Veronica and feminism: Mutually Exclusive?
Is it possible to be a feminist and a fan of Veronica Mars?
I would think that the answer should be a resounding "yes," considering that the lead character is an intelligent, resourceful and independent young woman. Veronica's not perfect -- she's quite flawed, in fact -- nor is she a perfect "feminist role model." Whatever that means.
But in a television landscape filled with numerous CSI-clones that routinely depict ever-more-gruesome murders of young women (usually at the hands of their husbands, boyfriends or pimps), I find Veronica a breath of fresh air. She may be a lot of things, but a victim isn't one of them. She gets a lot of crap thrown at her, but she doesn't take it lying down. She gets mad. She gets even. You know the drill. Most of all, she doesn't expect a man to solve her problems for her or rescue her (although she's not above accepting help or rescue on occasion).
Apparently, though, I've got it all wrong. A friend recently sent me a link to a "feminist critique" of Veronica Mars suggesting that no "true feminist" should recommend the show because of the horrible message it sends to young women on the issue of date rape: "As feminists, we think there's no excuse for actively promoting a show that presents rape as some sort of more active social mixer or that presents rape as a charge that women make on a whim."
Date rape as a "more active social mixer"? Wow, I must have missed that message entirely. I've seen "A Trip to the Dentist" at least five or six times, but apparently I wasn't paying close enough attention.
I have so many problems with that "feminist critique" I hardly know where to begin. (Fwiw, it's from the Third Estate Sunday Review blog, which "focuses on politics and culture." Supposably it's a group blog by journalism students.) First of all, the authors apparently have a very limited knowledge of the show, the characters or the plot. (See their previous "review" of the show for more evidence of this. Apparently the entire review was based on a single episode -- "An Echolls Family Christmas." Where did they get the idea that Veronica's mother was dead? The "review" is pretty funny reading for VM fans, though. Homoeroticism? You don't say. I have many other issues with the so-called "review," but that's for another day. Their comments on KB's acting alone are so off-base that I hardly know where to begin.)
As evidence that the authors have a limited knowledge of VM, I offer these excerpts:
The show gets points, from some, for the fact that two African-Americans are billed in the credits. Now you hardly ever see those characters most episodes other than in the credits. But just the fact that they're in the credits is supposed to mean that the show is inclusive, according to some.
Wasn't Wallace in every episode (or nearly so) during season one? Yes, he's been gone (too long) from the last few S2 episodes, but I don't understand how any semi-regular viewer could say "you hardly ever see those characters most episodes." (I agree that Jackie doesn't belong in the credits, but neither do Dick and Beaver imho.)
Not just the fact that while she thought she was raped, she was hanging around with the crowd of men that included one man suspected of raping her.
WTF? Who are they talking about? Logan? Veronica never suspected him of being a potential rapist until Tad the Cad spilled the beans about Logan having GHB, and after that, Veronica sure as heck wasn't "hanging around" with him. She avoided him like the plague until she found out the truth about what happened to her.
Because that's actually how the claim of rape and then the claim of nonrape was justified by people doing the show: we're a funny show.
Where is the source for this ridiculous statement? I have yet to see any interview with Rob Thomas, Diane Ruggiero or anyone else connected with VM say on the record that the not!rape storyline is "justified" because "we're a funny show." The statement is just absurd. Anyone who has seen "A Trip to the Dentist" would know that the issue was not handled with any hint of humor. It wasn't funny, it was quite serious and downright tragic.
Being a funny show, it's apparently important that they provide those humorous storylines and, apparently, nothing's funnier than a woman crying rape when she wasn't raped.
More evidence that the authors have not even bothered to watch the episode in question. I must have been in the bathroom during the funny parts. Okay, watching Veronica destroy Dick's surfboard was pretty funny, but something tells me that isn't what they are talking about. And Veronica never "cried rape." She woke up after a party and discovered that she was no longer a virgin, but had no memory of what happened. She never even told her father or anyone else in her life what happened so it's not like she was going around claiming to be a "rape victim." But the actual facts apparently aren't that important to the authors of this piece.
