SparedTurkey

Oh yeah - cause this is the episode where things were unbelievable. Not the one where she convinces the world to stop a genocide - even though she is winging it. Not the pilot where she manages to rescue two stupid kids with a whole bunch of aid sent out. Not the one where she flies out secret squirrel to stop the Iranian Revolution, gets blown up, but does her job. Where no one knew she was President for the day? I mean - I do love this show. It is great entertainment. But does it have much grounding in this reality? No way. I love the cast, I love Elizabeth, and the show is just entertainment. Realistic? Absoutely not. Never has been.

Well - at least she isn't winning everything every episode? What was more unrealistic? I'm sure it is building up to a massive win, but it has a slightly less optimistic tone than last year did.

I just wanted to point out that I really loved everything you said - because it is a lot more eloquent than the way I have been phrasing it. First off, in NO way are there enough portrayals of minorities on television for that to be a valid argument. Second, what I have said is that to get a full understanding, the bumbling dad trope cannot be looked at without reference to the big picture. Like Irlandesa said below - when it comes to white fathers, they are so well represented that it isn't 'problematic' for a few shows to have had a bumbling dad trope. It isn't opressive and it isn't even likely to start an opression movement against white men. Which brings me back to my other point - It makes me furious when any discussion of feminism (or racism, or LGBTQI representation) turns into a discussion of how white men are becoming oppressed. It just isn't true. It takes focus away from the real issues - being a lack of representation of minorities in this particular case - because for some reason we are coded to soothe their egos and make sure they know they will be taken care off. I don't see it as 'marginalising' white men to point out that when it comes to portrayals of them in the media - they don't have a problem. Never have. Women, black people, Asian people, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, muslims etc. - they DO still have problems even getting on screen and THAT is the main issue. And yes, before you ask, I will fight for all of them to be taken better care of in all ways, including media portrayals (in this case being TV) Except that the 'black thug' trope is completely coded in racist stereotypes and was the one portrayal of a black person on television for many many years (still is often). White men have never had to face racism nor sexism. Plus, I don't know what television you are watching but the numbers these days wouldn't really support that trope anyway. While I would love for us all to be dickering over the quality of media portrayals (as with anti-bumbling dads) most of us are still waiting to be represented enough on television to be able to join those arguments. For that reason I say we need to look at our priorities.

That isn't even a thought relegated to the 60's or 70's. When I was in high school in the early 00's, my friend got pregnant. I was in a catholic school, with the uniform. Rather than either give my friend OR let her buy a bigger uniform, they made her wear casual clothes. For her whole pregnancy. Needless to say there was not a single person in the whole school that didn't know - and the younger kids just liked the idea of casual clothes (of course, my friend wasn't kicked out ONLY because her mum was on the board). Priorities in private schools can be really weird. I always wondered if Lorelai was seeing Christopher in Jess (in his attitude or something) that made her wary of him. Obviously not status but intelligence, wit and attitude. I understood that they had to get Emily/Lorelai back together after the re-wedding but they didn't do a good job. I cannot believe Lorelai would have spoken to her mum after pulling that stunt. I also reckon Emily should have apologised - at least once.

Right yes, I should have specified. I meant current sitcoms. Not to mention that there are many sitcoms past and present where the bumbling dad is not present. Even within the sitcom world there are a many different portrayals. For every Raymond Barone there was a Dan Connor and a Phil Dunphy. From what I can see in the current sitcom landscape there are very few/almost one that I can think of. In light of that - I am failing to see how this is a serious issue that warrants attention. Well sure - but that wasn't the argument. What seemed to be suggested was that men are being irreversibly harmed by the bumbling dad trope and that needs to be considered above all else. I just think that is complete crap and I responded to that. While the media frames our view of the norm, one small section cannot be viewed on its own, but as a whole. And in light of that, I just don't see the bumbling dad as a big problem for men. Not when viewed as part of the whole. And all I am saying is priorities. Plus, while stereotypes are not great, when weighed and balanced against the whole picture - it isn't a big deal for certain groups in society.

I have said it before - but I just don't think this trope is that common. Other than the Simpsons I am struggling to come up with the bumbling dad stereotype. Even if it is common, it isn't the prevailing portrayal of men on tv. And if it isn't interesting to you, that is fine - no one is forcing you to watch it. So the bumbling dad tropes have caused your coworkers sexist attitudes? Perhaps the bumbling dad trope is more reflective of current male attitudes and those sitcoms should really be considered a documentary then?

Sure. But regardless of those who don't like any female characters, even the well written, well-rounded ones - I don't see why that means that producers, writers, networks get a pass on not being better at it at this point? You can't please everyone, absolutely true. But if you can do better - do better. Blaming the audience - however small that audience is - is an easy way out and ignores what is really important.

