Further to Otterday conversations, this is a thread to discuss episodes of Dollhouse that have aired up until now in the USA. Please, no spoilers for future episodes.
Categories: arts & entertainment, fun & hobbies, gender & feminism
100 books by women in 2016 
All those people giving Lego the benefit of the doubt? 
Signal Boost: Wonder Women! 
I die of love -
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Hoyden About Town 
I found Episode 6, “Man on the Street”, to be simultaneously one of the most disturbing and the most interesting episodes yet, in the way that it interrogated rape culture and the narratives the men use to justify both their active and passive participation in it.
Firstly, I felt that the whole storyline about the Minder who was raping Sierra drew a clear distinction between sexual desire as instinct and rape as a means of exercising power, with Victor’s non-predatory desire for Sierra constrasted starkly against the Minder’s (can’t remember his name) desire which was based around exploiting Sierra’s powerlessness. And the, of course, the Minder points out that he’s not really any different to the people who use the dolls for sex, nor the people who enable that. Then you have Paul pointing out to that IT guy that his little romantic narrative about showing his lost wife the house he bought for them doesn’t justify the sexual slavery, and IT guy in turn points out that Paul constructs similar romantic narratives for himself — which really highlights the way that all these ideas of romance are wrapped up in notions of objectification, particularly of women.
And then there were all the people interviewed for the documentary about the Dollhouse as an urban myth — in particular, one of the women at the beginning stood out to me — she said that it must be slavery, because no one would consent to such a thing unless they already were a slave, immediately followed by a woman talking about how she thought it was glamorous and would totally go for it. To me, that encapsulates what has been one of the most salient points that the Dollhouse is making — that we live in a culture that makes slaves of so many marginalised groups, and that so many people are just willing to hand-wave it away.
I do have some problems with the way that desire in the Dollhouse was explored as a mostly-male phenomenon, and I’m still working through my thoughts on the way the whole Milly storyline played out, so I’ll probably come back with more later. 🙂
Nodding along to Beppie.
I (predictably) gritted my teeth when Acker’s character announced “Sierra’s had sex”. I thought this would have worked coming from one of the characters that has been constructed more as pro-Dollhouse, but Acker has been consistently portrayed as being protective of the Dolls – why not say “Sierra’s been raped”?
I continue to be disturbed at the chatter in the not-particularly-feminist (and even feminist, here and there) blogosphere and fanosphere about the Dollhouse. On and on and on, people are talking about how it’s “morally grey” – this is so disturbing! It’s the Cosmo “grey rape” thing over and over again. It is really distressing to see just how stereotypically Dark-Alley-Stranger a rape must be before people will name it rape, and I think that many fan reactions to this show really bring that to the fore. I’m wondering how far Whedon will have to go before they’ll start saying “Oh, well, I suppose _that_ was real rape.”
On the person-on-the-street interviews, I’m wondering how deliberate the stereotyping was. The big black woman talking about slavery, the poor white woman aspiring to glamour, the brunette white woman on a bicycle calling it human trafficking. Would this have had a different impact if it was a white man naming it slavery, a suited businessperson calling it human trafficking? Was there a message there, or was it not consciously done?
The Mellie sleeper-agent storyline will sure come back to bite Ballard on the arse.
I (predictably) gritted my teeth when Acker’s character announced “Sierra’s had sex”. […] why not say “Sierra’s been raped”?
Yeah, that got to me too, but in many ways it’s not surprising — the Actives are raped on many of their assignments, and it’s always referred to as “sex”.
I’m trying to remember whether Acker’s doctor has said that before. I would expect Topher and some of the others to say that, of course.
I liked how the last interview was “imagine it happened to you.” I’ve read comments on the internet which boil down to “imagine all the things you could do to Eliza Dushku.” It made it personal, but like Lauredhel I have to question their choice of actor (middle-aged white guy).
What was with the very end scene? Were we supposed to feel uplifted that Software Dude got to rape an active and pretend his wife was alive for a few minutes? It seemed like a throwaway to make people feel more comfortable with the questioning of rape culture earlier in the episode.
I have to wonder in what crazy world someone like Mellie, who is fairly close to the beauty ideal, is considered ugly/ stock not fit to be made public.
Who do you think is the insider? I don’t think Echo’s minder has the know-how, but he might be working against the Dollhouse in other ways. I’m betting on the female lab assistant (the one who always has to fetch the dudely scientist food).
Who do you think is the insider? I don’t think Echo’s minder has the know-how, but he might be working against the Dollhouse in other ways. I’m betting on the female lab assistant (the one who always has to fetch the dudely scientist food).
