#veep gender politics

[vintage-tech]

today's thrift find: a stack of Newsmax magazines from 2012-2016

Yes, you decyphered that correctly: before there was a right-wing TV network, there was a right-wing magazine that prominently claimed to be neutral [chortle]. I present four items, and I want to make it clear that you have a right to your opinions of American politics -- but you honestly don't have to state them in uncivil terms, if at all, in reblogs and replies. I'm going to stick to facts in my captions.

So let's get started.

Here's the cover of an issue from before Kavanaugh came to the court and RBG was still alive 'n kicking. My one comment to make is... the caption on this cover is surprisingly accurate.

There's something you don't see every day: Nixon apologists! Once again, also accurate when you compare Nixon's crimes to the guy who was recently convicted of 32 charges and whose people attempted to subvert an election.

The ghost of Ike, war hero general: YOU GET MY NAME OUT OF YOUR MOUTHS RIGHT GAWDDAMN NOW. Okay, I don't know how Eisenhower sounded but he wouldn't like the comparison. Brings to mind how many people compare him to Reagan, pro and con.

File under: Things that didn't happen -- a female Hispanic veep candidate under Trump. Likely because she wasn't onboard with his border wall blather or how he called Mexicans all sorts of names. Though I would be amused how much differently the right would speak of her, since they have some choice slurs for VP Harris based on her gender (see: "Joe and the Ho must Go" flags/stickers).

Okay, post over, you can run and play now.

[isamorgan]

— * CAMILA MENDES. ISADORA "ISA" MORGAN. CIS WOMAN. SHE/HER. TWENTY-EIGHT. POLITICIAN (IN TRAINING).

📍pinterest. 🎵 playlist.

FACTS

BASICS

full name: isadora carmen morgan

nickname: isa

age: twenty-eight

date of birth: october 24

zodiac: scorpio

place of birth: lincoln city, or

gender identity: cis woman

pronouns: she/her

sexuality: money ❤️

occupation: business bitch politician in training.

FAMILY

father: sebastian morgan (formerly moreno), mayor

mother: sofia morgan nee valle, businesswoman

no siblings

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

relationship status: single

education: bachelor’s degree in business and political science

languages: english, spanish, portuguese

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

height: 5’2”

hair: black, just past shoulder length, naturally straight but with waves for important events

eye color: brown

OTHER

traits: ambitious, argumentative, competitive, privileged, stylish, vain, spoiled, insecure, dramatic, manipulative

aesthetics: the click of high heels, the lingering smell of expensive perfume, an unexpectedly strong handshake, the critically acclaimed television show glee, a ghostlight shining bright on an empty stage

HEADCANONS

the story goes that the morgan family came from nothing. before lincoln city, at least. formerly the moreno family, they changed their name and settled in small town oregon for a fresh start. they were seeking the american dream. little did they know then just how quickly they’d get it.

the morgans were a part of the founding of the town and originally became the mayoral family by default. only in the past few generations have children been born and bred for the role. isa has known from birth what her destiny is, so there’s never been any use in her finding other passions.

the valles have been in real estate development for generations, so business/politics is truly in isa's blood.

isa has always gotten everything she’s wanted in terms of material things, but she tends to struggle with making positive connections. she can frequently be described as “too much” - too dramatic, too argumentative, too selfish. though she was somewhat popular in high school, how much of that was because she was wealthy and well connected? college wasn’t much better for her in terms of genuine friendships. upon graduation she permanently moved back to town to learn the ropes.

isa was also not the best at actual school back in the day (math is hard!), but she was very involved in extracurriculars - in particular, drama, dance, and debate (co-captain).

if she could've picked her profession, she would've moved out to la to become an actress. instead, she spends her days pretending to be in a new spinoff of succession that's also a spinoff of the west wing… and veep.

she is legitimately good at business. people don’t expect it of her, but she’s very good at working within the political landscape of business relationships to get what she wants.

girlboss feminism has had an indisputable impact on isa. every time she questions whether she’ll be any good at being mayor, she just has to take a sip from her mug that says “the boss” and whisper her mantra - gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss.

isa has a knack for planning events. her family has held a private gala or two (or one every year) and isa in more recent years has taken over the planning for it. she even spent one summer doing some basic event help with the rest of the local government to really solidify her own connections. it was also there that she discovered she has a few issues with control. apparently there IS a wrong way to fold napkins.

she dates, but not often. her standards are high and if you're not in her tax bracket, it's likely you're more of a networking opportunity than a potential suitor.

her little dad-approved community betterment programs are 1) renovating the local community theatre, which was shut down a few years ago after someone got electrocuted, and 2) banning plastic bags and plastic straws, to save the environment.

WANTED CONNECTIONS

the serena to her blair. equally as popular, kind of messy, and part of the close friend trio with tae.

makeover montage. isa has always wanted to play fairy godmother to someone - maybe this was back in high school, maybe it's more recent.

current crush. they don't have to be rich, but nice? nice would be good. she's a strong, independent woman, but the heart wants what the heart wants.

the one that got away. isa's had a fair amount of bad relationships, but sometimes things do end for other reasons. maybe their lives were going in different directions. maybe they really were a match made in heaven but she's the one who messed it up.

rivals. from back in high school or in present day. if from st. mary's, this likely would've been for roles in the drama club.

TAKEN CONNECTIONS

cat blanco. childhood friends.

cherry amin. math tutor/friendly.

chris wilder. they weren't close, but isa was there that night. and her parents made sure to stay extra close to the wilders throughout the immediate aftermath.

elise wilson. the serena to her blair.

nicholas lehoy. ex. they dated early on in high school. he's the reason she no longer dates outside of her tax bracket.

river calloway. former friend. though they were set up for friendship by their parents, they did eventually bond over the pressures that they both felt to succeed in roles they hadn't chosen. which made it all the worse when the news about river's dad broke and isa's parents insisted she cut ties. she didn't do it immediately, but by the time they graduated they were essentially strangers.

tae seong & tbd. trio. close friends!

vincent atwood. ex. they dated senior year of high school, up until he cheated on her with helena. as a result, she tried to get him banished from lincoln city.

[dogspeaker]

Do you mind if I ask your top 10 favorite characters (can be male or female) from all of the media that you loved (can be anime/manga, books, movies or tv series)? And why do you love them? Sorry if you've answered this question before.....Thanks..

This ask could not have come at a more perfect time, I am so deep in fictional character brainrot and this gives me such a great outlet for it :,) hope you're ready lmao

In no particular order:

Klaupacius and Trurl — The Cyberiad, Stanislaw Lem

These two are the main characters in this set of short stories. They are the greatest constructors in the universe — they can make anything and everything, to a fault. They're always at odds, but they are fundamentally inseparable; there isn't ever even a question in-universe of whether they'll come back together, because they always do. They have seen each other's greatest triumphs, and they have fixed each other's most egregious mistakes.

I have to put these two together; it just doesn't feel right to separate them into two entries. Even though there are some stories in the anthology where only one of them is acting, the other always makes a cameo by the end. I joke a lot about media altering my brain chemistry when I get obsessed with it, but this book truly did do something powerful to me. They exemplify the quintessential asexual queerplatonic relationship in my mind, and they have become everything I wanted for my own future long term relationship.

This book contains the most beautiful love poem I have ever read.

2. Selina Meyer — Veep

I'm obsessed with this show, and I quite literally rewatch it on a loop, only sometimes buffered by watching something else. I have a giant spreadsheet with every episode and every character listed where I am working on outlining exactly what I think every character's "rule" is, and where in the show they finally break that rule. Everyone breaks their rule — except for Selina Meyer.

Without spoilers: Selina Meyer is a masterclass in writing an in-universe anti-villain. Her (public) goals are, at face value, incredibly noble: she wants to dedicate her life to serving the public in political office. However, due to her deep personality flaws, she ends up being one of the most morally reprehensible characters ever written.

