviction rates were so low! Thank god we have rational science now instead of hysterical, over-accusing women!

Here's my problem with this. Yes, conviction rates of rapes were (and are) probably low partially because of how we as a society perceive women, and how we think of rape. But, and it is a big "but" indeed, I'm betting that as much as that perception has and will continue to negatively influence rape convictions, there is a bigger issue at play here. And that is the way our justice system is set up.

Our justice system is, at best, imperfect. Jay Smooth outlined one of the ways it is imperfect just as recently as my last post. Yes, the one right below this one! Our justice system has convicted innocent men and women, because of biases. It has also let clearly guilty men and women walk, because of biases. The reason for the White Night riots wasn't because Dan White got the book thrown at him. The reason for the 1992 L.A. riots weren't because the officers who beat Rodney King were sentenced to jail time.

But, the justice system is set up to err on the side of caution. It is set up to protect the liberty of an innocent (wo)man more than it is to punish the guilty (wo)man. I'm of the mindset that this is a pretty nifty system, indeed. A system where the government has to prove the guilt of the accused rather than a system where the accused has to prove his or her own innocence is a place I want to be. Partially because perception is a malleable thing, and walking into a trial with the mindset the accused is guilty until proven innocent will make for a higher conviction rate.

Thus, if the charge placed before the court is to find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of evidence present to prove the accused guilty of sex at all is going to be a downer in terms of conviction rates. Overall, I'm not doubting that the "hysterical woman" thing plays a part in the trial; but even so, the jury can't convict, shouldn't convict, if the proof is circumstantial or if the proof offered is the testimony of the victim of the rape. In that sense, rape convictions would almost have to go up with the advent of DNA evidence, because now the proof of sexual contact is hard and fast. That is one less thing the prosecutor has to convince the jury of, and one less thing the defense attorney can question.

So, even though I'm in full agreement with the rest of the post, I can't legitimately say, "Right on" to this part of it. Because although it sucks rape victims don't get justice often enough, I can't imagine living under a system of law where the testimony of the victim is enough to convict someone of a crime - any crime. I'm a firm believer in supporting the victims of sex crimes. But I'm also a firm believer in our imperfect system. I'm a believer in the burden of proof being on the government, and not the accused. It doesn't always end with justice being served, but it is a sight less scary than some of the other possible systems of justice.

"That's All The Money I'm Gonna Save When I Never Go To The Movies Again"

In case anyone had any doubts, I still friggin' love Jay Smooth:



You know, videos about child rape aren't really supposed to make me this happy. But hearing Jay Smooth's passionate articulation of the ins and outs of the whole Roman Polanski saga/scandal makes me insanely happy. Because he is so right. And so wonderful while being right - especially with his bit about the switch from "victim" to "accuser"/"survivor" and how Roman Polanski's not facing the law isn't as much a problem for him as it is for the survivor.

There are so many examples of straight up awesomeness that it really makes sense to just watch the entire video; but in case anyone is interested in my favorite bit of absolute awesomeness, it is this part:

Point number 2:
Let's be clear about why he got to plead to that vague, ambiguous thing. If you watch that documentary that came out last year, which was a very slanted pro-Polanski documentary, even in that film they make it clear that this plea bargain was set up by the family and their attorneys, because they saw no other way to protect this girl from the trauma of a trial that would take away her anonymity and subject her to an endless media frenzy. They did not set up that plea bargain because they had any doubts about being able to prove her original charges. They set up the plea bargain because they saw a system that could not adequately protect this child, so they felt they had no other choice but to compromise and settle for something less than justice.

Bold is all mine. Seriously though, chills down the spine to hear it laid out so clearly.

A Connecticut Sports Story

This story made me blub on my way to work:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

My only complaint - aside from Keith Olbermann's terrible glasses - is the pronunciation of Wolcott. It's pronounced, for whatever the reason, Wulkit; much like Southington isn't pronounced South-ington, but Suthington.

The Book That Changed Your Life

This American Life's show Sunday was about books that changed, in various ways, four specific readers. David Sedaris scarred himself and his siblings with a pornographic and incestuous text, someone else was in love with Little House on the Prairie books, another woman fell in love with a long dead author and ended up following a similar life trajectory for a bit, and a man who wasn't David Sedaris amassed the largest private collection of books on the Lewis & Clark expedition. It got me to thinking about whether or not a book has ever really and truly changed my life. I read. A lot. I read a lot of different authors and on a lot of different subjects. I go through fiction and non fiction phases. Currently, I'm in an 'article' phase. But even though I've consumed a large amount of books in my life and have read my favorites more than a dozen times - easily - each, I was still left wondering if I actually have a book that changed my life. I'm still not entirely sure. I have a poem that reaffirmed my natural enthusiasm in Longfellow's Psalm of Life. I have an autobiography I return to time and time again when I need a pick-me-up or a all-families-are profoundly-crazy assurance in My Life and Hard Times. I have favorite books, and books that I enjoy. But I was at a loss for a book that actually changed my life.

And yet, there is one. It is A Wrinkle In Time, by Madeleine L'Engle. I haven't collected all of the books L'Engle has written. I'm not, nor have I ever been, obsessed with L'Engle as a person. It did not scar me, and I have never visited her childhood home. I don't want to move to her town. But A Wrinkle In Time was my constant companion from 4th grade to around 8th grade. I carried it every day in my backpack, I pulled it out during lunch, during class, during recess. Its very presence was comforting.

For a while, I had A Wrinkle In Time completely memorized. I loved it that much. Being the completely oblivious atheist I was (and am), I somehow failed to pick up on all the many religious themes contained within the book. All I knew was that Meg Murray, with her temper and her smarts and her worries she wasn't beautiful enough or smart enough, felt so incredibly real. She came alive, leapt off the page and went to save her brother from the evil of a brain with no heart through love alone. She wasn't me; she didn't have my interests or my particular worries. But she was someone I could relate to. I loved Meg Murray. I absolutely adored Charles Wallace. I liked Calvin. And I was mesmerized by the ideas about space and travel, about our world potentially becoming a Dark Planet, a planet shadowed but fighting in the name of and for the sake of Goodness. A Wrinkle In Time filled me with a sense of hope. I still, from time to time, go back to it. It doesn't bring me the exact same feeling of wonderment anymore, but it I can still see exactly why I loved it so much. I can't explain exactly how it changed me; I don't have a before and after picture waiting to be developed. It obviously didn't convert me to Christianity or anything as world-altering as that. But out of all the books I read and loved, it is the one I don't think I would give up.

