Glee

[chasingtides]

So, I made two mistakes. One, I watch another episode of Glee. (Warning: Mattress comes with unexamined domestic violence, discussion further in.)

Then I went on to make my second mistake - I tried to talk about the issues with Glee (as per what I've seen: racism, ablism, sexism, domestic violence; I have seen discussions of issues of queerness).

People seem to be using, "But it's satire!" as a way of shutting down issues with the show. I won't deny that the songs are catchy and fun, but I am having a lot of trouble seeing how the issues I'm having are satire on the show.

Will pins his wife to the wall, gripping her wrist so hard that we can see the strain in his hand, even after she tells him he's scaring her and asking him to get away. Then, while she seems near tears, he lifts up her shirt and tears the baby belly off her and starts screaming. (FYI, I think she's right that the club is an unhealthy obsession for him - example: writing the check for the yearbook ad when they obviously didn't have the money for it. Also using it as a cover for emotional cheating.) I wouldn't have as much of a problem, except we are supposed to see him as the put-upon victim.

Quinn says Puck got her drunk the night he got her pregnant - but somehow she's the cheating lying slut? And Terri's clearly scared of Will and got some mental issues, but she's the shrewish angry wife? And what's with the minority kids getting less screen time and I won't even touch the ablism?

Can someone please explain how this is satire and not really offensive crap?

[In other news: I'm apparently working extra hours and six days a week until Christmas. Oh god, I'm going to die.]

Comments

Re: Part 1

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

To quote smallcaps above: Does it somehow only count if she winds up with a black eye?

Domestic abuse is defined thusly:

Domestic violence constitutes the willful intimidation, assault, battery, sexual assault or other abusive behavior perpetrated by one family member, household member, or intimate partner against another.

By throwing the belly at her, backing her against the wall, demanding she remove her clothing, pinning her wrist, and giving her no personal space while yelling at her (and then forcibly removing the belly) he is, at the very least, willfully intimidating her and I would definitely say assaulting her. (Imagine, for a moment, a guy does that your best friend at a party - would you haul him off her or not?)

Hitting is not the only form of abuse or violence out there. Throwing things is one. Threatening pets is another. Threatening suicide if your partner doesn't do what you want is another. Intimidation is a common form. Suggesting that hitting is the only form of domestic abuse (or the only valid form) invalidates many life experiences (and perpetuates the victim blaming of "if you were only a better partner, they wouldn't smash things/kick the dog/humiliate you in front of your family/need to scream at you/etc").

Just because we haven't seen a pattern doesn't mean that it wasn't domestic violence/abuse or that it wasn't deeply, deeply wrong. Also, given the statistics on hysterical pregnancy and previous abuse *and* Terri's irrational behavior, I wouldn't be surprised if she had abuse in her past.

Just because someone is obnoxious/rude/lies does not give us an excuse to assault, intimidate or, yes, even hit them, especially if we are in a domestic situation with that person. And a willingness to cross that line - even once - is a sign of a greater problem.

I come from a community where domestic abuse has, historically and in living memory, been a serious problem and women didn't have a lot of options. One thing the nuns told us, over and over, was that the minute a man crossed that line - the line of laying a hand on us - was the minute that we should leave him and never look back. If he is willing to do it once, even if he's drunk or angry or high or whatever, means that he might be willing to do it again. And that's not a risk anyone should ever take.

Re: Part 1

[lfg1986.livejournal.com]

Arg, I said I wasn't going to comment back, and for the most part I'm not going to, but I just have to ask: ignoring for a minute the scene where Will found out and got upset, do you think what Terri was doing to him all this time was NOT abuse? Just because it wasn't violent doesn't mean she wasn't manipulating him and lying and toying with his emotions so he'd stay with her, which IS ABUSE. So if you can claim that Will is showing signs of abuse, why does Terri not fall under that category as well? I'm honestly curious. I do see your point about Will and his reaction, and while I don't agree, I'm not going to argue about it. But please tell me how ANYTHING Terri did was not also just as wrong.

Re: Part 1

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

Because, according to her (and she is the best source of her own motivations), she did it because she was afraid. She was afraid of his reaction and she was afraid she would be left (and given Will's emotional affair with Emma, I don't doubt he would and will).

Clearly, she had good reason to be afraid of what his reaction would be and she has good reason to believe that she isn't enough of a reason not to cheat. (I do consider emotional affairs to be affairs so not even a soon-to-be baby was reason enough not to cheat for Will.)

Will cheats emotionally with Emma. He touches the high school girls in glee club. He devotes more time and money to glee club than anything else in his life - to the point of, yes, neglecting Terri.

I don't think everything Terri did was right. But if she was afraid of this very reaction from Will, I refuse to say that she was abusing him because she was trying to avoid abuse from him.

Re: Part 1

[lfg1986.livejournal.com]

Okay well I WILDLY disagree here, but I'm going to follow through with what I said and not comment any further, because it's only going to serve to make me livid, so.

All I'm going to say is that Terri started lying and manipulating Will long before she knew about Emma. Not going to excuse Will's behavior, but just noting that that is NOT the reason Terri was "afraid". And I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The only thing she was afraid of was being left, and like I said, baby or no baby, Will has every right to leave her with the way she treats him. I'm very certain that if Terri had told Will right away that the pregnancy was hysterical, he would have been sympathetic and supportive. But she CHOSE to continue lying and heaping unnecessary guilt on him (much like Quinn was doing to Finn), and she knew exactly what she was doing. That was her being selfish and capitalizing on the situation, not being afraid in the least. Actions speak louder than words, and her actions say that she only cares about herself.

But I'm done now.

Re: Part 1

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

If we put aside the Will issue for the moment....

As a Glee-fan and a Glee-watcher, could you tell me how this "It's satire/It's all in good fun!" thing works?