3. Howl Pendragon/Jenkins (movie) — Howl's Moving Castle

What can I say? He's gender. He has the life I want. I watch this movie to live vicariously through him. His growth is beautiful; it inspires me when I feel like I'm running from my responsibilities and loved ones.

I do also have a lot of love for book Howl, though he didn't make the cut for this list. He is a picture perfect blorbo. I'm glad they changed him deeply and fundamentally in the interest of making the movie that I know and love, so that I could be deeply and brutally shocked by how low book Howl will stoop to continue to be worse.

4. Kikyo — Inuyasha, Rumiko Takahashi

She was my first character love. Kikyo is uniquely tragic, and I haven't found another character who makes me feel the same way she does.

She's undead, doomed to wander a place where she doesn't belong until she is finally put down again. However, instead of laying down again willingly after being resurrected, she chooses to continue walking amongst the living, and by doing so endures unimaginable emotional and spiritual suffering, and she chooses this for two reasons. One, because she is still dedicated to defeating the evil that stole her life from her. Two, because she is still hopelessly in love with Inuyasha, and takes every available opportunity to have him again.

Kikyo is sympathetic, but deeply flawed. Despite knowing she is doomed never to live, she can't help but grasp at anything close to the life she desired for herself and Inuyasha, as equals and lovers. And despite knowing her turn at life is over, that she is no longer a factor in the ultimate fate of their world, she still believes that she is the only one with the power to defeat the evil that they are facing.

She dies after a life/undeath full of suffering, without reaping any of the rewards she wanted for herself — the only thing she gets in the end is a peaceful death in her lover's arms.

5. Nux — Mad Max: Fury Road

I'm such a sucker for someone who was raised in a cult, who comes out of it and comes to love the beauty they found in the world outside of their lifelong beliefs. I have so much I could say, but Nux is just so much better experienced than explained in my mind. I wish he could have lived forever.

6. Todd Chavez — Bojack Horseman

Every time I try to write paragraphs about him, it just doesn't come out right. He's the unsung hero of the show. He's a beautifully portrayed asexual character who finds fulfillment after setting hard boundaries. He has compassion for Bojack to a fault, but in the end is still able to set and keep meaningful boundaries. I just love him so much.

7. Jobu Tupaki — Everything, Everywhere, All At Once

I could write so many paragraphs. When I watched this movie for the first time, a hole in my heart was filled. There is not a single other piece of media I can think of that treats a godlike character like EEAAO treats Jobu. Being all-knowing and essentially omnipresent has rendered all material goals pointless, and relationships with people who aren't like her have no benefit in the end.

The movie has a great ending, showing that she and her mother must choose things that matter to them, to give them purpose. To me, though, there's still this big question mark in the background — it's entirely possible that they will end together in the same place that Jobu was in when the movie started, simply because that might be the ultimate final state of omniscient beings.

8. Frankenstein's Demon — Frankenstein, Mary Shelley

I didn't say "monster," because Shelley refers to him almost exclusively as a "demon/daemon" after Frankenstein learns how educated he is. He is first a monster, bumbling around committing murders and doing things without knowing the suffering he's enduring. But after he reads the books and encounters the family in the cottage, he's able to act with intention, and put words to his suffering, and all of a sudden in Shelley's words, he becomes a demon.

Essays have been written about what makes the Demon such a great character. I love him because in the end, seeing his creator's dead body, he tries to tell Frankenstein that he forgives him for his hubris. He is the first true android character in my heart of hearts.

9. Kusuriuri / The Medicine Seller — Mononoke

God, this show is a masterpiece. Kusuriuri represents a type of character that's pretty rare: he has no agenda, and in the end I don't think he even necessarily has fundamental beliefs. His mission is to resolve the turmoil of the dead which create the monsters he fights, on their terms, using "lessons" they can understand. He is entirely neutral but for that one goal. It's awesome to watch, and I absolutely CANNOT wait for the movie!!!

10. Dave Strider —  Homestuck

Listen. I hid it at the bottom of the post like a respectable, shameful Homestuck of old. He’s the best. He’s the worst. He’s transcoded. I love him. What do you want from me. I’ve clearly got some complex feelings about transmasculinity seeing as Howl is also on this list. Leave me alone. But also, I have paragraphs ready to defend this man against all wrongdoing; the only issue is that he has so many timelines, and I don’t want to subject any of the readers of this post to such things.

In all seriousness, his character helped me reckon with some very major changes in my life. For those who need it: sometimes it’s okay for your authority figures to become peers. It’s part of becoming an adult. There are just some things that are not properly articulated in short form fiction; the change from “parent/authority” to “peer/parent” is one of those things. Idk what else to say here.

[royrockstone]

heyy

not really a question, just wanted to give you some flowers

ive been reading your stuff for the past three weeks and im so glad i came across you cause i didnt think id find a writer in the succ sphere that can write roman in a way that won’t annoy me LOL (tbf i did find very few others since then but youre my fav) also it’s so hard to get a laugh out of me with writing and i totally belly laughed a few times, you’re fucking funny

idk i think youre pretty brilliant and get the characters so well its almost unbelievable at times

and jesus christ i love the way you write ed stuff, i was thinking about it watching the show but you just gave it a whole new dimension 

i still didn’t read everything, don’t want to binge it and then be sad. 

actually i do have a question, do you have any personal writing outside of fic realm? or ever considered writing whatever original stuff? well regardless i think you’re insanely good at imitation and a few dialogue moments feel like a memory of the canon show in my head 

k that’s it :))

this was so SO kind (to the point where i kinda didnt want to answer just to keep it in my inbox ) thank you for taking the time to write out your thoughts and send them my way!! 

beyond glad to hear you think im funny and a Roman Understander— that's everything i want to hear <33

re: the ed stuff, i tend to bring a “hm getting a lot of ed vibes from this” mindset to a lot of media 😭 (and we live in a disordered culture! most media with something to say about the world has something to say about food and bodies) but its ofc become clear over time that its incredibly intentional in succ! which is a win for me but also. a devastating loss emotionally. and it adds a ton of depth and dimension to its stance on wealth, gender, trauma, personal identity and family dynamics. im glad to hear that the way i write it hits the mark for you <3 (truly my biggest flex is that i was an ed!roman truther from before the esquire interview. i saw the dog pound scene and went “hm. rexie vibes.” and never looked back.)

i know there will be fewer eyeballs on it after the show ends/once the post-finale glow (or anger, but hopefully glow!) wears off, but i have a few more ideas i want to bash out abt these characters before i pack it up, so you’ll get more content even if you finish all thats currently out there!

 SCREAMING that someone would like my fic enough to ask about my non-fanworks writing. actually screaming. dream come true! ok ok i Do have a personal writing practice. ive been published a few times in cultural criticism (and one poem lol. nothing earth-shaking, as its something im relatively new at and haven’t put a ton of effort into yet) id also be happy to dm you some critical writing ive done that deals with ed themes if thats of interest! like most mediocre prose writers, ive dreamed about writing a book. and im currently writing a screenplay (my la-era roman slay) but i don’t rlllly expect that to go anywhere since Everyone has written a screenplay (ive mentioned it obliquely on here before, but its thematically centered around dancers/theater/the political economy of the culture industry/the legacy of aids in the arts) but yes, if im talented at anything, its mimicry (thats why i tend to write in fandoms with rlly specific, imitable dialogue styles and tones- succ, veep, the secret history) so i understand if people would not be interested in my original writing.

ty for this ur very kind and i will treasure this ask foreverrrr <333

[safflowerseason]

For Succession!!

Favourite character:

Funniest character:

Best-looking character:

3 favourite ships:

Least favourite character:

Least favourite ship: 

Reason why I watch it:

Why I started watching it:

been saving this for series finale day!!

Favourite character: out of the siblings, I think it's Shiv, but Marcia is my ultimate "would follow this character into war / can do no wrong / want her to take over the entire company" favorite.

