The Villains of Once Upon a Time

[Shanna Marie]

Pretty much every time he did something bad he ended up smashed by library books, punched, hit by a car, tossed around like a rag doll, etc. while Regina and Rumple get to stroll merrily down the street 99% of the time.

Now we can add "had his heart ripped out" to the list.

 

Plus, he's the only former villain who's still not entirely trusted and accepted by the rest of the town. Even people whose lives he's saved are still wary of him. Emma is dating him but still brings up his piratey past. No one has forgotten that he was a villain. It's like he's on probation with community service -- he's expected to help in any crisis, but he's not entirely trusted and the moment he slips he'll lose whatever trust he's gained. Which is fitting, considering his past deeds. The only problem here is that far worse criminals have gotten away with everything and are trusted.

[Rumsy4]

The only problem here is that far worse criminals have gotten away with everything and are trusted.

 

And that trust is unwarranted. Rumple has clearly gone over the edge. Regina had Sidney enslaved, etc., etc.. The good guys look like idiots when it comes to these two. 

Edited November 20, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Dani-Ellie]

Really, Regina is the problem here. Rumple, I can see everyone treating him the way they do, because he held all the power before and still holds a great deal of it now. Yes, they may be too trusting based on past history but Rumple tends to play his true plans very close to the vest anyway, so that's easier to ignore. But then you have Regina.

 

Regina, who's responsible for a great majority of these people's ills, what with her murdering and cursing, and ... it's all water under the bridge? Snow couldn't even let her husband hold his newborn baby son because she was afraid of missing things like she missed with Emma, and yet she's going to gossip over affairs and give life advice to the woman who was the reason she missed all those things with Emma? Emma is out there somewhere, fixing to remove her birthright, and Snow pauses in the search to talk to Regina? Emma witnesses Regina burn her mother at the stake and is not the tiniest bit horrified when she returns to the present? Henry suffered emotional abuse at the hands of his mother, ate a poisoned turnover meant for his other mother, and was just recently shut out of his mother's life because of a romantic breakup, but everything's a-okay now? Regina imprisoned Robin's wife and sentenced her to death, and he's okay with it to the point that he loves Regina and is willing to let said wife and mother of his child die again?

 

This is not okay. It's not normal. And it's painfully obvious that the writing just does not want to deal with any kind of realistic consequences to Regina's actions. The problem is, the consequences are where the real drama is.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[Rumsy4]

 

One would hope that he could get as much respect as Regina and Rumple have, but that has not happened yet.

 

No matter what they've done, it seems like Rumple and Regina get away with anything and everything, partly because they are "connected" to the Snow/Charming clan. Nepotism, I tell you... :-p I think one of the other reasons is that Hook doesn't have magic, unlike Regina and Rumple. Deep down, everyone respects magical abilities. The good guys need them to save the day during crisis situations, whereas Hook is "cannon fodder" at best. Charming has been coming around, but he is still wary of him to a certain degree. 

[YaddaYadda]

I've been wondering if Regina will feel remotely bad that she let her son who is assisting with Operation Dumbass work for his crazy ass Grandfather once she finds out Gold wanted to suck Emma into the hat and was planning on crushing Hook's heart in order to be even crazier than he already is.

[Shanna Marie]

I've been wondering if Regina will feel remotely bad

I think it's pretty safe to assume that the answer here is "no," regardless of what the rest of the question is.

[KingOfHearts]

 

I've been wondering if Regina will feel remotely bad that she let her son who is assisting with Operation Dumbass work for his crazy ass Grandfather once she finds out Gold wanted to suck Emma into the hat and was planning on crushing Hook's heart in order to be even crazier than he already is.

Well, since Regina has seen the evil things Rumple has done in the past firsthand, I'm surprised she let him work for him in the first place. Before she wouldn't even let him in the vault, and now he's her courier for boxes to put even more hearts into it. Her relationship with Henry has been confusing ever since Robin entered the picture.

Edited November 21, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[kitticup]

He got crushed by a shelf of library books. At least he's suffered from bad karma. Which is why I don't mind him being pretty unpunished justice-wise as much as I have a problem with Regina and Rumple. Pretty much every time he did something bad he ended up smashed by library books, punched, hit by a car, tossed around like a rag doll, etc. while Regina and Rumple get to stroll merrily down the street 99% of the

Don't forget he spent 200 years in Neverland with a psycho.

[jhlipton]

Rumple is too knowledgeable about the Price of Magic...

 

 

 All magic has a price, dearie!

 

Except when it doesn't, and even when it does, it's so variable as to be meaningless.  For some it means a minor inconvenience; for others, death and destruction.

 

 

Question from my non-watching daughter. Is the Snow Queen's level  crazy associated with the size of her collar or the amount of cleavage?

 

Zelena, Regina,Cora and Ingrid are forming a band called The Evil Cleavage.

 

ETA: Zelena is not Zendara.  I have no idea who "Zendara"!  LOL

Edited November 21, 2014 by jhlipton

[angelwoody]

Well, since Regina has seen the evil things Rumple has done in the past firsthand, I'm surprised she let him work for him in the first place. Before she wouldn't even let him in the vault, and now he's her courier to for boxes to put even more hearts into it. Her relationship with Henry has been confusing ever since Robin entered the picture.

She's treating him as much older than the show would have us believe. The things she's involving him in are highly inappropriate for a 12-13 year old.

[Mari]

Well, since Regina has seen the evil things Rumple has done in the past firsthand, I'm surprised she let him work for him in the first place. Before she wouldn't even let him in the vault, and now he's her courier to for boxes to put even more hearts into it. Her relationship with Henry has been confusing ever since Robin entered the picture.

 

 

She's treating him as much older than the show would have us believe. The things she's involving him in are highly inappropriate for a 12-13 year old.

And at the same time,  it's pretty obvious Henry's been downgraded from being the only thing that could make her happy.

 

It was not likely meant to be a particularly significant line in terms of Regina's relationship with Henry, but in the last episode she basically said she regretted not going into the bar to meet Robin when he was still the petty thief.  That she regretted becoming evil.

