Murder is Ok, but Threatening Rape or Calling a Lady a ”Quim” is Simply Going Too Far.

I decided to dive deeper into the Avengers/Thor fandom, partly because I like the movies, partly out of nostalgia (I used to read a lot of fanfics), partly because I’m writing a superhero comic and want to find out more about why some fictional guys end up with so many fangirls. Because if I write a villain, he has to have fangirls. You know your villain is a successful villain if everyone wants to bang him.

Anyway, I want to talk about Loki. I noticed he has some normal fans, and some “apologists”. Normal fans and fangirls think he’s cool as he is, bad and sympathetic. But there are also people who can’t seem to handle the fact that he’s bad, and try to make up excuses for him. That could be “Thor and Odin killed people too”. Or it could be “He was mind-controlled the whole Avengers movie” (I hate that one the most, because it robs a cool character of their whole character and agency). I even remember reading that screenwriters themselves are mean to Loki, because he’s the nerd among the jocks, looks vaguely Jewish compared to his Aryan-looking friends, defies gender norms by using magic instead of brawn. Thus the movie is racist, sexist, and teaches us that nerds are evil.

They are entitled to their own opinions of course, but so am I. And to me, this kind of thing looks like the fictional version of looking at a killer in jail and saying “I looked into his eyes and felt that he was innocent”. And if you like some bad guy, IMO it’s best to at least not hold any illusions about him.

But there is also another explanation. Some viewers end up sympathizing and identifying with this character, and maybe projecting something of themselves onto him. Lots of people say Loki is kinda feminine in some ways, so it’s no wonder that fangirls identify with him. He can shapeshift, he uses magic (women’s work) and is feeling overlooked the same way some women feel overlooked in the man’s world. Lots to identify with, for some.

But then he says things that make those who identify with him feel conflicted about their identification. One is threatening to “pay Thor’s girlfriend a visit”. He actually doesn’t mention sex at all, but a lot of people’s minds jumped directly to rape when he said that. Is a rape threat implied, or is it just a typical reaction for those affected by feminist rape hysteria? Could be either. Anyway, the second troubling thing he says is his threatening speech to the Black Widow.

“I won’t touch Barton. Not until I make him kill you; slowly, intimately, in every way he knows you fear. And then he’ll wake just long enough to see his good work, and when he screams, I’ll split his skull! This is my bargain, you mewling quim!”

I had no idea, but I just checked, and quim actually means vagina. He called a woman a cunt!.. It’s funny how it went over most people’s heads. Some did find out though, especially feminist geeks, and found it offensive and uncharacteristic.

I guess it sucks when you start liking a character because he seems to fit a whole bunch of SJW-decided victim classes at once, but then he disappoints by acting like the oppressor class. Damn villains, acting like villains.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Feminism, Movies&music and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Murder is Ok, but Threatening Rape or Calling a Lady a ”Quim” is Simply Going Too Far.

  1. Spawny Get says:

    Nice analysis. Hamsterbatics in full show. Is this the female mirror of men that go chubby chasing? Where the logic might be that by ‘choosing’ to chase the truly obese, a guy is removing a lot of competition for the woman he ‘wants’? It’s kind of claiming that he is able to get the woman he wants, so he’s winning. But…he’s only winning because he has no competition, because he chose women that nobody else wants.

    as a side note that doesn’t affect your post’s thrust

    ‘Quim’ is not a word I’ve heard much, but my reaction to the word isn’t that it’s on a par with ‘cnut’, it’s more like ‘fanny’ or ‘pussy’. You’d (more usually) use it talk about the anatomical feature, not the woman. It’s not in the best possible taste, but it’s not hard core insulting either.

    Your dictionary definition might vary. And the usage in the quote IS that he’s calling the woman something, but more like a mewling pussy IMHO (that is an image, and it works for the sounds a kitten makes).

    But as to the harshness? that’s the word from my parts of the wild streets of England, yo

    • Haha, I date someone who actually likes BBWs, and he’d tell you that fat women are not necessarily easy to bed. Women in general are not easy to bed. So I don’t know. Are there chubby chasers that somehow make themselves (or just other people) convinced that they truly desire obese women, when it’s not true?

      As for quim, I have no idea how offensive it is, I just saw that some people took it very seriously 🙂 . Is it supposed to be a very bad word in England, or not?

