#took a horribly sexist toxic male character

[warningsine]

In October 2017, when the New York Times first published allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Australian director Kitty Green was on campus at Stanford University interviewing students for a film about sexual assault. “I had friends at the Weinstein Company so I immediately started texting them.” Within months she was shooting The Assistant, a drama about working for a movie mogul. It followed a day in the life of Jane, played by Julia Garner, whose boss is a sexual predator with a volcanic temper. He was never seen, only ever referred to as “him”, but was without a doubt modelled on Weinstein.

The Assistant became the definitive film of the #MeToo era: a horribly realistic portrait and a forensic examination of how a culture of complicity in some companies enabled men to abuse for years. Its release in early 2020 was a bit muffled. Because of Covid? Green nods. “Also, I think it was so raw. We shot it and released it quite quickly, so people were still almost afraid to speak about it.” Lately, she’s noticed its impact. On a recent trip to Japan, women told her it might have been set in an office there. In New York, where she lives, the city government uses The Assistant in its compulsory sexual harassment training.

Green’s latest, The Royal Hotel, is another #MeToo film, and another story throwing young female characters into a sexist, aggressive environment. “No agenda!” says Green. “But I always end up there somehow.” The Royal Hotel is the story of two American gap year backpackers, played by Garner and Jessica Henwick, who run out of money in Sydney. An agency finds them work in a remote mining town’s only pub. “You’re going to have to be OK with a little male attention,” warns the recruiter. When they arrive, someone has scrawled “Fresh meat” on the chalkboard outside the pub.

The Royal Hotel is inspired by a grim 2016 documentary directed by Pete Gleeson, about two Finnish backpackers who got jobs in an outback pub in Coolgardie – a town feminism never reached. The brazenness of the misogyny takes your breath away. What made Green want to adapt it? “It was the way the women handled the situation. They didn’t accept the men or their behaviour. They said no, stood up for themselves in little ways. That strength was interesting. Adapting it, I was thinking, ‘What do I want to pull out of it? For me it was really important that we said, ‘No, that’s not OK.’”

She goes on: “The Assistant was about acceptance of the system being rotten, about trying to speak up and realising you can’t. Approaching this one, I was like, ‘How can we make it a narrative about strength? How can we make it a film about women saying no?’”

Behind the bar at the Royal Hotel, the women endure endless microaggressions. The first time they meet the landlord, played by Hugo Weaving, he puts one of them in her place with the words: “You think you’re a smart cunt?” One regular sits at the bar night after night staring at one girl so creepily it makes the hairs prickle on the back of her neck. Another gets her name repeatedly wrong. The punters lock horns over who gets which girl first.

It’s a film about the corrosive effect of male entitlement. We see the environment through the eyes of Garner’s character. How safe does she feel? Is that guy staring creepily? Is she crazy for thinking he’s dodgy? “This is what we have to navigate as women,” says Green. “The decisions we make minute by minute, trying to figure out what’s a threat.”

The men don’t let up with the harassment but Green did not write in a full sexual assault. “I felt like this behaviour is enough. It was important that it never crossed the line. Otherwise male audience members could say, ‘Oh, that’s not us. We are not like that. Those men are villains and that’s not us.’ Instead, if it’s about behaviour that is very common, a joke here and a weird gaze there, then it’s harder to dismiss. We need to have a conversation about that behaviour. How we can stop it from escalating into sexual violence?”

The fact that no woman gets raped or murdered has baffled some audiences. When Green was raising finance, a few backers told her the film was missing something. “They wanted more violence, which is so crazy,” she says, wincing. She has been disturbed by some of the responses to the finished film, too. “We’ve gotten a lot of, ‘It simmers away but never reaches boiling point.’ I think there are a lot of reviewers, particularly male reviewers, who are waiting for that scene” – she mimics an explosion – “that really overt act of violence, be it rape or whatever. And I think that frustrates them. It’s awful, wondering what it could be that they not only expected, but desired. We’ve had enough of that in movies. We definitely don’t need that scene.” Green pauses. “That conversation has been interesting,” she says looking a bit pained. “And a little upsetting to be honest.”

I tell her that I can live without seeing another rape scene in a film. “Exactly. I don’t want to see it. We’ve seen it enough. The history of cinema is full of men making movies where they’ve included that. We don’t need to put up with it any more.”

Green decided to become a film-maker aged 11, and started making films in her back yard. “It’s just always what I wanted to do.” Both her parents are artists and teachers; it didn’t feel like an impossible goal. “No one told me I wasn’t allowed. My dad was always like, ‘If you want to do something, do it.’”

After graduating from film school, Green packed her camera and laptop and flew to Ukraine, where her mother was born. While living in Kyiv for two years, she shot her first documentary, Ukraine Is Not a Brothel. Later she moved to the US, directing the documentary Casting JonBenet, about the world’s obsession with the murder of the six-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey.

The Assistant was her first feature film. How difficult was it back in early 2018, I ask, getting funding to make a story inspired by Weinstein? “Impossible. It was still too fresh for people. Everyone was a little afraid to touch it. We’d have female executives read the script and say, ‘We’re going to make this! Trust me we’re going to make this movie!’ The next day I’d get an email saying, ‘I’m sorry, my boss used to work at X company and doesn’t feel it’s appropriate.’”

