'The Killing' is Kinda Killing Me

SPOILERS for True Detective, Twin Peaks, and The Killing


I haven't finished it yet, but  there are two things in The Killing  that led to me  thinking it is just... Reeeeeally problematic. Okay, so if there's one trope I'm really tired of, it's the "whore gets killed" one in film and on TV (and yeah, I'm sure in books). One version is the Disposable Sex Worker trope, wherein the drama in the piece of pop culture in question centers on the quest to search for the murderer of at least one prostitute. A recent example that garnered much critical acclaim is True Detective. Now, don't get me wrong- I thought it was a fantastic piece of television, and it did a fabulous job of raising some poignant questions. It was well-acted, well-directed, and well-filmed. But the entire plot rested on the objectification of women's bodies, and not a single damn woman in the series had an existence that didn't depend on a man's. Because even the prostitutes at the brothel the detectives visit at one point, their whole schtick and reason to exist in the series is to service men and to be interviewed by the male detectives (or saved, too- another tired trope) (of course, SPOILER, dude ends up sleeping with her later... ugh). Anyway, my point is, I enjoyed the miniseries, but there was no humanity given to any of the victims, not even the main one whose murder the detectives were trying to solve. She's described basically as a whore and a junkie, useless and trashy.

Another and related trope, one I wish had an entry on TV Tropes but doesn't, is what I'm going to call the "Good Girl Has Secret Sex Life (That Kills Her)" trope. I started to really put my finger on this one when watching through Twin Peaks with my roommie in the fall. As Agent Cooper looks into the murder of Laura Palmer, we discover she wasn't the sweet, angelic highschooler all the adults in town thought she was- rather, she was a promiscuous drug addict that knew all sorts of shady dudes that could have potentially been the one(s) to rape and murder her. There's even this really disturbing subplot that she was having sex with her psychologist and left him sexy recordings of her voice. And so as Cooper discovers more and more about her, she's changed from a vivacious homecoming queen to a secret fille fatale that goes after adults instead of "silly highschool boys."

So this brings me to The Killing. In this one, the victim is another highschooler, like Laura Palmer, that supposedly everybody liked and was a good girl and all that kinda jazz. Her name is Rosie. But we quickly learn there's a dude she's been having sex with for at least a year; when a video made the night she was killed is found of that guy and one of his friends raping her (or at least it sure looks like rape), and the two highschool boys are shown it, they both smirk and laugh and dismiss it, one of them flat-out saying, "You ain't got shit." And later in that same episode, the police show Rosie's parents some huge high heels and costume jewelry that they don't recognize as being Rosie's, but those detectives are pretty sure it is. And finally, at the end of the episode, it's heavily implied that Rosie was sleeping with one of her teachers. The thing with the teacher is dragged on and on through the season, and is never fully resolved (I mean, we find out he had been trying to save a Muslim girl at his mosque from an arranged marriage, but it's still never completely proven Rosie and the teacher didn't have inappropriate relations). And toward the end of the season, we find out that she was sneaking around with a fake license to do things like go to casinos. And in the end, it turns out she was basically pulling a Laura Palmer and was taking part in an "introduction service" (read: prostitution/call-girl service) and it was through this that she met her killer.

I should point out, the marketing was strikingly similar between Twin Peaks and The Killing, too. The question of, "Who killed Laura Palmer?" was one of the taglines for the show; "Who killed Rosie Larsen?" is one for The Killing: 

Yet much of both of these shows emphasizes the sex life of the girl whose murder is being solved, not her killer. Seems a little disingenuine, and the tagline should really read, "Who did [character name] sleep with?" or, "How trashy was [character name]?"

SIDENOTE: There's also some backstory with the main character, Detective Linden, involving a former case that drove her a little over the edge. Said case involved a "dead hooker" (direct quote) that had been "slashed in her apartment" and dead for two weeks- with her six-year-old son trapped in there with her. It's not directly related, but still of note because it's framed as a defining thing for Linden, and it involved a "dead hooker." Literally the only description this victim gets, aside from the word victim, is the aforementioned "dead hooker" line. Her only purpose for being  brought up is as a plot device for angst and mental instability on Linden's part.

And it's important to note that while some time in the first couple episodes of S2, when the sorta-boyfriend gets interrogated again, he claims he and Rosie never slept together because  she'd cry  whenever he tried, we were certainly led to believe for nigh a whole season she had been having regular sex with him, or at least used to- and that this fact somehow contributed to her death. So, you know, teenaged girls can't have sex without being raped and murdered. 

