I have expressed my deep appreciation for and support of the work of Anita Sarkeesian elsewhere. She is an excellent woman who deserves a great deal of praise for her brazen, unashamed, and helpful critique of modern gaming culture. However, as a practicing Catholic and a scholar of religious studies, I cannot help but point out two specific and glaring flaws in her work. Both of these instances betray a critical misunderstanding of Biblical narratives and an unfortunate tendency to, by implication, blame the tropes with which Sarkeesian associates them on the Biblical narratives in question. In this post, I will discuss only one instance, the more grievous in my evaluation, and the other will be addressed in another post.
The aforementioned comes from her fifth video in the Tropes Vs. Women series, entitled The Mystical Pregnancy.
In the episode, Sarkeesian catalogs a surprising number of incidents across sci-fi television series in which female characters are forcibly impregnated or have their reproductive faculties somehow harvested or taken advantage of in a non-sexual, but invasive manner. In all of the numerous incidents, she points out, the "pregnancy" in question lasts no more than one episode, is never again addressed, and furthermore produces some distinctly abnormal or freakish offspring.
The trope, she argues, objectifies the female reproductive capacity for the sake of a plot point, calls up unfortunate similarities to a rape narrative, and ignores the real and long-lasting implications, both positive and negative, of pregnancy and child-rearing. All of this is well and good, a criticism well-applied to the modern examples she cites in the video.
However, three and a half minutes into the video, here if you're curious, she says the following:
"My apologies in advance to my more religious viewers, because we really can't forget the original mystical pregnancy narrative: the immaculate conception. As the story goes, an all-powerful being descended from the heavens and impregnated a young woman with the chosen one destined to save earth and the soul of humanity... yep."
The first issue that I think needs addressing here is a pernicious, ineffective, and annoying tendency in cultural criticism which seems to believe that apologizing beforehand for saying or implying something deeply offensive makes the act thereof somehow less offensive. In reality, this statement and others like it accomplish little or nothing more than the de-valuing of the statement which follows
If I mean to tell my friend Jim that he is an asshole and he should stop being an asshole, the most effective way for me to do that is to simply say it as it is - if I want Jim to change or accept where he has genuinely wronged myself or someone else, the best way for me to accomplish that goal is to be very serious, very honest and still very loving in my assertion. If I instead say, "I'm sorry Jim, but you're an asshole and you should stop being one", I have weakened my position by expressing regret over an observation of wrongdoing. If Jim is in the wrong and if I have noticed that he is in the wrong, I should have no sorrow at all for pointing out to him the facts of the matter.
Similarly, if Sarkeesian believes (as she obviously does) that the Immaculate Conception is the primary example of the harmful trope, she should be as unabashed in proclaiming that as she is in pointing out modern examples of the trope.
Furthermore, the unnecessary flippancy which her dramatic pause and smirking "yep" are applied seem, in the context of the video, to at once maintain an air of arrogant superiority and (as is the case with essentially all similar moments at the end of any statements) this moment commits an obvious and blatant fallacy known as the appeal to the people.
She does not present an argument for why her (distinctly over-simplified) recounting of the Immaculate conception, which is a fundamentally consensual, benign and full narrative, fits into her own long list of non-consensual, hostile and reductionist narratives that serve as a kind of "reproductive torture-porn."
Rather than presenting this argument, we are provided with a dramatic pause and a yep, which seems to imply that everyone knows and could see how the Immaculate Conception falls into tight coordination with the other narratives, which implies (another trait of the fallacy) that only an idiot, or someone who did not grasp the situation fully, would not see the thorough parallels.
And while there are indeed parallels, at least in that Mary is impregnated with a unique child by a mystical force, I, for one, fail to see how the other instances cited otherwise parallel the Immaculate conception. As I stated before, all of the other examples which Sarkeesian cites in the video consist of a non-consensual and accelerated or incredibly brief pregnancy. Furthermore, with the exception of the example cited from Star Trek: The Next Generation, all of these instances are hostile and produce monstrous offpsring. Furthermore, all of the characters in all of the examples cited are, as she points out, reduced to their female bodies, seemingly selected and used for the singular reason that they are female.
On all of these points, the narrative of the Immaculate Conception quite simply does not match up with the other cited instances of which, according to Sarkeesian, it is the original example and source of continuous perpetuation.
First and foremost, Mary is not selected to bear the offspring of God arbitrarily or simply because she is female. Rather, in specific contrast, Mary is selected on the basis of her own specific merits, the angel saying she is "highly favored", which in context and in the tradition of interpretation has been taken to mean that she was exceedingly, personally holy. Mary's selection is anything but objectifying and arbitrary: she is selected among all women (perhaps, according to some schools of thought, in all possible periods or times) for being especially, personally holy.
