It's disappointing to see so much ad hominem in the replies to this. I mean, it's not as though I expect to see rational discussions about feminism on the internet, but there are a lot of people here just calling each other names and getting nowhere.
Let's address the actual content of the show, no?
Firstly, I want to partially agree with the OP - yes, most of the male characters were portrayed at least somewhat negatively. There were some exceptions, for example the father of one of the victims, who was portrayed as very genuine. Also, I don't think detective Gibson was exactly a shining example of virtue – she was often unprofessional, cold and cynical.
The biggest problem with the show was not its portrayal of male characters. Rather, the biggest problem was its portrayal of masculinity.
Without missing a beat, the show persistently, both subtly and overtly, set out to cast masculinity as unhelpful, unnecessary, outdated, immoral and harmful.
From the very first dialogue in episode 1:
"The Musuo¹ [matriarchal society] language has no words for "war", "murder" or "rape" and there are no jails. [If women run the show, then nothing bad could ever happen, and by implication, when men run the show there is war, murder and rape.]
To the last dialogue in episode 5:
"You try to dignify what you do [as a man], but it's just misogyny – age-old violence against women." [In other words, the individual actions of a single mentally ill man are somehow age-old – implying this is typical male behaviour rather than one man's behaviour].
In case you had needed any more evidence that this show pushes a negative stereotype about men, there it is. The show is book-ended, and full, of these kind of broad statements implicating masculinity and males as the root of all that is wrong in the world.
Think about this: Would it be okay to say
"The Musuo leaders are not black, and their language has no words for war, murder or rape, and there are no jails."? No, because that's racist, even if true. You can't just imply that a whole segment of the human race is responsible for the wrong in the world. Oh, unless you're focusing on the segment of the human race that is male?
Almost all of Gibson's "psychological analysis" of the killer felt like hearing someone read a first-year woman's studies textbook rather than a plausible explanation of his behaviour or motives.
At the point where there were only two tenuously linked murders, Gibson was sure to fixate on the fact that they were
professional women, as if the killer was somehow motivated by wanting to kill women holding jobs. Just count the number of times "professional woman" is mentioned in the first few episodes, or how often a woman's job is mentioned next to her name like "white female, solicitor".
Her first "analysis":
[He is q]uasi-professional. Less qualified than these women. Perhaps he's an underachiever, or at least in his own eyes. And he selects victims that he feels inferior to and then dominates and humiliates them.
It just doesn't fit his character or his actions. It sure does fit the show's view on masculinity as a whole though.
Maybe he had previously killed a bunch of women who weren't professionals? Would those women be somehow less important? Gibson doesn't care - she only wants the victims that fit her preconceptions.
Gibson's summary:
It's about power and control... He treats them like objects.
This is standard woman's studies textbook stuff here. Men do bad things to women because they want to control them. Um, okay... Somehow this is never applied consistently to men who do bad things to men (which is statistically FAR more common), or women doing bad things to men or women.
I'm not saying there aren't men out there who treat women like objects, or who seek to control them, but I don't think it's remotely common. It just doesn't explain the actions and motives of 99% of men. It also fails to explain the actions of Spector in the show, who is far more driven by pain and self-hatred than he is by some all-encompassing desire to subjugate women.
This whole "male dominance" thesis is clearest in the last episode, where Gibson says, very casually:
Sure, he's way out there on the sex continuum, but... we all know men who've fantasised about having a woman completely under their control. Or initiating a young girl into sex. Yes, but most don't act on those fantasies. But he does.
Think about this for a moment. She's basically says that male sex is a continuum, from something nice and "acceptable", to... raping and killing.
Really? I'm sorry, I just can't buy that. I don't think rape is on any continuum of behaviour. There's a reason rape and murder can make a gripping or thrilling topic of drama, and its precisely because it's NOT on some continuum – our whole society views it as sickening and abhorrent for good reason.
