Abusing is a Choice, and Johnny Made it, Too

Mild Spoilers for Big Little Lies- because let's face it, I think errbody knows the deal with Nicole Kidman's character by now, but just in case you have NO IDEA and just CAN'T be spoiled in the least, you may wanna skip this one, kiddo

In Big Little Lies, season 1, we are witness to the abusive and toxic  relationship between Celeste (played beautifully, heartbreakingly by Nicole Kidman) and her husband Perry (played hauntingly by Alexander Skarsgard (sorry, I legit can't figure out how to do the little doodad over the second "a" in his name :( )). While we can see Celeste getting something out of it, the show tries to make it pretty clear that Perry is the abuser and Celeste is the abused.

Then season 2 happens.

And while I can't find any super useful clips online (good job, HBO, you bastards), it complicates this dichotomy more. Because during the course of the second season, Celeste admits to having also hit Perry, and that the abuse made sex with him more exciting and satisfying. In the end, she still proves that this does not make her an unfit mother, and that she did what she had to do to adapt to her situation and survive. Ultimately, she admits some culpability while still maintaining that she lived in a constant state of fear and anxiety for her own safety and the safety of her twin sons.

In other words, the show moves from painting her as 100% a victim to having somewhat of a hand in her situation, while still maintaining she was, overall, a victim. I can't remember all the ways how, but I know between the two seasons, as well as the combination of Celeste's descriptions to others plus the times we're actually shown the violence, it's made clear that Perry used his greater physical strength and size against her by pinning her, lifting her in a way that made her prone and defenseless (by her hair at least once, for example), and/or trapping her in places from which she had no escape (although it backfired in the shower that one time, but it's likely that was a fluke and who knows? a predator like that, he'd probably hit her in the shower before; it's at least not hard to believe, especially given how utterly terrified she is that time he gives her a necklace in there). So even though there are a few times where she stands up for herself and essentially "starts" the fight (which is, of course, messed up- it's not like she deserves to be punched for trying to set a boundary), in the end, he would use tactics that rendered her helpless and overpower her before she even had much chance to physically harm him. Still, even though she accepts and works through the fact that she wasn't 100% innocent, that doesn't mean she deserved what happened, nor that her treatment of Perry is equivalent to how he treated her.

I bring this up because this news about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp reminds me of it. And what's so fucking frustrating about it is from the moment Heard published her op-ed in the New York Times, the idea that she's making it all up has been pretty damn loud. So now that there is audio where she admits some culpability, there's suddenly this huge "Justice for Johnny" campaign that entirely exonerates him from his part in the abuse.

Not even that. It paints him as 100% the victim, as Season 1 Celeste. Like he was entirely innocent and did absolutely nothing to harm Heard.

And I'm over here thinking, "Fuck, did these people all read the same stuff I did before?"

Me, to the whole Internet lately

Because this "free Johnny" stuff ignores that she has photographic evidence of abuse, has corroboration from friends who took her call when she was upset over him getting physical, who came over and saw the aftermath, or called 911 for her because they could hear it happening. 

Also.

Listen to the audio. His language is frequently one of mutual culpability. Lots of "we," lots of "you and I"-ing. And "...physical abuse on each other." And having been afraid of a partner, I know that yes, sometimes a victim will claim some fault in order to placate them during reconciliation- I've been there. But if this is all we have, then conjecture and assuming that's all he's doing is... reckless, at best. 

And yes, it's important to acknowledge that he does talk about leaving... once. One night, out of the eighteen months they were married, plus their time together before nuptials. 

Unfortunately, this isn't a television drama. This is real life. Unlike Celeste and Perry's story, we can't see everything- every fight, every instance of abuse. So we have no way of knowing exactly what happened every time they got physical with each other.

But.

Heard admitting she would "lose it" does not mean Depp never did, too. Heard admitting she hit him doesn't mean Depp never hit her. 

And folks, I've been around abuse. Even if he didn't start it every single time, he always, always had a choice. The fact that he made the right one once doesn't mean he did it every time. 

I've said (or maybe implied, I guess) before, I got out of my abusive relationship probably within a few days of being phyically abused. I was lucky. But when we were still together, I could get pretty nasty when we were fighting.

My ex-boyfriend has a son that, at the time we started dating, he hadn't seen in well over a year. When I left him, he still hadn't- so by then, it had been closer to four years. And as awful as I feel about it, as un-proud I am about it, I used that against him. I would say things like, "Maybe if you got your fucking shit together, I'd finally get to meet the kid you claim you want me to be a mom to!" and, "You think you deserve to see your kid when you act like that?" or even, "He's better off without you."

You, to me

I know. I hate me a little for it, and I always will. I apologized to him as I was leaving, but I'll probably never forgive myself. I lashed out, said things I knew would wound him severely as a result of and in retaliation for the wounds he had given me. In other words, I made the choice to hurt him back.

As I've said before,* being good is a choice. Doing the right thing is just that: An action verb, a gerund**. It's not passive. No one is good, we do as much good as we can. Just being oneself is a process, and all we can do is make it a process focused on doing the "right" thing every time we're given a choice not to.

