Gender in OUAT

[Keb]

Well, one thing that’s important is that as deep as some of the characters are and as awesome as the actors are in their personalities, this is a show FULL of pretty, pretty people. The men are hot (even the ones who IC consider themselves not to be), the women are hot (regardless of age), even some of the CGI monsters aren’t bad. The children are all adorable.

And that somewhat affects the portrayal of gender, I think.

So, on to masculinity: One interesting thing that hasn’t been played up quite as much as it was early on is Rumple the Fashionista (he is fun). As I said earlier, we have seen all the leading men in tears, and we have seen two men raped (via magic). We’ve definitely seen men portrayed as equals or inferiors to powerful women, and while Rumple and various kings manipulated things behind the scenes, women are often the ones leading the situation or response to it. We’ve also often seen women in fighting roles besting male fighters, or even training them. And yet none of that has made the men less manly that I can see; it’s mostly boosted the awesome of the women and demonstrated their power as at least equivalent.

[RumplesGirl]

Ok, Question 4. How does OUAT portray masculinity(ies)? What are the different messages being conveyed? Considering that the show is also a visual text, can we think about both writing and aesthetics? (I suck at analyzing cinematography, but if someone has a knack for it, please pitch in).

Quote

Not as complexly as they once did femininity/strong females. In the hands of another actor, I’m not sure Rumple would be as dynamic and he’s the most complex of the original male characters. They have an obsession with men  = strong warrior, even going so far as to make Rumple “brave” this season by drawing a sword (a weapon) and trying to learn to fight from Merida. But before then, his greatest weapon was his cunning, his ability to manipulate, and his resourcefulness.

Charming…oh Charming. Charming is about as interesting as wallpaper most of the time. And he’s just straight up White Knight for the most part. They did give him some much needed color in S5A about  “not wanting to be remembered for only waking a princess for a kiss.” But other than that…he said it best: “Snow leads, I fight”

I’ll pass by Hook for now since my views on him are fairly well known.

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[Slurpeez]

I guess my question is: if the writers *are* writing these characters to be deliberately polarizing, what is their end game? Do they, in the end, pull up the curtain to reveal a fairly solid message about gender, gender depictions, power dynamics? I don’t think the writers are trying to say something about the culture war–which is such a big part of this shipping wars in this fandom–but are simply part of that war with their own piece of media.

If they are writing these characters to be deliberately polarizing, then they’re not ignorant of controversial character decisions. They’ve shown Rumple mistreating Belle by lying to her about dark magic the way an addict might lie to a spouse about his or her addiction. Just because Rumbelle gets romanticized by the audience, it doesn’t mean the writers are promoting this couple as an ideal romantic couple. If anything, I think he writers are showing what a dysfunctional marriage looks like when one of the partners is an addict the way Rumple is. Belle constantly being duped and lied to isn’t a healthy thing for her, and that is what Belle banishing Rumple in 4×11 was meant to convey (e.g. “All the signs I’d been seeing are correct. You’d never give up power for me, Rumple. You never have. You never will”).

Likewise, I think the writers are potentially aware of why Emma and Hook is polorizing (even though ABC portrays it as an “epic love story”). As @nevermore brought up, I think Emma choosing to don the pink dress in 5×3 showed her reluctantly “softening” herself (i.e. changing herself to get him to like her), but that it’s not a good thing (i.e. what she told Henry how changing to get someone to like you never works out). I also think that the writers are very aware of why Hook is unappealing to some; that is why they have him say hurtful things to Emma as the dark one–things the writers wouldn’t have him say otherwise. That way, the writers can slip in certain true aspects of Hook’s character but then turn around and maintain plausible deniability by claiming “it was a curse!” when certain fans complain. That is why the writers can have Henry say he never liked Hook, but only when Henry was under the effects of the Spell of Shattered Sight.

Regina and Robin also seem to be facing a lot when it comes to Zelena and the rape issue. At least the writers aren’t trying to whitewash that by Regina acknowledging how icky it was. Yet, they’re also not going to have Regina admit she rapped Graham for three decades. That way Again, it’s not that the writers are unaware of the horrid deeds their characters have done. It’s all about plausible deniability.

There seems to be a disconnect between what the writers say versus what they show. And I think that is because the writers are using doublespeak so as not to offend any one class of fans. They just want to keep as many eye-balls each week as possible. The best way to achieve that is to deny wrongdoings, only promote “hopeful” positive spin, and keep their mouths shut. I also think that they’ve decided to let the character decisions, plot and situations speak for themselves. The writers being business people, are interested in generating buzz, which usually follows big controversial twists like Rumple being the dark one again. As long as the writers don’t offer their own commentary or just stick to a party line, people formulate whatever opinions they wish. But, that doesn’t mean the writers don’t have a real private opinion or that they aren’t really aware of problematic elements (e.g. Jane Espenson saying subtly inserting a line about the problematic elements of Stockholm Syndrome). I think we won’t really find out what the writers were trying to do or say with certain characters or relationships until the show is done though.

