tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55889348516612375552024-03-12T20:38:33.975-07:00The Media, the Universe and EverythingDeb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-80036672986372528072013-08-06T03:50:00.001-07:002013-08-06T03:50:53.088-07:00Australia's response to asylum seekers: We could learn a lot from Winnie the Pooh<span style="font-family: inherit;">I was preparing a lecture during the week for a Children's Literature unit that I'm running, and it struck me how a scene from AA Milne's <i>Winnie the Pooh </i>perfectly encapsulates Australia's response to asylum seekers:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 150%; text-indent: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 150%; text-indent: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">'Nobody </span><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 150%; text-indent: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">seemed
to know where they came from, but there they were in the Forest: Kanga and Baby
Roo. When Pooh asked Christopher Robin, “How did they come here?” Christopher
Robin said, “In the Usual Way, if you know what I mean, Pooh</span><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 150%; text-indent: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 150%; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 150%; text-indent: 0in;">“</span><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 150%; text-indent: 0in;">Here – we – are – all – of – us and then,
suddenly, we wake up one morning and what do we find? We find a Strange Animal
among us. An animal of whom we had never even heard before! An animal who carries her family about with her in her pocket! Suppose <i>I </i>[Rabbit] carried <i>my</i> family about with me in <i>my</i> pocket, how many pockets should I want?" ...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 150%; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span>
<div style="direction: ltr; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">[Piglet asked,] “The question is, What are we
to do about Kanga</span><span style="line-height: 150%;">?”'</span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The animals then contrive to get the Strange Animal to leave their insular Hundred Acre Wood, by kidnapping her child and planning to give him back only if she promises to leave. It's really quite a sinister plot!</span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, Owl and Rabbit are all quintessentially English, but the Strange Animal from the 'colonies' is constructed as a 'problem' that the English toys need to solve. They are somewhat afraid of her, as apparently she is a Fierce Animal as well despite the fact that as a soft toy she cannot hurt them. Their fear is based solely on the fact that she comes from an unknown land and behaves differently.</span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Australia's response to asylum seekers is troublingly similar. Most Australians know little about the countries refugees come from, but many are quick to judge them as a threat to be kept out at all costs. </span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While we haven't gone so far as to kidnap children, we are currently shipping asylum seekers off to Papua New Guinea, where those refugees who are being persecuted because of their sexuality will face more discrimination, as it is illegal in PNG.</span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Pooh, Piglet and co. soon come to accept the Strange Animals as friends, with Kanga teaching her new friend Pooh how to jump. Although the animals react similarly when the equally Strange Tigger arrives, they soon become friends with him too. </span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; language: en-AU; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; mso-line-break-override: none; punctuation-wrap: hanging; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Perhaps Australia could take some lessons from the animals of the Hundred Acre Wood and revise its asylum seeker policy.</span></div>
Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-27871226320898174792013-06-01T11:43:00.000-07:002013-10-11T06:45:05.217-07:00Book Launch: Athletes, Sexual Assault and Trials by Media: Narrative Immunity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In May 2013, I launched my first book, <i>Athletes, Sexual Assault and Trials by Media: Narrative Immunity</i>! The launch was held at Monash University's Caulfield Campus, very kindly hosted by the Campus Bookstore and Mamaduke's Café and supported by the Research Unit in Media Studies.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Dr Kim Toffoletti, Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Gender Studies, launched the book, and you can watch Dr Toffoletti's introduction, as well as my speech, below. Associate Professor Brett Hutchins opened the event, which was well attended - thanks to everyone who came along, it was very much appreciated!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Thanks also to Adam Brown for the filming and editing.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/gIjDg573mxI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-51981312357218927432013-05-10T20:54:00.000-07:002013-05-10T20:54:08.293-07:00Male Student Athlete PrivilegeI watched a fabulous Australian film the other night, <em>Wasted on the Young</em>, which I think really gets to the heart of issues around rape and male sporting privilege. I'll try not to give too many spoilers, but the key event is that members of a private school swim team gang rape a female classmate who's been given drugs (presumably GBH) without her knowledge. <br />