Do we really
all know men who've fantasised about having a woman completely under their control? I actually cannot think of a single man I know who has ever mentioned fantasising about that kind of thing. I certainly have never fantasised about having a woman completely under my control. She speaks as though most men have these fantasies but only some act on them; I really don't think that's the case.
In summary, this show consistently promotes a philosophy about masculinity. The philosophy is that all men seek to control women. The philosophy is that men are solely responsible for violence, rape, murder and all bad things. The philosophy is that a man's basic urges lie on a continuum towards hating and objectifying women; that one mentally ill man's actions are indicative of men in general.
This is what ruined the show.
Footnotes:
¹ By the way, do any amount of research into the Musuo culture and you'll realise it's hardly a feminist utopia. Women do all the housework, and men still do all the dirty jobs like butchering animals. There are literally millions of things they don't have terms for because its a tiny oral language and has no written form, but they certainly have ways of expressing the ideas of murder, war and rape. There are no jails because most serious crimes have the death penalty.
reply
share
NomadNomadovic
11 years ago
Wow Thank you for the well researched objective reply.
reply
share
Vicky_and_Dre
11 years ago
Whilst it appears that your true issue with the show is that the women either don't need the men, or would appear to be better off without them, I do agree that instead of actually making Gillian's character interesting and complex, they just threw out some 'feminist buzzwords' and made her liberal about sex. Her character lacked any real depth, which is why I completely disagree that there is anything 'feminist' about this show, as most of the women are shown to be suffering in some way at the hands of men - male ego and male desire, instead of progressing independently of gender, sex, stereotyping etc.
I fail, however, to see how this 'ruins' the show. I just think the show is what it is, and what it is offering is a different perspective.
reply
share
NomadNomadovic
11 years ago
It is ruined for me in my opinion it a cheap propaganda show and has nothing intelligent to offer beside Female suffering. It is even more false because as I said women are far more protected in UK than anywhere else. so in my opinion its just endless melodrama not a crime thriller.
reply
share
Stirchley
11 years ago
as I said women are far more protected in UK than anywhere else
But you still won't explain how you came to this bizarre conclusion.
reply
share
Vicky_and_Dre
11 years ago
It is nice to see a well-thought out and intelligent reply on here, so thank you for that! You make some excellent points.
I have to say, I do disagree on some points though. what I'm starting to realise is that when a man is portrayed negatively, or as weak, a lot of men immediately feel insecure about it and dismiss the portrayal as being some feminist agenda as the op did. I think it's hard for a man to experience men the way women do, and statements such as Gillian Anderson's "Don't we all know a man who has wanted a woman under control" ring true for most women. It doesn't mean that all men are rapists or violent, but it's more indicative of the way men behave (for example, on this thread) when they encounter a woman speaking her mind or behaving independently of men - she's a whore, a promiscuous cop, the show's ruined. That suggests to me a man wanting to control a woman. The show would be better if she wasn't preaching her feminist agenda, or at least showing she has 'respect' for men every now and again.
I think the problem is that the character is speaking as herself, as one woman, and yet her opinions seem to be given a weight by male viewers who assume she's either speaking on behalf of all women, or on behalf of the show itself. If she really does think that all men do bad things to women and all men feel emasculated by strong, professional women, that's her own misguided opinion. I really don't see how those few gender-related lines could ruin a show, or why it would be better without it, unless it's something that one doesn't like hearing.
reply
share
jergen
11 years ago
I think the problem is that the character is speaking as herself, as one woman, and yet her opinions seem to be given a weight by male viewers who assume she's either speaking on behalf of all women, or on behalf of the show itself. If she really does think that all men do bad things to women and all men feel emasculated by strong, professional women, that's her own misguided opinion.
