[Content note: This blog post mentions sexual assault, sexual harassment, victim-blaming, and apologia.]
I grew up with The Simpsons. It’s one of my very favourite shows. It’s gotten to the point where I’ve watched it so much that I can use any quote in any everyday situation. It was a cornerstone of my childhood and my teenage years, and I’m sure that many others could say the same. Sure, I like to pretend that the series ended after series ten, but what went before that is mostly a mine of comedy gold. But it has dated, in more ways than one.
Two nights ago, myself and my good friend Mediocre Dave (who is lovely and wonderful and whom you should all follow on twitter, because he’s great) found ourselves watching the series six episode ‘Homer Badman’, first screened in 1994. This is the episode where Homer is ‘falsely accused’ of sexually harassing feminist, graduate student, and babysitter Ashley Grant when driving her home. But you know, he didn’t REALLY do it because the rare gummi Venus de Milo is stuck to her bum and he only wanted to eat it and therefore that’s supposedly OK. (For the perenially confused, I was being very sarcastic there.) Whereas there’s a very good satire of the media in there (‘Now, this technology is new to me, but I’m pretty sure that’s Homer Simpson in the oven, rotating slowly’), and the candy convention section is hilarious, what Homer does is still wholly inappropriate, and still counts as harassment. It also smacks of entitlement: it was on her bum, she was going to leave with it, he needed to have it! As Dave pointed out, it’s ‘as though his obliviousness to how she would react exonerates him.’ It’s all A BIG MISUNDERSTANDING, it’s not REAL harassment, and therefore that’s alright.
And in the light of Homer’s actions, what’s also disquieting is the lampooning of Grant and those who believe her story. Grant is depicted as An Angry Feminist: she’s made out to be aggressive and prissy, wears trousers (!), and is portrayed as largely sensitive and ‘overreacting’ to the entire situation, despite the fact that she has pretty decent grounds to make a claim for sexual harassment. She manages to rally a large group of supporters, but she and her supporters have apparently jumped to conclusions, and have got Homer all wrong. They are written as hysterical, mob-like, ‘political correctness gone mad’. In short, they are mocked for believing the victim first, and taking her at her word. Those who may be triggered by such stories (folks, that’s why we have trigger warnings) are also joke fodder: at another point, the Simpson family are watching an episode of Sally Jessy Raphael, where Sally is consoling a woman who ‘never met Homer Simpson or had any contact with him, but — [cries uncontrollably] — I’m sorry, I can’t go on.’ Sally reassures her, saying: ‘That’s OK, your tears say more than real evidence ever could’. And this is where The Simpsons lurches into perhaps helping to foster a culture of victim-blaming. What is so wrong with believing the victim, and listening to the survivor and to those who have been affected? Stavvers addresses this question in a recent blog post on the subject, while astutely pinpointing the effects that victim-blaming has had on our culture, and on our attitudes towards victims of assault and abuse: ‘Disbelief in the accounts of survivors of rape, of domestic violence, of child abuse creates the conditions of silence necessary for such abuse to continue. Fear of not being believed is a weapon, wielded by our culture to keep our lips sealed and prevent anything being done about it. It is an attempt to create a safer space.’ And in this particular episode (the Wikipedia article for this episode states that it has been included in several Top 10/25 best Simpsons episodes ever lists), this idea of mocking the victim and establishing ‘criteria’ for what ‘real’ sexual harassment is has been transmitted to so many people, all across the world. We remember Ashley Grant as someone who got it wrong, with her arms folded in a unfriendly manner, as an scary, man-hating feminist.
And you know, perhaps we shouldn’t remember her that way. The Simpsons in its first ten years is still a very funny, incisive show, but its attitudes towards women, feminism, gender, and victimisation as displayed in this episode are terribly outdated and need redressing. I’m hoping to make my way throughout other earlier episodes to gain a wider appreciation of how the show treats these issues: of course, Lisa Simpson is a particularly excellent role model in this regard, but it’s also quite strange that she fails to recognise what harassment is in this episode, which a College Humor article notes as pretty out-of-character behaviour. I’d be grateful for any thoughts on this topic, and for any input (especially from those who can actually bear to wear the show past series ten). For me, it’s disappointing to see, but it’s also a reminder to think critically about the things we read, watch, and consume.