<br />
She's not portrayed as responsible for them raping her - the perpetrators are (yay!). But their response to it is heavily criticised: as many rapists in positions of privilege do, the swim team captain tells his victim that no-one will believe her, because he has all the power. But the film doesn't leave it there, it interrogates how those positions of privilege exist, and two of the characters say that it's because 'we' (ie: everyone who doesn't use a position of power to rape people) let it. So, audience, these athletes have these positions of power because *you* adulate them, *you* want to be like them, *you* let them get away with things that others would be punished for, *you* believe them over others because them swimming/playing/running on the team is more important than any person they might victimise.<br />
<br />
It makes a pretty strong indictment of the bystander generally, showing that those who stand by and watch violence (sexual or otherwise) without trying to stop it are actually participating in it, particularly those who make up an 'audience'.<br />
<br />
It's a bit uncomfortable to watch at times, but definitely worth watching!Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-88140378104337054842013-05-03T11:20:00.000-07:002013-05-10T23:24:41.781-07:00Why farming is just like storming castles...<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://company.zynga.com/games/farmville">Farmville</a>, the social media game where you grow vegetables and raise animals, would seem a far cry from <a href="http://plarium.com/Game/Stormfall/Index/en">Stormfall</a>, where you build armies and raid your neighbours' castles (preferably when they have abandoned the castle and won't fight back). However, the social aspects and <i>pleasures </i>the games afford are actually very similar.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Both
games employ various strategies to keep gamers online and provide incentives to
encourage their friends to join, for obvious commercial reasons. However, these incentives also encourage new, online friendships, particularly in Stormfall, creating one of the great pleasures of the games: a co-operative, collaborative effort. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In Farmville, this is made really explicit, as the game prompts players to 'share' and 'help' each other, but in Stormfall the practices of the 'League' I am involved with are very similar. The League's 'code' is in fact even selfless compared with Farmville, as while farmers are directly encouraged to share and help their friends, it is always done to obtain a similar 'gift'. Members of the League speak of each other as 'family' (although most have never met offline) and freely donate items to assist one another without necessarily expecting anything in return. Members also defend each other's castles when enemies attack, and help capture and defend neutral settlements that provide resources, which is a little different from farming... but the principle is the same. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Another key pleasure of
these games, at least for me, is the acquisition of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>stuff</i>. Cool stuff like dragons and golden chickens,
that it takes time and effort to achieve. There seems to be a capitalist drive and pleasure here that I might expand on at a later date, even leaving the issue of literal commercial transactions aside. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Still - having three dragons is just awesome.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-19345302601846227922012-06-12T09:01:00.001-07:002012-06-12T22:14:02.930-07:00You Can Say No!I just finished watching the third season of HBO's <em>True Blood </em>for the second time, and there's one incident I completely missed on the first run through that really struck me the second time around. If you're not familiar with the series try looking here <a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/true-blood/">http://www.tv.com/shows/true-blood/</a>, but basically it revolves around mortal woman Sookie Stackhouse, who becomes involved (romantically, sexually and otherwise) with a series of vampires, werewolves and other supernatural beings. In typical HBO style, the series involves lots of sex and violence, fairly frequently combining these two aspects. As is typical of vampire texts, blood-drinking is eroticised, and part of any sex scene between mortal and vampire.<br />
<br />
All this fascination with combining sex and violence raises some important issues that relate to sexual violence and consent, which I'll return to in a later post. But the incident that struck me is refreshingly unproblematic in its treatment of sexual consent. It's exciting because it implicitly sanctions a person's right to say 'no' to sex, no matter what point a couple has reached in a potentially romantic or lustful encounter. Sookie's brother Jason meets Crystal, a woman he wants to pursue a relationship with. One night, he asks her to go for a walk with him, and they start kissing. When they are lying on the ground, and it seems like they will have sex, Crystal stops, and tells him to wait. Instantly, Jason also stops, and asks if she is OK. He does not try to pressure her, or imply that she has 'led him on', but appears genuinely concerned that she might be upset. <br />
