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

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

I think I've posted here in my journal before about issues with Glee - particularly in Wheels, where I found the blatant ablism to be deeply bothersome.

As for your belief that the incident with Terri is a "relatively tame moment of physical violence," several people have mentioned being triggered by it. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term, but here is a definition for you:

# Intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues (triggers) that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event, including anniversaries of the trauma; and/or
# Physiological reactivity upon exposure to internal or external cues (triggers) that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event

By sheer definition for us, then, it was not tame (and it wasn't). Even an isolated incident of abuse shouldn't be showered with rallying cries of "She deserved it" and "His reaction was totally understandable." Even an isolated incident of abuse is a sign of a greater problem.

(Also, I think there are many ugly sides to Will, not just this one. I don't find him an attractive or moral character at all, really. Also - do Terri and Will sleep in separate beds or something that this is the first he noticed that she's wearing a pillow belly?)

[lotus-bright.livejournal.com]

I think they took the pregnancy pad storyline too far along for it to be really plausible, to be honest, but when they've shown them in bed Terri always has her back to Will (when they're both awake, they're usually spooning) and Terri's been extremely careful to never let Will touch her belly. Which makes sense when she's awake but I'm kind of surprised that he never, for example, put an arm over her when she's sleeping and he isn't.

That said, to a certain extent, even if he did pick up signs, he may have ignored or explained them away as something else since he had no reason to believe she was anything other than legitimately pregnant and people can ignore a lot of what they aren't expecting to see. Still, though: went on too long to be plausible.

[moonvoice.livejournal.com]

As for your belief that the incident with Terri is a "relatively tame moment of physical violence," several people have mentioned being triggered by it. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term, but here is a definition for you

I think this says more about the people involved than the incident.

The colour red can be triggering for some people. For others, it might be hearing voices raised. For others, hearing children scream in pleasure is too close to remembering screaming in pain as a child.

Just because something is triggering, doesn't mean the trigger itself is identical to the event it triggers. Or even in the same ballpark. Sometimes it can be a completely and legitimately benign event.

Which is why saying 'this triggered me, therefore it is wrong and bad' is a greater reflection on the actual mental state of the person being triggered; and not always about the context and content of the trigger itself. Using the 'it triggered me' argument is neither logical, nor even really appropriate, when you consider how random and often nonsensical somatic and non-somatic triggers can be. If you can say 'it triggered me, see how bad it is' about one thing, then you can say it about everything that triggers. It just doesn't work that way.

I speak as someone who is regularly triggered, and knows that triggers legitimately affect objectivity - which they should; since triggers are psychological mechanisms to promote an avoidance response, and get the person away from something the body says is BAD. Even if that something is the colour red. Daffodils. Or children screaming happily as they run around a park.

Also - do Terri and Will sleep in separate beds or something that this is the first he noticed that she's wearing a pillow belly?

In one scene we are shown the wife having used a pillow to separate herself from Will.

I don't think she deserved the way Will acted.

I don't think Will deserved months of emotional abuse (and from all indications, possibly years, especially if the relationship only worked with Will feeling bad about himself; and Terri was invested in perpetuating that (which by all indications - she was)).

I think saying 'she was afraid of what he'd do to her / or that he'd leave, therefore the abuse was justified' is about as logical as saying 'Will was afraid he had lost his baby and of what she had done to him, therefore his abuse was justified.' Both are illogical statements. Abuse is abuse, no matter what the motivation, imho.

YMMV.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

I phrased that terribly badly and I apologise.

I know people who have been deeply upset and hurt by the situation because it deeply recalls similar actions in the past.

I know people who have reacted terribly because they thought one thing and then saw the fans saying she deserved it.

*

I don't think that Terri is blameless and I don't think I've ever said that. I think in that singular scene, she is the victim of violence. I don't think that she is objectively justified - I think in her head she is justified. On the other hand, Will isn't justified in going off and having an emotional affair either. I think their entire relationship is deeply fucked up and problematic.

