Eredien's Journal

Have any of you ever read anything you liked by self-described "feminist brown person" Teresa Jusino? I just read a review of the controversial movie Sucker Punch by her on tor.com, and am so incandescent with the idea that her work passes for smart feminist pop-culture SF critique that I am not going to link to the review, and am considering just not reading any more of her work, ever, which is sad, because I *really* like reading smart feminist pop-culture SF critique, and want to support the cultural critique work of feminists and/or people of color in general. She's written some things about the Wheedonverse, which I haven't read because I don't really understand the love for Wheedon's shows (sorry, lotusbiosm), even after having given one of them a shot (Dollhouse) a while back to see what all the controversy was about, and decide for myself.

I really hope that someone can point me toward something she's written that's balanced, and well-thought-out, because I really don't want to lump her and her work in with the work of, say, Piers Anthony, but right now I'm leaning toward giving her work the same label I give Anthony's, which is "this work presents disturbing scenarios and then tries to argue that the presentation of those disturbing scenarios is edgy, empowering, funny, or important, without really offering anything to back up that assertion other than the author's own feelings about that work, stripped of any context other than a self-referential one. Automatic do-not-read."
I really don't want to put her on my automatic do-not-read list, because honestly I found at least some of her smaller points (mostly about attractive people in attractive clothing not being automatically exploitative when presented) somewhat compelling, but the larger ones...oh, god.


I agree that sometimes disturbing scenarios need to be presented in art, and that sometimes the *exploration* of those scenarios can be biting and necessary social commentary. But there is a huge difference between presentation of those scenarios, exploration of those scenarios (whether in a group media setting or in one's own thoughts), and exploitation of those presentations.

For instance, this is the paragraph from Jusino's review of Sucker Punch that literally made me gasp in horror [warning: rape/sexual assault triggers]:

Why Sucker Punch Isn’t Exploitative, Misogynistic, or Any Other Word Thrown Around Without Context In Feminist Discourse

Another criticism of Sucker Punch is that it is misogynistic and exploitative simply because it shows women being raped and objectified. I hate to break it to those critics, but...rape happen and women are objectified in real life. Be angry when it happens then. The objectification and sexual abuse in Sucker Punch need to be there, because these are the obstacles these young women are overcoming. What’s more, they aren’t shown outright, but through metaphors, which takes yet another step away from being exploitative and sensationalistic. By making sex “dancing” and a corrupt mental institution into a burlesque hall/brothel, Snyder is being the opposite of exploitative. He isn’t showing for the sake of showing, as many films do. Rather, he’s making a situation clear while attempting to not take advantage of his young actresses.

I just...I don't even hardly know how to react to that.No, wait, I do. Sentence-level analysis powers, go!

What is this movie saying about rape and sexual assault, according to Jusino's paragraph above?

1.) We cannot be angry about or debate the value of fictional portrayals of rape or sexual assault, we can only be angry when those things happen in real life (apparently rape culture is created out of thin air! Who knew?)

2.) Fictional objectification and sexual abuse need to be present in this movie because objectification and sexual abuse are the obstacles the fictional characters are overcoming in this particular movie. My reaction to that rationale is twofold:
- It's a fictional world--as Jusino says, a movie. The filmmakers could have picked any obstacles for these women characters to overcome, but these filmmakers picked sexual assault. Why pick that? Just because it was a really, really hard obstacle for your fictional women to overcome? Just so they could fight really hard, so the audience had a high stake in the well-being of these fictional characters--oh, wait. We're not supposed to get angry about or too invested in fictional rapes and assaults, because they're not real rapes or assaults. Well...scratch the idea of audience investment or character development.
- Can you imagine this sentence being used to rationalize or justify rape or sexual assault in real life?: "Women need men to put them in their place, because all women should learn their place in the world." Woman: "It's just an obstacle women must learn to overcome," or, "Queers just need to use their sexualities the way God intended, because the only real relationship is with someone of the opposite sex." Queer person in religious therapy: "My sexuality is just an obstacle I must learn to overcome."

[sarcasm] Why, I'm sure I'd never hear that in real life. That would never happen. I've never ever seen the rationale or threat of corrective rape deployed against anyone as an actual real-life control tactic anywhere in the real world. No, I'm sure that nobody would ever use those sentences to justify rape or sexual assault or coercion in real life. Sexuality and the free exercise thereof is only viewed as an obstacle to be overcome via rape in fictional settings. [/sarcasm]

3.) What’s more, they aren’t shown outright, but through metaphors, which takes yet another step away from being exploitative and sensationalistic. By making sex “dancing” and a corrupt mental institution into a burlesque hall/brothel, Snyder is being the opposite of exploitative. He isn’t showing for the sake of showing, as many films do. Rather, he’s making a situation clear while attempting to not take advantage of his young actresses.

- I fail to see how not showing acts of rape or sexual exploitation, but instead implying that those acts take place off-camera, clarifies the status of those acts to the viewers of the film. Indeed, most of the internet debate I have seen about this movie is centered on the questions, "do you think the main character killed her sister, given that the bullet impact happened offscreen? Do you think the main characters were raped, given that any such actions would have taken place offscreen?"

- Death or sex metaphors are automatically less exploitative and sensationalistic than actual onscreen death or sex act equivalents would be? OMG, I'd better raise Henry Reed from the dead right now to tell him that nobody ever understood that Naming of the Parts was about death and sex, because he couched the whole poem in those utterly opaque military metaphors!

- It's "Show and Tell" time, People in Real Life Class: remember, first you show something, and then you talk more about the thing you showed in some way, so we can see why it's interesting or important to you. Toby? A turtle? And you've made this youtube video of it eating? That's very interesting; thanks, Toby. Senator Green? A bill we should all vote for? Which this chart says will bring about world peace? Well, you've all given us something to think about, Senator. Thank you. Director Zak Snyder? A movie featuring off-screen rape of a woman character? ... Well, is there anything you have to say about rape or women? No, Mr. Snyder, showing it again isn't going to get your point across. No, Zak, showing it again with robot dinosaur burlesque Nazi laser guns isn't going to tell me what you were thinking about women or rape the first time. No, Zac. The class will not guess if it really happened since you never really showed us the pictures. No, we will not guess if it was really all an ether-dream or not. Sit *down,* Mr. Snyder. Do you want me to call you down to the principal's office? ... thank you, Zac. Please see me after class.