Have things have changed? Green nods. “I think it’s very different. We didn’t even have the language to talk about misconduct and harassment. I feel like it is definitely a safer world for everyone. But we still have a lot of work to do.”

[shirophantomvox]

Ging Freecss Character Analysis

Hisoka Analysis| Illumi Analysis| Killua Analysis| Chrollo Analysis

What’s up, y’all? I am back again with another analysis. Today, I will be talking about Ging Freecss and I am glad that this was requested by @dukinaxael. I’ve been wanting to talk about Ging for a while and now is my time to shine. PS, I’ll be doing Leorio’s character next.  I’m sorry that this is so short! I haven’t been able to watch the last seasons because Netflix will not upload them. Enjoy anyway!

We all know that Ging is considered to be a dead-beat father to his son Gon. He is the reason why Gon wants to become a hunter in the first place and will do ANYTHING to achieve that goal. As the story is told, Ging left his home when he was 12 years old to take the Hunter’s exam. After passing, he never returned home, at some point met Gon’s mom, and saved a lot of felons/criminal’s lives. Now he is apart of the Hunter’s association (I think?) and apart of the Zodiacs (I think). Some of these next statements are assumptions because I haven’t seen anything past season 4. From that little bit of information, it seems like Gon gets his “over achiever” mentality from his dad. Who would have thought that a young man who had just obtained his hunter’s license would use it to help out criminals instead of busting them? Aunt Mito has expressed how she felt once her brother left and didn’t return, that is why she stressed that Gon should return home once he gets his license. She even stated that she cried for the longest when she realized he wasn’t coming back.

The whole mystery about why Ging abandoned Gon is very fuzzy. According to Aunt Mito, Ging dropped Gon at his house, said that he isn’t with Gon’s mom anymore, and left while some people say that Mito took Gon from Ging because she felt that he was too immature to take care of him. Some even say that he lost a custody case to her. I can’t tell you if this is true or not because I don’t know and I haven’t seen any seasons after 4.

Judging from YouTube Clips, Ging seems to be a selfish dad and doesn’t care about how his son basically cried like fuck for feeling guilty about what happened to Kite.

Leorio asked why he hadn’t seen Gon in the hospital and he acted like he didn’t care. If you think about it, Gon is the type of child that doesn’t want things handed to him, so maybe Ging was implying that he didn’t want to see Gon until he continued to push and work towards finding him. Still, that’s a horrible way to reacted once you’ve found out that your son is about to die. Here are some questions that I’m sure most of you have:

Why did Hisoka want to talk to Ging? Does he know that Ging is related to Gon?

Why does he refuse to go anywhere near Gon?

Why does he only talk to Gon on a high tree and not on the ground where everyone else is?

Why did he send his son on a goose chase just to find him?

I don’t want to say that I hate Ging but I strongly dislike him. (If he did do this) Why would you abandoned your child and leave him with your sister for her to raise? Then you send your 12 year old son, who had endured so much emotional pain/trauma from beasts he had to fight along the way, BTW,  just to meet you and then you only talk to him once your high off the ground? Ging, not the best guy in the world and certainly doesn’t deserve the #1 Dad mug.

Did Ging do all of this so he could make his son stronger while he was away?

In regards to question 1, I’ve seen some rumors on YouTube implying that Hisoka had an agreement with Ging to watch over Gon until he returns. I’m assuming this was after Gon left home.  Ging said that once Gon returns home safely he and Hisoka will fight until the death.

Do you all remember when Hisoka told Gon something along these lines at the end of their fight at Heaven’s arena?

Many people have suggested that Hisoka had been protecting Gon and Killua from fighting opponents they wouldn't win against and it makes sense. He wouldn’t let them pass until they learned about Nen and beat the crap out of them hoping that the pain would cause them to quit fighting and never receive their Hunter’s License or take on strong opponents. Now if that last part is true, why would Ging set up an entire game to lead Gon to him? That's still twisted no matter how you look at it. Like I said, this manga is twisted in ways that I can't understand, lol.

Hisoka and Gon consistently fighting reminds me of Danny Phantom and Vlad Plasmius.

Another person implied that Hisoka and Kite were people directed by Ging and along the way included Bisky (just by coincidence).

I would like to make a note. Pictures that were taken of young Ging portrayed him to be a happy and proud man but present day Ging looks angry, unhappy, and always ready to fight. Could this be due to the horrific nature of the Hunter's exam and other opponents that turned his innocence and humanity into something worse? We see the same thing happen to Gon. He was a happy bright kid that allows his anger to spiral out of control...and always wants to fight.

Well, you know what they say: Like father like son.

Ging and Gon finally have a talk as father and son.

Apparently, Ging is on his way to the Dark Continent and forbids Gon to follow him. Overall, Ging has a toxic love for his son by consistently pushing his away until the very last second. I don’t know what is up but this anime is the definition of toxic love.

I can definitely say that Ging is a much better father than Zarkon. At least he acknowledges Gon unlike Zarkon who thinks his son is weak because he is half Altean. Damn, anime/manga’s; what’s up with the toxic father trope? Is this supposed to be the driving force to marketing these male characters stronger? Not going to lie, the toxic or sexist father trope is old and annoying .