I bring this up to point out that while I'm more of a Season 2 Celeste, someone that was hurt and maybe did some stupid stuff as a result/way to cope, Heard isn't automatically a Perry- essentially evil, nigh irredeemably so- just because she admits she was also abusive. Mutual abuse is, by its very nature, never one-sided. And it's horrendously, uncomfortably, disturbingly complex. It's not black-and-white, it's all kinds of gray, and not that 50-shades ball-hooey.

Unlike the Entire Internet, I don't find it hard to believe that Heard could have hit Depp but that he also hit her, too. Her admitting culpability does not absolve him from his. Worst case scenario: They're both absolute trash and neither deserves a career anymore because fuck that. But that's just it: BOTH OF THEM. Because if Heard deserves to be "canceled" or whatever for hitting Depp, then the same goes for him. 

And of course, I have no doubt Depp was hurting, too, and not just physically. It's obvious in the recordings (and stands to reason) that he loved her and wanted to make things work. Because another thing about abusive relationships that people tend to gloss over is that someone can, in the best way they're capable of, love the partner they abuse. Yes, it's twisted, it's selfish, it's toxic, but it's still their version of love. And so I do have some sympathy for both, because by golly, I can't imagine how fucked up it would be to have that much extremity involved with the person I love- the guilt, the shame, the anger, but also the joy, the bliss, the passion. But is it so hard to believe that they both chose to hurt one another? At least subconsciously, if not overtly?

Apparently it is!!!!***

Honestly, though, what this whole "free Johnny" crap demonstrates is the deep misogyny embedded in the public reaction to all of this, and the double standards women face when they try to come forward about abuse of any kind. Because like I said, since Heard first came forward, the court of public opinion has basically put her on trial the way victims are treated in real court rooms. Take Taylor Swift's case for example: The opposing attorney was basically just trying to gaslight her the whole time she was on the stand (and how glorious it was that she was not having it) (you may dislike her music, but that's fucking badass, come on). All sorts of shit about how Heard could have left sooner, it wasn't like she didn't have her own money, if he was already abusing her why did she marry him, etc. It's just disgusting.

So now? Now, there's an excuse to just brush her off entirely.

JK Rowling must be wiping her TERFy forehead with relief right now, I tell ya. 

As a slight aside, too- I know from experience that toxicity is never there from the beginning. It seeps in, slowly, gradually, until suddenly you realize you're covered in it and basically this guy:

So this idea that she "should" have got out sooner if he was so bad is hogwash. Saying stuff like "leave the first time he disrespects you" and "the moment he tells you what to wear, get out" is a form of victim-blaming, and it's easy to say from the outside. Nevermind the fact that so much of what makes domestic abuse so difficult to get away from is the unhealthy dependency that gets conditioned into both parties- no, just get out as soon as he's a little mean!

But that's just it: It always starts small, in little ways that are easy to explain and forgive. And when you're in the thick of the relationship, you're seeing the forest and missing the trees. And eventually you're so busy staring at the canopy, you fail to realize that 90% of the trees are actually rotten. And even though maybe you see dying trees in your periphery, you focus like a lazer on the one or two that are still green and beautiful, because it's the only way you can keep going, the only way to justify to yourself the fact that you fell for it. 

And honestly? This could genuinely apply to both Heard and Depp. They're only human. Neither of them was throwing stuff or pulling hair the first week. It started with a nasty remark, maybe a slap or pulled puch that was legitimately meant to be a joke. And as time went on, they both started doing things that were worse, darker, progressively less and less okay, less and less funny. Until POOF! their behavior got so extreme there were bruises and blood. As Depp put it, it was "a crime scene." It evolved into that, though, crept up on both of them.

But to assume it's all made up when Heard is the victim, and then that everything she says is suddenly true as long as it pertains to hurting Depp is downright gross. There's a recording of Heard admitting she hit him, there's also at least one third party that says they witnessed Depp hitting her. 

I want to reiterate that last point- a THIRD PARTY witness has given statements about the abuse inflicted on Heard. Ignoring this while taking that recording at face value is willful hypocrisy. 

I don't give a damn about either of them individually, no more than I would anyone else I don't know- I don't wish them harm, no, but I don't stay up at night worrying if either is ok. But this wave of "free Johnny" stuff, that I care about, and that has literally kept me up at night- because it's another example of a woman's case being nitpicked and torn apart in order to exonerate the man that did her harm. And even if she hit him, he hit her, too (and, according to that friend of Heard's, even ripped some of her gorram hair out). Sure, she should be held accountable- I'm not saying she shouldn't. But so should he. And if you think for one moment that he's innocent now, then just get your head out of your ass, or admit you're a sheep that's too easily duped by misogynistic narratives that are formulated specifically to preserve male hegemony. Please, people just....

*Oh me from a few years ago, admiring Hillary so blindly........... We all make mistakes. Le sigh.