Ooh, this theory, I like it. I agree that it’s probably not Boyd, especially since it seems like someone was careful to give Echo the subversive assignment when he was suspended. It’s quite clear that Boyd has strong resvervations about the Dollhouse though (although in some ways that makes it worse, because he knows how bad it is) — so he will probably be brought on side in the end.
I wonder if fewer people on this post is because fewer people are watching the show.
I don’t watch it – I might pick it up when it comes out on DVD, but it’s hard to say. I’m certainly not going out of my way on it.
I think Joss is trying to do something really interesting and neat here, but this isn’t the medium to do it in.
I wonder if fewer people on this post is because fewer people are watching the show.
I think this is probably true, but then again The Dollhouse is a very new show that has only been running for six weeks. Meanwhile BSG and Doctor Who have been picking up followers for a couple of generations now. 🙂 I know I wouldn’t be watching The Dollhouse if I hadn’t started reading the discussions about it on this blog.
I’m two episodes behind, or I’d be in the fray…
“I (predictably) gritted my teeth when Acker’s character announced “Sierra’s had sex”. I thought this would have worked coming from one of the characters that has been constructed more as pro-Dollhouse, but Acker has been consistently portrayed as being protective of the Dolls – why not say “Sierra’s been raped”?
Maybe because the initial suspicion naturally fell on Victor. As Victor and Sierra are both dolls, with only semi-real personalities, rape as a concept would be almost meaningless. This is why Sierra didn’t tell any one about what her handler was doing. She was disturbed on a base level, but was unaware at a conscious level of what his actions meant.
If Sierra and Victor were having sex, it could almost not even be referred to as “sex” as we know it, as they are clearly unable of understanding such complicated issues and feelings. Hence “Rape” would be the wrong term. You’d not refer to two rabbits in a hutch “Raping” each other, merely following base instinct.
Sex in general, and Rape in particular, is clearly going to be something that this show will have to be very clever and very calm in depicting. If Joss wasn’t in charge, I’d be concerned. As it is, I think we have the right guy with his hand on the tiller to address such issues. Lets see how the whole series plays out on this topic before deciding how he’s handled it.
Dan: When two people are held at gunpoint or drugged and one instructed to ‘have sex with’ the other, that’s rape – they’ve both been raped. Victor and Sierra were forcibly placed in their positions by the Dollhouse folk. There would be a liability there if Sierra and Victor were to start rutting, it’s just that that responsibility wouldn’t lie with Victor. They’re humans, not rabbits. Putting them at the level of rabbits completely misses a whole lot of points – my point, what I’m assuming to be the point of the show, the point of this discussion.
If I never hear anyone urge me to “trust Joss” or “have faith in Joss” again, it’ll be too soon. I don’t do faith-based TV critique.
“When two people are held at gunpoint or drugged and one instructed to ‘have sex with’ the other, that’s rape – they’ve both been raped. Victor and Sierra were forcibly placed in their positions by the Dollhouse folk…”
OK, I agree with what you say about two people being drugged and forced to have sex – that’s rape for sure! But these two (who I don’t think have had sex) weren’t held at gunpoint or drugged. And if they followed a similar route into the Dollhouse as Echo / Caroline, they weren’t forcibly placed in their positions either.
There is nothing so far to suggest that the Dollhouse is anything but a voluntary undertaking. A last resort, in Echo’s case, but voluntary none the less. She’s signed up for a two-year “tour of duty”, for lack of a better phrase. Maybe we’ll see later that not all the Dolls are their by their own volition, but at the moment i’m assuming they are.
And I don’t think the rabbit hutch analogy is so far off the mark. They’re unaware of who they are, where they are or what’s going on. They’re fed, watered and groomed. They’re not, by any stretch of the imagination, individuals. Maybe a high class kennel would be better…
I’m not being flippant, by the way. I think this show will develop to show us just how nefarious that kennel is, but the analogy stands.
As for the “trust Joss” stuff, I know what you mean, and i’m really not one of those blinkered Wheden-ites who drink nothing but the Joss Kool Aid. But I generally love his show’s, flaws and all (Firefly the most…) and feel he’s certainly a writer with a more feminist slant than most in his industry (Equality Now seem to agree…).
Interesting thoughts here in general, by the way.
You’re not being flippant, but you are being clueless and offensive.
Did you miss the pilot? She was very obviously under duress at the time. Consent can’t be withdrawn, and we are told that retired “dolls” are sent to the Attic, not released as they were told they would be. The victims are regularly put into life-threatening danger, raped, and forced to commit crimes. There is nothing consensual about this situation – nothing. “Agreement” obtained under duress or coercion that can’t be withdrawn is NOT CONSENT. For fuck’s sake.
