#liz friedman

[girl4music]

An iconic episode. I’m so glad and grateful that we ended up with this instead of the Sappho musical.

*talking about the ending scene with the poem*

RENEE: “That was nice. It was a really beautiful moment. The poem was really sweet. And you know, just talking about love and friendship and uh…”

*looks at Lucy rolling her eyes and making faces*

LUCY: “Blah, blah, blah.”

RENEE: “Let’s get right back to the scene, I know. And that’s so us.”

LUCY: “That’s what the character was doing, right?”

RENEE: “That’s exactly us though. I’m like the romantic and Lucy’s like “yeah, yeah, get over it.”

These two make me smile. So much chemistry years and years after the show had finished filming. ☺️😚

And yes, Ren’s right. That’s exactly them as a dynamic and their characters’ dynamic. Storm and sunshine.

[glossglamour]

house md has had two sapphic writers and a writer who has written slash fanfiction before........and No One thought to tell me this ??????

[cosmoseinfeld]

STOP!!!!! one of the head writers on house is a lesbian. this explains everything.

[smallhatlogan]

reading this thing this lesbian wrote back in 2003 when she was really mad about AFIN and it's so interesting to see someone pretty much accusing them of queerbaiting even back then (when the word in the same sentence as Xena makes people get really mad nowadays) and also it's pretty funny how little fandom has changed

Extremely funny that the "well I fucking despise the actual piece of media in question but at least we have fanfiction" mentality was around even in 2003

[girlonthelasttrain]

I have him blocked so I don't know if people have ever sent him an ask on this topic, but rather than question the choices Robert Hewitt Wolfe made while writing DS9 thirty years ago I'd rather ask whatever the fuck is going on in any given episodes he wrote for Elementary less than a decade ago (don't ask him tho I actually don't want to know)

[lucyflawless]

Okay. I'm in the middle of my Xena rewatch, and I'm on A Family Affair, and can we talk about the scene where Xena meets Gabrielle's parents?

Xena: So, how's she been?

Gabs' dad: Without you? Just fine.

Xena: I meant, after everything she's been through.

Gabs' dad: You should know. Seducing her away from home with your heroics, filling her head with strange ideas. How's she been? Changed forever.

Like! This is the most obvious metaphor for a parent/family that can't accept their gay kid, and by extension, their gay kids' partner. And I think it's really well executed. It hits close to home, but it feels like the person writing it gets it. Y'know. Which, given that Liz Friedman co-wrote this, tracks. She knew what the fuck she was doing here and it's so well done.

Anyway, I needed to just simply gush lightly about it. I will literally never get over the fact that this show portrays both the joys and the hardships of a lesbian relationship better than more explicit shows today. I'll never get over it!

[greghatecrimes]

Kalvin about Chase: He's too pretty to be straight.

He's right (and so is Liz Friedman for writing it) <3

[chthonic-cassandra]

More people should know about the Hercules episodes in which members of the creative team are played by common guest stars and Kevin Sorbo is secretly actual Hercules in disguise.

Kurtzman (Ted Raimi) and Orci are sleeping on bunk beds in the studio and showing up at meetings in their pajamas, trying to suggest a "Chimpules" in which Sorbo is replaced by a monkey. Liz Friedman (Hudson Leick) always wants to punch things and makes a lot of lesbian jokes. Rob Tapert (Bruce Campbell) keeps trying to leave to go fishing. It's a million in-jokes without any regard for the audience. I don't know how any of it got made. It's sort of amazing.

[galathynius]

2023 reading log

the uncensored picture of dorian gray by oscar wilde / jan. 2-9 / 4 stars

buzz saw: the improbable story of how the washington nationals won the world series by jesse dougherty / jan. 9-11 / 4.5 stars

proposal by meg cabot / jan. 17 / 3 stars

sidelined: sports, culture, and being a woman in america by julie dicaro / jan. 12-17 / 4 stars

remembrance by meg cabot / jan. 18-19 / 3 stars

how sweet it is by dylan newton / jan. 19-20 / 3 stars

daughters of sparta by claire heywood / jan. 21-22 / 3 stars

highly suspicious and unfairly cute by talia hibbert / jan. 22 / 4 stars

gentlemen prefer blondes: the diary of a professional lady by anita loos / jan. 23-26 / 3 stars