**I fucking love gerunds. About as much as my Oxford commas. 

***Pardon my terrible MS Paint job. A more skilled person would turn it into a gif somehow. I am not that person. 

'Batman v. Superman' Review, Part Two: What I Liked

Okay, so as I said yesterday, I'm now going to go through the things about this movie that I enjoyed. I want to reiterate, this movie wasn't entirely terrible, and the following is in now particular order. I should start with the obligatory movie poster, though right?

Once again,

SPOILERS, DUH

I do think this is more easily made into a coherent piece, rather than a bunch of numbers, so I'm just gonna go for it. And I'm going to start by addressing the positive perspective on the last point I made in my post about the negative things in Dawn of Justice. I added that after the original posting, though, so I'll include it here, in case you read the first part but didn't see that bit:

So if Batman is driven SO BLOODY OVER THE EDGE by Superman's fight with Zod and the presence of this alien, and he is so Hellbent on killing him for 90% of the movie, how come all it takes is Lois saying their moms share names for him to turn around and be on his side? It was cool, and there's an argument for why it works,  but also for why it doesn't. See, we spent a whole movie watching Batman hate Superman. Superman is the cause for him being willing to kill now, and to brand the thugs he catches with a Bat Symbol, and his main goal since Superman showed up, over a year-and-a-half earlier, has been to end the Man of Steel. But in thirty seconds, that all turns around? That's not enough. If you're going to build up that much backstory, it can't be reversed with a few lines of dialogue. I would have rather seen  them decide it was in their mutual interest to fight together against Doomsday, then, once the Big Bad was gone, have a neural conversation where Superman plead his case convincingly enough- which I think he could do, if Goyer wasn't being suck a fucking moron. There's a legitimate argument for why Superman did what he did, and it's not unlike how Batman destroys SO MUCH PROPERTY during every chase he's ever in; he could say how he tried to get Zod out of the city, and when it didn't work, he eliminated the threat to save the lives left, etc. I think Batman would listen to that and be persuaded to at least not kill Supes. And then, maybe have Lex kidnap Mama Kent (or have her put in danger in  the next movie... which I kind of hate saying... because ALL SHE'S GOOD FOR IS BEING IN DANGER JUST LIKE LOIS IN THIS MOVIE) and Bruce finds out she shares a name with his deceased mother, and that makes him more eager to work with Superman because of stuff  I'll talk about in the positive post. 

So okay, the reason I think this had the potential to at least be cool is because a lot of Bruce's hatred of Superman was rooted in bigotry. Call it speceism, if you will, but all of the times Bruce/Batman calls Superman "alien," and the amount of venom and disdain in his voice, it may as well be replaced with the n-word.  And I think this draws a very interesting parallel with racism and movements for equality, because one of the most sensical arguments against discrimination is that we all have way more in common than we think. So Bruce realizing that Superman's mom is in danger, and that his mom's name is the same as his own deceased mom's, makes Bruce realize that he and Superman have more in common than he was willing to realize. This is a fascinating revelation, and it should have been expanded on more- and again, if they had done that after the fight instead of before, it could have been. Because Bruce was afraid of Superman because he had the power to kill the whole human race, yeah? Well, what happened throughout the movie? Oh yeah, BATMAN WAS KILLING THE SHIT OUT OF ERRBODY. So by being so desperate to get rid of Superman, he, by degrees, became the thing he was trying to destroy. And him realizing this, coming to terms with it, and thus joining Superman's side with sincerity and earnestness, it could have been great. And it was there... kind of... it was just very, very poorly done. But I had to point it out positively, too, because Batman realizing Superman is more human than he thought is a big deal. Because I don't think there's ever been a version of Batman that didn't portray him as stubborn as fuck. So him changing his mind  is a B.F.D.

Along those lines, then, I liked the premise behind Lex, even if he was terribly cast and written. Because his whole goal wasn't to hurt Batman, really; he wanted to end Superman. That's why he's so bent on getting the kryptonite; that's why he's so adamant to Senator Finch that Superman is dangerous. He, too, saw the destruction in Metropolis, and he became terrified of what Superman could do to the people of Earth, on a whim, if he had a bad day, whatever. But in his madness, his drive to Stop Superman, he kills tons of people, too. To quote another DC character from a different movie, 

Luthor got so caught up that he started destroying lives and ending them without any thought to it. The pain he put Keefe through, the way he orchestrated the whole shin-dig in the desert, the people he held hostage, how he blew up the Capital Building, you would think that's the kind of stuff he would want to accuse the target of his anger of doing. I think part of why he wanted to have Superman kill Batman was because for however "criminal" Batman is, if he's been at it for 20+ years, he must have a loyal following, and if he died at the hands of Superman, that would probably remove any credibility Superman had left. 

I also don't think Lex Luthor necessarily had it out for Batman directly because, as I said before, he had to have known Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person before the fight in Metropolis happened, well before Keefe was injured, in order to help drive Batman over the edge like that. 

And that's a fantastic parallel: Weirdly, Batman and Luthor had the same response to Superman, and had the same goal with regards to him. They both want to end him during the course of this movie. They both go down a dark path because of the violence they see during the fight between Zod and Superman.