I think that there are a lot of issues with Terri's characterisation. I also think that if they are sharing a bed - even if Terri put a pillow between them before going to sleep - it'd be really bizarre and frankly something to remark upon if Terri never let Will touch her torso and never gave an explanation for it. It's just... odd. I feel like it went on too long.

[moonvoice.livejournal.com]

I know people who have reacted terribly because they thought one thing and then saw the fans saying she deserved it.

I don't think she deserved it. I liked the scene (I honestly don't know many other ways they could have written that scene but in a truly dysfunctional way, to show how screwed up they both are), but at no point was I gunning for Will. Or for Terri. I think they're both truly screwed up people. Glen and I gave each other an 'OH MY GOD' look immediately afterwards, because we just can't believe they went there. :/

it'd be really bizarre and frankly something to remark upon if Terri never let Will touch her torso and never gave an explanation for it.

She did. Early on she tells Will that she's getting a bad rash on her belly. When Will says that if it's that bad, maybe he should look / get her to a doctor, she snaps 'and let you see my oozing pustules?!?!' or something like that. So from what they set up in that scene, Terri is using 'I don't like my body and don't want you seeing it' as a way of getting him to avoid it.

I wonder about a man who is so passive and used to saying 'yes, okay, whatever you want' to his wife, that he would not push to touch his wife's belly to feel the child.

I mean, that is a truly tragic character; to be so suppressed in a relationship that you would miss out on some fundamental miracles of gestation, because your wife says so.

Just like I think it's so, so tragic that Terri felt the need to continue the hysterical pregnancy for so long, and was so distraught over it, and didn't know any other way of keeping Will with her, when he started gaining some more confidence (and sadly, an additional emotional relationship) via Glee.

I reaaaaaaaaally suspend my disbelief watching this show. Mostly I enjoy it. Certainly more than shows like Dollhouse, where the blatant 'hi I'm Joss and I like torturing or raping women almost every episode' is starting to really get to me (my two biggest trigger shows this season are Dexter and Dollhouse).

But that also clouds my objectivity in a big way. I'll be the first to admit it, since it's true. When I like something, I want to defend it. And here I am, kind of defending it.

Glee has big big problems. I absolutely think it does. I also think it's sad that one of the few shows on mainstream TV to show a kid in a wheelchair at all, gets attacked for ablism - thus reinforcing to the media that it's just easier not to try (hence a whole lot of shows with no diversity at all).

Queer as Folk: US was the same. For one of the first US shows to really break the barriers relating to queerness in mainstream media, it was absolutely slaughtered for: not representing bisexual or other forms of queerness accurately and only focusing on homosexuality (I attacked it myself in an essay at university); inaccurate representations of the homosexual 'norm,' and other stuff that I can't think of now because it's been a long time since I studied it.

Basically it comes down to this phenomenon; usually, the shows that tend to be the most diverse, are actually the ones attacked the most for their poor representations of diversity.

Media analysts have suggested this is because they are some of the only shows in mainstream media dealing with these issues, so they become the target for everything they could have possibly done wrong; because they're more diverse and offer something different, they're scrutinised with a closer eye, and have more exacting standards applied to them.

For me, and this is a really personal thing that I don't expect anyone else to do: I like shows that at least try. Even if they fail miserably. Even if they don't 'get it,' like they think they do.

I like Queer as Folk for its audacity to break through despite all its failings. I like Glee for its diverse cast even if it makes huge mistakes regarding that diverse cast.

So... I see problems, but I don't stop watching. Basically. My theory has always been 'if a show does it, but does it badly, at least they opened the doors for others shows to do it better.'

And that makes me pretty idealistic. Not always a good thing.

[khyros.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your very levelheaded response articulating some things I wanted to say, but wasn't sure how to say without coming off as flippant, insensitive, or disrespectful.