And I wouldn't give it up because I can't imagine me without it. I can't imagine what I would be like if I didn't have Meg Murray and her powerful temper and incredible love in my life. I don't know what I would be missing if I didn't know about a tesseract. I may have become a great mathematician if I didn't get into that argument in 6th grade about a square being a two-dimensional object like Mrs. Whatsit said and not, as my math teacher was insisting, a one-dimensional one.

A Wrinkle In Time is the book that changed my life.

A Post In Which I Review Dollhouse's "Instinct"

So. I think that Firefly is Joss Whedon's most structurally perfect show. Each episode could (theoretically, as I've never tried it) work as a stand alone. Each episode of the 14 that were made also worked within the overarching story lines and themes. Buffy the Vampire Slayer never really caught to the "stand alone episodes working within a dominant theme" thing. Certain seasons were better at it than others (season 5, for instance, did a pretty good job, whereas season 4 was a mish mosh of absolutely brilliant stand alones that existed along side episodes that dealt primarily with the season-long arc). Angel, which I'm significantly less well versed in, especially once we go beyond seasons 1 and 2, also never could quite master the balancing act Firefly achieved so seemingly effortlessly, though they tended to go too far in the "focusing on the dominant theme to the detriment of the individual episode" thing. Buffy is still my absolute favorite thing ever, but I can give Firefly props for doing a hard thing in a genius fashion.

Why start off this post with that? Because Dollhouse doesn't have it. Dollhouse doesn't have it in a couple of different ways, but I'll start off with this one: simply due to the overarching theme and structure of the series' main plot, stand alone (or even stand alone-ish) episodes are significantly weaker than what Dollhouse is about. This episode, Instinct, was better than most stand alone(ish) season 1 episodes in terms of making the Imprint an actual character with an actual persona and an actual, workable story. This episode, Instinct, was better than most of the stand alone(ish) season 1 episodes in terms of taking a trope and twisting it on its ear. How many horror films are made like this one? I don't watch a lot of horror, but the scene with Echo coming back from the "dead" to reclaim her child and take out her captor/killer is fairly recognizable stuff. And that? Was done well. It's just that, unlike Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, the stand alone episode falls far short of the interesting contained in the mystery of the Dollhouse itself. In Buffy, we could take an episode out to deal with Joyce's death. We could take an episode out to mind wipe everyone and have a bit of fun. We could take an episode out to turn a swim team into a bunch of fish (okay, maybe I'm one of the only people around appreciative of that last one). On Angel, we could take an episode to turn Angel into a puppet. We could take an episode to go to the ballet. We could take some time out to deal with Doyle's ex-wife. And I'm not entirely sure what Dollhouse is missing that makes the unbalance it contains less palatable than the wonder that was the unbalance Buffy and Angel struck - but I think it comes down to this: the nature of Buffy and Angel as shows was that we were seeing people we'd grown to love do sometimes crazy things, and we cared because their individual lives were just as important- if not oftentimes more - than that thing that made this season a separate journey from the one that preceded it and the one that would come after. Not only was what they were dealing with generally interesting, but they themselves were a familiar sort of interesting as well.

Dollhouse, if its stand alone episodes were about Topher or Adelle or Boyd, may be slightly more in that vein. As it is now, Dollhouse's stand alones are primarily about the trials and tribulations and wants of people we don't know and don't care about, and the Personas the Actives take on in order to fit into those people's individual worlds.

Take, for instance, this episode. "Instinct". Nate Jordan seems like a pretty okay guy dealing with some pretty traumatic events and who had enough money to make a custom wife and mother for himself and his child while he processed his grief. And I empathize with that plight, even as I consider this episode the bookend to Joel Myner recreating that magic moment he never got to have with his wife in "Man on the Street". But, even though I empathize with Nate Jordan, I don't particularly care about Nate Jordan or his life, even if he does have one of the more adorable infants ever on TV. In order to succeed, and even with the dire news emerging I truly hope Dollhouse does, Whedon is going to have to figure out how to do what he's never done before - make a show not so much about the characters but about the message. Or, he's going to have to focus almost all of his attentions on the Dollhouse, because regular people's lives and what they want Actives for are about as interesting as you'd imagine. Which is to say, even with the money to buy an Active for any length of time, not very interesting at all. Certainly nothing compared to governments turning teenage girls into killing machines, Vampire Slayers dealing with apocalypses on an almost yearly basis, vampires fighting for redemption and dealing with the scurvy demon underbelly of L.A., or a powerful corporation turning people into zombies who can be programmed and reprogrammed. The ethics behind that are far more interesting than what the people are actually programmed to be.

So, now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's get on to this episode. And how it actually is pretty good, once all the above is taken into consideration. Let's talk, first, about that Man in the Street comparison. Because I think it's an apt one. Refresher: Joel Myner is a bit of a dick. Electric Peeps has more on this, and it should be read, but the gist is this:

Whatever motivated Joel to do things the way he did, it wasn’t love. His desire to be a hero in his wife’s eyes turns him into something of a villain, a man responsible for the death of his wife. His engagement with the Dollhouse is an extension of his self-deception, both his chance to play the hero and the proof that he is not.

Nate Jordan? I'm not sure if he is a dick. He's a man in mourning. He's a man who has done a dickish thing. But, unlike Joel, he gets that what he's done was not the best thing in the world to do. He is also a widower, but instead of recreating his wife so he could have her, he was recreating his wife so someone could love their child, until he could do it himself. He is more in line with what Pointy anticipated the first time around:

I think that hearing one’s sainted wife’s words and seeing her gestures in an entirely different body would end up being kind of traumatic, an especially cruel reminder that the one you love was gone. I thought it would be heartbreaking to watch the widower growing more upset, and watching Echo/Departed’s resulting confusion and distress at the realization that she was upsetting someone she thinks she loves.

Nate, as "Emily" explains, "just... went away, you know? It's like the person I knew isn't there any more. It's like he's been replaced by a stranger". And that? Is because "Emily" is the stranger, replacing a beloved wife. What stops this from being a reprise of Joel is the fact Nate won't be going back to the Dollhouse for replacement Karens until the end of time, and also because he recognizes what he's done to Echo:

I'm sorry. This is my fault. I put you through hell.

And that makes his story different. It doesn't make his initial turning to the Dollhouse better; but it makes Nate better.