<br />This might seem like a small thing, but it's actually not all that common in the media these days - instead, western culture is saturated with the idea that if you do certain things (go home with someone, kiss them, ask them in to your house for 'milo'), this means that you want to have sex with them. The worst thing about these assumptions is that they are often used to deny a person's right to say 'no', which they ethically and legally can at ANY point. You might remember when Collingwood footballers were accused of raping a woman after the 2010 AFL Grand Final, fellow footballer 'Spida' Everitt tweeted 'Girls!!... if you decide to go home with a guy ITS [sic] NOT FOR A CUP OF MILO!' As if the act of 'going home' with someone means that you cannot therefore say 'no' to sex. Jason's response implicitly refutes this, and instead endorses the importance of all parties engaging willingly.<br />
<br />Jason's concern that the women he sleeps with do actually want to sleep with him might not turn this tide, and <em>True Blood </em>does some other really problematic things in terms of sexual violence. But at least it's at least a step in the right direction.Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-16211451158574404952012-02-26T19:32:00.001-08:002012-02-27T01:32:32.073-08:00Girls Play Games Too (and They're Pissed)I'm borrowing the title of Karen Healey's excellent blog on gender in comic books here <a href="http://girl-wonder.org/girlsreadcomics/">http://girl-wonder.org/girlsreadcomics/</a>. I love boardgames. I love games with little figurines, ones with battles and strategies as well as building and playing co-operatively. When my partner recently bought an Xbox, I discovered that I also love console games. However, I am heartily sick of the way women are continually excluded, marginalised and portrayed in games. <br />
<br />
It's pretty rare to find a game that doesn't presume players are male - most game rules use the exclusive 'he' to represent 'the player', and while women's names occasionally feature in example scenarios, I still feel like the game is telling me I shouldn't be playing it.<br />
<br />
Far more male characters or avatars are available than female, and where there are women, they are usually sexualised and function as a spectacle for male gamers rather than characters to identify with. As one example, only two of the 'races' in Smallworld are coded as female: 'Amazons' (who wear very little clothing) and 'priestesses' who wear dresses. Not only does this sexualise and stereotype women, it makes ALL of the other races (and there are a lot) male. It also makes male the default, universal sex and female defined by its difference from that default (practically speaking, maybe that's why you have to send your Smallworld race 'into decline' after a few rounds - they also can't breed!).<br />
<br />
The first console game I played was Halo 3, and while I really enjoyed it, I realised that I actually didn't appreciate having to play as a beefy, butch bloke that I couldn't identify with in any way. The next game we played, Hunted, gave me a female avatar! Yay! I really enjoyed the game, too. Only she's an elf with huge breasts who goes in to battle wearing only a few 'strategically placed' strips of cloth. Very practical. She also mainly fights with a bow, while her butch bloke friend fights with big swords that are much more powerful, and in the many scenes where the two characters squeeze through a narrow space, E'lara goes second, so that the gamer can stare at her almost-naked behind, centred in the frame and shot from below. It constructs an objectifying gaze, not an identifying one.<br />
<br />
So why do game producers persist in pretending that women don't play games? That women don't want to blow stuff up (eg: Halo), plan military operations (Rune Wars), or even build stuff (Settlers of Catan) and fight pollution (20th Century)? Karen Healey points out how a marketing representative from Marvel comics explains that, when trying to market to women, they have to be careful not to alienate their (male) consumer core. It seems that games marketers are similarly more concerned with placating their heterosexual male consumers. <br />
<br />
If this is the case, they're presuming a lot about these male gamers: mostly that they would buy fewer games if women were included, and would not buy games that did not objectify women. Perhaps they could do some research - they might discover a lot of men and boys who would buy MORE games if they were more inclusive and less objectifying. <br />
<br />
Really, it goes far beyond <em>marketing to</em> women: most games actively deny that women (can/should) participate at all, or if we do, we have to play as men - often literally. Of course, what I DON'T want to see is 'women's games', created specifically for women, that insist on other stereotypes like restricting them to going shopping, looking after children and wearing pink. That might seem like an exaggeration, but Lego's attempt to attract girls by creating 'Lego Friends', rather than exploiting the gender non-specific attributes of the product, comes to mind as one such attempt to expand a market across gender. See <a href="http://blip.tv/feminist-frequency/lego-gender-part-1-lego-friends-5921928">http://blip.tv/feminist-frequency/lego-gender-part-1-lego-friends-5921928</a> for a great feminist analysis of the campaign.<br />
<br />
