Gender On Television: It's Like Feminism Never Happened

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Wow it seems like she is putting way too much importance on an alternate universe cartoon. I wonder if Peggy shows up in the Modok cartoon? 

Although it is not surprising that she would buy into it, considering how how up the MCU held Peggy Carter. With the way Cap and the AoS people spoke about her it was like she was a saint or something. Which always seems weird to me since if she was so awesome yet never noticed that her agency was completely infiltrated by their worst enemy.

Yeah she even bragged about how if Peggy was in Agents of Shield, Grant Ward never would have gone evil. Because Peggy is just that good. Sure, Jan. 🙄

Atwell likes to talk the talk about women supporting other women, but when it comes to walking the walk…well, her history isn’t so good on that one.

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Atwell likes to talk the talk about women supporting other women, but when it comes to walking the walk…well, her history isn’t so good on that one.

She has always bugged me but I never had a reason, I just didn't care for her. Now I can have a reason. Yay me. But that is pretty sad that she has to put down the other characters to make her own seem more important that she is. I mean, I'm not hard core, know everything about all the MCU but I've seen my fair/fare share and I barely know she exists, other than she's that WWII girlfriend of Steve Rogers, so, in my MCU she's not all that. She's not even a bag of chips!

[Raja]

11 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Wow it seems like she is putting way too much importance on an alternate universe cartoon. I wonder if Peggy shows up in the Modok cartoon? 

Although it is not surprising that she would buy into it, considering how how up the MCU held Peggy Carter. With the way Cap and the AoS people spoke about her it was like she was a saint or something. Which always seems weird to me since if she was so awesome yet never noticed that her agency was completely infiltrated by their worst enemy.

However you can give Agent Carter the benefit of it not being just her commands in the S.S.R and S.H.I.E.L.D but all agencies, with the probable exception of Wakanda's, that were infiltrated by Hydra. In the movies alone you had US senators and a Soviet veteran tortured by Zemo in Civil War who were Hydra. While Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D were more enthusiastic in making that case that the many heads of Hydra were everywhere, especially since everybody was friends with sleeper Hydra agents before the Winter Soldier emerges from the shadows.

[Kel Varnsen]

14 hours ago, Raja said:

However you can give Agent Carter the benefit of it not being just her commands in the S.S.R and S.H.I.E.L.D but all agencies, with the probable exception of Wakanda's, that were infiltrated by Hydra. In the movies alone you had US senators and a Soviet veteran tortured by Zemo in Civil War who were Hydra. While Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D were more enthusiastic in making that case that the many heads of Hydra were everywhere, especially since everybody was friends with sleeper Hydra agents before the Winter Soldier emerges from the shadows.

I am not sure if everywhere being infiltrated by Hydra makes it better or worse. Like if you are the head of an intelligence agency you are supposed to know who your enemies are, especially if you are the best of the best like everyone says. But if even people like Gary Shandling are able to operate under your nose, maybe you are not good at your job. Like there is a reason counter-intelligence is a thing.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[Spartan Girl]

Hayley acting like Peggy is the end-all-be-all of Marvel females just annoys me. And I especially look askance at the way she got back into the MCU by fanning the backlash against Sharon Carter/Emily VanCamp, claiming that Peggy should be the “only woman” in Steve’s life and that Peggy would go “supervillain” if she knew about them. It was unprofessional and immature, and yet she benefitted lately from it: Now all of a sudden Feige retcons Sharon as a villain while Peggy gets to be Captain Carter and Steve’s endgame. Because apparently only one Carter woman can be a heroine in the MCU. 🤔 🙄

[WinnieWinkle]

Just read on The Talk forum that the new male co-host is going to be paid MORE than the women currently on the panel,  Of a show that up to now was always hosted by women.  If that doesn't scream "It's Like Feminism Never Happened" then I don't know what does. 

[Bastet]

What is a man even doing on the panel?  I know it has devolved and I never watched it because I'm not a morning person, but the entire point of the show was to have a panel of different women discussing current events.  Because the news shows predominantly have men on to provide commentary and analysis, so women's takes on what's going on in the world were not being heard, some things of particular interest or importance to women were not being discussed in the first place, etc.  Men are still all over network and cable shows giving their two cents, yet they need to invade this show, too?  Gee, I can't wait for the mansplaining.

Oops; I now realize this is about The Talk, and I was thinking of The View.  My point may still stand, but I'll have to look into what The Talk is about.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Bastet

[Wiendish Fitch]

56 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Just read on The Talk forum that the new male co-host is going to be paid MORE than the women currently on the panel,  Of a show that up to now was always hosted by women.  If that doesn't scream "It's Like Feminism Never Happened" then I don't know what does. 