Humans who have been brain-manipulated and forced into submission are not non-humans, they’re humans who have been brain-manipulated and forced into submission. Victims, not rabbits.
Woah there… i’m not trying to piss you off. We clearly read certain scenes differently. She wasn’t under duress in the pilot. She was out of options and in trouble, and took a drastic measure. DeWitt didn’t put a gun to her head. She could have faced whatever music there was to face but choose to go the Dollhouse route instead.
“being clueless and offensive.”
Sorry if that’s how you’ve taken my comments, but I just think maybe you’re having trouble seeing this whole premise from even a slightly different angle. I’m not saying the Dollhouse is good, and i’m not saying it’s a concept or environment that fosters well being or spiritual harmony. It is, at heart, about exploitation in one form or another. But we don’t have enough information about the show yet to say to what extent the Dolls have consented or what they’re getting in return.
And i’m afraid just typing it in caps-lock doesn’t make it true. We have no idea if the Dolls have been coerced into their position, and references to the Attic have only been made to faulty Dolls. Not retired Dolls.
“Humans who have been brain-manipulated and forced into submission are not non-humans, they’re humans who have been brain-manipulated and forced into submission. Victims, not rabbits.”
You have no evidence that they have been forced into submission, personal revulsion at the concept aside. The brain manipulation is part of the job description. They may well be victims, but on the other hand, they may be mercenary.
The rabbits, or kennel analogy is merely a dispassionate way of looking at their situation. For what it’s worth, I never send my cat to a cattery. So i’m not suggesting it’s a good thing.
So Dan, just to be clear, you think consent still exists when (a) the person making it was in a tough situation, (b) the threat of unknown bad things happening to her was used as inducement to get her to sign and (b) that ‘consent’, once obtained, cannot be withdrawn.
The rabbits, or kennel analogy is merely a dispassionate way of looking at their situation.
The thing is that on a feminist blog, you’re allowed to care about women. Your “dispassionate” is just you showing that you’re privileged enough to be an apathetic observer. You do realise that real women are trafficked and raped everyday in “kennels”?
OK… I get the feeling i’m on a hiding to nothing here, but i’ll try to clarify.
“consent still exists when (a) the person making it was in a tough situation, (b) the threat of unknown bad things happening to her was used as inducement to get her to sign and (b) that ‘consent’, once obtained, cannot be withdrawn.”
That doesn’t quite gel with what the start of Dollhouse showed us. Caroline took a drastic measure, but i’m just not going to buy into the idea she was forced into it until we see what it was that lead to her decision. Watch the scene then tell me it can’t be read that way.
The withdrawal of consent argument can be applied to the French Foreign Legion. Does that mean they’re being forced into the service? No. Does it mean it’s an institution i’d consider joining? No. Did a friend of mine have a post-uni panic and join the damn thing? Yes. Is he now being exploited? No.
“The thing is that on a feminist blog, you’re allowed to care about women. Your “dispassionate” is just you showing that you’re privileged enough to be an apathetic observer. You do realise that real women are trafficked and raped everyday in “kennels”?”
Yeah. I got that actually, and I wasn’t trying to display a lack of concern for women. I wasn’t passing comment on sex trafficking, forced prostitution or real world issues that blight society as a whole, and women in a particularly vile way.
I was, however, passing comment on a TV show. A TV show made by one of Hollywood’s most prominent male feminists (a TV show which, by the way, has male Dolls). To suggest that I was in some way condoning sex trafficking is, frankly, offensive. Not just to me, but to the people whose predicament surely warrants more serious discussion than being thrown in the face of someone commenting on the plot twists of a sci-fi TV show.
I was using the rabbit hutch / kennel analogy not in a attempt to offend, but as a way to look at the institution both the male and female dolls are being kept in. Call it a stable, call it a health spa you can’t leave, call it whatever you want, but please don’t suggest i’m condoning the real world sex trade.
You might want to read this: http://abyss2hope.blogspot.com/2009/03/seeking-objective-definitions-of-rape.html
and explore the site/ comments if you’re interested in seeing where I’m coming from.
I’m beginning to suspect we’re watching two entirely different television shows.
Caroline’s words: “I don’t have any choice”. I choose to believe her, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Some might come from the position that a woman’s words are not to be believed without a massive preponderance of corroborating evidence, but I don’t.
It was consent if there wasn’t a gun to her head? Come on, dan. I’m beginning to suspect Disingeuous Provocateur from you, but just assuming for a moment that you’re willing to learn, I suggest a good long read here, at Finally a Feminism 101 Blog, and at places like The Curvature and Abyss2hope before you post any more in this thread. Look for posts on rape culture, coercion, and consent. Take some time to digest and read again.