This part of the analysis is based form what I’ve heard about Ging, YouTube clips, and what has been said about him. Of course I’m probably leaving out a lot of information but that’s because I haven’t seen the rest of the seasons.

Judging from photos kept around the house, Ging always wore his hat over his eye. I guess he was going for the Emo look when he was younger. His hat has hairs stick out from it which probably implies a certain type of cloth the hat is made from. In other instances, He has his hair sticking up like Gon’s but has a cloth wrapped around the edges. He wants them to be on fleek you know? Other times he just has his hair out with no hat or cloth. He usually wears white pants, shirt, and a blue cloth over his front and back side.

I hope you all enjoyed this. I did try my best and I am so sorry that it is short.

[heroes-fading]

Why Veronica Mars Won’t Have a Season 5

My introduction to Veronica Mars came in the midst of my father’s death. I watched episodes in hospital waiting rooms before it happened, and holed up in my room afterwards. I found a lot of comfort in the strength that the characters provided. The scene of Logan at his mother’s funeral - maniac and trying to find the humor in it - is exactly what I felt at my father’s. I, like Logan, made jokes and tried shrugging it off. I was certain that this was some sort of cosmic joke, and I was on the receiving end. Veronica’s personality shaped most of who I was in high school - my dad passed away two weeks before I started. Her snark, intelligence, and resilience inspired me so much then. I found a wonderful community with fans of the show, and to this day as a semi-adult I love and adore so many people I met through the show.

When the movie was announced, I was ecstatic. I remember rushing to a bathroom stall at my high school so I could eloquently keyboard-smash about it with my friends, donating to the Kickstarter, wearing my t-shirt, going to the theater with my friend to watch it and livestreaming it the night of its release with my online friends. In a sea of horrible feelings and helplessness, Veronica Mars helped me feel empowered and supported.

That’s partly why all of this stings so badly and feels so much like a betrayal.

Logan Echolls fits into a lot of tropes I’ve grown to hate as a self-identified feminist who has zero time for bad boys. Men who “atone for their sins” to get with a leading heroine are ones I often find boring - so often they’re executed poorly and their past mistakes would be absolutely unforgivable in a real context. Chuck Bass, Damon Salvatore, Spike, et. all are characters I’m tired of seeing in fiction. Logan Echolls organized a bum fight, took out Veronica’s headlights, burned down a community pool, made a series of racist comments to Weevil, and generally had moments of being the absolute worst. But for some weird reason, I have a massive soft spot for Logan and he’s become one of my favorite fictional characters.

Maybe it’s because we’ve seen him go through much, change so much over the course of the show. Maybe it’s because the show actually held him accountable (as well as Veronica) so the redemption didn’t feel cheap or unearned. Or maybe it’s because I’m just a weak heterosexual hypnotized by Jason Dohring’s abs and my feminism only goes so far as who I think is hot. I hope it’s not the last one, but I’m sure some would argue it is! The point is -- healthy, going-to-therapy Logan feels earned after the deaths of his parents, his abusive dad killing his girlfriend, numerous beatings, and too many near death experiences to count. Logan went from being an obligatory psychotic jackass to a fairly well-adjusted boyfriend in a way that made narrative sense.

His offscreen death right after getting married to the love of his life? Not so much.  

The thing that stings about Veronica Mars’ final episode is not just Logan’s death - it’s what it means for the show going forward, especially its titular character. What made Veronica lovable was not her toughness as Logan’s final voicemail details. As season 3 Logan reminds us, Veronica isn’t invincible and she isn’t always right. What made her such a compelling character was what was underneath that toughness, and the people around her that highlighted that warmth buried underneath layers of trauma. In other words, what made her a marshmallow. Burnt on the outside, but gooey on the inside, as Wallace describes her in the pilot.

When we meet Veronica in the pilot, she’s been through a litany of traumas: her best friend’s death, a breakup, sexual assault and drugging, social ostracization, her mother’s addiction and swift exit from her life, a swift drop in socioeconomic status, and routine humiliation at the hands of her peers. But in spite of all of that, she’s still the girl that cuts Wallace down from the flag because it’s the right thing to do. She’s still the girl that worries about her father, has sympathy for Logan after his mother’s death despite all of his cruelty, defends and comforts Meg Manning after she endures the same bullying Veronica did, cares (often, initially unwillingly) about the people whose cases she takes, and bakes cookies for her friend after his basketball game just because. Even as recently as the books, Veronica bakes a cake for her terrible, abandoning mother on her birthday in spite of her replacing her and Keith with another family. She looks after her half-brother Hunter, even if he’s a painful reminder of her mother’s foibles. Veronica isn’t nearly as tough as she pretends to be, and that’s a good thing. That’s what makes her interesting and stops her from being like every other cynical hardboiled detective trope.

The people around Veronica - who support her, evolve with her, and serve as contrasts to her - are what help make her story so compelling. People who can tell her when she’s wrong (Logan, Keith, Weevil, et. all), who remind her of her soft side (Keith, Wallace, Mac, Logan), who can stop her from turning into a noir stereotype and cement her as Veronica Mars. People aren’t tuning in just to see Veronica snark at random side characters. Her personal journey in moving past her trauma and her relationships with other characters are what really makes the character who she is. 