 

[Blergh]

OK,  if it's true that Mr. O'Connell is being paid more than than the women co-hosts of The Talk, I am TOTALLY against it. (a.) newbies to the table don't merit being paid MORE than experienced folks and (b.) his career before this by no means set the entertainment industry on fire. THIS part I agree with you all.

 

However, The Talk isn't a convent or a sorority. It's hard to justify   refusing to have men participate or co-host on that venue. In fact, if its ostensible purpose is to promote diverse viewpoints, it would seem that to refuse to allow someone to participate solely because they are a different gender would somewhat clash would said purpose (to say nothing of being exclusionary and  bigoted).  

If nothing else, I think longtime viewers should attempt to give Mr. O'Connell and any other newbie  a  fair chance. AFAIC, he is easily far less toxic and obnoxious than the departed and unlamented  (by me) Mrs. Osbourne.

Of course, I must admit that I have never had more than a tiny amount of passing interest in this particular show (though I think it's slightly less unpleasant than The View) and have zero interest in watching it now. 

[WinnieWinkle]

32 minutes ago, Blergh said:

(b.) his career before this by no means set the entertainment industry on fire.

This is the part that I really don't understand.  I could get paying him more if we're talking someone really big, someone so awesome that the viewership will skyrocket as a result (George Clooney? Dwayne Johnson?) but I mean no disrepect to O'Connell's career when I say the only recent thing he did I can think of was guesting on Big Bang Theory.  Not exactly a reason to pay him more than the others I wouldn't have thought.

[Zella]

58 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I mean no disrepect to O'Connell's career when I say the only recent thing he did I can think of was guesting on Big Bang Theory. 

Yeah I know him better for his wife's career than his own. LOL

[orza]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

Yeah I know him better for his wife's career than his own. LOL

I dunno, Jerry O'Connell has had a solid career since he was a kid in Stand By Me. I liked him most recently in Billions and Carter. He has starred in some very successful TV shows as well as one-season wonders, done voice acting and some talk show hosting, although I haven't seen him in those non-acting roles. Maybe the show just wanted someone dependable who has a decent fan following, shows up for work on time, does his job and doesn't cause a lot of drama. If they really think they need to have a male host, O'Connell isn't the worst choice.

[Bastet]

On 9/1/2021 at 7:36 AM, Blergh said:

In fact, if its ostensible purpose is to promote diverse viewpoints,

No, its purpose was to give a diverse* set of women one place in the sea of male talking heads where their takes on the news of the day were heard, where they made the calls on what got discussed in the first place.  Because that wasn't happening anywhere else.  It still isn't to any meaningful degree; there's nothing remotely approaching parity in the percentage of women booked as commentators/analysts.  It is still largely men's reactions to what's going on in the world being heard, and the stories they're interested in being examined.  There is no need to insert a male voice into this show; they're heard all over the television landscape.

*I've only ever very loosely followed stories of the comings and goings, so I don't really know how diverse the panels have been (my guess would be not enough).

Oops; I now realize this is about The Talk, and I was thinking of The View.  My point may still stand, but I'll have to look into what The Talk is about.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Bastet

[JustHereForFood]

21 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Just read on The Talk forum that the new male co-host is going to be paid MORE than the women currently on the panel,  Of a show that up to now was always hosted by women.  If that doesn't scream "It's Like Feminism Never Happened" then I don't know what does. 

But, but I thought that the wage gap is a myth and women only earn less because they take jobs that are less paid in general. Or something.

(I don't watch the The Talk either, I'm just surprised by this information. Or not really surprised.)

[Bastet]

Oh, oops, my brain translated The Talk as The View!  I'm totally unfamiliar with that show, so I don't know if it was created for the same purpose as The View.  If not, introducing a male host is still unnecessary, but not antithetical.  Off to edit my earlier posts, and look into what The Talk is about and who its other hosts are ...

Edited September 1, 2021 by Bastet

[WinnieWinkle]

2 hours ago, Bastet said:

Oops; I now realize this is about The Talk, and I was thinking of The View.  My point may still stand, but I'll have to look into what The Talk is about.

Based on the article in wiki about The Talk you were spot on:  "Sara Gilbert approached CBS about producing a pilot that would feature six women talking about the day's headlines with opinions told through "the eyes of mothers.""

[Zella]

Yes The Talk was, from its beginning, pitched and advertised as a show for women by women, not just as a generic talk show. I used to watch it several years ago, and the "for women by women" part was very much the vibe of it. There was also a lot of focus on the experience of mothers. A lot of the talk segments centered around the hosts' personal experience as women and mothers. 

The show has been battling poor ratings, as well as scandal/behind-the-scenes turmoil, for a while, and I assume they think that a drastic reboot is in order to salvage the show. But I think they're just going to succeed in alienating a lot of the people who still do watch the show because this isn't at all what they signed up for as an audience. 