Funniest character: Oh god, how can you pick on a show like this?? Tom, perhaps, with Roman a close second among the main ensemble. Stewy and Karl are probably the most entertaining among the supporting cast.

Best-looking character: Shiv.

3 favourite ships: Oh god, Succession isn't really a shipping show for me, but I have really been compelled by the nuances and complexities of Tom x Shiv. I also always wished we could have seen more of Logan and Marcia's relationship, as well as Logan and Caroline's.

Least favourite character: GREG. This season really vindicates my conviction that Greg has always been the worst.

Least favourite ship: Oh god, I have no idea...Tom x Greg, I guess, although not because I don't think the two characters have a specific and particular relationship on the show (obviously they do), or even that the actors don't have a particular chemistry in their scenes together, but more because their connection never actually felt based on a genuine romantic or even sexual interest to me.

Reason why I watch it: This show blends everything I love...it's primarily emotionally driven but takes places in a political setting. It's about how the personal intersects with the political, how gender, sex, kinship are never separate from the acquisition, consolidation and preservation of power. It is deeply hilarious and deeply heartbreaking, suspenseful, complex, insightful. It has brilliant writing and Veep-ian insults. The world-building is so specific and intricate....there's always something new to catch when you watch.

Why I started watching it: A few people had recommended it to me in late 2019/early 2020, and when the pandemic brought everything else to a screeching halt, I was finally able to check it out. I binged the first two season in May 2020, and became instantly obsessed.

[dhaaruni]

It’s also clear that Harris has her own issues. I reported on some of her staff issues back in November, and as much as staff stories feel silly to much of the country, conflict in any politician’s office always flows from the person at the top. It’s the principal’s job to snuff out those stories and give his or her team a mission and sense of shared purpose. That quite obviously isn’t the case in the vice president’s office. As some Harris allies have complained, some of this is Biden’s fault. Not the day-to-day management of egos, but the larger portfolio. Thanks to her gender and race, Harris is already a flashpoint in the culture wars. Saddling her with the issue of immigration, even if she hails from the border state of California, feels both off-brand and cannon fodder for Fox News. But Harris, too, has a responsibility to live up to the assignment—yet she continues to step on rakes in media appearances.

Like it or not, the clips of her that go viral on social media have an unmistakably VEEP-ish character to them, creating a perception that she’s not ready for prime time. Fair or not, Harris herself left that impression after her dud of a presidential campaign in 2020, and like any politician, it’s on her to fix it. For the piece I wrote in November, I spoke to about a dozen people, friends and critics alike, all of whom said that Harris would benefit from having more people in her office from her California days. Too many of her aides are hired guns or staffers grafted onto her from the Bidenverse. She has no David Axelrod. Harris doesn’t trust many people, and has few friends in Washington, so she needs a few advisers who can cut through the flattery and press coverage and sort the real problems from the distractions.

The conundrum, though, is that there’s only so much she can do on her own. Her biggest problem is that she’s vice president. She came into the office riding a tidal wave of historic expectations—but the vice presidency is just an office with little upside. Imagine being a heralded college football quarterback, but you get drafted by the Patriots during the past decade and sign a four-year contract as Tom Brady’s backup. You have no freedom, few opportunities to create a brand for yourself, you can’t take credit for anything that goes well, and almost no chances to show off your abilities to the public. When Brady sits out a play in the third quarter of a blowout, you come in and throw an interception. The press really only covers a V.P. when they screw up—and this was true long before Harris came around. Ask Dan Quayle. That’s political life for Harris right now. If Biden doesn’t run in ‘24, she’ll have another opportunity to run on her own terms and repair her image. Until then, it’s hard to see her turning it around on her own.

–Biden’s Succession Calculus by Peter Hamby

[thecontainerstoreofficial]

ive been reading/listening to a weird amount of tom stoppard’s plays lately and it’s a super bizarre experience because like A. stoppard is an asshole irl as far as i’ve seen (which is admittedly little) and B. i absolutely abhor how his misogyny & racism come through in his plays yet C. something about the way his plays tackle like academia & discovery is SO pleasing to my brain (even though his misogyny usually becomes so narratively intertwined with that) in a way that i genuinely could not understand. anyways i just listened to the hard problem and i’ve finally figured out that it reminds me a lot of veep. like veep if veep was about stuff that i actually know about and have done and had dimensions of moral greyness that i too have partaken in. which partially explains it but i also feel as though the gender dynamics of veep map prettyyyy well onto that of stoppard plays which honestly reflects poorly on veep. and the more i think about it it just feels like a very quintessentially british form of misogyny that both exhibit. i know iannucci is hailed as some feminist vanguard in comparison to mandel which, like, yeah, but generally i DO have issues w the gender politics of early veep, AND death of stalin (weird rape jokes), AND the thick of it (so much of everyone’s issue with nicola, at least in s3, is that she’s a flighty broad or whatever. which is gendered!). ie this IS a recurring issue w everything of iannucci’s that i’ve consumed so far. i dont know what this post is trying to say because its 2am but like yes stoppard plays and veep/the thick of it scratch very particular media itches for me but they also weirdly share very similar forms of misogyny? and i do want to think more about and try to articulate better *what* is my issue with women in earlier seasons of veep. i can say right now that it’s not with selina’s depiction, it’s more with how amy is used/depicted in the storyline. anyways. good night everybody <3

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Christopher Hitchens

Published: Jan 18, 2008

Let us give hearty thanks and credit to Rudy Giuliani, who has never by word or gesture implied that we would fracture any kind of "ceiling" if we elected as chief executive a man whose surname ends in a vowel.

Yet actually, it would be unprecedented if someone of Italian descent became the president of the United States and there was a time -- not long ago at that -- when the very idea would have aroused considerable passion. Now that it doesn't, is it not possible to think that that very indifference is the real "change"?

I recall thinking, when Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman on a major-party ticket in 1984, that she would also, if elected, be the first vowel-ending Veep. Indeed, in San Francisco for the Democratic convention that year, I listened to the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti muse over drinks on the possibility of a future Cuomo-Ferraro "all wop" ticket.

The fact that these were now joking words and not fighting words struck me as happily suggestive. (I also thought that a President Walter Mondale would be a very high price to pay for having the first female vice president, and that President Mario Cuomo would be an even higher price to pay to prove that we no longer held any rooted prejudice against the descendants of Mediterranean immigrants.)

People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.

Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .)

Those of us who follow politics seriously rather than view it as a game show do not look at Hillary Clinton and simply think "first woman president." We think -- for example -- "first ex-co-president" or "first wife of a disbarred lawyer and impeached former incumbent" or "first person to use her daughter as photo-op protection during her husband's perjury rap."

One might come up with other and kinder distinctions (I shall not be doing so) but the plain fact about the senator from New York is surely that she is a known quantity who has already been in the White House purely as the result of a relationship with a man, and not at all a quixotic outsider who represents the aspirations of an "out" group, let alone a whole sex or gender.

Mrs. Clinton, speaking to a black church audience on Martin Luther King Day last year, did describe President George W. Bush as treating the Congress of the United States like "a plantation," adding in a significant tone of voice that "you know what I mean . . ."

She did not repeat this trope, for some reason, when addressing the electors of Iowa or New Hampshire. She's willing to ring the other bell, though, if it suits her. But when an actual African-American challenger comes along, she rather tends to pout and wince at his presumption (or did until recently).

Here again, the problem is that Sen. Obama wants us to transcend something at the same time he implicitly asks us to give that same something as a reason to vote for him. I must say that the lyricism with which he does this has double and triple the charm of Mrs. Clinton's heavily-scripted trudge through the landscape, but the irony is still the same.

