In his post last week, James Romberger argued that the “offensive flaw” of Watchmen is its suggestion that a woman could forgive, and even love, her rapist.
Sally kissing the photo of the late Blake amplifies the flat note in what is otherwise one of the most carefully and sensitively composed comics ever done. In a medium predominantly directed to males, an often overtly misogynistic form oblivious to the consequences of sexual violence, this rare realistic depiction of rape in comics comes to represent a offense a woman could forgive, that she even might even come to love her rapist.
James is certainly correct that the trope of woman-falling-for-her-rapist — the conversion rape — is a standard of misogyny. As I’ve noted before, the ur-conversion rape is probably the notorious scene in Goldfinger where James Bond overpowers Pussy Galore and fucks her. Afterwards, Pussy Galore abandons her lesbianism and betrays her boss, risking her life and the lives of her whole lesbian posse for the love of Bond’s magic penis.
what’s especially offensive about this whole scenario is the extent to which Ms. Galore is so completely beside the point. The rape and transformation is never about her; in fact, we don’t ever get a sense of her as a character except that she’s tough and independent, and then, suddenly, not so much. She falls for Bond because he’s just so darn overwhelmingly attractive, and she abandons her (never quite stated) lesbianism as if she were doffing a hat. There’s no actual psychological progression attempted; it’s just, insert phallus, hello enlightenment. The whole point of the encounter is, in fact, to annihilate her as a character; in entering her, Bond replaces her will with his own, and she becomes simply his catspaw. It’s the crudest kind of male power fantasy, and one which is more than a little pitiable, suggesting as it does a desire to fuck a mannequin, rather than a real person.
The Bond/Pussy Galore conversion rape is undoubtedly misogynist — but it’s also really, really different from the rape in Watchmen. In the first place, there’s nothing romantic or pleasurable about the sexual violence that Sally experiences. On the contrary, Blake’s assault is bloody and miserable. He himself is anything but cool; Gibbons portrays him pathetically pulling his pants up afterward, and then getting beaten to a pulp by the Hooded Justice.
Moreover, Sally is not converted by the rape. On the contrary, she never forgives Blake.
She hasn’t forgotten, she hasn’t decided what he did was okay. He’s a monster, she knows it, and she’s never going to let him have anything to do with her daughter.
Of course, the part that gets James, and that he feels is misogynist, is that Laurie is Blake’s daughter too. Sally did not forgive him, but she did love him.
James feels that that is problematic. In part, he seems to feel that it is problematic because it is unrealistic (“this rare realistic depiction of rape in comics comes to represent a offense a woman could forgive, that she even might even come to love her rapist.”)
But is Sally’s reaction unrealistic? Women do often love, or are intimately attached, to the people who abuse them, whether husbands or boyfriends. This is an uncomfortable truth, especially for a feminist vision that puts a premium on empowerment and autonomy. Sally Jupiter is certainly not perfectly self-actualized; there’s no question about that. But because she’s not perfectly self-actualized, does that mean she and her choices are necessarily wrong or misogynist?
In James’ reading, Sally’s love becomes the misogynist smoking-gun; the love is wrong. I don’t accept that. It’s not Sally who’s wrong. It’s Blake. It’s not the love that’s at fault; it’s the violence.
James says that:
Even more offensively, Snyder in his film made the fact of Laurie’s very existence through Sally’s forgiveness be the salvation of the world. This concept unfortunately lurks in the book…
I’m relieved to discover that I’ve almost completely forgotten Snyder’s crappy film. In the book, though, Laurie’s existence is indeed seen as a miracle (though not necessarily as the salvation of the world, as my brother points out). As Dr. Manhattan puts it:
So yes, Sally’s love (though not, as I said, her forgiveness) is seen as transformative, and even beautiful. And it is seen as transformative and beautiful in large part because it produced Laurie, who Sally loves, and who Jon loves.
I think James in part sees Sally’s love as a flaw because he sees it as mitigating, or validating the rape. But I don’t think that’s the case. Just because something good comes from evil doesn’t make evil good. Paul Celan’s poetry is wonderful, but it doesn’t validate or recuperate the Holocaust. Or, as C.S. Lewis says in Voyage to Venus, talking about the fall from Eden:
“Of course good came of it. Is Maleldil a beast that we can stop his path, or a leaf that we can twist His shape? Whatever you do, He will make good of it. But not the good He had prepared for you if you had obeyed Him. That is lost for ever. The first King and first Mother of our world did the forbidden thing; and He brought good of it in the end. But what they did was not good; and what they lost we have not seen. And there were some to whom no good came nor ever will come.” He turned to the body of Weston. “You,” he said, “tell her all. What good came to you? Do you rejoice that Maleldil became a man? Tell her of your joys, and of what profit you had when you made Maleldil and death acquainted”…
The body that had been Weston’s threw up its head and opened its mouth and gave a long melancholy howl like a dog….”
That could be Blake at the end giving that howl, almost. Certainly, he dies ignominiously and alone, having lost even the comfort of his amorality. Laurie, as a living manifestation of her mother’s love, is a standing rebuke to Blake and his life. If Laurie is a miracle, then the Comedian’s cynicism and nihilism truly mean nothing. This is not to say that Moore and Gibbons, or even Laurie herself, entirely reject the Comedian’s evil or his violence. But it is to say that, to the extent that Watchmen does reject it, it’s because of, not despite, Sally and her choices.
I don’t mean to say that those choices are ideal. Sally herself doesn’t think her choices are ideal. But just because a woman fails to make ideal choices, and just because she does not respond to violence with hate (or at least not only with hate), doesn’t make her a failure. If feminism requires perfect women, there won’t be any feminism. Sally may be a flaw, but humans aren’t gems. Flaws don’t make them less precious.
Wow, something on the Hooded Utilitarian that I pretty much completely agree with! This basically addresses all of my misgivings about the original argument (which was thought-provoking, don’t get me wrong). I particularly like your description of Sally’s feelings regarding Eddie as an “uncomfortable truth.” To me it’s these “uncomfortable truths” that are most threatened by some of the more hamfisted ideological criticism. I think most of us (feminists, Marxists, Christians, whatever) would like to live in an “ideal” world; the fact is, though, that whatever that world may be, it’s not the one we’re living in. Personally, I would rather see books address and question these imperfections than try to ignore them and depict the way things “should” be…even if that means making us deal with some “uncomfortable truths.”