hell bent by leigh bardugo / jan. 26-31 / 4 stars

all about love: new visions by bell hooks / jan. 22-31 / 4 stars

daisy jones & the six by taylor jenkins reid / jan. 31-feb. 2 / 4 stars

everything i know about love: a memoir by dolly alderton / feb. 2-9 / 4 stars

emma by jane austen / feb. 11-19 / 4 stars

fake it till you bake it by jamie wesley / feb 19-23 / 3.5 stars

my dark vanessa by kate elizabeth russell / feb. 23-26 / 4 stars

throttled by lauren asher / feb. 26-28/ 2 stars

the locker room by meghan quinn / mar. 1-5 / 1 star

come as you are: the surprising new science that will transform your sex life by emily nagoski / feb. 17-mar. 5 / 4.5 stars

pucked by helena hunting / mar. 5-11 / 3 stars

legendborn by tracy deonn / mar 12-23 / 4.5 stars

unadulterated something by m.j. duncan / mar. 23-25 / 4 stars

the fifth season by n.k. jemisin / mar. 26-apr. 15 / 4 stars

how to fake it in hollywood by ava wilder / apr. 16-19 / 3.5 stars

sharp objects by gillian flynn / apr. 19-22 / 4 stars

the homewreckers by mary kay andrews / apr. 22-25 / 3.5 stars

the kiss curse by erin sterling / apr. 25-26 / 3.5 stars

the wedding crasher by mia sosa / apr. 26-27 / 3 stars

let’s get physical: how women discovered exercise and reshaped the world by danielle friedman / mar. 25-apr. 27 / 4 stars

mile high by liz tomforde / apr. 27-may 6 / 1.5 stars

happy place by emily henry / may 6-7 / 5 stars

carrie soto is back by taylor jenkins reid / may 7 / 4 stars

the spanish love deception by elena armas / may 8 / 2 stars

neon gods by katee robert / may 8-9 / 1 star

love in the time of serial killers by alicia thompson / may 9-11 / 4 stars

the bodyguard by katherine center / may 11 / 4 stars

the intimacy experiment by rosie danan / may 11-12 / 3 stars

upgrade by blake crouch / may 12-13 / 4 stars

by any other name by lauren kate / may 13 / 3 stars

the dead romantics by ashley poston / may 15-17 / 4 stars

the ballad of songbirds and snakes by suzanne collins / may 19-28 / 3.5 stars

so many ways to lose: the amazin’ true story of the new york mets—the best worst team in baseball by devin gordon / may 13-jun. 4 / 4 stars

iron widow by xiran jay zhao / jun. 5-7 / 3 stars

the grace year by kim liggett / jun. 7-8 / 4 stars

the last magician by lisa maxwell / jun. 9-11 / 4.5 stars

little fires everywhere by celeste ng / jun. 12-14 / 4 stars

not a happy family by shari lapena / jun. 14-17 / 2.5 stars

the familiars by stacey halls / jun. 17-21 / 3 stars

the girls i’ve been by tess sharpe / jun. 21-22 / 3.5 stars

once more with feeling by elissa sussman / jun. 23 / 3 stars

the cheat sheet by sarah adams / jun. 24-25 / 1 star

how to sell a haunted house by grady hendrix / jun. 26-29 / 3 stars

little thieves by margaret owen / jul. 1-3 / 4.5 stars

this is how you lose the time war by amal el-mohtar and max gladstone / jul. 3-6 / 3 stars

the very secret society of irregular witches by sangu mandanna / jul. 11-12 / 4 stars

the lies of locke lamora by scott lynch / jul. 13-27 / 4.5 stars

seven days in june by tia williams / jul. 28-30 / 4 stars

bloodmarked by tracy deonn / jul. 31-aug. 2 / 4 stars

something wilder by christina lauren / aug. 3-4 / 3 stars

howl’s moving castle by diana wynne jones / aug. 4-5 / 4 stars

dark matter by blake crouch / aug. 12-13 / 3 stars

eat up! food, appetite, and eating what you want by ruby tandoh / jul. 30-aug. 14 / 4 stars