The show clearly presents Anderson's character as the protagonist and point of view character for the entire show. We can safely assume that as the audience we are empathizing with her and we are accepting her view of the world as expressing some kind of truth. That is clearly the aim of the dialogue she's given. I think what many people criticizing the show are getting at is that the show is "preachy." It's fine, even encouraged, for television shows to include some type of message and philosophy, but the message presented on The Fall is so on the nose and forced that it becomes corny. I prefer the feminism of a show like Buffy where we simply see a role reversal (butt-kicking protagonist is a tiny blonde woman) that is inclusive of men as well instead of stereotyping them as idiots or monsters, which is doing exactly the kind of thing that feminist claim they don't want other male-centric shows to fall back on so often.
reply
share
Petals121
11 years ago
I'm not saying there aren't men out there who treat women like objects, or who seek to control them, but I don't think it's remotely common. It just doesn't explain the actions and motives of 99% of men.
Do you have anything to back up that figure or are you just making things up? And yes men also abuse other men BUT the reason behind it is often different. The same with how there can be a difference between a white person beating up a black person and a white person beating up a white person. When it's between races there can be issues of racism.
So you can't really lump all violence together and say that they are all for the same reason. When the violence is between races or genders (e.g. a man beating up a woman) it can be for very different reasons than if a man beats up a man. And in this case you have a man killing women. Not men and women. But only women. That right there tells the police that the killer has issues with women. Add that to the fact that he puts his victims on display, and yes it's kind of obvious that he views women as objects.
Maybe he had previously killed a bunch of women who weren't professionals? Would those women be somehow less important? Gibson doesn't care - she only wants the victims that fit her preconceptions.
Why assume that he has killed other women? The fact is that the guy has only (as far as the cops and we the viewer know) killed women that were professionals. Is the police supposed to ignore that because he might possibly have killed a bunch of women before that weren't professionals?
Think about this for a moment. She's basically says that male sex is a continuum, from something nice and "acceptable", to... raping and killing. Really? I'm sorry, I just can't buy that. I don't think rape is on any continuum of behaviour. There's a reason rape and murder can make a gripping or thrilling topic of drama, and its precisely because it's NOT on some continuum – our whole society views it as sickening and abhorrent for good reason.
Does it though? There are lots of men that view women as "fair game" if the women drink too much or are passed out somewhere.
reply
share
codebeard
11 years ago
Do you have anything to back up that figure or are you just making things up?
You seem to be missing my point. The 99% is not meant to be an exact figure. I'm just saying that what is presented by the show as somehow expected male behaviour is just not a fair portrayal. It would be like assuming and casually making statements that it's normal for a black person to be a thug, or normal for a Muslim to be a terrorist.
So you can't really lump all violence together and say that they are all for the same reason.
No, not all violence is for the same reasons. But without doing statistically significant surveys you can't generalise that all/most violence perpetrated by "group A" on "group B" is because of reason X.
Feminist theory asserts without
any proof that male-on-female violence is fundamentally different from all other violence and is due to a desire to dominate, and this claim is more or less repeated in The Fall. I think this is rubbish, and does not account for anything in the real world. If you think it's accurate, show me the data, and also explain why lesbian IPV (intimate partner violence) is not discernibly different from male-on-female IPV. While you're at it, also explain why female-on-male IPV, though less common than male-on-female IPV, is still highly reported. Here's some research on female perpetrated IPV which you might find interesting:
http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Carney-M.M.-Butt ell-F.-Dutton-D.G.-2007-Women-who-perpetrate-intimate-violence.pdf
And in this case you have a man killing women. Not men and women. But only women.
Yep, the guy is a murderer, and that's what the TV show is about. I don't take issue with this, but rather with the commentary that goes around it. To put it another way, I don't really care how a TV show presents an individual man, because that character is not a representative of all men. But when a TV show holds up the sexist philosophy of an "expert psychologist" as being the right way to see all men, and begins and ends the series with anti-male statements, this is really another matter.
Does it though? There are lots of men that view women as "fair game" if the women drink too much or are passed out somewhere.
Now who's making completely unsubstantiated claims? I don't know ANY man who would say that. Just because there are
some men out there who think like this, does not make it normal male behaviour, just rapist behaviour.