Much like 'reverse racism' - 'reverse sexism' is not a thing. There is no slippery slope here. I am not and have not been arguing that white men take the place for women/minorities (though for a day, just to see the difference, but I digress). My point was/is that having a white male portrayed as an idiot, while may not be your cup of tea, is not ultimately sexism and is not ultimately damaging. The fact there is even a discussion of the bumbling dad trope and acknowledgement of all other white male tropes shows that while perceived negative by some it is just a non-issue. And yes, it would be nice if women (and minorities) were at the point where representation was at the point where we can quibble over the quality of the portrayal. But it is not and focus should be on getting us to that point. White men aren't ever going to disappear from television. Not going to happen. But there is room at the table for the rest of us. Okay? That seems like more of a quality issue than anything else. Not to mention factually incorrect on the show's behalf - the vast majority of victims of serial killers are women. I can't speak to the idea that they are torturing men to combat the sexism criticisms on having female victims - do you have any interviews to support that?

I don't think that is any more anti-feminist than I think someone who enjoys Homer Simpson is a misandrist who lives off the trope of men being inept fathers. I don't think it is implausible that a particular woman's favourite characters out of the shows she watches aren't women. Maybe the particular show/s she watches either don't have many women in the cast (Supernatural), don't treat the women well (Criminal Minds) or she cannot relate to that particular character (Homeland). Maybe that woman has a bias, maybe not. Maybe all it means is writers need to pick up their game or include diversity. I would be more inclined to ask that question if you were discussing Orange Is The New Black for example. I have never seen anyone pick a male character over one of the females. There are many different female characters - some likeable, some not. But I have never seen anyone pick Pornstache, Larry or Healy over at least one of the females, be it Nichols, Crazy Eyes, Piper, Yoga Jones, Red or even Pennsatucky. Maybe a situation of reverse law-of-averages I was talking about. Maybe a result of having a number of different kinds of women on a show who are given attention. No I know you weren't saying that I was saying that you were saying that I was...wait...anyway. No, I know you weren't. And I am not sure what CW level trash you are watching - even though I am sure I have watched some similar kind of shows. I mean, I watched Pretty Little Liars up until recently, so I am not saying I am very high brow or whatever. People have different tastes and that is what it is. I think it is sad if a girl or women watches television and does not like a single female character. But female television watchers shouldn't have to settle. We shouldn't have to sit back and be grateful to be included at all. Women make up more than 50% of the population and we come in all different forms. Maybe if television represented us properly, it wouldn't be an issue. No. That comedy with a black thug does not get a pass and (going slightly off-topic) that is because the depictions of black people (like women) on television is still pathetic. There is still systemic racism - and sexism and misogyny - that occurs every day and television currently reflects that landscape. Minorities have a history of being beaten down, reduced to a particular trope and there is a lot of cultural significance that goes along with it. It is not routinely called out and remains a shorthand for communication. White men have not been, and are not, ever persecuted for being white or male. They are the top. That is why a comedy will and should be called out if a black guy is just a thug for laughs or an Asian character cannot drive for laughs or a woman's behaviour is explained as 'hormonal' for laughs or a Latino is a maid and some miscommunication happens 'for laughs'. If and when we get to the point where minorities are treated like white males - where there are a multitude of different portrayals of all kinds - then I would say they wouldn't be an issue, much like the bumbling dad schtick. But socially, culturally and politically we are just not there. It isn't an either/or competition. To each their own - Maybe JLH decided she didn't want to work while the baby is new or whatever. She undoubtedly has enough money that she doesn't need to. Maybe AJC wanted to work - maybe not. I really have no opinion on why she left and unless told otherwise, I am not assuming they forced her out. I have seen the CM Fandom be pretty vocal about how great he is. That may not be your opinion or mine, but it isn't an unpopular opinion. I never brought up Joss Whedon - but yes, I agree, he has sexism issues with his shows. Messer isn't to blame for what happened behind the scenes at CM. CBS was to blame for the sexism at CM. CBS fired PB and AJC. Ed Bernero was in charge during the time but had no choice. It was not the showrunner, producers or writer's decision. There was no appeal. Messer was stilla writer at that time. I don't recall her episodes particularly holding JJ up in a great light but MMV. CBS initially screwed with CM. Whatever your opinion of the treatment of Reid vs JJ since may be under Messer as showrunner, she was not to blame for what happened. Why is this even a comparison? When was Joss even brought up in this discussion?

