Full disclosure: I’m a 25 year old guy, and I tend to disagree with Anita Sarkeesian on pretty much everything. It’s entirely possible that I am completely off the mark in this post and I should lock myself in a room with a hungry lion.



I also don’t write much and am a total snark. You have been warned.



So, I finished Jessica Jones today. While it had its issues, it was certainly an enjoyable series. And I found myself thinking:

“This is a piece of modern media featuring a female protagonist and major female supporting characters. What does Anita Sarkeesian think?”

I didn’t have to look far to find out, as she’d posted her thoughts on the subject just last week. I’ll go through the parts I found interesting. The remainder of this post is addressed directly to Anita Sarkeesian.

Hi Anita! I’m reading your post. Let’s talk about it. Apologies in advance for my brash and snarky demeanor.



The new Netflix series Jessica Jones has so much potential, and I watched it in the hopes that it might deliver on that. Unfortunately, the show reminded me of something I learned through a series of failed relationships in my 20s: on its own, potential doesn’t mean much of anything.

All righty.

What were your problems with it?

Of course, we need stories about survivors, models of women (and men) who do the heroic work of putting one foot in front of the other and trying to heal after suffering traumatic experiences. But too often, a history of abuse is used as part of a female hero’s origin story, part of what gives them their strength.

Hmm.



I don’t think it’s inherently bad to have that kind of origin story. Could be an overused trope, but I’m not sure. Still, I don’t find myself disagreeing entirely with you, Anita. Tell me more.



…the show shuns the opportunity to depict something akin to a genuine attempt at recovery in favor of portraying Jones as being above such things. A support group is formed for people who have been violated by the villain, Kilgrave, but Jessica never participates. In reality, many people who have been traumatized carry around a tremendous amount of shame and do avoid opportunities for help and support. However, having the show’s hero be the one character who doesn’t ask for help suggests that it’s stronger and braver not to seek help, when it’s actually just the opposite.

Damn. I jinxed it.

So, Anita, here’s what you basically just said. Keep in mind, I’m paraphrasing:



When the show’s protagonist makes bad decisions, it gives the impression that those decisions are actually good decisions.

By your logic, I could argue that Iron Man 2 suggests it’s good to use military exoskeletons while batshit drunk. But I won’t argue that, because the point of a protagonist is not to make the best possible choice in every situation and ignore their history, emotions, or thought process.

Point being: the notion that the show idealizes Jessica’s behavior is nothing short of ludicrous. In fact, the show goes out of its way to acknowledge and demonstrate Jessica’s flaws (and emphasize that they are flaws). That’s part of what makes the character so engaging. While her heart is in the right place, she makes poor decisions, suffers from PTSD, and has major issues with trust and emotional connections. Kind of how an actual trauma victim might end up.

TL;DR: Jessica Jones is not "above” getting help. She is handling her feelings poorly.

So, I hope you can see why you were just…wrong, on that point.

Let’s see…



Further undermining the show’s handling of trauma recovery is the fact that the support group of Kilgrave survivors is easily whipped up into an angry mob misguidedly seeking revenge against Jessica…this sacrificing of character development to ratchet up the tension in ways that feel implausible and manipulative repeats throughout Jessica Jones. The character of Simpson veers unbelievably from seemingly sweet, trustworthy guy to murderous psychopath.

Yeah, I’ll give you this one.

Simpson’s extremely wooden actor notwithstanding, the whole angry mob thing did seem rather out of place. Fortunately, it wasn’t so bad that it ruined my suspension of disbelief. Though the show is certainly guilty of crossing that line elsewhere –– like when Simpson throws Jessica through a brick wall but can’t break down a wooden bathroom door –– I chose to overlook that particular event. But it’s understandably distracting.

Hey, we agreed on something. Let’s try for more.



It’s understandable that Jones would have trouble trusting anyone; the way she was treated by Kilgrave is nothing short of horrifying. And in the all too rare moments when Jessica Jones shows Kilgrave using his powers of mind control to peel back people’s psychological defenses and hit them at their most vulnerable, it’s frightening to observe, in part because it’s such a clear reflection of actual psychological manipulation and abuse.