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, Bastet said:

It still isn't to any meaningful degree; there's nothing remotely approaching parity in the percentage of women booked as commentators/analysts.  It is still largely men's reactions to what's going on in the world being heard, and the stories they're interested in being examined.  There is no need to insert a male voice into this show; they're heard all over the television landscape.

Wouldn't daytime TV be the one place where women have a lot more representation though, especially in the talk show segment? Like even before the Talk/the View there was Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen, Sally Jesse Raphael and many other female hosts. There is even the Queen of Daytime tv Oprah, but no equivalent king of Daytime tv.

[Bookish Jen]

14 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Wouldn't daytime TV be the one place where women have a lot more representation though, especially in the talk show segment? Like even before the Talk/the View there was Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen, Sally Jesse Raphael and many other female hosts. There is even the Queen of Daytime tv Oprah, but no equivalent king of Daytime tv.

Perhaps that would have been Phil Donahue back in the day, or perhaps Jerry Springer today.

[WinnieWinkle]

52 minutes ago, Bookish Jen said:

Perhaps that would have been Phil Donahue back in the day, or perhaps Jerry Springer today.

There's also Dr Phil, Dr Oz and most of the daytime game show hosts are men.  TV during the day is likely still predominantly aimed at women but you really wouldn't know it from who is fronting most of these shows.

[Bookish Jen]

44 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

There's also Dr Phil, Dr Oz and most of the daytime game show hosts are men.  TV during the day is likely still predominantly aimed at women but you really wouldn't know it from who is fronting most of these shows.

Excellent point.

 

[Blergh]

Well, as far back as the 1950's there WERE women in prominent hosting positions on daytime TV (the late Arlene Francis hosting a Today-type show called The Home Show and Betty White [yes, that Betty White] hosting a similar themed show called The Betty White Show). Granted, these were the sole regular women on their respective shows but they WERE the queen bees clearly running things and keeping the male drones in line!

As for The Talk?  OK, I still am TOTALLY  against Mr. O'Connell getting more monies than his more experienced co-hosts. However, wouldn't having a less toxic and grating individual than Mrs. Osbourne  be something for longtime viewers to consider worth giving a chance to- even if that person is of a different gender than Mrs. Osbourne and the current co-hosts?

[WinnieWinkle]

6 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Well, as far back as the 1950's there WERE women in prominent hosting positions on daytime TV (the late Arlene Francis hosting a Today-type show called The Home Show and Betty White [yes, that Betty White] hosting a similar themed show called The Betty White Show). Granted, these were the sole regular women on their respective shows but they WERE the queen bees clearly running things and keeping the male drones in line!

 

No one is saying there have never been women on TV but the point with shows like The VIew and The Talk was that finally there were shows not only aimed at women but fronted by women - only women - as well.  It made a nice change.  It seems clear though that most of the decion makers behind these shows were still men.  

[Zella]

58 minutes ago, Blergh said:

However, wouldn't having a less toxic and grating individual than Mrs. Osbourne  be something for longtime viewers to consider worth giving a chance to- even if that person is of a different gender than Mrs. Osbourne and the current co-hosts?

I can't speak for current viewers since I'm not one anymore, but the people who comment on the show's thread here were able to brainstorm a lot of women who were good in guest appearances who were much less annoying and toxic than Sharon Osbourne, one of whom has expressed interest in long-term hosting and apparently was never asked about it. So, the show had solutions that involved replacing Osbourne--who, in my opinion, should have been gone a long time ago--that didn't involve contradicting the entire stated purpose of the show.

I actually have no real objection to Jerry O'Connell as a person nor do I usually care about the gender of talk show hosts, but I think it's pretty damn shitty for a show that is allegedly about women and for women to not only bring in a male host but also then pay him more than the women who have been there for years. I really don't care what their reasoning is or what Jerry himself brings to the table. It's an asshole move. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Zella

[GHScorpiosRule]

18 hours ago, Zella said:

Yes The Talk was, from its beginning, pitched and advertised as a show for women by women, not just as a generic talk show.

That's how Barbara Walters pitched The View. And for the first 10 years or so, it was that. Diverse women: I want to say that two were in their 20s, one in her 30s, Joy Behar, who was 50, and then there was Barbara, who was in her 60s, I think? So not just all in the same age group. Then Elizabeth Hasselblech happened, and the show devolved from there to the cesspool it is now.

Edited September 2, 2021 by GHScorpiosRule

[WinnieWinkle]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

I actually have no real objection to Jerry O'Connell as a person nor do I usually care about the gender of talk show hosts, but I think it's pretty damn shitty for a show that is allegedly about women and for women to not only bring in a male host but also then pay him more than the women who have been there for years. I really don't care what their reasoning is or what Jerry himself brings to the table. It's an asshole move. 