Very well-done.
I actually thought that this was the pseudo-Christianty James was talking about at first — the miracle of good from evil, the grace of forgiving the unforgivable, etc. It was only later that I realized he was talking about the much narrower and more politically-charged issue of aborting the product of a rape.
Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons were not, I think, concerned with abortion when they produced the scenes you’ve written about here. I think it is very likely that they WERE concerned with the kind of Christian worldview that Lewis (and maybe more importantly, Dostoevsky) write about at great length.
In fact when I first read Watchmen, in college, I serendipitously was also reading The Brothers Karamazov for class, and I have always felt that Rorschach’s Kitty Genovese/kidnapper who feeds the girl to the dogs sequence is Moore’s Grand Inquisitor and that Laurie and Jon on Mars is his Life of Father Zosima.
“It’s not the love that’s at fault; it’s the violence.”
I like quoting Zappa in these instances: “I will love the police as they kick the shit out of me.” Loving people who treat you poorly is a fault, just like perpetrating violence on people who don’t deserve it or trusting politicians who will actively vote against your interests.
Something that both you and James give no attention to is the way violence and sexuality are conflated in Watchmen. Sally and Laurie aren’t all that different. Both love men that have a real problem separating violence from love. It’s just that the Comedian commits to it whole-hog, whereas Nigh Owl 2 is emasculated until he can put on the symbol of his violence. Violence is potency for both, though. All of these wannabe superheroes are authoritarian. Caring to them is forcing others to submit. Sally is one of the few that comes to feel this a bit do to her own forced submission. They’re fucked up people who inevitably have made the world much worse than it would have been without them.
Charles Reece says:
“Loving people who treat you poorly is a fault, just like perpetrating violence on people who don’t deserve it or trusting politicians who will actively vote against your interests.”
I say:
That’s just, like, your opinion, man — albeit a fine opinion to have. Lots of people and some major world religions disagree, and Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons are interested in holding the idea up to scrutiny. That’s why Watchmen’s a good book.
I don’t think Dan Dreiberg’s costume is a symbol of his violence, or at least, I don’t think that’s all it is. Dreiberg associates masculinity with heroic fantasy. This is perhaps a little childish and shows that he’s not fully mature — he can’t derive authentic joy from mundane life — but it also informs his compassion and basic decency. The Nite Owl costume is his idealized vision of himself, not just a symbol of violence.
I’m not sure you’re disagreeing: Dan’s fantasy has a very violent, fascist reality to it. He does feel guilty about it in his retirement, but it still has a control on his masculinity. I think his desire is to be something like the Comedian, but, as you say, his liberal values get in the way, resulting in impotency. And the story concludes with his impotency.
Women are the longest standing underclass on the planet. As far as I can tell “political correctness” is an effort by “some” people to stop being assholes. Many battles for civil rights are fought, sometimes won; for the rights of “minorities” (in other words non-whites), for gays, for the disabled—-but for women, the uphill fight seems unending. No ERA allowed, the EU cannot get anything other than “soft laws” passed for member nations regarding gender discrimination, and in so much of the discourse, framed by men of course, feminism is disparaged. Men as a general body and especially we white men have a lot to answer for. It is not so surprising then that “some” women who are not even lesbians might want nothing to do with their oppressors.
The superhero genre, then and now, is overhelmingly geared to male homosocial values, so, it seems to me that in some of the decisions involved in Watchmen, an equivalence might be, say, a book published in the deep south during the Civil War about how “some” slaves preferred to remain as chattel, because at least they are fed and have a roof over their heads; or a book published in Germany in WW2 about how “some” Jews engaged in usury and so deserved to find their just desserts in the ovens.
Wow. I can’t imagine anything short of agitprop would please you, James.
I don’t agree that love can be a moral fault. I think it can be a mistake for various reasons and in various contexts. But blaming the victim is just blaming the victim. Sally does not allow her love to put her daughter in danger. Making her morally culpable for her love is just blaming her because Blake is unworthy of it. But love isn’t about worthiness; it’s not a pragmatic, utilitarian technology. It’s not, in other words, Veidt’s ends justify the means ideology, or the Comedian’s nihilistic self-aggrandizing. It’s a repudiation of both of those.
I’m curious, Charles, if you have a way to reject Veidt’s vision? You seem very much a greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number kind of guy. On what grounds would you say that Veidt is wrong to attempt what he does?
I don’t see how Nite Owl ends up with impotency? His story ends with him and Laurie going off under new identities, possibly/probably to be superheroes together. That’s not impotence; that’s a happy ending, right?
I think it is interesting to point out the way that masculinity is linked to superheroics and thus to power for Dan…but it’s also maybe worth thinking about what he actually does in costume that allows him to have sex with Laurie. It’s not beating people up; it’s rescuing people from a fire. Power for him isn’t necessarily about dominating others; it’s about having the ability to make the world a better place. There’s an argument to be made that that’s a moral failing, perhaps — but I don’t think you can make it from a pragmatic or utilitarian perspective. You can reject do-gooding, and you can reject love, but if you reject both do-gooding and love it’s hard for me to see what you’re left with (except maybe nihilism of some sort, either amoral or Buddhist or whatever.)
James, I absolutely agree with you that, despite a lot of progress in some ways, sexism remains especially intractable in others. I guess I’d just reiterate that I think Moore and Gibbons take some care to make us see that Sally does not love the abuse, and that she does not trust her abuser. I’d also say that many feminists think that feminism is in part about choosing love and family over violence — that love is not a validation of rape, but its antithesis.