“Rape occurs when there is an absence of mutual and freely given agreement by both parties”
What, you think i’m going to disagree with this or something?
Different shows it is I suppose. As i’ve said, i’m not here saying the Dollhouse is a great place! My first post was merely a musing on why Amy Acker didn’t use the word rape, and whether the actives (male and female) when in their dormant state can even be seen as “people” in any sense that counts.
If the fact that the Dolls, and again that includes the men, can be hired for sex (something they’re almost certainly aware of when they sign up) is something that is so inherently repulsive to your sensibilities, then maybe it’s not the show for you. Like I said, I don’t think that Dollhouse the program will end up condoning the actions of Dollhouse the place.
And Lauredhel, i’m no disingenuous provocateur, I promise. I’ll nip off and re-read my Laura Mulvey, eh?
Ok…well I’ve just finished watching the episode. I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t comment til after Wednesday/Thursday as I watch on Wednesday night and avoid spoilers like the plague, for any tv show.
It was a phenomenally involved episode – my head is ringing with the number of things that came out of it.
I wholeheartedly back Beppie’s assessment in the first comment. I also think that referring to Sierra as having sex was reasonable in the circumstances. They’ve seen a growing interest between Sierra and Victor in recent weeks, a kind of childlike fascination.
YES, they have both been put into the Dollhouse, and into a situation akin to human trafficking. I’m not about to argue that that is not wrong. But while they are there, so far as they experience the world and themselves within the Dollhouse, they are quite childlike, they are ‘people’ but ‘not’ – the dehumanising comments are disturbing because they *are* people, and the forced forgetting is disturbing because they are reduced to a childlike state that is distressing in terms of the bigger picture of what is being done to them.
However, Victor and Sierra are quite human in their growing ‘friendship’ and their anomalous ‘attraction’ that defies all explanations (since ‘Dolls’ “have no desire” – it has been ‘removed’, ‘for their own good’ – and here I see exploration of views of women as ‘not really liking sex’, as ‘We all know women put out to get something’ and the control of female desire)
If their growing interest had somehow culminated in childlike fondling that had led to ‘sex’ of a kind I don’t think that Victor ‘raped’ Sierra, or Sierra ‘raped’ Victor. So I think that the flustered and confused comment by Dr Saunders that “Sierra’s had sex!” was a reasonably human, and not necessarily rape-apologist comment. And I think that it was there to explore the fact that the Dolls routinely have their own sex drives stripped from them and have the ‘right’ sexual desires for the ‘right assignment’ planted into them. I think this was meant to be a particularly sickening revelation, and I think that it highlights women’s plight – in society in general and in prostitution.
A gun was *not* held to their heads, they would not in any situation have been *performing* sex for another’s benefit or enjoyment, rather there is insistent and covert pressure to keep them apart, and growing panic at how exactly something so human as interest and desire can spring up between these two when so much is done to keep them sufficiently blank that they are like lost (but content) children.
In that sense I don’t think that the rabbit comment was that far off the mark, though I would still go with children and not animals, particularly since it’s not really a base desire to copulate, but rather a mystifying fascination, a childlike curiosity, an urge to bond, to protect, a propulsion towards a kind of ‘love’. And while the background knowledge of the Dollhouse and its operations is of course still wrong, I don’t think that there is anything ‘wrong’ to be found between these two.
I think that something useful that this episode did was to get people to question some stuff around prostitution – and here I’m talking about regular prostitution and not human trafficking. I think it’s a running premise throughout the show that human trafficking is a wrong. I think it’s further asking us to look at our attitudes to prostitution and to women’s plight in general.
As in – does a man’s motivation have to be rape and degradation for it to be disturbing and still exploitation? That even when his story made his motivation – to recapture the moment he’d worked for and lost, to see the joy, to be the person he’d wanted to be – visible and in many ways an understandable *desire*, to act on it was still blatant exploitation.
Again, I fully understand that the Dollhouse takes place as akin to human trafficking, but given that each operative goes out in a state where *they* believe they’re doing what they’re doing willingly, I think it asks us to interrogate not just our attitudes to the wrongness of human trafficking, but to exactly what goes on in prostitution where women go more or less *willingly*, and to examine the choices women really have and what consent and willingness can mean where choices are limited, where we’re seen as objects, where we’re always and already defined as women, as less than, as less than human.
And I think it’s linked to the comment that no one would want to be a slave that wasn’t a slave already. I don’t think it’s about denying agency to women who work as prostitutes, but rather asking if women are already enslaved to patriarchal society and expectations of their sexuality, and to examine ‘choice’ within that context means that you need to go further to examine the ethics of what happens to women in this society, and what gets justified under consent and choice.
