![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thinkin' a lot about sexism in Hemlock Grove. Serious spoilers for the entirety of season 1; warning for discussion of gendered violence/rape.
The narrative is sexist, of course. Letha's rape/mythical pregnancy/friding is straight up ick. Ashley Valentine's rape is slightly more complex: it's a by the book example of rape as cheap antihero/antagonist characterization, perpetuated by Roman for precisely that effect: he wants a quick and easy way to paint himself, to himself, as a Bad Guy—interesting to see a character as well as a narrative view the act in this way.
But what interests me most is Christina.
That the parade of female victims with sexualized deaths are killed by a young woman consumed by internalized sexism is fascinating. Inexperienced, shy Christina intentionally turns herself into a werewolf in order to be "free;" she identifies her physical transformation as sexual, and simultaneously desires (and provokes) it and is terrified of it and its effects; she believes the beast she becomes, her metaphorical growth and sexual awakening, is hunting her; she targets women she sees as sexually overt and murders them by first consuming their genitals, punishing them for their sexuality, enjoying their victimhood. The twins in particular she targets because, she says, their personal and memetic sexuality made her terrified of her own, "all the things they expected of her but filled her with so much fear she couldn't even dream about them."
Werewolf as metaphor for adolescence/sexual awakening is pretty common, even for female characters (see: Ginger Snaps); misogyny in female characters is pretty common, but that's largely the result of misogyny in media creators. Such an explicit exploration of the relationship between female adolescence and internalized misogyny is less common, and this is the whole cycle: the conflicting and numerous expectations of female gender identity and performance that are internalized as fear, desire, envy, intimidation, and self-loathing, and also externalized as misogyny and various forms of violence directed towards women—here, obviously, blown up to an exaggerated scale. It's not an unproblematic representation, but it's surprisingly nuanced and resonant; Christina is every misguided, frightened, hurtful girl that doesn't want to be like other girls because everything she knows about being a girl scares her—but Christina grows teeth.
* * *
Hemlock Grove season 2 spoilers this time~
In fiction, men have interesting relationships with other men and normative relationships with women. Men are protagonists, they're better written, more complex; they grow because of one another, they provide each other with conflict and plot; their relationships are intimate. Women are supporting characters, objects rather than subjects, romantic subplots, burdened with all the baggage of heteronormativity. This is the fault of bad writing and bad society, and it's not the only reason that fandom ships male leads while sidelining female characters, but it seems to me that there's an obvious logic in focusing on the interesting relationship while ignoring the boring one.
Peter and Roman are an extreme example of this phenomenon, and Hemlock Grove does some interesting things with it. It does gross things, too, like using female characters to progress the relationship—I love Letha, but you have to admit she's treated more as plot point than person. But while the homoerotic tension is obvious, rather than using it as queerbaiting it spins it out into an actual sexual relationship in S2. The triad with Mirada isn't flawless—like Letha, she's more a function of their relationship than her own person. But: a polyamorous relationship? in my tv show? It indicates a surprising self-awareness. Intimacy doesn't always mean sex, but neither are they unrelated; and with this trope, sex is the great debate, the unresolved conflict between compulsory heteronormativity and the desire to make interesting characters and dynamics in fiction which results in queerbaiting and fandom's warped views—but here resolves in the pair instead discarding at least some of the restrictions of heteronormativity; still a little queerbaity and restrained, but better than most.
So, yanno. That's neat.
( Shelly and disability in s2 )
( The flaws of s3 )
( S3 is just! so bad! )
The narrative is sexist, of course. Letha's rape/mythical pregnancy/friding is straight up ick. Ashley Valentine's rape is slightly more complex: it's a by the book example of rape as cheap antihero/antagonist characterization, perpetuated by Roman for precisely that effect: he wants a quick and easy way to paint himself, to himself, as a Bad Guy—interesting to see a character as well as a narrative view the act in this way.
But what interests me most is Christina.
That the parade of female victims with sexualized deaths are killed by a young woman consumed by internalized sexism is fascinating. Inexperienced, shy Christina intentionally turns herself into a werewolf in order to be "free;" she identifies her physical transformation as sexual, and simultaneously desires (and provokes) it and is terrified of it and its effects; she believes the beast she becomes, her metaphorical growth and sexual awakening, is hunting her; she targets women she sees as sexually overt and murders them by first consuming their genitals, punishing them for their sexuality, enjoying their victimhood. The twins in particular she targets because, she says, their personal and memetic sexuality made her terrified of her own, "all the things they expected of her but filled her with so much fear she couldn't even dream about them."
Werewolf as metaphor for adolescence/sexual awakening is pretty common, even for female characters (see: Ginger Snaps); misogyny in female characters is pretty common, but that's largely the result of misogyny in media creators. Such an explicit exploration of the relationship between female adolescence and internalized misogyny is less common, and this is the whole cycle: the conflicting and numerous expectations of female gender identity and performance that are internalized as fear, desire, envy, intimidation, and self-loathing, and also externalized as misogyny and various forms of violence directed towards women—here, obviously, blown up to an exaggerated scale. It's not an unproblematic representation, but it's surprisingly nuanced and resonant; Christina is every misguided, frightened, hurtful girl that doesn't want to be like other girls because everything she knows about being a girl scares her—but Christina grows teeth.
* * *
Hemlock Grove season 2 spoilers this time~
In fiction, men have interesting relationships with other men and normative relationships with women. Men are protagonists, they're better written, more complex; they grow because of one another, they provide each other with conflict and plot; their relationships are intimate. Women are supporting characters, objects rather than subjects, romantic subplots, burdened with all the baggage of heteronormativity. This is the fault of bad writing and bad society, and it's not the only reason that fandom ships male leads while sidelining female characters, but it seems to me that there's an obvious logic in focusing on the interesting relationship while ignoring the boring one.
Peter and Roman are an extreme example of this phenomenon, and Hemlock Grove does some interesting things with it. It does gross things, too, like using female characters to progress the relationship—I love Letha, but you have to admit she's treated more as plot point than person. But while the homoerotic tension is obvious, rather than using it as queerbaiting it spins it out into an actual sexual relationship in S2. The triad with Mirada isn't flawless—like Letha, she's more a function of their relationship than her own person. But: a polyamorous relationship? in my tv show? It indicates a surprising self-awareness. Intimacy doesn't always mean sex, but neither are they unrelated; and with this trope, sex is the great debate, the unresolved conflict between compulsory heteronormativity and the desire to make interesting characters and dynamics in fiction which results in queerbaiting and fandom's warped views—but here resolves in the pair instead discarding at least some of the restrictions of heteronormativity; still a little queerbaity and restrained, but better than most.
So, yanno. That's neat.
( Shelly and disability in s2 )
( The flaws of s3 )
( S3 is just! so bad! )