Her journey, from the pilot episode to the movie, is realizing that she can’t just shove down and run away from her trauma. Over the course of her show, we see her form bonds with people in spite of her attempts not to - Wallace, Mac, Logan, and a variety of others. They help her, support her, and challenge her in ways that only serve to make her story more interesting. In the movie, we see Veronica realize she can’t keep running and she doesn’t want a cushy life as a New York lawyer with a boyfriend who doesn’t understand why she cares so much about what happens in her hometown. Neptune, as corrupt and corroded as it is, is her hometown. 

That’s why it’s such a spectacular slap in the face for the end of season 4 to offer the exact opposite. Veronica loses her husband (after finally evolving from the Veronica in the pilot who swore she was never getting married because she was so cynical about relationships) immediately after marriage. She leaves behind Keith, Wallace, and everyone else to chase unknown cases with unknown people in unknown places. As Rob has said, he saw this as the only way for Veronica to continue to be interesting - roaming the world solo as if she’s Sherlock Holmes.

This is not character progression. This is not driving the plot forward. This is regressing to a character to a point even before the pilot episode - a hardened Veronica who pretends she doesn’t care, who uses her trauma as an armour, and keeps people away from her. It undermines the central message of the movie - that Neptune is her home and in spite of her problems, she’s willing to fight for it. By killing Logan, Rob wanted to kill Veronica’s ties to Neptune. This isn’t an evolution - it’s a devolution. 

Rob Thomas has offered this option before - a Veronica exit vehicle sans everyone else, including only Kristen Bell snarking at a camera - in the form of the last-ditch FBI pilot. It was not well received by fans nor networks, and unsurprisingly not picked up or seen anywhere other than a reposting on YouTube. I think if he sincerely expects any other result from a similar future attempt, he’s lying to himself. 

If Rob Thomas wanted the male character-centric P.I. noir he initially planned on writing rather than Veronica Mars, he should have written that rather than allowed it to take over the Veronica Mars universe. Writing a woman with the same elements of toxic masculinity as male characters (a complete disregard for their own feelings, ripping themselves away from personal connections, framing “toughness” as superior and emotional development as a waste of time) is not feminism - it’s just lazy. “Strong female characters” don’t have to be made strong by undergoing trauma after trauma and shutting down until they’re a shadow of their former selves. Their male counterparts aren’t expected to have to deal with rape, death, ostracization, and every other possible form of trauma  - women sure as hell shouldn’t. 

Furthermore, the way that Rob Thomas has framed his fanbase is shameful. Veronica Mars fans aren’t just deranged fangirls too obsessed with Jason Dohring’s abs to care about the health of the story. This isn’t “not what we wanted, but what we needed” - we’re not an audience too stupid to know what’s good for us. We’re an intelligent audience when we’re giving the showrunners money, but when we’re disagreeing with the writing choices we’re just too invested in romance to “get it”. Predictably, these fans (who make up most of Veronica Mars’ fanbase that the showrunners claim to adore so much) are women. For decades, women have been stereotyped as media-consumers that only care about romance and thus can’t care about depth as if the two are mutually exclusive. This stereotype is incredibly sexist, especially given what this fanbase in particular has done for this franchise, and the continued insistence that these fans just don’t know what’s good for them or the show is incredibly condescending and transparent.

This fanbase poured $6 million dollars into a Kickstarter for a money, maintained energy for a revival and actively lobbied streaming services and networks for a continuation, and kept the fandom twelve years after the finale episode of its original incarnation aired. As much as some may resent how fan energy encouraged writers to see Logan evolve, or Logan and Veronica to sort out their issues, or anything else - these were choices the writers made and stood by for years. A sudden U-Turn in storytelling to go from “the fans were right, this dynamic is wonderful and we’re going to base our advertising around it!” to “well, it was never supposed to be about that” is a kick to the teeth to a fanbase that (literally!) gave so much. 

It’s not as if this is the first time the fanbase has been disappointed by a writing decision. Speaking for myself, I was heavily disappointed by the way sexual assault was handled on the original incarnation of the show. Veronica’s rape was handled by at first not framing it as a sexual assault at all in “A Trip to the Dentist” - Duncan Kane (her ex-boyfriend/potential half-brother at some point in time) having sex with her while she was unconcious was framed as just “feelings and nature taking over” because he was under the influence. In season 3, the writers decided that framing women protesting sexual assault on campus as deranged feminists who sexually assault men by inserting them with Easter eggs was a good choice. That Easter egg part was played for laughs by the show, writers, and leading cast member. 

Even the inclusion of Dick Casablancas for laughs - whose GHB was intended for his girlfriend and ended up in Veronica’s cup - doesn’t feel right. Ryan Hansen’s charm explains a lot of it, but the show seems to place a lot more blame on Madison for Veronica’s rape despite the fact she narrowly escaped the same fate at Dick’s hands. I was disappointed then, and I’m still disappointed with it now - far away from any romantic concerns of the show.

And my biggest problem with the ending of season 4 isn’t just that Logan is dead. I’m incredibly crushed and disappointed to see all of that character development be met with an offscreen car-bomb, but it doesn’t bode well for Veronica’s characterization and ultimate arc either. I fell in love with Veronica’s character first, and I don’t even recognize her anymore.