Yep.  It's hard to believe that the powers that be had no clue that there would be a response to a move like that.  Do they want the controversy?  Don't give a  damn about the optics?  In other words never really cared about their target audience in the first place.  Or are they planning to cancel the show anyway so this is just a temporary thing and best not count on that paycheque Jerry.

Edited September 2, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[Mabinogia]

4 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Yep.  It's hard to believe that the powers that be had no clue that there would be a response to a move like that.  Do they want the controversy? 

Maybe they do want the controversy because then at least people are talking about the show. I don't watch daytime television so I totally forgot this show even existed and when I first heard about this, I kept imaging The View. Maybe, since The Talk has always kind of been The View's annoying kid sister, they are hoping this move will get it out from under The View's shadow? IDK maybe I'm the only one who forgot The Talk existed and they have a huge viewership. If so, then this decision really is puzzling. If they are doing it for the female gaze, to give the viewers a bit of mancandy, IDK that Jerry is the way to go. No matter what they were thinking hiring him, the fact that the one male host will get paid more than the female hosts who have been on the show for far longer is not a good look unless that man is someone currently relevant in entertainment like The Rock or something. 

[Blergh]

Agree re it being foul about Mr. O'Connell having a larger salary than his more experienced co-hosts.

 

Disagree about him (and any other potential male)   being disqualified to participate in that show solely due to gender- as emphatically as I would were folks attempting bringing forth arguments  to justify excluding females participating in shows,etc. That is all.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Blergh

[Zella]

5 hours ago, Blergh said:

Agree re it being foul about Mr. O'Connell having a larger salary than his more experienced co-hosts.

 

Disagree about him (and any other potential male)   being disqualified to participate in that show solely due to gender- as emphatically as I would were folks attempting bringing forth arguments  to justify excluding females participating in shows,etc. That is all.

Truthfully, I wouldn't have a problem with it if they'd just be fair about the payment and be honest they are changing the focus of the show instead of acting like it's all business as usual and not ignoring what their original stated purpose was.

I think what it boils down to more than anything is they are desperate to salvage poor ratings and scandals, and there is no real guiding philosophy behind their revamp other than "something different," and it all just sort of reeks of desperation rather than a purposeful reset, which might actually work in their favor if they handled it less ineptly. 

I also have long suspected that there is systematic dysfunction behind the scenes, which is what enabled Sharon Osbourne's reign of terror and the frequent hosting changes, and that if that hasn't been remedied, they're going to struggle with keeping hosts, no matter who it is, and that is going to continue their struggle with keeping viewers. 

[Haleth]

18 hours ago, Blergh said:

Well, as far back as the 1950's there WERE women in prominent hosting positions on daytime TV (the late Arlene Francis hosting a Today-type show called The Home Show and Betty White [yes, that Betty White] hosting a similar themed show called The Betty White Show). Granted, these were the sole regular women on their respective shows but they WERE the queen bees clearly running things and keeping the male drones in line!

I was trying to remember the daytime talk show hosts when I was growing up in the 60s, at first thinking there were only men like Mike Douglas.  Then I remembered Dinah Shore.  I don't think there were too many talk shows at that time.  That's when the networks had soap operas galore, game shows, and old sitcom reruns during the day.

[possibilities]

There were also only 3 channels back in those days. Now, there are more talk shows because there are more shows in general because more channels and more hours to fill.

Edited September 5, 2021 by possibilities

[Spartan Girl]

Marvel’s What If…? did three episodes in a row involving female characters getting fridged. Especially pissed about the latest one involving an alternative zombie apocalypse universe because 

Spoiler

the survivors group included three awesome Marvel females Hope, Okoye, and Sharon, but all three of them get killed off/zombiefied by the end. Only Peter Parker, T’Challa and Scott Lang’s talking head are alive. Not making it up, freaking Okoye couldn’t make it to the damn finish line, but Ant-Man’s head could?! Literally two and a half men?!? 

 

[Niuxita]

I've made a similar post before on this thread ages ago, but it's always relevant. I am SO TIRED of reading/hearing comments about what Actress X did or didn't do to her face. I mean, if you're so distracted by an actress's face while watching a show/movie, that seems to me like your problem, not hers. I also hate the way those comments are always framed, like "Ugh, she needs to lay off the Botox," as if they do it because they're being shallow and vain and not because they work in an industry that starts telling women sometimes as young as 30 that they need to stop themselves from aging or they will be unmarketable and unhireable. I know of actresses that have gone on record about how the network executives/producers/whatever relevant powers that be told them to lose weight, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were also the ones to "suggest" they get the work done so that they look better in HD or whatever. But as usual, the only contempt expressed surrounding this subject is always toward the women who have to suffer the consequences from it. 

