|
|
This is so sick and wrong I hardly know what to say. Apparently Quentin Tarantino's character from the new Grindhouse movie Planet Terror, Rapist Number One, is being made into a toy to be sold at Toys R Us stores across the country. In what sick universe is it okay to celebrate a rapist (even if it is Tarantino) by making him into a toy!So there are rumors that the Toys R' Us thing is just a publicity stunt to help save a failing movie. So what. Others defend Tarantino as a brilliant filmmaker. I could really care less. I'm not a fan and there is nothing that could ever justify making a rapist doll.
What? Should moms be trying to teach their daughters early that since 1 in 4 of them will be sexually assaulted they need to just get used to it? "Here sweetie is Rapist #1 to play with your Barbies and Bratz. And just fyi its their fault for wearing miniskirts if he's forced to rape them."
Okay, so I know that this isn't meant for children. But its no worse than having it sit on the shelves of Hot Topic shopping loner teenage boys who fancy themselves misunderstood artists. Perhaps we wouldn't have to teach our daughters to fear men if the boys were actually taught to respect women - wouldn't that be a novel idea...
Trivializing violence against women in this way just allows for the problems to continue. People freak out at the term "feminist" as if its a bad thing. If you call yourself a feminist you get dismissed by most levels of society. But it's apparently perfectly fine to to see rape as entertainment or at least call this a harmless joke (and get pissed off that all the feminists are so enraged by it).
And some people wonder why I talk about stuff like this so much. Twisted crap like this is out there - sexism is still the norm for a lot of people. And I will continue to do everything in my power to put an end to it.
Labels: Culture, Gender Issues
¤ Permalink ¤
-
Let's back that up one step further ... it's trivializing violence against women to call the character in the movie "Rapist #1" in the first place. Real flesh and blood human beings do that violence, not nameless, faceless "others" who cannot be held accountable. It is evil made incarnate and it is done to women on a regular basis.
-
At 4/18/2007 02:34:00 PM,
UnknownSonja your comment and the ones in the link below made me think about the whole name thing. A few random things -
- there is horror in unknown violence. But many rapes are done by people the victim "knows". But often they do remain anomymous. They aren't named out of fear. Or structures in our society (especially the church) don't allow for it to be discussed. I've heard of people who were laughed at by the police when they tried to report a rape (for thinking the police could do anything). It is so common that it is expected and used as entertainment.
- As per the question - how is a Rapist #1 doll really different than a Darth Vader (evil dictator #1) toy? First I know too many women who have been raped and no women whose planet has been blown up by a galactic dictator with whacked miticlordian levels. The point of archtypal bad guys is that they serve as foil for that which is good and/or are on the journey of redemption. Evil can be redeemed or used for good (hell, I'm part of a religion that wears ancient torture devices around their necks - talk about some serious spin). Rapist #1 is different than Darth Vader. This is condoning evil as cool and collectable (as opposed to redeemable). And it is using real everyday evil as opposed to fantasy evil. And unfortunately while characters like Darth Vader, or even Hitler can easily be labeled evil by all with rape that isn't necessarily the case. Too many boys think its is their right to take what they want from women or inflict violence upon women - rape is a way of proving they are a "man" and not just pure evil. and this doll celebrates and promotes that thinking. -
Whoops ... sorry about that ... I guess I wasn't clear. I think the doll idea is just shy of being criminally stupid; for all of the reasons you so eloquently state. I cannot believe there is going to be a doll/action figure in stores associated with CHILDREN (for God's sake) that carry the name "Rapist" on them. Has anyone NOT thought that one through at all yet?
I also think that not giving the rapist a name in the first place (in the movie) was trivializing the violence done to women, by saying that named men don't do these things; only nameless (or somehow unreal) men do them. That making the original rapist nameless was an act which stood by itself to belittle and demean the violence done to women. Does that make better sense?
even if it's a publicity stunt it's a v poor one!