And so here's one of my favorite things about this movie: I loved that it opens (mostly) with the Metropolis fight shown from Bruce Wayne's perspective. That scene was a huge part of what people (myself included) thought was wrong with Man of Steel, and it was visually stunning in this use, as well as moving. The look on Bruce's face at the end of the sequence, this shot right here, explains so much, even without the hints at backstory we get later:

Much hate. Such the anger.

I would have loved it more if there had been some followup closer to the time of the incident, like maybe a montage over opening credits of people protesting against Superman, if they had mentioned during the coverage of Keefe's incident at the statue of Supes that this is the umpteenth time the thing had been defaced because there's a lot of anti-Superman sentiment. Showing us this scene reminds us why everyone shown as afraid of Superman is, in fact, afraid of him. They also could have bolstered it a bit with maybe someone at the Daily Planet being anti-Superman, or at least before the incident in the desert. But regardless, starting it with that was a great choice, and while I imagine it was also Zack Snyder saying, "FUCK YOU!" to his critics from the first one, it still was a great storytelling move, one of the few good ones in the whole Goddamned movie. 

So then, back to Bruce's face. I LOVE that the incident in Metropolis is what puts Bruce over the edge. Because when you think about it, and especially given the context we get later- a dead Robin, he's been at it for over twenty years, something terrible seems to have happened to Wayne Manor- it's fucking brilliant to turn Superman into the scapegoat for all of Bruce Wayne's anger and pain from his life. From his parents' deaths in front of him as a kid, to whatever happened the day before shit got real in Metropolis and stuff. That's a lot of rage. What it comes down to, is he's projecting all of his anger and misery onto Superman. And realizing that is what really should have been the catalyst for him changing his tune, even though yes, realizing Superman has some humanity to him, too, was good. THAT would have been far more moving and would have resonated more loudly in the psyches of the audience. That being said, I like to think that it was still in there for Ben Affleck as he was acting the scene where he vows to Supes that he'll save Ma Kent- he's too smart of a man and too good of an actor to miss that psychological twist to the Batman/Bruce Wayne he's portraying, here. 

And with that, I have to say, I was waaaaay into how off the deep end Batman/Bruce Wayne goes in this movie. I mean, it's not like Batman doesn't lose his shit in the comics. Here's a pretty famous panel I'm sure you've seen (and yes, I kind of detest the use of the "r" word, here, but it kind of proves the point that Batman has historically been batshit at times in the comics):

Another example, I'm of the belief that he actually kills the Joker in The Killing Joke, even though some cling to the idea that the Joker snaps his own neck simply to spite Batman. As much as I love Batman for choosing not to kill, it's very believable that he would, if the right buttons got pushed. So it was totally believable for me. I haven't read any reviews of Dawn of Justice yet, but I watched the one from How it Should Have Ended, and I was entirely unsurprised when he said that he didn't like that Batman was killing people. As stubborn as I am about "versions" of characters being "wrong" (i.e. my thoughts on Lex Luthor in this same movie), I also think it's reasonable to be open to Batman being that off his rocker and a little too stubborn for people to automatically discredit that development in his character, however much of a moral/ethical regression it may be for him.

So I wasn't weirded out by the fact that he has a shit-ton of GUNS and ROCKETS on the Batmobile, at least not from a "that's now what Batman does" point of view. And I fucking loved  this:

I don't know why that wasn't done sooner. It seems like the kind of thing Frank Miller or Alan Moore would come up with themselves- it's dark, creepy, and, let's face it, fucked up. And that's what makes it juicy and delicious! And whether or not it actually leads to the guys in prison getting killed is debatable- I like to think it's more correlation, rather than causation. After all, the news report about the dude put in the hospital (NOT killed, I should reiterate, but in the hospital in critical condition, which, come on, usually when he doesn't kill someone, Bats is probably leaving them paralyzed or something) was a child molester or something. And it's common knowledge that wife-beaters and child molesters have it the worst in prison. Did the brand make  his beating more severe? Maybe. I don't know. I don't really care. I like the idea that Batman has been driven so far over the edge that he's branding the baddies he catches, knowing full-well it at least gets them beat up in prison. It's a far more twisted version of leaving Carmine Falcone on a headlight so that he makes a Bat Signal in the sky with his body.

Now, did all the blatant killing on Batman's part make me uncomfortable? Yes. But  that was good. Because that's the whole fucking point. And I'd argue that the people whining about him killing and branding are missing it. The idea is that Superman freaked him out so Goddamned much that he lost perspective and that core aspect of his own Identity. I reiterate, there's quite a bit of backstory alluded to here- the Joker killed Robin in the past, Wayne Manor was destroyed, and I don't recall any positive references to Gordon (although there is a BatSignal, so I'm going to assume he at least at some point was on not-bad terms with the GCPD). He says something like, "We've always been criminals," to Alfred and while I know I haven't read or seen every version  of Bruce Wayne/Batman  out there, I think that's a substantial bit of personal development for him to admit that, and it, too, speaks to some of that backstory. 