 

Now, maybe she didn't mean it, and it was just morning after sweet nothings, but at the same time--she's been adamant before that it was impossible to regret becoming the Evil Queen, because it meant she would have to regret Henry.  Everything she did was fine, because it resulted in Henry being her son.

 

She might not be willing to go back in history and erase Henry, but she seems to think she would have been happier if she had gone with Robin. (And she probably would have been.  So would a lot of other people, since, well, they'd still be alive.)

 

I hate Operation Mongoose, because Regina is still not taking any responsibility for the choices she made.  But at the same time, this is the first time that Regina's noticed the choices she made were bad.  She's not made the connection between Bad Choice-Bad Result, but she has made one little baby step.

[Faemonic]

Emma and David being co-sheriffs is a joke, too. Aside from Will, who do they arrest? Who mans the office/police station when they aren't there looking up census books to find Snow Queen? Don't they have property crimes and domestic violence calls? It's not only that villains never pay for their crimes, reforming semi-villains don't, either. Did Hook ever answer for attempted murder of Belle? Justice is a joke in Storybrooke. If Emma wants to embrace who she is and stay there with family, maybe she can make it a project to have real law enforcement. But like YaddaYadda said, an exorcist would be better.

I generally agree. However...

- Emma detained Will for, like, two days with the charge of "ruining my date" which would have been shady even if said date hadn't beaten him up. So, that's a maybe not to me for Emma heading law enforcement reform in Storybrooke.

- Snow's mayoral pardon was played as cute but was several shades of shady!

- Apparently there are no property crimes or domestic violence calls.

+ Perhaps pockets of Storybrooke defaulted to their respective feudal lords (except for George.) (And maybe Moe... or I don't know, maybe Moe's a halfway decent ruler but an awful father.) Or Mother Superior just goes around giving people the stinkeye to keep them brave, truthful, and unselfish... something.

- Wait, isn't Abigail/Katherine a lawyer?

- About Hook, no, he has no faced formal charges of assault, battery, conspiracy, attempted murder etc. in a jury of his peers. And I don't hold with Fate being an arbiter of justice, because that's not anything like society's due process. But he did apologize to Belle.

+ Archie though.

+ Will though.

- Wait, isn't evil King George the district attorney?

+ Wait, isn't evil King George evil?

+ Wait, isn't Rumpel also knowledgeable or at least active somehow sometimes in legal capacity?

+ Wait, isn't Rumpel also kind of sort of morally bankrupt?

+++ Katherine, help!!

Edited November 21, 2014 by Faemonic

[Crimson Belle]

Katherine is not a lawyer.  Her cursed character was planning on leaving town to go to law school.  She never did.  George is no longer the DA because he murdered Billy to set up Red. 

[Faemonic]

 

Katherine is not a lawyer.  Her cursed character was planning on leaving town to go to law school.  She never did.

Storybrooke is doomed.  It usually is, but wow. That. That's a giant problem.

George is no longer the DA because he murdered Billy to set up Red.

 

Small mercies.

[Amerilla]

George is no longer the DA because he murdered Billy to set up Red.

 

What did happen to George at the end of that episode? I half-remember he sort of just wandered off in the grand tradition of Storybrooke justice. Was there any follow-up on that whole story?

[ShadowFacts]

Another law enforcement fail has to be BoPeep the butcher going for her cleaver to use against Co-Sheriff David.  She's kind of dangerous.  And at large.

[Mathius]

What did happen to George at the end of that episode? I half-remember he sort of just wandered off in the grand tradition of Storybrooke justice. Was there any follow-up on that whole story?

He was arrested. A deleted scene in "Tiny" shows that he's imprisoned in the mines.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Mathius

[Faemonic]

 

He was arrested. A deleted scene in "Tiny" shows that he's imprisoned in the mines.

 

No human rights violations going on there, I'm sure. He's been properly mirandized and siphoning Storybrooke taxes for his upkeep and everything. There might be some hope of parole. Or an underground-wandering Maleficent feeding on his soul in order to regain human form. Yikes, at least in the asylum people are bound to remember to slide a food tray in there once in a while.

And now I'm wondering if Storybrooke has a statute of limitations for murder so Rumpel's technically in the clear after 28 to a couple hundred years. Maybe Tamara's death ain't no thing because Neverland doesn't have an extradition treaty. Or... laws...

And then there's the consent issue that won't die: Graham's heart and curse memories.

At this point I think Storybrooke needs, like, Welcome To Nightvale level of governance. At least Snow is trying with her fireside chats.

[Shanna Marie]

At this point I think Storybrooke needs, like, Welcome To Nightvale level of governance.

Does Hook count as the sheriff's secret police?

[Faemonic]

 

Does Hook count as the sheriff's secret police?

 

I would despair if he didn't.

More likely to be Ruby, though--she's been a ninja since Season 2. I love Hook, but I generally prefer ninjas.

[KingOfHearts]

Storybrooke desperately needs some sort of justice system. The two sheriffs are frightfully arbitrary when it comes to their judgements. In S1, we spent five episodes moving through a case of possible murder. Now Rumple kills Zelena, and it'll never be mentioned again. Then there's everything Mayor Mills did... In this town, the law really does let you get away with murder.

Edited November 21, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[regularlyleaded]

Storybrooke desperately needs some sort of justice system. The two sheriffs are frightfully arbitrary when it comes to their judgements. In S1, we spent five episodes moving through a case of possible murder. Now Rumple kills Zelena, and it'll never be mentioned again. Then there's everything Mayor Mills did... In this town, the law really does let you get away with murder.

Please, let's be real here. It's not the justice system or the sheriffs that let everyone get away with murder IT'S THE WRITERS. No one knows that Rumple killed Zelena, no one knows Regina killed Graham. The writers have gone out of their way to pretend these things didn't happen and because no one knows then it doesn't matter. The show also actually compares the behavior of an ill behaved spoiled child to that of a mass murdering fully grown adult. Those are the two standards they are using for someone being not completely good and not completely evil. As if little Jane Doe throwing a temper tantrum because someone wore her tiara is totally the same as Pol Pot cutting a swath of death across a country. Ya, totally the same.

