TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

[ABay]

I stopped watching soaps when As The World Turns went off the air. I'd actually stopped before that and went back the week ATWT ended to see how they wrapped things up. Before that, I'd watched that and Guiding Light for years. At first, it was watching with my grandmother and then it was one of the few things one of my sisters could talk about.

What I'm finding since I began watching El Internado on Netflix is how many soap tropes transcend culture and language. Anyone who watches telenovelas already knows that, but it was news to me. It's been a comfort to me as my favorite character, or International Weasel of Mystery as I affectionately call him, is a tweener in the John Dixon mold so I'm hopeful that means he will continue to survive things like falling into a pit and being stuck there for 2 weeks, poisoned with a substance so amazing it could tell time down to the second, multiple gun shot wounds, etc.

The one thing this show does not have is SORAS because the 6 year olds have their own plot and seem to be aging normally.

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 minutes ago, ABay said:

The one thing this show does not have is SORAS because the 6 year olds have their own plot and seem to be aging normally.

No SORASing with Indian Soaps, either. They actually do time jumps of 10, 20 years. And the music and plots are sooooooo over melodramatic. When there's a shocking revelation, the camera will pan between long and close up shots for like, 30 seconds.

Yes, I admit it, I get sucked into this crap whenever I visit my folks in India, and when they come to visit me, I call Xfinity and add the Indian channels available. The favorite phrase is "Oh shit!" for everything. What irks me is that the characters can't speak their dialogue without English dialogue or words. It's like they don't know the Hindi name for x, y, or z. It's aggravating, to say the least.

But the make-up, saris, lenghas, chudis (bracelets) are sooooooo gorgeous!

[scarynikki12]

The Rape As Foreplay trope has to be my least favorite and daytime is riddled with examples. It still blows my mind that Sami’s great love on Days is her two time rapist EJ (he raped her directly when she was with Lucas and was involved in the rape by proxy when she was with Rafe) and that the highest rated soap episode was the wedding of Luke and Laura whose relationship started as a violent rape. 

Don’t even get me started on Grimm. 

[Dr.OO7]

Speaking of despicable rape tropes. . .

"Rape Portrayed As Redemption"

The sickening implication that a villainous female either deserves this or needs it to happen to her for her to become a good person. Not to mention the patronizing attitude towards the audience--"Never mind all the horrible things she said and did before! She's been raped, so now you can't hate her!"

[andromeda331]

I mentioned this one in disturbing moments in TV thread on One Life To Live Marty Saybrooke was gang raped and one of her rapists was Todd. It was really horrifying. Eventually he was arrested but not after attempting to rape her at least twice more. One before going to prison and one afterwards for revenge. But then years later Todd is on trial for raping Blair. Guess who they call to testify for Todd? To prove that he's a changed man? That's right Marty. Who testifies on behave of her rapist about how much he's changed.  I still can't stop throwing up on that one.

[Jacqs]

12 hours ago, Camille said:

Speaking of despicable rape tropes. . .

"Rape Portrayed As Redemption"

The sickening implication that a villainous female either deserves this or needs it to happen to her for her to become a good person. Not to mention the patronizing attitude towards the audience--"Never mind all the horrible things she said and did before! She's been raped, so now you can't hate her!"

I always crack up laughing at the Tomboy Decides To Wear A Dress To The Dance! As we know in real life, that doesn't work very well. You wind up with a very uncomfortable girl, clumping around in an ill fitting dress, falling off of her high heels. LOL

 

But it's a "bit" in endless TV shows and movies - Breakfast Club even dresses up the "tough girl" at the end. It's part of the "redemption through feminization and adherence to traditional gender roles", similar to the "redemption through marriage" - Taming Of The Shrew, Nellie and Percival, etc., etc.

 

Sometimes, it's amusing, good for a laugh, but basically, yeah.....it's totally sexist.  It's about making the lead girl character, or the threatening female character "safe".  "See,it's all OK, she's just a normal gal!!"

[ganesh]

Watching True Detective, I can't help but think of this trope because it's being shoved in my face every 7 minutes - victims (or family of or people who think they're being accused) - seem to think they can order around or tell the cops how to do their jobs. 

WHY AREN'T YOU OUT THERE FINDING MY KID. 

Wow, find the missing kid. I didn't think of that. Or, hear me out, I'm asking you questions to find out where that kid might actually be. Then I can go there and look for what we call "clues." It's not like you being all hostile to me raises any suspicions at all. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 minutes ago, ganesh said:

Watching True Detective, I can't help but think of this trope because it's being shoved in my face every 7 minutes - victims (or family of or people who think they're being accused) - seem to think they can order around or tell the cops how to do their jobs. 