What are we trying to "get over" here? We are trying to get over the hideous legacy of slavery and segregation. But Mr. Obama is not a part of this legacy. His father was a citizen of Kenya, an independent African country, and his mother was a "white" American. He is as distant from the real "plantation" as I am. How -- unless one thinks obsessively about color while affecting not to do so -- does this make him "black"?

Far from taking us forward, this sort of discussion actually keeps us anchored in the past. The enormous advances in genome studies have effectively discredited the whole idea of "race" as a means of categorizing humans. And however ethnicity may be defined or subdivided, it is utterly unscientific and retrograde to confuse it with color. The number of subjective definitions of "racist" is almost infinite but the only objective definition of the word is "one who believes that there are human races."

For years, I declined to fill in the form for my Senate press credential that asked me to state my "race," unless I was permitted to put "human." The form had to be completed under penalty of perjury, so I could not in conscience put "white," which is not even a color let alone a "race," and I sternly declined to put "Caucasian," which is an exploded term from a discredited ethnology. Surely the essential and unarguable core of King's campaign was the insistence that pigmentation was a false measure: a false measure of mankind (yes, mankind) and an inheritance from a time of great ignorance and stupidity and cruelty, when one drop of blood could make you "black."

I remember going to several of the mass events generated by Colin Powell's memoirs a few years ago, and being very touched by the eagerness with which young and old "white" people hoped he would give them the chance to elect (what would in fact have been) our first West Indian president. It was all book-tour hype as it turned out -- I could have told you that then -- but now it has resurfaced in a similarly naïve way.

Not to dampen any parade, but if one asks if there is a single thing about Mr. Obama's Senate record, or state legislature record, or current program, that could possibly justify his claim to the presidency one gets . . . what? Not much. Similarly lightweight unqualified "white" candidates have overcome this objection, to be sure, but what kind of standard is that?

I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he -- like me and like all of us -- carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics; and I assure you now that this decision of mine has only to do with the content of her character. We will know that we have put this behind us when -- as with the vowel -- we have outgrown and forgotten the original prejudice.

"One does not banish this specter by invoking it." Or making it one's entire existence.

[fierceawakening]

One thing I am dreading and hope I will not see soon:

“Yes, I wanted a woman of color to be veep, but not THAT ONE.”

Either identity politics matter, in which case you want someone with that identity to have the same chance to fuck everything up as white men get, or they don’t, in which case her race and gender don’t matter, just you thinking she’ll be bad at her job.

This post brought to you by ugly flashbacks to “why do people act like it’ll be cool if Hillary is the first woman President just because she has a vagina” Discourse of 2016.

[thehours2002]

now that veep is on the brain i am unfortunately thinking about how iannucci used selina’s gender as fodder for comedy by drawing attention to the misogyny selina faces in spite of being in a position of (some, albeit limited) power, such as the finnish pm’s husband sexually assaulting her, whereas david mandel was like hahaha let’s have selina get an eye lift but instead of making a point about the demands on women, even in a political career in which looks should have no bearing on one’s ability to perform, to stay eternally youthful, we’ll just make fun of her vanity 😏

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * *

It’s very strange to think of Joe Biden as a world-historical figure. For decades, he seemed to me to be a bit of an irritating blowhard who rarely took the chance to edit himself. He was a classic slap-on-the-back backroom pol, with an everyman-on-the-train vibe, who loved the ornaments of public office, and that was basically it.

Washington will always need people like Biden, and he played the part well, but he was hardly a star. He rarely inspired, he made cringe-inducing gaffe after gaffe, his vanity required him to cover up his baldness with what, for a while, looked like a painful rice-paddy of plugs, he plagiarized a speech so obviously and crudely he almost begged to be caught, and despite his rep for retail politics, was terrible at campaigning for president. In 2008, he quit after Iowa, with one percent of the vote.

His big moment came when Barack Obama picked him as his veep. And the choice of Biden was specifically designed, it seems to me, to ruffle no more feathers, and to assuage white working-class discomfort with a young, inexperienced black guy with a funny, foreign-sounding name. Even at the time, it felt to me that Biden’s acceptance speech was fine but not exactly great — but what worked nonetheless was his persona: “It’s hard not to feel affection for this scrappy old guy — especially if you’re a Catholic,” I wrote. “This was a very culturally Catholic speech, especially at the beginning, and Biden will speak to people who might be leery of this young African-American. It was also focused on middle class economic anxiety and spoke about it in intimate ways that voters will immediately understand.”

Twelve years later, this guy is even older and less scrappy but still has the same core appeal: that old Irish dude who can go on a bit but has a heart of gold and hasn’t completely disappeared into the left-liberal elite. The drastically curtailed Covid campaign was a godsend in retrospect because it removed countless opportunities for him to get in his own way, while very successfully projecting and burnishing this image. Yes he could get a bit Abraham-Simpson-y at times, but I confess I began to find that a little comforting after a while, in the era of Trump. The combination of decency, vulnerability and humanness became even more potent up against an indecent, inhuman con-man. It became the stutterer versus the monster.

And Biden’s core appeal, as he has occasionally insisted, is that he ran against the Democratic left, and won because of moderate and older black voters with their heads screwed on right. He was the least online candidate. For race-leftists like Jamelle Bouie, he was part of the problem: “For decades Biden gave liberal cover to white backlash.” For gender-warriors like Rebecca Traister, he was “a comforter of patriarchal impulses toward controlling women’s bodies.” Ben Smith a year and a half ago went for it: “His campaign is stumbling toward launch with all the hallmarks of a Jeb!-level catastrophe — a path that leads straight down … Joe Biden isn’t going to emerge from the 2020 campaign as the nominee. You already knew that.” The sheer smug of it! And the joy of seeing old Joe get the last laugh.

It’s worth recalling the obloquy the woke dumped on Biden in the early stages of the race because this will surely be a battle line if he wins the presidency, and we will have to fight for him and against them if we are not going to sink into deeper tribal warfare. He is one of the last vestiges of the near-extinct rapport between white working-class voters and the Democrats, and if he wins next week, it will be because he has wrested older white voters from the Republican grip, and won white women in a landslide (unlike Clinton), even as his support among blacks and Latinos may come in slightly behind Hillary’s.

Biden ran a campaign, in stark contrast to Clinton’s, focused not on rallying the base around identity grievances, but on persuading the other side with argument and engagement. If you believe in liberal democracy — in persuasion, dialogue, and civility — and want to resist tribalism, Biden may be our unexpected but real last chance. And in this campaign, he has walked the walk.

His core message, which has been remarkably consistent, is not a divisive or partisan one. It is neither angry nor bitter. Despite mockery and scorn from some understandably embittered partisans, he has a hand still held out if Republicans want to cooperate. In this speech at Warm Springs, where Biden invoked the legacy of FDR, you can feel the Obama vibe, so alien to the woke: “Red states, blue states, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, and Liberals. I believe from the bottom of my heart, we can do it. People ask me, why are you so confident Joe? Because we are the United States of America.”

And while he has promised a deep re-structuring and redistribution in the wake of Covid, climate change, and destabilizing inequality, he has done so in pragmatic, rather than ideological, terms. Against the surreal extremism and divisiveness of Trump, he has offered moderation and an appeal to unity. Look at the careful balance he has struck on the protests against police misconduct this summer: “Some of it is just senseless burning and looting and violence that can’t be tolerated and won’t, but much of it is a cry for justice from a community that’s long had a knee of injustice on their neck.” We need both these impulses, if we are to extract real reform from distorting rage, and make it stick.

He is not perfect, of course. I suspect he is naive on some questions. He realizes, does he not, that when he uses the term “equity” rather than “equality”, with respect to race, he is using code for the crudest racial discrimination. He surely knows that critical race theory is not about being sensitive to the pain of others, but about seeing the U.S. as no less a white supremacy now than under slavery, and liberal constitutionalism as a mere mask for oppression of non-whites. He knows that the Equality Act eviscerates the religious freedom he has previously championed, does he not, and folds the category of sex into one of gender, jeopardizing at the margins both gay and women’s rights? And it should be troubling, it seems to me, that, when confronted with the fact that his son, Hunter, is corrupt in the classic, legal, and swampy way, Biden refuses to see anything wrong with it at all.