So, yes, I would watch the shit out of a Batman movie starring Ben Afleck. And especially with Jeremy Irons as his Alfred. The scenes between them were all fantastic, and their rapport was perfect and exactly what I want out of a dynamic between Alfred and Master Bruce; like I said in the other post, I was sad I missed the beginning of one of their scenes together because I had to pee (and didn't want to endure any more of Kevin Costner's Pa Kent, to wit). Irons was a spectacular Alfred, and I was sad that he didn't get more screentime. The bit where he takes over the Batplane is fucking glorious, and that's another thing I'm surprised we'd never seen before in the Bat-verse (at least, as far as I'm aware). So both of them were GREAT casting decisions.

Another one, and one that I will 100% admit surprised me, is Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman/ Diana Prince. She stole every scene she was in, and not because anybody around her was really bad, but because she was just that fucking cool. So yes, I am going to do my damndest to see her movie at a midnight premiere next summer. I totally believed that she's an Amazon. I loved her little sneer when Lex is dissing Zeus- that was flawless and seamless and delightful and I squeed, because I know they made her his daughter in this version (insert feminist critique of that here...*), which is at least better than one of the theories floating around a while ago. So last time I griped about the fight choreography for Batman being mostly bad. What I meant by that was, it didn't get good until Wonder Woman joined the crew. The way she, Batman, and Superman all tag-teamed Doomsday, it was great- as if they'd fought together before, almost. And OHMYGOD I loved her "aw HELL no" looks she'd make each time she gets knocked down, like this one:

I fist-pumped every time, and so did the person I saw the movie with, and she knew nothing about Wonder Woman. She is that fucking cool in this movie. 

Truthfully, and this is kinda sad, but the scenes between her and Bruce were so good, their dynamic so yummy, that I think this movie would have been way better without Superman. Like if they had made it just a Batman+Wonder Woman flick. That is a movie I would happily go see, too.

But seriously, Gal Gadot vastly exceeded my expectations, and I'm so glad that we're past this feeling:

And I'm not too nervous about it anymore. If how well she did here is any indication, the Wonder Woman solo movie is going to be great. And as an aside, Chris Pine as Steve Trevor is a great choice, and I suspect they'll have some great chemistry. I also like that it appears as though they're going back to her WWII roots.

But anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself in anticipation.

I also really enjoyed Lawrence Fishburn's character, Perry White. He speaks a lot of truth, and while I don't have much else to say about him, I wanted to be sure to highlight that, too. Fishburn is always a solid actor, and I'm glad his lines were good enough for the calibur he brings to the cast.

And yes. This movie was very visually stunning. Mostly. It got kind of hokey during the fight with Doomsday, but Doomsday himself wasn't problematic.

In fact, I kind of dug that Doomsday was a creation of Lex Luthor. That is the kind of shit I expect from him, is the exact kind of shit he does. He's a mad scientist at heart, albeit one with a fuckton of money to back it up/make it easier. And while I did immediately think they kind of pulled an Ultron by changing him into a lab experiment instead of being (yet another) alien that lands on Earth (i.e. Marvel made Ultron a creation of Tony Stark in Age of Ultron, rather than being... an alien that lands on Earth), I still thought that was the truest thing to Lex Luthor's character in the whole movie. Even going back to how he sliced off Zod's fingertips to gain access to the crashed ship- that's a Lexish thing, too. "Blood of my blood." Granted, Jessie Eisenberg's delivery was more... creepy... than maniacal.

And there's precedent for it, too. Since the early 90s, the character Superboy has been a hybrid clone of Superman and Lex Luthor. The human portion of his DNA is why Superboy can't fly and do a few other things in Young Justice, and there, and in other versions, Luthor uses that tie to manipulate Superboy and use him as a sleeper agent/tool to hurt the Justice League. So it's totally believable that Lex would create some weird hybrid of his and Zod's DNA in order to kill Superman. Since Goyer is at least consulting on these damn movies as "the comic guy" for the story, I have suspicions that maybe he suggested this little tweak to Doomsday's origins as a nod to that part of Lex Luthor's "recent" (as in "in the past twenty years of") history. I'll admit, though, that if I didn't know this about him, I would have found it just plain creepy, not gonna lie.

And  while I'm on Lex again, let me say that while I didn't actively dislike the music, I was slightly disappointed in how it mostly sounded like a bunch of rehashed stuff from previous movies for which Hans Zimmer had been the composer... save for the creepy violin music that would play when Lex was being particularly weird/creepy/eccentric. Like the scene where he's talking to Senator Fisher in his house- the music basically made that scene.

And speaking of that scene... I loved that there is a jar of piss on her desk right before she blows up, too. That... well, I don't know if that's quite a Lex Luthor thing to do, oer se, but regardless, it was glorious to see. Because it was down-right fucked up. And, just in case you forgot, things are totally fucked up in Zack Snyder's universe, here. 

And so now it comes time for my rating. If it weren't for how great Batman and Wonder Woman are, I would say D-, or 5/10. But I honestly enjoyed those two (and Alfred) enough that I would say C+, or 7/10. They saved the movie for me, truly. I won't see it again in theaters, but I will definitely buy it when it comes out on BluRay, and who knows, I may end up writing a follow-up based off the extra scenes (because apparently the original cut is nearly FOUR FUCKING HOURS LONG...).