the silent companions by laura purcell / aug. 5-18 / 4 stars

mr. wrong number by lynn painter / aug. 19-20 / 2 stars

romantic comedy by curtis sittenfeld / aug. 20-21 / 4 stars

the last tale of the flower bride by roshani chokshi / aug. 21-23 / 4 stars

the hating game by sally thorne / aug. 23-25 / 2 stars

lessons in chemistry by bonnie garmus / aug. 25-26 / 2.5 stars

the godparent trap by rachel van dyken / aug. 27 / 2 stars

i’m glad my mom died by jennette mccurdy / aug. 27-29 / 4 stars

the atlas six by olivie blake / aug. 29-sep. 9 / 3 stars

wordslut: a feminist guide to taking back the english language by amanda montell / sep. 1-9 / 4 stars

practice makes perfect by sarah adams / sep. 10-11 / 3 stars

all systems red by martha wells / sep. 13-14 / 3 stars

do i know you? by emily wibberly and austin siegemund-broka / sep. 14-16 / 4 stars

same time next summer by annabel monaghan / sep. 17 / 3.5 stars

Ounder the influence by noelle crooks / sep. 18-22 / 4 stars

burn for me by ilona andrews / sep. 22-23 / 4 stars

the littlest library by poppy alexander / sep. 24 / 3 stars

the neighbor favor by kristina forest / sep. 25-27 / 3 stars

satisfaction guaranteed by karelia stetz-waters / sep. 28-oct. 5 / 3 stars

the ex talk by rachel lynn solomon / oct. 5-7 / 4 stars

change of plans by dylan newton / oct. 8-9 / 2 stars

coraline by neil gaiman / oct. 9 / 4 stars

you, again by kate goldbeck / oct. 9-11 / 3 stars

mrs. caliban by rachel ingalls / oct. 12 / 3 stars

summer sons by lee mandelo / oct. 12-19 / 4 stars

the death of jane lawrence by caitlin starling / oct. 19-24 / 3 stars

house of hollow by krystal sutherland / oct. 25-29 / 4 stars

white hot by ilona andrews / oct. 28-nov. 2 / 4.5 stars

twice shy by sarah hogle / nov. 4-5 / 3 stars

sexed up: how society sexualizes us, and how we can fight back by julia serano / nov. 2-10 / 4 stars

artificial condition by martha wells / nov. 11-14 / 4 stars

wildfire by ilona andrews / nov. 14-16 / 4.5 stars

between a fox and a hard place by mary frame / nov. 18 / 3 stars

revolting prostitutes: the fight for sex workers’ rights by molly smith and juno mac / nov. 18-20 / 4 stars

emily wilde’s encyclopaedia of faeries by heather fawcett / nov. 21-24 / 4.5 stars

love and other words by christina lauren / nov. 24-25 / 3 stars

the boyfriend candidate by ashley winstead / nov. 26 / 3.5 stars

the seven year slip by ashley poston / nov. 27-28 / 5 stars

how to fall out of love madly by jana casale / dec. 3-10 / 3 stars

ordinary monsters by j.m. miro / dec. 10-21 / 3 stars

rogue protocol by martha wells / dec. 22-23 / 4 stars

what you wish for by katherine center / dec. 25 / 3 stars

the blonde identity by ally carter / dec. 25-26 / 2.5 stars

just my type by falon ballard / dec. 26-31 / 2 stars

[raisinchallah]

sorry for trying to spread peace and love and joy and let people know liz friedman worked on house i wont do it again

[girl4music]

I’ve had enough of people referring to ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ as queerbaiting and claiming that the creators of the show were committing it so I’ve gone on an extensive Google search and pulled up this AftenEllen article written all the way back in 2008 and I’m transcribing the full thing right here because if people don’t want to voluntarily do their research when they make their insulting claims then I’ll provide the source for them and force them to read it because I refuse to allow them to disrespect the creators/cast/crew like this in making their completely off-base assumptions about a TV show that I’ve been watching since I was 5 years old.

This is an interview with the creators/cast/crew of ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ where they express their opinion on what they think would happen with the lesbian subtext between Xena and Gabrielle if the show was made for today. It’s why many of us don’t want a remake or reboot or revival of it of any kind.