As I'm a new console gamer, perhaps I shouldn't judge just yet, but conversations with long-time gamers tell me that this is the norm, and I've played enough board games to know how common these problems are. So, games producers: I don't need you to market to me, I just need you to acknowledge that I exist! Cheers!Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-25182993750088395332012-01-05T07:39:00.000-08:002012-01-05T07:39:27.088-08:00Here's me, looking at me, looking at- what the?Happy new year everyone! Thought I'd start 2012 off with something cool I've noticed lately: quite a few TV programs have featured extended shots of women looking at themselves in the mirror (<em>Crownies</em>, now sadly over, featured at least two of these that I can recall, in its only season). It might seem like a small thing, but what's really cool about it is that it actively disrupts an objectifying gaze, because it positions the viewer to look at the woman <em>through her own eyes</em>. It's a private moment, and both the woman and her image are present in the frame. Her eyes are prominent, emphasising the fact that she is gazing on and evaluating her own image, not inviting evaluation or objectification from any outsiders.<br />
<br />
It makes me think of Laura Mulvey, the film theorist whose 1979 work 'Visual Pleasure in Narrative Cinema' now seems pretty dated but still makes a good point. If you're not familiar with Mulvey's work, she basically argues that cinema positions its audiences to view the female body as a sexualised object. Most importantly, she argues, this gaze is constructed as (heterosexual) male, and a female viewer is therefore positioned to look at women as sexualised objects, through a (heterosexual, lustful) man's eyes.<br />
<br />
By contrast, by encouraging the viewer to share the woman's gaze on herself, these 'mirror shots' actively work against the kind of camera work Mulvey writes about. They invite a viewer to see the woman's body as she herself sees it, in probably the only gaze that is explicitly non-, or even anti-sexualising.<br />
<br />
Good stuff.Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-17306510115707309542011-11-29T22:56:00.000-08:002011-11-29T22:56:44.031-08:00Modern-day 'Madwomen in the Attic': Kyle Sandilands and Sam NewmanIt's always puzzled me how certain misogynist male celebrities, like radio host Kyle Sandilands and AFL <em>Footy Show </em>presenter Sam Newman, don't get dumped from their respective programs when they continually spout misogynist abuse. It's particularly surprising given how much bad publicity these outbursts usually attract, and the fact that their views are generally considered unacceptable.<br />
<br />
Take Sandilands' latest gem, last Thursday: he called a female journalist a 'fat slag', declaring, 'You haven't got that much t*tty to be wearing that low cut a blouse', among other abusive threats. <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/youre-a-fat-slag-i-will-hunt-you-down-kyle-sandilands-radio-rant-at-female-journalist-over-review-of-his-show/story-e6frfku0-1226203313542">http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/youre-a-fat-slag-i-will-hunt-you-down-kyle-sandilands-radio-rant-at-female-journalist-over-review-of-his-show/story-e6frfku0-1226203313542</a><br />
<br />
One sponsor, Holden, has officially dropped Sandilands' program, because of the incident, but the radio station has given no indication that it will axe the show, or discipline its offending host. It's just like Newman's many offences, such as when he stapled a picture of respected football journalist Caroline Wilson's face to a skimpily dressed mannequin, then groped its crotch and fondled its breasts while (ostensibly) attempting to change its outfit. (I've written about the incident in <em>The Australian Feminist Law Journal</em>: <a href="http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=254048597938454;res=IELHSS">http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=254048597938454;res=IELHSS</a>)<br />
<br />
These cases are the ones that attract a strong backlash. However, they're really only exaggerations of the roles these characters typically play on these programs: to create controversy. They're actually employed to be routinely misogynist, and it's only when they take it 'too far' that they attract media attention. In the incidents that aren't extreme enough to attract media attention, their co-hosts will often suggest that Sandilands and Newman should 'settle down', or make some vague comment that the 'ladies' might not like what they say, and don't participate actively in the ranting. They are cast as figures outside the mainstream - the 'clown' or the 'shock jock' - so that their views are (somewhat) distanced from the other presenters.<br />
<br />
My theory on why these characters persist is that they function as 'Madwomen in the Attic', to borrow Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar's excellent phrase. (I'm sure both Newman and Sandilands would love to be called madwomen!). In <em>The Madwoman in the Attic, </em>Gilbert and Gubar argue that 19th century women writers used marginalised, monstrous, mad characters, like Bertha Mason in <em>Jane Eyre,</em> to express emotions and ideas that were socially unacceptable, and could not have been acceptably expressed by their heroines. So these 'men' can say what their co-presenters (producers?)would <em>like</em> to say, but can't, because they're marginal figures. Clowns, shock jocks, and kind of nuts. <br />
<br />
It's for these reasons that networks can get away with keeping them on. Enough viewers actually support their views, and many of those who don't can follow the other presenters in distancing themselves from him. 'Oh, that's just Sam. He's crazy (the madwoman in the attic...?)'.<br />