*The short version is that, by making her the product of a romantic tryst between Hippolyta and Zues, rather than being a blessing to the Amazons from female gods and formed out of clay, they're removing some of her independence. Part of her "feminist iconic" strength came from her total of zero ties to the male gender until meeting Steve Trevor; making her yet another one of Zeus's bastards diminishes that, as well as removes some of the strength and independence of her mother, Hippolyta- a badass in her own right, too. This piece from TheMarySue beautifully captures everything wrong with this telling of her history, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in her character, how she's evolved over the years, and/or is tired of my rants. 

'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. 

"Not Your Typical Campus Shooting"

That's a quote from the head of the Purdue University Police Department during their final press conference the day of my campus's shooting, Tuesday, December 21, 2014. By this, he meant that it wasn't a case of a person going in and randomly firing at people- the perpetrator went in, sought out the target, fired, then surrendered. This officer and the other people answering questions never said it out-right, but they danced around "pre-meditated" whenever talking about the shooter's actions.

This piece comes in two parts. The first, being my direct response to the university itself. Keep in mind, I wasn't on the campus- I was literally locking up my apartment to leave for my office when the first alert went out. The second will be my more general thoughts on these acts of violence and  what they say about us  as a society and culture, and what I think we can do to fix it, or at least make it less bad.

PART I: Poo-Poo Purdue

I’m sure anyone reading this from Purdue itself is aware of the timeline of events, so let me just break down my thoughts, here. When it comes to the on-the-ground response, the emergency teams did a superb job of handling the situation. They were on the scene within minutes, had apprehended the suspect even before the university had finished sending out its initial wave of alerts, and expediently evacuated the EE building, as well as helped get anyone unaware of what was transpiring indoors and out of harm’s way. My hat goes off to Purdue’s police and fire departments, as well as those of West Lafayette. And my thanks to all of the first-responders on the scene. Heart-felt and  sincerely.  

Now, the bad news. I find it… disconcerting, at best, that I, as a member of the Purdue community, was given conflicting information on my safety during the day: I was told in a text it was okay to move around as normal at about 1:30, and then again at 1:45, but the website referenced in those texts told me the opposite, that campus  was  still on lockdown- and  the  website remained as such until nearly 3pm. More than one person confused about what to do texted me, asking for my advice. (And that advice was, of course, stay inside- better  safe than sorry.) The text came pretty quickly, at 12:12, but what little info we got didn't add up very well. And on that note...

There was really just so little information sent to me directly, too- what’s up with that? I would have felt better getting the info from Purdue, not from checking out news websites because I happened to have access to the Internet, a circumstance not everyone else would have been in. My mom had more up-to-date info from watching CNN than I had from Purdue. That’s just wrong- I and every other member of Purdue’s community should have had been given real-time updates from Purdue. Our safety and emotional/mental well-being were on the line. 

Also, why take the surrounding buildings off lockdown if police are still searching and patrolling? Friends of mine on campus said there were still choppers circling after the all-clear was given at 1:30, and I finally got antsy and had to turn off the computer after over an hour of  listening  to police continue to search new campus locations and dig deeper into suspicious activities via their radio streaming site. If the police weren’t done checking the campus out, why let people wander around? What would have happened if  this shooter had not, in fact, been acting alone and someone else was hurt before the police finished their checking all the other buildings? What if they had all-cleared it too soon and there were more casualties?

Here’s another problem: I heard from a few people stuck in classes that their professors kept trying to teach during the whole thing, and I know of fellow grad students with  TA positions for classes that take place during the 3 and 4 hours that had to go to said classes- and, surprise surprise, more students stayed behind than  went. What compels a prof to go ahead with class on a day like that? I don’t think this demonstrates heroism or dedication- I think it’s short-sighted, narcissistic, and dangerous. If you think what you’re teaching is so important that it’s worth risking the lives of your students, you don’t deserve to be a professor (or instructor) in front of those students. And if some of these professors kept at it because  they  genuinely  don’t know what “shelter-in-place” means, then Purdue has some serious training it needs to do for its faculty- because even if the students somehow avoided it in school (which maybe international students, okay, but kids that grew up in the States have no excuse, really, unless maybe homeschooled…?), the people in charge of the classrooms should know that “shelter in place” means close and (if possible) lock the doors, close any blinds, keep quiet, etc. In drills, sure, keep the lights on, but for crying out loud  there was an actual shooter on campus on Tuesday. They should have closed the doors and blinds, turned the lights off, and awaited further instructions from the university. This was NOT a drill. A Boilermaker DIED, and you kept lecturing. Think about that. And be grateful for the tenure system and that I'm not in charge of Purdue, because if I was Purdue's president and I heard you had tried to keep jabbering at your students (and were probably befuddled or put-off by them, gasp, not paying attention to you), I would do everything I could to fire your ass.