I just don't feel like that is true. I think there are a lot of capable sitcom fathers or those that aren't bumbling idiots like Homer Simpson. Roseanne, 8 Simple Rules, Modern Family, The Middle to name a few. And dad's aren't the butt of every joke. For every Homer, there is a Phil Dunphy. Yes, 'Homer' can be a trope but is that really representative or poor representation of men? I don't believe so. Not when looked at as a whole. And sure, it is troubling to a degree. But considering all the other portrayals of father's on television, even in the comedy genre, well, I think there are more important fish to fry before fixing that. Sure. But to be fair, a lot of that is because the reasonable commentary begins with a 'Not All Men' comment. I'm happy to engage with anyone but when you start out demanding an apology for the way men have been treated by feminists - you won't get very far. I am not saying they have high standards and you dont. Most of my favourite characters are females on television right now. But what I was saying was that there are more male characters than women so it is just basic law of averages that more males will be popular. I was just saying not liking female characters is not anti-feminist. It's just representative of current television. Sure - but I don't really count someone whose primary role is girlfriend/one-night-stand as a well-rounded character. Because more often than not they aren't and there is absolutely no development. Being someone's bed warmer does not mean you are a character.

I don't think it is quite that simple though. Or it is, but in a different way. The majority of characters on tv shows and movies are men. A vast majority. So it isn't surprising that male characters are someone's favourite and it isn't selling out the sisterhood or whatever if it is. What that says is that there aren't enough female characters on television that are varied enough or nuanced enough or written very well or given major focus - unlike male characters (and again, I should point out I mean white men). I don't think your 20-something cousin is anti-female characters (unless she is?) but it is more that there are very few female characters to choose from and she hasn't liked what she has seen. Which is fair enough - and remains problematic for the television writers and networks, not the fans. And sure, maybe some young women/men don't like a character because of the dating thing. Maybe that is just because they are young - or maybe it is also that a show does very little in defining that female character as anything other than a love interest for a particular character. For what it is worth, from what I see, The X Files is pretty split down the middle over the preference of Scully and/or Mulder. While there are some issues in the way Scully was written, she was given equal focus and attention by the writers. Consequently, the fandom is a lot more equal in terms of which one is a favourite. And Scully is pretty damn popular with women - which may be a result of her being written for and being clearly defined, with flaws and all. Similarly, most people I know prefer Xena to Hercules (different shows, but one was a spin-off and they were in the same universe).

Worth mentioning that: a) they claimed the firings were for 'budget reasons' - only they paid Rachel Nicols double (so not really). b) they forced PB to return - they had got her to sign a contract which meant they could force her to return if her pilot wasn't picked up. In effect still tying her to them and making it difficult for her. She didn't want to - because who would after all that - but was threatened with legal action. She didn't leave because of the writing. She only came back because it was contractually obligated and had no intention of staying longer. c) Rachel Nicols found out she was fired ON TWITTER. I do wonder why I used to watch that show. That's just such blatant sexism on the part of the show and network. (I'm not speculating on Jeanne Tripplehorn, because no one knows. And with JLH - well, she was having a baby). I don't currently watch the show. It became something I didn't like. But regarding JJ - I wonder how much of making her front and centre has to do with protecting the actress from being fired again? I mean, the men on that show are safe, no matter what. But the show has demonstrated that actresses do not have such protections. Also - Why so many complaints are levelled at her when Morgan (at least in previous seasons) was written exactly like her and is a favourite character? Although all shows on CBS have reduced women characters - Eg. CSI - the female characters fought all the time about stupid nonsense just because they could. That is why I do like the BBC's The Fall - female characters over the shop and no ridiculous behaviour. CBS should take notes.

Did IMK address the transphobia issue at all during NYCC? Or was she asked about it at all?

I hated this couple. Finn was always terrible to Rachel. He was cruel, mean and I wish Rachel had walked away. Just a gross relationship.

And then hired a younger blonde to replace them? And then fired her over twitter when it didn't end well? And forced Paget Brewster back even though she didn't want to come back but they could because it was in her contract? Yeah - CM is a real haven for women - fictional or otherwise. Said no one ever ;) And I loved that comic galax-arena!!!

I am not sure of your point with Criminal Minds in relation to this discussion - that other posters are being somewhat misandrist because they don't want a story about Reid? Admittedly, I occasionally go into CM fandom, but I have never been overwhelmed by all the love for JJ or Garcia. Much the opposite in fact. In fact - it almost sums up the problem we are talking about - there are so many men on that show that while some are not the best or the most popular it has allowed for variation (keeping aside the fact your favourite doesn't get enough screentime). But there are two women. Two. And look at the amout of vitriol and criticism aimed at both of them. Now, my point is not that they are the best characters ever and shouldn't be critiqued ever, because they are women. But there isn't as much criticism aimed at the male characters because there are so many - they get to be different and while one can be X the other is Y and it doesn't matter if a third one says something dumb because they have clearly shown it isn't everyone. First - I never called you a misogynist and I really dislike people putting words in my mouth. Second - I get that you don't like watching 'irritatingly dumb people'. And that is fine. I don't think it is particularly witty and rarely watch crap like that myself. I am just saying that I don't think it is sexist/misandrist for a few ads or television shows to portray a man as dumb. They don't have a history of being used as an accessory that it just is not the same. Third - I stand by my comment about the offensiveness and ridiculousness of 'Not All Men'. Fyi - it wasn't a particular response to what you had said but a more general comment about any discussion of feminism. You can always guarantee it will show up in the first few comments and I am sick to death of assuaging male egos.