And when the man’s ‘motives’ are not to hire a woman and hurt her because he enjoys humiliation and power and pain, but a more allegedly ‘justifiable’ desire, can it be ethical when he still knows he is exploiting the woman?
And how could you not love the turn it took when the ‘good ole hero’ narrative that’s been shitting me was turned right back on Paul and he was confronted head on with his personal investment in playing the hero to Caroline’s damsel, the slap in the face that made him take stock and really see Millie standing right in front of him.
And I don’t know…Millie is gorgeous. I think she’s been portrayed as a beautiful and funny woman, a woman sad that she’s going unnoticed while Paul pursues the ‘thinner, perkier, shinier “Caroline”. I don’t think she’s portrayed as less attractive, I think it reflects an absolute truth – that the thin toned bodies of the Actives are exactly what is worshipped in this world right now, what is sought to be consumed, exactly what has beautiful women the world over who are not beautiful *in that specified way* feeling ‘less than’. And men DO say things like what that dumbarse guy said to Millie, and women who are gorgeous DO get overlooked for more pert, more shiny, more conventional, more ‘sassy’, more bland. All the time.
Anyway, it was an incredibly distressing episode, and just packed full of things I would like to talk about at length. (Sorry, more length, some other time, I’m aware it’s late and my comment is stupidly long)
fuckpoliteness’s last blog post..Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans!
If their growing interest had somehow culminated in childlike fondling that had led to ’sex’ of a kind I don’t think that Victor ‘raped’ Sierra, or Sierra ‘raped’ Victor.
I agree with this, BUT, the problem with the “Sierra’s had sex” comment is that it’s quite clear, from Sierra’s reaction to Victor and her crying at night that something has been happening to her that she did not want. It is these reactions that prompt them to give Sierra the exam in the first place, so they’re obviously looking for evidence of rape — so why not use the word? My feeling, as I mentioned above, is that the people working in the Dollhouse have lost the ability to distinguish between sex and rape.
I don’t think it’s about denying agency to women who work as prostitutes, but rather asking if women are already enslaved to patriarchal society and expectations of their sexuality, and to examine ‘choice’ within that context means that you need to go further to examine the ethics of what happens to women in this society, and what gets justified under consent and choice.
I think this gets to the heart of it — the Dollhouse parallels many different types of objectification and dehumanisation, some of which are stigmatised (sex work) and some of which are valorised (the happy beautiful wife) by society at large. It’s saying that if we interrogate one we have to interrogate the other — that it’s the whole exploitative paradigm that needs to be overthrown.
Whether or not the show will be able to do this successfully in the end remains to be seen, particularly since funding for the show requires it to re-assert that exploitative paradigm in a variety of ways, and it’s clear that a LOT of people (dan is not my any means unique) completely and utterly fail to see Echo’s/Caroline’s complete lack of consent, to the point that her words, “I don’t have a choice” are ignored or twisted to mean something else, but nonetheless, I do think that the show has great potential to go to some pretty radical places.
The actives when in the Dollhouse are programmed into a highly suggestible state, so that they will not only follow any instructions, they will follow any suggestions as well, as surely as if a gun is held to their heads.
This precludes consent. No exceptions.
Therefore, it is not possible for Sierra to “have sex”. Any sexual contact is rape.
Victor also has no ability to consent to sex.
If there is any sexual contact for either of them, the Dollhouse is the rapist, since it is the Dollhouse that has removed their ability to consent.
The ugliest part of this episode is the attempt to create a picture of rape without a rapist, as the press almost invariably does. Most rapists identify themselves as not-rapists by some twisted rationale or other. We really don’t need more of that.
I don’t see how in any sense the episode was painting a picture of rape without a rapist. The rapist was pretty thoroughly identified. I think it examined quite explicitly the differences between sexual desire and a desire to harm, and pointed out that even when there is *not* necessarily a desire to harm, sex with someone who cannot consent is rape.
The episode went further than that – the dude whose wife died was STILL exploiting women, was still having sex with a woman who was i a state akin to unconscious, who took comfort from ‘she won’t remember’. I think exploring this comfort men take in what women won’t remember is possibly more useful than not exploring those ideas.
The episode went further again to question the cop thinking he’s just a man doing what he can – it critiqued the ‘purity’ of the hero role, of the concern of the nice guy as also possessive, perverted, of concern.
However, I think there are two things at play here.
The background setting of human trafficking means that WHATEVER happens to the dolls is always and ever wrong.