 

I can't bring myself to quibble over who gets thrown in jail for larceny when the writers can't recognize murder is bad, let alone that a murder happened, or that those that commit murder and don't regret it are bad people. You can't have a "justice system" on this show when the fundamental morality has been twisted beyond recognition. When the writers put the people who are supposed to be the "good guys" (and victims themselves) in the position of bending over backwards to coddle and prostrate themselves to their abusers and the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes on the show, well, there's absolutely no reason to think that the idea of "justice" (whether karmic or legal) is even something the writers understand.(eta: and if they do understand it then they very obviously don't care.)

Edited November 21, 2014 by regularlyleaded

[KingOfHearts]

 

Please, let's be real here. It's not the justice system or the sheriffs that let everyone get away with murder IT'S THE WRITERS.

Replying in All Seasons.

[Mari]

There've been several comments in the episode thread for Fall about Rumple's plan to take Belle and Henry, and leave town--and his expectation that they'll be okay with it.  The thing is, I might be in the minority on this one, but I don't actually think that's out of character for Rumple--especially when he's in full blown devoted to evil mode. 

 

When he first became the Dark One, he several times did things to protect Bae, or consolidate his power, that he knew Baelfire wouldn't approve of.   He expected Bae to get over it and accept it.   When he found Baelfire/Neal after all those years of separation, Rumple had selfish plans that he thought Neal/Baelfire would be okay with.  For example, rejuvenating Neal so that he could be raised by Rumple the way Rumple wanted.

 

With Belle, they've set a relationship pattern where Rumple usually does what he thinks is best, or what he wants to do, and Belle may make a token objection, but usually accepts it--there's not enough history of Belle standing up to Rumple to make me believe Rumple takes Belle leaving as a permanent, serious threat.  I have no problem believing that Rumple thinks Belle would be angry a short period, and then get over it and be happy.

 

As for Henry?  Henry's the kid that is currently cheerleading his psychotic, abusive, murderous, rapist mother.  If Henry's willing to completely ignore all of that stuff, Rumple has reason to believe that Henry'd get over it and accept his new life with Grandpa and Stepgran Belle.

 

Now, Henry and Belle could easily have very different reactions, but predicting how people he actually cares about will react to his casually stomping on other people has never been Rumple's best skill. 

[satrunrose]

Mari, I agree with you that Rumple probably doesn't care or isn't aware of how Belle and Henry would take the "steal all the power and run" plan. I also agree that Belle might claim to have a problem with leaving their friends to destroy each other, but wouldn't do anything to stop him due to her level of naïveté/Stockholm Syndrome/closet evil (depending on your interpretation). My question had more to do with why he waited until after everyone had been cursed to get the escape going. because given the stuff mirror-Belle had to say about Rumple, I'm not sure it's safe to assume she's be in a hurry to go anywhere with him. Unless Rumple wanted to take evil mirror family with him instead...

[Camera One]

My question had more to do with why he waited until after everyone had been cursed to get the escape going. because given the stuff mirror-Belle had to say about Rumple, I'm not sure it's safe to assume she's be in a hurry to go anywhere with him.

 

Yeah, I assumed from the beginning of the episode that he wanted to be out of there before the Curse hit.  

[Souris]

Hey, maybe Rumple would prefer Evil Mirror Belle and Evil Mirror Henry -- he wouldn't have to worry about pretending to be heroic and good anymore!

[Camera One]

Except they would see the worse in him too, and wouldn't be their usual gullible selves.

[Souris]

Ah, true. I didn't say it was a foolproof plan! ;)

[KAOS Agent]

Maybe he figures that once they leave town the spell will be undone because there's no magic to power it. Except for dragons and Emma's powers and flying monkeys and shadows, this is obviously a world without magic.

[InsertWordHere]

So I've never really agreed with the "Rumple is a misogynist" argument because I've always thought he was an equal-opportunity villain, but his quote from last episode about how Anna needed to be shut up because she's "a bit mouthy" along with his statements about the fairies in episode 9 "vilest of creatures" "flying pests" "it's important to get them all" have made me change my mind. Now I know Rumple has a centuries-long hatred for the fairies and in the past I've enjoyed that aspect of his character, but I don't think I can enjoy it anymore. He forces his slave to entrap an entire race (as far as we know) that happens to solely be comprised of females (again as far as we know) and that's problematic as hell. Couple this with the fact that he ruthlessly killed a fairy early on in the series in addition to a mute maid, a woman of color, a defenseless Zelena and his own wife because she left him for another man and it becomes a disturbing pattern even if they weren't all killed just because they were women. Run Belle, run.

[Faemonic]

So I've never really agreed with the "Rumple is a misogynist" argument because I've always thought he was an equal-opportunity villain, but (...) He forces his slave to entrap an entire race (as far as we know) that happens to solely be comprised of females (again as far as we know) and that's problematic as hell.

Ah, I love this analysis. Because what first drew me to the show was all the princesses, front and center, with maybe some guys to serve as love interests or get rescued. It was refreshing. For me, misogyny is not only about the character's gender identity, motivations, and deeds--but also how those deeds (including words!) draw from or interface with the world within the show.

The tipping point to consider anybody misogynistic to me was Jonathan. If Jonathan can talk like that, then Rumple, Hook, even David probably have that same cultural influence. Until then, I'd considered Fairy Tale Land a world that couldn't sustain misogyny any more than the Land Without Magic could sustain misandry. (To be pedantic, I'm taking to specialized terminology whereby a person hating, ignoring, or de-humanizing in even a tiny way another person solely because of gender isn't mis-gender-I.D.-y; you'd need a systemic gender-based imbalance of power granted by society.)

