I have just binge listened to Master about Neil Gaiman and although it's replete with trigger warnings it doesn't warn us about listening to a sociopath impersonating a caring person. It's far, far worse than the usual male defence.
Yeah, it's very sinister isn't it. I thought that was a great series for showing the complexity of abusive relationships -- considerably stronger for not shying away from the contradictory nature of the women's communications.
I don't know much about Nancy. (Though I'm old enough to have seen the movie a few times, listened to The Sex Pistols in high school, and come across a lot of Nancy adjacent culture.)
But the idea of her attaching herself to an aggressive man as a mark against her rubs me the wrong way. If I could get rid of one myth, it would be the myth that people seek out bad people and ignore their red flags instead of the reality - people who end up with bad people are blind to the red flags. It's more like a disability than an act of agency, and to hold that against her seems cruel or at best misguided.
To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying *I* hold this against her, but that it's a fact of her personality and story that makes her difficult to fit into the dominant narratives we have for reinterpreting the victimisation of women by men -- which are shaped by an understanding of workplace sexual harassment. I'm not sure it makes sense to say people who end up with bad people are always blind to the red flags, given that there are definitely some cases where people (for whatever complicated reasons to do with past trauma or personal vulnerability) appear to select partners out of a positive preference for danger. But the notion of seeing this as a disability rather than a choice is a strong one, and probably helpful.
I have just binge listened to Master about Neil Gaiman and although it's replete with trigger warnings it doesn't warn us about listening to a sociopath impersonating a caring person. It's far, far worse than the usual male defence.
Yeah, it's very sinister isn't it. I thought that was a great series for showing the complexity of abusive relationships -- considerably stronger for not shying away from the contradictory nature of the women's communications.
I don't know much about Nancy. (Though I'm old enough to have seen the movie a few times, listened to The Sex Pistols in high school, and come across a lot of Nancy adjacent culture.)
But the idea of her attaching herself to an aggressive man as a mark against her rubs me the wrong way. If I could get rid of one myth, it would be the myth that people seek out bad people and ignore their red flags instead of the reality - people who end up with bad people are blind to the red flags. It's more like a disability than an act of agency, and to hold that against her seems cruel or at best misguided.
To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying *I* hold this against her, but that it's a fact of her personality and story that makes her difficult to fit into the dominant narratives we have for reinterpreting the victimisation of women by men -- which are shaped by an understanding of workplace sexual harassment. I'm not sure it makes sense to say people who end up with bad people are always blind to the red flags, given that there are definitely some cases where people (for whatever complicated reasons to do with past trauma or personal vulnerability) appear to select partners out of a positive preference for danger. But the notion of seeing this as a disability rather than a choice is a strong one, and probably helpful.