It's like saying "there are lots of black people that will mug you if you walk down the street alone". Even if it were true, it is completely racist and wrong to imply that this is the normal behaviour of black people.
reply
share
Whatlarks
10 years ago
In case you had needed any more evidence that this show pushes a negative stereotype about men, there it is.
The first thing I want to say is that the references to the Mosuo tribe are so simplistic as to be misleading. For example, while they don't have a word for "murder," their word for "killing" includes murder. The society does experience occasional violence, including rape (punishable by execution), and men still largely dominate the political arena. Moreover, in the past, Mosuo elites were organized according to a patriarchal system, while the rest were organized according to a matrilineal one. This ensured that elites, who passed on control according to the male line, would not have their power threatened.
At least Cubitt has Gibson admit "I'm simplifying." (The reference is first made by Sarah Kay to her colleague in the bar; the context of their exchange implies to me that they are divorce lawyers. Gibson later repeats her words, after reading the colleague's testimony.)
For an interesting overview of the Mosuo tribe, check out this link:
http://mosuoproject.org/main.html
The most influential quality on the tribe’s peace isn’t necessarily matriarchy/matralinearity, or those qualities alone. There may be qualities contributing to peace other than the matriarchal system that are either absent or in scant supply in our own society. One such quality is immediately obvious: the relatively small scale and simple arrangement of the Mosuo society. It may be that, in general, smaller, simpler communities tend to experience greater peace than larger, more complex ones. However, that wouldn’t invalidate the idea that the matriarchal social structure has exerted a positive influence. (It has apparently contributed to making families very stable, for example.)
I can't say how Cubitt wanted his heroine's lines to be interpreted. I'm not sure he (or at least his character) meant to devalue men, or masculinity, per se with that description of a relatively peaceful matriarchal society. So, giving him (and his characters) the benefit of the doubt, the implication may be that the definition of masculinity (and of femininity) is suffering under our particular form of patriarchy. I think there's merit in that idea.
I would also say that "not black" isn’t an equivalent or fair substitute for "matriarchal" because race is not a social structure. The only equivalent and fair comparison is between patriarchal and matriarchal societies. The problem is that there are barely any matriarchal societies, and those few in existence are at the tribal scale, thus the comparisons can only be very loose, and broad conclusions of dubious value.
The general implication of Gibson’s remark is that our patriarchal system is unhealthy. This highly complex social arrangement, and the largely unconscious ideology that goes with it doesn’t mean that masculinity is wrong per se, or that there’s some sort of male conspiracy to oppress women. In serious discourse, the term refers to the idea of an encompassing social structure that, in general, tends to unjustly benefit men. Its meaning doesn’t imply intentions, a conspiracy, or even necessarily a particular oppressor, an agent responsible for harm.
Boiled down, "patriarchy" means that our society is structured – again, not because of conspiracy or intention, but because of history, habit, accident and influences not necessarily well understood – in such a way that women tend to be systematically and unfairly disadvantaged. This doesn’t mean that women are necessarily the only ones disadvantaged, or that they are necessarily more disadvantaged than another group.
So while it is the case that men overwhelmingly run the show, and the show is clearly a mess, that observation does not necesarily imply that something is wrong with men per se. The deeper implication is that we live in a social system that defines both masculinity and femininity in narrow and unhealthy ways, which contributes to problems for everyone, and the world as a whole.
When Gibson takes Spector to task she is speaking the truth: what Spector does is not noble, but misogyny taken to the extreme – misogyny being a common phenomenon with a long history. Again, that does not mean there is something wrong with men, or with masculinity, per se.
It should be pointed out that contemporary strands of feminism have tended to shift away from strictly gender-based framings in order to acknowledge the convergence of various forms of oppression. Much feminist thought nowadays is likely to advocate socio-political justice for everyone, gender identity notwithstanding.