Sorry, rant over. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

For me, it's not contempt towards the women. It's contempt towards society, misogyny, ageism, Hollywood, and these people you speak of that suggest to these women that they should get the work done, which I totally agree with you about.  

The comments are not necessarily contempt towards the women, but perhaps even plastic surgery, Botox, etc. as an entity altogether.  It's also contempt towards the superficiality of society at large.

It is hard to look at.  Honestly, I'm much more on the side of calling it out, naming it, being truthful about it as opposed to what is status quo - everyone doing it and denying it and gaslighting everyone that it isn't happening, and most people believing it.  I think that that is way more damaging to women.  So many women believe these Hollywood people are all naturally beautiful and that this is all attainable, when it actually really isn't.  I think that depresses people way more than the truth, which is that most Hollywood actresses have gotten work done and are getting work done and will continue to do so.

I'm not in favour of it being normalized.  I don't see how it's NOT damaging to women to normalize plastic surgery. I can't be in favour of normalizing plastic and poison injected faces.  

I do have contempt for Kim Kardashian though, because I think she kickstarted this Instagram/Botox/Brazilian Butt Lift craze into the stratosphere.  People were getting work done before her time, but now it's on a totally different level.  The good thing is not every actor thinks they have to have Instagram face like all of the influencers do, but it is spilling over to some actors out there which is a shame.  Botox has got to be like, 600% more popular than it was before 2007, and especially with younger and younger women everyday.  I don't think it was normal for 28 year old women to get Botox before her time, but I'll tell you - it is now.

This way was too long but tl;dr, I think focusing on the people calling out plastic surgery is not the issue to focus on -- but that's me.  I think all of it should be called out - the casting couch process, sexual harassment, toxic method actors who abuse others, the female love interests being 20-40 years younger than the male, the obvious push against female directors, plastic surgery, and on and on and on.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Spartan Girl]

So Joss Whedon’s trashfire interview from a few weeks back got me all riled up about the fake feminism and double standards of Buffy all over again. “Dead Man’s Party” still sticks in my craw for how Buffy returns from LA only to face passive-aggressive judgement and hostility from her so-called friends without anyone bothering to ask her or try to get to the bottom of the trauma that drove her away. But did Xander get a fraction of that same treatment later in season six after dumping Anya at at the altar?! Nope, he gets nothing but love and understanding—he’s practically welcomed back with milk and cookies!

And yeah, I KNOW Xander was gone for a week or so while Buffy was AWOL for several months. Not saying one was better than the other.

But Buffy had (one of) the worst days of her life: Kendra died, being accused of her murder, getting thrown out by her own mother**, and oh yeah, having to kill Angel right when he got his soul back. She had a breakdown; she do it to turn anyone on purpose.

Xander? Had cold feet for months and was too chickenshit to say anything until the last minute. And no: getting his head messed with by that demon doesn’t even begin to compare to Buffy’s trauma—he later admitted that he knew deep down he didn’t really want to get married, so it’s still on him for hurting Anya. But he’s automatically forgiven and accepted back into the fold, while Buffy had to be raked over the coals.

**No, Joyce has zero right to play the victim and whine about Buffy “punishing” her just because Buffy left before Joyce “had the chance” to take it back. And the fact that Xander and Willow automatically sided with her pissed me off.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[JustHereForFood]

29 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

So Joss Whedon’s trashfire interview from a few weeks back got me all riled up about the fake feminism and double standards of Buffy all over again. “Dead Man’s Party” still sticks in my craw for how Buffy returns from LA only to face passive-aggressive judgement and hostility from her so-called friends without anyone bothering to ask her or try to get to the bottom of the trauma that drove her away. But did Xander get a fraction of that same treatment later in season six after dumping Anya at at the altar?! Nope, he gets nothing but love and understanding—he’s practically welcomed back with milk and cookies!

And yeah, I KNOW Xander was gone for a week or so while Buffy was AWOL for several months. Not saying one was better than the other.

But Buffy had (one of) the worst days of her life: Kendra died, being accused of her murder, getting thrown out by her own mother**, and oh yeah, having to kill Angel right when he got his soul back. She had a breakdown; she do it to turn anyone on purpose.

Xander? Had cold feet for months and was too chickenshit to say anything until the last minute. And no: getting his head messed with by that demon doesn’t even begin to compare to Buffy’s trauma—he later admitted that he knew deep down he didn’t really want to get married, so it’s still on him for hurting Anya. But he’s automatically forgiven and accepted back into the fold, while Buffy had to be raked over the coals.

**No, Joyce has zero right to play the victim and whine about Buffy “punishing” her just because Buffy left before Joyce “had the chance” to take it back. And the fact that Xander and Willow automatically sided with her pissed me off.

OMG, I swear that me mentioning Dead man's party in Unpopular opinions was before I read your post here 😄. I agree about Xander being too self-righteous there. But then, he was consistent with it when Angel was concerned.