Yep, I hear you…keep going…



Perhaps the most frightening aspect of Kilgrave is that he actually believes his own sick rationalizations; he believes that on some level, Jessica wanted what he did to her…his delusion that she had consented when in reality she had no ability to do so is frighteningly similar to the tales of rapists who don’t believe that their sexual encounters constitute assault and abuse.



I agree!

One-hundred percent! Can we agree for the rest of your post?

…the show is self-indulgent in depicting [Kilgrave’s] sadistic manipulation of victim after victim. Initially, some of this serves to establish Kilgrave’s villainy and the extent of his powers, but it quickly becomes too much. These displays of Kilgrave’s power ultimately lose whatever horrifying impact they may have had at first and become sensationalized as the show keeps trying to raise the stakes and outdo what it has done before. They become something we’re meant to look forward to with grim anticipation. What gruesome and horrifying thing is Kilgrave going to force someone to do next? He makes people do things like toss hot coffee in their own faces or impale themselves on large gardening shears. Yes, this encourages us to hate him, but as a being of pure evil rather than as someone we can understand in human terms…being able to write off such people as purely, intrinsically evil doesn’t get us anywhere.

CURSES. SO CLOSE.

Did you forget what you’d just written? The part I agreed with? About Kilgrave having rationalizations, delusions, and all that? He’s definitely not pure evil, nor is he portrayed as such.

To be clear: he’s unnecessarily cruel, even for a psychopath, but he doesn’t commit random acts of depravity for the fun of it. In fact, his most horrible acts are either in retaliation for being wronged (in his mind) or a simple means to an end. This behavior plays less like a complete monster and more like a young child.

In fact, psychologically, he’s the very definition of a child. I looked up the TV Tropes page while writing this post, and found this gem:

Although he puts on an act of sophistication, Kilgrave has a hair-trigger temper and almost no self-control to speak of. He has a tendency to overreact to any slight or insult and resent not getting his way, which he views as his just due. Towards the end of the season it is revealed that he gained his powers when he was a child and never had to leave the juvenile fantasy world.



Nailed it.

Kilgrave’s attitude is that of a child because he never had to grow up.

He knows exactly what he wants, he has to have it, and he throws tantrums when things aren’t going how he wants.

Anyways. What were your words, exactly?

These displays of Kilgrave’s power…become sensationalized as the show keeps trying to raise the stakes and outdo what it has done before…this encourages us to hate him, but as a being of pure evil rather than as someone we can understand in human terms…being able to write off such people as purely, intrinsically evil doesn’t get us anywhere.



Maybe you don’t actually think those things. Maybe you’re only criticizing the potential effects of this portrayal. And maybe you forgot what you wrote about him a few paragraphs ago. But for somebody to come across as purely, intrinsically evil, they need to enjoy hurting people for no other reason than it’s causing pain and misery to someone. Just someone. By contrast, Kilgrave (usually) only hurts people because he personally stands to benefit or wants to see that particular person suffer.

Our ability to relate to why he’s doing these things is what sets his more extreme actions apart from the scenes of a torture porn film. He’s not pure evil, just immature, and as Jessica pushes him further, the scale of his reaction increases horribly — but still plausibly and understandably. Never does it become “sensationalized” violence for its own sake.

TL;DR: Kilgrave is a cruel, selfish, murderous, psychopathic manchild. But he is not evil incarnate, and viewing him as such is a gross oversimplification of his character.



Let me close this on a note that only bears some relation to what came first.



Anita, I have no problem with you personally.

You’re a brilliant businesswoman. I respect and support your goal of ensuring positive female representation in media. It’s something we need more of, for sure. I just disagree with…well, just about everything you say.

And you know what?

That’s all right.

Criticism does not mean “fuck you and everything you stand for.”

At least, not necessarily.

More often, it really means, “Hey, let’s start a discussion so that I can understand your position better,” and so rarely does that happen. Hopefully we both understand each other better.



Assuming you’re even reading this, of course.