The episode itself explains why we shouldn’t immediately take the side of whoever we perceive to be the victim.
Homer goes through hell as a result of his misunderstanding. His privacy is invaded (a news helicopter photographs him NAKED in his own bathroom), he suffers massive defamation of character on national television, his property is damaged by protesters, he’s harassed at work, people are camping in his front garden for the sole purpose of harassing him further and his appeals to reason are literally re-edited to conform to the pre-existing narrative of ‘Man = automatic sex offender’ and ‘Woman = helpless’ on the Rock Bottom show (a show that does the absolute bare minimum in atoning for their role in the brouhaha at the end of the episode.). This article addresses the IMPLIED negative outcomes for Ashley but ignores the actual outcomes that Homer faces. The fact that you don’t mention these seems to imply that you believe what Homer goes through to be an appropriate backlash against his actions – which I sincerely hope is not the case.
I agree that Homer’s obliviousness to Ashley’s reaction does not exonerate him, nor do I believe that Ashley does not have a claim to sexual harassment – Ashley’s ‘overreaction’ is mainly the result of the media fueling the fire of misinformation and distortion. She’s extremely smart and passionate (she holds her own against Bart’s crude stereotyping and manages to keep him under control, something few adults – especially babysitters – are capable of doing in the Simpsons universe.) – aspects which the media preys upon and manipulates for ratings above the pursuit of justice. Both characters are victims. Homer for the reasons mentioned above and Ashley for the initial harassment and her manipulation at the hands of the news corporations. Homer and Ashley have a common enemy.
It could have been very easy for the writers – once she had seen Groundskeeper Willie’s video of the event – to continue portraying Ashley as the ‘Angry Feminist’ and denying what she was seeing (an all too common feminist stereotype). Instead, she is relatively calm and clear-headed once she sees the full picture without the haze of media bias, and I interpret her backing down as her seeing Homer as having suffered enough for his mistake.
I don’t remember Ashley Grant as someone who got it wrong, I remember her as someone who wanted to do what she thought was right, was passionate in doing so and was misled by those in power.
Yes, the ideas of the episode are out of date, that’s because the episode aired nearly 20 years ago! Not everything can be ahead of it’s time or else nothing would ever be considered ‘ahead of it’s time’. Yes there are stereotypical elements of Ashley’s portrayal (big rule in comedy and storytelling in general – show don’t tell – shorthand is the best way of getting your point across) but she is ultimately human in this episode. I don’t think the focus of this episode is ‘The Dangers Of Feminism’ but instead it’s a satire of news outlets which pick and choose which facts and viewpoints they use to further their own agenda (hence the line ‘your tears say more than real evidence ever could’ – an appeal to emotion over logic), something which this article does as well.
We DO need to critically analyse the media we consume like you say in your article and please don’t take my response as discouragement from doing what you do or me claiming that you don’t have a point (You do). Just realise that we always need to consider the full picture or we are no better than the press outlets that ‘Homer Badman’ satirizes.
Thank you.
Thank you for your reply Ben.
I understand that the intent of the episode is to satirise the press and media intrusion, and I do not think that one deserves humungous levels of media intrusion, but in this case, I’m not sure if the intent can overshadow the way in which the satire is presented. Intent is not always the same as impact, and you cannot ignore the ramifications that it may have. You can’t uniformly justify something by simply saying, ‘oh, but that is satire': whereas the Rock Bottom and Kent Brockman bits are done very well and are very funny, the mocking of the protestors and complainants don’t sit very well with me: they are seen as hysterical and deluded for siding with Ashley. Sure, one could actually say that Homer doesn’t do anything wrong, but the fact is that, regardless of intent, taking the gummi off her bum is still really quite an inappropriate action, and is still quite invasive. And it doesn’t need to be overtly ‘hurr hurr, I’m going to sexually harass her’ to be seen as wrong.