Do not ever come for ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ and the incredible people that either made the show or were involved in the making of it around me. You have absolutely no chance in winning the argument!

[Viewers never had to look too hard to find the lesbian subtext in Xena: Warrior Princess, but that’s still what it was: subtext. And while lesbian fans in the 1990s might not have had any choice but to settle for that, would things be different if the show were being made – or remade – today? When I attended the Xena convention in Burbank, Calif., at the end of January, I asked the show’s creators, producers, writers and stars if the world is ready for an openly lesbian relationship between Xena and Gabrielle.

“To me it was main text,” said Renee O’Connor, who played Gabrielle, in an exclusive interview with AfterEllen.com. “And even if it was subtext, it was very clear that we were together. They are so in love with each other, they love each other so dearly; there’s no way you can say that’s not true. Anyone can see that from watching the show.”

I asked her if she thought that relationship could be openly acknowledged if the series were being made today. “I don’t know,” O’Connor answered. “Maybe there’s a little bit more hint of acceptance today. Maybe, maybe not. You can only put it up and see what would happen. I guess we could do anything, just get it out there and see how it affects people.”

In a lot of ways, Xena flew under the radar during the ’90s. Viewers who didn’t perceive (or didn’t like) the lesbian subtext could see it simply as a story about heroic friends righting wrongs and battling villians. If the show were being produced in today’s post—L Word television landscape, it’s hard to believe that audiences would be quite as oblivious.

But O’Connor doesn’t think that a more overt presentation of Xena and Gabrielle’s relationship would have changed the moral heart of the series. That’s because she sees those two things – the love between Xena and Gabrielle and the series’ focus on the fight against evil – as inextricably combined.

“If we were just starting Xena right now, I know what the relationship of the two characters is,” O’Connor said. “So even though we wouldn’t blatantly talk about all the issues involved, because I don’t think that’s what the show is about, it’s still about defeating oppressors and wanting to do the right thing for the world. And that comes down to these people and how they love each other.”

Lucy Lawless, who played Xena, isn’t sure how acknowledging a romantic relationship between the two women would affect the show’s reception if it were being made today, but it could have changed the way audiences perceived it in the past.

“There might have been more general discussion about whether the characters were lesbian or not out in the mainstream,” Lawless said. “In the 1990s, when this was all new, people like Ellen [DeGeneres] and k.d. lang and all these people who are out were blazing a trail. And you might hope that it’d be done long ago. But in a lot of the world, it’s still incredibly painful to come out, even today.”

Then she laughed. “But let’s have a go. Let’s do it. Why don’t we make a Xena movie? Just tell a bloody good story and let the fires and torpedoes be damned.”

A Xena movie doesn’t seem any more likely today than it did a year ago, but I asked Lawless if she thought the sexual relationship between Xena and Gabrielle might be brought more into the forefront if a movie were made.

“I think that’s a good question for Rob,” she said, referring to Rob Tapert, the series’ co-creator and her husband. “I know he’s been thinking about this for a long time, mulling it over in the back of his mind. He’s got a great feeling of where the world’s at and what he can make that’s progressive and gutsy and still have it be financially successful.”

Backstage at the convention, Tapert considered the possibility of a more openly queer Xena and Gabrielle. “It’s a tricky question,” he said, “because if Xena were being made today, well, there’s two different Xenas. There is the one [in which] people could read between the lines, and that played to one audience.

“Then there’s one that played to kids, or that played to 9—17-year-olds. And they didn’t understand the subtext, nor did they get it. So like the finest of Disney films, that plays to all audiences; that was a balance we tried to find. Making it today, I don’t know what would happen.”

He called series co-creator, producer and writer R.J. Stewart over to ask his opinion. “Could there be more commitment to the subtext?” Stewart said. “Well, I think if it was a cable show, absolutely. But if it was the same kind of broader market, I think you have to be more inclusive. But yes, absolutely, I think that a cable version of it could work that way.”

What if a film were made today, based on the series? That would be a different proposition, Stewart said. “When you make a movie you always try to stay pretty close to the original in feeling.” Then he laughed. “Now, if you could just get Oxygen to order some episodes …”

However much fans might wish for another season of their favorite show, not even out lesbian Xena producer and writer Liz Friedman (pictured left, and currently a producer on Fox’s House) thinks it would come back as an ancient Greek action-adventure version of The L Word.