      Btw, I love the word “hamsterbatics”, thank you for introducing it to me.

    • Wait, ignore my question, you seem to have explaned the offensiveness of quim already.

      • Spawny Get says:

        (re Wait – No problem. been there, seen it and done it myself. it’s the problem with replying while still reading)

        Hamsterbatics is indeed a great word 😉

        The only chubby chaser that I’ve ever knowingly met wasn’t exactly the average woman’s dream date. So the concept that he’s redefining attractiveness for his own ego’s sake was no great leap. However, I’m sure that there genuinely are guys wired that way. Good luck to ’em, it’s no skin off my nose.

      • I have read it, but didn’t comprehend it the first time around 🙂 Happens sometimes.

        I suppose my bf should have dropped his chubby chasing ways then, since I was quite skinny when he met me. But he told me to gain some weight *shrug*. And he wasn’t too successful with women at the time.

      • Btw, I’m not implying you wrote your explanation of quim incomprehensibly. I just didn’t understand it first time around myself 🙂 Sometimes true understanding happens gradually.

      • Spawny Get says:

        “I just didn’t understand it first time around myself ”

        a) that happens to me too
        b) I do not claim to be a great communicator 😉

  2. Liz says:

    But, Emma, in female romance novels, it’s the good guy who rapes! (well…he was a bad guy…overcome with lust…with a heart of gold, really, because he was misunderstood…then he falls in love…). The novel stops there because no one is interested in reading about a reformed bad-boy in love, unless he’s still doing bad things….Hm. When I think about it, this is sort of like Loki! So I’m surprised anyone balked at the rapey undertone.

    I’ve always thought this is an interesting and strange paradox with modern war, too. It’s okay to kill (encouraged, actually….though concept of proportionality/necessity apply blah blah…) but rape (real rape) is a capital crime (the last person the military executed was a rape offender), and stealing is also anathema. I don’t disagree with the law, I just think it’s a little paradoxical that rape and theft are considered so horrible in areas of the world where people are getting their limbs blown off “legally” and there’s so much destruction and violence all around. War laws themselves can be very strange.

    I’m also reminded of a construction worker who ‘harassed’ a pedestrian by shouting something sexist in Spanish. It was at the base, and the woman complained to the commander. The next day the commander said the worker had gone to a higher-security, ‘worse’ prison. They were employing criminal convicts, you see. So in that vein it shoudln’t really be surprising if they say a few naughty words, should it? They’re convicts! I’d think they’d be subpar convicts if they didn’t say bad things….Humans. We’re funny little creatures, aren’t we? Aliens have probably already come down, watched us, and flew back away very very fast.

    • Lol Liz, now that I think about it, I bet more than one fangirl liked the rapey tone. They vary by how much evil they are willing to accept or admit being ok with.

      I think I can understand the war laws. In war, you pretty much have to fight, you kill or get killed. But they still want to minimize torture, rape, disgraceful stuff such as looting the corpses, etc. It’s not killing vs theft/rape, but rather killing&rape&theft vs. just killing. That’s how I see it. And I imagine they also want to minimize the killing, and keep it to the strictly necessary or unavoidable.

      • Liz says:

        “I think I can understand the war laws. In war, you pretty much have to fight, you kill or get killed. But they still want to minimize torture, rape, disgraceful stuff such as looting the corpses, etc. It’s not killing vs theft/rape, but rather killing&rape&theft vs. just killing. That’s how I see it. And I imagine they also want to minimize the killing, and keep it to the strictly necessary or unavoidable.”

        Of course, you’re right about the above…that’s why the rules can seem so squirrelly. Exigent conditions require a different set of rules. That’s also why soldiers aren’t typically subject to ‘local law’ in the areas they’re set…that poor Jordanian pilot who was burned alive would be an example (lots of crucified people in those areas would be other examples).