Now, to what I didn't like about the assignment: "The maternal instinct is the purest". Blech. Bleckity Blech. Once more, for good measure. Blech! My problem is not that Echo flipped the hell out and punched Topher in the nose. My problem is that this particular imprint was so powerful, because it was connected to motherhood, that Echo would punch out Topher and go looking for her child. In the episode before, she could tell that she was all the imprints, but none of them were her. Why not now? I can't really even form my utter gahness at such a development into words, so I'll just crib from EW:

But I just keep coming back to the idea that what turned Echo into a homicidal crazy person was the glandular change that allowed her to nurse. Her girl parts. Couch it in whatever science-y mumbo jumbo you’d like, that’s what sends her off the deep end: Chicks are crazy because they’re chicks. They just get…hysterical. For a dude like Joss Whedon, who’s made a career of writing strong female characters, for a writing staff with its fair share of ladies on it, for an episode that was WRITTEN BY TWO WOMEN…that’s kind of inexcusable.

Yeah, that's it. Right there. That, and the fact that motherhood has a tendency to be portrayed as such a sainted thing, that any mother - even one suffering from technologically induced personality removal - would be able and willing to go to any lengths to get their child back. Because that's just 'natural'. You can't protect your kid, always and forever? Bad mother. This is why Marlin in Finding Nemo is considered an incredible father; but if Marlin were Marla, it would just be another Jodie Foster film.

I agree with EW on one other turn, and that is Eliza Dushku gave her best acting performance to date here. Yes, there were times when she reverted to her stash of acting quirks (she tends to do this squinty thing with her eyes - for every single emotion and for every single character); but for the most part, she did a very good job becoming the character(s). Her line as Echo to Nate:

I'm not real. Do you know who's real?

Was like whoa. I'd put it up there with some of Summer Glau's moments. The difference is, of course, that Summer Glau is continually brilliant and heartachingly wonderful. And Eliza Dushku is still hit and miss.

This is already really long, but I forgot to mention him last week, so here's Wesley! Or, rather, Daniel Perrin. It is exceedingly odd to hear Alexis Denisof's real - American - accent. It's slightly surreal. Also, a little nasally. What I see so far, I like. And what I see so far is a guy who isn't Ballard; that is, a guy who isn't really interested in playing the White Knight so much as he is in righting a wrong that hit him too close to home. His vendetta isn't specifically to save the girl. It is to avenge his dying mother, and maybe do some good along the way. Right away, though, Perrin comes off as less of a creeper than Ballard ever did. And I speak as someone who doesn't dislike Ballard.

I also have to say that I love his wife, Cindy. Her "What about the man with the tin foil hat? Didn't he say Rossum mailed his liver to Saturn?" combined with, "Focus. You are Foil Hat Man's only hope" quickly made her a favorite. Plus, they seem so supportive of each other in the five minutes we've gotten to see them.

Also of note? Adelle arranging for Madeline to come back to the Dollhouse. I'm sure there were actual diagnostic tests that could - and should - be run. But it seems so... interesting that the week after she's told Ballard she got his number in regard to Mellie versus Echo that she gets Madeline back into the Dollhouse.

Other random things: Madeline correcting Ballard when he asks her if she's happy, telling him, "I'm not sad" versus Echo choosing to remain fully in contact with her emotions, because "I'm awake now. I don't want to go back to sleep". In Whedon's world, generally, pain is necessary. Pain is the flip side of the passion for the fight. Pain is what allows us to know of pleasure. Pain is not a side effect of existence but a necessary part. To not feel pain is not the preferred option. The preferred option is to feel pain, to know what goes bump in the night, and to face it with all the knowledge you could amass. What the Dollhouse offers, if Whedon's prior works are any indication (and I think they are) is a false sort of existence - it is the ability to sleep walk through life. And awake, for Whedon, is always better.

Grade: B-

Quote of the Episode: The human mind is like Van Halen. If you just pull out one piece and keep replacing it, it just degenerates.

Saturday Sesame Street

"Real" Women

I love Stuff Mom Never Told You, one of the three podcasts I listen to from How Stuff Works. Not as much as I love Stuff You Should Know, where Josh and Chuck's banter makes my workday so much more fun and interesting than it would be sans banter, but I still love it all the same. It's cool to have two girls discuss girl stuff, like why it is important to talk about dating violence, burlesque, women changing (or not) their names after they get married, and so on and so forth. Molly and Cristen are usually calm and even-handed, even when I would prefer it if they weren't, and truth be told, I can handle that because it reminds me not everyone wants to hear the rantings of a feminist about women's issues. That's what I listen to RH Reality Check with Amanda Marcotte for.

With all that being said, though, there is a problem with how they talked about women's bodies in their recent (otherwise fabulous) podcast about women's magazines. And it was in this way - the way they talked about 'real women':

CRISTEN: There was a huge, you know, outpouring of praise for Glamour for showing a real, real woman's body with actual, not - they didn't photoshop out her belly flap, she actually had a little, a little thigh fat, and it reflected more of a normal woman's body than, say, Kate Moss.

...

CRISTEN: Oh, yeah, it was very positive. They were saying, 'Oh, thank you so much, Glamour, for actually, you know, showing a real woman's body. We can actually relate to this'. And Lizzie Miller got all this wonderful attention and Vogue has also promised to, like, start showing more 'plus-size' models in their magazines as well.'

...

CRISTEN: If there was such a huge outpouring of love for a single photo, Molly, in Glamour, what does that say about women's magazines and where we are today? I mean, if it was such a breath of fresh air to actually see some semblance of a real woman's body, what kind of messages are we getting from these magazines?

...

MOLLY: I remember this one time [17 Magazine] put in this chubby model - not, she wasn't chubby, she looked real, but they got just as many letters, they said, from people who didn't like seeing someone who looks like that in a magazine as people saying, 'Thank you, that looks like me'.

Four 'reals' and one 'normal' in the course of the first 4 minutes and 34 seconds of the podcast to describe women's bodies.

That is not good. It isn't good, because it's not like Kate Moss isn't a real woman. She is. She is a flesh and blood woman. She isn't an automaton. She isn't a cyborg (I don't think...). She counts as really being a human being and really being a woman.

Delineating which women's bodies count as real and normal and should be shown because they are real and normal and which women's bodies are fake is just as much as a problem and only showing women like Kate Moss as THE type of body that is acceptable for women. Women come in a profound amount of shapes and sizes. Women should be shown to come in a profound amount of shapes and sizes, without one body counting as good and real and worthy of attention and one being sick and bad and not normal.

I'm not saying this because I look like Kate Moss. I'm not saying this because I look like Lizzie Miller. I'm saying this because women as a group can't make progress by delegitimizing another woman's body. Every time we talk about how one body type isn't 'real', isn't 'normal', doesn't make up a 'real woman', we are implying that the women who are that body type are fake, are freaks, aren't women. That is the problem with the title, "Real Women Have Curves". Yes, a lot of women have curves. Yes, more women with curves being given prominent roles in various forms of media would be good. No, there is no such thing as a 'fake woman'. Women with curves? Women. Women who are more angular? Still women. Trans women? Also still women. Just women. Not 'real women', because there are no 'fake woman', no 'false women', no women-who-just-don't-count women. And every time we talk in those terms, we alienate those women who aren't immediately enveloped by whatever stipulation we've placed on womanhood.