But these are quibbles in the grand scheme of things. And it is striking, as David Brooks noted this morning, how deftly Biden has walked through a field of culture war landmines and not see one go off. That has taken discipline — and Biden has shown that he can exercise it. Maybe he learned it from Obama.

His closing message has been about healing — from the wounds of Covid, economic crisis, and resilient racism. And if there is one thing Biden really knows in his heart and soul it is healing. Recovering from the loss of a wife, a daughter and a son requires a profound sense of how to take the hits that life can bring, how to stay strong while accepting vulnerability, and how to move slowly forward.

This is how he put it last week, as he related to the isolating, desolating casualties of Covid19: “Alone in a hospital room, alone in a nursing home, no family, no friends, no loved ones beside them in those final moments, and it haunts so many of the surviving families, families who were never given a chance to say goodbye. I, and many of you know, what loss feels like when you lose someone you love, you feel that deep black hole opening up on your chest and you feel like you’re being swallowed into it.”

I have felt that way for four years now. What I grieve is an idea of America that is decent, generous, big-hearted, and pragmatic, where the identity of a citizen, unqualified, unhyphenated, is the only identity you need. I miss a public discourse where a president takes responsibility even for things beyond his full control, where the fault-lines of history are not mined for ammunition but for greater understanding, where, in Biden’s words, we can once again see the dignity in each other. I am not a fool, and know how hard this will be. But in this old man, with his muscle memory of what we have lost, and his ability to move and change in new ways, we have an unexpected gift.

“I’ve long said the story of America is a story of ordinary people doing extraordinary things,” Joe Biden said last week. Well, ordinary old Joe, it’s your turn now. Do the extraordinary.

ANDREW SULLIVAN

THE WEEKLY DISH

[ewh111]

2018 Annual List of Favorite Film Experiences

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

I hope you’ve been having a great holiday season. It’s been another fun year in film, television, and streaming. It felt like a particularly good year for diverse voices, visions, casts, and storytelling. While I still feel like I’m catching up on year-end releases, here’s my annual list of the ones that have entertained, moved me, provoked thoughts, or just plain stuck with me the most with their story-telling and artistry (In no particular order).

All the best for a wonderful 2019!

Cheers, Ed

Indelible (But VERY Different) Cinematic Experiences

Roma—I wasn’t sure what the hype was about for the first hour which leisurely unfolds before you, but it’s just the build-up as Alfonso Cuaron’s beautiful and powerful film slowly draws you in, and then suddenly grabs you with unexpected emotional impact. An intimate, yet sweeping story of a maid who holds together a crumbling family as her own life combusts. Based on the director’s own life and the woman who raised him, Roma is a complex multi-layered domestic/social/political drama with some truly haunting and indelible sequences. Some may be challenged by the pacing and seeming lack of narrative. Be patient and stick with it; it’s worth it.

Sorry to Bother You—Audacious, original first film and new vision from rapper/hip hop musician Boots Riley starring a terrific Lakeith Stanfield as down on his luck young man who gets a job as a telemarketer and advised by veteran caller Danny Glover to use his “white voice” to become a power caller. The story then takes a twisted wackadoodle turn that truly defies description. This bold and outrageous absurdist social satire/surreal anti-capitalist black comedy also stars an excellent Armie Hammer in a bizzaro role.

A Full House of Documentaries: A Pair of Giants of Our Time and Three of a Kind

Won’t You Be My Neighbor—Celebrating a true hero, it’s a warm and loving look at this pioneer of children’s television who became a role model of kindness and compassion for generations. Little did I realize when watching him as a child the bold and courageous manner in which he addressed the social issues of the day. And it is worthwhile to see the full six-minute video of Fred Rogers Senate testimony that saved funding for public television: https://youtu.be/fKy7ljRr0AA.

RBG—An inspirational telling of the brilliant legal mind who shaped America’s legal landscape on gender equality and women’s rights and became a pop culture icon. 

Three Identical Strangers—Fascinating documentary that starts as a “can’t believe it’s true” tale of separated-at-birth triplets who miraculously find each other as young adults, and then takes a very dark turn as the layers of the story are revealed, raising some real ethical questions about research and the debate about nature vs. nurture.

Additional Docu-series to watch: The Staircase (a gripping and powerful docu-series that is an intimate and detailed look at our criminal justice system as seen through the eyes of a man accused of murder who claims the death of his wife was an accident); The Fourth Estate (a fascinating behind the scenes look at the NY Times and their reporters as they cover the beginning of the Trump administration).

Historical Dramedies

The Death of Stalin—Dark and bitingly funny, this relevant political satire by Armando Iannucci of Veep portrays the intrigue surrounding the flock of sycophantic bureaucrats who vie to become the next Soviet leader after the sudden stroke and death of Stalin. A masterful historical farce with a great cast that includes Steve Buscemi, Jeffrey Tambor, Michael Palin, and Jason Isaacs. And it’s worth noting that the most absurd moments actually did take place (e.g., a rerun concert just to make a recording for Stalin; the alcoholic and meglomaniacal son of Stalin who lost the entire national hockey team by ordering their flight into a snowstorm and then replacing the dead players in hopes his dad wouldn’t notice).

The Favourite—While I decidedly did not care for filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos’s much acclaimed The Lobster, this is a much more accessible outing. A highly original period/costume piece with an amazing trio of performances from Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz, and Emma Stone, The Favourite is a dark and wickedly humorous look at the conniving palace intrigue, love triangles, and back-stabbing world of Queen Anne’s court, complete with fops, duck races, pigeon shooting, and rabbits that rule the roost. 

Vice—Not your typical biopic. From the man who brought you The Big Short, Adam McKay delivers an entertaining dark dramedy. Christian Bale wholly transforms into the enigmatic Dick Cheney in this boldly told tale (including a faux Shakespearean pillow talk bit and a mid-film happily-ever-after credit sequence) of a ne'er do well who becomes the most powerful man in the world, all “in the service of the people.” With a very strong supporting cast of Amy Adams as Lynne Cheney, Sam Rockwell as George W. Bush, and Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld.

BlacKkKlansman—Director Spke Lee and the producers of Get Out deliver the unbelievably true buddy-cop tale from the 1970s of a black man who goes undercover to infiltrate the KKK by phone while his white Jewish partner stands in for him in face-to-face meetings. Told in a funny and entertaining manner, it’s one of Spike Lee’s best film in years, though it’s unfortunate how little the racial issues have changed over time.

Odes to Stan Lee and the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Black Panther—This is not just another Marvel superhero movie. This is what every origin story should be: a totally immersive world is created with a sophisticated and impressively well-told story, balancing big themes, character development, action, mythology, and strong messaging, including female empowerment. Black Panther is perhaps the best (and most political without being heavy-handed) entry in the MCU while leaving a very large cultural footprint on Hollywood.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider Verse—I really didn’t think we needed another entry into the Spidey world, but this one was truly fantastic, perhaps the best of the bunch. With visually stunning animation unlike anything I’ve seen before, it’s the most trippy, inclusive, and soulful Spider-Man ever, and the one most true to its comic book roots.

More Fantastic Animation, Stop Motion, and CGI

Isle of Dogs–I am an unabashed fan of Wes Anderson, and here he creates a masterful stop motion universe, much more sophisticated and intricate than his last one, the wonderful Fantastic Mr. Fox. Taking place in a fictional dystopian Japan, he creates yet another Andersonian obsessively detailed world, infused with Japanese culture and canines. On the surface, it’s a simple story of a boy seeking his pet dog in a world where dogs have been banished to a trash-filled island, but it works on so many other levels, existential and political. A great cast of voices infuse each character with individuality and nuanced personalities, including Brian Cranston, Edward Norton, and Bill Murray. 