But I understood why people got really put off by Hook sexually objectifying women. Before Jonathan, I could leave my Land Without Magic gender worldview where it is, and see that Hook was actually flirting as a matter of survival, and he didn't seem to have any more support granted to him for being a man than female characters had for existing--but not all viewers have the It's Fiction firewall that I have and they shouldn't have to build one. If Hook ruined the show for some viewers, then he ruined the show for some viewers. He's still my favorite character, but his quips about Emma looking good in uncomfortable clothing were much, much, much less cute than I think anybody intended.

Still, Rumpel could get away with killing or attempting to kill a powerless, contrite Milah; a powerless Regina; a powerless, contrite Tamara; a powerless, contrite Zelena; and a clueless, trusting Emma without coming off to me as misogynistic because he doesn't sexually objectify every woman he encounters (to Regina: "I'm flattered, but uninterested.") And, as you say, he kills off some guys too, like Snail Man, Peter Pan, and Mickey Mouse. He's the exception to the rule in a world full of magically, politically, and narratively empowered women... though Milah's situation is creepily problematic, if they'd let us look more closely. Belle started out subversive, but I don't know where she is now, and Zelena was very subversive I think (but not necessarily in a good way.) With Tamara I was really going, "Oh, come on!" Even Owen got more backstory than that.

When it comes to the fairies, though, yeah, they're fungible, violable, instrumental and coincidentally all female. Rumple's getting to really represent problems that I don't think bad blood with Oberon can fix.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Faemonic

[Rumsy4]

Misogyny is more than sexual objectification of women--it also includes subjection of women to fit traditional gender roles (Milah), and violence against them (from tossing Ruby, to every woman he has killed, including Zelena, Milah, Tamara, Cora, Cinderella's fairy godmother, the little blind girl, and the Seer). He threatened Emma with injury when he thought she was lying to him in the Manhattan episode. He sent a wraith to suck Regina's soul. The "flattered, but not interested" comment is actually not unlaced with sexual subtext. Why even assume Regina would be interested in him sexually? Regina was hardly showing bedroom eyes when she ran into his shop. Or was that his idea of a joke? If so, still inappropriate, surely?

Incidentally, how many men have we seen Rumple kill in comparison to the several women he has killed? Three? Four? I remember Gaston, the General, Zoso, and Pan. The "hatting" of the Apprentice can be called murder, I suppose. The other times he's been violent with men have had something to do with women in a lot of instances (Milah/Hook, Belle/Moe, Belle/Sheriff of Nottingham)--people who were romantic rivals or guardians of his "women". Even Gaston was literally objectified when he was attempting to rescue Belle.

He also has a history of specifically manipulating women into his instruments of Curse-casting beings (Zelena and Regina). His targets have been more female than male--the statistics are simply too imbalanced for it to be mere coincidence. I mean, he's literally 300 years old, and from his attitude towards Milah, is from a traditional patriarchal society. He probably never got out of that mindset. The only person's lead he's been remotely willing to follow, was his son Neal. In comparison, both Hook and Charming have been shown to be consistently willing to follow the lead of women--both magical and non-magical beings. And many of the problematic behaviors associated with Hook, Charming has exhibited as well, but that's neither here nor there.

And with his willingness to Hat Emma, and destroy an entire race of female beings, misogyny seems just one of Rumple's faults, which now include genocide and whole species-eradication as well.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Faemonic]

Misogyny is more than sexual objectification of women--it also includes subjection of women to fit traditional gender roles (Milah), and violence against them

True to the first point, I'll get back to the second point, on the third point: when so much of the conflicts on this show do come down to violence, though, I can see an leveling of the battleground as far as gender goes (And I'll get back to this point after the next quote.) Definitely, Rumple's subjecting Milah to a role in the relationship and in the world that she absolutely did not volunteer for was foul, foul, so very foul. But as I mentioned to me it also depends on how the world was set up to judge if that foulness was misogynistic. I'm leaning more towards that it was indeed.

Incidentally, how many men have we seen Rumple kill in comparison to the several women he has killed? Three? Four? I remember Gaston, the General, Zoso, and Pan. The "hatting" of the Apprentice can be called murder, I suppose.

Snail Man, too. I can't believe I forgot about Gaston!

I wouldn't tally up male deaths by Rumple versus female deaths by Rumple and let that be the only deciding factor of Rumple's sexism, or even the main one. It's an odd feature of systemic oppression that some degree of privilege, normalcy, becomes in a way invisible. Marginalization becomes a different kind of invisibility, exoticism becomes a different kind of attention. Representation sets the scene, numbers are a part of that, but I don't consider it only a numbers game. The storylines we're given to follow and that are treated as most significant, on this show, do center female characters, and the more centered any character, the more the conflict, and when that's routinely solved with violence as here, then Rumple gets into a situation that just does not look good for him--because he's using violence against women. But what we see are not statistics, it's a story where we're shown events that are significant.

On a tangent, I think that female characters exempt from violence because they're female characters can actually come off as more sexist, because it's not the case that a safe space is something needed and chosen by an autonomous individual. These aren't autonomous individuals, they're fictional characters. So, instead, that would be safety imposed upon a gender type.

Back to Rumple, I think that the lack of male body count is less a matter that Rumple has an innate respect for men that he extends much less of to women...rather, I see it more as it's the show itself that at times (especially earlier times) marginalizes men to have less significant presence than the female leads?

But then again, yeah, Rumple himself has been the loud, sparkly, chessmasterly, bludgeony, stabby, magical, wealthy and consistent exception to that.

The other times he's been violent with men have had something to do with women in a lot of instances (Milah/Hook, Belle/Moe, Belle/Sheriff of Nottingham)--people who were romantic rivals or guardians of his "women". Even Gaston was literally objectified when he was attempting to rescue Belle.

That's a very good point. If Rumple truly were an equal opportunity villain, then the nature of these conflicts could vary up a bit rather than sort of orbit around that bolded point.

The only person's lead he's been remotely willing to follow, was his son Neal. In comparison, both Hook and Charming have been shown to be consistently willing to follow the lead of women--both magical and non-magical beings. And many of the problematic behaviors associated with Hook, Charming has exhibited as well, but that's neither here nor there.

