The Whedonverse Part I: Rape
In a moment of boredom, I watched the pilot of Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse. Even if I hadn’t known this was a Joss Whedon project I would have immediately noticed certain Whedonesque elements––namely that kinky sex and rape were seamlessly and needlessly sublimated into the episode. This led me to ponder the Buffy phenomenon and to question Joss Whedon’s claim that he is a “feminist.” Let me back up: A reviewer of my forthcoming book excoriated me for not writing about Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. I was never opposed to Buffy, but I found the episodes utterly incomprehensible. (It also has nothing to do with my forthcoming book, but such is the guild.) So I did my duty as a researcher: I got a Netflix account and watched every single episode. It wasn’t a bad show, but I noticed that every teenager and vampire in Sunnydale seems to enjoy sado-masochistic sex. Even Willow appears in one episode as a vampire whose favorite activity is straddling a tied up Angel and throwing lit matches onto his bare chest.
I can also think of five episodes of Buffy in which the female characters are nearly raped. In the first season, Xander is possessed by a hyena spirit that fuels his animal instincts and gives him superhuman strength. So he does––what I assume Joss Whedon would do in this state––he tackles Buffy and begins pawing at her bra straps. At the end of the episode, Xander gets an exorcism and the incident is laughed off as “sexual assault.”
In season two, the swim coach is giving his team steroids that turn them into fish monsters. When Buffy finds out, he casts her into a flooded subterranean dungeon full of fish-men. He calls down to her, “I already fed them, but my boys have other needs.” Gang raped by fish monsters? This is what came on after Animaniacs?
In the first episode of season six, a gang of demons on motorcycles has taken over the town. The biker demons corner Buffy’s female companions in an alley and announce that they are going to gang rape them for hours and that this will be extremely painful because they have enormous demon penises that are covered with thorny spikes. This was stated through innuendo but the meaning was unmistakable.
Later in season six, a group of occult minded geeks known as “the trio” find a way to turn women into sex slaves. Their first target breaks the spell to find herself dressed as a French maid, kneeling in front of a geek’s crotch. She announces, “You guys think this is a big joke but it’s rape!” I screamed at my television, “THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING!” I think this was actually the first use of the word “rape” in the series.
Then Spike attempts to date-rape Buffy. Now suddenly it’s a huge deal and all of the characters are outraged that Spike would do this. (Xander, who also attempted to rape Buffy is especially outraged.) Of course, date-rape is outrageous, but I would much rather be raped by a vampire I have already slept with than by a bunch of horny fish people. I have not covered here Sweet the musical demon, who attempts to abduct Buffy’s sister as “his queen” or Oz, who is coerced into sex against his will by a female werewolf, or the third episode of the series in which Xander is nearly raped and killed by a “She-Mantis.”
I have looked through several volumes of essays on Buffy and I have yet to encounter any analysis of rape. I’m sure it’s out there––dozens of essays on Buffy are written every year––but I think that fans may turn a blind eye to this seamy underbelly of the Whedonverse. What I find disturbing is that the first three episodes are not stories about the horrors of rape or overcoming an experience of rape––they seem to be fleeting chances to engage in fantasies of raping a super-heroine. The fact that Buffy always escapes being raped is irrelevant––it’s the threat of rape that is supposed to titillate the audience. This dynamic is more obvious in recent “torture porn” films like Hostel. The fact that the heroine ultimately escapes and slays her captors is meant to exonerate the audience for paying $9 to watch a woman being tortured.
This is enough for now. In a future installment I want to challenge the idea that female super-heroes are “feminist” and try to figure out what it means to watch a beautiful woman with super strength narrowly escape being raped by fish monsters.
The Obsolete Man
This clip is a synopsis of a Twilight Zone episode called “The Obsolete Man.” It was one of their best episodes and has been embraced by numerous individuals who find themselves at odds with their society. (This particular clip was posted by a Christian millennialist.) I think that everyone who has a stake in higher education must be shown The Obsolete Man. If you are reading this, e-mail it to the president and trustees of your college or university.