The more rigorous and interesting feminist scholars I’ve read (or listened to) appreciate that both men and women are affected by gender roles, norms, assumptions, and so on. Gender Studies reflects a broadening of focus from what was once Women's Studies, which tried to fill a gap in research on women at a time when the curriculum focused mainly on men. Gender Studies acknowledges that the social lives of women are intimately tied to those of men, and therefore a society’s assumptions about what is proper/normal/legal, etc., for one gender should always be evaluated in relation to assumptions about what is proper/normal/legal, etc. for the other.
Feminist theory asserts…
Feminism is a social movement, and as such has many strands and millions of voices. It is much the same when we are talking about the social justice movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the environmental movement, and so on. There is no single feminist theory, no consensus or party line. Like all social movements feminism can't be defined by voices of the past, or by the loudest voices, or by the voices who happen to capture media attention. Some people are always going to engage in sloppy reasoning, or make intentionally provocative but ill-advised statements, and unfortunately they tend to be taken as representatives of the whole.
Dutton refers to "feminist theory," and later on to “radical feminist theory," and I think it's important to note that while his point is well taken, not all contemporary feminist theories make the same assumptions about gender violence.
Just because there are some men out there who think like this, does not make it normal male behaviour, just rapist behaviour.
I think the best way to answer that would be by quoting from the article co-written by Dr. Dutton, from the professional journal Aggression and Violent Behavior:
“…men, who are generally much more violent than women (outside intimate relationships)…"
If we want to think accurately about problems in our society, it is important to acknowledge that fact.
reply
share
cat_fitz
10 years ago
What a refreshingly thought out post! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it even if I didn't agree with much of it so thank you.
It's disappointing to see so much ad hominem in the replies to this. I mean, it's not as though I expect to see rational discussions about feminism on the internet, but there are a lot of people here just calling each other names and getting nowhere.
Well that's the very point of the name calling, whether it be misogynist, racist, homophobe or the even sillier ones that have predictably been used here. To silence and shut down any discussion that is critical of "feminism."
The biggest problem with the show was not its portrayal of male characters. Rather, the biggest problem was its portrayal of masculinity.
I can certainly see that in hindsight after reading some of the complaints here. I really hadn't noticed that while viewing the series but then I'm a woman so not necessarily tuned into to such observations just as it seems you, like many men, aren't as tuned into the things women commonly observe.
From the very first dialogue in episode 1:
That's an interesting quote that I hadn't placed sexist significance on while viewing. Yet another example of how I fail to pick up on male targeted sexism as it's less relatable. I agree with your interpretation btw.
To the last dialogue in episode 5:
I disagree with your interpretation here. I don't think the point was to say "the individual actions of a single mentally ill man are somehow typical male behaviour rather than one man's behaviour." I think it was merely saying his motivations aren't unique or grounded in any greater purpose. I'd liken it to some klansman spouting off about some great crusade, pushing back against oppression, blah blah blah - to which we'd rightfully dismiss him as just a run of the mill stupid bigot. And bigotry
is age-old but that doesn't mean all people/men/whites/etc are bigots.
Almost all of Gibson's "psychological analysis" of the killer felt like hearing someone read a first-year woman's studies textbook rather than a plausible explanation of his behaviour or motives.
I thought they sounded like text book behavioral science.
At the point where there were only two tenuously linked murders, Gibson was sure to fixate on the fact that they were professional women, as if the killer was somehow motivated by wanting to kill women holding jobs. Just count the number of times "professional woman" is mentioned in the first few episodes, or how often a woman's job is mentioned next to her name like "white female, solicitor".
That's typical of profiling. Find all the similarities and maybe it paints a picture. That these women were all professional women is a similarity. If he had killed a lawyer, a prostitute, a high school student and a stay at home mom, that would be an area not to note. She's making note of any and all similarities to build a victim profile which in turn, hopefully, can build a killer profile. These women all happened to be white and brunette, which was also noted.
That they're all professional women has significance. If he were killing all pizza delivery drivers, a theory, and suspect profile, could more specifically be created based on that. That his crimes do indeed demonstrate a need for power, to dominate and PUNISH these women, why
these women would understandably be asked.