Furthermore, in a turn that the Eastern Orthodox deem incredibly important, Mary consents to the whole state of affairs. She is not passive in the process, and the entire impregnation takes place explicitly with her consent. And if her statement in Luke 1:38 "I am the Lord's servant, may your word be fulfilled," were not enough, she sings a song of praise only a few verses later which has become one of the most important Christian prayers in all of history, known as the Magnificat.
In other words, where all but one of the other examples cited by Sarkeesian are hostile in their nature, Mary not only consents but she rejoices, taking joy in her status and musing that "all nations will call [her] blessed." The Immaculate conception is rather specifically a benign, positive narrative.
Furthermore, all of the other examples provided include an accelerated or surprisingly brief pregnancy, which is completely absent from the narrative in the book of Luke.
In summary then, the Immaculate Conception, which Sarkeesian accuses of being the original template for intrusive, hostile, objectifying plots in modern science fiction shares none of those traits. It is distinctly consensual, distinctly benign, and distinctly personal.
Furthermore, while it does contain a narrative of impregnation of a hero figure by a divine or mystical force, it is hardly the first or most prominent to do so. The Greeks, among others, were writing and telling stories about women who were impregnated by deities with heroic, demigod children thousands of years before Christians were.
Or am I the only one who remembers the stories of (deep breath):
Hercules
Perseus
Esclepius
Arjuna
Orion
Theseus
Minos
Gilgamesh
Achilles
Need I go on? While the story of Jesus' Birth is fairly unique in its insistence of a virgin birth, it is hardly the first or "original" narrative of mystical pregnancy. Much more notable here, as well, is that many of the earlier narratives of divine pregnancy do, in fact, share the qualities of non-consent (often even rape), and hostility. While the accelerated pregnancy seems to be a feature fairly native to modern sci-fi, probably because of the episodic format it so often assumes, all of the other features are indeed native to early religious storytelling, but to early religious storytelling of Greek and Mesopotamian myths.
I do genuinely hate to be so critical and so diminutive of Anita Sarkeesian in this instance, but her inclusion of the Immaculate Conception in a list of terrifying stories of "reproductive torture-porn" is unwarranted, ignorant, and unjust, all of which are made worse by her flippancy and the casual, arrogant nature with which she assigns the blame for a failing of modern science fiction to an ancient narrative that serves as one of the core narratives of the religious commitment of almost 2 billion people.
I support Anita Sarkeesian, but in this instance her facts are wrong, her presentation is fallacious, her assumptions are ignorant, and her claim is demonstrably false.
The aforementioned comes from her fifth video in the Tropes Vs. Women series, entitled The Mystical Pregnancy.
In the episode, Sarkeesian catalogs a surprising number of incidents across sci-fi television series in which female characters are forcibly impregnated or have their reproductive faculties somehow harvested or taken advantage of in a non-sexual, but invasive manner. In all of the numerous incidents, she points out, the "pregnancy" in question lasts no more than one episode, is never again addressed, and furthermore produces some distinctly abnormal or freakish offspring.
The trope, she argues, objectifies the female reproductive capacity for the sake of a plot point, calls up unfortunate similarities to a rape narrative, and ignores the real and long-lasting implications, both positive and negative, of pregnancy and child-rearing. All of this is well and good, a criticism well-applied to the modern examples she cites in the video.
However, three and a half minutes into the video, here if you're curious, she says the following:
"My apologies in advance to my more religious viewers, because we really can't forget the original mystical pregnancy narrative: the immaculate conception. As the story goes, an all-powerful being descended from the heavens and impregnated a young woman with the chosen one destined to save earth and the soul of humanity... yep."
The first issue that I think needs addressing here is a pernicious, ineffective, and annoying tendency in cultural criticism which seems to believe that apologizing beforehand for saying or implying something deeply offensive makes the act thereof somehow less offensive. In reality, this statement and others like it accomplish little or nothing more than the de-valuing of the statement which follows
If I mean to tell my friend Jim that he is an asshole and he should stop being an asshole, the most effective way for me to do that is to simply say it as it is - if I want Jim to change or accept where he has genuinely wronged myself or someone else, the best way for me to accomplish that goal is to be very serious, very honest and still very loving in my assertion. If I instead say, "I'm sorry Jim, but you're an asshole and you should stop being one", I have weakened my position by expressing regret over an observation of wrongdoing. If Jim is in the wrong and if I have noticed that he is in the wrong, I should have no sorrow at all for pointing out to him the facts of the matter.