It’s not that Love is a fault. I see nothing in the interaction of Sally and Blake before his attack that indicates “love,” that says anything other than that she flirts with him. A flirtation does not mean she “loves” him. The attack no matter how one sees it is a terribly violent assault. Yes, she debates with herself if it was her fault somehow, as victims will do. She is reflecting the values imposed on her by society of the time depicted. Whatever one chooses to believe happens in the rape scene, its repercussions is played out in a deliberate and thoughtful way…almost until the end. Sally explains why she later had consensual sex with Blake to her husband in one of the examples I showed: “You know what gentleness means in a guy like that? Even a glimmer of it?” She was moved in that moment to forgive him. Even then, making love with Blake from compassion, even an encounter close enough to produce a child would not mean that she “loves” him, or he her; the only indicator I see that she “loves” him is in the final pink sequence where she kisses his photo, leaving the print of her lipstick, a generic touch that twists the significance of the preceeding…and that is what made my hackles rise when I first read it.
I think ultimately Dreiberg is a 40-something guy with the moral vision of an adolescent. He invokes the Arthurian ideal — which is an ideal of violence harnessed to make the world a better place, but very much painted in bright tones. “Might for right,” in T.H. White’s words (and it’s White Dreiberg references), as opposed to the fascist “might makes right.” Again, this contrast is explicit in White.
There’s something kind of sweet and romantic (and decent) in Dreiberg’s rose-colored-glasses view of heroic violence, but, as Moore implies, it’s a little impotent too.
The Dan/Laurie happy ending is not so happy, really. Laurie says she’s going to change her costume to black and leather…which is basically a repetition of the Comedian’s uniform (just as her yellow pajamas was always a repetition of his first uniform), and the book is, among many other things, a critique of heroism and the notion of superheroes. So..the fact that they’re going to run off to perform violent superheroics suggests how little Veidt has changed the world…and how we may well be headed back into a repetition of the cycle we have just witnessed. Laurie seems to be reconciling herself with her father, at that point, but this whole discussion reasonably questions whether that reconciliation is a good thing in all respects.
Watchmen, to me, can be read as an extended critique of the conflation of sex and violence…how we too often get pleasure out of hurting and abasing others. The invocation of explicit S & M imagery in the Dan/Laurie final scene suggests that perhaps this is not so happy.
By Lost Girls, Moore suggests that S & M is all fine and great if its purely a sexual fetish, a shared fantasy, or simply a fantasy. In Watchmen, though, the ways in which people like Hooded Justice, Blake and Dreiberg “get off” on violence is part and parcel of a broader critique of the ways in which we always seem to want to solve our problems with violence (both in superhero comics and in real life). The “pleasure” we get out violence is part of the problem in this reading…and so Dan and Laurie’s relationship (while the most human and comforting in the book) has something of a sinister undercurrent. Dan’s inability to “get off” without the fetish of costumed violence is a symptom of a society that “gets off” on violence (as HJ does, and Blake). Laurie gets off on it too, both in the mugging scene and in the owl ship. The book is unclear on whether it is some kind of “human nature” to get off on violence (and so we see it in both public and private spheres)…or if a society that values violence is likely to permeate even our most private lives. That is, is the blame on “human nature” (a fairly pessimistic reading) or on particular social values that privilege power, as manifested in violence. Either way, Dan and Laurie aren’t exactly escaping this calculus at the close of Watchmen.
Isn’t the violence sort of unserious considering that these characters have the ability to cut loose and defeat large numbers of attackers, as in the scene with Laurie and Dan encountering the street gang in the alley?
Does Rorschach work as a critique of the Bronson/Dirty Harry-like or Dark Knight/Punisher-like sadistic vigilante hero, considering that extended sequence where he demonstrates his superiority to a whole prison full of vengeful gangsters, the adolescent nihilism of the origin story he tells the psychiatrist, and his cool persona in general?
How does the abuse to women in Watchmen relate to the treatment of Evey in V for Vendetta? Doesn’t she also take up the abuser’s costume? Do you think the process is really treated as negative in that story?
Drew, I think especially your second paragraph identifies the real flaw in Watchmen — that Moore’s (alleged) attempt at deconstructing the vigilante hero is just too cool to achiebe his goal.
A similar flaw is present in V, I think. Moore claims that V is not supposed to be a hero, and that the narrative does not condone his actions.
I mean, he can say that, but V for Vendetta sure feels like it’s condoning V — much more than Watchmen feels like it’s condoning Veidt or Blake.
Noah,
“I’m curious, Charles, if you have a way to reject Veidt’s vision? You seem very much a greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number kind of guy. On what grounds would you say that Veidt is wrong to attempt what he does?”
I figured I’d be labeled a retributivist over here before a utilitarian, but here was my critique of Veidt’s plan(s) back when I saw the movie:
While the plan in the comic plays to the xenophobia that exists in all cultures, bringing them all together multilaterally against the Big Other, it fails to take into account that after, say, 10 years of no alien reappearing, societies will go back to fearing each other. This is something like black nationalists and white supremacists postponing their differences until they’ve together vanguished their common enemy, the Jews. A few years of peace from a war that wasn’t definite hardly warrants (from an utilitarian perspective) the killing of millions. And while the film’s continuing watchful eye of a present God does away with the need to continually kill more people to keep the danger imminent, it’s a bit hard to swallow that Russia’s forgotten that God’s an American. I’d say the movie ending probably works better in terms of plausibility, but the comic’s ending has more of connection (aesthetic, formal, ideological) with the superhero genre.
You’re totally a utilitarian Charles! Your critique of Veidt’s plan is that it won’t work!
Otherwise, I don’t know that I have that much to add; I agree with pretty much everyone here, though I’d maybe make some differences of emphasis. Anyway, thanks all for commenting; it’s been fun to read through the discussion.
Well, I also have a problem with treating people as means, which isn’t utilitarian. I was just criticizing Veidt’s plan on the basis of his being a crummy utilitarian.
Charles Reece:
“While the plan in the comic plays to the xenophobia that exists in all cultures, bringing them all together multilaterally against the Big Other, it fails to take into account that after, say, 10 years of no alien reappearing, societies will go back to fearing each other. This is something like black nationalists and white supremacists postponing their differences until they’ve together vanguished their common enemy, the Jews. A few years of peace from a war that wasn’t definite hardly warrants (from an utilitarian perspective) the killing of millions. And while the film’s continuing watchful eye of a present God does away with the need to continually kill more people to keep the danger imminent, it’s a bit hard to swallow that Russia’s forgotten that God’s an American. I’d say the movie ending probably works better in terms of plausibility, but the comic’s ending has more of connection (aesthetic, formal, ideological) with the superhero genre.”