I suppose that it has been established, then, that both worlds--all worlds, really--in this show are places with sexism, and patriarchal sexism at that.

Yet, I can recognize Neal, Hook, and Charming as "merely" sexist as in products of their conditioning--whereas Rumple...yeah, back to the thesis statement.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Faemonic

[kili]

He also has a history of specifically manipulating women into his instruments of Curse-casting beings (Zelena and Regina).

 

He also manipulated Cora and that rival student Regina killed (her first heart crush). It appears that all of Rumple's students where female and given his intent was to use the student, not train them for their own good, that's a little troubling.

 

Cora was the only student of his that managed to outwit him and survive. The Rival Student was killed (which Rumple smiled about and had probably intended all along because while he was training her, he was setting up the entire Daniel-stein con which he hoped would drive Regina further down the road to Crazy Town). Zelena was cruelly tossed aside when he decided that she no longer suited his purpose. Regina was tormented for years to constantly herd her towards casting the curse which ultimately caused her to kill her father (the only person who loved her at the time - ironic that Rumple manipulated a child into killing her father so that he, a father, could get back to the child he'd driven away).

 

Ingrid was probably very wise to pass on his offer to train her.

 

The other times he's been violent with men have had something to do with women in a lot of instances (Milah/Hook, Belle/Moe, Belle/Sheriff of Nottingham)--people who were romantic rivals or guardians of his "women". Even Gaston was literally objectified when he was attempting to rescue Belle.

 

Rumple is quite possessive of his female love interests. You can add Whale to the list of his male victims who winked at one of them.

Edited December 3, 2014 by kili

[ShadowFacts]

 

And with his willingness to Hat Emma, and destroy an entire race of female beings, misogyny seems just one of Rumple's faults, which now include genocide and whole species-eradication as well.

 

He is misogynistic without a doubt, and he is misanthropic in the bargain.  He loved his son, but has no use for the rest of humankind.  Belle is a "light" in his life, not the love of his life.  He treats her with utter disrespect.  No one really matters to Rumple except Rumple.  All are expendable who cross his path.

[Serena]

I will say, I don't think simply "murdering a woman" or "lusting after a woman" are misogynistic behaviours, per se. Like, Rumple trying to kill Regina in 201... I'm not willing to call that sexist, because if it had been a male wizard who imprisoned Belle for 28 years and made Rumple believe she was dead, etc. I totally believe he would have had the same reaction. 

Rumple also killed a lot of female villains, but it can be argued that 90% of OUAT villains are females. The way S3 ended and finished (with Rumple murdering a woman who was powerless and begging for her life, because she hurt his precious male son) was very problematic because of the pattern it estabilished - Rumple killing a defenseless woman. I also think those stick to mind more than random "Rumple kills snail guy" and "Rumple kills Gaston" because Tamara and Zelena were major characters. 

 

However, THE act that very firmly puts Rumple in the "sexist" column for me is the Milah thing. Not just her murder - but every single reaction of his to the whole thing, insisting Hook "stole" her, etc. And I can't believe that the writers aren't aware of how sexist "he stole my wife" is, because they did have Hook reply with "if a woman begs you to take her away, is that theft?".

And this may be unpopular, but I'm gonna also call Belle sexist for repeating the "Milah was stolen" thing because fair is fair.

 

I also think the "sexually objectifying" thing is a whole other discussion. Like, what is meant by objectifying? Is Hook saying Emma looks hot in 321 objectifying? But we know he doesn't look at her as an object. Is him telling her that she looks stunning in 404 objectifying? If not, why? Because of the language that he used? He was basically telling her both times that he likes the way she looks in that particular dress/outfit. We know Jonhathan was objectifying Cora because he wasn't interested in more than sex - but Hook is, so where do we draw the line? Was Charming being exhasperated with with Snow in 310 because he wanted to have honeymoon sex and she wanted to slay Medusa objectifying? It seems sometimes any instance of sexual desire from a man in this fandom is seen as negative.

I think one instance of Hook objectifying Emma is their Lake Nostros fight - he turned the talk to sex but he was in no way expressing honest sexual desire in that moment. He'll often do that in moments of high tension as a kind of defence mechanism. Another such moment is, I think the hospital scene in 212 - I don't know if it's "objectifying" (I've written that word way too much) but he'll definitely default to sexual humor in unconfortable situations (Charming and Emma go for violence humor, like "I'll punch you in the face" instead).

Edited December 3, 2014 by Serena

[YaddaYadda]

I get why Rumple wants to take Belle with him and leave Storybrooke, but I'm not sure about Henry.  Does he suddenly care about him because I've never seen it.  He went to Neverland to help find Henry more for Bae's sake than Henry's.  He was plotting to kill the kid like 5 minutes before.  He had a whole scene with him that was deleted and a total of two snippets.

 

And does he not know that Henry would put up a fight and go on and on about how heroes don't abandon people in their time of need, because we don't even know how Henry feels about this specific grandpa, though he is willing to manipulate him and use the memory of his deceased father to do it in order to get something from him.  So I'm guessing Henry could care less about Rumple.

 

Don't mind me, I'm on two hours of sleep.  It's all good.

[Mari]

I get why Rumple wants to take Belle with him and leave Storybrooke, but I'm not sure about Henry. Does he suddenly care about him because I've never seen it. He went to Neverland to help find Henry more for Bae's sake than Henry's. He was plotting to kill the kid like 5 minutes before. He had a whole scene with him that was deleted and a total of two snippets.

And does he not know that Henry would put up a fight and go on and on about how heroes don't abandon people in their time of need, because we don't even know how Henry feels about this specific grandpa, though he is willing to manipulate him and use the memory of his deceased father to do it in order to get something from him. So I'm guessing Henry could care less about Rumple.

Don't mind me, I'm on two hours of sleep. It's all good.