This is the same problem I have with articles like a recent one linked on Feministing, called 10 Ways to Teach Kids About Sexism. Number 1?

Take direct action: make a small bonfire of Bratz dolls. As their creepy baby doll- faces, collagen'ed lips, wisp-thin waists and fishnet tights begin to melt into a toxic blob, encourage your daughters and her friends to clap and chant "Burn the freaks!"

Yes, the best way to lead your daughter and her friends to body acceptance is to make freakish other bodies. It's not to explain that most people don't have lips like Bratz Dolls (Tina Thompson, basketball player extraordinaire, excluded). It isn't to explain that no, a preteen cannot be dressing like the Bratz dolls dress, for X,Y&Z reasons. It isn't to make your daughter and her friends feel comfortable in their own skin and with their own bodies by continually stressing how bodies other than Bratz bodies and Kate Moss' body and so on and so forth are also beautiful. It is to create an Us-vs-Them dichotomy, a 'normal' body and the body of the 'freak'. And that, if we come across a 'freak', we can and should see them as subpar. And maybe try to roast marshmallows over them.

Tip number 5?

Explain to them that though many young women idolise Victoria Beckham and want to be as thin as her no man in the known world finds her attractive.

Except, one assumes, her husband. Who married her and has three children with her. And here's the problem with this (as well as the Bratz example and the constant pickings on Kate Moss): we're still teaching girls (because even though the article's heading talks about teaching 'kids' about sexism, apparently only girls need to know) that being attractive should be an end goal, and that there are certain body types that are prohibited from being attractive. If Lizzie Miller is a 'real woman', then Kate Moss and Victoria Beckham are not. If I'm allowed to have men attracted to me, then Victoria Beckham, with her body and hair oh-so very different than mine, loses out. It can't be that attractiveness is all relative, that Victoria Beckham is beautiful and I am too; it can't be that there is a guy who will like me and think I'm pretty and Victoria gets Becks to do the same for her.

There is an end game, and some women count and some women do not. That does nothing to lessen the sexist lessons. All it does is supply new sexist lessons; all it does is change up some of the victims of these various sexist practices. And though I know (or hope) that Cristen and Molly - two cool girls who have taught me how to make my own lip gloss - don't mean for the take away of the 'real women' description to have an inherent 'as opposed to those other not-real women we've been exposed to in magazines for years and years', it is still there. And we need for it not to be.

PWDTICTJOOOTSBTAJWBKOAB

I'm a member of the political action group "People Who Don’t Think It’s Cool For Criminals To Just Opt Out Of Their Sentencing Because They’re Afraid Jail Would Be Kind Of A Bummer (PWDTICTJOOOTSBTAJWBKOAB, for short)". Our leader is Sady from Tiger Beatdown. Read the rest of her piece, because it is, as usual, HIlarious.

Quote of the Day

This is working for me, surprisingly, because, like Jim, the first track that I heard was "Kiss With a Fist". And it, it sounded like a lot of other things I heard before and then the feminist in my just, like, could not compute. I shout down when I heard that one!

- Jacquie Fuller, a newbie to Musicheads, letting her Feminist Flag fly regarding a song of Florence and the Machine's.

In related news, I may be moving to Minnesota. They do have the coolest people on their public radio stations.

Now, onto the song that raised Jaquie's feminist ire:

It is a violent song with a catchy, boppy beat. When Jacquie remarks, "She says it's metaphorical, but I don't quite get ... how. Seems pretty direct to me", I'm right there with her.

What's more, even if the song is metaphorical in nature, even if plates aren't being smashed over fictional characters' heads, the metaphor of violence for the mutually destructive forces playing part in the relationship explored through song is still intensely violent. Domestic violence doesn't just cover being physically beaten. It covers emotional violence as well. And if these two characters are feeling as though they're each being "kissed with a fist", then they are both guilty of abuse. A relationship that has mutually destructive people doesn't mean that it is a victimless relationship. Instead, it means there are two victims, and two perpetrators. Again, I turn to Jacquie in that "I can sort of run with the 'War of the Roses' absurdity of the song until we get to that chorus when she says, "A kiss with a fist is better than none", and there's something so direct about that that it hurts - in a bad way".

I'm going to posit that the reason that line hurts in a bad way is because many people have either been in or watched a friend be in a bad, destructive relationship where the prevailing wisdom was something along those lines - even if the fist was entirely metaphorical. It hurts because the thought that a relationship all about the drama, a relationship that is literally or metaphorically hurting its participants, is still better than the "nothing" of being single (and I use that in quotes simply because being single isn't nothing - far from it) isn't exactly an idea that exists at the edge of Crazytown. There are people who will (and do) prize a relationship over anything else, over their own well-being, over their partner's well-being, over their sense of self.

But it also hurts because that if that fist isn't metaphorical - if it is real and brutal and there - then a dark line about being in that relationship is better than not being in a relationship at all is all the darker. Because that darkness can be the thought that the persons involved in this type of relationship are already broken, that they don't deserve a better, mutually beneficial relationship.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month this year. Songs like this one, peppy-fun-and-bubbly-on-the-surface songs, should be called out as representing a particular kind of domestic violence no matter the interpretation at any point in the year. But it seems a bit more crucial, a bit more pressing, during this particular month. Because too often, we aren't aware.

Bathroom Sign Alternative

A couple of months ago, after writing a post that contained an image of the traditional bathroom sign, my friend (yes, that one) asked,

...how would you revise this picture, using the same silhouetted images?

I didn't have an answer. Truth be told, I'm not that creative when it comes to redesigning images - and, I suspect, few people really and truly are. Ask me to rewrite a sentence, and I'm all there.

During our most recent conversation, my friend (yes, still that one) brought up the bathroom sign thing again, telling me,

Some of the things that you've highlighted in the past -- like the bathroom signs -- are impossible to correct.

I responded, I'll admit, derisively. And tonight, I went on teh Google and did some Googling to see if anyone had been able to come up with a solution to the bathroom sign problem. And I found one. Now, it doesn't use the same silhouetted images. But it gets the point across.

And, I kind of like it. It makes me laugh :

And if we're going with using the same silhouettes, then there's this one, which is a slightly more graphic take on the one above:

That second one is still a bit too gendered for my taste, what with the blue-pink divide, but still is a valid example of something other than the same old, same old.