WHY AREN'T YOU OUT THERE FINDING MY KID. 

Wow, find the missing kid. I didn't think of that. Or, hear me out, I'm asking you questions to find out where that kid might actually be. Then I can go there and look for what we call "clues." It's not like you being all hostile to me raises any suspicions at all. 

An even worse example was the pregnancy pact episode of Law & Order: SVU, and Olivia is questioning a girl why she would deliberately get herself pregnant, and then the girl proceeds to shoot off her mouth to Olivia by saying Olivia's jealous because she's too old to get pregnant... and the girl's dad is right there! Dude, it's bad enough you're being so lackadaisical about your teenaged daughter being pregnant, but why the hell are you letting her lip off to a fucking cop?! Act like a parent, dammit!

[proserpina65]

On ‎01‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 4:07 PM, Jacqs said:

Most women and most men are moderate-to-conservative. Overtly progressive People's Front of Judea groups get negligible support at elections. It just seems to be hard for some in this thread to understand that the writers (and tv shows) are reflecting the expectations of the women watching as well as the advertisers.

I'm not sure this is true.  I think the major networks operate on this basis, but I've never seen evidence that it's an accurate representation of the American tv viewing audience.  I'm not going to get into politics, but I don't think it's necessarily true of the voting population either.

[Silver Raven]

On 1/15/2019 at 12:01 AM, andromeda331 said:

I mentioned this one in disturbing moments in TV thread on One Life To Live Marty Saybrooke was gang raped and one of her rapists was Todd. It was really horrifying. Eventually he was arrested but not after attempting to rape her at least twice more. One before going to prison and one afterwards for revenge. But then years later Todd is on trial for raping Blair. Guess who they call to testify for Todd? To prove that he's a changed man? That's right Marty. Who testifies on behave of her rapist about how much he's changed.  I still can't stop throwing up on that one.

And their kids eventually wound up as a couple.

[Anela]

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I'm not sure this is true.  I think the major networks operate on this basis, but I've never seen evidence that it's an accurate representation of the American tv viewing audience.  I'm not going to get into politics, but I don't think it's necessarily true of the voting population either.

I agree with you. It certainly isn't true for me.

[ganesh]

The networks do operate on that basis because I think of advertising. I tend to think viewership is slightly left of center. 

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

And their kids eventually wound up as a couple.

Oh, how fun for Marty. Who doesn't want their rapist as an in-law or future in-law.

[Dr.OO7]

57 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Oh, how fun for Marty. Who doesn't want their rapist as an in-law or future in-law.

Heh. You have clearly not been watching soaps for long--Another World's Jake raped Marley but married her sister Vicki several years later.  Even ickier is that Marley was still in love with him.

Which brings me to the rape trope that I despise most of all, Rape Is Love.*

No. It. ISN'T.

It's a CRIME. It is an act of violence, NOT of lust or passion. 

Damn all you soap writers for all your "Luke and Laura"-esque storylines (they're the ultimate example, but they're not the only one) that have put this utterly repulsive idea in God knows how many people's heads.

* I don't know that it even exists on the TV tropes page anymore.

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, Camille said:

Heh. You have clearly not been watching soaps for long--Another World's Jake raped Marley but married her sister Vicki several years later.  Even ickier is that Marley was still in love with him.

Which brings me to the rape trope that I despise most of all, Rape Is Love.*

No. It. ISN'T.

It's a CRIME. It is an act of violence, NOT of lust or passion. 

Damn all you soap writers for all your "Luke and Laura"-esque storylines (they're the ultimate example, but they're not the only one) that have put this utterly repulsive idea in God knows how many people's heads.

* I don't know that it even exists on the TV tropes page anymore.

No, I never watched Another World. I did watch General Hospital but not until the 90s I think I was watching a couple months before I found out about the rape in one of the soap magazines. I liked the couple until that moment. I'm sorry. No one should end up with their rapist. Yes rape is not love. Its a crime. its a violation. They should go to jail and the rapist should never fall in love. Its disgusting and horrible. They did revisit the rape at some point I think the mid 90s when their son Lucky found out which was really hard for him. But for me it still wasn't good enough. There really is no excuse or reason for any woman to fall in love with her rapist, marry him and live happily ever after. The another annoying part was who the "villain" in the Luke and Laura story was? Nope, not Luke, it was Scotty, Laura's husband at the time of the rape and she left him for Luke. He was mad and hated Luke. You know normal reaction to person who raped your wife. I know times were different but its still horrible 'Luke rapes Laura, oops they actually have chemistry, so even though we mentioned it was rape afterwards we're going to completely ignore that or call it a 'seduction' and put them together' and they went on to become one of the most popular couples if not the most popular soap couple given how many people watched their wedding.