And why does this bother me so? Well, for a few reasons.

I feel like both versions, the out-right prostitute, or the "whoring good girl," so to speak, put the victims on trial. Their backstory and history comes under scrutiny, their humanity is diminished, and they become less of a homicide (and usually rape) victim, and more of a Bad Woman/Girl that got what she deserved or, not-quite-literally dug her own grave. The investigation becomes an attack on the character as a person, under the ruse of tracking down the killer.

And I know prostitutes do get killed, etc. But that's not the point. These overused tropes are easy ways to build up edgy suspense. When the viewers are thinking, "What shady business was that girl into that got her killed?" rather than, "What sick asshole would do that?", we're emphasizing the wrong thing. Because no woman "deserves" or "asks for" being raped, let alone raped and murdered. It's just like how in real life, when a rape victim comes forward, she gets asked how revealing her clothing was, did she guard her drink, why was she out that late in the first place, etc. From a cultural standpoint, it's problematic, because it reinforces notions that a woman is somehow at fault or responsible for whatever violence a man inflicts on her*.

And also, the idea that if a teenager has consensual sex with a boy  her own age, she's a whore that deserves to die... it's just... I mean God. I get that perhaps underaged sex is problematic, but to send the message that it's going to get the girl killed (and, note, the boy doesn't even go to jail for anything, despite being caught drinking more than once). That just says sex is scary and leads to lack of information which leads to more teen pregnancies and just... (And no, I'm not saying that teen pregnancies are going to rise now that The Killing has aired, I'm just saying, teens are gonna bone, it doesn't have to always be about jealousy and murder.)

And when it comes to writing in general... it's lazy. Can you not come up with anything more original?

Really, when it comes to Rosie's backstory, the writers are just throwing tropes against the wall like they were spaghetti: Shady past, alleged teen seductress, the "who's the daddy" game (there's drahmah about that in S2, too), the best friend that's jealous because she's Hollywood homely and Rosie is the one all the boys paid attention to (turns out it was her in the video that looked like a rape)... I'm sure there are more, I just can't think of them. Except with respect to the Native Americans in S2.

Which brings me to the second big problem  I'm having with the show. 

In the S2 opener, Rosie's bloody backpack turns up on her parents' front porch. This is like two weeks after she was found, and after the D.A. filed charges on a member of the Seattle city counsel that was running for Mayor (it comes out that the current mayor faked some pictures to frame him). So this is shit-tastic scary- if the killer is out of commission (the city councilman got shot in the S1 finale), why would her backpack show up out of nowhere?

Enter the local natives: So the casino that Rosie was going to in order to presumably meet men through that service was at an Indian casino on tribal lands, property of the fictional Kulamish tribe. And in Season 2, the detectives dig deeper into the casino, and they come across Chief Jackson, a hardass gal that runs the casino and the tribe. In our introduction to her, she goes on about Sacred Mother Earth and some other vague hippie stuff people always assume  is associated with indigenous culture. In the first couple episodes of the season, the writers bait the audience into thinking maybe Chief Jackson is in on the murder: She uses thuggish scare tactics with her minions, going so far as to having Linden's partner ASSAULTED by a group of tribal men, she keeps a special room that our detectives are certain has evidence off-limits, she tries to cover up the fact that one of her tribe's members was the person that found Rosie's backpack, and she and her thugs all make claims of trespassing on the part of the Seattle police (she even says it to the councilman running for mayor)- and, importantly, us that as justification for said beating of Linden's partner (when it's really because of the cover-up aspects). And most of the Native adults speak in that kind of forced high, slow, overly-careful, Shatner-esque way that the dudes in this video fake when the white people enter their store (and Chief Jackson does it too, but only sometimes- she has the "accent" during her little storytelling session, but it's gone when she has her meeting with the politicians):

And why does this bother me so? While we do find out that (WHEW!) Rosie was just a maid and waitress at the casino, not a prostitute, it's at the expense of indigenous culture. And this fictional tribe is portrayed as basically a mafia, with a ruthless, bloodthirsty mob boss (Jackson- what an ironic name) as their leader. It's so hard to find representations of Native Americans in pop culture, and when they occur, they usually suck. I know I'm young, but I'm already bloody tired of Noble Savages and Tonto Talk, and now this? What, now tribes are actually just the Sopranos, but with casinos (read: tribal-run brothels) instead of strip clubs?