If the movie was a thank you to the marshmallows (both the fans and Veronica’s inner softness), the ending of the show was a middle finger to both. If the lesson from the series and the film is that you fight for things because they’re worth it and not because they come easily (whether they be relationships or towns), then the lesson from the revival is that the best thing to do is leave and take your bags. So much of the narrative was set up around Veronica accepting who she was and where she’s from - and the revival’s Veronica has finally been traumatized so much she’s packing her bags and giving up. That’s not toughness. That’s not strength. That’s certainly not saving the show or the character. 

That’s selling a grim story because you think it’s edgy. That’s trying to be subversive and failing, too focused on shock value to care about the characters. There’s a reason shows like Game of Thrones, Dexter, and How I Met Your Mother got such backlash -- they just don’t make narrative sense and the endings are far from satisfying. Making the fans happy isn’t a mark of bad storytelling, especially when the survival of your franchise has been so contingent on it. Sometimes, they actually do know what they’re talking about! And if you want a season five, maybe don’t alienate your fans to a point they don’t recognize the show anymore. Rob mentioned, “...I will have made a really bad bet if, en masse, the fans turn on the show. That would certainly be a tough lesson to learn.” -- I think he accomplished that! 

I wish the Veronica Mars that got me through the toughest parts of my life was still around. But I’d rather say goodbye to her forever than be faced with a cheap imitation. 

[girlproject]

I think what bothers me with how Lena is being treated and has been treated is this . Supergirl is a show about women specifically women “power”. So to have Lena save the world multiple times and with no real thanks by the way . And have her be so abused by everyone she has ever known . It’s heartbreaking . No one supports her as a human being so when she trust Kara and Kara lies to her for years it is a huge issue. (To clarify i’m okay with a secret identity ) Only because of two main things . One Lena said she would not be friends with supergirl because of how she was treated . Kara used her secret to keep Lena close which is cruel and abusive bahvior . She ignored lenas consent in the relationship which is horrible considering Kara said in season one “I care about consent” . And if that’s not bad Kara trusted Nia almost right away with her secret . And everyone litterly everyone knows her identity who is a main character in SG . Now here’s where it gets very cruel . William almost finds out Kara’s identity right away , he is invited to the DEO and in a investigation which Lena was excluded from the DEO until they were investigating her thinking she was guilty . While William is instantly trusted. To top this off there is a sneak peek of William joining family super friends only game night. It took Lena 2 years to be invited to those but William Is again trusted within a few weeks of knowing Kara ? For a show about women it sure does use some sexist logic here . I’m so mad because I’m treated like Lena in my life . The men around me are God’s and trusted in everyone’s eyes even if they are angry or abusive while the women who are perfect and sweet are treated like disgusting monsters . It is so harmful to women that this is a normal occurrence . So to see this deeply rooted sexism in a show about women . It hurts to see my hero not stand up . It hurts to have Lena be villianized . You are telling me the viewer so many harmful things when you do this even if it’s temporary . Unless all of these issues are addressed in a scene I do not see how this can be fixed . The show is aware of itself . Season one cat grant says “any women knows that she has to work twice as hard to be half as good as a man “ . The show should of worked against this but instead enforces this idea . Supergirl was suppose to be empowering to women but degraded them and follows harmful storylines instead . Especially when the show focuses on the male presence instead of Kara herself it is painful . Where’s her identity ? Where’s her hero heart that we all love . Can she truly and honestly help Lena and will she ever admit her faults when dealing with her relationship with her . *sigh* I look up to supergirl and Lena luthor and so do so many kids . Let’s do the right thing here . Let someone with a good heart help Lena and let anyone toxic in her life go away . I’m tired .

[voightsgirl]

Your Voight post made me think, and I think CPD doesn't get enough appreciation re: how they seem to effortlessly go against a lot of toxic masculinity. Like, there's been any issues with the guys crying or expressing their love for each other, and it's never made into a joke or followed with a no homo reaction or smthn like that and idk I guess I really appreciate the male friendships in CPD. Even the rest of the franchise doesn't do so well as this imo (not counting justice bc it's still new)

You know I started replying to this and then I realised that I’ve never really thought about the male characters in that much depth…I’m the first to sing about how amazing Erin and Burgess are, as well as male characters individually, but when I really thought about how well the men have been created, I ended up with an entire essay so apologies it’s so long but I just love this show and these guys. Also since there’s been a lot of negativity in light of *cough* recent events, I thought it would be nice to show my appreciation, so here goes. Feel free to add examples/contradictions/points/other ideas etc!!

Something I need to say before beginning: I find it really, really difficult to empathise with male characters. It’s just harder for me to really relate to their issues. And I think a huge reason for this is just that being a female character in these shows and these professions is just harder. And therefore there are a certain amount of fundamental difficulties that each female character has to face, and since being a female in general involves a lot of these struggles, it’s much easier for other women to look at these characters and see themselves in them. Look at Erin and Burgess struggling to keep their hard work and intelligence a more valuable feature to their unit than their bodies. Look at April and Maggie trying not to be undermined by their male, more qualified co-workers - and Manning being a single, working mum. Look at Gabby beating the odds and becoming a firefighter even though no one thinks she can do it because she’s small and female.

And I love that this show can do that: take these vital professions and give them amazing, well developed, multifaceted female characters whose constant struggles are so relatable for any female watching because we’ve all been there.