I think the worst is that classes weren’t immediately cancelled for the rest of the day. If “they” knew someone was even just injured in a shooting, let alone lost their life, it would be “respectful” to cancel classes as soon as the info came out, not four-and-a-half hours later. Plus, they wouldn't then have had to go back and tell faculty to pretend classes the day of the shooting never took place the next day in an email ("Of course, we will all need to make adjustments to ensure that no faculty and students are penalized because they were unable to teach or attend class in the aftermath of yesterday’s terrible events. You will need to inform students of your plan to address this unforeseen circumstance. In particular, you should inform your class that you will not be counting the results of any quiz or attendance given for yesterday’s session, and that they will not be held accountable for any material covered."). Purdue ret-conning, back-peddaling, whatever you want to call it- Purdue cancelling classes over four hours later is deplorable and tactless, and the reminder to faculty not to hold students accountable for the  day of the shooting shouldn't be necessary (on its own and  also in conjunction with what I said about profs insisting on holding class between 2 and 4:30). This was no false alarm- someone died, and we knew that hours before the “discussion” (what the provost said they started having once they knew someone was hurt) amongst administrators led to canceling class. So why does it need “discussion” to cancel classes the rest of the day when someone is killed on campus? Discussion? I’m not remotely the only person at least surprised by this, if not flat-out appalled. This is an opinion piece, and my opinion is that canceling class for the rest of the day when there’s a shooter on the campus should be protocol, not the result of a “discussion.” Sure, maybe what happens the next day can be something the old boys’ network can debate, but expecting students to go to class when they’ve just been on lockdown and oh yeah, someone was shot and killed- and then expecting them to be top-notch is also narcissistic, or at least short-sighted- and the  latter is why  those same people had to send an email excusing anyone that, understandably, didn't go to class or didn't do all that well while there. It's just... Ugh. It was tactless for them to wait that long to cancel, and fumbling and pathetic that they had to excuse it after-the-fact. Disgusting. I can't wrap my head around why the first move wouldn't be  to cancel classes, I honestly can't. All I can think of is it's the bureaucracy wanking off again and taking itself too gorram seriously- which puts a bad taste in my mouth, because  that'd mean the fat-cats cared more about their own authority and "channels" or whatever than the well-being of their students. And even practically speaking, the utility in holding class an hour after a shooting would be small enough to render it nonexistent, or  even negative (because, no doubt, without the reminder not to, profs would hold students accountable for the material from that day because they "held class" as "normal," never mind  that  no "normal" student would be  able to function "normally" in class right after a shooting). 

I hope to God there isn't a next time. But in preparation, protocols need to be changed: 

1) The text alerts need to be in-sync with website and email updates. Conflicting information could get someone hurt.

2) DO NOT  give  an all-clear until police  are done searching buildings. The nearby  area may  have been clear, but how could they be certain there wasn't another  shooter? They wouldn't be  able to report that until they had finished their larger sweep, so let that happen before letting people go about their way. 

3) Cancel classes for the rest of that day the moment a legit report of a shooting is confirmed. I am still trying to comprehend why this  is even necessary to say. 

4) Make sure all faculty and staff have been through their own  shelter-in-place drills, or at least told what to do if  it happened for real, even if only during  an orientation  training of some sort for newbies. That way, even if  their students don't know what it means, they will.

5) Figure out a way  to penalize faculty that end up not doing the whole  "shelter-in-place" thing properly in the case of a real threat, once the threat is over. Again, drills are one thing, but actual, genuine threats are another, and they need to be taken seriously. So whether it's making them pay fines or do university or community service, or I dunno, mess with their sabbatical or something... I don't care. Just make it clear that they're in deep doo-doo for endangering their  students- because that's what that behavior means: Endangerment.

6) Send more updates, via text and/or email. Sure, some stuff needs to be kept private for a while, but letting the Purdue community know what kind of progress the police are making, what the suspects are up to, etc., and as immediately as possible, needs to happen. Again, I should have heard from Purdue, not CNN, that the suspect had been apprehended. 

PART II: Gun Control, Mental Health, and the Intersection of Ableism with Capitalist Individualism

So here's where it'll get rather controversial. Every time we have a shooting, the focus is always on the guns. Guns, guns, guns. And sometimes, the "crazy" bogeyman myth creeps up,  too, wherein the shooter is painted as a psychopathic freakjob that finally loses it and that's that. As if it's a random, one-time, isolated incident.

And while sure, the Newtown guy wasn't in cahoots with the Virginia Tech guy, who had nothing to do with the Columbine kids... There is a tie binding all of these shootings, and any other time when a person has walked into a building and shot anybody, whether it's one targeted person like what happened at Purdue, or a whole butt-load of random victims, like Virginia Tech. 

It's mental illness. Improperly cared for mental illness, I should say.

And let me say right now, I'm not saying it's the "crazy peoples'" fault. There's a sad, painful note of truth to the, "I couldn't take it anymore!" line that's supposed  to be funny or offhand (like when Carmine Falcone uses it after faking a suicide attempt in Batman Begins)- for whatever reason, these people reach a tipping point, and their moral compass gets broken, and they either don't remember that hurting other people isn't okay, or they cease to care. 