Sick minds at work on that show will do with that show whatever they want.
That statement speaks for itself. "Sick minds"? Do these people watch CSI or SVU? Then let's talk about sick. Depravity is weekly entertainment for most of the shows in the current CBS lineup, for crying out loud.
There is nothing that bugs me more than people who feel qualified to criticize the "message" of a film or television show but don't bother to actually watch the film or television show in question before criticizing it. (Actually, there are plenty of other things that bug me more -- we'll start with Tom Delay -- but I digress.) I get the definite impression that the authors were told only that "Veronica claimed to be a rape victim but then the writers changed their mind and it turned out she wasn't raped. It was actually consensual sex with her ex-boyfriend. And now they're dating again!" But beyond that very simplistic description of the storyline, the authors don't appear to have any idea what actually transpired on the show. Either that, or they have ignored so many crucial details that the entire "critique" is purposely misleading on the "date rape" issue.
Don't get me wrong -- I personally have some issues with the way the rape/not!rape has been handled, particularly the fact that Veronica began dating Duncan again with no discussion about everything that happened between them. It's as if she has amnesia about everything that happened at Shelly's party, and that really bugged me early on in the second season, although I'm mostly past it now. (Example: Veronica's behavior towards Dick - why would she even speak to him at all after his behavior at Shelly's party? There is plenty of blame to go around for the events of that night, but if anyone is a guilty party, it's surely Dick. But I've let that go because Veronica obviously has and it probably won't be addressed again. And also, Dick cracks me up. I guess I have to turn in my feminist card just for that. Sigh.)
I also accept the fact that many people were unhappy with how the "date rape" storyline was resolved, even hardcore fans who know every detail of the story and still are very unhappy with how it turned out. There was a lot of discussion on the Television Without Pity board after "A Trip to the Dentist" first aired and there were many thoughtful comments on all sides of the issue about the alleged "message" being sent by the show when Veronica reaches the conclusion that she was not, in fact, raped. I don't agree that any "message" was being sent necessarily (which I'll get into in a moment), but reasonable people will disagree on a subject this complicated and controversial. Reasonable feminists can disagree, even.
Which is sort of my whole problem with this commentary. The main point seems to be that a "true feminist" should be so horrified by the resolution of the "date rape" storyline that the show must be condemned in its entirety. The argument, as I understand it, is twofold: First, if you are a feminist, you must view the "date rape" scenario from the "feminist perspective," which means you must be horrified by the alleged "message" being sent. Second, because of this horrible "message" being sent about date rape, the show is without any redeeming qualities and no self-respecting feminist should watch it or recommend it to others, particularly young women.
Where to start? First of all, as I mentioned above, I don't agree that the resolution of the "date rape" storyline is intended to send any message about date rape at all. Of course date rape happens. Of course it's horrible. Of course some rape victims get accused of falsely "crying rape" and we should support rape victims, not tear them down. I've marched in plenty of "Take Back the Night" marches, so perhaps my problem is that I see this as a given. But just because this is a sad fact of life does not mean that I need to see this "message" hammered home in every single film or television show that dares to broach the topic.
It's also a sad fact of life that many real-life date rape scenarios are fraught with grey areas, particularly when alcohol or drugs are involved. When two people are both intoxicated, sometimes things happen. Sometimes bad things happen. I don't agree with the "feminist perspective" that the male is always to blame and the female is always a "victim," regardless of whether she became intoxicated voluntarily and regardless of whether she appeared to be a ready and willing participant. In fact, I see that perspective as somewhat anti-feminist. Regardless of one's viewpoint on this subject, however, the issue is what actually happened on Veronica Mars and what kind of "message" it sent to viewers.