This is standard woman's studies textbook stuff here. Men do bad things to women because they want to control them.
It may be but in this case it's based on the manner of murders. It's clear it's about power and control. I don't think that suggests that control is the motivation for all bad things men do to women, but that is a common motivator for serial killers killing anyone but especially women.
I'm not saying there aren't men out there who treat women like objects, or who seek to control them, but I don't think it's remotely common.
It is quite common. This would be an example of
you failing to notice sexism as it isn't relatable (or so blatant). That in no way is meant to suggest 99% of men do this/feel this way but nevertheless, it's pretty common. That was the whole point of #YesAllWomen that sadly got misinterpreted.
It also fails to explain the actions of Spector in the show, who is far more driven by pain and self-hatred than he is by some all-encompassing desire to subjugate women.
It's true he's driven by pain and self-hatred but he doesn't blame himself for those feelings. Who he blames is all too clear by the surrogates he kills.
She's basically says that male sex is a continuum, from something nice and "acceptable", to... raping and killing.
I didn't really take it that way. I think it's more about sexual arousal, fantasies. There are a lot of men and women that are turned on by the fantasy of dominance/submissive role play. (I'm sure you've heard some people stupidly say women are turned on by rape.) "Rape" is a popular porn search word, not because sane people are turned on by real rape but rather the type of dominated sex that that type of porn acts out. But Spector isn't just fantasizing about or role playing S&M, he's grabbing women, raping them and killing them. And yes, the thrill is the power, the dominance and most certainly the punishing. He's also not just some pathetic middle aged man fantasizing about school girls, he's acting on it. The fantasies are on the charts, his actions are out there and abnormal.
Do we really all know men who've fantasised about having a woman completely under their control? I actually cannot think of a single man I know who has ever mentioned fantasising about that kind of thing.
You must not watch porn. I'm not even trying to be funny. Not only do I know lots of guys that fantasize about dominating women (key word fantasy), porn caters to it. There's a reason some men turn to mail order brides. What do you think "Stepford wives" are about?
But that's not to suggest men alone have this fantasy. Plenty of women want their poolboys or boytoys. That's also about dominance and control. All these disgusting female teachers banging their students? Yup, crossing the line from fantasy to deviant.
In summary, this show consistently promotes a philosophy about masculinity. The philosophy is that all men seek to control women. The philosophy is that men are solely responsible for violence, rape, murder and all bad things. The philosophy is that a man's basic urges lie on a continuum towards hating and objectifying women; that one mentally ill man's actions are indicative of men in general.
While you've raised some great points, I would have to disagree with this. I think this show demonstrates that there are men that seek to control women (the psycho husband) and some truly sick people will hate a group and seek to punish them, this one being women. But these don't represent all men and these men are rightfully condemned within the show. A true feminist agenda would show all the men mistreating women while society rewards them or shrugs.
I will agree, however, that the show does seem to take a negative view of masculinity and the majority of the men are portrayed negatively.
〰〰〰〰〰〰
http://bit.ly/1BXT2z8
reply
share
codebeard
10 years ago
Thanks for your reply, it is nice to have a thoughtful and respectful discussion about these things.
I'm a woman so not necessarily tuned into to such observations just as it seems you, like many men, aren't as tuned into the things women commonly observe.
I don't think you have to be a particular sex to observe sexism, I think you just need to be aware of the issues. If I had watched The Fall maybe 5 years ago, I probably wouldn't have noticed the anti-masculine undertones (overtones?), but back then I just assumed that men as a whole were prone to sexually violent behaviour because that's what I had been told by the media all my life. It wasn't until I started doing some research on it that I found that this is quite far from the truth. Men and women are quite similarly prone to sexually manipulative and violent behaviour, and almost all the worst abusive and violent behaviour is perpetrated by a very small number of abusers.