Well, exactly; from the beginning, again and again Watchmen has been criticised because Veidt’s plan wouldn’t work. But that’s the whole point! Of COURSE it won’t work! Moore was advancing a critique of extravagant, costly, simplistic “superman” solutions to messy real-world problems by the élite.
Remember, Watchmen was published in the shadow of one such magical-thinking solution to the nuclear standoff: SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, popularly known as “Star Wars”. (Dr Manhattan can be interpreted as an incarnation of this wishful thinking.)It was a totally untenable tissue of blarney endorsed by the “best and the brightest” of the policy élite. And it was bullshit that swallowed billions upon billions of wasted dollars.
A lesson of Watchmen is: be wary of simplistic solutions,and do not trust the self-styled Uebermenschen who would mould the world.
As for Nite Owl 2 — remember that scene where, in a bar, he learns of the murder of Hollis Mason and totally loses it, threatening to destroy the entire neighborhood (and, in bitter irony, has actually to be restrained from violence by Rorschach, of all people!)
I think this is a demonstration that, behind the Captain Nice Guy or sexual kinkster façades, Dan is still a violence addict. Moore doesn’t cut much slack for anyone (including himself– he has often regretted the extent to which he glamorised superhero violence in Watchmen.)
———————
Zach Hoskins says:
..I particularly like your description of Sally’s feelings regarding Eddie as an “uncomfortable truth.” To me it’s these “uncomfortable truths” that are most threatened by some of the more hamfisted ideological criticism.
———————
“Yes” to all that. It would sure be great — and indicative of a psychologically healthy attitude — if women (or men; abuse runs both ways) would not put up with ill-treatment from someone who is supposed to be a “lover” for one instant.
The regrettable reality, is that many people do; make excuses for their mistreatment, blame themselves.
A habit routinely learned in dysfunctional childhoods, where for a kid it’s less frightening to believe they got “punished” because they misbehaved (and therefore if they are *perfect* nothing bad will happen to them)…
…than to face the reality that, until they turn 18 (or an underfunded, overworked child-care system intervenes and places them in a foster home [a frightening prospect in itself; “better the devil you know…”]), they are the helpless property and victim of an abusive, sadistic mental case.
————————
Charles Reece says:
…Loving people who treat you poorly is a fault, just like perpetrating violence on people who don’t deserve it or trusting politicians who will actively vote against your interests.
————————-
They all certainly are! And how widespread all that is…
————————-
Sally and Laurie aren’t all that different. Both love men that have a real problem separating violence from love. It’s just that the Comedian commits to it whole-hog, whereas Nigh Owl 2 is emasculated until he can put on the symbol of his violence. Violence is potency for both, though. All of these wannabe superheroes are authoritarian.
————————–
Interesting points; surely, though, as far as “violence” is concerned, can we differentiate between the Comedian shooting that Vietnamese woman dead, and Dan and Laurie bare-handedly fighting off an onslaught of knife-wielding muggers?
Or we end up in a realm where for Jews to fight against the Nazis trying to herd them into concentration camps is equally to be condemned as “violence”; makes them “just as bad as the Nazis are!”
BTW, flipping through my Watchmen trade paperback, spotted Laurie’s comment at the end, after visiting her mother with Dan, and planning to resume crime-fighting:
“…Plus, I want a better costume, that protects me: maybe something leather, with a mask over my face…
“Also, maybe I oughtta carry a gun.”
In one of the “Under the Hood” excerpts, Hollis Mason writes, “The Comedian…was badly wounded in an unrelated stabbing incident about a year later [after the attack on Sally]. This is what made him decide to change his flimsy yellow costume for the leather armor he wears at present.”
And, of course, the Comedian always wore a mask; first, that minimal around-the-eyes thing, then that full-head bondage-looking rig he donned in the riot scenes. And carried a gun.
Laurie is “Daddy’s Little Girl” in some ways…!
(Reading on — I really ought to read entire threads before writing comments — I see that eric b picked up on those same points…)
————————
Noah Berlatsky says:
I don’t agree that love can be a moral fault. I think it can be a mistake for various reasons and in various contexts. But blaming the victim is just blaming the victim. Sally does not allow her love to put her daughter in danger.
————————
And, good for her! But, what about the countless women who were sexually abused as children, and just “happen” to end up with a guy who they get pregnant with, and later turn their backs on the fact that this guy is sexually abusing her children?
Is that “love” — a thoroughly messed-up bit of psychopathology would be more accurate — simply a “mistake”? Is a woman’s blinding herself to her kids being abused because he had been abused herself not to receive moral condemnation, lest we “blame the victim”?
(I’d certainly be understanding of the fact that she was damaged by her past, but not consider that it totally absolves her of ALL responsibility.)
————————-
Making her morally culpable for her love is just blaming her because Blake is unworthy of it. But love isn’t about worthiness; it’s not a pragmatic, utilitarian technology…
————————
It should be both. Certainly there’s an irrational component to romantic attraction, but “worthiness” should play a part too. There’s much I love about my wife that’s hard to quantify, yet I also strongly love her for her concern for animals, thoughtfulness, responsibility, intelligence and creative talent, helpfulness, consideration, values. I see respect, admiration of who she is as an important component of my love.
This “unconditional love” ideal is utter bullshit. If it turns out your “love” is a cheating, thieving conniver, who speaks insultingly of you behind your back, or (taking things to an extreme) secretly a serial killer, should you still go on loving them? If so, that’s a pathological, contemptible, self-destructive (and if there are children, destructive to them) kind of love…
————————–
AB says:
As for Nite Owl 2 — remember that scene where, in a bar, he learns of the murder of Hollis Mason and totally loses it, threatening to destroy the entire neighborhood (and, in bitter irony, has actually to be restrained from violence by Rorschach, of all people!)