I don't think he'd need deep feelings to want Henry. Bae's dead. Henry's all Rumple has left of him and since he reconciled with Bae, that would be important. It's not about affection so much as posession of the one thing Bae left in the world. (Not that affection couldn't grow.) If he leaves Henry behind, there's always going to be that nagging what if and the possibility he'll regret it--like he does letting Bae go.

As for Henry not being thrilled about it? He's got no problem forgiving Regina, is friendly with Hook, and we know the histories there. He'll have years to get Henry to forgive him, and it didn't take Henry years to forgive Regina abusing him and trying to kill Emma, poisoning Henry in the process.

Plus, when Rumple's emotionally involved, he's less likely to see how the other person will actually feel about his ideas--see a good chunk of his relationship with his son for examples.

So why not take Henry? It's not like it's going yo cost him much. (If things were to go the way he's planned.)

[kili]

I don't think he'd need deep feelings to want Henry. Bae's dead. Henry's all Rumple has left of him and since he reconciled with Bae, that would be important. It's not about affection so much as posession of the one thing Bae left in the world.

 

Yes, it's about "Henry the Possession". Rumple doesn't give a crap about "Henry the Person". It was  pretty much the same with Bae. Neal was only able to moderate Rumple's behaviour because he absolutely would not tolerate it - the Possession would walk away. Bae repeatedly told his father that his actions were making him miserable, but Rumple couldn't be bothered to moderate or change his behavior in any way. Bae's adult version stopped asking and started demanding.

 

Rumple didn't pause for a moment at killing Henry's mother. He doesn't give a crap about the pain that would cause Henry. He isn't the least bit phased that Emma is going to be tied to crazy-pants Snow Queen living in a ghost town and that Henry's other mother is likely to be killed along with his other grandparents.  Rumple doesn't care what that will do to Henry. Heck, he even orders the death of the one group of people who could save Henry's friends and relatives.

 

Henry's wants don't matter. Only Rumple's.

 

If Henry complains, Rumple can just put a memory curse on him or something. No problem. Like Rumple cares. Henry is Bae's son, so now Henry is Rumple's. Screw Henry's happiness.

[Mathius]

He is misogynistic without a doubt, and he is misanthropic in the bargain.  He loved his son, but has no use for the rest of humankind.  Belle is a "light" in his life, not the love of his life.  He treats her with utter disrespect.  No one really matters to Rumple except Rumple.  All are expendable who cross his path.

This. Rumple is a misanthrope who hates people of both genders, but from Milah and onward, his streak of disliking women HAS been noticeably stronger than his streak of disliking men.

[Serena]

This. Rumple is a misanthrope who hates people of both genders, but from Milah and onward, his streak of disliking women HAS been noticeably stronger than his streak of disliking men.

Or disliking men for women-related reasons: Hook, Gaston, Whale, that other dude who hit on Belle...

[Shanna Marie]

The thing with Milah is like a double-whammy -- killing her for leaving him is bad enough, but could have been considered a crime of passion, acting out of pain from realizing that he'd been betrayed and his love wasn't returned. But now there's no indication that there's any love involved. It doesn't sound like he mourns her, he shows no remorse at all, and he's even gleeful. He mocked Hook for mourning her death. And if he's killing her for leaving him but doesn't seem to have any feelings for her, then that suggests that she was never anything more to him than a possession, and he killed her not out of being hurt by her betrayal but because he couldn't stand losing control of her. That's the really scary part that makes me want to tell Belle to run. He treats the women in his life like possessions who have no say over their own lives. Even now, his whole scheme to take Belle and Henry and leave Storybrooke to burn hasn't allowed Belle any choice in the matter. Yeah, she probably doesn't want to die, but does she have any interest in leaving Storybrooke? It's not like he's discussed it with her.

[kili]

Even now, his whole scheme to take Belle and Henry and leave Storybrooke to burn hasn't allowed Belle any choice in the matter.

 

Further to that, he even hindered her efforts to stay in town. Not only did he order the Hat execution of the fairies who were working to avert the curse, but he also didn't bother to give any advice on finding Anna. He knew where Anna was (he'd seen her frozen in Arendelle) and I'll eat  that hat if he didn't also know about the Wishing Star. He just happened to take a powerful magic object as a random souviner? Not buying it. He has repeatedly said that he can feel magic and the Wishing Star has very powerful magic. If Blackbeard can figure out what it was, Rumple can too especially since he is in possession of it for several years before the curse (and habitually studies magical things he encounters).

 

Belle wants to save the town. Rumple could choose to help her reach her goal. He'd rather give the Snow Queen what she wants (the ribbons) and gets what he wants in exchange. 

 

Regina used to be the same way (Henry won't mind if I kill the entire town just so long as we are together), but now at least realizes she has to consider his wants. She didn't want to kill Marian because that would disappoint the one's she loves. It would be nice if she gets to the point of not wanting to kill people because it is bad, but at least we are part way there.

Edited December 3, 2014 by kili

[Faemonic]

I will say, I don't think simply "murdering a woman" or "lusting after a woman" are misogynistic behaviours, per se. Rumple also killed a lot of female villains, but it can be argued that 90% of OUAT villains are females. The way S3 ended and finished (with Rumple murdering a woman who was powerless and begging for her life, because she hurt his precious male son) was very problematic because of the pattern it estabilished - Rumple killing a defenseless woman.

That put it better than I ever could have!

I can't believe that the writers aren't aware of how sexist "he stole my wife" is, because they did have Hook reply with "if a woman begs you to take her away, is that theft?".

Or maybe they're not aware of how anti-sexist that is, what with Hook basically pointing out, "Excuse you, Milah wasn't a thing, she was a person with decision-making capabilities."

So, the writers might not be aware of the dynamics attached to Hook expressing his sexuality, either. That he has a sexuality at all and expresses it is, of course, not misogynistic any more than blowing your nose is unhygienic. It depends on what the tissue of the world is.

.

I also think the "sexually objectifying" thing is a whole other discussion. Like, what is meant by objectifying?