Given the advent of products like the "Go Girl" (discovered via feministe), the standing up brigade may see a swelling of its numbers with those of the XX chromosome, but I'm pretty happy with my discovery. It lends to the theory that many things - even those seemingly engrained in our collective psyche - can indeed be corrected.

***

I've been pondering the true reason for the male-female bathroom divide anyway. I've been known to pop into the Men's if the line for the Women's is atrociously long - or if it is moderately long and there are extenuating circumstances. I have always been a little suspicious of the Men's-Women's divide when the divided bathrooms in question are truly two separate rooms housing only one toilet. At that point, gender seems like it's pretty moot in terms of bathroom assignments.

But now, I'm starting to think that, perhaps with a few moderate practical changes, all bathrooms could really be unisex. And in event, this sign:

would do quite nicely.

Quote of the Day

I watch The O'Reilly Factor. I'm sure some people know what he is, but I don't think it comes through on his shows. He tries to show both sides of the issue.

My boss. I really have nothing more to say. Except that I hope she never ever manages to find me on the interwebs.

"The Next Culture War"

Maybe it's just because I'm a stingy Yankee, but David Brooks' column "The Next Culture War" makes sense to me. Now, I don't have the enmity toward Brooks some other feminists have, mostly because I don't care about him and rarely read his column. I know he said some stupid things about feminists' dislike of then-governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin; but plenty of other people said stupid shit about feminists' dislike of Sarah Palin - and about Sarah Palin herself - so that's not the biggest news ever. A reason to not read him on gender issues, possibly.

What I love about this particular column is this paragraph:

It will have to take on what you might call the lobbyist ethos — the righteous conviction held by everybody from AARP to the agribusinesses that their groups are entitled to every possible appropriation, regardless of the larger public cost. It will have to take on the self-indulgent popular demand for low taxes and high spending.

There are other good ones. I just happen to like this one a lot. Mostly because commercial farm subsidies piss me off.

Women As Bodies

Or, as objects. Bodies as Objects? I don't know. But consider this the start of a new series, one where I put concrete examples to my assessment of women being seen primarily as bodies. Whether or not I'll keep up with it is anyone's guess.

(h/t Shakesville)

What Counts As "Rape-Rape"?

Because, honestly, I think that being a 13 year old who is intoxicated and drugged by a forty-three year old who then proceeds to have sex with the scared 13 year old would be "rape-rape" at least 3 different ways. Not, apparently, according to Whoopi Goldberg, who said on The View:

"I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like "You know what this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail I'm not staying, so that's why he left."

I've avoided the Roman Polanski arrest, because it seems so cut-and-dried, and other have covered it and covered it better than I could ever hope to. I rolled my eyes at the "He's such a great artiste" arguments that erupted from the anti-arrest side, and nodded along to the "What part of 'he raped a 13 year old' do you not understand?" crowd.

But this? This just makes me squint and look at my computer sideways. And, it makes me experience the strange vertigo-like sensation I get when I'm especially angry. My cheeks don't feel pins-and needlesy, though, and that is because this particular argument isn't incredibly shocking. It has, after all, been made before. By people in comments sections, in the "it was consensual" defense, and in the "she had sex before" defense. This defense has been made for many, many other accused rapists, and accused child rapists, in the past. Like R. Kelly.

These are, invariably, incredibly bad defenses, especially when the victim in question is under the age of consent. Because in that situation, it doesn't matter if the 13 year old high as a kite and three sheets to the wind didn't say no. S/he can't actually say, "Yes", and have that be the defense in court. Because sleeping with a 13 year old when you're 3 decades older than her, even when she isn't drugged up, is enough to make it "rape-rape". Because that is the exact definition of statutory rape. Add in the drugs, the alcohol, and the fact that the victim was scared, and it is all "rape-rape". Maybe Whoopi doesn't know this, but having sex with someone you've plied with drugs and alcohol counts as rape-rape no matter their age.

Otherwise, what we're dealing with here is the belief that some rapes don't count as much. If the victim had sex before? Not rape-rape! If the victim isn't bloody and bruised, showing she put up a fight? Not rape-rape! If the victim took off all of her clothing in front of the rapist? Not rape-rape! If the victim didn't say 'no', and often, even if she were below the age of consent? Not rape-rape! And that? Is bullshit. Because statutory rape is really rape. Because drugging someone in order to facilitate a sexual act does really count as rape. Because coerced sex, sex where the victim is too scared to voice dissent, is really rape.

The mythical 'real' rape victim, the person who never had sex before, who never walked the streets alone, who was home before dark, who carried mace to the store, who never dressed 'provocatively' and only wore white, cotton granny panties, and who was sitting at home knitting socks for the poor when s/he was violently assaulted, doesn't negate all of the rapes experienced by those who didn't always follow the rules - the ones who have had sex before, the ones who have walked alone, the ones who have been drunk around the other gender (or even the same gender). Those rapes are rape-rapes. Those rapes count as real rapes too.

Shame on Whoopi for suggesting otherwise.

(h/t Jezebel)

Odd Discoveries

So. A couple of weeks ago, my iPod, the one I got about 5 years ago and have put through more hell than any electronic device can be expected to go through without imploding, erased itself. The last 5 years of my life and a couple of weeks' worth of podcasts, gone. Then, the iPod I bought through a third party vendor to replace the old iPod in order to transfer songs before dropping the iPod into the shredder, out of my car, off of my desk, etc. caught up with it decided not to work. I then did what any reasonable person would do - I had a minor/major flip out, and - after a couple of weeks of being a crankpot - went to the Apple store and purchased a *new* new iPod to replace the other iPod that had erased itself.

Now, I'm going through the arduous process of putting the music that had been on my old iPod before the Great Wipe onto my new iPod. And here's where I've discovered some odd things. Like, I have a cd called "Sex Pistols and Sid Vicious LIVE". Where would I have bought this? Why wasn't I concerned when Sid Vicious was labelled separate from the Sex Pistols? And why, for the love of God, would I think a live Sex Pistols show would be something worth listening to in audio form? Many, many questions abound.

None of those questions, though, come close to this one: Why did Rush cover Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" - and why do I own it?

Why I Love Rachel Maddow:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

My favorite part, aside from how genuinely (and yet demurely, by comparison to certain other pundits who shall go unnamed, except to say one of their names begins with 'K' and ends with 'eith', and another who's name begins with 'B' and who is on another network) upset she is by the double standards, are the graphs that come up during her assessment.

Contractor: Lockheed Martin
Fraud Cases: 11
Amount: $68.500,000

Contractor: Northrop Grunman
Fraud Cases: 9
Amount: $501,400,000

Nice, clear, straight to the point.

All Things Equal...