—————————
Haw! I’d forgotten that. Indeed, the irony!
AB, the difficulty with that interpretation is that Doc Manhattan finds the plan to be airtight. He works to maintain it by killing Rorschach. (But, then again, maybe Doc sees the future success — determinism tends to screw with any moral points that the book might make.)
Mike, I agree that violence has different purposes, but doesn’t the scene where Night Owl 2 helps the Comedian’s murderous assault on peaceniks suggest a continuum between the characters? The former is complicit in the latter’s violence. It seems to me that a group like the Guardian Angels is a call for more of a police state, not less, regardless of their individual politics.
Not sure this hasn’t been put to bed already, but it’s already reappearing in Jones’ Preacher post– the whole conflation of Christianity and fascism– apparently condoning violence in the breach being seen as equivalent to actively promoting violence. It’s all over this Agamben book I’m reading too.
The Church, in practice, has been an accessory, if not an instigator, of a pretty amazing amount of bloodshed– perverse freaky torture bloodshed, genocide bloodshed, etc. But equating the (often conflicting, but often fairly conciliatory)messages of the Bible with the extreme modernity of fascism– a mystical, brutal nationalism of the self– is apples and oranges.
The annihilation of New York is the kind of Reinhold Niebuhr utilitarian morality that seems to go along with both U.S. foreign policy and the behavior of God in the Old Testament. And the ambivalent divinity of Jon is, I guess, sort of what the difference hinges on. But that difference needs to not be elided.
Oh right– the Hiroshima/0-11 angle was Veidt, not Jon. I forgot. But all the more reason to elide.
9-11. For A.Q. Khan’s sake.
I think that’s a pretty important point…and sort of what I’m trying to say in the post. Seeking transformation through love is the opposite of seeking transformation through violence; they’re not morally equivalent. Even Niebuhr for all his pragmatic modernity would argue *not* that love leads to violence, but that humans *can’t* love the way Christ does, and that therefore any human action is always already compromised and touched with violence; ergo, violence is a reasonable solution because it’s not better than anything else. It may seem like splitting straws, but to me that seems like a significantly different position from saying that people are morally culpable because of their love.
I keep thinking of this in connection with the vast cultural sneering at Rihanna for possibly forgiving Chris Brown…a cultural sneering much more intense than anything Chris Brown, the actual perpetrator of violence, has been subject to.
It’s actually Rorschach who invokes Hiroshima in a childhood/juvenile delinquency remembrance of his father. He’s all for it and sees Truman as a hero…which is painfully ironic given Rorschach’s “never compromise” attitude towards Veidt’s plan (an obviously planned Hiroshima-parallel).
Re the folks hating on Rihanna, this is a particularly depressing example.
Bert Stabler wrote: “But equating the (often conflicting, but often fairly conciliatory)messages of the Bible with the extreme modernity of fascism– a mystical, brutal nationalism of the self– is apples and oranges.
“The annihilation of New York is the kind of Reinhold Niebuhr utilitarian morality that seems to go along with both U.S. foreign policy and the behavior of God in the Old Testament.”
But that’s your problem right there. The Old Testament has very strong injunctions to ruthlessness and genocide which any reasonable interpretation can conclude are intended and HAVE BEEN USED to justify Christian violence like the Crusades and the conquest of the New World.
(I’m not an American Conservative, I found the link on aldaily.com, but I was just reading a compelling book review on this very subject: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/christian-jihad/ )
The thing about 20th century fascism is that it’s not difficult to see a continuum not just with Christian Jew-hatred but with the kind of moral calculus which led churches to justify exemplary torture and execution of heretics and schismatics because they endangered the whole community’s chances of salvation. Your Hitlers and Stalins are attempts to wed religious extremism to the earthly state rather than the afterlife. I’m not really feeling the “of the self” distinction when it comes to fascism (fasces).
eric: I didn’t mean to conflate fascism and Christianity in my post; I agree that they’re opposed (for at least some variants of Christianity). I meant to be saying (a) Preacher gives the appearance of being (relatively) unconventional in its critique of Judaeo-Christianity, yet (b) is deeply conventional in its sexual and non-sexual morality and, as a footnote (c) its conventional non-sexual morality is troubling insofar as it shades into fascism. (Not that conventional morality is fascist, just that Ennis’ presentation of it can seem that way). But we can hash this out on that thread, if you want.
Noah and Charles: Noah, I don’t think you realise how thoroughly Charles just rejected utilitarianism by saying he has a problem with treating people as a means. Speaking a little loosely, that rejection is almost the defining feature of the main 20C rival to utilitarianism, namely deontological ethics.
Anyway, since Charles passed on offering a utilitarian critique of Veidt’s actions, I’ll step up to the crease. Right off the bat, I can think of an obvious route, which is
(1) rule-U. Classic/original flavour-U says something like ‘an action is right if and only if it maximises utility’. Rule-U says something like ‘an action is right if and only if it’s in accordance with a moral rule, the following of which maximises utility’. This is how some utilitarians get around the objection of ‘but doesn’t your theory justify murder, torture, rape, lying, jaywalking etc. in some circumstances?’, because it’s plausible that utility would be maximised if people followed a rule like ‘don’t torture people!’
It’s pretty plausible that Veidt is breaking several moral rules with his actions, not least of which is ‘don’t teleport a giant fucking squid into Manhattan’. Thus Veidt acted wrongly.
But there’s other options, too.
(2) actual utilitarianism. This variant says that an action is right if and only if it *actually* maximises utility. It’s not the thought that counts, it’s what the deed actually produces. So if you randomly murder a stranger, thereby unknowingly aborting the genocidal career of Hitler II, you’ve done the right thing; if you give a homeless guy ten dollars, which he uses to buy a gun (cheap!) and go on a shooting rampage, you’ve done the wrong thing.
Yes, it’s a weird theory. That aside, the ending of Watchmen strongly suggests that Veidt’s actions were all for nothing; if this is right, then Veidt acted wrongly.