On VM, two high school students who were desperately in love were kept apart by forces outside their control as a result of the mistakes and machinations of their parents. The boy was led to believe (wrongly) that the girl was his biological half-sister and ended the relationship without giving the girl any reason for the break-up. A few months later, the two of them ended up at the same party and after a remarkable series of events, both of them were involuntarily drugged with GHB without their knowledge and found themselves alone in a guest room at the party. One thing led to another and they had sex, then fell asleep and/or passed out from the effects of the GHB. The boy awoke and was horrified to discover that he had had sex with his "sister" and left the girl alone in the room without so much as a note. The girl awoke with no memory of what had happened the night before and was horrified to discover that her underwear was on the floor and she was no longer a virgin. Tragically, the girl spent the next year believing she had been raped by an unknown assailant at the party and the boy spent the next year believing he had committed incest.
Eventually the girl learns the truth about what happened by grilling other people who were at the party and confronts the boy, who finally confesses that he left her alone because he thought she was his sister and he was horrified by what he had done. The girl is shocked, but ultimately concludes, based on all the available evidence including an eyewitness account, that the sex was consensual (she was in love with the boy, after all, and had previously dated him for months), and that no rape occurred. She also learns that the boy's best friend gave him GHB without his knowledge, but it's not entirely clear whether this fact is crucial to her decision that she was not "raped." In any event, in her mind, she was not raped and she apparently harbors no lingering ill will against the boy once she understood his rationale for leaving her. After discovering that they are in fact *not* related in any way, the two of them resume their dating relationship a few months later.
So that's what happened on VM in a nutshell. What "message" does this send about date rape? Beats me. The facts are so unusual and so specific and so unlikely to occur in real life that I seriously doubt that the writers intended to send any message about date rape at all. One could argue that the "message" being sent is that a girl is capable of having consensual sex, even when intoxicated, and that this is a horrible "message" to send. I don't agree that is the message, but I can understand that perspective. On the other hand, the boy was also intoxicated without his consent, so it seems unfair to call him a "rapist" and her a "victim" merely because she's female and he's male. He wasn't able to consent either, so weren't both of them victims? Neither of them would have had sex voluntarily with the other had they not been drugged with GHB.
As YuppieLawyer said on the TwoP board: "All that said, I hardly think that an episode of Veronica Mars is going to make it more difficult for rape victims to be believed." Indeed. Given that there have been numerous other TV shows and movies that have addressed this subject, I hardly think it fair to expect a single episode of one show to offer the definitive word on the subject. Furthermore, although the authors apparently view VM as a "teen" show directed at younger viewers, VM is rated TV-14 and more than earns its rating. If the concern is that younger viewers might be confused by the "message" being sent about date rape, I don't have much sympathy for parents who allow their young children to watch a show that is aimed at mature teens and adults. (I happen to think that ATttD would be a great way to open up discussion with a 15 or 16-year-old on the subject of drugs, alcohol and date rape, but YMMV.)
In any event, this issue was debated at length after "A Trip to the Dentist" aired, and I don't want to rehash that entire debate. My point is that reasonable people can disagree, and I don't believe there is one acceptable point of view that must be held before one can call oneself a "true feminist." Furthermore, even if one has a problem with this particular storyline, does it mean that the show can't be enjoyed and embraced for everything else that is good about it? I happen to think that Veronica is a fantastic character and VM the show embraces many "feminist ideals" of female independence and empowerment. Reasonable people may disagree, but I resent being told that I can't be a feminist if I like this show.
Agree? Disagree? I'm interested in hearing from other "feminists" who are VM fans. (I know it's a somewhat controversial term lately, but I tend to go with Gloria Steinem's definition that a feminist is a person who believes that women are people, too. At least I think it was Gloria Steinem.) I know I can't be the only one. Do you feel the need to defend your VM viewing to maintain your street cred with the feminist demo?
I would comment directly on the blog in question to express my disagreement, but they don't allow comments. Plus, I'm more interested in what people who actually watch VM think about this issue anyway. It seems pointless to argue with someone who hasn't even seen the episode in question, let alone all of the episodes leading up to that episode to fully appreciate the full context of everything that has happened.