“As much as I would love to see it – and I’m speaking as somebody who watches The L Word obsessively – there was something really wonderful and romantic about the relationship between Xena and Gabrielle,” she told AfterEllen.com. “And I think it’s actually easier to have romance without sex. You don’t then get into issues about ‘Will this relationship last?’ There was never – well, until they started killing each other’s children – the question of a breakup.”

I asked if she thought that times had changed enough that a series could now be made with two legendary female heroes shown unambiguously as romantic partners.

“If you look at the lesbian relationships that are on TV now, it’s either niche-market stuff like The L Word, or it’s Cashmere Mafia that gets you all excited because there’s a kiss in the pilot, and then by Episode 3 she’s hitting on boys again,” Friedman said. “Certainly in a single-lead action show we’re not ready for an openly gay heroine yet. Well, I think we’re ready for it. I don’t think the networks are going to let us do it.”

Then she laughed. “Look, obviously I’m biased. I loved the show the way it was, so it’s like, don’t talk about messing with my Xena. It worked pretty well, thanks very much. … If I were doing the Xena movie I would try to get there to be a kiss, but there are plenty of ways that you can do that without changing what the relationship is.”

That raises the question of just how much would have to change in order to bring the subtext into the forefront.

It’s undeniable that there are some scenes – and even whole episodes – where it’s hard to make sense of what happens without believing that Xena and Gabrielle are at least a little bit more than friends. Most of the time, these moments occur in the more humorous episodes, but as series writer Steven Sears told AfterEllen.com, “We didn’t cross the line completely but … these are two women who live together, travel together, had domestic duties together, die for each other, fought for each other, continually say how much they loved each other, but no. They’re not in a loving relationship.”

Steven Sears talking with Christie Keith

He shook his head. “Excuse me?”

Writer Katherine Fugate (currently executive producer of Army Wives) sees it much the same way. She is the author of “When Fates Collide,” widely considered one of the most subtext-friendly – and romantic – episodes in the entire series.

Katherine Fugate

Set in an alternate universe where Xena’s old enemy, Julius Caesar, has imprisoned the Fates and used their loom to undo the events that led up to his assassination, “When Fates Collide” is about the inevitability of both destiny and love.

In Caesar’s new reality, Xena is his empress. A famous Greek playwright named Gabrielle comes to present her latest work to the Romans, and in the greatest romantic tradition, she and Xena are struck with what can only be called love at first sight.

They gaze at each other across crowded rooms. Xena casts tortured glances at Gabrielle when she is called away by her husband. They stare longingly at each other from their balconies in the moonlight. Xena gives her life to save Gabrielle, and Gabrielle risks destroying the entire world to save Xena’s.

Caesar calls Gabrielle Xena’s “girlfriend,” and his violent jealousy would make absolutely no sense if Xena and Gabrielle weren’t being depicted as lovers.

And, in fact, that’s just how they were being depicted. Fugate appeared at this year’s convention and spoke with AfterEllen.com backstage. “The paradigm in my episode was that they find each other in any lifetime and they were meant to be, no matter what body they were in or what gender they were,” she said. “These souls were entwined somehow. And that, to me, almost has more a spiritual connotation than a sexual one, although I personally believe that they were lovers and had a committed relationship.”

She added: “I think we touched people, and it was multifaceted with all the spiritual components as well as the love. But the love was so intense, and ‘We’ll find each other in any lifetime,’ I think, is profound. I don’t know many shows that say that, period, heterosexual or homosexual.”

Given that, it’s surprising there wasn’t a kiss in the episode, something that had been played with both teasingly and tenderly (if briefly) in earlier episodes.

“There was a kiss written in which was more definitive, and it’s in the script that they sell here [at the convention],” said Fugate. “So my intention was actually to push that envelope, and I was really supported by Rob and R.J. and everyone. But ultimately they pulled it, because they wanted to maintain it for the finale.”

The finale is, of course, a sore spot for Xena fans; mention of it during R.J. Stewart’s appearance triggered the only boos of the convention weekend. He took them in stride, defending his decision to kill Xena at the series’ end, but there’s no question it took the shine off the climactic kiss the two women shared in “A Friend in Need.”