Let me preface this by saying that I recently learned that Harvard’s Program in Religion and Secondary Education has been put on hiatus due to funding issues. Granted, I have selfishly given up the fight as a teacher. But the PRSE was one of few entities in my life that I feel a sense of loyalty to. Everyone else at Harvard engaged in sparring and infighting, but not the PRSE—because we had a real fight and it lay outside of academia (I realize that my peers thought of this as “helping people” but for me, meaning and struggle are intimately linked.) So when I saw this notice posted on the PRSE website, I felt a little like Yoda watching the Jedi academy burn down.
Then last night I saw this New York Times article with the headline, “In Tough Times, the Humanities Must Justify Their Worth.” (The article has been moved to archives, but subscribers can read it here.) Reading this made me angry and, after sleeping on it, I’m still angry. Whenever that happens I write. This article brought up a lot of long-standing issues I have with the myth of an American meritocracy, titanomachy, and my realization after college that I am what Charles Dickens called, “surplus population.” (See previous blog entry “If a Thousand People with Master’s Degrees Died.”)
I am going to take up the gauntlet of “justifying the worth” of humanities. But the fact that this must be done is an incredibly pathetic comment on our society. Imagine an anthropologist who asks a tribesman about their gods and sacred stories only to be told, “Oh I’m pretty sure we have lots of gods! And stories too! But I don’t know them because learning about them is foolish––anyone who doesn’t fish for sixteen hours a day is a fool.” The tribesman might then ask, “You not only learn your own stories but try to learn those of other tribes, also? Your tribe must be the weakest, laziest, most pathetic people in the world! We’ve been talking for five minutes now and you haven’t caught a single fish!” At the center of this tribal village, naturally, is a heaping pile of rotting fish.
We are rapidly becoming this tribe of demented fishermen. The humanities are under attack because of a misguided consumer model of education, failure on the part of educational institutions to defend their own principals, vague fears or losing our technocratic dominance, and a failure to understand the division of labor.
THE CONSUMER MODEL OF EDUCATION
The primary argument that humanities should not be taught comes from a market perspective on behalf of the students (and more importantly their parents). It goes like this: as consumers, students expect their education to result in a lucrative career. As producers, institutions are obligated to respond to consumer expectations or else the market will destroy them. Colleges that do not teach humanities will prosper: Those that do will have no enrollment and will perish from the earth.
There are so many things wrong with this argument I hardly no wear to start. While it is true that college graduates have higher average salaries, studying something “practical” is no guarantor of financial success. In 2001, I used my BA in religion to drift from temporary job to temporary job. But I stood in line with people who got their degrees in engineers and computer science. By the end of it, former Enron managers were interviewing for the same crappy office jobs as me. So nobody got a job, but at least I studied something interesting and had some wisdom to console me in my misery. The computer science majors didn’t even have that.
Furthermore, this is a country that prides itself on the success of its drop-outs. I once saw a CEO tell a room full of high school students that “the world is run by C students!” The people who praise Bill Gates for dropping out of Harvard to start his own company are the same people who expect college to guarantee financial success.
It actually may turn out that the higher salaries of college graduates are largely a result of networking while in college. Bill Gates did meet his future business partner Steve Ballmer before dropping out of Harvard. For many students, leaving their neighborhood and meeting people from around the country may be as much a boon to their careers as the education they receive.
It is also illogical for institutions to cater to this demand. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that whenever educators alter their curriculum to accommodate the demands of parents, the result is a watered down curriculum, a devalued degree, and dumber graduates. If the consumers of education really believed that college was simply about vocation, they would send their children to technical colleges, which are far cheaper. But they don’t.
I once met a girl at a party who had just graduated from the University of Texas at Austin. She asked me what my major was and when I said, “religion,” she answered, “Whoooah!” I found out that her major had been communications. I asked, “What exactly do you learn as a communications major?” She said, “You know . . . like how to make a PowerPoint presentation and stuff.”