Your opening sentence ‘The episode itself explains why we shouldn’t immediately take the side of whoever we perceive to be the victim’ troubles me a little, considering that victim-blaming has become rather institutionalised in our culture, and indeed in the media (see here, as it explains it better than I could: http://everydayvictimblaming.com/news-about-us/). It is a culture where the perpetrator ‘can’t help it’ or ‘didn’t mean it’, where the victim is asked ‘what were you wearing?’, ‘what route did you take?’, etc. So, in the light of that, I find the depiction of those who believe Grant and who take her at face value as hysterical quite disconcerting. Yes, we have false or inaccurate accusations, but these are in the minority, and we should not cling to them as evidence that victim-blaming does not exist. It’s great when there are stories of communities who do rally around those who have been attacked (see the recent sexual assault case in Athlone in Ireland), but I wish these were one of many, rather than one of so few.
I also firmly believe that we should not excuse stereotypical portrayals as part of the basic tenements of show and tell in comedy and storytelling (I know the episode was 19 years old, but in the current television climate after Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black, and Mad Men, and where The Simpsons is still considered as prime-time TV, we don’t just want ‘show and tell’ anymore. That said, I’m not saying that television these days is a magic patriarchy/kyriarchy-free zone, and is automatically better than TV back then. Like I said, I like to pretend that The Simpsons ended after series ten…).
I’m not sure if I’ve addressed all of your points here (this is such a small little text box), but thank you for responding! I’m largely interested in investigating the gender politics of the show (I’m particularly interested in looking at Lisa’s feminism at the moment, as it develops over the course of the show) so this conversation could run and run!
And thanks for yours!
Let me start off by saying that I hope i didn’t imply that victim blaming and everything else you wrote in your original article aren’t serious issues or that the examples you mentioned in your reply aren’t legitimate. I’m pretty sure we ultimately both want the same thing and that our disagreements are merely about how we go about dealing with such emotive topics.
Firstly, I’d like to clarify my original opening – when I said ‘immediately’ I meant to say that we shouldn’t take action against the accused until we know all the facts . Yes Homer crossed the line of harassment, but if the media hadn’t distorted things and misled everyone then the whole incident would have played out differently. I don’t think Homer’s intent absolves him but I do believe that he didn’t deserve that level of invasion – i’d reserve that for far more serious levels of harassment. Not being versed extensively in such things I don’t actually know what an appropriate level of response would be but I’m sure it would be less extreme and more diplomatic than what Homer ended up going through.
You bring up false accusations, and I agree they are in the minority and shouldn’t be used as a direct counter-argument to real suffering as I think that lends legitimacy to victim-blaming. But one aspect of how false accusations play out that doesn’t sit right with me is instances where the accused’s identity is released before sentencing. Even if that person is found innocent their name is still tarnished in the minds of many and can have serious consequences. Not to mention society’s general attitude to male victims of domestic abuse or even rape. Again, I must stress that this doesn’t make real accusations or the current state of victim-blaming in our culture any less real or any less serious; merely that not taking any steps to minimize undue suffering when we have the power to is unjustifiable (in any situation where men or women are victims, not just the examples I mentioned) and can make people jaded and give them more reason to discredit those who have legitimate accusations. The media had the power to facilitate a fair debate and instead contributed to sensationalism at Homer’s and (to a lesser extent) Ashley’s expense.
The reason I originally replied is – like i said – not because I disagree with the ‘victim-blaming’ issues you wrote about, just that I’m not sure they apply here. I’ve combed through the script of the episode to be sure about this and I’m having trouble finding references to 1) instances where Ashley is ‘blamed’ either for accepting a ride from Homer or rallying against his actions or 2) instances where Ashley’s supporters are portrayed as ‘deluded’ for accepting her side of the story (if they are I think there’s an element of them being egged on by the news, they’re not ‘deluded’ apropos of nothing). If you have an example please enlighten me because I’m having trouble here. The closest I can see is the woman you mentioned on Sally Jessy Raphael. But again, she’s not taking Ashley’s side, she’s taking that of the news; she possibly doesn’t even know who Ashley Grant is. She’s been fed a story based on mistruths and exaggeration and is encouraged to do so by Sally. Ashley’s side of the story is barely represented on the news, what she wants -justice- doesn’t get mentioned, only the scoop. They don’t further the debate between the two characters, they derail it to further their own narrative and ratings grab.