Fugate, who announced at the convention that Renee O’Connor will play a lesbian on Army Wives later this year, is optimistic about the possibility that a show about two female heroes who are openly lovers could be made today.

“This may sound like a writer’s answer, but I think anything works if it’s well-written,” she said. “If you have respect for the subject and if you can find a universal theme, anything will work.”

She said she feels that doing that would be easier today than it was in the ’90s. “We probably couldn’t push the envelope as much then as we could now,” she said.

“The subtext issue gets asked a lot; I think everyone here has been asked about it. And I think that’s because it obviously touches people, and we had an opportunity to dignify these relationships. And everyone felt it did that. I think both the lead actors have come forward and said this is how they view their characters and how they played them. We did what we could.”

If they did what they could in the ’90s, what could they do now? Sears said he’s thought a lot about that question, and he’s not optimistic. “As far as the marketing mind is concerned and the studios,” he explained, “if a movie came out they would play with it, they would toy with it, they would try to appeal to the male heterosexual audience, because in their minds that’s who’s attracted to these kinds of films, these action films. They don’t want to turn those people off.”

Then Sears pointed out the dark side of main text. “The horrible thing that might be done is that they would then say, let’s go completely commercial with this thing,” he said. “They would have the characters kiss, have the characters imply that they had a sexual encounter, and then have them realize, well, that was just an experiment. Now let’s go back to men. That’s the worst possible thing that could happen. But it’s also one of the most possible things that marketing could do.”

In light of those fears, a dozen intimate moments in the hot tub, soulful glances and fireside nights spent in each other’s arms don’t seem so bad. And neither do Renee O’Connor’s final thoughts on how Xena might best be made today.

“I always wanted people to look at it as unconditional love,” she said, “especially people from the conservative side who didn’t want to see anything like that. Just watch the show, and see what you want to see. I still think that today that would be the best way to put the series on.”]

SOURCE: https://afterellen.com/bringing-out-the-warrior-princess/

[sondheims-hat]

Mrs. Lovett

Angela Lansbury (1979), Sheila Hancock (1980), Dorothy Loudon (1980), June Havoc (1982), Joyce Castle (1984), Gillian Hanna (1985), Judy Kaye (1984), Nancye Hayes (1987), Jean Stapleton (1989), Beth Fowler (1989), Simone Kleinsma (1993), Julia McKenzie (1993), Vicky Peña (1995), Mary Ellen Ashley (1997), Ritva Auvinen (1997), Christine Baranski (1999), Patti LuPone (2000), Judi Connelli (2001), Beverly Klein (2001), Christine Baranski (2002), Judith Christin (2002), Phyllis Pancella (2003), Felicity Palmer (2004), Buffy Baggott (2004), Elaine Paige (2004), Karen Mann (2004), Harriet Thorpe (2006),Patti LuPone (2005),  Maria Friedman (2007), Maria Waters (2007), Helena Bonham Carter (film 2007), Emily Skinner (2009), Sherri L. Edelen (2010), Harriet Harris (2010), Rebecca du Ponte Davies (2011), Liz McCartney (2011), Imelda Staunton (2011), Karen Ziemba (2012), Andi Allen (2012), Emma Thompson (2014), Corrine Oslo (2016), Annaleigh Ashford (2023).

[cosmoseinfeld]

there were at least two gay people working in executive positions on house.

[warlenys]

if queerbait is running towards a cake in a forest and falling through a trapdoor then the house md writers were taking handfuls of that cake and throwing it bit by bit down into the hole for us

[warningsine]

In the second-season premiere of GLOW, which hit Netflix June 29, Ruth Wilder (Alison Brie) surprises her boss, frustrated filmmaker and wrestling-show director Sam Sylvia (Marc Maron), with a dinky promo she filmed at a local mall during a free afternoon. The assembled wrestlers love it, as does network rep Glen (Andrew Friedman). But Sam doesn’t. He yells at his employees, who are all young women: “Who here is confused about who the director is? Really? No one is confused? Because I’m fucking confused.” When Ruth attempts to shield the others from responsibility, he directs his ire at her. “Are you making a move on my job, Ruth? . . . Honey, I don’t need your help. I need you to be a fucking actress . . . You’re not a director just 'cause you take a fucking camera to the mall."