Him leaving Anya at the altar was terrible, but that is one of those cases when I don't even know whether to blame him, or the writing, because that one doesn't seem to be that much in character. It's more like, they wanted everything to get as bad as it could and a wedding seemed like it didn't fit in, so off with it! 

I only rewatch seasons 1-4 with very few episodes from seasons 5 and 6 thrown in. Saves me the combination of anger and sadness.

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

Him leaving Anya at the altar was terrible, but that is one of those cases when I don't even know whether to blame him, or the writing, because that one doesn't seem to be that much in character. It's more like, they wanted everything to get as bad as it could and a wedding seemed like it didn't fit in, so off with it! 

Oh Xander had a long history of impulsive and selfish actions: his botched love spell on Cordelia all to get revenge on her for dumping him, lying to Buffy in “Becoming Part 2”, making out with Willow behind Cordy’s back, jumping in the sack with Faith, casting the musical spell to fast-track a happy ending for him and Anya…so while I can’t dispute the show’s inconsistent writing, proposing to Anya in a moment of preapocalypse passion only to later realize that he didn’t really want to get married after all at the last minute wasn’t that OOC for him.

What makes “Dead Man’s Party” even worse was that Xander had a hand in Buffy’s “Becoming” breakdown because of The Lie, but he gets to rain down judgement on her. No storyline of him feeling any remorse once he finds out what happened and how much his actions wound up hurting her. No consequence whatsoever even when she puts two and two together when she finds out Willow did the soul spell again. She just lets Xander crap all over her because she’s The Slayer and she’s expected to suck up her trauma like a big girl and therefore should be taken to the woodshed for something she did out of pain and grief?

But oddly enough, nobody calls Xander a coward or a quitter for leaving Anya at the altar, do they? 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Hiyo]

Quote

I only rewatch seasons 1-4

I stop at the end of season 3.

[Spartan Girl]

Cordy getting killed off on Angel the way she did was awful enough. But I don’t think she got a fair shake on Buffy either. Case in point: “The Wish.”

I know this is a much-beloved episode, but in hindsight, it also feels like a way to punish Cordy for her justified anger at Xander and Willow, and her more misplaced anger at Buffy.  Instead of letting her be the hero of the episode and defeat Anya, she gets killed off halfway through and Giles is the one that saves the day. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was for shock value and everyone got killed off in that episode, but still. It was a missed opportunity to see her take the lead and grow more as a character. Instead the end just feels like “oh look, everything is back to normal and Cordy hasn’t learned a thing! Ha ha!”

Not to mention that season 3 takes away most of her hard-earned character growth by letting her revert to mean girl comic relief. And to top it all off, the finale has her whole family go broke, implying that it was karma for being a snotty teenage girl, clearing the way for Xander to look good by sweeping in with his Grand Gesture of using his savings to buy her prom dress. Ugh. 

Couldn’t there have been a different way to get her on Angel without punishing her like that? She could have just as easily gone to LA and left her parents because she’d outgrown her shallow lifestyle and wanted to be more independent.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Wiendish Fitch]

6 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Corey getting killed off on Angel the way she did was awful enough. But I don’t think she got a fair shake on Buffy either. Case in point: “The Wish.”

I know this is a much-beloved episode, but in hindsight, it also feels like a way to punish Cody for her justified anger at Xander and Willow, and her more misplaced anger at Buffy.  Instead of letting her be the hero of the episode and defeat Anya, she gets killed off halfway through and Giles is the one that saves the day. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was for shock value and everyone got killed off in that episode, but still. It was a missed opportunity to see her take the lead and grow more as a character. Instead the end just feels like “oh look, everything is back to normal and Cordy hasn’t learned a thing! Ha ha!”

Not to mention that season 3 takes away most of her hard-earned character growth by letting her revert to mean girl comic relief. And to top it all off, the finale has her whole family go broke, implying that it was karma for being a snotty teenage girl, clearing the way for Xander to look good by sweeping in with his Grand Gesture of using his savings to buy her prom dress. Ugh. 

Couldn’t there have been a different way to get her on Angel without punishing her like that? She could have just as easily gone to LA and left her parents because she’d outgrown her shallow lifestyle and wanted to be more independent.

I love your idea of Cordelia defeating Anya in "The Wish". Not only would it have been a nice addition to her character arc, but it also would have been a way of her overcoming her heartbreak and bitterness over Xander. There have been plenty of episodes where Buffy didn't save the day and someone else had a moment in the sun, why couldn't it have been Cordy this time?

"The Wish" isn't a bad episode, but it is indicative of Cordy's anti-arc. Yes, it was misguided of her to be mad at Buffy, but she was emotionally and physically traumatized from discovering Xander's infidelity and then getting impaled on the same day. She's also a kid (let's refrain from snarky remarks on Charisma Carpenter's age, shall we?), of course she's going to be a little irrational, and who among us hasn't made a horrible wish in the heat of the moment? 