But what PD does that I just don’t see so much in the others (Fire does it to an extent, but I can’t really think of any examples in Med - although it’s my least favourite and so I’m probably not the best person to make analyses based on it, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) is do the same with the males. And it’s something that I have never seen on a TV show before. There’s no “no-homo” bullshit, there’s no reservations around being friends. They hug each other when they’re worried about them, they do the friendly shoulder squeezes and arm-punches and fist-bumps. They go out for drinks together. They trust each other and look out for each other and they talk to each other about how they feel. And it’s really, really nice to see.

People go the extra mile when writing female characters (although admittedly, as a teenage girl I’m probably not using the widest sample range of TV shows) because they know that either a) their audience is mostly female, or b) they’re worried about sexist accusations. Women have always been victims of horrible media tropes, so I’m so, so glad that they do go this extra mile - I love seeing female friendships more than anything else in the world - but because people are so aware of the issue surrounding female characters, they’ve taken that into consideration, while assuming that there isn’t actually a problem with their male characters.

What Chicago PD does that I think is incredible from a characterisation point of view is they take these archetypal cop characters - the dirty cop (Voight), the by-the-book cop (Antonio), the shell-shocked veteran cop (Halstead), the old-cop young cop (Ruzek and Ollinsky) and the gentle giant (Attwater). **there are more, such as Attwater arguably being the “token minority” and Ruzek being the “fair cop” but you get the idea. They all seem to represent one of the main tropes that are almost always present in cop shows (at least all the ones I’ve watched).

And the show doesn’t subvert the tropes, not exactly - even though doing so would be so much easier - but they three-dimensialise (idk if that’s a word just roll with me here) all the characters on top of these fundamental archetypes. ie:

Voight is a dirty cop. He kills people in the name of justice, he’s used dirty money and lied under oath and done things that probably should have lost him his badge a million times. And yet, he works tirelessly for the protection of his city. He loves his son with everything he has, and his grandson, and his daughter-in-law. He took in a 13(?) year old who’d been hooked on heroin and arrested for solicitation and loves her like she’s his own daughter. He made amends with the guy who put his son in jail. He always, always fights for the underdog and doesn’t let the system take advantage of them. He treats his unit as if they are his “family” - literally his words - and he has formed relationships with every single one of them, bending the rules and putting his neck and badge on the line if they ever do anything wrong or against the rules. (Example: 3x05)

Antonio plays by the rules, that’s just who he is. He believes in the system more than Voight does, arguably because he’s always been on the right side of it. But that doesn’t mean he’s not willing to make compromises if those he really cares about are on the line - he is more than willing to turn a blind eye to other people’s ‘interpretations’ of the law, and he will do everything in his power to fight his way using the rules of the system before he breaks them. (1x02, 3x01)

Halstead’s military history I think is one of the most interesting aspects of this show because he had the potential to turn into a “cold sniper” as I think is the norm with ex-military characters, and yeah, he was affected in ways that we don’t even know - and may never fully understand - by what he saw and did in his tour(s). But he’s so selfless and sweet and supportive. His PTSD and general commitment issues mean that he can’t open up to everyone but he still lets them open up to him, being Erin’s #1 supporter, and he’s finally started to work on looking after his mental health properly and learning how to ask for help. He’s kind and caring and understands the importance of sacrifice and, like Voight, is willing to bend the rules a little bit - even if he’s always there to question Voight’s methods. (3x17, 4x18 - deleted scene)

Ruzek is the token rookie of the show, and the audience is placed in the same boat as him when initially learning the ropes of the unit and how everyone fits. He’s the young and attractive one (I mean….), and he does exhibit those typical rookie traits: he’s rash and reckless and cocky and definitely not as cynical as any of the others, but at the same time he has a huge heart, he’s sweet and caring, and he can be as tough as hell when someone he loves is in danger. He doesn’t have the “tortured romantic” side to him and he has a typical cop family tree, but he’s the person I feel like most people can probably relate to - someone who puts themselves in harm’s way every single day for no reason other than he wants to make a difference. (1x01, 1x11)

Ollinsky is the other dirty cop, although he functions more as an assistant to the dirty cop. He has the tough coldness about him that you would probably expect Jay to have instead, if following these tropes by the book, and he comes across as very sinister and quite scary. And yet he is an absolute darling around Lexi and Michelle and when Lexi died and Meredith was kidnapped, he totally lost control. Despite all the coldness and being closed-off he is perhaps the most emotional of them all, grieving and crying and not caring about how tough he is when someone he loves is threatened. (4x16)

Attwater is the gentle giant of the show and although this doesn’t need much more explaining, he, alongside Erin, is also the token minority of the unit (even more so now that Antonio’s left and Burgess has joined Erin in Intelligence) and although this trope is constantly seen as a bad thing, using a token character to avoid criticism of being racist in casting choices, in PD Attwater opens the door to addressing cases of police racism, corruption and brutality against ethnic minorities, and the episodes in which they do deal with this, Attwater is quick to express his opinion on the matter and challenge within seconds everything that’s wrong with the institution and their society. But on top of all that, he has relatives in prison, he’s expected to be a big tough “scary black man”, but in actuality he looks after his two younger siblings and does stand-up comedy and probably gives the best bear hugs ever.