(3) Opposed to actual-U is expected-U, which says an action is right if and only if maximises expected utility. Some variants of expected-U go further, to say that the expectations in question are those of a rational agent who’s properly reflected on the probabilities. And it’s plausible that a rational agent would not judge Veidt’s plan as likely to maximise utility. Sure Veidt thinks it does, but he seems to be a total goddamn lunatic. If Veidt’s actions didn’t maximise rationally foreseeable utility, then he acted wrongly.
(4) Utilitarianism, of all stripes, is intrinsically relative. That is, the question is not ‘should I do so-and-so?’ but ‘should I do so-and-so, compared with my other options for action?’ (where inaction is counted as itself an action). So we have to consider Veidt’s other options and, again, it seems plausible that he could have chosen other ways to avert nuclear catastrophe, ways that didn’t involve squid-related mass murder. I know he says that’s the only way but, again, he’s a total goddamn lunatic. Thus Veidt acted wrongly.
This illustrates a general point about moral theory: most theories have enough variables to fill in that, if you’re clever enough, you can derive pretty much any outcome you like. All that said, yes, utilitarianism does sometimes countenance odious actions in pursuit of the greater good. But so do most moral theories; now we’re just haggling over the price.
Well, Charles said the means/ends bit after I called him a utilitarian. His objection to Veidt’s morality in the passage he quotes is still utilitarian though (i.e., it’s wrong because it won’t work.)
And…most of your comments about utilitarianism don’t really undermine the sense of it I have. It’s all instrumental, which makes it essentially about power and effectiveness. It’s a morality for superheroes, I think…which Watchmen critiques, at least to some extent.
Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean you were being inattentive. I just meant that, once the comment was made, you might not realise just how anti-utilitarian it was; as I said, it’s pretty close to definitional. (And you could read the quotation as an even-if argument: even if we accept Veidt’s moral stance, he still shouldn’t have done it because it will turn out to be ineffective).
Most superheroes aren’t even remotely utilitarian. If they were, they’d stop beating up poor people and the mentally ill, and work in development aid or invent a cure for cancer. I’m serious.
Noah, I get the impression that the letter writer loathes Brown even more than Rihanna for “forgiving” him. That doesn’t really prove your case. And would you say that James is doing the same thing with Sally and the Comedian? I think he was troubled by both, but wasn’t saying that Sally was committing a bigger sin for showing love towards her attacker.
And, in terms of image manipulation: what Brown did was widely viewed and played up as heinous. Of course, success and stardom downplayed his immorality in a fairly short period of time. When you have his victim willingly playing on the same stage as him, not objecting to it, what does that say? I’m not thinking “love,” but rather that money, fame and capital are more important to Rihanna and all the people involved in the Grammys than morality or women’s issues. Thus, I find it perfectly understandable that many would be sickened by her complicity.
————————
Charles Reece says:
…I agree that violence has different purposes, but doesn’t the scene where Night Owl 2 helps the Comedian’s murderous assault on peaceniks suggest a continuum between the characters? The former is complicit in the latter’s violence…
————————
Nothing “murderous” about it; the Comedian (along with the tear-gas grenades he was hurling) was firing rubber bullets* rather than buckshot into the angry, threatening, object-hurling crowd. Why, he’s a softie compared to the pepper-spray-a-peacefully-sitting-student-in-the-face-at-point-blank-range types we’ve got running around these days.
And Night Owl 2 is reluctantly aiding; calling “”Please…If everybody will just clear the streets” to the rioting crowds, expressing his qualms to the Comedian: “Who are we protecting [society] from?”
————————
Noah Berlatsky says:
…I keep thinking of this in connection with the vast cultural sneering at Rihanna for possibly forgiving Chris Brown…a cultural sneering much more intense than anything Chris Brown, the actual perpetrator of violence, has been subject to.
————————-
Is the sneering more intense not because her actions are considered more heinous, but because abusive guys are expected to be creeps, considered a “lost cause”? And that by her “forgiving” actions Rihanna not only tells him, but others like him, they can do whatever and escape the consequences? And that she’s providing a negative role-model of the sick “stand by yore man” attitude?
One of her defenders, responding to that “particularly depressing example” of Rihanna criticism, wrote:
————————-
I am pretty sure Rihanna of all people do not have to be reminded of what happened. She knows better than anyone, and I don’t think she would want to be constantly reminded. ”I’ll never forget that night” Whaaaat the fuck. You….weren’t there though… This didn’t happen to you. You just read the police report TMZ put out. Who are you to have a say in how she should feel? She is the victim therefore she is the one who choses how to cope with all of this, not anyone else, including you, Mr./Ms. DailyWhat..
————————-
…Which is utter malarkey. Rihanna is not acting like a unique individual here; her behavior might as well be a textbook case of the pathologies of abused women.
So, if a girl is abused, internalizes the attitude that she should be treated like garbage by “cutting” and other self-destructive behavior, and if anyone dares to suggest this is sick and dysfunctional, will the “hater” get comments like “Who are you to have a say in how she should feel? She is the victim therefore she is the one who choses how to cope with all of this…”?
————————-
Jones, one of the Jones boys says:
2) actual utilitarianism. This variant says that an action is right if and only if it *actually* maximises utility. It’s not the thought that counts, it’s what the deed actually produces. So if you randomly murder a stranger, thereby unknowingly aborting the genocidal career of Hitler II, you’ve done the right thing; if you give a homeless guy ten dollars, which he uses to buy a gun (cheap!) and go on a shooting rampage, you’ve done the wrong thing.
Yes, it’s a weird theory. That aside, the ending of Watchmen strongly suggests that Veidt’s actions were all for nothing; if this is right, then Veidt acted wrongly.
————————-
Alas, who but a god — or a Dr. Manhattan — could tell in advance if doing a good thing could have negative consequences in the future? (Am reminded of this splendid Roald Dahl story: http://www.roalddahlfans.com/shortstories/gene.php ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_and_Catastrophe:_A_True_Story )
So what are we to do, not punish murderers because their victims’ kids might turn out to be genocidal tyrants, not help anyone because our aid might be twisted for evil aims?
