Sarah Rees Brennan's additions to the Fenceverse were peppered with classism, ableism, biphobia, and racism (what else can I call the erasure of Eugene's Filipino heritage?), but one aspect of it that's at once more subtle and more obvious is Coach Sally Williams's inappropriate behavior with her students, and I need to talk about it. Fence is marketed toward a young adult audience--kids who have teachers, maybe even teachers like Williams...and, hopefully, who know to report teachers like her to someone.
Let me make clear that my condemnation of Williams as a predator is only relating to the novels. In the comics, she's fantastic and badass and caring. In the novels, she takes it too far. There are several instances of her being what I'd call a shitty teacher throughout the novels, but there is a moment in Fence: Striking Distance where she sexually harasses three of her students. Can you think of when?
If you thought of the punishment she issued to Seiji, Nick, and Eugene for failing in a trust fall exercise, you would be correct! I want to be entirely clear here; there is no question of whether that was sexual harassment against her students. It was. Definitionally, it was. That's not up for debate. Let's get into why and fill in some context that makes the whole scene even more disturbing.
Williams issued a punishment to three of her students which involved them stripping. Asking students to undress is in itself sexual harassment (unless you're a chemistry teacher telling someone to get their ass in the 'i fucked up' shower but that's basically the only exception). It is inappropriate and unacceptable for a teacher to demand their student take off their shirt. Williams does. And then dresses them in raw steaks to send running around the woods. Their punishment is running. Their punishment is humiliation. And she's made it a sexual thing by disrobing them and dressing them so specifically and strangely. This isn't having them put on a little dunce cap and do jumping jacks kind of thing, this is a bizarre setup that, while not written as a fetish, can certainly be read that way. For whatever reason, Williams decided to have them wear raw steaks and the only real explanation is for her own pleasure--amusement, the characters and readers are supposed see. And the readers are meant to laugh along at this strange humiliation utilizing the partially naked bodies of minors.
Let's talk a little bit more about the raw steaks. The purpose of them seems to be humiliation, and if that's where Williams derives pleasure, perhaps my next points satisfy her goal intentionally. Either way, being made to strip and wear raw meat against their bare body is bound to be a massive trigger to people with sensory issues, body image issues, and eating disorders. The unique blending of unpleasant sensory, nakedness, and food would feel gross to anyone forced to abide by this punishment, but for people with pre-existing issues, it multiplies tenfold. And it is similarly disturbing in a new way to consider those who do not eat meat being forced to wear raw steaks around their necks. There are so many people for which this punishment would be even worse than you'd think at first glance, and it can absolutely be read as part of Williams's design. If you saw reports of Willimas in real life, wouldn't you assume this was intentional?
Another thing to note here is the needless escalation of the punishment to the crime. Eugene's meant to catch someone in a trust fall but turns to try and catch someone who's actually falling--Nick and Seiji being the reason and the faller in question. It is for this crime that they are punished. And, yeah, good time to talk about how your behavior can cause real harm to others (hell, it's a great metaphor for trying to learn in a rowdy classroom--reacting to the rowdiness/trying to calm it and sacrificing the thing you were doing to manage it), but an appropriate consequence would be an apology from each to Harvard. It was not a malicious or intentional attack and didn't warrant a punishment at all beyond natural consequence. Williams took this opportunity to enforce a major punishment that is entirely unrelated to the behavior nor is it beneficial to fencing the way running suicides is. Why change the terrain to the woods? And if you want to argue for the woods, I'll even give that to you. Why require bare chests and raw meat? Those conditions in no way add anything but humiliation. And, arguably, to Williams's pleasure.
I know it's 'not that deep' -- or rather, I know it wasn't meant to be. I know that this scene was not crafted with the intent to frame Williams in such an unsavory and upsetting light. I know that to assign intention behind the sexual harassment may seem presumptuous. But if this was happening in real life? Those intentions are almost guaranteed, even on a deep 'unknown' level to the teacher issuing such perverse and power-proving punishments. It doesn't matter if it wasn't written to be that deep, it has some seriously gross undertones.
Bottom line is that Williams used her power over children who were under her charge and protection to have them undress and endure the press of raw, bloody meat against them as they ran through the woods. That's not funny. That's sexual harassment.
andulkaphoto
izzy806
jbbartram-illu
yousharknotpass
prguitarman
dailybridgerton