But if you cannot look at the nuances of the scenarios played out each week as being wrong and disturbing in and of themselves, in another completely seperate way you are always going to miss where the show is asking us to consider the wrongness NOT JUST of human trafficking, but of what happens to women who *do* engage willingly with men – because for the character on an assignment, it is for all intents and purposes *where she wants to be at that time* (which does nothing to diminish that the truth that WE KNOW is that this set up and erasure is wrong in the production of this very belief, as well as in the human trafficking element) – it can then examine men’s interactions with women, with women it sees as infantile/robotic, with women that ‘won’t remember’, the disturbing attributes of masculine desire, the objectification of women, the small humiliations and pain, the casual violences inflicted the dismissal of women’s voices and ideas.
To go back to the Sierra/Victor thing, these people have been reduced to a childlike state, ostensibly to keep them ‘content’ and manageable between assignments. If two Dolls began to feel mutual feelings, feelings that were in no way orchestrated or encouraged by the Dollhouse, and actively discouraged and a source of ‘panic’ for the signalled lack of suppression they represent, and mutually explored those feelings physically then I do not think that the term rape is all that helpful. No one is ‘suggesting’ lust to these people, even in their blanked out state they are forming attachments. I think what is happening is that despite all attempts to erase what makes each of them human, some humanity shows through, some memory, some desire, that is far LESS base than the desires of the Dollhouse or it’s clients.
And to be clear – sex with a woman who is akin to unconscious is rape, so I guess that should read that the rapists were pretty clearly identified.
Of course the term rape is helpful if Sierra and Victor were to engage with each other sexually. Neither is able to consent. Sex with a person not able to consent is rape. It wouldn’t really be any different from dosing them both up with rohypnol and tossing them in a locked room. Both would be victims, and the perpetrators would be those who removed their ability to consent.
The show doesn’t examine men’s interactions with women. At most it examines men’s interactions with men’s creations, not actual women. The dolls exist because real women won’t do what the men who are paying want.
Oh, and on the rape without a rapist concept — for most of the show, that’s exactly what it was painting; for most of the show, the audience was led to believe that Victor was the male having sexual contact with Sierra. But since Victor is not capable of consent, he can’t be a rapist. Since you devote a long paragraph to the idea of Victor and Sierra having sexual contact, I’d say the episode painted that as a picture very vividly.
According to Timothy Beneke in Men on Rape, many rapists see themselves as very analogous to Victor in the non-active state — passive, harmless, acted upon by the outside. The show set up a very vivid portrayal of a rape without rapist scenario for such men to identify with, but failed boldly to critique any such identification.
Sorry, but I see an absolutely massive difference in two people reduced to a childlike state in which the ‘controllers’ want them to have nothing to do with one another, to not remember one another having physical contact at their own initiation and some fucked up gladiator rape style scenario.
*The show doesn’t examine men’s interactions with women. At most it examines men’s interactions with men’s creations, not actual women. The dolls exist because real women won’t do what the men who are paying want*.
Actually I think that it examines every woman’s predicament in being born into a patriarchal society. And you have no idea why the dolls exist from the show itself.
You’re asserting your views in quite an aggressive way as if no other views of the show are possible without making the person asserting those views an ipso facto rape apologist. Could you not please?
*Oh, and on the rape without a rapist concept — for most of the show, that’s exactly what it was painting; for most of the show, the audience was led to believe that Victor was the male having sexual contact with Sierra* Actually it was nowhere near for most of the show at all. It hovered as a confusing idea for about five or ten minutes.
*Since you devote a long paragraph to the idea of Victor and Sierra having sexual contact, I’d say the episode painted that as a picture very vividly*. Actually I’d say it goes more to you refusing to engage with my long paragraph and my ability to have differing opinions to yours without being a rape apologist.
Wait a minute, you’re saying you wrote a long paragraph in response to my not engaging with that paragraph before it was written? I’m not following you.
I’m also not following your “rape apologist” logic or how you’re dragging that phrase in. Sexual contact with any of the dolls is rape. The dolls themselves can’t be rapists because they have no agency. You appear to be agreeing with me that if Sierra and Victor had sexual contact, that would make neither of them rapists, since neither can give consent or withhold it. How does rape apologism even come into that?
No, I’m saying your assumption that I wrote a long paragraph is evidence that the show painted the picture of rape without a rapist is incorrect and that the long paragraph I wrote went to something other than rape without a rapist. I’m referring to your response when I say that it goes more to you not engaging with my paragraph than necessarily to proof that rape without a rapist was what the show was doing.
I’m ‘dragging that phrase in’ since you look at what I write and then say ‘No, it IS rape and what you’re condoning is no different to dosing them on rohypnol and tossing them in a room for spectator-sport-style rape’.
