Social and Cultural Themes: A is for Activism

[mercfan3]

Wait, what? Aria was using Andrew? That's what you got out of that? 

 

Once again, A was symbolic of the patriarchy. That does not necessarily mean A was literally a man. 

[lion10]

Once again, A was symbolic of the patriarchy. That does not necessarily mean A was literally a man.

Well, Heather's point would be much stronger if A were a man. As it is, A went after the girls for very non-patriarchal reasons. Mona was afraid she was losing Hanna as a friend and still resented Alison and the Liars for treating her badly and Cece was mad that the Liars were glad Alison was dead and she also just got a kick out of harassing them.

But ultimately, I love the irony of how people want to take away the agency of the female villains. Even when women are evil for non sexist reasons it's still the patriarchy's fault.

Edited August 17, 2015 by lion10

[Cranberry]

I just wonder how much weight the patriarchy theme holds when the majority of viewers aren't going to pick up on it.

[william0102]

I know Mona went after the girls because they "stole" Hanna, but if you take a minute to think about the first couple seasons, wouldn't it also be possible to view the show as writing Mona in direct competition with the liars? Just on cultural standards alone women are always in competition with each. So if Hanna and Mona went from ruling the school, to Mona being all alone and the liars potentially becoming "the popular girls" then aren't they inadvertently supporting and perpetuating the competition thing? I mean Mona was cruel to Hanna, and realistically Hanna was the liar most likely to become everyone's sweetheart, so that also supports that viewers could take it that Mona doesn't care for Hanna and just wanted to take out her competition. And by terrorizing them as A, she kept them from being "it girls", making them paranoid and basically causing them to ostracize themselves from their classmates even more than when Ali scared the crap out of everyone.

Edited August 17, 2015 by william0102

[Sakura12]

I'm sorry I just can't go with this show being a great women power show. Especially not after seeing The Astronauts Wives Club, where they are showing us a time when women were actually being oppressed by the men in society. You know how they fought back? They worked together and supported each other. 

 

If this show is truly trying to say all men are at fault for the way these girls are acting, they need to a better job showing that. Because what I saw was two men being instantly forgiven after they hurt the girls by spying, lying and stalking. A couple of the men were being controlled by either Jenna or Alison and now CeCe. And Jason was another poor victim in this stupid game.  

 

What I got from this show is that both the men and woman in Rosewood are equal in being ruthless, stalkers and creeps. As well as being victims of abuse and manipulation. 

Edited August 17, 2015 by Sakura12

[itainttippithebird]

 

Especially not after seeing The Astronauts Wives Club, where they are showing us a time when women were actually being oppressed by the men in society.

 

2015 is still a time when women are actually being oppressed by men/male dominance....

 

 

If this show is truly trying to say all men are at fault for the way these girls are acting,

 

No one is saying that. Not even Heather Hogan. That's missing the point entirely.

Edited August 17, 2015 by itainttippithebird

[Sakura12]

2015 is still a time when women are actually being oppressed by men/male dominance....

 

 

Didn't say we weren't. My point was that show is actually showing me that, PLL is not. 

 

It is what's she saying if she's saying that patriarchy is to blame for the girls on PLL to be attacking other girls. I'm not going to keep arguing this point, since it appears that me and many others are not getting that message that HH thinks this stupid show is telling us. This show is not that deep since they can't even keep their own timeline straight or even know what time they are in. 

[mercfan3]

I just wonder how much weight the patriarchy theme holds when the majority of viewers aren't going to pick up on it.

 

I don't know. On the one hand, it's one of the only shows that just focuses on women, where men are sidepieces..and I do think people notice that. 

 

But I also think it's something for the older fans. Like how cartoons always had jokes for the parents. 

[itainttippithebird]

 

 

Especially not after seeing The Astronauts Wives Club, where they are showing us a time when women were actually being oppressed by the men in society.

 

2015 is still a time when women are actually being oppressed by men/male dominance....

 

Didn't say we weren't.

 

Oh - the word "actually" implied to me that you meant they were really being oppressed, as opposed to now.

 

I feel like several things are being conflated in this thread that need untangling:

 

1. Can PLL be read through a feminist TV/film lens? (Yes.)

2. Is Heather Hogan's reading of the show through a feminist lens always "correct"? (Well, there's no such thing as one right reading, but anyway, validly debatable.)

3. Do the creators of this show intend for it to have feminist themes? (We can't know for sure, but there's ample evidence to suggest that that's the intention of at least some of the people involved)

4. Does the show, at this point in its unfolding, live up to its feminist potential? (Debatable, and probably not something that can be boiled down to Yes or No)

Edited August 17, 2015 by itainttippithebird

[lion10]

Oh - the word "actually" implied to me that you meant they were really being oppressed, as opposed to now.

 

I feel like several things are being conflated in this thread that need untangling:

 

1. Can PLL be read through a feminist TV/film lens? (Yes.)

2. Is Heather Hogan's reading of the show through a feminist lens always "correct"? (Well, there's no such thing as one right reading, but anyway, validly debatable.)