In a account of travels in the countryside of India, one writer saw a man fall in a raging river and struggle to keep from drowning. The people all around — some picnicking by the edges of the river — ignored his calls for help. They felt if it was his karma to drown, so be it! (He did finally manage to save himself…)
* Yes, they can on occasion kill, but only by freakish accident…
But the letter writer focuses on hating Rihanna, and specifically for her forgiveness (not for being interested in fame or capital, or whatever.)
And yeah, I think this is precisely where you end up with problems if you’re willing/eager to blame the victim. People who are abused really haven’t done anything wrong. When you decide that you have the right to tell them how to live their lives because someone committed a crime against them, and when the antipathy towards the victim ends up center stage…I just don’t find that helpful or particularly feminist.
Also…I don’t know what Rihanna’s motivations are, but I also don’t really know why indicting her for her motivations — more than any other star — is such a vital necessity. Again, she committed no crime — unless being abused is a crime. Which I strongly, strongly deny that it is.
James is reprimanding Moore and Gibbons, not Sally directly. And, of course, Sally isn’t a real person. I think the logic of James’ position raises some of the same issues and problems, but I don’t think he’s doing the same thing.
Mike, people — even women, believe it or not — aren’t pathologies. And yes, you need to respect them even when they make choices you don’t agree with. Good grief.
I enjoy all the detailed splitting of moral hairs after Rosebomb grandly indicts the Bible the sole culprit for centuries of straightforwardly amoral (and, at the very least, ends-over-means)behavior in the West. But Jones accurately summarizes himself from the Preacher post– condemning pathetic masochistic hypocritical Christian morality can land you in some pretty fascist/imperialist logic.
————————–
Noah Berlatsky says:
Mike, people — even women, believe it or not — aren’t pathologies.
—————————
No, but huge chunks of their behavior can be pathological.
Moreover, it’s a side-effect of dysfunctional/abusive upbringings, that the richness of individual possibilities is lessened. The range of behavior is narrowed, if not utterly circumscribed.
For instance, see the listings of Emotional Effects of Child Abuse and Behavioral Effects of Child Abuse at http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/background-child-abuse .
And, ooh, I’ve dared to criticize some women! Hence the “even women, believe it or not” jab; because only a hopeless chauvinist would dare to act in such an, er, ungentlemanly fashion.
————————-
And yes, you need to respect them even when they make choices you don’t agree with.
————————-
No, not in the slightest. As I’s written earlier, what about the countless women who were sexually abused as children, and just “happen” to end up with a guy who they get pregnant with, and later turn their backs on the fact that this guy is sexually abusing her children?
Should we “respect” these women? Even though we don’t “agree” with (God forbid we should criticize) their “choices”?
Again, let me hack away at the absurd usage of “choices” in far too widespread a fashion. If someone has a brutal, abusive childhood and becomes a drunk or drug-addict to escape their inner pain, is that a “choice” in the same sense by which we name the decision of which movie or restaurant to go to?
(And then there’s the way the Right attacks gays because they chose that “perverted lifestyle”…)
Mike, as far as I can tell, you are the ONLY person that thinks that in the attack scene Blake is positioned straddling Sally’s shoulder blades. Since you see that so oddly, you dismiss not only the miscoloring and the possibility of a fully completed rape but also that a rear entry might also indicate anal entry. You ALSO seem to think that Sally’s earlier flirtation with Blake indicates that she was in love with him before the attack…and so, whether you are or are not saying that this justifies the attack, I still have to think that a lot of your opinions are proceeding from several misapprehensions of what is shown in Watchmen.
————————–
James says:
Mike, as far as I can tell, you are the ONLY person that thinks that in the attack scene Blake is positioned straddling Sally’s shoulder blades. Since you see that so oddly…
—————————
I’m the only person who’s made a point out of what the panels show: https://hoodedutilitarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Watchmen-1.jpg
Notice how in the first panel, the Comedian’s thighs and crotch are wrapping around/just beneath Sally’s bra; how in the third, he is still in the same position, his knee just below her shoulder, the pink of her bra visible under his left leg.
And actually, I’d written — good thing I checked — “the Comedian straddles Sally’s upper body, pinning her down…[in a later panel] the Comedian…is still straddling her upper body…” ( https://hoodedutilitarian.com/2012/02/post-to-incestuous-sheets/ )
My “shoulder blades” crack coming from the fact that if, as charged, anal penetration were to have occurred, from the Comedian’s position that area would’ve been a far more accessible target…
Noah,
I think you’ve made a good analogy here, so I wouldn’t pull the “it’s only fiction” card. Of course, Watchmen is fiction, but the problem is what Moore’s trying to say with it. I don’t see how you’re separating James’ criticism of Moore’s dealing with Sally and what you’ve said about people’s reading of Rihanna’s behavior.
And, let’s be clear about what the victim’s being blamed for. It’s not the original violence, but for the way she deals with the violence. To say she has no responsibility in any future action she might make related to that violence, because of the violence, is to rob her of agency. A people might be beat down, but at some point you have to hold them, in part, responsible for voting in a fascist. I don’t know what all went on with Rihanna and Brown (maybe it wasn’t as bad as it was originally portrayed), but I think some message can be drawn by organizations like the Grammys who obviously don’t much care what kind of people they celebrate with their awards. The same thing went on with Oscars, regarding Polanski and Kazan. Both made great movies, but do you really want to celebrate the men? I think you can hold Rihanna culpable for working with Brown after what he’s done. I mean, you could take the position that she’s deeply disturbed (which I’ve heard), but you can say the same of the person who commits the violence, so why hold him responsible?
And, while I was writing the above, NPR had a feature on Rihanna and Brown, in which their fans draw the connection with money and fame.
“drawn from organizations”
Mike, nope, I just think you are seeing it wrong. The figures are seen from an angle so perhaps you are misreading the foreshortening. It seems obvious that we’re never going to agree about this ever…one of us needs glasses, maybe, but at least some other people see what I see. Does anyone else see what Mike sees?….please weigh in if you do.