It's problematic because stereotypes are all the vast majority of white people know. And when that's all they know, they think they're legit. That's why there are still people that think Washington D.C.'s team name shouldn't be changed, that Tonto is "accurate" and (shudder) "culturally sensitive," that wearing a Pocahottie costume is a "tribute," why a lot of people genuinely assume every Native American just gets a "free check" every year for no reason, other than their being  Native American. 

So what is The Killing doing by turning its chief Jackson into a mafioso-type? Adding new, negative stereotypes to the mix of all of the preexisting ones- that tribal casinos are actually sex trafficking rackets that are run as rough and tumble as the Bada Bing, and that any white person that sets foot on tribal lands without the intent to spend money (or, you know, buy a whore) will get put in the hospital. What the fuck, writers?

And I know I'm drawing at straws, here, but while they spend at least the first half of S2 setting Chief Jackson up as yet another potential killer, or at least facilitator of the murder, she doesn't have her own entry on the Wiki page for the show's characters. Which says to me they really don't give a damn about her or the other indigenous people,  really, but rather are just using the Kulamish tribe to set up future plot stuff,  like  the potential for the falsely-accused councilman to eventually become corrupt or something, or to demonstrate how corrupt the current mayor already is- as in, for the development of the white dudes.  Which, like with all of the tropes surrounding Rosie and  her  backstory, is just lazy writing. AN ENTIRE GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE A PLOT DEVICE. Could they not think of something better for the tribe to do? How about Chief Jackson giving a damn about the dead girl? Or at least show us more as to why she's such a hardass. 

I'm like halfway through Season 2. I'll finish it, make no mistake- if only because I want to know who the frak actually did it. I mean, I'll give the writers this, they're definitely doing all they can to toss red herrings and confuse the audience. But I wish they could do it in ways that weren't reductive of women and indigenous people (and that weren't just overdone in general). Maybe the next curveball will be better- I'm hoping so, at least. But it just kinda  kills me- it's obvious the writers are good. And there are lots of great things about the show- I think my favorite plotline involves how Rosie's dad is affected (her mom, though, ugh...). He breaks my heart. So do her brothers, and her aunt. Rosie's family is the best thing about this show. And I also really like the councilman and his story- his backstory is pretty good (although it DOES rely heavily on the death of his wife, ugh), his relationships with both of his campaign advisers are very different but both very emotional and touching, and his scenes are some of my favorite. So yeah, I'll keep going, and I'm rooting for some characters. And these writers, too- that they break out of some of these overdone plot elements and come up with some new stuff. And I'm hoping we figure out more about the fictional Kulamish people (although again, if Chief Jackson doesn't have her own character entry, I'm guessing  she's only going to show up one or two more times at this point).

Here's hoping, at least.

*Yes, I know violence happens  to men, but these tropes only really occur in pop culture with women being killed by men, and the stereotypes perpetuated IRL are the same. 

On Love and Toilet Paper

In January, I got some new neighbors upstairs. I haven't actually talked to them, but it was apparent they're a heterosexual couple because I saw them kiss while the woman was holding a box she was about to bring inside on their move-in day. The first twoish weeks they were here, I didn't think much else of them, except that one of their cars was in the disabled space from that first day until I finally left that note (and I'm happy to report, they still haven't parked there since, huzzah!).

Some afternoon very close to that day, I was home with River (my dog, for those unfamiliar) and reading with some music playing softly in the background. She lifted her head from my lap and looked up at the ceiling with that well-known dog-head-turn thing, so I asked  her  what was wrong. She then stood, still on the couch (and me, ugh), and pointed her nose, grunting a little at the ceiling. I paused the music and listened. And there was a weird sound coming from the general up-and-over direction that leads towards our balcony. It was kind of like an, "Oooorgh, oooorgh," and not entirely to a rhythm or beat, so I scratched River's head and said, "Honey, that's just pigeons." Because we do get  a lot of them outside sometimes (the floor of the balcony gets covered in poop when there's no snow, ew), and it did sound pretty much like pigeon cooing.

I didn't turn the music back up, so when the sound got louder and more rhythmic, it was also clearer. And  instead of sounding like cooing pigeons, it was... well... a woman moaning in pleasure. Add to it the fact that every now and then, a louder, somewhat surprised and still female human sound  was coupled with the sound of a bed/mattress being pressed hard...