[Blergh]

I wonder if anyone here has asked any known longtime fans of General Hospital what they were thinking re eagerly celebrating Luke and Laura's union (and helping to make their wedding a ratings giant) rather than dumping the show, writing the producers,etc. for heaping kudos on a criminal and the crime itself!  It would be interesting how many viewers  in hindsight now regret having done so! 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Blergh
dumping extra s

[DearEvette]

20 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

It just seems to be hard for some in this thread to understand that the writers (and tv shows) are reflecting the expectations of the women watching as well as the advertisers.

I think the networks and advertisers are reflecting their own attitudes of what they assume is true because of some conventional wisdom.  The old "but <insert something different> doesn't sell" gets trotted out in every industry and medium.  And when <something different> does finally get an opportunity to be offered to the public, it not only sells but does gangbusters, the people in charge are flummoxed and surprised. 

I also wouldn't lump writers and creatives in that pot.  I've been on tons of forums over the years with writers from various media and one thing that seems to be true is that if writers were not constrained by the market the types of things they'd write would be very different.  But tons of writers have tons of stories about what ideas they've pitched to tv, networks, publishers etc. but were shot down immediately because it did not fit a 'brand' or because they were told or 'this won't sell' or 'there's no audience for this.' 

People are not as conservative in attitudes of what they want to consume for entertainment as a lot of people might think.  If that were true then 50 Shades would not have dominated sales charts for as long as it did and HBO (actually most cable) would never have an audience.

[Dr.OO7]

7 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

The another annoying part was who the "villain" in the Luke and Laura story was? Nope, not Luke, it was Scotty, Laura's husband at the time of the rape and she left him for Luke. He was mad and hated Luke. You know normal reaction to person who raped your wife

That always infuriated me. As well as the fact that Luke always hated Scott. Huh? You raped the man's wife and then ran off with her. Where the hell do YOU get off disliking HIM?

I just mentioned this in the "Sex & The City" thread:

"Strangled By The Red String".

Stop making characters have zero interaction on Monday and then telling us that they're madly in love by Tuesday.

[Annber03]

4 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I think the networks and advertisers are reflecting their own attitudes of what they assume is true because of some conventional wisdom.  The old "but <insert something different> doesn't sell" gets trotted out in every industry and medium.  And when <something different> does finally get an opportunity to be offered to the public, it not only sells but does gangbusters, the people in charge are flummoxed and surprised. 

I also wouldn't lump writers and creatives in that pot.  I've been on tons of forums over the years with writers from various media and one thing that seems to be true is that if writers were not constrained by the market the types of things they'd write would be very different.  But tons of writers have tons of stories about what ideas they've pitched to tv, networks, publishers etc. but were shot down immediately because it did not fit a 'brand' or because they were told or 'this won't sell' or 'there's no audience for this.' 

People are not as conservative in attitudes of what they want to consume for entertainment as a lot of people might think.  If that were true then 50 Shades would not have dominated sales charts for as long as it did and HBO (actually most cable) would never have an audience.

The example of this that especially bugs me is when you hear people talking about how they don't know if certain shows will work because "they may not appeal to/are too 'out there' for middle America"*. As though we're all of one mindset and all automatically more conservative in our viewing choices than L.A. or New York. I promise you, network executives, there are plenty of people here in middle America who are open to all kinds of unusual, quirky, "out there" programming. 

*I remember reading about those kinds of complaints in the War for Late Night book a few years back. Some network executives were concerned about whether or not Conan's particular style of humor would appeal to the "Tonight Show" crowd in middle America, which struck me funny, because while they're talking about that, the book also kept discussing how Carson and Letterman, two of the most popular late-night hosts in television history, were influential on Conan, with the wacky humor and strange skits and whatnot. 

And where are Carson and Letterman both from? Smack dab in....middle America. So yeah. 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Annber03

[Shannon L.]

Sounds like CBS soaps were a little better with the rape tropes.  The best soap opera rape story line, imo, was Margo's rape on As the World Turns.  She was a cop and it happened when she was at a convenience store, off duty, during a robbery.  Her instinct kicked in, but she didn't have back up and the guy was able to overpower her (I forget how, maybe she didn't have her gun on her?).  Her scenes in the hospital, especially when dealing with her father (a doctor who was on duty) and her husband, were heart breaking and her psychological recovery were done really well. 