What I see going on is people who would benefit from quality mental health services don't get them, and without the proper coping mechanisms and lifeskills needed to function without hurting people, they snap. See, here's the rub: Western, and especially American society, has this weird, counter-productive stigma on mental health services. And I attribute this, at least in part, to our rugged individualistic, pull-yourself-up-by-your-boostraps wet dream we can't, on the whole, let go of. Because if we admit we have depression or mental health issues, let alone seek help for it, we're admitting we  aren't good enough to make it on our own - and the whole point of the American Dream is to make it on your  own, without help from anyone. Depression, anxiety, mental health problems, they're seen and treated as weakness. We blame the people who have them for not taking care of themselves, for being  too sensitive; we tell them to "get it together," to "keep it to themselves," to try harder. I love this image from the blog Robot Hugs: 

There are myriad others like it on the interwebs, but the point is the sorts of things that get said to people with mental health issues are being said to people with entirely physical ailments (if you can't tell, by the way, the one in the orange shirt is  shooting insulin or something, not  stabbing their hip with a nail- it took me a few seconds to see it, too, don't worry)- and the point is  to see that those statements are ridiculous in those contexts, and, really, ridiculous in the context of mental or emotional fragility, too. 

And don't those sound kind of like the individual liberty, ra-ra, capitalism rhetoric we can't seem to turn down in this country? Messages that we aren't tying hard enough when we're stuck in a minimum wage job, that our individual circumstances don't matter if we're unemployed... The way we treat (and don't treat, yup) mental illness is a part of that masturbatory obsession with personal responsibility. That it's somehow someone's own fault if they're depressed, just as how it's their own fault if they're in need of social assistance. Context? Psh. Factors  out of their own control? Nonexistant- every person is in charge of their own destiny! 

So then what? Well, just like how our pathetic excuse for a "welfare" system comes with all sorts of public  shame and stigmatization, so too does receiving  mental  health services. And, just as how the former is major hard to get, quality mental health services are hard to find, too. I think generally, our personal feelings are supposed  to be private, and it's not up to the government or society to help us out- because by golly, the government has NO RIGHT to tell me what I should be doing!

You: Wait, but providing the option for  mental health services isn't telling people what to do, it's just giving them somewhere to go, right?

Society: NO! If there were quality mental health facilities and services everywhere, free and available to the public, they'd just get backlogged with people taking advantage of it, and we'd create a culture of sissies that suck their thumbs and can't take the slightest setback in their lives!

It's basically  the same argument against a public healthcare system, and I'd say even against paid family leave and basically any form of financial assistance.

But what sets it apart is that during any "discussion" revolving around the question of the kinds of mental health services in the U.S., there's always this accompanying assumption that people with mental health issues are broken, under-par; that they don't measure up and thus aren't worth it, anyway. Why bother if they're already not good enough? And now, if you know me, you prolly see where I'm going and why it's ableist: There's an assumption that they'd be whole and Good if they didn't have their mental, emotional, etc. disabilities, see.  See? 

YES!

While it's hard to talk about the "Disability Community," since that doesn't really exist, I do believe, from my experience on the ground in services for the disabled in myriad ways, it's the invisible disabilities, the non-physical that get stigmatized in such a way that leads to the ailments going entirely untreated. It's a lot harder to ignore a physical disability or to blame someone with one for having it, but mental and/or emotional ones? Well what "causes" depression? What "causes" anxiety? People get blamed for "letting them happen," while nobody would really ever be accused of "letting" theirself get hit by a car or be born with CP.

Story time (sort of): Every  semester I've taught (so far- we'll see later), I've had at least one student come to me after their first quiz about disability accommodation. And the reasons they wait are always the same: They were "afraid" to tell me or that their peers would find out; they didn't want to seem like they were getting a handout; they were embarrassed that they'd need the help; they're ashamed that they have suchandsucha problem; etc. These signals come from the crap those people in the comic above are being told: People with disabilities are seen as "moochers," as in the same category as "welfare queens" and "bums" sucking the teet of Lady Liberty dry.

So no SHIT they're afraid to seek counseling, or to go to the professor to get the accommodation they're entitled to by the gorram law, nonetheless.

And even if it's not a consciously articulated thought, "I better not see a therapist, otherwise people will judge me," they subconsciously know it's bound to happen. And that negative view of mental health problems comes from a terrible intermingling of capitalist and ableist rhetorics.

So then this means, again, that services are lacking as it were, and that getting them is so hard, a lot of people don't.

And I'm not saying the stigmas on mental and emotional health issues are the only thing causing shootings like the one at Purdue- I'm not that bad. What I am saying is that gun policies aren't the only ones we should seriously revamp if we want violent incidents like this to stop. Sure, I'd be in favor of better gun controls (although I don't think they should be banned, no). But that wouldn't stop people from going on killing sprees when whatever mental health issues they have take control- there are tons of other ways to kill people other than guns, after all.

Our inability to address the mental health of our own citizens is, of course, more directly related to ableism. 

But really, when anyone says we're lacking quality mental health services, it shouldn't seem like a stretch for me or anyone else to say it's related to ableism. I mean, c'mon. Did you really need me to tell you that?