Wednesday 17 December 2014

Oh, Sorkin (Part Two)


Trigger warning: references to rape storyline.

Update: My apologies to Abigail Nussbaum for incorrectly attributing her article to Emily Nussbaum.  The latter is quoted in the piece, hence my confusion, but she didn't write it.

OK, so.  The post not everyone is going to be happy about.

To recap - and therefore re-spoil - last week's Newsroom episode included a storyline in which a college student responded to being sexually assaulted by setting up a website where other rape survivors could name their attackers since, you know, it's not like any other form of punishment is likely to be forthcoming.

This plot bothered an awful lot of people, because the only main character who passed comment on the idea was a) male and b) not a fan of the idea.  And as I argued in my last post on this, the lack of a female male character here is indeed a genuine problem.  My issue here is entirely with point b).

From the comments I've read (Emily Abagail Nussbaum's being the one that sticks most in my mind) a large part of the anger over this plotline is based on the idea that the audience is supposed to sympathise with Don over the rape survivor, Mary.  Why are we supposed to? Well, because Sorkin is a sexist who writes characters who just spout his own opinions.  How do we know this? Well, just look at what Don is saying here.

This strikes me as a somewhat circular argument.  Which is not to say I don't think Sorkin isn't a sexist (or, since sexism is simply impossible for a man to escape, let's say I think he's noticeably sexist and totally unwilling to examine that fact), or even that I think his characters don't have a tendency to be preachy.  It's just that this approach doesn't strike me as the most useful one in this particular case.

For my money (and as I said last time, this is the money of straight white middle-class man, which is to say easily spent and hard to see as evidence of talent) the most useful framing for this storyline is that the idea of a name-and-shame website aimed at rapists is absolutely an idea we should discuss, and part of that discussion involves raising objections that can then be countered. The central premise of website like this is that it's worth bypassing due process in order to combat the toxic culture that says if a guy insists it wasn't rape we can just forget about it and head to the bar. And it seems to me that if you want to float this idea you don't do it by pretending it's immune to abuse, you do it by accepting it could be abused and they say so what? You say a man is afraid of being called a rapist, and a woman is afraid of being raped, and that this is a trolley problem with an actual body-count and where changing the tracks somehow seems to just make men's employment prospects a little harder.

Someone needs to ask the question so it can be answered. So it can be driven into the ground. Mary, I thought, drove it into the ground.  Maybe I'm wrong in that. But even if I am, I'm right that we should discuss this stuff. Simply put: I'd rather run with the message than beat up the messenger. No matter how much of an embarrassment he keeps making of himself.

4 comments:

darkman said...

"For my money (and as I said last time, this is the money of straight white middle-class man, which is to say easily spent and hard to see as evidence of talent) the most useful framing for this storyline is that the idea of a name-and-shame website aimed at rapists is absolutely an idea we should discuss"

Why?
First of all pretty much everyone agrees that it would be a bad idea. Lena Dunham had to amend her book just because the rapist she mentioned could possibly fit the description of an unrelated person, imagine the reaction if she had actually identified the rapist.
Second, having a discussion about something that could generously be called a marginal problem take attention from the very real issues that concerns rape.

Third, fucking stop watching Sorkin's stuff. I mean, what the fuck are wrong with you?

SpaceSquid said...

First of all pretty much everyone agrees that it would be a bad idea. Lena Dunham had to amend her book just because the rapist she mentioned could possibly fit the description of an unrelated person, imagine the reaction if she had actually identified the rapist.

Well, obviously IANAL (TMFI), so I'm on uncertain ground here. But my understanding of US law is that Supreme Court rulings have created the intuitively strange situation where you can get into far more trouble giving hints than actually stating a name. In US law the plaintiff has to prove the defendant is lying when suing for defamation, which is easier if you weren't the actual (alleged) perpetrator. So actually, I'm not sure your point follows. Or, at the very least, I'm comfortable with the idea that individual women can decide for themselves whether it's worth the potential risks.

Second, having a discussion about something that could generously be called a marginal problem take attention from the very real issues that concerns rape.

Fair point, though it's worth noting firstly that yours is the first feminist critique of the storyline suggesting the idea is terrible, as oppose to the character of Don is terrible for dismissing it; secondly that the most useful metric here may not be how useful an inroads it offers to smashing rape culture but that at least it's addressing it when so many shows don't, and thirdly that it could easily prove to be a springboard to more useful discussions such as whether the legal system itself needs to be tweaked in favour of rape survivors.

Third, fucking stop watching Sorkin's stuff. I mean, what the fuck are wrong with you?

Well, the answer is a great deal, obviously, but I have a hard time believing my love of Sorkin dialogue comes particularly high on the list.

darkman said...

"as oppose to the character of Don is terrible for dismissing it"

Creating a problem so that the male character can act as the voice of reason as opposed to the irrational female rape victim doesn't seem great.

"that it could easily prove to be a springboard to more useful discussions such as whether the legal system itself needs to be tweaked in favour of rape survivors."
I don't see how "the rapists could be the real victims" could do that.

"Well, the answer is a great deal, obviously, but I have a hard time believing my love of Sorkin dialogue comes particularly high on the list."

Are you seriously trying to defend the dialogue on the Newsroom here?

SpaceSquid said...

Creating a problem so that the male character can act as the voice of reason as opposed to the irrational female rape victim doesn't seem great.

Well, no, of course not, but my point here is that it's by no means clear that the intent or effect is that Mary is being in any way irrational.

I don't see how "the rapists could be the real victims" could do that.

Well, as I said, you need someone to raise that argument so that it can be squished flat and salt poured on it. I'm entirely open to the idea that this scene failed to do that, but my contention remains that it tried.

Are you seriously trying to defend the dialogue on the Newsroom here?

If by "here" you mean this specific scene, then no, although I really did like Mary's point that men are afraid of being called rapists whilst women are afraid of being raped. If you're asking whether I'm defending the dialogue of the show in general, then it's a guarded "yes". It's no West Wing, and I'm aware that since Sorkin's best show twelve years have passed and many more TV writers have emerged that can use the medium better (Sorkin to drama is what Straczynski is to sci-fi, I've always thought; someone who did things a new way that everyone then adopted and improved upon). I'm also aware that The Newsroom not only fails to reach the level of WW but is less consistent at hitting what highs it does. But yes, on it's day, the show works for me. Especially when Charlie is involved.