I couldn’t believe it. PowerPoint was designed so that anyone can teach themselves how to use it. Charging to teach someone PowerPoint is like charging to teach someone how to pee. The state of Texas owes this girl several thousand dollars and an apology. Why did her family send her to a university to learn something she could have learned at a community college or from her 13 year old neighbor? Clearly her family wanted her to learn something “practical” and yet she probably went to UT for reasons that have nothing to do with education—possibly because they have a good football team.
The point is: if Americans were going to abandon the university model in favor of cheap, “practical” education they would have done this long ago. The fact that everyone does not attend a technical or community college proves that institutions do not need to cater to this perceived “market.”
THE ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
The point of education has NEVER been as a means to making money––this is at best a pleasant side effect. The desire to learn seems to be part of the human condition and there is no consensus as to the nature and purpose of education. Free public education was instituted in this country because it was seen as necessary to the survival of a republic. Socrates said that, “Education does what it does.” Educational institutions are aware of this and it is their duty to explain this debate to the American public. That they have capitulated towards a consumer model of education is cowardly, pathetic, and shameful.
If thousands of families were willing to save for a generation to send their students to a college that taught courses on the history of NASCAR––would Harvard rush to start a NASCAR program? Would Yale cut its English department to hire experts on stock cars? If institutions are really following the consumer model of education, then logically they would.
Institutions of higher learning are supposed to stave off barbarism, not cater to it. If Americans really don’t want their minds to be challenged, or to think about life’s larger questions, then colleges and universities rightfully should be destroyed. At least then they would die with honor. Better no university at all than a university that teaches only PowerPoint.
People still want to go to universities: maybe for the network, maybe for the football parties, maybe to get stoned and go to drum circles. Who knows what draws the masses? But as long as they are coming, institutions should defend their philosophy of education. Not to do so is to be guilt of huckstering.
This doesn’t mean that universities should continue to do what they have always done. The Ivory Tower has fueled this wave of anti-intellectualism. This is not defending humanities–this is taking a stand on the nature and purpose of education. Universities must produce and support public intellectuals and must emphasize that their work fosters a strong republic.
TECHNOCRATIC DOMINANCE
What I found most upsetting about the New York Times article was the suggestion that the humanities are a luxury that our country can no longer afford. This is a separate argument from the consumer argument but it is equally absurd.
Let me start with the article’s use of the phrase “technologically complex world.” The implication is that students trained in humanities will lack the technical skills to compete in the job market. This suggestion seems to come from the same school of thought that would charge thousands of dollars to teach someone PowerPoint.
It also implies that America’s technocratic superiority is a function of our number of science majors. This is a fallacy too. Technological breakthroughs are achieved by individuals with natural talent, intelligence, and creativity. In 1954, the federal government spent millions on math and science education in secondary schools. They spent this money because the Soviets had launched Sputnik and they wanted to train a generation of Tony Starkes––children that would build futuristic weapons to protect us from the Russians. But all this curriculum did was inundate students with tedious lab work that taught them to hate science. The result is that many graduate programs in the sciences have empty spaces. However, our military-industrial complex still manages to produce things like death rays and goats that make spider silk (see previous blogs). They can do this, because technological advances are still made by individuals––those few who loved science in spite of the tedious lab work. This emphasis on science over the humanities has brought this country to its current situation: a weak republic with devastating weapons.
OUR SURPLUS POPULATION
The national unemployment rate for January was 8.5%. However that number doesn’t factor in people who work only a part-time job that doesn’t pay the bills or people who have simply stopped looking for work. The actual number of unemployed people is probably over 10%. So 1 in 10 Americans isn’t going to work and we are supposed to think this has something to with the humanities? Does anyone actually believe that if these people had studied PowerPoint instead of Plato they would have jobs?
What these unemployment rates tell us is not that humanities are a luxury but that EVERYTHING is a luxury! We can fire millions of people and society still functions more or less the same. No one is essential, everyone is expendable. This really should not come as a surprise. Tibet was a technologically backwards country with absolutely terrible agricultural resources. And yet Tibetan farmers could support themselves as well as thousands of monks who––economically speaking––contributed nothing whatsoever. If Tibet could do that, how many useless philosophers could America support with our industrial farm equipment and our amber waves of grain?