And it occurred  to me that this  was not the first time I'd heard it around that time of day. I thought back, and realized that every afternoon I had been home with River between 2 and 4pm, I had heard those same sounds and mistook them for pigeons because I was usually watching Netflix, and with the sound of the TV, the woman's moans of satisfaction were muffled, just as they  had been while I was reading with the music on in the background.

So then it sort of became a game for me- if I was home, I'd keep the TV or music soft enough to tell when they started, and then I'd turn it up once I took mental note of the time; I soon extended the window of Happy Time from 2-5 instead as a result. But there's definitely no mistaking it now, especially given how I've since also heard the man grunting along with her and saying some rather... mature... things about her taking  what he has and how good her p***y feels. Ahem. I can usually ignore it and not give a damn, but sometimes they get, like, way loud, and there's slamming and it sounds  like something is about to break (whether it's the woman or their bed or even both), and at that point, River usually starts to get anxious- she paces and whines, and, well, then I'm kinda like...

... so I do something like take River outside and/or  turn  up the TV or laptop. She still sometimes looks up at the ceiling, cocking (hah)  her head in curiosity, but she usually does okay when they aren't talking dirty (or at least when the words are indistinguishable). But it's obvious she hears it still. And it's the weirdest when she looks at me for an explanation. And this raises a fundamental question:

How does one explain sex to their dog?

But  seriously, I bring this up because recall that the first and main impression I had of this couple was them kissing until I realized they're also the Sex Champs. So it seems like, damn, they're adorable, have lots of sex... they must have a pretty good relationship, right?*

Well, on Thursday night last week, I got home from teaching, and before taking my coat off, I took River outside to do her stuff. When we were coming back in the building, I could hear shouting. Two voices, man and woman.

Ruh roh, some people are fighting, River, it's okay.

As we went up the stairs, I realized it was coming from... this Sex Champs.

And it's not like I think people that have lots of sex don't fight, but it just surprised me- I've heard the family downstairs fighting  before, so to have it come from somewhere else, and from this particular couple threw me off-guard.

And  the fighting was, not surprisingly, much louder than the sex, even when they get hot-and-heavy enough for me to need to distract myself and River. And while I was changing clothes and trying to set myself up for the  night, I didn't have any TV or music in the background, so I could hear them very clearly.

And they were fighting about money. It didn't surprise me in the least, but it was upsetting. 

And you know what? I was sad at first, and  then angry. Angry because while I'm not naive enough to think all this couple ever fights about is money, it pissed me off that the first time I'm aware they've done anything but fuck each others' brains out, they were instead screaming their heads off over their finances. 

Stupid gorram money.

And to add to the mix, I went to the grocery store Wednesday afternoon, and there was a couple arguing in the parking lot right outside my door. About money. 

Happy Valentine's day, America. THIS, is  the true meaning  of Valentine's Day, consumerism and a strangling capitalist structure: 

If you look at studies or help websites, dating sites  or news outlets, demographic-targeted and even finance websites, looking to figure out what people in relationships fight over, money is always in the top 10. And this isn't to say it's the only source of the problems the couple may be having, nor that if their money problems went away, all other ones would, too.

But speaking from experience, growing up in a low-income household, I can say this, being short on money makes other problems more intense, exacerbates them. And disputes over what to do with what money is there leak their way  into all sorts of stuff.    

"Money doesn't buy happiness."

Not  entirely. But I think it's bullshit if you don't at least admit it makes happiness easier. Or if not happiness, contentment. In relationships, with oneself, in life in general. It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, people. Visual aid, in case you're unfamiliar:

From the Wiki article, hyperlinked above.

I'm going to push a pseudo-anthropological argument,  here. I think we get so worked up over money because the capitalist setup creates a need for products to survive. We've evolved with the basic instinct to fulfill these needs, and there are certain things needed  in order to do that- but those things have been commoditized and turned into products. We must be able to purchase the necessities- we cannot go and get them ourselves. Even the basics of food, water, and shelter are commoditized. So financial troubles hit at what is basically the carnal need to survive, because we know, and probably not all that deep within our brains, that nothing in this world is free.

Hell, even our poops have a price on them- I've known people that don't conserve flushes out of environmentally conscious practices, but because every flush not flushed meant a few less pennies on the water bill. 