When Reggie (Marianna Palka) interrupts to defend Ruth’s work—and points out that time in the Season 1 finale when Ruth covered for Sam—he immediately, inexplicably fires her. Ruth follows him to his office, and tries to talk him out of the decision. “I had ideas,” she says defensively. “O.K., well, put ’em in your diary,” he responds. “You’re all replaceable. Even you, Ruth.”

Throughout all of this, Maron is fantastic in the role of Sam. His character is a frustrating and frustrated creative leader, well-intentioned but constantly angry, obsessed with his own narrative of failure. Maron’s performance is magnetic; it’s as if every scene bends toward his all-too-period-appropriate aviators and his Burt Reynolds mustache.

In fact, he’s so good as the show-within-a-show’s demanding, exploitative creative lead that he might just be GLOW’s stealth protagonist—which is a problem, because GLOW, created by showrunners Liz Flahive and Carly Mensch and executive produced by Jenji Kohan, is supposed to be an ensemble comedy about a diverse group of women. Brie frequently uses the word “empowering” to describe the show and its ethos; recently, she called GLOW a “feminist oasis”. In Season 1, it was: Ruth, a protagonist who became a heel (wrestling jargon for “villain”), was an unexpected kind of female character—an unlikeable heroine discovering her talents and herself through an athletic, muscle-bound medium. The show’s premise offered its characters some combination of grit and glitter as a means to liberate themselves from the prison of oppressive history—a cathartic, rare feat, still, for women on television.

In its second season, though, the show never quite seems to know who it’s about. There is hardly a plot to be found; wrestling is no longer in the foreground, and what wrestling we do see lacks the convincing stunts or arresting ugliness of the genre. That cadre of diverse women is mostly shunted to the background as well—Ellen Wong and Britney Young get little screen time; Sunita Mani and Sydelle Noel have more material, but their stories still feel marginal. And they rarely, if ever, interact with the lead performers. (That these actresses all play characters whose wrestling personas are racist stereotypes does not help the overall effect.) Instead, the show ends up focusing on easier stories: material about the white male billionaire Bash Howard (Chris Lowell), for example, and Sam’s evolving relationship with his daughter Justine (Britt Baron). The family plot is an opportunity for Maron to play Sam as an abrasive, gruff, good-hearted dad with an unconventional but perceptive parenting style. Both Bash’s and Sam’s story lines are fine, but they take up precious space—and have nothing to do with wrestling or women.

Perhaps this shift wouldn’t rankle quite so much if Sam weren’t such an unrepentant asshole, specifically toward women. After dressing down Ruth in the premiere, Sam spends the next several episodes punishing her—alternating between refusing to give her airtime and giving her the worst spots in the show, and eventually doing what he can to sabotage her flirtation with the new cameraman, Russell (Victor Quinaz). Five episodes later, he apologizes, after Ruth attends a screening for one of his long-forgotten films—an action that essentially reinforces his superiority as a director.

She sits a few rows behind him, wreathed in apologetic smiles. He disdains her careful management of his feelings, calling it “creepy.” Eventually he apologizes—if one can call this an apology: “I’m not angry with you. I’m an insecure old man. I get defensive. Sue me.” Three episodes after that, Sam tries to kiss Ruth.

The show has no trouble casting Ruth as the creative punching bag for Sam’s on-set tantrums, the subject of endless put-downs about her looks and personality. Ruth and Sam appear to be engaged in an abusive dynamic, but GLOW doesn’t quite seem to know that, or care. Worst of all, in its second season, the show trades Ruth’s dignity for Sam’s interiority; by the end, our supposed lead has almost no substance to her character, aside from her constant, painful drive to matter. Brie throws her all into that aspect, but there’s no masking that Season 2 of GLOW has become a show where Ruth Wilder waits for Sam to do something mean to her, before quietly picking up the pieces.

In the show’s defense, there is a subtler story being told here. Ruth’s victim complex is activated by both Sam and Debbie (Betty Gilpin), her former best friend; she’s primed to fall into a relationship where she's taken advantage of. If the show is purposefully trying to explore how Ruth keeps falling into gendered traps, there’s value to that story—especially if its gentle rendering indicates how insidious these complexes can be.

