#and BJ can't do that he's not actually being judgemental

[xavier616]

"Or married person."

The More I See You || Episode Twenty-Two || Season Four

[thebreakfastgenie]

Respectfully, if you are "allowed" to dislike BJ, I am "allowed" to dislike Trapper even if you and I do not agree on those characters. Or put another way, I specified very clearly that these are my personal reasons I do not like the character and that I do not hold it against anyone who disagrees. You are not going to make me like Trapper by telling me that you "can't take it seriously" that I don't any more so than you are going to suddenly start liking BJ because others tell you their reasons for liking him. There is no need to be insulting.

I do not personally interpret the scene as open-endedly as you do. While yes, this scene canonically took place in 1940s where a woman who consented to sex - particularly in a public or pseudo-public place - would have been the subject of dire judgement and therefore may have been motivated to "cry rape" (which is a misogynistic trope especially in the hands of a male author who clearly shows several other misogynistic tendencies in his writing - but is a possible interpretation of the scene, and possibly how it was intended) so am not saying at all that is not a valid interpretation, but we also only have the male characters' version of the events, not the woman in question's, and only their say-so that it was definitely consensual. The only action we hear from the woman in question is the alleged "he trapped me" and only the men saying that she must have been lying because she definitely wanted it. I do not see this as "at worst ambiguous".

I am also not really sure what Oliver Jones has to do with it? I did not mention this character at all, so the fact that other people may or may not like him has no bearing on whether or not I like a completely different character. I actually almost did mention this in my ask (as well as the bigoted nickname for Father Mulcahy which is used once and then never mentioned again) but thought the ask had gone on long enough; but in a nutshell, I don't think those are OK either and yes, it biases my view on that era of the show.

I think my feelings on Trapper (and for that matter, Oliver) may have been different if he had benefited from being a longer-running character on the show where more nuance could have been introduced over time and perhaps I would have found more things to like, especially as the show segued out of the era of the unfortunate depictions of those things I find troublesome - but unfortunately that is not what happened. I think this is why people are softer on Hawkeye's involvement in those things as well, because although they are not forgivable actions in themselves, audiences have the benefit of years of Hawkeye after those actions where he no longer engages in things like that, whereas that is less true of characters like Trapper who were written out a lot more closely after those events.

Regarding the matter of the adultery - I think perhaps an interesting third point in the equation here is Colonel Potter. We do not think of him as "a cheater" even though he canonically cheated in the past, because he acknowledges that although he did do that, it was a long time ago and he does not intend to do it again and hasn't since. I think perhaps that is why people are softer on BJ because they see his actions with Carrie Donovan as being similar in this regard - in 20, 30, 40 years time, if BJ was in fact being honest about his words at the end of that episode, and if he continues to stand by that, it would be a breach of Peg's trust, and an inappropriate action to take, but not necessarily something to tar him for life; whereas a perpetual adulterer such as Frank or Trapper* who has no intention of ceasing that behaviour will continue to engage in repetitive breaches of trust which some may see as a larger offense. * I don't recall off the top of my head if we have any indication that Trapper was adulterous outside of the context of the war, but if there is not, that also adds an additional dimension. If Trapper is only adulterous in the context of being away from home, that also casts his cheating in a very different light to characters like e.g. Frank, because Frank is depicted as carrying on affairs prior to being deployed as well. Additionally, another really important difference between Trapper, Frank AND BJ in my opinion is the context of physical vs romantic affairs.

While all of the above are cheating, some people may find a purely sexual affair such as the ones Trapper engages in more palatable. i.e. Trapper is with other women exclusively for sex, while his only romantic interest is his wife. This is in contrast to BJ who at the very least has romantic feelings for another woman at least once (even if he does not end up pursuing it) and Frank who has protracted affairs with the same woman and leads them to believe (whether he intends to or not) that he has a romantic investment in them.

Whether any given person finds those more or less moral or acceptable or forgivable is up to them - but I have known people who would find a purely sexual affair at least forgivable if not "okay", while an affair with a romantic component would be a deal-breaker.

I never said you weren't "allowed" to dislike Trapper, I just said I don't take the particular reasoning you provided seriously. I also don't dislike BJ, I'm neutral on him at worst and usually I like him. For some reason, criticizing anything about him is considered dislike, when this is not true for other characters.

You don't need to lecture me about the "cry rape," myth, I was very clear that this is also misogynistic. That backstory is misogynistic, it just isn't canonically a rape. "Ambiguous at worst" means it is not definitively a rape. I do not doubt that it was consensual, you may disagree, but there is room in the story to interpret it either way. You're right that we only have the men's version of the story, but we also only hear about it via Hawkeye's retelling of a frat legend.

I brought up the nickname (and didn't bring up Father Mulcahy's because it's only used once in the pilot, before he was recast, though it's his primary name in the book) because you cited Trapper's nickname as a reason to dislike him, despite this being a name given to him by the writers.

I just made a post about Potter, I judge him more harshly.

I have to go now but if I didn't get to something I'll do it later.

[thatbrightblueshine]

here's some analysis from my overworked brain, if you want to call it that.

i still think of the red card incident from last season. what drove him to do that? he must've known that he couldn't get away with it, not with a warning, he knew he'd get booked, and definitely not just yellow. he did it anyway. so protective of his goal that he was willing to eventually get send off or just so ego and adrenaline driven that he wanted to show off? was kieran impressed? was salah impressed or did he just think of him as a massive idiot for jeopardising his whole team like this. after all they were already 0-2 down and just another goal away from getting completely embarrassed.

martin ended up taking over for the rest of the game - doing a well job. but in the end he was suspended for the carabao cup final, so loris took over his role. sat there watching it on tv, wondering if he could've made those two saves loris couldn't make. cameras pushed into his teammates faces at full time, tears were seen on some. was he to blame? laid awake that night. knew he'd get back to the grounds soon enough, wondered how his teammates would react, if they'd blow it off and move or if some banter would happen. he's used to that, knows they don't actually mean it. what done is done. fuck it. man united won. it's over and done with. but the voices in the back of his head wanted him to take all the blame. as if loris wasn't good enough, as if martin wasn't good enough. as if he was better. in reality however, martin had been there for years, just losing his spot as the club's first keeper as soon as nick came in the summer before.

in training, it wasn't a competition. but some days nick felt as if martin was there just waiting for him to fuck up so he could step up again. nick takes it for paranoia, went through this exact same during his time at ipswich. hadn't have those thoughts in a while. maybe he needs to talk about it, talk it out. have a friendly chat. going back and forth on it, doesn't know how to feel. his head is spinning. maybe he needs a remedy. maybe he yearns to hear kieran's take on it. or even dan's. lives off their praise, like a boost of energy. cannot take their judgement - like a drug. takes you up, brings you down. he hadn't seen kieran since the red card incident. didn't get to chat with him after the game. so afraid of how he will look at him, act around him when they meet again in training. feels sick to the stomach. couldn't stand seeing disappointment in his face, he'd know that it's because they'd lost the cup. wonders if he had been goal instead of loris he'd done the saves, won them the game.

no goals? a penalty shootout he'd take any day. doesn't matter how it had ended but he had been there - maybe getting a sloppy bj from kieran for winning the shootout. praise. what keeps him going. like kieran's hand running through his hair as he's on his knees. "good boy." constant "what ifs" and in the end he was too blame for not being there at the final. for being so adrenaline driven, not wanting to risk another goal from liverpool. proper show off he is like dan would say. he needs to clear his head, get out of this circle. can't stand any of this. wish his head would go quite.