Features of objectification at all (according to Martha Nussbaum and Rae Langton:)

1. Fungibility: The objectified person is interchangeable with objects or any other fungible person.

2. Violability. Or inviolability, I guess it's a "flammable, inflammable means the same thing" thing but basically: the objectified person is treated as having no personal boundaries or limits that are worthy of consideration.

3. Instrumentality: The objectified person is considered for their service to the subjectified person alone, especially because...

4. Denial of subjective experience: ...the objectified person is silenced or not expected to have a full personal experience worthy of consideration, within the boundaries that they're discouraged from having anyway (see 2)

5. Denial of autonomy: I guess a combination of 4 and denial of the ability to act of their own will?

6. Denial of agency: I don't know how this is different from 5. Maybe one denies the concept and the other is more practical restraint by societal pressures?

7. The objectified person is identified as their body (and with protracted and consistent societal pressure, this can be internalized through disempowerment rather than the person in question autonomously identifying as their body because they love their body or something.)

8. The objectified person is reduced to appearance.

There are a couple more, but note that these things listed are points of a system, so you don't have to do them all, all the time to be objectifying. As you said, an act becomes charged with meaning when it establishes a pattern, and this wouldn't be an examination of a pattern of behavior for a single person but how everybody's patterns play into each other within society.

Is Hook saying Emma looks hot in 321 objectifying? But we know he doesn't look at her as an object.

That knowledge is dependent on his conduct. When he's basically saying, "I know you just said that you're uncomfortable, but I'm going to ignore your subjective experience and displace it with how much better my life is right now because I have something pretty to look at"...that isn't protected by some set-in-stone trait establishment that "He doesn't see the women he loves as objects!" Instead, it's establishing a sentiment to the contrary.

Is him telling her that she looks stunning in 404 objectifying? If not, why? Because of the language that he used? He was basically telling her both times that he likes the way she looks in that particular dress/outfit.

Emma wasn't complaining about her spleen in 404. She'd clearly chosen something that she wanted to wear, entered formal date-space with a mutual agreement that an appreciation for personal presentation would be received...and, given.

Sexual objectification isn't a line, it's a web.

Was Charming being exhasperated with with Snow in 310 because he wanted to have honeymoon sex and she wanted to slay Medusa objectifying?

1. Fungibility. Nope. Charming's not going to marry another princess who would be more open to honeymoon sex.

2. Violability. Nope. He's not going to have honeymoon sex anyway, with the same princess, if she doesn't want to.

3. Instrumentality. Nope. Charming wasn't using Snow for babymaking; they were collaborating on that.

4. Denial of subjective experience. Nope. Charming negotiated Snow's feelings of having her personal boundaries violated by Regina's wedding-crashing, he didn't try to override them.

5. Denial of autonomy. No.

6. Denial of agency. No.

7. The objectified person is identified as their body... No.

8. The objectified person is reduced to appearance. No.

I think one instance of Hook objectifying Emma is their Lake Nostros fight - he turned the talk to sex but he was in no way expressing honest sexual desire in that moment. He'll often do that in moments of high tension as a kind of defence mechanism.

And that it was established that Hook has needed to defend himself in that way (seeing as he doesn't have magic, or recognizable blue blood) is why I don't consider that line the worst thing. Hook is basically genderswapped brunet English-accented Saffron from Firefly, grinding against Malcolm Reynolds and crooning that, "I've just been waiting for someone good enough to take me down..." (Or he was. Curse you, Jonathan!)

Now, when that same line becomes a fan favorite because it's the most explicitly sexy thing that Hook has said, never mind the violence, then it takes on a sinister quality to me, because I think we ought to kind of mind the violence. It's taking that part, that scene, into a greater context or another context where the list of objectification can apply more completely, and adding sex and violence doesn't help Hook's case.

Another such moment is, I think the hospital scene in 212 - I don't know if it's "objectifying" (I've written that word way too much) but he'll definitely default to sexual humor in unconfortable situations (Charming and Emma go for violence humor, like "I'll punch you in the face" instead).

Exactly. Hook is sexually objectified. He sexually objectifies himself. That character pattern is, I think, his saving grace if we consider how Hook's expression of his sexuality (or expression of his sexiness, which would be more objectifying as in self-objectifying than sexuality as a subjective experience) plays off the immediate circumstances and the patterns of human interaction in the world. If he weren't so pretty, Cora would have killed him; and if she killed him anyway, she'd probably only miss the pretty rather than the person. That's a manifestation of sexual objectification on the extreme end, and Hook is usually on the disempowered side of it. Hook's world is like a gender empathy exercise designed by Jane Elliott. Or, at least, it was, and can be at times (see also: Zelena's rape-y ways). When it's not, though--then it's not.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Faemonic

[Shanna Marie]

When he's basically saying, "I know you just said that you're uncomfortable, but I'm going to ignore your subjective experience and displace it with how much better my life is right now because I have something pretty to look at"...that isn't protected by some set-in-stone trait establishment that "He doesn't see the women he loves as objects!" Instead, it's establishing a sentiment to the contrary.

With that one, we need to consider the context. In that scene, it wasn't really about her dressing to please him or so he'd have something pretty to look at. She was complaining about what she had to wear to blend into that world so they wouldn't change the timeline with her presence, and he basically was telling her in a flirty way to suck it up and deal with it. It was more about trying to make her feel better about what she had to do than about her having to conform to his ideas of beauty. He even commented about how it was too bad her red leather jacket wasn't ever going to be in vogue in that world. If he expected her to wear corsets all the time just because he likes the way she looks in them, it would be objectifying her. Saying that he likes the way she looks in the strange and uncomfortable disguise she needs to blend in is more of a gray area, especially when it's said with the slightly exasperated tone he used and when he combined it with a complimentary remark about her usual attire. I guess a parallel would be telling someone complaining about a uniform they had to wear to work that they do look good in it.