Obviously my post here was focused on how men and masculinity were portrayed by the show; I'm not sure it's fair to generalise from one statement I made that I am not tuned into things women commonly observe.
I think it was merely saying his motivations aren't unique or grounded in any greater purpose. I'd liken it to some klansman spouting off about some great crusade, pushing back against oppression, blah blah blah - to which we'd rightfully dismiss him as just a run of the mill stupid bigot. And bigotry is age-old but that doesn't mean all people/men/whites/etc are bigots.
I think this is also a valid way to interpret that line, but for me when taken in context with the rest of the show's anti-masculine slant and fairly obvious feminist agenda, it is hard not to see it as negative towards all masculinity/men.
That's typical of profiling. Find all the similarities and maybe it paints a picture. That these women were all professional women is a similarity.
At that point there were only two known victims with almost no connection between them. Of all the hundreds of things that the two victims might have had in common, it seems very forced to just pick this one element. My point is that a good detective or psychological profiler would not fixate on a single similarity on a whim, because then they might fail to connect it with other victims. Maybe once there were three or four connected victims, but until that point they have to take more things into consideration.
[Control] is a common motivator for serial killers killing anyone but especially women.
Do you have a source for this?
It is quite common. This would be an example of you failing to notice sexism as it isn't relatable (or so blatant). That in no way is meant to suggest 99% of men do this/feel this way but nevertheless, it's pretty common.
Please define "quite common". It's not that I fail to notice sexism against women, it's just that I don't agree it to be as common as you say. That could be partly due to my socio-economic background and social circles though.
You must not watch porn. I'm not even trying to be funny. Not only do I know lots of guys that fantasize about dominating women (key word fantasy), porn caters to it. There's a reason some men turn to mail order brides. What do you think "Stepford wives" are about?
Sure, but then again you can get porn of just about anything. I'm not sure there's any type of porn that you can say "here, this is the typical sexual fantasy".
Instead, here's some interesting research on sexual fantasies with respect to submission and dominance:
http://patriciahawley.org/Publications/HawleyHensley_JSR_%202009.pdfThe results are fascinating; namely, men (on average) strongly prefer fantasies in which the woman is dominant, while women (on average) prefer fantasies in which the man is dominant.
But even for men who do prefer being dominant in sex, this doesn't mean that they want a woman
completely under their control. What Gibson throws away as a given here is still at odds with reality in my opinion. Again, I'm not saying that these guys don't exist, but are they really so common that
everyone can instantly think of someone they personally know in this category?
Ultimately, I don't have a problem with a TV show presenting some characters as bad, or with portraying characters as supporting some ideology e.g. feminism. For me, the problem with The Fall is that it goes beyond just the individual characters and their actions/opinions; the show itself seems to be pushing this ideology, and it's an ideology that I happen to believe is damaging to relationships between men and women and therefore to society as a whole.
reply
share
cat_fitz
10 years ago
I'm not sure it's fair to generalise from one statement I made that I am not tuned into things women commonly observe.
I was generalizing. I don't know you. Perhaps you're exceptionally empathetic. I wasn't trying to insult you by that suggestion as I myself admit that I can have blind spots for things I haven't experienced.
What I meant is that context can be skewed by our personal experiences. For example, recently there was a video all over the internet of a woman doing a "social experiment" by walking around the streets of NY all day and documenting all the cat calls. While there were a few blatant creepers (like following her around) the vast majority of the catcalls were guys shouting things like "damn," "hey beautiful," or similar seemingly benign catcalls. The division of people that felt she was being whiny, melodramatic or should be flattered versus those that related and understood the motivation was, by and large, along gender lines. Generally, men can't relate to that sort of intrusion or the discomfort/fear it can cause a woman. Most women have experienced it so they could relate. (#YesAllWomen)
That's not to say men who don't are necessarily insensitive, they just don't have a frame of reference to truly empathize with it. Clearly many of the women on this board aren't accustomed to, and therefore in tune to, males/masculinity being deliberately poorly portrayed. That's perfectly understandable and fine. Of course those that bizarrely are offended by even the suggestion and seek to silence those complaints are
choosing not to empathize and dismiss and attack those offended. That's not fine but sadly, in keeping with what modern "feminism" has become. It's no different, actually worse as it's deliberate, than what they complain about.