The Young and the Restless tackled date rape, but I don't remember what happened to the rapist afterward.

The Guiding Light brought spousal rape into the narrative and was really good for a while, but later on, Holly and Roger started getting along much better and maybe even got back together.  I think their journey to forgiveness started because they had a daughter together. 

Sorry, I don't remember more of stories themselves--those story lines were 30+ years ago, but I do remember at least Margo's was good all the way through the story line.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Shannon L. said:

The Guiding Light brought spousal rape into the narrative and was really good for a while, but later on, Holly and Roger started getting along much better and maybe even got back together.

They did, for a time, but it was a very long process and they did not remotely retcon the rape at any point, but in fact dealt with it head-on numerous times along the way, most memorably during the episodes set in Acapulco.  They even dealt with the fact that Ross, a beloved nice-guy character and Ed's best friend by the time Holly returned to town, had been Roger's slimy defense attorney who challenged the law itself (that removed the spousal exemption from the jurisdiction's rape statute; the original '79 marital rape story was based on real-life law and was really quite astounding to see on TV, let alone daytime TV).  It wasn't flawless, certainly, but infinitely better than any storyline between a victim and her rapist I've ever seen on a soap (or anywhere, probably).  The actors were adamant about several things along the way, and the head writer for a good chunk of their '90s storyline was equally committed to doing it justice, so it came off far better than I ever would have thought had you told my '89 Holly-is-my-favorite-character self what was going to happen.

Lest GL get too much credit, though, that 20-year storyline is only praise-worthy in a vacuum; upon bringing Roger back from the dead (as soaps do), they did completely ignore the fact he'd raped Rita, too, something the actors and I think a couple of the writers pitched quite a fit about, but the executive producer just refused to deal with it.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Bastet

[Shannon L.]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

They did, for a time, but it was a very long process and they did not remotely retcon the rape at any point, but in fact dealt with it head-on numerous times along the way, most memorably during the episodes set in Acapulco.  They even dealt with the fact that Ross, a beloved nice-guy character and Ed's best friend by the time Holly returned to town, had been Roger's slimy defense attorney who challenged the law itself (that removed the spousal exemption from the jurisdiction's rape statute; the original '79 spousal rape story was based on real-life law and was really quite astounding to see on TV, let alone daytime TV).  It wasn't flawless, certainly, but infinitely better than any storyline between a victim and her rapist I've ever seen on a soap (or anywhere, probably).  The actors were adamant about several things along the way, and the head writer for a good chunk of their '90s storyline was equally committed to doing it justice, so it came off far better than I ever would have thought had you told my '89 Holly-is-my-favorite-character self what was going to happen.

Lest GL get too much credit, though, that 20-year storyline is only praise-worthy in a vacuum; upon bringing Roger back from the dead (as soaps do), they did completely ignore the fact he'd raped Rita, too, something the actors and some of the writers pitched quite a fit about it, but the executive producer just refused to deal with it.

Thanks for the refresher!  I do remember them taking a long time to get over what had happened, but forgot about Ross altogether, as well as Rita's rape. 

[HazelEyes4325]

21 hours ago, Camille said:

Which brings me to the rape trope that I despise most of all, Rape Is Love.*

No. It. ISN'T.

It's a CRIME. It is an act of violence, NOT of lust or passion. 

 

I agree...this is the absolute worst of all tropes.  And I think I've figured out where it started.

Gone with the Wind.

That scene where Rhett threatens Scarlet, she runs off, he chases her down, and he carries her up the stairs...and the next morning she's all smiles and happy and oh-so-totally-smitten with him.

I recently called this out to a friend as rape and she gave me a weird look and said.  "Oh, he didn't rape her.  He ravaged her."  Um, isn't that the exact same thing?  And calling it "ravaging" really doesn't make it any better!

[Irlandesa]

12 hours ago, Blergh said:

I wonder if anyone here has asked any known longtime fans of General Hospital what they were thinking re eagerly celebrating Luke and Laura's union (and helping to make their wedding a ratings giant) rather than dumping the show, writing the producers,etc. for heaping kudos on a criminal and the crime itself!  It would be interesting how many viewers  in hindsight now regret having done so! 

 

While I'm certain some might regret it, my guess is most don't for many reasons and I don't think they necessarily should. It is fiction.  Rape fantasy is a thing.  It was big in the 80s, especially in romance novels, and I'm sure played a part in some women loving Luke.  And it's not just relegated to the 80s, either.  It's a known kink. And while all out rape in fiction might not be as prevalent, the love of "domineering take-what-I-want" alpha male still sells.    Heck, so many defend Joe on You even though the show outright states he's a stalker/murderer. So ultimately, the fictionality of it all feels safe.