I tend to agree with the perspective that the writers seem to be drawing things out, which is why these unhealthy cycles continue each season. There can’t be any real resolution to these issues of Rumple duping Belle without totally making Rumple into a hero (like they temporarily did in S5a). Trouble is, the writers want to keep Rumple a villain for now, so they keep having to present him as an addict who keeps making the same mistakes repetitiously. I don’t think Rumple’s unhealthy habit will ever be solved until the bitter end: either through death/atonement or final TLK (but only when he’s actually ready to let go of the darkness).

"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy

[RumplesGirl]

But, that doesn’t mean the writers don’t have a real private opinion or that they aren’t really aware of problematic elements (e.g. Jane Espenson saying subtly inserting a line about the problematic elements of Stockholm Syndrome).

Of course not. Which is why once a season now we get a heavily focused Neal episode (405 was rife with SF themes and 505 was just straight up SF, really). I tend to think that A and E know they sold their story and their art and occasionally lament that by getting either meta (the S4 finale in which the Author is a total stand in for them, a guy who has a mean boss who says that he [they] don’t writer stories people want to read) or they put the more popular buzz worthy ship aside and write how they really feel. But the next week what happens? It’s back to the “hottest” “buzz worthy” ship out there.

I think we won’t really find out what the writers were trying to do or say with certain characters or relationships until the show is done though.

Oh sure, absolutely. I just, honestly, don’t for a second think they are playing some sort of long con. When you listen to A and E speak they talk about Emma still being a strong woman, they talk about this show being about hope and family, they talk about how Hook and Emma have had to struggle so much but their love is stronger for it. They may not actually believe it internally but money talks and in TV ratings/eyeballs  = money. So if they want their show to continue on for at least another two years (they’ve said they have 7 years worth of stuff) then they have to promote/write/give service to what sells. And that’s why it feels like it’s drawn out: they want to get to 7 seasons so it’s too early (for them) for everyone to be happy without shipping conflict. Look what happens when you have no romantic obstacles: you become Snowing.

ETA: however you and I have had this conversation many many times. If it so happens that in the end it was all a long con and they go back to some sort of morally upright thesis, then I’ll go along for the ride and give you a cookie. I just..I just can’t put any sort of #hope into that ever again.

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[nevermore]

There seems to be a disconnect between what the writers say versus what they show. And I think that is because the writers are using doublespeak so as not to offend any one class of fans.

You know, I love this idea of doublespeak — if nothing else, it has these delightfully Orwellian overtones, and imagining OUAT as a dissident text written in such a way that the Ministry of Truth censors couldn’t pick up on the subtext is sort of wonderful. Or ambiguously like  Shakespearean play — is Hamlet really crazy or faking it, that sort of thing. But I guess I’m just too much of a cynic — I think the doublespeak has more to do with the fact that the right hand doesn’t know what the left one is doing. In other words, I think different writers are doing different things, and aren’t necessarily writing “in unison” and with one message in mind. I guess one can look it up, but I wonder about the contradictions: like Henry one day saying he doesn’t like Hook, and on another episode helping him find a house for Emma and him. Is this written by the same writers? I think it’s this sort of “jerking” characters back and forth that I find most problematic and troubling.

[MatthewPaul]

You know, I love this idea of doublespeak — if nothing else, it has these delightfully Orwellian overtones, and imagining OUAT as a dissident text written in such a way that the Ministry of Truth censors couldn’t pick up on the subtext is sort of wonderful. Or ambiguously like Shakespearean play — is Hamlet really crazy or faking it, that sort of thing. But I guess I’m just too much of a cynic — I think the doublespeak has more to do with the fact that the right hand doesn’t know what the left one is doing. In other words, I think different writers are doing different things, and aren’t necessarily writing “in unison” and with one message in mind. I guess one can look it up, but I wonder about the contradictions: like Henry one day saying he doesn’t like Hook, and on another episode helping him find a house for Emma and him. Is this written by the same writers? I think it’s this sort of “jerking” characters back and forth that I find most problematic and troubling.

The thing is, if this is really the case, then it’s still on Adam and Eddy. Adam and Eddy have final script approval, so if they see any problems with the way their writers are writing their characters, then they should step in and tell them “no, you can’t do this. This isn’t how we want to portray the characters. Fix it.”

[RumplesGirl]

I guess one can look it up, but I wonder about the contradictions: like Henry one day saying he doesn’t like Hook, and on another episode helping him find a house for Emma and him. Is this written by the same writers?

Shattered Sight: Scott Nimfero and Tze Chun (Henry doesn’t like Hook)

Birth: David H. Goodman and Jerome Schwartz

So, nope. Not the same writers. But I think you’re overall point is the same…there’s a pretty disconnect in how characters are written and portrayed from episode to episode.