We cling to the idea that our major in college will determine our financial success because we insist that this country is a meritocracy: The idea that all of our talents and training are ultimately useless and not needed by anyone terrifies us. But we cannot move forward as a society until we realize we have this surplus population and make logical solutions about what to do with it. What ought millions of unnecessary people do all day?
Traditionally, war has been the best way of getting rid of surplus population. In fact, ever since I graduated from college the military was the only entity that was always willing to take me. First they wanted me as a soldier, then as a chaplain. I always interpreted the army’s pitch as, “You are young and male, and we have too many young males. We want to kill you. You and all your brothers.” I have also noticed how many people from my high school are now lawyers. Maybe instead of wars we can simply occupy our surplus population with endless litigation.
Logically, the only thing to do in the face of this surplus population is to support as many bizarre and specialized pursuits as possible. If someone can read Latin and wants to spend their life reading old books––God bless them, that’s one less person you have to compete with for that PowerPoint job. This is the lesson of the Twilight Zone: The humanities professor, the president of the university, the engineers building the death-rays, the bankers who created this financial crisis, the journalists who report on it––they can all drop dead and the world will go on fine without them. We are all obsolete men and women.
Fascism on the B Line
MY MORNING
I live about two and a half miles from campus, but I typically leave about forty minutes early because I ride the B line. For those not familiar with this fair city, the B line is the rectum of Boston’s transportation system. You wait in the wind and rain at an unsheltered stop then you squeeze onto the train with several hundred of your closest friends. Sometimes the doors open only to show the people on the platform that there is no room, then close again. On the B line you aren’t lucky if you can get a seat, you’re lucky if you can get something to grab on to. One morning I counted 20 people surfing in the space between rear doors. Because of all the stops and red lights, it takes me an average of 15 minutes to get to campus. This means the train moves at about 10 miles/hour. I could run certainly two and half miles in fifteen minutes, but it would be tiring. A dispatcher somewhere randomly orders the B line to go “express” skipping ahead anywhere from three to ten stops. This is wonderful if your stop isn’t skipped. If it is, you have to get out and decide whether to walk to your destination or wait for another train. If you are riding with cash or have a cash card, well, MBTA just doubled the cost of your trip.
Only a few years ago, the B line was free above ground––probably because civic planners didn’t think anyone would actually pay for such wretched service. I say all of this so that non-Bostonians can understand why someone might not want to pay to ride the B line.
I get to the stop and already a dozen people are lined up. The train could be around the corner or it could be another twenty minutes. I wait ten minutes and another dozen people show up to stand on this little island of filth and garbage in the middle of Commonwealth Avenue. A train comes. We all watch as it careens through the stop, slowing down just enough to show us the hundreds of passengers packed in like cattle. The B line often reminds of me of Shindler’s List. We continue to wait. When a train finally comes, we’re like pirates boarding a merchant vessel. I’m serious—watch an old pirate movie where a crew of angry corsairs has to get onto another ship as fast as they can using only two little boarding planks. The driver has no time for people to swipe cards: if you board in the front they wave you back as soon as you hold your card up. If you board in the back, you usually just hold your card so the driver could conceivably see it if he bothered to look in the rear-view mirror. Those who have cash are sort of like the Wildebeast with three legs you see on Animal Planet.
When the train starts to roll, this blond woman and an Asian man walk to the center of the train and whip out shiny badges on chains. Now having worked at a high school where we had several unconstitutional drug stings, I know what those badges mean. “Gosh,” I thought, “A drug bust on the B line. What an exciting way to start my morning. It’s a good thing I can’t be hurt by bullets.”
“EVERYBODY SHOW US YOUR PASSES!”
Are you fucking kidding me? I watch as they harass several people who didn’t hold their passes high enough when they boarded, before they issue tickets for “fare evasion” to two people. Fare evasion results in a $15 ticket and the offender’s name is put in a registry. A second offense is $100. Fortunately I purchase monthly passes, but I have evaded fares on the B line. Everyone in this city who rides the B line has ridden without paying––probably including these two undercover officers.