I haven’t yet got around to watching Mad Men or OITNB but shows like Breaking Bad still fundamentally follow the ‘show don’t tell’ rule. Dexter for example has been unfavourably compared in recent years to shows like the ones you mentioned because it outright tells the audience what to feel – something which isn’t conducive to good storytelling or getting a point across. Never mind the fact that The Simpsons has a shorter running time, is a comedy and follows a non-serialised format, making it impossible to go into any real depth about any issues it tackles while still holding the audience’s attention. Even shows with a more satirical emphasis like South Park can’t escape these restrictions.
I mention this because one common rule of satire that I’ve noticed is putting viewpoints you disagree with in the mouths of people who represent something negative or are later proven to be wrong (South Park and Family Guy do this extensively, for example). The use of stereotypes in the episode come from the likes of Homer and Bart – childish and immature characters portrayed in a negative light for their views. Bart’s use of the line ‘so you’re one of those “don’t call me a chick” chicks?’ establishes him as someone who takes a dim view on feminism and shows his ignorance regarding women in general. He is immediately put in his place by Ashley and she establishes control over him in her position as his guardian for the night. If I could refine my earlier point, I’m not convinced Ashley is stereotyped, the real stereotypes come from comments by Bart and Homer – characters whom we are conditioned to not take seriously – and are rebuked by Ashley standing up for herself and fighting for what is right. How Ashley protests is right in the context of what she knows and the narrative she has been fed. The use and acknowledgement of stereotypes is a common satirical device used to discredit them. A similar example can be seen in ‘Homer’s Phobia’ – his homophobic stereotypes and his misconceptions that homosexuality is contagious are not to be taken at face value by the audience.He is the target of audience scorn and proven wrong by the end of the episode. If a portrayal is one-sided, no matter how hard to disagree a viewpoint it is, it still runs the danger of being preachy and difficult to take seriously. Representation does not equal endorsement.
As a side note, I could easily argue the case of the male characters being unfairly stereotyped in this episode. Bart is quite overtly crude in his sexism, Homer is boorish and ignorant and the newscasters are manipulative and sensationalist. Compare that to Ashey’s pro-activity, Lisa’s appeal to reason and appreciation of Ashley’s feminist efforts and Marge’s attempt at neutrality.
Overall, I think we are both in agreement in the issues of victim-blaming, harassment and media representation. I commend you for your passion and your levelheadedness here. I just think there are better avenues to explore these issues than Homer Badman. Compare how much extrapolation is needed here compared to, say, ‘Blurred Lines’ or the representation of the Steubenville rape scandal (which was practically one step below outright, unimplied victim blaming) and it strikes me as wasted effort. As unfair as it is, we need to pick our battles so we don’t burn ourselves and others out, and I can’t help but feel that there’s an element of confirmation bias at play in your article.
Sorry for the wall of text and my late reply, I hope at the very least we’re a little less at odds now.
You’re fine! Shure I’m late replying too, look at me! Thanks for replying… sorry, I would be a much better respondant, I’ve logged in to write a review of Richard II and my head is all full of RSC at the moment! But again, thanks for the reply! (I suck at responding, I know.)
Hello, I take issue with your article, specifically this line:
“In short, they are mocked for believing the victim first, and taking her at her word. ”
The point is that no one actually knows if she is the victim (of sexual assault) or if Homer is the victim (of false accusations)
It’s absolutely fair of the writers to parody the kneejerk reactions by people who don’t actually know any details of what happened, and choose to believe one side because it creates more of a story. There is no way to argue the witch hunt is okay.
I hope to hear a reply back, thanks
It’s not that they choose to believe her ‘because it creates more of a story’. I took issue with how it was depicted as a witch hunt, and that her supporters were depicted as hysterical and jumping to conclusions. I found that particularly troubling.