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

[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.