Except that no - that is not what they are saying. It has nothing to do with 'double standards'. It is saying that the portrayal of men (white, that is) in all forms of media -t v shows, movies, ads - is so varied with so many options that for one being stupid re: washing dishes, there are 3 dozen saving the world. White men get varied and nuanced portrayals of their lives while women (and minorities) are still very much under-represented or used as tokens. No one has watched Everybody Loves Raymond and felt that all men are stupid - but portraying women as harpish shews is unfortunately common. It isn't a double standard it is just a mark of how little things have changed in the media. Also, I have had enough of the 'not all men' crap that always follows a discussion about feminism. Also the idea that men are being attacked. Its absolute rubbish.

Yeah I got it was a legal breach - but I just didn't understand why a uni would ask about family health history. Mine didn't. It just seemed a ridiculous plot point. Although The MS story brought us Babbish, who I loved. Although I also liked Tribbey. Who did everyone prefer? Tribbey or Babbish?

Yeah I agree and that was my point. I work in a medical office and it is an absolute no go zone to treat anyone within immediate famiy and they can be disciplined for it - losing a licence to practice, which legally you can't practice without it - so its a part where medical bodies and the law intersect. And was the main issue against Abbey and why she voluntarily surrendered her licence. And no - Congress weren't going to let her get away with it (nor any of them) and while they couldn't put her in jail or anything because it wasn't criminal it probably would have left the administration completely inept. I do remember the whole thing about Zoey's college form but it wasn't clear whether that was a legal breach or just ethical either. I was surprised that the issue of impeachment wasn't raised or discussed very much. If a blow-job in the oval office warrants a hearing I would have bet lying about MS would have.

No I didn't think it was a law (only because im not well versed in American Law). But they did point out she breached the ethical guidelines of at least 3 AMA state chapters. Plus, at the very least in Aus it is not ethical to treat family members - there is a degree of closeness there that may affect the quality of care. So there is that too.

You mean Abbey? She was his wife - she isn't allowed to treat him. That is in violation of ethics laws (which Congress would have gotten into during a hearing and painted it very badly). She was done just for treating him. Plus - there was the issue that Charlie picked up where she had lied on Zoey's university application form regarding her parent's health saying both were totally healthy (which isn't an Australian thing so I don't get why that was asked anyway but that was the show and so - it was a big deal). Basically she was done and doctor/patient privilege was irrelevant to her. And I ultimately think the Mrs L might have known something was up with Jed's health but I don't believe that a) she would have been told or b) would have sussed the exact condition and c) that the Bartletts would have told her anyway.

Everything I have seen - Mrs Landingham was the senior receptionist. Charlie was PA. And sure - Abbey didn't make the original diagnosis. But by all accounts those first few doctors were under a (voluntary/involuntary) cone of silence. It wasn't like they were going to call Landingham and say 'Oh by the by, your boss - has MS'. And Jed wouldn't have - look how long it took him to tell Leo. To be honest, I could see Jed not telling her just to keep her out of trouble.

Why would she have known? They didn't make medical appts for his MS - Abbey handled all of it. If they had to go outside I assume they would have just told Mrs Landingham that he wasn't available. As for seeing the symptoms - she wasn't around him 24/7 - she was just the receptionist. To be honest - I would have been suprised if she did know. They were close but not that close. It made sense Charlie knew - he was around the president 24/7. She may have known something was off but that would be it.

I remember watching the first season when my parent's had gone on holiday (I was 16). I bought the season because I had heard great things about CJ (and George W Bush was in power - so I wanted to watch something else obvs). But I thought I'd end up watching a couple of episodes and be done. I mainlined the whole season in 2 & 1/2 days. But the second season right after. Loved it. Didn't care for Mandy. Loved Celestial Navigation and What Kind Of Day Has It Been. Loved Toby and his 'day of jubilee'. Loved it all.

Look, I get that idea - I really do. I do like Reid. After Prentiss he is my favourite character. My question is - considering how much of a dog's breakfast they have made of all romantic relationships for the other characters on the show - maybe it is a good thing they haven't done it to Reid. Obviously they won't write it well -and at the end of the day, isn't that what fanfic is for?