I was a fan of 80s soaps.  I've loved problematic couples and characters (though not rape victim & rapist couples) and I don't retroactively hate something even if I would hope they'd stop thinking that a simple "I'm sorry" can excuse rape in murder currently.

11 hours ago, DearEvette said:

People are not as conservative in attitudes of what they want to consume for entertainment as a lot of people might think.  If that were true then 50 Shades would not have dominated sales charts for as long as it did and HBO (actually most cable) would never have an audience.

Precisely.  I just think some decision makers want to avoid controversy.  People can be passionate about abortion so having a woman not have an abortion is less likely to cause controversy than if a woman does.  I think there are ebbs and flows to how comfortable shows are at showing them, however.  I do feel like there have been more lately--just not on main network television.  Paula had one on Crazy Ex Girlfriend last year, as did Lindsay on You're The Worst.  Both were married to the baby's father, although Lindsay wanted out, which is also rare when it comes to abortions.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Irlandesa

[ursula]

6 hours ago, HazelEyes4325 said:

I agree...this is the absolute worst of all tropes.  And I think I've figured out where it started.

Gone with the Wind.

That scene where Rhett threatens Scarlet, she runs off, he chases her down, and he carries her up the stairs...and the next morning she's all smiles and happy and oh-so-totally-smitten with him.

I recently called this out to a friend as rape and she gave me a weird look and said.  "Oh, he didn't rape her.  He ravaged her."  Um, isn't that the exact same thing?  And calling it "ravaging" really doesn't make it any better!

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

I watched that scene as a very small child and I remember how upsetting that scene made me.

[Bastet]

6 hours ago, HazelEyes4325 said:

Gone with the Wind.

That scene where Rhett threatens Scarlet, she runs off, he chases her down, and he carries her up the stairs...and the next morning she's all smiles and happy and oh-so-totally-smitten with him.

I recently called this out to a friend as rape and she gave me a weird look and said.  "Oh, he didn't rape her.  He ravaged her."  Um, isn't that the exact same thing?  And calling it "ravaging" really doesn't make it any better!

I am seriously disturbed by how many people - some of them women - I've had this argument with over the years.  That scene is fucking gross.

[Dr.OO7]

15 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I am seriously disturbed by how many people - some of them women - I've had this argument with over the years.  That scene is fucking gross.

Rhett and Scarlett in general. He's downright verbally and emotionally abusive to her most of the time. Why is he always presented as a dashing romantic hero and their's as one of cinemas greatest love stories?

[HazelEyes4325]

11 hours ago, Camille said:

Rhett and Scarlett in general. He's downright verbally and emotionally abusive to her most of the time. Why is he always presented as a dashing romantic hero and their's as one of cinemas greatest love stories?

I'm sticking with Rhett and Scarlett for a moment, but I promise that I'll bring it back to TV!

Gone with the Wind, both the movie and book, really show the 1930's mentality of masculinity and relationships (not to excuse it...just saying this as a fact).  The majority of movies from that time are now relegated to the overnight hours on TCM and AMC, so the fact that this movie, and just a handful of others--and this scene--has stuck around for 80-90 years shows the power that storytelling can have.  And, yeah, now we can call it out that scene, but that is a very recent thing.  It has had decades of establishing itself as something "romantic."

So, now to turn to TV and Grimm, Once Upon a Time, and countless TV soaps who are doing the *exact fucking thing.*  We can sit there and fight against what GWTW is saying, but we have voices currently doing the same thing, in a time when such views are supposedly no longer held (but, let's face it, plenty of people still hold them).  And, yeah, there are some people who are upset about it, but soap operas are still on.  Grimm didn't last long after that (honestly, it deserved to get canceled for that shit, although it was canceled for its rapidly falling ratings, not because anyone with any power in the creative decision saw anything wrong with making rape romantic) and I'm not familiar with OUAT so I don't know how long their shenanigans were going on, but they lasted longer than Grimm.

I think what needs to happen is that someone needs to stand up and be the adult in the room.  Where does the buck stop?  Ultimately, it stops with the networks.  They are the ones who make the decision to air this shit.  I mean, I get it, the networks are a mess on this point...look at NBC and CBS (and maybe ABC, although I can't think of any issues off the top of my head there). 

But, at the end of the day, networks are going to do whatever they can to make money so the real change has to come from viewers who just decide that they won't watch this crap anymore.