I would think that the answer should be a resounding "yes," considering that the lead character is an intelligent, resourceful and independent young woman. Veronica's not perfect -- she's quite flawed, in fact -- nor is she a perfect "feminist role model." Whatever that means.
But in a television landscape filled with numerous CSI-clones that routinely depict ever-more-gruesome murders of young women (usually at the hands of their husbands, boyfriends or pimps), I find Veronica a breath of fresh air. She may be a lot of things, but a victim isn't one of them. She gets a lot of crap thrown at her, but she doesn't take it lying down. She gets mad. She gets even. You know the drill. Most of all, she doesn't expect a man to solve her problems for her or rescue her (although she's not above accepting help or rescue on occasion).
Apparently, though, I've got it all wrong. A friend recently sent me a link to a "feminist critique" of Veronica Mars suggesting that no "true feminist" should recommend the show because of the horrible message it sends to young women on the issue of date rape: "As feminists, we think there's no excuse for actively promoting a show that presents rape as some sort of more active social mixer or that presents rape as a charge that women make on a whim."
Date rape as a "more active social mixer"? Wow, I must have missed that message entirely. I've seen "A Trip to the Dentist" at least five or six times, but apparently I wasn't paying close enough attention.
I have so many problems with that "feminist critique" I hardly know where to begin. (Fwiw, it's from the Third Estate Sunday Review blog, which "focuses on politics and culture." Supposably it's a group blog by journalism students.) First of all, the authors apparently have a very limited knowledge of the show, the characters or the plot. (See their previous "review" of the show for more evidence of this. Apparently the entire review was based on a single episode -- "An Echolls Family Christmas." Where did they get the idea that Veronica's mother was dead? The "review" is pretty funny reading for VM fans, though. Homoeroticism? You don't say. I have many other issues with the so-called "review," but that's for another day. Their comments on KB's acting alone are so off-base that I hardly know where to begin.)
As evidence that the authors have a limited knowledge of VM, I offer these excerpts:
The show gets points, from some, for the fact that two African-Americans are billed in the credits. Now you hardly ever see those characters most episodes other than in the credits. But just the fact that they're in the credits is supposed to mean that the show is inclusive, according to some.
Wasn't Wallace in every episode (or nearly so) during season one? Yes, he's been gone (too long) from the last few S2 episodes, but I don't understand how any semi-regular viewer could say "you hardly ever see those characters most episodes." (I agree that Jackie doesn't belong in the credits, but neither do Dick and Beaver imho.)
Not just the fact that while she thought she was raped, she was hanging around with the crowd of men that included one man suspected of raping her.
WTF? Who are they talking about? Logan? Veronica never suspected him of being a potential rapist until Tad the Cad spilled the beans about Logan having GHB, and after that, Veronica sure as heck wasn't "hanging around" with him. She avoided him like the plague until she found out the truth about what happened to her.
Because that's actually how the claim of rape and then the claim of nonrape was justified by people doing the show: we're a funny show.
Where is the source for this ridiculous statement? I have yet to see any interview with Rob Thomas, Diane Ruggiero or anyone else connected with VM say on the record that the not!rape storyline is "justified" because "we're a funny show." The statement is just absurd. Anyone who has seen "A Trip to the Dentist" would know that the issue was not handled with any hint of humor. It wasn't funny, it was quite serious and downright tragic.
Being a funny show, it's apparently important that they provide those humorous storylines and, apparently, nothing's funnier than a woman crying rape when she wasn't raped.
More evidence that the authors have not even bothered to watch the episode in question. I must have been in the bathroom during the funny parts. Okay, watching Veronica destroy Dick's surfboard was pretty funny, but something tells me that isn't what they are talking about. And Veronica never "cried rape." She woke up after a party and discovered that she was no longer a virgin, but had no memory of what happened. She never even told her father or anyone else in her life what happened so it's not like she was going around claiming to be a "rape victim." But the actual facts apparently aren't that important to the authors of this piece.