The thing is, if this is really the case, then it’s still on Adam and Eddy. Adam and Eddy have final script approval, so if they see any problems with the way their writers are writing their characters, then they should step in and tell them “no, you can’t do this. This isn’t how we want to portray the characters. Fix it.”

However, this is also true which means that A and E either 1) don’t really understand their characters 2) don’t really care if there are inconsistencies or 3) don’t see the inconsistencies in writing from week to week.

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[RumplesGirl]

I wanted to come back to something Keb wrote above:

As I said earlier, we have seen all the leading men in tears, and we have seen two men raped (via magic)

The reason I’m bringing this up has to do with what I said a page back: it’s hard for me to ignore everything A and E have said outside of the show concerning what is happening in the show. Yes, we’ve seen two men raped but if you were to ask A and E, they deny it being rape at all. With Graham and Regina, they could be playing Scrabble (according to Adam) since we never saw what went on in the room during those council meetings (insert my massive eye roll here) and with Zelena and Robin, it was called a vile thing, and Robin was called unwilling, but they purposefully get around calling it rape.

We’ve also seen women raped–either because they get drunk and led back to a place for sex (Hook’s tactic he told Emma about in S3 finale), because they are scammed (Cora and Jonathan and of course Cora here says that she gave away her virtue to him), and in the case of Guinevere are mind raped (and as far as I’m concerned straight up raped since I’m sure Arthur was still claiming his “rights” as a husband from his now more pliable wife).

My point, in our discussion of gender, is that the writers are not actively trying to say anything about gender roles. These rapes, which could in theory be used for a discussion of gender, gender equality, and power dynamics, are simply used as plot points without any conversation happening about said plot point and its relationship to gender. They are simply written in to advance the plot to the endgame without pausing to think or acknowledge.

In other words, they show men raped but they never acknowledge it to be that and never have any sort of worthwhile fall out. They show women raped, but they never acknowledge that it is that and never have any sort of worthwhile fall out.

So while Keb is right that we’ve seen something that is normally never shown in TV I don’t think it’s actually a positive note for the show because of the way it’s treated, which is to say it’s not treated at all.

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[PriceofMagic]

With Graham and Regina, they could be playing Scrabble (according to Adam) since we never saw what went on in the room during those council meetings (insert my massive eye roll here) and with Zelena and Robin, it was called a vile thing, and Robin was called unwilling, but they purposefully get around calling it rape.

We even saw Graham and Regina getting dressed so it’s obvious what was going on, and since Graham didn’t know who Regina really was, as the huntsman and Evil Queen, he would’ve never slept with her willingly.

With Zelena and Robin, the issue is that whilst it was so obviously rape, they couldn’t have Regina make a big deal about because she did the same thing to Graham and it would make her look like a hypocrite.

We’ve also seen women raped–either because they get drunk and led back to a place for sex (Hook’s tactic he told Emma about in S3 finale), because they are scammed (Cora and Jonathan and of course Cora here says that she gave away her virtue to him.

I have to disagree here. I don’t think Cora was raped by Jonathan, she made the decision to sleep with him because she thought him rich. Although she later regretted that decision, he didn’t force her. She was a fully grown woman who chose to have sex with a man. Yes he lied to her about his status because he wanted to sleep with her but he didn’t force her or coerce her into sleeping with him, that was Cora’s own choice.

As for Hook, that’s a difficult one to call. There’s different levels of drunk on a sliding scale, there’s tipsy at the lower end where you’re a bit merry but are still able to make rational decisions then there is the opposite end where you’re so drunk you’re basically comatose and you have no awareness of your surroundings. If the women were only “tipsy” and agreed to sleep with Hook willingly then I wouldn’t call it rape. If however, it was the other end of the scale then I would agree that what Hook did was rape.

All magic comes with a price!

Keeper of Felix

[RumplesGirl]

I don’t think Cora was raped by Jonathan, she made the decision to sleep with him because she thought him rich. Although she later regretted that decision, he didn’t force her. She was a fully grown woman who chose to have sex with a man. Yes he lied to her about his status because he wanted to sleep with her but he didn’t force her or coerce her into sleeping with him, that was Cora’s own choice.

No, I agree actually. I was using her as an example of a woman who gave up her virtue (her quote) and was paid a ton of consequences but the man didn’t. It was poor wording on my part.

If the women were only “tipsy” and agreed to sleep with Hook willingly then I wouldn’t call it rape. If however, it was the other end of the scale then I would agree that what Hook did was rape.

Well that’s part of the problem isn’t it? And what I was saying above. The writers use rape–or as I more often than not call it, wonk consent–to move plot without every actually thinking through any of those consequences. They have Hook drop a line like getting women drunk and taking them back to the JR for sex, or they have Regina and Graham sleeping together when he’s clearly not “The Huntsman” because he’s cursed but they never give any sort of commentary on it. They just have it happen and move on to the next plot point. This is what leads to massive culture wars between the fandom.

 

"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"

[Author]

Posts