<br />
There's no 'just' about it. Misogyny is misogyny, no matter how 'mad' the person who spouts it. <br />
<br />
(<em>Madwoman </em>is a great book, by the way, and I highly recommend it: <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3oxf7_BsD_sC&dq=madwoman+in+the+attic&hl=en&ei=2cnVTpTgLeWJmQWkkdha&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA">http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3oxf7_BsD_sC&dq=madwoman+in+the+attic&hl=en&ei=2cnVTpTgLeWJmQWkkdha&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA</a>)Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-50888971715807186182011-11-17T17:33:00.000-08:002011-11-17T17:33:06.419-08:00Rape Slavery and Four CornersWe all know that 'sex slavery' is bad, right? I don't think many people would argue that it's OK to kidnap someone, or manipulate them into coming to a country, and then force them to have sex with strangers to repay an imaginary debt.<br />
<br />
However, there are a few problems with the way the issue is <em>represented, </em>which has an impact on how we view it. <em>Four Corners'</em> recent expose, 'Sex Slavery' <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2011/10/06/3333668.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2011/10/06/3333668.htm</a>, is quite problematic for a number of reasons. While it was clearly aiming to expose the extent of the problem, which is of course commendable, it manages to both completely marginalise the victims and sexually objectify them - not cool. <br />
<br />
For a start, why call is 'sex slavery' at all? We're talking about 'force', so that really means that it's not 'sex slavery', but 'rape slavery' (you have to consent for it to be sex). It might seem like a trivial distinction to make, but there's something a bit titillating about calling it 'sex slavery' that disappears when it's labelled 'rape', and I think it's important to make the violence of the acts visible in the language we use to discuss it.<br />
<br />
The majority of the program is taken up by a doomed romance narrative about a victim who was not a rape slave - a man. Abraham Papo was allegedly murdered while trying to rescue his girlfriend, who had been taken as a rape slave (narrator Sally Neighbour even calls it a 'scene from a tragic romance'). Bashed to death with a tyre iron outside the brothel where his girlfriend was being held captive, Abraham Papo's story is certainly a tragic one, deserving of recognition. However, such a strong focus on another (exceptional) type of victim squeezes out the women whose abuse the program was supposed to be 'exposing'.<br />
<br />
While the victims' voices do begin to appear as the program progresses, most have been re-voiced into English from the women's native languages, and their stories take a back seat to Deanna Papo's, which focuses more on the brutality of her son's alleged murder than the rape trade the program is supposed to be uncovering. Of course, it makes more gripping television to focus on the grieving mother whose emotion is plain on her face and in her voice than victims who, for obvious reasons, do not want to show their faces on camera, and cannot express themselves vocally to viewers because they do not share a common language. However, the disproportionate focus on the alleged murder rather than the myriad rapes subtley suggests that Papo was the 'real' victim - perhaps the most victimised - which lessens the sense of injustice regarding the rape victims.<br />
<br />
Sally Neighbour uses words like 'degradation' and 'humiliation' to describe the treatment of the women, but the fact that the majority of the footage of these victims is of their semi-naked bodies in fact invites the viewer to participate in this degradation, humiliation and objectification. The program repeatedly shows hidden-camera footage of Asian women emerging from behind a curtain one after the other, with their faces obscured. They are wearing only their underwear, presumably parading so that the 'clients' can choose from amongst them. Although the program is obviously critical of their treatment, there is nevertheless a voyeuristic pleasure available in this type of portrayal that adds to the titillation that so often accompanies the issue.<br />
<br />
Drawing attention to the harm of rape, and allowing victims' voices to take centre stage, is critical when raising the issue on television, and media producers could be doing a lot better on that score.Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-58794540712674329682011-11-14T04:16:00.000-08:002011-11-14T04:16:59.250-08:00Welcome!Hi there! I'm an academic working in the fields of media, communications and literary studies, at Monash and Deakin universities, and I'll be sharing my academic-eye views here on current media issues and anything else that crosses my radar. I take 'media' in the broad sense, covering literature, film, music etc. Don't worry if you're not overly into academia - I won't be cluttering up this blog with jargon or fancy theories to make myself look smart. That's really not helpful.<br />
<br />
I wrote my PhD on the representation of footballers and sexual assault in the media, so don't be surprised if posts about rape and sex pop up here fairly regularly. Gender, law, fantasy and sci-fi literature and film, sport, children's media and social media are all my areas of research and interest, and may be the subject of future posts, so stay tuned!<br />
<br />