Sick minds at work on that show will do with that show whatever they want.
That statement speaks for itself. "Sick minds"? Do these people watch CSI or SVU? Then let's talk about sick. Depravity is weekly entertainment for most of the shows in the current CBS lineup, for crying out loud.
There is nothing that bugs me more than people who feel qualified to criticize the "message" of a film or television show but don't bother to actually watch the film or television show in question before criticizing it. (Actually, there are plenty of other things that bug me more -- we'll start with Tom Delay -- but I digress.) I get the definite impression that the authors were told only that "Veronica claimed to be a rape victim but then the writers changed their mind and it turned out she wasn't raped. It was actually consensual sex with her ex-boyfriend. And now they're dating again!" But beyond that very simplistic description of the storyline, the authors don't appear to have any idea what actually transpired on the show. Either that, or they have ignored so many crucial details that the entire "critique" is purposely misleading on the "date rape" issue.
Don't get me wrong -- I personally have some issues with the way the rape/not!rape has been handled, particularly the fact that Veronica began dating Duncan again with no discussion about everything that happened between them. It's as if she has amnesia about everything that happened at Shelly's party, and that really bugged me early on in the second season, although I'm mostly past it now. (Example: Veronica's behavior towards Dick - why would she even speak to him at all after his behavior at Shelly's party? There is plenty of blame to go around for the events of that night, but if anyone is a guilty party, it's surely Dick. But I've let that go because Veronica obviously has and it probably won't be addressed again. And also, Dick cracks me up. I guess I have to turn in my feminist card just for that. Sigh.)
I also accept the fact that many people were unhappy with how the "date rape" storyline was resolved, even hardcore fans who know every detail of the story and still are very unhappy with how it turned out. There was a lot of discussion on the Television Without Pity board after "A Trip to the Dentist" first aired and there were many thoughtful comments on all sides of the issue about the alleged "message" being sent by the show when Veronica reaches the conclusion that she was not, in fact, raped. I don't agree that any "message" was being sent necessarily (which I'll get into in a moment), but reasonable people will disagree on a subject this complicated and controversial. Reasonable feminists can disagree, even.
Which is sort of my whole problem with this commentary. The main point seems to be that a "true feminist" should be so horrified by the resolution of the "date rape" storyline that the show must be condemned in its entirety. The argument, as I understand it, is twofold: First, if you are a feminist, you must view the "date rape" scenario from the "feminist perspective," which means you must be horrified by the alleged "message" being sent. Second, because of this horrible "message" being sent about date rape, the show is without any redeeming qualities and no self-respecting feminist should watch it or recommend it to others, particularly young women.
Where to start? First of all, as I mentioned above, I don't agree that the resolution of the "date rape" storyline is intended to send any message about date rape at all. Of course date rape happens. Of course it's horrible. Of course some rape victims get accused of falsely "crying rape" and we should support rape victims, not tear them down. I've marched in plenty of "Take Back the Night" marches, so perhaps my problem is that I see this as a given. But just because this is a sad fact of life does not mean that I need to see this "message" hammered home in every single film or television show that dares to broach the topic.
It's also a sad fact of life that many real-life date rape scenarios are fraught with grey areas, particularly when alcohol or drugs are involved. When two people are both intoxicated, sometimes things happen. Sometimes bad things happen. I don't agree with the "feminist perspective" that the male is always to blame and the female is always a "victim," regardless of whether she became intoxicated voluntarily and regardless of whether she appeared to be a ready and willing participant. In fact, I see that perspective as somewhat anti-feminist. Regardless of one's viewpoint on this subject, however, the issue is what actually happened on Veronica Mars and what kind of "message" it sent to viewers.