Ready Player One—An unexpectedly wild and entertaining journey, this Spielberg film that takes place in a dystopian future steeped in the nostalgia of the 1980s (video games, movies, music) where its citizens find salvation and escape in a virtual world called the OASIS. The central story of a teen in a whirlwind contest seeking control of the OASIS is a visually stunning and thrilling ride combining live action and CGI that is thoroughly satisfying (though I feel I need to go back to take in all the pop culture references that whirl by).  

Incredibles 2–Well worth the wait after 14 years. Just what you would hope for in summer film. Well-developed characters, action, and story with amazing animation and a terrifically snazzy Michael Giacchino soundtrack.

Other Enjoyable Film Experiences Worth Mentioning

22 July, A Quiet Place, Beautiful Boy, Boy Erased, Crazy Rich Asians, Eighth Grade, Green Book, Love, Simon, Mary Poppins Returns, Mission Impossible: Fallout, Paddington 2, The Price of Everything, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Science Fair, Searching, The Hate U Give, Tully, Victoria & Abdul

In the Queue

A Star Is Born, Burning, Cold War, First Man, First Reformed, Free Solo, The Frontrunner, If Beale Street Could Talk, Shoplifters

Binge-Worthy Television

The Americans, Barry, Succession

For the Foodie Set

Fat Salt Acid Heat, Ugly Delicious

Favorite Theater Experience

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child--if you’re a HP fan, it’s like being reunited with old friends. Great story and incredible stagecraft. 

Trailers

Black Panther: https://youtu.be/xjDjIWPwcPU

BlacKkKlansman: https://youtu.be/0vWHEuhEuno

Incredibles 2: https://youtu.be/i5qOzqD9Rms

Isle of Dogs: https://youtu.be/dt__kig8PVU

RBG: https://youtu.be/biIRlcQqmOc

Ready Player One: https://youtu.be/cSp1dM2Vj48

Roma: https://youtu.be/6BS27ngZtxg

Sorry to Bother You: https://youtu.be/PQKiRpiVRQM

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse: https://youtu.be/g4Hbz2jLxvQ

The Death of Stalin: https://youtu.be/kPpXFnHoC-0

The Favourite: https://youtu.be/SYb-wkehT1g

Three Identical Strangers: https://youtu.be/c-OF0OaK3o0

Vice: https://youtu.be/jO3GsRQO0dM

Won’t You Be My Neighbor: https://youtu.be/FhwktRDG_aQ

[hell-yeahfilm]

AWAKENING

In this self-help book, Martin, whose last book was Make It Rain (2018), encourages women to learn about systemic sexism and to push back against gendered challenges in the workplace and in general. Martin, a lawyer, journalist, and entrepreneur, shares her own and friends’ and colleagues’ professional experiences to illustrate the problems women face in professional settings. The book’s first section addresses misconceptions about women’s potential for success, which Martin presents as the lies women have been told (“You Can’t Be a Working Woman and Raise a Family”). The middle chapters explore some of the underlying reasons women contend with setbacks in their careers, from assumptions about how parenthood will influence professionalism to unequal opportunities for mentorship and support, and the final section provides solutions and strategies for getting past obstacles, although it does not get into specifics about how to bring about major systemic changes. Each chapter ends with an “awakening action item,” which gives readers journaling prompts, potential discussion topics, and recommended activities. The system as a whole, Martin argues, is at fault when it comes to institutionalized prejudice and discrimination, and while minor fixes do have limited impacts, a wholesale rethinking of relationships, work, and professionalism is needed.

Martin’s personal narrative, which is about her struggles and successes (“A Black woman with Harvard credentials is still a Black woman,” she notes), is at the book’s core. The author is a strong writer and storyteller, and she does an excellent job of capturing the essences of the women she features here. She also provides a wealth of pithy pull quotes (“You can’t open a door simply by ‘leaning in’ to it”) that will prompt highlighting and underlining. At times, however, the book seems unwilling to trust its readers’ knowledge base (for instance, by suggesting that TV shows like Veep and Madam Secretary are the first places many saw women represented in positions of political power, as though their fictional protagonists are the only women visible in positions of power) and misses opportunities for more substantial analysis. Recommendations for achieving structural change range from individual action items, like developing a personal mission statement and setting achievable goals, to more conceptual activities, like identifying and challenging internalized stereotypes. Although the book calls for large-scale systemic changes, it includes little in the way of specific advice for how to “dismantle and rebuild the system,” making it more a tool for consciousness raising and relationship building than wholesale revolution. Readers will find motivation and validation via both anecdotes and statistics. But those who have already read The Memo (2019), Lead From Outside (2018), or Did That Just Happen?! (2021) may find that the book covers familiar territory. Martin’s greatest strength, however, is in her presentation, and even jaded readers are likely to put the book down feeling that their perceptions of sexism are accurate, the problem is indeed a fixable one, and Martin is in their corner, cheering them on as they try to transform the world.

from Kirkus Reviews https://ift.tt/2ZiIaAH

[anisanews]

Can Doug Emhoff have it all?

Amundson appeared a mix of thrilled and nervous. It’s not every day that Vice President Kamala Harris’ husband, the second gentleman of the United States, requests a special order. Her bookstore has a modest collection. What if she didn’t have it?

But Emhoff wasn’t looking for a book about some wonkish domestic policy agenda or a foreign entanglement. He asked, instead, if Amundson had Seth Rogen’s memoir. (Yes, that Seth Rogen.)

Amundson laughed internally, she recalled later, because it was — well — all so unexpected. She definitely did not have it.

Denied his preferred literary adventure, Emhoff laughed, pulled out his credit card and told her to pick out a book for him, wrap it up, and not tell him what it was. Amundson wrapped up “Seven Kinds of People You Find in Bookshops.”

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff speaks with Jinny Amundson, owner of Old Fox Books in Annapolis, Md. | Courtesy of The White House

Fun Doug had lost out to serious Douglas once again.

The tale, recounted by Amundson and the owner of the coffee shop, was a distillation of life being the first second gentleman in history. Emhoff is an historic figure in his own right, a smart and accomplished entertainment lawyer who is using his perch to get more vaccines in arms, bring more attention to food insecurity and local businesses decimated by the pandemic. But, he’s still just kind of a dude.

Aides say he didn’t want a life in the public eye. But he’s also amenable to doing the political work that comes with the post.

Each vice presidential spouse has tackled the job a bit differently. But there’s a fairly common blueprint. You support the veep, host parties (usually in gowns made in America), choose a non-controversial platform — helping disadvantaged kids or veterans or children victimized by bullying — team up with the first lady on another non-controversial policy area, and repeat for four more years if there’s a second term.

Still, if Emhoff sometimes seems like he’s making things up as he goes along, it’s because he (and every second spouse before him) is.

“There is nothing in the Constitution about the first lady and there’s certainly nothing about the second lady or second gentleman. So they have a lot of leeway to do as much or as little as they want,” said Kate Andersen Brower, author of “First Women: The Grace and Power of America’s Modern First Ladies.”

Emhoff’s staff isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel. When he began envisioning what his role might look like, he met and talked with the sorority of women that came before him — especially the current first lady, Jill Biden. “He is not the first second spouse, so many of the things he will be doing are things that have been done before,” Emhoff’s chief of staff Julie Mason told POLITICO. “Some of them might be new to him.”

But Emhoff also isn’t just another spouse to a sitting VP. He’s the first with XY chromosomes. And how he adds his own “Douggie” flair to the gig will set the template not just for future second gentlemen, but also for male spouses of powerful women across the country. Aides say Emhoff is cognizant of how important it is for kids (and adults) to see a man fully embrace the concept of being a supportive husband to a powerful woman while shaking up outdated gender stereotypes. It’s given an additional weight to his role.