A long while ago, my friend posted a link in the comments section of this post, saying, "I think men and women are equally likely to be harassed. And women are only slightly more likely to be stalked." And he may be correct, in the definition of harassment the report he cited used. But I was talking about street harassment, the kind I detailed before, and the kind that has seemingly ignited a firestorm of posts from places like Racialicious and Feministe and The Angry Black Woman (twice) and Blog of Champions, as well as those that were linked in my previous piece. What I'm saying is, street harassment, otherwise known as cat calling, is a problem. And it is a problem that isn't unique to women (in that it can and does happen to men as well) but its effects are unique to women. What I'm saying here is that even if the amount of cat calling was theoretically 50/50 - if that was completely equal - the issue would still present a unique problem for women men don't typically face.

This same friend brought up the emerging market of sexually objectifying men on posters and in advertisements our junior year of college, and I argued my point - with various pictures of Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom and my poster of Josh Hartnett (I never said I wasn't hypocritical) - that just because women are starting to do it too in greater numbers doesn't mean that it's right. That it is equally wrong to do turn men into sexual objects as it is to turn women into sexual objects. But right there? I missed my winning argument completely (even if it wouldn't have been the argument that won him over), the argument I would have felt strong and confident in making, because what I should have said is that men and women aren't treated equally, aren't seen as equals, aren't valued in the same ways in the same spaces. And yes, men shouldn't be reduced to muscular arms and flat, tan stomachs and shouldn't begin to enter the world of debasement women have been living in for such a long time, that reaching equality at the lowest common denominator is no way to reach equality. But that men - white men, I should specify - are still generally seen first and foremost as people. Therefore, being reduced to an object is still a terrible thing, but its cultural impact is not the same if the same image is with a woman. Because, as much as I wish all things were equal, women are still primarily seen as bodies first. It is a function of not being seen or treated as equals, the differing levels of impact. A ubiquitousness of semi-nude guys on posters is a problem, partially because it turns the guy into an object and partially because it creates a negative body image for many men and can lead to eating disorders, which is never good. But women are still generally reduced to objects for consumption. The most important thing isn't whether or not the woman in question is good at X,Y or Z. It is whether or not she is attractive. Take, for instance, Jessica Lange - who's arms are too flabby for the San Francisco Chronicle. This isn't something that was said of, say, Philip Seymour Hoffman, was it? I don't think so. Meanwhile, Peter Bart of Variety compares two female directors by saying,

Jane Campion, 55, made a quintessentially romantic picture in “Bright Star,” but in person she is cerebral, somewhat severe, leans toward post-hippie attire and seems perplexed by the rigors of the award circuit. Kathryn Bigelow, 57, is tall, model thin, a one-time art student whose gracious manner belies her proclivity for tense, even violent films – “The Hurt Locker” is her contender.

As Melissa Silverstein of Women & Hollywood (who gets a h/t for this) asks, "Would anyone EVER think to write this about a male director?" I'm guessing, "no". I'm guessing, and it may be a stretch, that when the nominated (or in the running for being nominated) male directors are compared, their looks and attire aren't really given much thought and weight. And that's where the big deal lies. Because although the trite phrase is "clothes make the man", clothes - and looks - define the woman. Are there men whose looks (and weight) are criticized? Yes. Are there women who are generally left alone about their looks? I don't know of any off of the top of my head, but I'm sure there must be. However. The exception of a few men who have to deal with this shit and the few women who don't doesn't disprove the rule. And the rule is, women have to deal with more shit when it comes to people policing their bodies.

Which brings us back to street harassment. My friend's report seems to be looking at conventional harassment - like what I do when I constantly pull him out of the line up to spark a huge blog post. It probably gets to the point of harassment at times. Street harassment is the little "hey baby"s women get throughout the day. The wolf whistles, the "Where's your boyfriend at?"s the "Smile"s, and on and on and on. Cat calling. I read the report, and didn't see any indication this kind of "low level" harassment is included in the numbers. But. Suppose it were. Suppose men have to deal with women groping their crotches on the subway and asking where their girlfriends are on the street, or shouting out, "Damn, honey, you're looking good" when they're wearing their grimiest clothing because they're just running out to pick up a pizza. Even with that being equal, men still have more power, both physical and in terms of their place in society. Thea Lim explains it incredibly well in the comments on the Racialicious piece I linked above, saying,

It’s like any number of racial slurs that white folks call POCs – there is no racial slur for white folks that is an equivalent. Because white folks are the dominant culture, and the point of a slur is to “put people in their place.” If your place is top of the food chain, nothing that a person below you says can cause the same hurt, as you can cause to them.
On its most basic level, what street harassment from men to women does is remind women of their place. It reminds them that – as Ndidi so eloquently pointed out – you can be an accomplished, intelligent and complex person, but to the world at large women are only valued based on their eff-ability.
I teach freshmen and had a problem with a student who persisted in making approving comments of the way I dressed. I spoke to several different people about this, and almost all the men I spoke to said something along the lines of “Tell him it’s flattering but inappropriate.”
They all assumed that any woman must be flattered to be told she is attractive.
It is NOT flattering. It is dehumanising and – whether or not the men realise it – it is profoundly deflating. You are reminded over and over and you have absolutely no value to the world – beyond the sexual pleasure you might bring to a man.
There’s no quick quip, no reversal of this situation that can establish that.
Think of it this way: could you make a movie that would show white folks how it feels to be a man of colour facing racism, simply by portraying a universe where white folks don’t have power?
I don’t think you can – as long as we live in a world where skin colour and gender is a determinant of power, you could make 100 films flipping the binary and it wouldn’t illustrate anything to anyone – who didn’t already get it.

That's really the problem. Men are starting from a place where their worth is, for the most part, established. Their place on the chain of deciding who is fuckable and who is not is not is not suspect. Their control of the public space is tantamount. And yes, cat calling may seem like it is at times just delivering complements - at high volume - to women walking down the street. But the question becomes why did the cat caller think s/he had the right (or responsibility) to give his approval to the callee in question in the first place? It is because his/her perceived right to the callee's attention is more important than the callee's right to be left the hell alone and to be treated as a human being and not a fuckable body. The fact that the cat caller's right ever supersedes the callee's right to exist without being called out to is a problem in and of itself. The fact that it is not recognized as a problem, and that it is a large scale one facing a multitude of women, is even more troubling.