[Blergh]

8 minutes ago, HazelEyes4325 said:

 

But, at the end of the day, networks are going to do whatever they can to make money so the real change has to come from viewers who just decide that they won't watch this crap anymore.

BINGO! Which is EXACTLY why individual viewers need to ask themselves 'what were we THINKING' re watching stuff like that in the past- to make BETTER choices in the future so that, if they do it in large enough numbers, that'll cause ratings (and, especially advertising revenues) to plummet, and get the execs to stop greenlighting this stuff and put on worthwhile programming again! 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Blergh
individuality

[izabella]

We're more aware now, but we are still inured to what we see all the time on tv and don't even notice.  For a while, I tried turning off episodes of shows where the very first scene showed a woman being raped or murdered or violated with violence.  I ended up turning off a lot of shows, some which I never went back to.  But it was a lot.  It made me more aware of how women are used as victims to make money for networks.  Nowadays, they've added violent and creepy crimes against children as the hook. 

[ganesh]

Sometimes people just turn the tv on and leave it too, and don't really think of what's on. 

[ratgirlagogo]

On 1/19/2019 at 5:29 PM, HazelEyes4325 said:

I agree...this is the absolute worst of all tropes.  And I think I've figured out where it started.

Gone with the Wind.

That scene where Rhett threatens Scarlet, she runs off, he chases her down, and he carries her up the stairs...and the next morning she's all smiles and happy and oh-so-totally-smitten with him.

I recently called this out to a friend as rape and she gave me a weird look and said.  "Oh, he didn't rape her.  He ravaged her."  Um, isn't that the exact same thing?  And calling it "ravaging" really doesn't make it any better!

I have always hated Gone With the Wind but even I am not willing to say that this is where this trope began.  When Shakespeare wrote The Taming of the Shrew he was already just rewriting  a very old plot that he knew his audience would be familiar with, for example.

On 1/20/2019 at 12:32 AM, Camille said:

Rhett and Scarlett in general. He's downright verbally and emotionally abusive to her most of the time. Why is he always presented as a dashing romantic hero and their's as one of cinemas greatest love stories?

Because Scarlett is selfish and abusive herself, and can only respect a man who can beat her in a  fight  - the only man she could consider an equal. This is a classic idea in romance novels.  I gather from many conversations online and off that many women admire Scarlett for her unwillingness to let other people's opinions of what constitutes "nice" female behavior  get in her way.  Okay, but I don't care.  I hate Rhett and Scarlett equally.  Aside from their fundamental awfulness  FOR CHRIST'S SAKE THEY ARE BOTH FUCKING SLAVEOWNERS.   As I've said many times over on the Turner Classic Movie board, this movie wouldn't make me so angry if so many people (women mostly, and not all white either) over the years hadn't told me it was their favorite movie.  Of course The Birth of a Nation is more appalling but never ever in my whole life (and I have spent a lot of my life around fanatical silent movie fans) has anybody, ever told me The Birth of a Nation was their favorite film.

Edited January 21, 2019 by ratgirlagogo
Edited because spelling is helpful.

[Jacqs]

 I've noticed marginalized people can be awful - Margaret Thatcher etc etc. Being black or brown or female or LGBTI or disabled doesn't prevent you from being a crappy person and i'd like to see more such people own their horrible behavior, instead of using their systemic oppression as an excuse to evade responsibility.

[ABay]

I'm baffled by the idea of Clark Gable as sex symbol. Beauty standards have changed, yes, but it is unfathomable to me that anyone thought he was hot. Ever.

[Jacqs]

1 hour ago, ABay said:

I'm baffled by the idea of Clark Gable as sex symbol. Beauty standards have changed, yes, but it is unfathomable to me that anyone thought he was hot. Ever.

Same question but about "Blossom"/"Amy".

[Jacqs]

I watched the 1968 film, Lady in Cement at the weekend. Frank Sinatra's PI character, Tony Roma, finds a dead blonde at the bottom of the sea with her feet in a concrete block (Naked, of course.) All people seem interested in is if she was good looking. Even the coroner gets in the act lamenting the fact she would never be a mother as she had a beautiful pelvis.

[HazelEyes4325]

9 hours ago, ratgirlagogo said:

I have always hated Gone With the Wind but even I am not willing to say that this is where this trope began.  When Shakespeare wrote The Taming of the Shrew he was already just rewriting  a very old plot that he knew his audience would be familiar with, for example.

1

Good point!  I think GWTW jumped to my mind as that was the first time I saw such a scene and realized what it actually was (and have had too many arguments to count about how it really is a terrible thing...)