“I hope it normalizes that we as a country have gotten to a point where we’re comfortable seeing a man in that position supporting his wife,” Andersen Brower said. “And at the same time, we have to kind of calibrate how excited we are about it, because it is so absurd that it’s taken us this long.”

Douglas Emhoff takes a selfie prior to then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris delivering a campaign speech at the Iowa State Fair in 2019. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

The role-modeling began after the election. Emhoff quit his own high-powered job (which accounted for most of the more than $1.6 million the couple raked in last year) for a one-class-a-semester teaching job at Georgetown University; his first in-person class begins in August. And then, as he built his team — a small group of nine — the focus was first on playing cheerleader.

“We came in here and the first thing he did was raise his hand to see how he could be helpful with the pandemic response and recovery,” Mason said. “He was not elected to office. His No. 1 job is to support the vice president, to support the administration.”

As soon as the administration began, Emhoff was dispatched to dozens of events — many in-person, including visits to small businesses and vaccination clinics. Often, he promised to take back the conversations he had there to the Naval Observatory, where he and the vice president now live. As he’s done these events, Emhoff has also worked with his team to figure out what his own platform might be. Aides say they aren’t in a rush and it’s typical for there not to be an announced initiative this early in the administration. But outside of vaccinations, there’s one policy area Emhoff seems more interested in than others: food security.

Almost every roundtable or stop has something to do with food and nutrition, something that even during the campaign was a focus. As he visited food banks, aides say he was struck by the lack of equity and access.

Back in February, when now-Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was being virtually sworn in by Harris, he said he talked to Emhoff, who had called to congratulate him on his confirmation. Vilsack told Harris, “We want to get him involved in nutrition,” to which Harris replied that her husband “cares a great deal about that.” Senior Emhoff aides say it’s almost a sure thing that food security will end up being an initiative as he charts out his role in more detail. But his involvement on the topic is still in the planning stages.

But being a supportive spouse with a passion for food security hasn’t been without its challenges. Emhoff is the only one of the “four principals” — as aides refer to the Biden and Harris couples — with limited experience in public life. And that has required some adjustments.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who shared a coffee with Emhoff near the water in Annapolis last week, said Emhoff mentioned to him how weird he found the bubble that now surrounds him. He noted the need to make “appointments to see your children.” Even the things that look spontaneous to the outside — like a quick stop at a precious independent book store — now take extensive planning and scheduling.

“There’s definitely a period of adjustment in learning how the systems operate here,” Mason said. “You can’t always do things as much on a whim as maybe you would have before.” But, she said, Emhoff has never complained to the staff about it.

Doug Emhoff with his children, Ella Emhoff and Cole Emhoff. | Tony Avelar/AP Photo

To maintain a semblance of normalcy in his life, Emhoff holds scheduled Zoom calls on a regular basis with his family, and has gone out to see D.C. on the weekends with friends, Mason says. One of those friends is Chasten Buttigieg, husband of now-Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, who became close with Emhoff during the 2020 campaign. Buttigieg said the two still “trade texts quite often.” They sometimes talk about the platform Emhoff plans to build (of which food security has come up) or what they’re watching on Netflix. But typically they talk about the adjustments that come with their new lives.

“There’s still got to be that holy shit cloud, hovering over them. Like, wow, we’re really doing this. And he has to figure out how to build a platform, an office, a team and then also, like, make sure he’s being really supportive,” Chasten Buttigieg said in a phone interview. “But he seems very peppy, like he really wants to like ‘go, go, go, go, go’ and that comes with a lot of concern for getting the moment right.”

As he plays the role of supportive husband of a powerful woman — and adjusts to the responsibilities and attention that come with it — Emhoff has garnered a group of loyal fans of his own. #DougHive may not match the size, stature or aggressively defensive tone that Harris’ #KHive possesses. But that’s what comes when you’re proudly second fiddle.

“He lets her lead. That’s quite remarkable to see. And the fact that he’s a white male married to this strong Black woman, I think he knows what that means,” said Danielle Garrett, a musician and teacher in Pennsylvania and active member of the Facebook group titled “Doug Emhoff, Esquire: Our Second Gentleman.” The group, of more than 800 and counting, posts links about nearly every move Emhoff makes: from a picture of him with his daughter Ella at her graduation or moments like Emhoff sitting by himself before the joint session to Congress last month blowing kisses to Harris. (Grant posted that one with the comment “What a true gent!!” with three heart emojis.)

Emmoff’s “clearly just being himself,” Garrett said, which makes him the type of relatable figure that seems rare in politics.

It has not only served his wife well — it’s helped him, too. For proof: After he left her store, Admundson, the bookshop owner, said she went looking for a way to get the Seth Rogen memoir to Emhoff as soon as she could.

from Anisa News https://ift.tt/2RHXxPx

[safflowerseason]

With the exception of season 1, I think that the show doesn’t go awfully deep into the actual physical dynamic of having Amy being the only woman on Selina’s staff. Like, I feel like so many of the tampon and menstruation jokes given to Gary could have done more if given to Amy to establish their relationship. Kinda focusing on menstruation so I’d love to hear what you have to say but if you have more to say in the same general sphere I’d love to hear as well.

This is a very astute question, Anon. First things first, let’s not forget Sue! Sue is also a woman on Selina’s team! (although her relationship with Selina is not nearly as intimate as Amy’s, so I understand why the question isn’t about Sue.)  Also, I’m really thinking of S1-S4 in my response here…the gender dynamics of S5-S7 are a separate (and far more monstrous and less nuanced) thing entirely. 

In general, I would say that the reason that Gary gets the jokes about menstruation and make-up and Selina’s general physical needs is to demonstrate to the audience that those aspects of Selina’s experience as a woman are “professionalized.” In order to do her job as the Vice President, Selina’s personal needs, like menstruation, eating regularly, looking well-groomed, and feeling awake, have to be dealt with equally seriously as writing press releases and developing policy. It’s important enough that it has to be someone’s entire job—Gary’s job. Selina can’t afford to be all hush-hush with the only two women on her staff when she gets her period. Someone has to be prepared for it. And while that’s not in the job description of the chief of staff (Amy) or the executive secretary (Sue), it is the job description of a politician’s body man. 

I don’t know very much about the role of the body man in politics, unfortunately…most of what I do know is gleaned from The West Wing and Veep, which aren’t exactly “real” sources. I would love to know if Hillary Clinton had a male or female body man…for one, it does seem like the job requires a lot of carrying things. In general, I think the physical dimensions of politics tend to be examined less in popular culture. There’s a reason why campaign staff have to seriously respect the interests and wishes of a candidate’s spouse, even if they disagree or think that person is a nightmare…because hardly anyone else has that kind of physical access to the candidate. This is why Selina had to be unmarried in Veep…if she and Andrew were unhappy but had remained together for appearance’s sake in some sort of Clinton arrangement, he would still have a kind of access to her that would complicate Selina’s relationship with her team. For Veep to really work as a show, with Selina’s particular psychology, her team—and above all, Gary—need to be the people in closest physical proximity to her.

So, in short, the reason that a lot of jokes about Selina’s physical needs and experiences in the world went to Gary is because the writers were trying to explore the realities of Gary’s job. Plus, Selina and Gary's relationship is the interpersonal connection that is arguably at the heart of the show, and their physical closeness and constant proximity to one another is a huge part of what links them together. (And the writers also wanted to poke fun at/critique the fact that because Selina is a woman, her body man has to deal with things like tampons and lipstick, and in the eyes of most men, such as Dan, that somehow makes Gary less masculine.)

Also, the idea that Selina and Gary first encountered each other at the hospital where Selina delivered Catherine is patently ridiculous. Like, did Selina really insist on taking the random candy-striper guy home with her after that?! Did she just start paying him as her private…attendant? She hasn’t even run for Congress yet! None of the internal logic of the final two seasons of Veep makes any sense.