WHY THIS IS WRONG
Now I do not hate police officers. I’ve trained with many of them, even shared a beer with them. But what I saw today is morally wrong and damaging to a free society. I don’t believe that undercover officers should be used for any reason. The uniform symbolizes an open and honest relationship with the community. It is cowards, predators, criminals, and terrorists that try to blend in with the population. I think the war on drugs is fundamentally racist and a step down the road to fascism. In fact, in Naomi Wolf’s 10 steps to fascism, that’s step 4: create a network of police spies. Mussolini did it. Hitler did it. Now the MBTA is doing it.
But even if you think narcs are warranted to catch drug dealers, how can anyone defend using undercover officers to catch fare evaders? I didn’t break any laws today but now I will forever be paranoid that a fellow passenger might be a cop. A uniformed cop on the B line wouldn’t bother me––but a fascist spy definitely does. This creates a feeling of alienation from other Bostonians. I have to ride the B line everyday and now I will have a vague feeling of uneasiness. If I had more time, I could sue the city for emotional damages. I might not win, but I think there are serious grounds for a case and it would change the level of discourse about undercover police. Read: If you are unemployed and ride the B line, why not find a lawyer who works on commission and sue? Don’t you think sitting next to narcs everyday is stressful?
I also found a copy of one of these citations here. I don’t see a court date here. I find this extremely troubling. Even in a traffic ticket, you are given a day in court and the arresting officer has to show up. If anyone knows the legal apparatus surrounding these tickets please post it here.
Finally, let’s be clear: this is using police for the sole purpose of revenue collection. Traffic tickets are about revenue collection too, but there is at least the excuse that speeders cause traffic accidents (which they do.) But no one can claim that a public interest is served in stopping fare evasion or that fare evaders represent a threat to the populace. If MBTA wants more money, they should hire someone to collect fares in the back of the car. Lord knows there is no shortage of unemployed people in Boston. The job of the police is to protect the public, and they can’t do that if they are riding the B line looking for “fare evaders.”
WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THIS
Historically, using increasingly violent methods to extract revenue from the populace has not played well in Boston. This is a moral issue and it will get worse unless moral citizens take steps to fight it. Here are some ideas I’ve had:
In the long run, Boston badly needs a strong citizen police-review board. Efforts to create such an entity began in 2004 when police SHOT VICTORIA SNELGROVE IN THE EYE with a pepper-spray pellet, killing her (Remember that?) The board was created but I couldn’t find any news about it after 2007. At that time, the BPDs Internal Affairs Department was required to turn over dismissed cases of police misconduct to a panel of citizens––but had refused to turn over a single case. Someone needs to find out what happened to that board and get it going again.
Here are some short-term solutions:
1) Write letters. Probably the most effective place to send letters is the Boston Globe. Writing mayor Menino probably won’t help, since he’s been mayor since 1993 and now seems comfortable doing whatever he feels like. Writing city council might be more productive.
2) Use Copwatch.com. This is the most active entity for reporting cases of police abuse. An undercover officer giving you a ticket is not abuse, but they resources for protestors.
3) Don’t carry ID on the B line. It is not a crime not to carry ID and it’s not like you need your driver’s license on the B line. Obviously lying about your identity is illegal. But if all fare evaders had to be trusted to give truthful information, MBTA might rethink their sting operations. Remember Gandhi burned registration cards in Africa.
4) Narc on the narcs. I think it would be really interesting to take a picture of arresting officers using camera phones and upload them onto a website. This is a gray area legally. My prediction is that a court would decide such a website violates officer safety. However, this could lead to a high profile case that would embarrass advocates of undercover police. Alternatively, you could just ask for the name and badge number of the arresting officer and put that up on a website. They should sign their name on the ticket anyway.
5) Chalk is a great tool for protest. Legally, chalk is not vandalism because it just washes away. What if every stop on the B line contained messages that MBTA is destroying civic polity by using fascist tactics to collect revenue? I have only recently moved back to Boston, but my experience today made me want to get involved in local politics.
I would love to hear other people’s thoughts on this. Maybe there are already campaigns underway that I don’t know about?