[DearEvette]

11 hours ago, ratgirlagogo said:

Because Scarlett is selfish and abusive herself, and can only respect a man who can beat her in a  fight  - the only man she could consider an equal. This is a classic idea in romance novels.  I gather from many conversations online and off that many women admire Scarlett for her unwillingness to let other people's opinions of what constitutes "nice" female behavior  get in her way.  Okay, but I don't care.  I hate Rhett and Scarlett equally.  Aside from their fundamental awfulness  FOR CHRIST'S SAKE THEY ARE BOTH FUCKING SLAVEOWNERS.   As I've said many times over on the Turner Classic Movie board, this movie wouldn't make me so angry if so many people (women mostly, and not all white either) over the years hadn't told me it was their favorite movie

Thank you!  There is a whole passel of terrible things romanticized in GWTW.  Rape is just one of them.  It romanticize of the slave owning lifestyle, the "happy" slaves themselves, the plucky heroine and her delicate white womanhood, the toxic masculinity of Rhett, the contrasting "less masculine" traits of the more cerebral and thoughtful Ashley etc. etc. 

Honestly the movie is more guilty of this than the book.  Scarlett is a just a horrible, horrible woman in the book.  Worse than the movie, imo. I often call her Scarlett O'Horror whenever I find myself discussing the book (thankfully not often).

[DrSpaceman73]

4 hours ago, Jacqs said:

Same question but about "Blossom"/"Amy".

I don't think Mayim Bialik was ever one I would all a "sex symbol"

She is not unattractive.  As Blossom she was cute and kind of had a spunky personality that came across as endearing.  I always thought Six (Jenna Von Oy) was way more attractive though.  Joey Lawrence was more the "sex symbol" on that show.

As AFF, they don't play up her looks and she is an average looking but smart woman, with no fashion sense

I do think her AFF Little House fantasy's are funny

Clark Gable, I don't know, was way, way, way before more time and I am not female, or gay.  I think its more the sophisticated, dapper, accomplished male look though for him. 

Edited January 21, 2019 by DrSpaceman73

[aradia22]

Quote

I agree...this is the absolute worst of all tropes.  And I think I've figured out where it started.

Gone with the Wind.

That scene where Rhett threatens Scarlet, she runs off, he chases her down, and he carries her up the stairs...and the next morning she's all smiles and happy and oh-so-totally-smitten with him.

I recently called this out to a friend as rape and she gave me a weird look and said.  "Oh, he didn't rape her.  He ravaged her."  Um, isn't that the exact same thing?  And calling it "ravaging" really doesn't make it any better!

Quote

Rhett and Scarlett in general. He's downright verbally and emotionally abusive to her most of the time. Why is he always presented as a dashing romantic hero and their's as one of cinemas greatest love stories?

 

I haven't watched the movie in a very long time and I have never watched it all the way through (because hello, four hours!). I get having hot angry sex. I get two people denying that they're into each other or maybe being a little repressed in some way and then letting go and it's sweaty and passionate and sexy. I think that's why it's often a trope in stories where the couple doesn't initially like each other or is fighting for some reason (vs. stories where the reason they're not getting together is some outside force) or in historical romance when it comes to the repression. HOWEVER, I do think that scene is unambiguous. He is so creepy to her in the dining room, putting his hands around her head like he's going to crush her skull. Even if we've suddenly made a lot more progress on defining consent it's not unclear that he's drunk and being vile to her. He even feels bad about it the next day! I do think there are some allowances because they're married and again, we've made a lot of progress on spousal/domestic/date rape.

Why do I still enjoy this couple even though I know they're so bad for each other? Because they're both super attractive and Clark Gable is charming AF. Though my favorite Clark Gable is Clark Gable/Joan Crawford Clark Gable. That said, I think Rhett/Scarlett are best understood not as an example to be followed but as two weirdos whose crazy psyched up. As others have noted, they're both awful. Their relationship is all of the passion and none of the maturity even though they're married for a good chunk of the story unlike a lot of HEA couples.

I always say one of the dangers in writing is putting yourself out there for things to be unintentionally exposed. No writer can entirely control the narrative and sometimes you don't realize something is weird until it's out there and someone calls you on it. I generally like her books though there are some duds but I can't get over how Tessa Dare thinks it's sexy for the male characters to grip the female characters so hard that they bruise. And the female characters get off on looking at the marks. Um... WTF? Why do you think that's normal? The TV I watch is generally fluffier than that but I'm hesitant about trying to actually watch The Tudors or rewatching Gossip Girl. Really just anything prestige that indulges in sex and violence gets very iffy. But it's nothing new. As a woman, I think you get trained early on to deal with media being problematic and things not being made with you in mind as the intended audience. Sometimes I acknowledge it but get past it. Sometimes I just find something else to watch.