For men, street harassment may be prevalent, and it should be fought against for the same reason treating men as sex objects on posters and magazines should be fought against - because equality in negative treatment isn't the equality we're fighting to achieve. But street harassment for men doesn't carry with it the same "private sphere - public sphere" baggage, doesn't carry the same weight that being consistently being seen as a sexual (or sexualized) object does for women. And again, there are women for whom cat calling doesn't happen. There are women who are barred from the sexualized object camp. And there are men who are treated as such often and who are perceived to be more sexual plaything than human being. But for the most part, even if the rate of cat calling is equal (and I really don't believe that it is), the fact that the rest of society is not equal means there is disparate impact amongst men and women. And that needs to be acknowledged if we want a fuller, more nuanced look at what happens and why.

Also, for your viewing pleasure, two videos about street harassment:

I love them both.

A Post In Which I Review Dollhouse's "Vows"

TOPHER: But this is the Dollhouse, frenemy. And nothing happens without my... What the hell?

Hello, second season of Dollhouse! Hello, Topher! Hello, Dr. Claire Saunders! Hello, Adelle! Hello, uncomfortably dark greys and philosophical issues! I think Topher's above line pretty much sums it all up. This is the Dollhouse, where the carefully created controlled environs begins to butt heads with chaos. Events are beginning to take shape without Topher's knowledge or consent. As Dr. Ian Malcolm so artfully described in Jurassic Park, "If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territory, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously." And this is what makes the Dollhouse (and, in part, Dollhouse) so exciting.

Let's take care of the bad first, shall we? The Engagement of the Week? Still the weakest part of the episode. I'm not entirely willing to blame Eliza for this, although this brings me straight to the next bad. Echo is still the weakest link in terms of characters. She's just kind of blah. Her story - so far - has been kind of blah. It is all wrapped up in things happening to her, rather than things she is doing. Adelle tells Ballard Echo is special, but there is no sign (outside of the unaired pilot) that assertion is correct. Echo is intriguing everyone, but there is nothing there pulling me in. It would be better if she wasn't on everyone's "sparkly" list, because then I could empathize with Boyd's devotion or wonder over Ballard's obsession. But with everyone on board, I'm less so. It is hard to find a character utterly special when all that is there is tell. And while Adelle may be correct in Echo's evolution before Alpha dumped all of her personas into her, she isn't correct in asserting that Echo is special because of that evolution. Victor started to evolve beyond the parameters of the Doll State. Sierra remembered past trauma while in Doll State. Hell, even Alpha evolved, if not admirably. If the unaired pilot was cannon and the story had been continued from there, I'd be on board. But what I've got to work with is that even the psycho Doll latches on to some brilliance that has yet to be properly introduced to us in the viewership. That's going to be a problem.

Another bad, or baddish, is Ballard. I'm not feeling his storyline. Part of it may be the fact that his obsession with Echo is just full of grossness. Part of it may be that he seems to not recognize how his "extreme devotion" to Echo is unhealthy at best and destructive (potentially to both her and him) at worst. But it could also be because I don't want him being rewarded for this weird fixation, and I'm completely not clued into whether or not I'm alone on this, if we're actually supposed to recognize Ballard as being the White Knight who gets a bit of grey on him in his determination to do right or if Ballard is supposed to not be a knight at all, and all the White Knight stuff is just a part of his own hang up and not something we should be rooting for or taking a hold of. In other words, of these two thoughts:

ADELLE: I expect he's looking for something else. A darker purpose, perhaps, or a weakness. And there's his extreme devotion to Echo.

BOYD: So he uses her to fulfill some sad fantasy about righting old wrongs by doing something worse.

which are we supposed to identify with? I'm hoping for Boyd's to come out on top in the end.

I was also taken back (but in a good way) when the client of the "sick" assignment turned out to be Ballard himself. From an unwitting player in the victimization of a Doll in Man on the Street, to an active one in Haunted, Ballard now fully completes the circle by becoming an actual client and a full and equal participant in the game. No wonder Boyd seemed so disgusted with him.

Another baddish moment (perhaps more "bad" than "ish") was Sierra's assignment:

SIERRA: I'm not comfortable with, uh, Orientals.

IVY: It'll only take a second.

SIERRA: It's not a racialist issue. It's just that... Well, your culture's not really the thing, is it?

Ivy: Have a seat.

SIERRA: I suppose I'm at your mercy. In fact, if you were to tie me down and spank me, I could hardly be expected to resist, could I?

IVY: I'll keep that in mind.

It could have been potentially good, potentially mocking the reference to Asia as one monolithic culture, potentially pointing out the insidiousness of internalized racism, recognizing how Asian fetishists are still racist, and demonstrating how difficult it can be to respond to gross stereotypes and blatant sexualization that can often occur in racial interactions. And maybe it was meant to do all of those things; perhaps it even succeeded. Unfortunately, Asians have not faired well in Whedony productions in the past. Whedon has, to put it bluntly, a bit of a race problem in regard to his work. The most blatant example of this is, in fact, Firefly. As Leigh Adams Wright's essay Asian Objects in Space notes - like Sierra merging all Asian cultures into one, undesirable, thing - Whedon's set pieces take all Asian cultures and merge them as well, and without any Asians with speaking parts to make the whole East-West merge seem realistic - or to counteract the "Asians as exotic objects" thing. Which is something Thea Lim from Racialicious also has a certain set amount of problems with (and she mentions Dollhouse, albeit pre-Sierra) in her article Joss Whedon and the Blurry Line Between Homage and Appropriation. Maybe Whedon wants to work to redress those issues present in his past works (and, if DMike from Television Without Pity is to be believed, may already be doing so by giving Sierra a Napalese name in in Epitaph One), but this scene only uncomfortably seems to harken back to his own failures without doing much to acknowledge them as such. "Racialists", it seems, are other people.

Now that we've touched on the bad, let's go back to the straight up, undeniable good. And that is Amy Acker. I'm going to be honest. I didn't like Amy Acker on Angel. I'm coming to the conclusion that it wasn't Amy Acker so much as it was Fred I didn't like, and that is a sweet, sweet revelation because Amy Acker can act the heck out of a script, let me tell you. This is the beginning of Acker's 3 episode swan song before she departs for Happy Town, and Whedon is giving her a lot to work with as Dr. Claire Saunders deals with the fact that she isn't exactly what those in Epitaph One call Actuals. Her method of dealing with actually being a Doll seems to be becoming slightly unhinged and creeping the crap out of Topher. Which is always fun:

TOPHER: Is this your idea of a joke?

SAUNDERS: You designed me, Mr. Brink. I guess it must be your idea of a joke.

TOPHER: I designed you to be a not crazy woman! You've gotta stop messing with me.

SAUNDERS: I don't seem to be able to. Maybe your work's not up to par.

TOPHER: My work is pristine. If you're losing it, that's your fault.

But the most heartbreaking scene for the both of them is this one:

TOPHER: What the...? What the hell?! Are you drunk?