I think this is also a valid way to interpret that line, but for me when taken in context with the rest of the show's anti-masculine slant and fairly obvious feminist agenda, it is hard not to see it as negative towards all masculinity/men.
I understand that, you're seeing a pattern and this fits. I just disagree it fits.
At that point there were only two known victims with almost no connection between them. Of all the hundreds of things that the two victims might have had in common, it seems very forced to just pick this one element.
It is, they're grasping at straws, but that's what they have to do to try start brainstorming profiles. That doesn't mean they don't allow for adjustments as new info (victims) appear but they're working with what they have and looking for patterns and similarities. I've heard about cases where they had a profile established based on the pattern of all female victims and then they find a male and have to readjust.
Do you have a source for this?
I don't. Serial killers, and profiling, has always been an interest of mine. (I'm sure I've scared off more than a couple of dates when they saw my library. Haha) It was a common motivator but then again, I was mostly reading about famous/extreme cases so I'll concede that's somewhat anecdotal.
Spector reminds me a bit of Ted Bundy who most certainly was motivated by control. Here's an interesting link, though I in no way offer it as support of statement.
http://twistedminds.creativescapism.com/psychological-disorders/motive s/
Please define "quite common". It's not that I fail to notice sexism against women, it's just that I don't agree it to be as common as you say. That could be partly due to my socio-economic background and social circles though.
You referenced men treating women as objects. I'd say most men have objectified women. Our society encourages it and stupid women offer themselves up on a platter for it. Women also objectify men. It's not as encouraged in society, but it's getting there. Seeking to control women is less commonplace but still prevalent. Whether it's men wanting much younger, dumb female partners or women of stereotypically submissive culture, the desire to control a partner is still a part of (some) male culture. (That's also not exclusive to men, though less common. I've even read on imdb of women justifying and high-fiving over a woman controlling a man. "Feminism." )
Sure, but then again you can get porn of just about anything. I'm not sure there's any type of porn that you can say "here, this is the typical sexual fantasy".
There have been countless studies of all things porn related, because science, from most popular fantasies to most common search words. Seriously, the state map of most popular porn word was, well, ugh.
http://www.refinery29.com/2014/08/73639/bdsm-porn-searching-statesAnd I'm not suggesting anything is a typical sexual fantasy, just a popular one.
Again, I'm not saying that these guys don't exist, but are they really so common that everyone can instantly think of someone they personally know in this category?
Yes, at least from my experience. I have a great group of guy friends. I have no doubt if I asked them if they wanted a sex slave they'd all say hell yes, but that's fantasy. I don't know anyone that would actually want a woman dominated but the fantasy? Absolutely. It seems, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're offended by the suggestion that men would even have this fantasy, like that that would be a bad thing. I don't think such a fantasy is a bad thing. I certainly have fantasies that I wouldn't actually enjoy acting on. Spector's desire to actually act on them is what sets him apart.
For me, the problem with The Fall is that it goes beyond just the individual characters and their actions/opinions; the show itself seems to be pushing this ideology,
I can certainly see that, thanks to posts on this board like yours - how it portrays masculinity as inherently bad. I also understand how that's offensive. That goes beyond merely flipping the script and portraying some men poorly.
it's an ideology that I happen to believe is damaging to relationships between men and women and therefore to society as a whole.
Completely agree. It's depressing, and embarrassing, what "feminism" has become defined as.
〰〰〰〰〰〰
http://bit.ly/1BXT2z8
reply
share
creox
9 years ago
Excellent summary and thoughts. I agree with them.
I know Anderson is a feminist so I am disappointed she would take a role in this show that is clearly misandry. She obviously has devolved into rad feminism.
reply
share