[Faemonic]

With that one, we need to consider the context. In that scene, it wasn't really about her dressing to please him or so he'd have something pretty to look at. She was complaining about what she had to wear to blend into that world so they wouldn't change the timeline with her presence, and he basically was telling her in a flirty way to suck it up and deal with it. It was more about trying to make her feel better about what she had to do than about her having to conform to his ideas of beauty.

If it was more about that, he put it quite badly: "Your discomfort is a cross I'm willing to bear."

it wasn't really about her dressing to please him or so he'd have something pretty to look at (...) If he expected her to wear corsets all the time just because he likes the way she looks in them, it would be objectifying her.

It doesn't have to be that consistent and extreme to still be sexual objectification, even in context. The way I took it, he was still dismissing Emma's subjective experience, and not, at that moment, because it was practical, or because he thought it would encourage her. It's a milder manifestation of sexism, but not gray about it being sexist. It is sexist. I mean, it flows into a sexist pattern, far too neatly.

The remark later, "You might not be able to move, but you cut quite a figure in that dress." Similar sentiment, but I could accept that as grayer because I could take it as reflecting back Emma's experience rather than dismissing it or abstracting it, and placing her in a position of agency ("you cut quite a figure in that dress.") But it's not the words alone, it's how it flows into an established pattern. So, the previous moment, where Hook didn't allude to how his tight black vest with the plunging neckline makes it difficult to breathe and seriously there was snow on the ground outside Zelena's farm when they investigated but Emma got to bundle up nicely in a a sweater and knitted hat while Hook probably got frost melting and trickling down his chest hair and was probably still fighting off a bout of flu from that because showing his beautiful body is like the only asset he haaas--but he got used to it, and Emma got used to seeing him in it, so suck it up and suck it in, Emma... rather sullied whatever fun, flirty, good intentions Hook meant to express.

I guess a parallel would be telling someone complaining about a uniform they had to wear to work that they do look good in it.

Except that Emma was apparently expected to wear something uncomfortable because women were expected to do that. A closer parallel would be Pocahontas 2, where Pocahontas comes into Rolfe's room wearing underwear that's more concealing than her buckskin slip dress, but Rolfe basically tells Pocahontas that she needs the corset and hoop skirts too.

It isn't bad until you consider, as the (otherwise awful) movie gets around to considering, that this isn't merely an effort to fit in. It's an erasure of Pocahontas' culture. She can't wear her buckskin slip dress because she's not going to be respected if she does. She has to dress and act white. No matter how helpful Rolfe is, what he's doing is part of The Problematic Problem. Hook, much as I love him, and laud him when he's being a living subversion, was unfortunately in that moment similarly Problematic. (Was nobody in the Enchanted Forest drying laundry shaped more like Belle's Yaoguai-hunting outfit, or Milah's pirating outfit, or Snow's Warrior Princess Off-Whites?)

Racism gives an otherwise casual, pragmatic, fun costume change scene a negative charge that sexism also does.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Faemonic

[Rumsy4]

I feel that Hook's compliments are getting unfairly dissected. He has never asked Emma to dress a certain way for him, nor has Emma taken to wearing corsets in Storybrooke. Besides, he was not the one making Emma dress in those outfits back in the EF. Emma was uncomfortable with the outfit, not with revealing her assets, nor was she bothered by Killian's obvious admiration. She was enjoying his attention, and in fact, used it to manipulate Past!Hook. How does the Pocahontas example apply here? He wasn't forcing Emma to give up her identity--they needed to fit in to avoid detection, and used the best resources available. He didn't force her to wear the corset when there was a non-corset option available. He didn't set the EF dress-code. Milah was dressed like him in leather pants on the Jolly Roger, so I doubt he gets a special kick out of seeing women be uncomfortable.

Hook is a guy who likes to flaunt his sexuality, but so is Emma. In the Pilot, she wears a very tight-fitting outfit in order to entrap a man during a romantic encounter. She uses her sexuality to get Past!Hook drunk and distracted. Even Present!Hook was not comfortable with what she was doing, but she went ahead anyway. If Killian had been the one to seduce Past!Emma the same way, every one would be screaming rape. And yet, Emma is not a misandrist or sexist or a sexual predator. Context is definitely everything. I don't see Hook as a sexist person, not even to the degree Charming is. Milah seemed in an equal relationship with him, and he lets Emma set the pace of their relationship. But that doesn't mean he needs to be a passive player in their dynamic.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Faemonic]

I feel that Hook's compliments are getting unfairly dissected. He has never asked Emma to dress a certain way for him, nor has Emma taken to wearing corsets in Storybrooke. Besides, he was not the one making Emma dress in those outfits back in the EF.

It doesn't need to be an extreme manifestation of sexism to be sexist in principle. You're right, context is everything, and I'm referring to a context of what we can infer of the world, not the basic interaction between Emma and Hook as characters. Emma taking sexism well doesn't make it not sexist, it means that she takes sexism well.

This one compliment that wasn't a compliment, I sort of take as error data, and hammer out walls of text explaining why. Those moments are, I believe (obviously, I believe,) worthy of examination.

How does the Pocahontas example apply here? He wasn't forcing Emma to give up her identity--they needed to fit in to avoid detection, and used the best resources available.

Pocahontas applies because of the charge that identity issues give to small moments like costume changes. Hook was talking over how Emma was feeling, which is a part of her. While it was only a moment and not extreme, it was an act that denigrated Emma's identity. It doesn't need to have been extreme to have done that in principle.

I don't see Hook as a sexist person...that doesn't mean he needs to be a passive player in their dynamic.

Neither do I. The funny thing is, whenever I try to build a wall of text analyzing what Hook has done right (which was many, many, many things) that show how magnificently anti-sexist he generally is as a character, and how he adds an anti-sexist slant to the whole story--nobody really wants to hear it. Maybe it's me.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Faemonic

[Curio]

Not to play the role of mod here... but I think maybe the conversation is veering away from villains and going more towards gender roles/sexism on the show? I don't have too much to add to the current conversation, but it's interesting to read nonetheless, so maybe we should start a separate thread for it?