Re: Part 1

[lfg1986.livejournal.com]

Since you asked me a direct question, I'll go ahead and reply. I'm not sure I can properly explain it, but I'll give it a shot.

For *me* (and everyone is different), I watch because the whole glee club aspect reminds me of my high school experience, and as that was my favorite time in my life, it's nice to see it played out on tv every week. Obviously this is an over the top version, but I actually dealt with many of the same things these kids are going through, and that alone keeps me interested in the different stories, as frustrating as some of them can be at times.

At the beginning of the season, I started trying to analyze the different characters and plots, and by a few episodes in, I realized that for certain shows, doing that is kind of silly because it's not SUPPOSED to be a show that one pours over and analyzes to death (as opposed to something like Supernatural, where the analyzing is half the fun). It would only serve to lessen my enjoyment because it IS so wildly inconsistent and unrealistic and over the top. It's like an hour long sitcom, but with a dramatic aspect thrown in. It's mindless entertainment that's not supposed to be taken all that seriously.

And I'm not claiming that the show is flawless, because it definitely has some GLARING errors, but I think trying to attribute motivations for characters' behavior without having any reason to believe such things are going on is just silly and useless. I'm along for the ride and want to see where it goes, and I just try not to think about it too much because this isn't the kind of show you do that with.

I have no idea if that helped you understand, but that's all I've got. Everyone watches shows for different reasons and gets different things out of it. If you're one who analyzes everything, that's probably why you're not enjoying the show.

Re: Part 1

[lotus-bright.livejournal.com]

I'm about to head to bed, but while I don't necessarily buy the "it's satire!" thing, I think what helps is that while the show does definitely have more than its fair share of issues, I have also seen what it can do when they play their cards right, and when they do it right it is a LOT of fun to watch. I've cringed through a number of scenes, been shaken by others, and have been left with a bad taste in my mouth by still more, on one hand, but, for example, the "Don't Stop Believin'" performance was unbridled joy for me on the other.

(It also may help that while they do definitely miss the mark on a lot of things, I can usually see what they're aiming for. I understand it wouldn't work this way for everyone, but for me it does help at least that I can tell the writers were going, "well, hm, this could work like this" rather than "hee hee this is funny!" Intent often does not make up for execution, but it does make me somewhat more forgiving than it's possible I should be.)

All that said, I am being worn at by the many problems with the series - even if I could set aside the lack of development for non-white characters and other important issues, the fact that they cannot seem to decide what they're doing with the characters and thus they end up going from one extreme to another is gr-a-a-a-a-a-ting. I am hoping that with the hiatus and some time to take audience feedback into account, they'll take steps towards correcting some of those issues. I plan to give it a few episodes into the new season to see what I think (unless something happens that makes me walk away from the show immediately) and make a decision from there.

For what it's worth, I do respect your viewpoints and can for the most part see how you arrived at them even if I don't necessarily agree, and I do apologize if anything I've said had been in any way offensive (to you or anyone else).

Re: Part 1

[khyros.livejournal.com]

Terri burned up any sympathy I had left for her when she blackmailed the OBGyn.

Re: Part 1

[lotus-bright.livejournal.com]

I would actually argue that Terri could be accused of domestic violence, herself. (Which would also back up your theory that she has domestic violence in her past, as many abused - not all, but many - grow up to abuse others.)

As it goes, I tend to think that Will's anger is justifiable but the way he executed it, while somewhat understandable (I imagine in that moment he felt like he lost a child he had grown to love), is not justifiable. Basically, that scene was less Will abusing Terri than a culmination of what is a deeply unhealthy and flawed relationship - one might say, Terri and Will abusing each other.

Re: Part 1

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

I can take that theory as potentially valid, although I would argue that if what Terri did, she did out of fear of abuse from Will, it ought to be seen in another light. (Many abused people lie to their partners - not because they hate them/want to hurt them, but because they are trying to avoid more abuse. Further, if Terri had shoved Will away from her in this scene, I would not have called that physical abuse either.)

My problem is that we are supposed to see Will as the put upon Good Guy Hero. And that is TERRIBLE.

Re: Part 1

[lotus-bright.livejournal.com]

I definitely won't argue that there are serious problems with the show, which I've discussed in the past.

I would also present the theory that it's possible that Terri did not do what she did out of fear of abuse from Will, but out of fear of abuse. From past episodes, I've gotten the impression that domestic violence wasn't an issue for the two, but there was a widening gulf between them (possibly even before Emma became an issue, which is not to say Will isn't wrong for emotionally cheating). That she may be reacting to Will (who definitely crossed a line, mind you) as she would have to her abuser in the past brings another light in entirely, and one I can understand because I did it myself for years.

Re: Part 1

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

I would agree with that.

I am in no way trying to say that Terri's behavior is not problematic or that Will shouldn't be upset by what happened. However, that doesn't condone what he did to her, especially if she has an abusive past. (Additionally, I think their marriage is still together because they both have terrible esteem - but it's classic abuser to have low self esteem tied in with the abused, which would mean that Terri has a realistic grasp on the situation. Also, I would argue that emotional neglect and verbal put downs - which, arguably, Will has been giving Terri from the start - constitute as much abuse as Terri has given him.)

Personally, I find Will to be deeply problematic for a lot of reasons - from his emotional affair with Emma to touching the girls in glee club to the fact that he's no more mature than the children he mentors.

Re: Part 1

[lotus-bright.livejournal.com]

Right. They've both crossed lines all over the place - there's no doubt about that - and what he did is not justifiable.

However, I think it's also worth considering that he may not know about the abusive past (if, indeed, she has one) or, if he does, about the extent of it, whatever that extent may be - particularly if the abuser was a parent.