And the support system that these six men have together (or five, now that Antonio’s left) is incredible to watch. They understand barriers, they know when to push and when to give each other space, they all work together so well in such a potentially toxic environment without even a hint at this hyper-masculinity that is so huge in other cop shows. They’re all just bros.

What’s also great is that even though there’s a lil bit of that bro-masculine culture especially when Erin goes undercover and dresses up all nice, they’re never anything but perfect gentlemen. There’s no teasing and no sexist remarks about her legs or whatever, they all just seem genuinely impressed by how pretty she looks and how well she does her job. Adam even says things like “there’s about a thousand things I could say right now but won’t” because they all respect Erin and Burgess and support them as much as each they do each other. They don’t care if the women do better jobs than them, or save them, or shoot more accurately than them, and they’d never dream of undermining their femininity while doing so.

Other examples of the bros being bros:

Antonio getting Jay into the unit in the first place as a thank you for helping out Gabby (Chicago Fire, season 2 sometime, mentioned later when Antonio leaves)

Voight literally crying on Alvin’s shoulder after Justin’s death

Every single one of Jay and Mouse’s interactions, especially when they talk about their time in the military and Jay realises how much he cares about his friend when Mouse wants to re-enlist and when Mouse is taken hostage (4x05, 3x03)

Antonio and Voight’s entire friendship and the fact that Voight would go to such measures to help Diego even after Antonio was the one to put the cuffs on and send him to jail

Attwater and Ruzek being bros until the end and *sniff* the whole best man thing 

They all buy Antonio a zimmer frame when he gets shot isn’t that just beautiful

Ruzek hugging Al after Lexi’s death and his little “I don’t know what to say” and “can I hug you?” - like he knows Al might just want space but he has to let him know he’s there for him

They all get so upset when Jay is taken. Just watch the scene where they see the video of his torture and their faces break me. They can’t handle the idea that someone so close to them - their brother - is in so much pain. (3x01)

Seriously tho just look at these bros

So I was just gonna write a few paragraphs and sorry this is so long but feel free to add more!! I want to know what everyone else thinks!

[lindyhunt]

Everything That Upset the Internet This Week

What is the web-o-sphere angry about this week? An accused abuser who expresses no shame, a catfishing-themed Netflix romcom and a fatphobic Lena Dunham sweater. Here’s everything you need to know.

Jian Ghomeshi pens essay for The New York Review of Books

THE STORY: In “Reflections of a Hashtag,” Jian Ghomeshi, the former CBC radio star who was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and then acquitted in 2016, writes 3,400 words about his experience. At one point, he suggests that he should take credit for the #MeToo movement that took off in October of 2017: “One of my female friends quips that I should get some kind of public recognition as a MeToo pioneer,” he writes. “There are lots of guys more hated than me now. But I was the guy everyone hated first.”

THE REACTION:

OH LOOK IT'S ANOTHER MAN WHOSE BEEN ACCUSED OF SEXUALLY ASSAULTING MULTIPLE WOMEN FINDING REFUGE FROM HIS SO-CALLED "EXILE" IN THE PAGES OF WELL-RESPECTED NATIONAL PUBLICATION https://t.co/vmCWns2wzR

— Ruth Spencer (@ruths) September 14, 2018

Stunned that that New York Review of Books would commision Jian Ghomeshi for a cover story. Ghomeshi faced trial for 4 counts of sexual assault and 20+ women come forward w/ accounts of abuse, forcing a reckoning w/in Canadian music and media bc EVERYONE KNEW HE WAS A CREEP.

— Jessica Hopper (@jesshopp) September 13, 2018

@nybooks What a disappointment to see you might be printing Jian Ghomeshi He is a predator RT if you will boycot @nybooks if this goes forward.

— Amy Millan (@amymillan) September 14, 2018

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RAGE: Ugh, gross. All 3,400 words of this piece are drenched in self-pity. This guy really doesn’t seem to get it: the #MeToo pioneers were not the men who have been made accountable for their actions, the #MeToo pioneers are the women who jeopardized everything to bravely share their stories of abuse. (And that’s just one problematic point of many.)

What’s particularly disappointing is that Ghomeshi was given a powerful platform to share his story. NYRB editor Ian Buruma gave an interview with Slate to explain his decision to feature the story, saying: “The exact nature of his behaviour—how much consent was involved—I have no idea, nor is it really my concern. My concern is what happens to somebody who has not been found guilty in any criminal sense but who perhaps deserves social opprobrium, but how long should that last, what form it should take, etc.”

To which the Internet  appropriately responded:

Wanna know how male abusers get their comebacks? By having sexist male editors feel bad for them! @ian_buruma characterizes Ghomeshi's behavior – accusations of sexual assault & punching – as "being a jerk", among other gems

— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) September 14, 2018

Sierra Burgess Is A Loser called out for problematic plot points

THE STORY: Netflix’s highly anticipated high school romcom, Sierra Burgess Is A Loser, has brought a wave of positive attention to its lead actors, Shannon Purser and Noah Centineo. Some of the plot points of the film, however—such as its catfishing premise, an unconsented kiss, a homophobic joke and a scene in which Sierra pretends to be deaf—have been called out by viewers as problematic. (You can read a round-up of the movie’s off-colour jokes here.)

THE REACTION:

sierra burgess is a loser was terrible written and had transphobic & homophobic jokes, as well as faking being deaf, & an unconsented kiss. the actors are all incredible but the plot sucked and the characters had potential but the writing ruined it.

