[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

Except Phil isn't really non-bumbling, IMO. I remember an episode of Modern Family where Claire took their son Luke to a psychiatrist or something because, in her own words, "I'm afraid he's becoming like you, Phil!" Her talking head segment says, "I knew I was wrong the moment I said the words, but sometimes.......I wonder." They go on to show Phil and Luke watching one of those paint-mixing machines while shimmying their upper bodies back and forth, and Luke says, "Hey, Mom, he's right, it does look like it isn't moving!" Maybe that's not so much "bumbling" as it is just being weird, but I can't imagine serious-and-more-than-a-little-anal-retentive Claire doing the same thing. And I doubt anyone would laugh if she did.

Phil and Claire are one of the oldest romantic tropes in the book - someone uptight with someone messy. But Phil is too attentive, too involved with his kids and doesn't screw up on the regular to be considered as an example of a bumbling trope. Worth considering what the reaction would be if it was Claire that was the messy one. Doubt it would be as positive as the feedback Phil gets.

[S02.E03: The Rusalka]

 

I suspect that too much reality would bring the humdrum plodding that is real day-to-day business of politics.  It would be terribly boring.

Oh don't get me wrong - I love that this show isn't realistic. I don't want it to be. I watch it, still watch it, will watch it. But I don't see it at all as even near to real life Secretary of State/Washington DC politics. It would be nice if it was - but I think Washington has said Veep is closer than any other show - like House of Cards and The West Wing etc.

 

Plus, in the world being constructed here - I can accept that the Russian Black Widow has become the Russian Eva Peron. I love it even. Would Putin's wife (or mistress/girlfriend/whoever he has going on) ever become the leader after his death? No. But in this show, with their dictator - okay, I'll go with it.

 

Well, the show was grounded in reality and addressed real world politics quite often last season.

I agree it adressed real world politics - but in a totally fictional way not grounded in reality at all. Greek Financial Crisis - real. Elizabeth fixing it - in real life it would be in her dreams. Genocide - real. Elizabeth convincing western powers and the African Union to get involved  - yeah right. This show is pretty much a liberal fantasy of how the Sec. of State should act. And I love it. But there is no way Elizabeth would ever become Mdm Sec. in real life. There is no way her staff would still have their jobs - any of them. I don't think the show has to be full-on realistic to be entertaining or great watching. But it's just not realistic and never has been and for that reason, I am not bothered by Russian Eva Peron/Black Widow and will be really happy watching Elizabeth take her down AND that wanky little Sec. Defence dude.

 

At least with this Russian stuff - they created their own Russia to do it and had the continuity built in to do so - many shows wouldn't even bother with those details.

[S02.E03: The Rusalka]

 

Since this episode every event in Madam Secretary is as realistic as Rocky Balboa fighting Ivan Drago and then giving heartfelt speech about the change to the enraptured Soviet generals on Rocky IV.

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.

[S02.E03: The Rusalka]

 

I think rather that's its started to go too far and stopped even the pretense of being realistic.

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.

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

In the realm of sex and gender, men are privileged...The idea that we shouldn't play Oppression Olympics works when we're talking about two different minority groups...You're right that it shouldn't be a competition... and it isn't. It really is no competition when men hold almost all the cards.

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.

 

 

Second of all, SparedTurkey used the argument that "numbers means this problem doesn't exist". So I said that if we're going to play the numbers game, then by that extension, it means that racism doesn't exist because...numbers.

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)

 

 

Thing is, the "black thug" trope would still be a problem today even if numbers indicate that it shouldn't. That's why I think numbers is a very poor indicator of the "power" of the problem.

 

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.

[One is the Loneliest Number: Unpopular GG Opinions]

 

Did the authorities  really think that  the sight of an exhausted girl waddling down a hallway was going to inspire the female population of a school to think - "gee that looks like fun, maybe I should get knocked up too"?

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.

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

Start with Ray on "Everybody Loves Raymond" and Jim on "According to Jim"

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.

 

 

Media helps to frame our view of norm. Yes, the bumbling dad trope has its genesis in the idea that a woman's place is in the home and domestic tasks are below the attention range of men (note  how they always get better when forced to do it - they can do it, they just can't be bothered)

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.

 

 

I think it's important to recognize that stereotyping based on gender, any gender, is not a good thing. It helps us all to be seen as a person first (and not defined by our gender).

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.

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

The bumbling dad bothers me greatly because it effects both genders (making men idiots and women responsible for all things domestic).

As a viewer, my goal is interesting TV. Main characters who are tropes who bring nothing new to the table is lazy writing and I do not like it. I have no time for sitcoms revolving around an imbecilic dad.

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.

 

 

They said that their future wives would stay home with their children - children should not be in daycare. I asked them why they wouldn't be the one to stay home and they said that women are better than men at domestic stuff.