GLOW nods toward this interpretation most obviously in the fifth episode, "Perverts Are People, Too," which we might as well call its #MeToo episode. In it, Ruth takes a business meeting, only to find herself targeted by a studio executive hoping for some flirty “fun” in his Jacuzzi bath. She flees, terrified, before realizing that this experience reflects the dynamics of her industry more broadly; the episode ends with a subtle, profound moment in which Ruth, surveying the male fans crowding around her co-workers, is forced to reckon with an existence built on female theatrics for male consumption.

But Ruth’s journey is separate from Sam’s, and what’s perplexing about the sexual harassment episode is how a plot point designed to critique the patriarchy ends up mainly serving to paint Sam as a good guy. Two episodes later—during the screening, right after Sam’s non-apology—Ruth tells her boss what happened to her. He emotes more than she does: “Fuck that guy! What a fucking sleazebag dickhead!” By the end of the season, Sam has been reborn as both a benign but curmudgeonly white knight whose fondness for strip clubs ends up delivering the team to a much-needed gig in Las Vegas, and a good dad who finds a new way to understand and communicate with his newfound daughter.

But while Sam’s being offered up as the moral guy, the I’d-never-harass-an-employee guy, he already has harassed his employees. He’s tried to kiss multiple women who work for him; he’s withheld advancement from Ruth out of petulance; he ignores Debbie as nothing more than a pretty face when she tries to assert her role as a producer. Maron himself has admitted Sam’s complicity to Deadline: “Can this guy be an asshole? Yes. Was he a guy that was possibly guilty of transgressing in the way of the casting couch, or showing favor to women professionally for sexual attention? Probably. I think that’s sort of established at the beginning. This guy’s no saint, but he also shows up for these women.”

In a way, the suggestion that Sam’s not that bad reveals something significant about the insidious reach of the patriarchy: you can be the guy who knows what bad behavior looks like, and still be complicit in it. It makes sense that Ruth is too naive to see this, and even that Sam’s too deluded to admit it. But it doesn’t make sense that in a season driven partially by a harassment story line—as part of a show ostensibly about women’s empowerment—GLOW would avoid acknowledging Sam’s previous behavior, to the point of failing to honestly reckon with his flaws. Hints of that reckoning are present: it’s significant, if opaque, that Ruth realizes falling for Sam is a bad idea, and instead throws herself into the arms of age-appropriate, respectful Russell. But diminishing her story to the status of background noise—while building up Sam’s backstory and screen time—is an astonishing disservice, both to GLOW’s characters and audience.

In the very first episode of GLOW, Ruth’s terrible, desperate audition for the titular wrestling show becomes sublime—and successful—when Debbie walks in, clutching her infant, screaming obscenities because she’s discovered that Ruth slept with Debbie’s husband. Debbie hands off her baby and steps into the ring; Ruth’s mimicry of aggression turns into a frantic, failed attempt at de-escalation. Debbie slaps her full in the face, and eventually pins Ruth to the ground; a smear of blood disfigures Ruth’s face. On the sidelines, the girl who will eventually become Fortune Cookie (Wong) asks, “Is this real?” The girl who will become Melrose (Jackie Tohn) shrugs: “Who the fuck cares?”

This might be a more prophetic line than GLOW intended. The show tends to skim the surface of its heavy subtext, and is quick to turn drama into a punch line, regardless of where the drama comes from or at whose expense the comedy hits. The show wants to nimbly engage with this stuff, and sometimes it’s able to. But either GLOW can’t see itself clearly, or it’s not communicating well what it’s trying to be about. Take that pilot scene: as Debbie and Ruth fight, GLOW superimposes what Sam wants to see, or what he thinks he can make happen, over their very real angst. In his vision, which is shot as a fantasy wrestling sequence, Debbie thrusts her crotch into Ruth’s face, and gyrates her spandex-covered behind in a slow circle for the audience’s benefit. By the time Sam snaps out of his reverie, the fight is over; he, and the viewer, have missed much of the real conflict in order to look at the manufactured version.

Similarly, in spending so much time inside Sam’s mind, GLOW is missing out on the stories right under Sam’s nose. They’re there—if he, and the show, would care to look.