On VM, two high school students who were desperately in love were kept apart by forces outside their control as a result of the mistakes and machinations of their parents. The boy was led to believe (wrongly) that the girl was his biological half-sister and ended the relationship without giving the girl any reason for the break-up. A few months later, the two of them ended up at the same party and after a remarkable series of events, both of them were involuntarily drugged with GHB without their knowledge and found themselves alone in a guest room at the party. One thing led to another and they had sex, then fell asleep and/or passed out from the effects of the GHB. The boy awoke and was horrified to discover that he had had sex with his "sister" and left the girl alone in the room without so much as a note. The girl awoke with no memory of what had happened the night before and was horrified to discover that her underwear was on the floor and she was no longer a virgin. Tragically, the girl spent the next year believing she had been raped by an unknown assailant at the party and the boy spent the next year believing he had committed incest.
Eventually the girl learns the truth about what happened by grilling other people who were at the party and confronts the boy, who finally confesses that he left her alone because he thought she was his sister and he was horrified by what he had done. The girl is shocked, but ultimately concludes, based on all the available evidence including an eyewitness account, that the sex was consensual (she was in love with the boy, after all, and had previously dated him for months), and that no rape occurred. She also learns that the boy's best friend gave him GHB without his knowledge, but it's not entirely clear whether this fact is crucial to her decision that she was not "raped." In any event, in her mind, she was not raped and she apparently harbors no lingering ill will against the boy once she understood his rationale for leaving her. After discovering that they are in fact *not* related in any way, the two of them resume their dating relationship a few months later.
So that's what happened on VM in a nutshell. What "message" does this send about date rape? Beats me. The facts are so unusual and so specific and so unlikely to occur in real life that I seriously doubt that the writers intended to send any message about date rape at all. One could argue that the "message" being sent is that a girl is capable of having consensual sex, even when intoxicated, and that this is a horrible "message" to send. I don't agree that is the message, but I can understand that perspective. On the other hand, the boy was also intoxicated without his consent, so it seems unfair to call him a "rapist" and her a "victim" merely because she's female and he's male. He wasn't able to consent either, so weren't both of them victims? Neither of them would have had sex voluntarily with the other had they not been drugged with GHB.
As YuppieLawyer said on the TwoP board: "All that said, I hardly think that an episode of Veronica Mars is going to make it more difficult for rape victims to be believed." Indeed. Given that there have been numerous other TV shows and movies that have addressed this subject, I hardly think it fair to expect a single episode of one show to offer the definitive word on the subject. Furthermore, although the authors apparently view VM as a "teen" show directed at younger viewers, VM is rated TV-14 and more than earns its rating. If the concern is that younger viewers might be confused by the "message" being sent about date rape, I don't have much sympathy for parents who allow their young children to watch a show that is aimed at mature teens and adults. (I happen to think that ATttD would be a great way to open up discussion with a 15 or 16-year-old on the subject of drugs, alcohol and date rape, but YMMV.)
In any event, this issue was debated at length after "A Trip to the Dentist" aired, and I don't want to rehash that entire debate. My point is that reasonable people can disagree, and I don't believe there is one acceptable point of view that must be held before one can call oneself a "true feminist." Furthermore, even if one has a problem with this particular storyline, does it mean that the show can't be enjoyed and embraced for everything else that is good about it? I happen to think that Veronica is a fantastic character and VM the show embraces many "feminist ideals" of female independence and empowerment. Reasonable people may disagree, but I resent being told that I can't be a feminist if I like this show.
Agree? Disagree? I'm interested in hearing from other "feminists" who are VM fans. (I know it's a somewhat controversial term lately, but I tend to go with Gloria Steinem's definition that a feminist is a person who believes that women are people, too. At least I think it was Gloria Steinem.) I know I can't be the only one. Do you feel the need to defend your VM viewing to maintain your street cred with the feminist demo?
I would comment directly on the blog in question to express my disagreement, but they don't allow comments. Plus, I'm more interested in what people who actually watch VM think about this issue anyway. It seems pointless to argue with someone who hasn't even seen the episode in question, let alone all of the episodes leading up to that episode to fully appreciate the full context of everything that has happened.
posted by Magnolia at
8:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home