SAUNDERS: I'm just trying to be my best.

TOPHER: Oh, whoa, I-I-I don't want your best.

SAUNDERS (looks down): Well, I think you do.

TOPHER: Okay, that is the minority vote. And you tricked it. Okay? A guy's asleep. Could have been Fozzie Bear and it would have (hand motions upward)... Not that I think about Fozzie Bear.

SAUNDERS: Let's stop playing games.

TOPHER: Okay, huh - how does this qualify as not playing games?

SAUNDERS: Because this is the endgame. This is where it all leads. You design someone to hate you so you can convince them to love you.

TOPHER: Hey, I could whip up a love slave any day I wanted to.

SAUNDERS: But that wouldn't be a challenge, would it? Slaves are just slaves. But winning over your enemy - the one person guaranteed to reject everything you are - that's real love. More real than anything up in the world. And I understand it now. I love you.

TOPHER: You need a frickin' treatment!

SAUNDERS: Why shouldn't I love you? Aren't you lovable? Aren't you Big Brother? Aren't you the Lord my God? Why should I fight your divine plan?

TOPHER: Because you're better than that! Because you're better than me! Dr. Saunders was dead. And Whiskey was out of service, at least temporarily. So DeWitt gave me the call. "We need a new doctor. One who's committed to our cause, who's kind and efficient and will look after our Actives."

SAUNDERS: So why didn't you stop there?

TOPHER: Because I was designing a person, not a Roomba. I needed you to be whole. If you agreed with everything I said, then we would miss something and someone would get hurt.

SAUNDERS: You don't care if people get hurt.

TOPHER: You don't know me! That's the contract. You don't know me, and I don't know you. Not fully, not ever. I made you question. I made you fight for your beliefs. I didn't make you hate me... You chose to.

SAUNDERS: How do I live? How do I go through my day knowing everything I think comes from something I can't abide?

TOPHER: So you weren't really going to sleep with me.

SAUNDERS: I can't stand the smell of you.

TOPHER: I did that - so we never... Why didn't you find out, who you really used to be? You had your chance. Maybe DeWitt would even reimprint your old identity. You've earned it.

SAUNDERS: Because I don't want to die. I'm not even real. I'm in someone else's body, and I'm afraid to give it up. I'm not better than you. I'm just a series of excuses.

TOPHER: You're human.

SAUNDERS: Don't flatter yourself.

One of the key things about that scene is the amount of depth both actors gave it, and what we learn about each character. As Boyd told Claire earlier, "Every person I know is pretty poorly constructed." Topher doesn't seem to like himself very much. He is a genius, and he's good enough and smart enough and skilled enough to know that making a Roomba isn't going to get the job done. But he is also explicitly clear that he made Claire to be a better person than he sees himself as. He created a person who could and would challenge him, who could and would win against him, because he wanted a safeguard. And because he doesn't seem to trust himself - or even like himself - that much. And yet, he seems kind of broken by the idea that she would choose to hate him. And by the end, he's closer to the Topher in Epitaph One's future than he is to the Topher we were first introduced to. That is what I call tragic goodness.

What is also interesting is the extent to which he goes to make certain there will be no sexual relationship between himself and Saunders. He explicitly makes sure his very scent repels her. Which leads to the question, if he could make a sexbot at any time he wanted, has he ever? Would he ever? Is the scent provision just for Saunders? Is it there because he knew Whiskey before, or is it there because he feels distinctly squicky about sleeping with someone he had created? Is it a way for the creator to never abuse his creations, to never cross an invisible and intractable line? I want to know.

I also find it so very cool that the premise Saunders presents, the challenge of getting someone who hates you to love you, is practically the basis for a whole huge swath of romantic comedies, ranging from When Harry Met Sally to 27 Dresses to The Ugly Truth to 2 Weeks Notice. And it is presented here as a sad notion. Which, even though I liked the two non-Heigl films above, was kind of refreshing. The idea that we'll eventually end up with that guy or girl we first hate is a weird one to push. Because, well, it means spending a lot of time (I mean, a lot a lot) with people we don't like at all. And that? Not a fun way to spend your days.

But let's forget about the incredibly talented Fran Kranz and the hidden layerness of Topher in order to discuss Claire Saunders' philosophical and ethical dilemma. Because she does so well and hits it right out of the park almost immediately. She embodies one of the main issues with the Dollhouse - leaving aside the whole "the technology gets out and makes rampaging zombie-like creatures" part out of it for now. Saunders is a real person, no matter how often she verbally contradicts that statement. But whoever Whiskey was before she was Whiskey is a real person as well. She had real thoughts and real feelings, and this body is hers just as much - if not more - than it is Saunders'. To do the right thing and trying to give the body back means submitting to death. Which isn't fair to the good doctor, who never asked to be made. The person Whiskey once was may want to be reimprinted, but Dr. Saunders can't let herself go off into that good night. And I can't blame her. And there is no easy or righteous answer to this dilemma, because no matter what the process results in the 'death' of a persona.

Grade: A-

Saturday Sesame Street

Hi ho! It has been a long time away from ze blog, and I have to say that after the initial couple of weeks featuring withdrawal symptoms, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.

A quick rundown. I'm inclined to believe that it has something to do with the seasons, because I seem to remember around this time last year blogging dropped off in quality and quantity for a bit. It also has something to do with my low-grade health issues - back pain, eye strain, and then headaches resulting from the back pain and eye strain - making it difficult to do the thinking-and-typing-cogently thing. Also, a profound disinterest in arguing, mostly due to the difficulty in doing the thinking-and-typing-cogently thing. And - I'm not going to lie - there was a lot of Bones episodes being replayed on TNT. I do love my Bones, and I'm sure there's much to discuss in it from a feminist/philosophical/tv addict perspective - but I like having at least one show where the fandom of it is all there is to it. When something intellectually troubling happens, I like it to die a little death right there.

Anyway, this is all a long and drawn out way of saying, "I'm back, baby!"

Hopefully, that is.

And, to the 3 people who are probably still occasionally checking in to see if I've done anything spectacular with my time away, I can answer honestly with a "nope". But for your trouble, here's the song I've been obsessed with for the past couple of days:

Friday Random Ten

1) Walking On Broken Glass - Annie Lennox

2) Flying - Secret Machines

3) Riot Radio - The Dead Sixties

4) Blue Day - American Hi-Fi

5) Where You Lead I Will Follow - Carol King & Louise Goffin

6) That's Entertainment - Tony Bennett

7) Vintage Clothes - Paul McCartney

8) International Cover-Up - Rancid

9) The Killing Moon - Grant-Lee Phillips

10) Dream A Little Dram of Me -Ella Fitzgerald