I do very much agree that the show never really does anything with the reality that both Selina and Amy are comparatively diminutive women and they’re constantly surrounded by a bunch of a very tall men who could theoretically inflict personal harm on either of them at any damn time. The show played with Timothy Simons’s height quite a lot, in a variety of different ways, as well as the height differential between Reid Scott and Anna Chlumsky, but their smallness compared to all the men around them is never something that actually links Selina and Amy together. Their connection is sketched out in terms of emotion, not their shared physical experiences. Certainly, Selina is very physically touchy-feely with Amy in a way she can’t be with Dan or Mike, which reinforces how close they are. However, the physical realities of being women in a man’s world do not seem to be part of what draws them together, at least in the way the show presents their relationship. 

For example, we never see S1-S4 Selina “look out” for Amy when it comes to the male politicians and staffers she encounters. In the very first episode, she’s totally fine with using Amy as bait to get Jonah to surrender the condolence card. She never tells Jonah (or Dan, for that matter) to back off Amy, she never says “be careful” whenever Amy has to meet with a man alone. We know Selina has been sexually assaulted before, and yet, even in the early seasons of the show, she’s never worried that something like that might happen to Amy. Nor does Amy ever reach out to Selina to ask for guidance or support when it comes to dealing with men. We never see them talk about how much it sucks to wear heels all day. In general, it seems their relationship is not explicitly grounded in the fact that they have similar experiences of inhabiting (attractive) female bodies in the world. (And then in the Mandel years, Selina does things like actively endanger Amy by trying to sell her to Leon, so….a different issue entirely.) 

The closest I think we get is the miscarriage plotline in S1, where Selina asks Amy to fake a miscarriage for her, which is obviously a very gendered gesture that she can only ask a woman. And the subtext of Amy’s attempts to soothe Selina in 1.07 very much read as “I’m a woman, unlike Gary, Dan and Mike, so you can talk to me about your boyfriend if you need to.” And of course, there’s ep. 2.05, when Selina and Amy have very similar reactions to Osmo groping Selina. Still, it’s Gary who knows about the miscarriage first, and Gary who immediately finds out about the groping incident, simply through the demands of his job.

The general lack of exploration into that dimension of Selina and Amy’s experience is probably linked to the broader hesitance of the show to delve into the nuances of sexual harassmant and violence except when the plot demanded it. And I suspect there are other reasons as well…Selina’s narcissism obviously plays a huge role in how she thinks about Amy, as well as her own complicated relationship with feminism. And, not for nothing, Selina is consistently surrounded by Secret Service, and I think she is self-centered enough to assume that sort of protection would surround Amy even when she’s not physically with Selina. In other words, she might subconsciously assume that Amy is untouchable through her association with the VP’s office. I also doubt that Selina is thinking very much about what happens to Amy when Amy is not in her direct line of sight, or when she doesn’t need something from her. 

I also wonder if, by the end of S2, Selina—and probably Ben and Kent—might be taking for granted that Dan is probably with Amy wherever she is, which means she’ll be safe from any predatory men because Dan is projecting his possessive caveman vibes all over her. Most of D.C. probably assumes something is going on between Amy and Dan, which could act as a deterrent for predatory behavior as well, since some men only respect women who are “spoken for.” (Obviously, some do not.) (Men are the worst no matter what.) 

Anyway, the intersection of gender, interpersonal relationships, and workplace politics represents a really fascinating, if canonically under-examined, thread within the show. Thanks Anon! 

[aion-rsa]

The Boys Season 2: Who Is Victoria Neuman?

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This article contains spoilers for The Boys Season 2 finale.

Ok, who saw that coming? The Boys waited until the very last moments of its Season 2 finale, ‘What I Know’, to finally reveal the identity of its mysterious head-popper after quickly dismissing the leading prime suspect, Vought International CEO Stan Edgar, and now we know whodunnit – Victoria Neuman, the show’s whip smart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-esque Congresswoman and Butcher gang ally.

In a cracking, extremely satisfying finale that brought us a huge helping of delightful moments – Billy’s parting advice to Ryan! Starlight and Hughie’s sweet embrace! MM reuniting with his family! Kimiko and Frenchie communicating for real! Homelander’s highly anticipated and utterly ludicrous alfresco crywank! – Neuman’s unique supe emerged as the cherry on top. But the reveal left us with a few lingering questions about Neuman’s motivations and endgame.

Claudia Doumit, who plays Neuman on the series, always seemed to be a key member of the cast in Season 2. The actress and producer has previously fielded roles in Supergirl and Scandal, but she’s still mainly known for her part as Jiya in Timeless, another ambitious project created for television by The Boys’ showrunner, Eric Kripke. Doumit’s co-star in Timeless was none other than Goran Visnjic aka Alastair Adana, the charming and currently headless mastermind behind thinly-veiled Scientology outfit, The Church of the Collective. Kripke keeps it in the family!

So, what do we know about Victoria Neuman now that the dust has settled? Well, the character is definitely drawn from Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson’s The Boys comics, but the role has been gender-flipped for Doumit, much like Aya Cash’s fascist supe Stormfront was in Season 2. In the comics, Victoria Neuman is Victor Neuman aka ‘Vic the Veep’, an extremely conservative and really quite stupid former Vought CEO fashioned as Ennis and Robertson’s spin on George W. Bush, who becomes the Vice President of the United States.

In the series, Neuman is a world away from ol’ Dubya. She’s smart, elegant, scrupulous, and intent on stirring the political pot when it comes to Vought’s stranglehold on America. The liberal Congresswoman even managed to encourage the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing about Vought’s Compound V experiments, with some help from Mallory and The Boys, but we all know how that turned out – her star witness, ageing Vought scientist Dr. Vogelbaum, was taken out in a heartbeat, along with a handful of other poor souls in the courtroom. Neuman seemingly went from triumphant to terrified in mere seconds as her Chief of Staff also became a victim of the deadly head-popper in front of her very eyes.

Indeed, Neuman was the one who pushed for the hearing, Neuman was the one who wanted more proof about the Compound V stabilization program at the Sage Grove Center, Neuman was the one who wanted accountability from Vought at last, Neuman was the one who helped drag a lot of secret information to light – but in the finale, it’s confirmed that she herself is a very powerful supe, and has been simultaneously pulling counterproductive strings since the first episode, when she popped Raynor’s head just as The Boys’ CIA contact was about to dish up some crucial information on a potential ‘coup’ developing politically. At the time, we were left to assume Raynor was referring to Vought’s ‘supe terrorist’ propaganda led by Stormfront, but now we know different. Raynor was killed before she could tell The Boys about Neuman.

But what is she hoping to accomplish? The leading theory going into Season 3 is that Neuman has been installed by Stan Edgar as an agent of ‘controlled opposition’, a supe acting for Vought who pretends to be on the side of good so that she can claw enough power and intel to be a vital political asset to the company on the inside. If so, the plan is certainly going well – her career is going from strength to strength, and people on the left believe in her cause in the same way that those on the right leant their support to Stormfront.

In fact, by the end of Season 2, not only has Neuman redirected any possible suspicion away from her own agenda, she’s tied up a few loose ends by killing both the nosy Raynor and the blackmailing Adana. She can also keep tabs on Mallory and The Boys by helping to fund their anti-supe efforts while maintaining the appearance of an ally, which gives her room to scupper any of their impending missions.

With Hughie climbing aboard her campaign, though, Neuman might have a wee baby-faced problem on the horizon. Will he uncover her secret during his earnest attempt to find his feet and stay on the straight and narrow?

Of course, The Boys could have other plans for Neuman – she might not be Vought’s controlled opposition after all – but we shall have to wait until Season 3 arrives before we learn any further secrets about the cutthroat milky-eyed head-popper.

Head to the comments to tell us all your Victoria Neuman theories, please!

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post The Boys Season 2: Who Is Victoria Neuman? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3lyr1sF