Lately, I've been thinking about how the issue of 'sex slavery' is portrayed in the media, and reading some fantasy literature that's got me itching to write, so look out for those in coming weeks...Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588934851661237555.post-83115729713791234122011-11-08T17:45:00.001-08:002012-02-16T19:04:00.589-08:00Woman = sex: Neil Gaiman's American GodsHaving been impressed with Gaiman's<em> Coraline</em>, and the<em> </em>racial subversion of<em>Anansi Boys</em>, I thought it would be worth checking out <em>American Gods </em>to see what kind of subversion the partner novel engages in.<em> </em>In <em>Anansi Boys</em>,<em> </em>all the characters are black, but it's never mentioned and many readers don't pick up on it unless it's pointed out to them. There are heaps of hints - for example, there's a group of women who practise voodoo, and speak in dialect, the white characters are identified as white, Anansi is an African god, and builds a model of himself out of tar - so if you've read it and didn't pick up on it, it's definitely worth a second read! This technique is a great way of drawing attention to the general 'invisibility' of whiteness in western culture by confronting the reader with their own erroneous assumptions when they realise who the characters actually are. (invisibility of whiteness: it's seen as the default, and not a racial category, which effectively normalises white privilege - see Richard Dyer's 'White', or Aileen Moreton-Robinson's <em>Talkin' up to the White Woman</em>).<br />
<br />
I had such high hopes for <em>American Gods </em>I set it for a reading group I've been involved in at Deakin over the last few months - although <em>Anansi Boys</em> doesn't do anything particularly great in terms of gender, it's not terrible. To put it bluntly, in gender terms, <em>American Gods </em>is just that - terrible.<br />
<br />
All of the female characters are defined by their sexuality, and any form of'deviant' female sexuality is punished with death, preferably graphic, violent death.<br />
<br />
The first female character the reader is introduced to is a prostitute, who turns out to be a goddess who gets off on swallowing clients with her vagina when they 'worship' her. There aren't any teeth, but it's a representation of dangerous female sexuality - like the praying mantis figure - nonetheless. She is later run over and her dead body violently mangled, a scene which is evoked in graphic detail, and arguably a (narrative) punishment for being sexually aggressive. I'm not suggesting that it would be a great idea to kill men with your vagina, even if that were possible, but this forms part of a pattern throughout the novel of evoking anxieties about female sexuality. Ie: that women use it for evil...<br />
<br />
Another important female character is the male protagonist's wife, Laura, who dies seemingly tragically in a car accident two days before Shadow is released from prison. Only it turns out that she was giving Shadow's best friend a blow-job while he was driving... Shadow accidentally reanimates her, and her dead body rots around her as she spends the rest of the novel saving Shadow's life by murdering anyone who tries to hurt him. Arguably, her rotting body stands as a symbol for the inherent corruption of the America Gaiman portrays, which, I would argue, makes a concrete link between female sexuality and corruption. Again, I'm not suggesting that cheating on one's partner is an appropriate act, either. However, the 'best friend' that Laura cheated on Shadow with is let off the hook, as he suffers no ongoing punishments, nor is his body made into a grotesque object. It's very much the same hypocritical beliefs underpinning the ancient laws (resurrected today in strict Sharia law) decreeing that women must be stoned to death for adultery, while adulterous men go completely unpunished.<br />
<br />
None of these female characters has any agency of her own - the vagina-goddess has no real purpose other than to consume men with her sexuality, and zombie-Laura's primary role is to help Shadow out of trouble. Oh, and she'd also like to be truly alive again, rather than a rotting corpse, but it's an ambition that is never fulfilled. She was sexually deviant, and although she tells Shadow that she regrets cheating on him, she must be punished with death, with no hope of redemption. <br />
<br />
The way that both deaths draw attention to the women's grotesque, dead bodies is also quite problematic, as it effectively fetishises them. This is, sadly, just a repetition of the historical understandings of female bodies as objects of desire or degraded and corrupt (and thus still objectified).<br />
<br />
The one nod to progressiveness is the fact that the one female character who survives and is portrayed relatively positively is revealed to be lesbian. Hooray! Being a lesbian is normal, not deviant! However, she is still defined by her sexuality and sexual acts, not by her goals. One of her major actions is to kiss Shadow in an act of defiance against a town that has turned against him, and she has no real function in the novel outside of showing her sexuality. <br />
<br />
I can't argue that the novel does nothing positive for humanity - it is quite progressive in racial terms, as Gaiman's work usually is, making whiteness visible and constructing the protagonist as 'racially ambiguous' - but its portrayal of gender is so backwards and damaging that it's depressing in this day and age, particularly from an author who clearly thinks about issues of social justice.Deb Waterhouse-Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00169064494776900876noreply@blogger.com1