      • Liz says:

        Just to add to the above…arbitrary/inhumane punishment is one reason, huge potential for politically motivated prosecutions and/or “extortion justice” is another. Doing a tour in those areas isn’t like electively visiting South France, but it’s surprising how many people (who have never and would never serve in such areas) believe the same rules (local legal jurisdiction) should apply.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      You know what, you were right. Now I found people who thought the whole “quim” speech was hot, Jane slapping Loki was hot, and the whole “you were meant to be ruled” speech was hot. Now someone just needs to write Fifty Shades of Green, change the names, and become the new best-selling author ^_^

  3. Jenny says:

    Have you seen the tv series “Vikings” http://www.history.com/shows/vikings
    It’s pretty good, there is a character based on Loki in it, but he’s a good guy (most of the time)

  4. Liz says:

    Emma: “I think Anakin Skywalker didn’t work out as a total chick magnet, precisely because they tried to make him into a tragic hero that we’re supposed to feel sorry for, on purpose (btw, I actually liked that performance).”

    Thought this was an interesting bit that you wrote at Spawney’s site, Emma. My original posts: 1st“emotional (sometimes physical) vulnerabilities are written into the character for plot development purposes. Your basic, one-dimensional ‘baddy’ isn’t interesting or sexy at all. It’s the contrast people like. Magnito has a big following, too, for this reason “
    And
    2nd“A good example of ‘one dimensionality’, I think, is Anakin.
    Obviously this actor could not act…but the real problem wasn’t that. And he was chosen for his good looks, so the problem wasn’t his looks either. He came across as one-dimensional, even with his ‘sympathetic’ history. When he was bad, he was simply all-bad, and it wasn’t understandable.
    On paper, he should have been the ultimate chick-magnet, with his background, “power” capability, and all that. I don’t follow fan-fiction but I’d be willing to bet Groot (even baby Groot) has more fans.”

    Here’s my question in reponse to your post: Don’t all “good” villains have some sort of tragic backstory? Magnito, Loki, and so forth…Sometimes, they come through as “heroes” too (Loki helps Thor, Magnito helps Charles, act). How do you perceive them to be different form Anakin in this way?

    • Hmm, I might be wrong, but I perceive Anakin to be different, because they simply showed too much of him. It’s nice to get a glimpse into a villain’s tragic backstory, but don’t keep shoving it into our faces. I guess Anakin’s wangst overstayed its welcome. Showed itself too often, too much 😀 What do you think?

      Oh, and not to mention the bad dialogue. I don’t think the actor was bad himself – almost everyone felt flat and unnatural in the prequels. But I think the bad dialogue and flat characterization contributed to the character of Anakin falling flat, too.

      Btw, Padme married him after he slaughtered a bunch of sand families, but rejected him after he killed human children. Am I the only one who thought this was inconsistent?

      • Liz says:

        “I guess Anakin’s angst overstayed its welcome. Showed itself too often, too much 😀 What do you think?”

        You might be right. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, it did have kind of a long, drawn-out quality to it. “Dear viewer, notice the angst? Get it? GET IT?”
        And you’re spot on about the awful dialogue.

        Per the sand families/human children, I’m not so sure. There seemed more reason for the former (even if it was just blood rage/vengence) than the latter. The Jedi children really hadn’t done ANYTHING wrong (aside from being ‘good’ I suppose)…whereas I think the viewer (and Padme) can justify eradicating the sand families that killed his mother as a ‘bad element’ of beings who consistently did ‘bad things’, and would continue to do so.

      • But sand family kids probably didn’t get the chance to do much harm, either. And they were kids, with limited culpability. And generally, kids shouldn’t have to pay for their parents’ crimes. This moment should have definitely given Padme something to think about. At least to me, her behavior at this moment makes no sense. But then I wouldn’t shoot baby Hitler, either.

      • Liz says:

        Just thinking further on the sand people versus children thing…Slaughtering the children kind of had that element of perfidy to it, too.
        He was absolutely trusted by them, and they did nothing wrong to him, and he slaughtered them, which makes it less humane/less understandable.

  5. Eric says:

    It’s interesting that the heroes are always single while the villains all have harems of fangirls.

    So how art reflects real life! LOL

  6. Matthew Chiglinsky says:

    I don’t like the term “rape hysteria”. They are a lot guys who go around committing date rape and use “rape hysteria” as an excuse for treating nice girls like garbage.

    I really don’t care what happens to the sluts, but leave the nice girls alone.

    Yes, it’s interesting how complicated Loki is, the way he started off good (like Darth Vader and Satan) and then turned evil (like Darth Vader and Satan). But it seems pretty obvious that he’s the bad guy because he attacks people without provocation, whereas the good guys (like Thor) generally act in self-defense. Anyone who idealizes or makes excuses for Loki is a sociopath.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s