It's lazy writing that Cordy's completely understandable anger isn't explored or resolved, but is basically reduced to "bitches, man".

[Spartan Girl]

38 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I love your idea of Cordelia defeating Anya in "The Wish". Not only would it have been a nice addition to her character arc, but it also would have been a way of her overcoming her heartbreak and bitterness over Xander. There have been plenty of episodes where Buffy didn't save the day and someone else had a moment in the sun, why couldn't it have been Cordy this time?

"The Wish" isn't a bad episode, but it is indicative of Cordy's anti-arc. Yes, it was misguided of her to be mad at Buffy, but she was emotionally and physically traumatized from discovering Xander's infidelity and then getting impaled on the same day. She's also a kid (let's refrain from snarky remarks on Charisma Carpenter's age, shall we?), of course she's going to be a little irrational, and who among us hasn't made a horrible wish in the heat of the moment? 

It's lazy writing that Cordy's completely understandable anger isn't explored or resolved, but is basically reduced to "bitches, man".

Precisely. That’s why they kept having her take snipes at Xander just to justify him being a petty little dick to her post-breakup. Even though anyone with a brain could see he was the asshole in all this.

Aaaaand speaking of great female characters that fell victim to lazy writing:

(Just give us a damn anti Xander video anyway, The Take! I thought for sure one would be in the works after that Whedon interview!)

Edited February 8, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[magicdog]

8 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

But I don’t think she got a fair shake on Buffy either. Case in point: “The Wish.”

I know this is a much-beloved episode, but in hindsight, it also feels like a way to punish Cordy for her justified anger at Xander and Willow, and her more misplaced anger at Buffy.  Instead of letting her be the hero of the episode and defeat Anya, she gets killed off halfway through and Giles is the one that saves the day. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was for shock value and everyone got killed off in that episode, but still. It was a missed opportunity to see her take the lead and grow more as a character. Instead the end just feels like “oh look, everything is back to normal and Cordy hasn’t learned a thing! Ha ha!”

I remember thinking this episode subverted expectations (long before the term became groan inducing!) but I didn't hate it.  I was expecting Cordy to have her day in the sun only to die halfway through the episode.  Even if she had defeated Anya, she would have forgotten everything just as everything was reset.  Even Giles didn't remember what happened.

8 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

And to top it all off, the finale has her whole family go broke, implying that it was karma for being a snotty teenage girl, clearing the way for Xander to look good by sweeping in with his Grand Gesture of using his savings to buy her prom dress. Ugh. 

While I'm no apologist for Whedon or Xander, I remember thinking that was a sweet gesture on Xander's part.  He didn't have to pay for her dress.  Was her family going broke a result of  karma?  Not necessarily.  Sometimes things like that happen and you have no choice but to pick up the pieces.  Lazy writing?  Maybe.  There could have been other options to get the character to Angel in LA, but I guess Cordy seemed to be at that time the spoiled girl who didn't have much in the way of skills - at least ones that pay well.

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, magicdog said:

While I'm no apologist for Whedon or Xander, I remember thinking that was a sweet gesture on Xander's part.  He didn't have to pay for her dress. 

No, but he could have made more of an effort to sincerely apologize to her for his cheating and strive to be the bigger person instead of acting like a petulant little butt-spasm to her all season, rising to her bait and baiting her whenever he felt bored. It shouldn’t have taken finding out she was broke for him to get over himself. So as nice as the dress was, it just rang hollow to me.

[Mabinogia]

4 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Precisely. That’s why they kept having her take snipes at Xander just to justify him being a petty little dick to her post-breakup. Even though anyone with a brain could see he was the asshole in all this.

When I first watched Buffy, when I was young and naïve, I actually liked Xander until he repeatedly treated Cordelia like shit after she actually started dating him. I could, in my younger mind, excuse his behaviour before as "he's just being pissy because she doesn't like him" since I think a lot of young people behave badly towards a crush that doesn't return their feelings. But when he finally did "get the girl" he still treated her like crap, basically called her whore and bitch whenever she didn't do exactly what he wanted and that was when I finally saw Xander for the misogynistic piece of shit he was, and understood the concept of the "nice guy" (as opposed to an actual nice guy. Don't even get me started on what he did to Anya. The guy has a pattern. Treat a girl like crap when she doesn't want you, treat her like crap when she does, then treat her like bigger crap when you're done with her. 