Similarly, if Sarkeesian believes (as she obviously does) that the Immaculate Conception is the primary example of the harmful trope, she should be as unabashed in proclaiming that as she is in pointing out modern examples of the trope.
Furthermore, the unnecessary flippancy which her dramatic pause and smirking "yep" are applied seem, in the context of the video, to at once maintain an air of arrogant superiority and (as is the case with essentially all similar moments at the end of any statements) this moment commits an obvious and blatant fallacy known as the appeal to the people.
She does not present an argument for why her (distinctly over-simplified) recounting of the Immaculate conception, which is a fundamentally consensual, benign and full narrative, fits into her own long list of non-consensual, hostile and reductionist narratives that serve as a kind of "reproductive torture-porn."
Rather than presenting this argument, we are provided with a dramatic pause and a yep, which seems to imply that everyone knows and could see how the Immaculate Conception falls into tight coordination with the other narratives, which implies (another trait of the fallacy) that only an idiot, or someone who did not grasp the situation fully, would not see the thorough parallels.
And while there are indeed parallels, at least in that Mary is impregnated with a unique child by a mystical force, I, for one, fail to see how the other instances cited otherwise parallel the Immaculate conception. As I stated before, all of the other examples which Sarkeesian cites in the video consist of a non-consensual and accelerated or incredibly brief pregnancy. Furthermore, with the exception of the example cited from Star Trek: The Next Generation, all of these instances are hostile and produce monstrous offpsring. Furthermore, all of the characters in all of the examples cited are, as she points out, reduced to their female bodies, seemingly selected and used for the singular reason that they are female.
On all of these points, the narrative of the Immaculate Conception quite simply does not match up with the other cited instances of which, according to Sarkeesian, it is the original example and source of continuous perpetuation.
First and foremost, Mary is not selected to bear the offspring of God arbitrarily or simply because she is female. Rather, in specific contrast, Mary is selected on the basis of her own specific merits, the angel saying she is "highly favored", which in context and in the tradition of interpretation has been taken to mean that she was exceedingly, personally holy. Mary's selection is anything but objectifying and arbitrary: she is selected among all women (perhaps, according to some schools of thought, in all possible periods or times) for being especially, personally holy.
Furthermore, in a turn that the Eastern Orthodox deem incredibly important, Mary consents to the whole state of affairs. She is not passive in the process, and the entire impregnation takes place explicitly with her consent. And if her statement in Luke 1:38 "I am the Lord's servant, may your word be fulfilled," were not enough, she sings a song of praise only a few verses later which has become one of the most important Christian prayers in all of history, known as the Magnificat.
In other words, where all but one of the other examples cited by Sarkeesian are hostile in their nature, Mary not only consents but she rejoices, taking joy in her status and musing that "all nations will call [her] blessed." The Immaculate conception is rather specifically a benign, positive narrative.
Furthermore, all of the other examples provided include an accelerated or surprisingly brief pregnancy, which is completely absent from the narrative in the book of Luke.
In summary then, the Immaculate Conception, which Sarkeesian accuses of being the original template for intrusive, hostile, objectifying plots in modern science fiction shares none of those traits. It is distinctly consensual, distinctly benign, and distinctly personal.
Furthermore, while it does contain a narrative of impregnation of a hero figure by a divine or mystical force, it is hardly the first or most prominent to do so. The Greeks, among others, were writing and telling stories about women who were impregnated by deities with heroic, demigod children thousands of years before Christians were.
Or am I the only one who remembers the stories of (deep breath):
Hercules
Perseus
Esclepius
Arjuna
Orion
Theseus
Minos
Gilgamesh
Achilles
Need I go on? While the story of Jesus' Birth is fairly unique in its insistence of a virgin birth, it is hardly the first or "original" narrative of mystical pregnancy. Much more notable here, as well, is that many of the earlier narratives of divine pregnancy do, in fact, share the qualities of non-consent (often even rape), and hostility. While the accelerated pregnancy seems to be a feature fairly native to modern sci-fi, probably because of the episodic format it so often assumes, all of the other features are indeed native to early religious storytelling, but to early religious storytelling of Greek and Mesopotamian myths.
I do genuinely hate to be so critical and so diminutive of Anita Sarkeesian in this instance, but her inclusion of the Immaculate Conception in a list of terrifying stories of "reproductive torture-porn" is unwarranted, ignorant, and unjust, all of which are made worse by her flippancy and the casual, arrogant nature with which she assigns the blame for a failing of modern science fiction to an ancient narrative that serves as one of the core narratives of the religious commitment of almost 2 billion people.
I support Anita Sarkeesian, but in this instance her facts are wrong, her presentation is fallacious, her assumptions are ignorant, and her claim is demonstrably false.
No comments:
Post a Comment