I think we have to find out more about the dolls in their “tabula rasa” form to resolve this argument.
Re: people like dan. Do you think that people are immunised to women-in-distress scenarios, especially in the media? Or is it just deliberate ambiguity left in the show so Whedon can keep everyone happy? Maybe there are cues, dog whistles that we aren’t picking up on about it being “not really rape.” Or maybe people are turned on by the rape encounters and can’t bring themselves to believe someone who looks happy, who is dressed like that, who got herself into this situation, is a “real” rape victim.
I never thought Victor was the rapist, they had been setting up Sierra’s handler as an uncaring asshole for a while now. I thought it was interesting that they were willing to accuse Victor of rape, the only time (to my memory) the word rape was used in that episode. Was that to highlight the dynamics of the disempowered man-as-rapist (i.e. the black rapist of white women myth in the US) and the fact that Sierra is viewed as the property of the Dollhouse, so it is ok when the clients rape her, but not ok when she has sexual contact with someone who hasn’t paid? (Wow, this could be an extended metaphor for marriage, now that I think about it.)
I have to admit, that in the theoretical scenario that two Actives felt mutual desire for each other in their blank states — that is, it would be unprogrammed desire — and they had some sort of sexual contact as a result, I’d have a hard time calling it rape. If they were both pre-programmed to have sex with each other, then yes, I’d say it’s a situation where the Dollhouse is raping both of them, but if it was a matter of both of them breaking free of their programming, then they both are asserting a small degree of agency, and since both have similar levels of agency in relation to each other, I think they’d have the ability to consent to that — it’s like the difference between two twelve year olds fooling around with each other by mutual consent and a twenty year old attempting to have any form of sex with a twelve year old (no true consent possible).
I said this in my initial comment, but I think the whole storyline about suspicion falling on Victor initially was one of the most powerful aspects of this episode in terms of undermining rape culture. When the Dollhouse staff suspect Victor, it’s implicitly informed by the assumption that male sexuality is innately predatory, and this assumption is undermined completely when it’s revealed that her Minder is the rapist — the message then becomes that it’s unequal power relations that cause this predatory behaviour. In contrast, of all the men who feel sexual desire for women in the show, Victor’s approach is the most egalitarian of the lot — his desire manifests itself in attempts to get to know Sierra — he wants to share meals with her, he wants to learn about her interests, etc. And all of this is stuff that he has NOT been programmed to do by the Dollhouse.
Victor’s approach is the most egalitarian of the lot, isn’t it?
If that could be assumed to be intended to have a message, I wonder what it would be. One might say the intended message is that the natural state of a male is non-predatory. But since there is nothing remotely natural about the tabula rasa state — it’s completely manufactured and even babies are not that pliantly suggestible — perhaps it’s suggesting the opposite.
I think HellOnHairyLegs hit something with the parallel to the history of marriage. Scary, isn’t it?
One might say the intended message is that the natural state of a male is non-predatory. But since there is nothing remotely natural about the tabula rasa state — it’s completely manufactured and even babies are not that pliantly suggestible — perhaps it’s suggesting the opposite.
True — and I think that this is a point at which nature/culture binaries tend to break down. Certainly, none of the blank dolls could be said to be in a “natural” state, but niether can any of the people outside of the Dollhouse either — whether or not a behaviour is “natural” becomes irrelevant. All we can take away from Victor’s behaviour is that sexual attraction is not inherently linked to predatory behaviour — and this is true regardless of whether or not the two are conflated in “nature” (whatever that is).
HoHL – that’s what I think is interesting. We *are* as a society somewhat numbed to images of women in distress, or only able to recognise it *as* distress if it is blatant stranger-rape-with-violence.
The scenes in which the Dolls are programmed to think they want to sleep with someone are shown only as flashes…but the programming, the wiping, the repetitive ‘blankness’ this shows that *even if you can fool people through science into thinking they want what is happening* this vast network of exploitation, of objectifying and dehumanising women is digusting.
In the meanwhile what we see focussed on explicitly and at length is the fully clothed degradation of the Dolls (being spat on, being slapped, being talked to as if inherently stupid, being treated as subhuman, within the Dollhouse and without, threats made which they cannot fully understand) which appear to act as analogy to the disrespect of and abuse of women in general across society.
I think it is part of the point of the show – that yes, the Dollhouse operators seem to find it ‘acceptable’ to hire out these girls and wipe them in order to fulfill the urges of paying clients, but not in other contexts. But that doesn’t mean that the show is *saying* that is ok. I think we’re all quite obviously meant to sit in judgement and feel horror over the detachment of the Dollhouse (and the order to ‘kill’ Millie and make sure it’s not clean? I mean I literally nearly vomited at that)…but I do think it is used to highlight the hypocrisies of ‘this exploitation is ok, and that exploitation is bad’.
