In the 18 months Louie was off the air, you might have forgotten just how much debate this show generates. But in the two Mondays of its fourth season to date, Louis C.K.’s odd FX comedy has caused enough controversy to set the blogosphere abuzz.
FX has made the strange decision to burn off two episodes at a time, meaning that four episodes have aired thus far (and I’m going to be spoiling them, so consider this fair warning). Last week, the episode that sparked a couple of Salon thinkpieces was the one titled “Model.” Prachi Gupta summarizes:
Louie meets a beautiful model (rather, a beautiful model pursues Louie), she takes him to her house, and they have sex. While in bed, the woman (Yvonne Strahovski) tickles Louie, despite his urgent warnings that he doesn’t like being tickled. Losing control of his body, Louie then turns and, fully accidentally, hits the woman in the eye. She is taken to the hospital, and Louie is faced with a potential lawsuit from the woman’s family, the disdain of his friends for hitting a woman and the knowledge that “her pupil is paralyzed.”
The title of Gupta’s piece is “Louie hits a woman – but it’s not his fault.” I’m reminded of the controversial season three rape scene of 2012, wherein Louie is sexually assaulted by the woman he is on a date with, and the conflicting feelings brought forth by that. Is the rape of men by women an underreported real-world issue that deserves to be acknowledged more than it is? Absolutely. Did the episode handle the issue in an appropriately sensitive and careful manner? Probably not. Did it nonetheless bring the issue to the attention of people who may not otherwise have considered it? I am willing to believe that it did.
Similarly: Does violence against women sometimes happen in a context where it is truly accidental? Surely it does. But does this episode make a meaningful contribution to the cultural discourse around this topic? I’m not convinced, especially because male celebrities frequently beat women with impunity. Louie the character may be schlubby and unsuccessful, but Louis C.K. the real person is a real-life celebrity. I say this not to slander real-life Louis C.K. by implying that he beats women – to the best of my knowledge, he has never done so – but to point out that, if he did, there would likely be no consequences.
As such, isn’t it arguably a little disingenuous of C.K. to present us with a situation where his onscreen self hits a woman, but it isn’t his fault and he pays a steep price for it? Jennifer Keishin Armstrong suggests that this disingenuousness extends to the whole conceit of the character’s socioeconomic status. It’s not only unfair to pretend that Louie is just one of hoi polloi, it also perpetuates a cultural image of “poor” that is really a representation of robust (upper-)middle-class existence.
Alas, talking about socioeconomic injustice or violence against women is far less of a clickbait than debating the fuckability of a fat woman, so a great deal more discussion has been generated by this week’s episode “So Did The Fat Lady,” in which Louie is made increasingly uncomfortable by the romantic advances of a fat girl (Sarah Baker) until she bursts out in a monologue about the trials of dating while fat.
[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFdWcNJ17YY”]
The debate was instantaneous and plenteous. The episode has been hailed as the start of a necessary conversation. It has been seen, with some frustration and disappointment, as the only way to get a fat woman’s voice out there. It has been scorned as clueless condescension that perpetuates fat-hating stereotypes.
I’m not fat or a woman, so I’m not going to mansplain the right way to react. I will just say that you should go read all of those pieces, as well as this interview with the lovely Sarah Baker and this piece by another actress who auditioned for the part, and try to take on board what everyone is saying.
What I can speak meaningfully to, however, is a little bit that has gotten overlooked in all the conversations, and that is the last 45 seconds of this week’s second episode, “Elevator (Part 1).” In a short section of standup that airs over the end credits, Louis C.K. delivers the following monologue:
I have two daughters, so I’m raising two future women. You know? Maybe. I mean, one of ’em might be a guy later. [audience laughter] It’s possible. [C.K. chuckles] It could happen. Someday one of my daughters will say, “Dad, I’m really a guy.” [laughter] And I’ll be like, “Eh, well, let’s get you a dick. [loud laughter] Let’s get you a dick, honey. I’m gonna get you the nicest dick in town. [shrieks of laughter; C.K. grins] Nothing’s too good for my little girl.” [laughter]
When I wrote about Louis C.K. for our Male Feminists and Allies theme week back in November, I expressed my hope for his improvement on gender and trans issues. This is not what I had in mind. If C.K. really is aware and accepting of the possibility that one of his daughters might be trans, that’s terrific for them, but I somehow don’t think that turning this into a punchline is the best way of expressing this acceptance. Call me humorless, but in my experience it isn’t exactly sidesplitting to have to tell your parents that you’re not the gender they thought you were. And having them deliberately misgender you and objectify your genitals in the guise of supporting you, solely for the sake of a cheap laugh, sounds like no fun at all.
I expect better, Louis C.K. I expect a lot better.
___________________________________________________
Max Thornton blogs at Gay Christian Geek, tumbles as trans substantial, and is slowly learning to twitter at @RainicornMax. He wrote this piece when he should have been working on his final theology paper.
Louis CK will never be perfect. He’s gonna say a lot of things people will dislike but he does try to understand, even if he’s hopelessly out of his element. He’s willing to question everything, even things that he has said in the past.
I try to expect better from him, but I’m never surprised when he says something I disagree with.
Ahh, mansplain. That never ceases to be annoying. In this case it was also really distracting; I had to stop focusing on one point you were arguing (which, aside from the self important bit at the end where you say you expect better of a guy who personally owes you nothing, I found rather insightful) to recall and consider another argument.
I did the parenthesis thing to illustrate how distracting it can be to have multiple ideas within the same sentence. I’m sorry if that’s too much mansplanation, but I expect better of you Max Thornton, I expect a lot better.
“As such, isn’t it arguably a
little disingenuous of C.K. to present us with a situation where his
onscreen self hits a woman, but it isn’t his fault and he pays a steep
price for it?”
In the context of a work-mandated sensitivity training course? Yes.
In the context of an entertaining comedy drama? No.