Sally isn’t real, she is a construct created by men. It is the decisions made by those men, in the context of the medium as it stood in the time that it was done that I find profoundly disturbing. Nothing whatsoever to do with the reactions of a real person in the present day.
Appropriately enough– there’s some witch trial logic going on here…
I don’t think Mike is off. You both have plausible readings, though.
“Sally isn’t real, she is a construct created by men.”
And that differs from the modern pop star how?
Oh my god, you guys. Oh my god.
“And that differs from the modern pop star how?”
A bunch of men are discussing the Real Meaning of Why Women Love Rapists, based on a fictional woman as depicted in a fucking comic, also written by a man, and whether or not it’s feminist. You know, I find that kind of gross, but OK.
But to bring in a GENUINE REAL LIVE WOMAN’S PAIN and horror, and judge her, and COMPARE HER TO A FICTIONAL creation and say these two things are the SAME.
Aren’t y’all just a little ashamed of yourselves? Doesn’t this seem kind of morally icky?
Does it occur to anyone that actual, y’know, victims of genuine sexual violence might be reading this?
What the fuck.
I don’t find anything icky about civil discussions regarding whatever topic.
Well, that’s not true, but no one here is politely advocating pedophilia or rape or incest.
Now who is removing agency? Let’s see, okay, I overstated with “make no mistake”, my bad, but I try to see what is represented, I point to something I genuinely find disturbing, I make a case, I don’t ask for the thing to be removed from shelves or redrawn but express my reservations and wonder about what looks like miscoloring—-but I am then accused of wanting censorship, witchtrialing, etc. Gender traitorism too, I’m so sure. That’s okay, you dudes can stick together, change the subject as usual, pretty much predictable, WTF-ever.
No, gee, you’re only advocating to what extent a victim of sexual violence should be judged and blamed (“And, let’s be clear about what the victim’s being blamed for.”) and wondering whether her forgiveness of Brown means maybe it wasn’t so bad “(maybe it wasn’t as bad as it was originally portrayed)”). And comparing her to a comic book character. OMG. I get what Noah was doing, bringing in real world misogyny as an attempt to clarify, but you just said there is no difference between a pop star (ALIVE, hello!) and a comic book character. JFC.
Could we just not. Come on. Please. Real people, not the same as comic book characters.
Thanks for a little sanity, Von. Frankly, what a bunch of fucking wankers.
James, if you’re directing that at me, I’m confused. I’m not sure whom Bert was referring to (I assumed the Christian tangent was involved). I think you’ve made a good case, but I also thought Noah brought up a good analogy worth addressing (even though I disagreed with his view). Mike has made good points, too. It’s a good discussion.
Vom,
I was only being half-serious. The serious part was that all we have to judge here is the pop constructions known as Rihanna and Chris Brown. The former is now constructed as the abused star and the latter as the star abuser. When the message is now that it was no big deal that one of them was abused, because there is money to be made, I take issue with that. If you don’t, okay. Trying to paint me as a misogynist for the potential lessening of violence on women for capital is pretty ridiculous (to be kind).
It’s become a quite sickening discussion, as bad or worse than what I originally noted in Watchmen and I have lost respect for several of the parties contributing. God knows I’m not any exemplar of civil discourse, but jumping Jesus some of you take the cake. I’m sure Chester’s book about wanking with real women will win all the awards this year too.
Yeah… you know, blaming the victim. The thread got tangled somewhat, but I was talking about the “women should take responsibility for their trauma” thing. Not James’ point (although I don’t quite understand the visual ambiguity, –do we all agree the Comedian raped Sally? And that Chris Brown beat Rihanna? And that race is a factor as well as gender, when white men are passing judgment?)
As regards my witch trial comment, to de-un-clarify.
That last sentence is unclear, so try this: Trying to paint me as a misogynist for seeing the situation as the potential lessening of violence on women for capital is pretty ridiculous,
Bert, aren’t most abusers abused themselves? I seem to remember that stat. Is it blaming the victim to hold them responsible for their actions? Is Rihanna not responsible for anything she does post-trauma?
Did she abuse someone?
I don’t know much about Rihanna, but that domestic violence song she did with Eminem was pretty great, don’t you think? I would guess the song was somewhat autobiographical for both of them.
Wow…okay, maybe bringing in Chris Brown and Rihanna wasn’t an ideal move. Though we’re still not too flamey, so I guess it could have been worse.
Just a few quick responses:
Bert, there’s something of a question as to whether the Comedian attempted rape or actually committed rape; he may have been interrupted. It doesn’t really make any difference for most purposes, is my feeling (he’s still morally culpable, Sally’s still been sexually assaulted.)
In terms of Chris Brown and Rihanna; my point in the post was that responding to violence with love and forgiveness is not a criminal act, nor a morally contemptible one. Therefore, I don’t think Moore and Gibbons are being unfeminist, or anti-feminist, or misogynist, in the way they handle Sally’s relationship to the Comedian. James feels they are…and the Chris Brown/Rihanna comparison was meant to show how that can lead some uncomfortable places, in my view. But (as VM notes) that doesn’t mean that I think James is analogous to the people blaming Rihanna, not because “it’s just fiction” but because talking about fictional characters written by men is rather different than talking about people who are actual people, even if they are pop stars.
I would say, as Bert suggests, that the point is not that Rihanna has no agency and should never be criticized, but rather that there is a fairly massive line between anything she has done and an actual vicious assault. It would be reasonable to write a piece saying something like, “You know, Rihanna apparently publicly forgiving Chris Brown in this way is not an ideal message for young girls, and it would be much better if she had been able to find the resources (both internal and within the music industry) that would have allowed her to reach a better response.” It is not reasonable — to put it mildly — to write a piece villifying her as if she is the one who committed the crime. And, you know, any piece might do well to point out the not inconsiderable extent to which she has been attacked and sneered at simply for suffering the assault. In that context, any attack on her for this stuff becomes really, really problematic.
I’m tempted to shut the thread down since I’m going to be offline for a bit…but I’m going to leave it at least for now. Please be civil everyone, okay?
Okay; second thoughts (not caused by Jack!) I’m going to close it. Thanks for the discussion everyone.