So while it draws a parallel to marriage, the end message is not ‘and therefore you own your wife and cannot ‘rape’ her’, it’s that objectification and degradation of women no matter what your motivation or position in relation to her is bad, damaging and wrong.
Yes, Beppie I think that a show like this is not necessarily trucking with the ‘natural state’ of anyone, but rather showing the constructedness of all that passes as natural. And masculine desire in the ‘real world’ is constructed as, circulated as, and reinforced as predatory, all about conquest, all about the cock, and all about the submission of women.
So while it draws a parallel to marriage, the end message is not ‘and therefore you own your wife and cannot ‘rape’ her’, it’s that objectification and degradation of women no matter what your motivation or position in relation to her is bad, damaging and wrong.
That’s what I was trying to say, I guess I wasn’t clear in my musing/ thinky state.
Oh hey, not arguing, just musing some more. Not wanting to represent you as having set up the opposite, but just thinking it through for myself.
As someone who has never watched this show, is it worth tracking down despite all this stuff you are discussing?
Mindy, I guess it depends on what would be worth it. To my mind it’s not quality programming by any measure. I watched it at first because I like Eliza Dushku and then because I got trainwreck syndrome. So there’s two reasons, but they might not be worth it to you.
In my mind Mindy it’s worth it precisely for the reasons discussed rather than despite it. It seems to me to be the only show really grappling with issues of the dehumanisation of women, of what it means to be human, that ‘forgetting’ isn’t necessarily a kindness, with objectification of women in many different areas, the fact that even where you can ‘make’ someone ‘think’ they’re into it, that it’s still objectification and exploitation, and setting up common attitudes in order to undermine and critique them.
Thanks Helen H and FP. I guess what I was trying to get at is: is all this stuff so in your face and horrible that it is really difficult to watch, or is it handled fairly well and brings up interesting issues. In the eye of the beholder I guess.
Well, I wouldn’t suggest that anyone with PTSD triggers try to watch it.
Mostly what jumps out at me when I watch it are the endless opportunities to go somewhere useful with what’s being shown that are simply never taken. That’s the source of my trainwreck syndrome. So it might be worth it in terms of ideas for stories that might be good to tell.
Mostly what jumps out at me when I watch it are the endless opportunities to go somewhere useful with what’s being shown that are simply never taken.
I would say that’s my issue with it as well. That and a lot of clumsy fumbling around difficult topics of feminism–either oversimplfying them or heavily complicating them beyond the ability of the average viewer. I have a hard time seeing Dollhouse as a useful tool towards feminist thought when it doesn’t meet the target of addressing a standard audience’s addressed need.
Which yeah, I don’t think one always has to intend to meet the hoi polloi in telling a story. But it certainly is, in my mind, somewhat of a waste if one’s really interested in raising consciousness.
I for one haven’t been chiming in on threads about Dollhouse because I’ve only been catching up on it every few weeks, and by the time I’m caught up you’ve all finished discussing the relevant episodes. 🙂 I just watched 6/7/8 tonight.
Also because people keep drawing parallels between the programmed dolls and sex workers, and then going on from that to say things I find enraging and offensive. For what it’s worth, a friend and I are working on some posts about the show thus far from the viewpoint of sex workers.
hexy’s last blog post..Viva la révolution de fourmi!
I’ll be really interested to hear what you have to say, Hexy, and I for one am very happy to be called out should I inadvertantly say anything that marginalises sex workers. Looking upthread I recognise that I referred to sex work (and, equally, het marriage) as a form of objectification and dehumanisation — the point I meant to make was that the Dollhouse shows that objectification and dehumanisation permeate everything, regardless of they way they are viewed by society at large, but I can see how the marginalised status of sex workers skews the way that many people are likely to read that — because many people will just automatically assume that I’m not talking about all het marriage, but they may well automatically assume that I am talking about all sex work. (And I recognise that there are probably still things that I am missing here.)
I think the main thing that comes across to me in the Dollhouse is that it forces us to question so many things that our culture valorises — romantic narratives, marriage, the idolisation of pop stars, and it shows that we shouldn’t really be giving these things any sort of special or privileged status.
Hexy, that sounds so great. I’ve been really troubled by the tendency to equate human trafficking, sex work and the Dollhouse, in commentary. I’d love to see what you come up with.
And I do have more to say in relation to this thread, but I’ll do it over at mine. Eventually! 🙂