Or, still on the toilets, are you in a relationship? If so, has there ever been a dispute over how fancy the TP needs to be? I've overheard friends in heterosexual relationships get into arguments about this, and I would usually end up buying fancy TP for my mom and siblings when I visited the family before my parents got a divorce. Why? Because the woman  in the relationship wants nicer and thus more expensive toilet paper, and the man doesn't think it's a necessary expenditure. I myself yelled at my dad once that I wasn't sorry for "undermining" him by buying toilet paper that "wouldn't get stuck up my vagina."** 

Dark comedy, but it's for real. I, as a woman that has a hoo-hah to wipe, must spend more than a man would want to on what, yes, I completely  understand, is a first-world "luxury." But excuse me uber-hippies, I can't help it that I was born into a society that wipes and flushes. That's my personal baseline. I'm not ungrateful for that, but my point is that in order to take care of the primal need to take a gorram piss, I have to consider the cost.

So what do I do? I buy fancy TP and get cheap paper towels. Paper towels, those go on counters and mirrors. Toilet paper? It goes where only I go (which is why it's Valentine's Day and I'm writing about someone else's sex life and what goes on in my bathroom, and why  I've never experienced this fight whilst in my own relationship). 

I'm not saying all men use the kind of garbage you find in stadium restrooms. But what I= am saying is that the root over the Great Toilet Paper Debate isn't really the quality, it's the cost. The dude wants the cheaper one, not because he prefers to wipe his ass and the tip of his dick with a copper scrubber, nor because he wants to passive-aggressively mess with his significant other, but because since stadium-"quality" is cheaper, and maybe his ass-wiping technique is good enough, he doesn't think it's necessary to spend the extra money on something more like this, my TP of Choice:

And now you know far more
about my hoo-hah than anyone else,
save my OBGYN.

I probably seem off-point, but this is an example. 

Fights about toilet paper aren't about toilet paper. They're about finances. The roots of a lot of "issues" couples face are made of money.

I'm not trying to say I think I'd be doing more than sitting on my couch with my dog on Vanentine's Day if I were richer. But I do know for a fact I'd be less stressed if I either had more money, or if money didn't control everything I did, from what I ate to how I take a shit.

I have a friend (one of my dearest, closest friends) in a long-distance-relationship, and he told me yesterday that he was sad because he won't be able to do as many fun/romantic things with his girlfriend this weekend as he would like. His girlfriend he's spending like $100 in gas alone to visit. So it's prolly obvious: He can't do more because he doesn't have the money to do so. And he feels bad for this, as if it's something he has control over (he really doesn't- dude has two jobs, for fuck's sake).

Or my roommate, she spent her first Valentine's Day as a married woman away from her husband. Because they couldn't afford for him to take  the time off and fly out to visit, or vice-versa. They cooked the same meal and watched something together over Skype, but I was so upset for her over that. God, just remembering it now makes my eyes get hot and watery. 

Also, I lost count of how many friends in relationships that asked  me what to get for their S.O.s last year. Ones  that didn't follow my advice went  in a different direction because they couldn't afford what I suggested, and all of those people expressed to me regret that they couldn't afford more. With the others, I was extra-careful to try to think  of something cheap for them, and a few of them even asked for "something  cheap" when consulting me. 

If I ever did (or finally do) have someone special in my life on Valentine's Day, just seeing the stress and upset all of the buying or being unable to buy has caused my friends over the years, I'd insist he only spend time with me- a cuddle-or-more session would be plenty. 

Because there shouldn't be a price tag on love. But there pretty much is in modern society, and it pisses me off. The times I was dumb enough to think a dude was into me, I was a cheap date. It doesn't take much to impress me, just kindness, respect, and attention/affection. Because I don't think what you buy someone is a good measure of how much you love them. What matters is effort, sincerity, loyalty, gentility, patience. 

And I hope that, again, if it happens, my guy and I will be able to get past the money problems by being as responsible as possible, not taking financial things we can't control out on one another, and being open about any worries we have before they turn into fights. I think it's possible for love to beat out the Money Monster, but it's probably really fucking hard to do.

EPILOGUE

That couple above me? Totally having sex. Right the fuck now. They're FUCKING out the Money  Monster...

*I have a friend that suggested it's because one is  cheating. That totally poops on the entire point  of this post, but I'm acknowledging that thesis because it's a legit one that I hadn't thought of before because I'm a romantic and want to assume it's a couple in love having lots of amazing sex. 

**When I visited Mom for the first time since the divorce, I commented positively on the quality of the toilet tissue in the bathroom. She said, "Well, your Dad isn't around to buy sandpaper anymore." "It's the little things," I said back.