[Jacqs]

Getting back to an earlier post where someone asked why doesn't the female character who doesn't want to go to the Homecoming/Prom, just not go like she said?.

Alison Arngrim (Nellie Oleson) was right that dance episodes are useful for showing that the lead female character or the the threatening female character is "safe" and just a "normal" girl by putting the actress in a fluffy dress and makeup and jewelry and fancy shoes, even if the character would be soo uncomfy.

[proserpina65]

On ‎01‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 12:33 PM, DearEvette said:

I think the networks and advertisers are reflecting their own attitudes of what they assume is true because of some conventional wisdom.  The old "but <insert something different> doesn't sell" gets trotted out in every industry and medium.  And when <something different> does finally get an opportunity to be offered to the public, it not only sells but does gangbusters, the people in charge are flummoxed and surprised. 

I also wouldn't lump writers and creatives in that pot.  I've been on tons of forums over the years with writers from various media and one thing that seems to be true is that if writers were not constrained by the market the types of things they'd write would be very different.  But tons of writers have tons of stories about what ideas they've pitched to tv, networks, publishers etc. but were shot down immediately because it did not fit a 'brand' or because they were told or 'this won't sell' or 'there's no audience for this.' 

People are not as conservative in attitudes of what they want to consume for entertainment as a lot of people might think.  If that were true then 50 Shades would not have dominated sales charts for as long as it did and HBO (actually most cable) would never have an audience.

You were actually replying to Jacqs' quote, not mine.  I was disagreeing with her in that I don't think the general viewing public is as conservative as network execs seem to think.  Weird glitch in the quoting function strikes again, lol.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, proserpina65 said:

Weird glitch in the quoting function strikes again, lol.

I guess you could call it a glitch. But what probably happened was that @DearEvette copied @Jacqs post that you had quoted. So when she copied and pasted (I'm assuming), it appears as if she's quoting you. PTV is funny that way.

[Joe]

Australia as incredibly dangerous and/or populated soley by Paul Hogan caricatures. You see, the first Australian settlers were mostly unwilling and unprepared. Even some of the willing ones were frankly, a bunch of idiots. Of course they died! Suburbia can be dangerous if you walk into traffic with your eyes closed, let alone another country with a whole new range of flora and fauna. If you're prepared, you can thrive. My grandmother is 91 and hasn't even died once.

As for Paul Hogan, I can't remember the last accent I heard that broad. In fact, due to immigration, maybe a fifth of the people I interact with are immigrants. Indian seems to be the big one for me. Which is fair enough, since I live right by the Indian Ocean.

[Wiendish Fitch]

10 minutes ago, Joe said:

Australia as incredibly dangerous and/or populated soley by Paul Hogan caricatures. You see, the first Australian settlers were mostly unwilling and unprepared. Even some of the willing ones were frankly, a bunch of idiots. Of course they died! Suburbia can be dangerous if you walk into traffic with your eyes closed, let alone another country with a whole new range of flora and fauna. If you're prepared, you can thrive. My grandmother is 91 and hasn't even died once.

As for Paul Hogan, I can't remember the last accent I heard that broad. In fact, due to immigration, maybe a fifth of the people I interact with are immigrants. Indian seems to be the big one for me. Which is fair enough, since I live right by the Indian Ocean.

I've been told Aussies hate Crocodile Dundee. Is this true? If it is, I'm neither surprised nor inclined to blame them.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Wiendish Fitch

[ganesh]

I hope it is because I totally want to go visit them and ask to see their knife and go drink Fosters. 

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I've been told Aussies hate Crocodile Dundee. Is this true? If it is, I'm neither surprised nor inclined to blame them.

It's been at least 25 years since I last watched it. While it was funny back then, I was a kid with no taste. I have no idea what anyone else thinks about it.

8 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I hope it is because I totally want to go visit them and ask to see their knife and go drink Fosters. 

I can't stop you. However, Fosters isn't a popular beer down here. It's just the one that got advertised in America.

[Browncoat]

3 hours ago, ganesh said:

I hope it is because I totally want to go visit them and ask to see their knife and go drink Fosters. 

And ask them to throw another shrimp on the barbie.

[Joe]

9 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

And ask them to throw another shrimp on the barbie.

We call them prawns. Or short people.

[ganesh]

That was implied.