So, no, I don't think that the bumbling dad trope is a non-issue.

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?

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

Having at least one favourite female character is a pretty low benchmark and I can't help but suspect that the most probable cause for failing to reach it would be bias against female characters on the part of the viewer in question, rather than bad writing or acting all around.

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.

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

The problem I have with this is that this is a slippery slope. At what point does “reverse persecution” go too far from “doing its job”? Plus, as I've said before, this slope is eventually about trading one problem for another, and I can't have that.

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.

 

 

but in S10, for much of the first half of the season at least, the show decided to change its “pawn” victims from women to men, seemingly under the mistaken belief that by switching the gender of the “pawns”, it made the practice okay. Unequivocally, I say it doesn't. I don't like my crime shows “glorifying” a crime by using someone- who is a normal human being with feelings- just to highlight the new torture device the writer thought up. The gender in this case shouldn't matter- whether the victim is a man or a woman, the practice is still wrong

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?

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

Even when somebody cannot come up with a single favourite character who happens to be female?

 

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.

 

 

I'm not saying that you were saying that, just repeating a common rationalization I've heard from people who have no favorite female characters.

 

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.

 

 

I don't think a problem should be an “either/or” proposition- a problem is a problem. Should a comedy that decides its only black character is a wannabe thug get a pass because there are many other black characters who are *not* wannabe thugs? As I said before, problem-solving shouldn't be a competition- it should be a collaboration.

 

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.  

 

 

JLH decided not to come back doesn't work for me

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 don't think Morgan is actually a favorite character.

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 find it so interesting that its somehow all the network's fault, even though Messer is the showrunner. I guess its only if you're Joss Whedon that everything is your doing.

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?

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

This has become so ubiquitous that it at least appears to me that there's no such thing as a sitcom dad who is competent, and it reinforces the idea that it's okay to make dads the butt of every joke, which should be an affront to all the capable fathers out there.

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.

 

 

However, the inverse is that I see- too often- people invoke “male privilege” to shut down perfectly reasonable commentary and criticism.

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.

 

Erm, no. I'd say that that's confirmation bias at work. Most of my favorite characters on television happen to be women, and I don't think it's because their standards are higher than mine.

 

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.

 

 

Maybe I am watching the wrong shows but I really don't think that the vast majority of characters on TV are men - if for no other reason than most showrunners seemingly being unable to allow any important character to stay single for more than a few episodes. Now, men being given the juicier roles is a problem that is very much real but in terms purely of the number of characters, I doubt there is much of a discrepancy between male and female ones.

 

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.

 

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

A lot of perseieved sexism I have found is actually women on women crime. I had a conversation with my twenty something cousin and all her favorite characters were male. Every last one of them. I mentioned a few female characters on shows she watched that I thought she might like and some she outright hated often because she had a crush on the actor their character was dating.

 

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). 

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

When AJ and Paget were fired the first time, there was such a clamor among the viewers that they fired Rachel Nichols and then hired Cook back. They eventually got Brewster to come back, but they screwed her over writing-wise and she left again.

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.

[Pretty Little Liars in the Media]

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

[Shipper Wars: Favorite And Least Favorite TV Couples]

 

- Finn/Rachel from Glee. For the most part. I feel like he brought her down out of the clouds and she helped him to be more brave. The scene where they break up so she can go to New York and live her dream was really well-done.

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.

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

And that was somehow supposed to be a non-problematic way to "refresh" the show?

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!!!

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

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.

 

 

"Misogyny" is a serious word, and I don't care for it being slung in my general direction just because I want a male character to be treated with respect again.

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.

[Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened]

 

See, I've heard this argument before, but because there's always a 'but' its really just a way of saying that double standards are actually good, just as long as they're the right double standards. Men shouldn't have to be portrayed as witless idiots to sell breakfast cereal just because improvements aren't being made fast enough

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.

[All Episodes Talk: Walk With Me]

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?

[All Episodes Talk: Walk With Me]

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.

[All Episodes Talk: Walk With Me]

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.

[All Episodes Talk: Walk With Me]

 

My issue when it all came out and the whole congressional hearings was when the President was shot she told the anesthesiologist about the MS and told him he could tell me whoever he wanted.  Now as a doctor he couldn't but I always wondered why she didn't use that as a defense when Congress came calling.

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.

[All Episodes Talk: Walk With Me]

 

The original diagnosis wasn't made by Abbey, the 17 people was made up of several doctors who were involved in the initial diagnosis. Abbey didn't take over until Jed ran for President.

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.

[All Episodes Talk: Walk With Me]

 

She would have made every medical appointment he had, she would have seen at least some of those symptoms. Had they not made Abby Bartlet a doctor and given the Bartlet's a strong marriage I would buy her not knowing before Mrs Landingham.

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.