— aya (@cvntineos) September 9, 2018

sierra burgess is a loser disappointed me. transphobic & homophobic jokes, catfishing and faking a disability is suddenly "ok". just because you've got a hard time fitting in doesn't mean being a straight up dick is fine and consent is not a thing anymore. would not recommend

— faria 🌻 (@coolfariaX2) September 7, 2018

So one of my close friends' deaf brother is in Sierra Burgess

When I learned, I was elated. Finally more deaf actors/representation & ASL inclusion in films

… Only to find out the deaf character was written and used for a terrible joke.

PS- pretending to be deaf is NOT ok.

— Nyle DiMarco (@NyleDiMarco) September 9, 2018

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RAGE: I was hopeful that this seemingly body-positive, heartwarming romance film would shine—especially on the heels of Netflix’s oh-so-charming To All the Boys I Loved Before. Unfortunately, it just didn’t do it for me. Maybe it was the problematic plot points noted above, or maybe, I just couldn’t get over how uncomfortable the concept of catfishing made me.

That said, there are things about the movie that I liked: the female friendship formed between Sierra and Veronica is probably the most moving relationship of the film. And, the movie managed to stay away from the cliche (and toxic) makeover scene that suggests changing your appearance is the key to finding your happily ever after. Sierra Burgess doesn’t change herself, she simply lies and manipulates her love interest—which apparently still lands you the heartthrob in the end.

New LPA sweater reads: “being fat is not beautiful it’s an excuse”

THE STORY: A sweatshirt collab between LPA’s founder Pia Arribo and a series of celebs was released via retailer Revolve this week, with each sweater showcasing a comment made by an Internet troll. The “as said to” quotes from Lena Dunham, Paloma Elsesser, and Cara Delevingne are printed on grey pullovers with the recipient’s Instagram handle written underneath. Elsesser’s quote, “being fat is not beautiful it’s an excuse,” was the item in the collection that gained the most attention.

THE REACTION:

LOLLLLL @REVOLVE y’all are a mess. pic.twitter.com/CrzOkd5oE4

— Tess Holliday 🥀 (@Tess_Holliday) September 12, 2018

If I see thin women wearing this “being fat is an excuse” shirt from @REVOLVE …we’re gonna fight.

— Meghan Tonjes (@meghantonjes) September 12, 2018

I guess my biggest question for @lenadunham is, how can you say this was a collaboration meant to empower fat women if @REVOLVE doesn't fucking make plus size clothing?

— slayley (@haydigz) September 12, 2018

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RAGE: I mean, I can see where this idea came from. (Other sweatshirts included quotes like, “Too Bony To Be Boned,” as reportedly said to Delevingne, and “Horrible Result Of Modern Feminism,” as reportedly said to Dunham.) But even within the context of combatting cyberbulling and reclaiming hateful words, it feels like this collab misses the mark. As many critics on Twitter pointed out, Revolve doesn’t actually carry clothes above a size XL. And so, instead of empowering women with a slogan, they’re really just reinforcing it.

Revolve released a statement to E! News on September 12th, which read: “The prematurely released images featured on Revolve.com was not only included without context of the overall campaign but regrettably featured one of the pieces on a model who’s size was not reflective of the piece’s commentary on body positivity. We at Revolve sincerely apologize to all those involved–particularly Lena, Emily, Cara, Suki and Paloma–our loyal customers, and the community as a whole for this error.”

The collection was canceled, but not before serial apologist Lena Dunham, who was the target of much of the Internet backlash, chimed in with her own hot take:

View this post on Instagram

For months I’ve been working on a collaboration with my friend Pia’s company LPA through parent company @revolve – sweatshirts that highlight quotes from prominent women who have experienced internet trolling & abuse. This is a cause very close to my heart and the proceeds were meant to benefit charities that help young women by empowering them to express themselves through writing and art. Without consulting me or any of the women involved, @revolve presented the sweatshirts on thin white women, never thinking about the fact that difference and individuality is what gets you punished on the Internet, or that lack of diversity in representation is a huge part of the problem (in fact, the problem itself.) As a result, I cannot support this collaboration or lend my name to it in any way. This isn’t meant to shame Pia or the great work she’s done with LPA. I am deeply disappointed in @revolve’s handling of a sensitive topic and a collaboration rooted in reclaiming the words of internet trolls to celebrate the beauty in diversity and bodies and experiences that aren’t the industry norm. *** I’d like to especially extend my love and support to @palomija, whose quote was the first to be promoted and mangled. She’s a hero of mine. Like me, she gave her quote in good faith and shared her vulnerability in order to support arts education and to spread her message of empowerment, and she wasn’t consulted in the marketing. Not an ounce of negativity should be sent her way. *** My only goal on this planet is to empower women through art and dialogue. I’m grateful to every woman who shared a quote and so disappointed that our words were not honored. As a result, I will be making a donation to the charity of every woman’s choice who was wronged with me and I hope that @revolve will join me with a contribution of their own. *** P.S. This Rubens painting makes me happy because it’s about women joining in love, but he didn’t recognize diversity at all- he just loved curvy butts. Problematic fave.

A post shared by Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) on Sep 12, 2018 at 11:47am PDT