And they say Buffy is a feminist show? WTF?!!?!!? Maybe I'd buy that if Xander had been the real bad guy but I think he was supposed to be seen as a heroic good guy. No good guy calls women, especially ones they supposedly date and/or are friends with, bitches and whores. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

 

And they say Buffy is a feminist show? WTF?!!?!!? Maybe I'd buy that if Xander had been the real bad guy but I think he was supposed to be seen as a heroic good guy. No good guy calls women, especially ones they supposedly date and/or are friends with, bitches and whores. 

Same with Mal Reynolds. God, I hated that guy.

Give me male characters like Marcus Cole from Babylon 5, Vincent from Beauty and the Beast, or Raymond Burr's Perry Mason: confident men who knew how to treat a lady. I'm so sick to death of whiny, insecure, criminally entitled man-babies polluting my TV screen. 

[Mabinogia]

51 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Same with Mal Reynolds. God, I hated that guy.

Just...UGH Given that Joss is responsible for both Mal and Xander, it shouldn't have come as any surprise to any of us that he was a predatory asshole who abused his power over women. Xander and Mal both had the same Whore/Madonna view of women. Actually, thinking about it, it makes sense that he would have Angel be "destroyed" because Buffy dared have sex with him. You know how dangerous us women get when we dare want sex. It is such a dangerous thing to teach young people who are just learning/discovering sexuality, that good girls don't want sex, only bad girls like it, and you can use them but make sure you treat them horribly and discard them when you're ready to settle down with a "pure" girl. 

Sorry, in a ranty mood this evening. 

[Spartan Girl]

52 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Just...UGH Given that Joss is responsible for both Mal and Xander, it shouldn't have come as any surprise to any of us that he was a predatory asshole who abused his power over women. Xander and Mal both had the same Whore/Madonna view of women. Actually, thinking about it, it makes sense that he would have Angel be "destroyed" because Buffy dared have sex with him. You know how dangerous us women get when we dare want sex. It is such a dangerous thing to teach young people who are just learning/discovering sexuality, that good girls don't want sex, only bad girls like it, and you can use them but make sure you treat them horribly and discard them when you're ready to settle down with a "pure" girl. 

Sorry, in a ranty mood this evening. 

I really, really wish they hadn’t done that stupid curse storyline with Buffy and Angel. Yeah, I get it, starcrossed romance and angst and all that 🙄but it really was a slap in the face because of all the things you said. Not to mention that on top of all that guilt, she wound up having to endure Joyce’s slut-shaming scolding after she found out they had sex.

And it really sucks that the ONE TIME they could indulge in curse-free lovemaking on Angel she didn’t get to remember. Aside from that, her sex life was used as a means to torture her, whether it was doing it with the wrong men (Parker, Spike) or she eventually wound up not doing it the “right way” that made the guy feel needed and wanted (Riley).

Edited February 9, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[scarynikki12]

I didn't mind Angel losing his soul to be honest. At the time the related interviews emphasized that it was reflecting the reality so many girls experienced where they had sex with a guy they thought loved them only to get a rude awakening after the fact. I had that experience so I could relate and was surprised and appreciative that that was the intention. I agree it looks bad in hindsight though.

My bigger issue was that both (the shows) Buffy and Angel later decided that it was sex itself that caused Angel to lose his soul when the episode, to me at least, demonstrated that it was Angel feeling complete happiness that did it. We were told specifically that "One moment of true happiness, of contentment, one moment where the soul that we restored no longer plagues his thoughts, and that soul is taken from him.” When Angel feels his soul being taken it's long after sex with Buffy. He was asleep next to the girl he was in love with and felt that moment of true happiness. But the shows later decided it was just the sex itself as a way to keep the characters from being endgame.

[Bort]

12 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

My bigger issue was that both (the shows) Buffy and Angel later decided that it was sex itself that caused Angel to lose his soul when the episode, to me at least, demonstrated that it was Angel feeling complete happiness that did it. We were told specifically that "One moment of true happiness, of contentment, one moment where the soul that we restored no longer plagues his thoughts, and that soul is taken from him.” When Angel feels his soul being taken it's long after sex with Buffy. He was asleep next to the girl he was in love with and felt that moment of true happiness. But the shows later decided it was just the sex itself as a way to keep the characters from being endgame.

I actually don’t feel like the “shows” were saying that as it was the characters assuming it. Because Angel later had sex with Darla, and it was a half-season long mission by Darla and Wolfram & Hart, operating on that entire assumption, only for it not to happen because hello, it’s not the sex, it’s the perfect happiness.

[Hiyo]

Quote

I didn't mind Angel losing his soul to be honest. At the time the related interviews emphasized that it was reflecting the reality so many girls experienced where they had sex with a guy they thought loved them only to get a rude awakening after the fact. I had that experience so I could relate and was surprised and appreciative that that was the intention. I agree it looks bad in hindsight though.

I think taken on it's own, it's a decent plot point. It's when you look back on the rest of it, plus add in what we know about Whedon, that makes it dodgy.