3. Do the creators of this show intend for it to have feminist themes? (We can't know for sure, but there's ample evidence to suggest that that's the intention of at least some of the people involved)

4. Does the show, at this point in its unfolding, live up to its feminist potential? (Debatable, and probably not something that can be boiled down to Yes or No)

 

"At its core, Pretty Little Liars is a story about the way men assume ownership over women’s bodies, strip away their agency, deprive them of their of autonomy, deny them subjectivity, and silence them. It’s a story about how female victims are blamed for the crimes perpetrated against them by men. It’s a story about existing for the male gaze."

 

At the end of the day, it all comes back to how you see it.  The point of my post is that in reference to Heather's quote, you see women doing this in the show far more than you see men doing it and the excuse that the patriarchy makes women compete against women is (to me) ridiculous and takes away their agency as female villains.  So when I read that quote, it seems more like Heather's seeing what she wants to see.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

But ultimately, I love the irony of how people want to take away the agency of the female villains. Even when women are evil for non sexist reasons it's still the patriarchy's fault.

 

Exactly. Compare and contrast with say The Wire (unfair, I know, but that's the first thing that came to my mind). David Simon, the creator of The Wire is very open about believing that "the system" has a huge influence on how people turn out to be. But still, while his villains might be predominantly black and disadvantaged, they are usually held responsible for their crimes. Even Omar, the guy that the vast majority of fans adored. The black police officers do not see themselves in Marlo or Avon or even Omar, the way Heather Hogan claims the Liars see themselves in Cece. I think this sounded better in my head but I hope you will get my drift.

 

 

4. Does the show, at this point in its unfolding, live up to its feminist potential? (Debatable, and probably not something that can be boiled down to Yes or No)

 

Not sure it's really debatable. Just making the girls catch one of the two Big Bads instead of the villain giving up would go a long way towards fulfilling its feminist potential, IMO. Not being as gullible as the heroines of B-horror movies would help a lot too. But it will never happen because the mystery hinges on many characters, mostly women, being almost literally too stupid to live.

 

I honestly have no idea how Heather Hogan got to the idea "it’s a story about how female victims are blamed for the crimes perpetrated against them by men.". Compared to the number of times female characters have framed other female characters or simply being blamed for the crimes of other women, what she is describing happens ridiculously rarely. How is this at the heart of the show?

 

Interestingly enough, we have never seen Mona or Alison's father pushing their daughters to become absurdly competitive that but we did see Spencer and Paige's respective fathers doing it and what do you know - they didn't snap and decide "Well, I might as well torture people for the lulz". By no means I want to deny the effect patriarchal societal norms still have on adolescent girls but the scenario of something forcing Alison or Mona or even wicked stepsister Kate to become alpha mean girls has never really been depicted in show. There are people who simply enjoy being mean without any external influences. Reducing every story to "Society forces you to do this and that" is to me too much of a rejection of human individuality. Even if we ever achieve a truly egalitarian society, there will still be plenty of bullies and criminals.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Jack Shaftoe

[fitzcarraldo]

The liars accepting Cece felt the most patriarchal society than anything, to me. The woman's position of mediating to their aggressors rather than la di day we are victims together. They became less important and the focus on Cece instead of the liars only rammed that in.

[mercfan3]

Oh - the word "actually" implied to me that you meant they were really being oppressed, as opposed to now.

 

I feel like several things are being conflated in this thread that need untangling:

 

1. Can PLL be read through a feminist TV/film lens? (Yes.)

2. Is Heather Hogan's reading of the show through a feminist lens always "correct"? (Well, there's no such thing as one right reading, but anyway, validly debatable.)

3. Do the creators of this show intend for it to have feminist themes? (We can't know for sure, but there's ample evidence to suggest that that's the intention of at least some of the people involved)

4. Does the show, at this point in its unfolding, live up to its feminist potential? (Debatable, and probably not something that can be boiled down to Yes or No)

 

Awesome post. 

 

And I think point 4 is where we are having our problems. 

 

For one, what people consider feminist seems to be different. We have people thinking that in order for it to be a feminist show, the four characters need to..succeed (and probably not be idiots.) Personally, I think it's a commentary..it's not "girl power" it's "surviving where a world is built against you." 

 

Personally, I can say..If I'm reading it correctly (and some producers and writers..believe I am..as my thoughts are in line with Heather's..Bro's Watch Pll too..etc..) then I think the show's intentions are apparent, but I don't think the execution is near enough. 

 

For instance, if the show was truly trying to say that living in  a patriarchal society is what made Mona, Jenna, Ali, and CeCe the way they are because of the fight they put up in a patriarchal society. (anti-heroes and/or villains)..then the details could have been clearer. For example, CeCe's story needed to be shown throughout season 6..not told in one episode. (And once again, I think you can make that bigger..thematic commentary..and still hold them accountable for their actions. )

 

I just think it's all in the execution. PLL does some things really really well..and it doesn't do other things well. 

[itainttippithebird]

 

Not sure it's really debatable.

 

Umm, actually it is? That's the whole point of this thread? To debate the various feminist/social justice merits and deficits of the show?

 

There's some weird kind of thing going on here of shutting down of anyone who wants to discuss this in a nuanced way and I just don't get it. Some of you don't think there's anything feminist about this show. Ok. Your point is taken. Over and over again. The rest of us want to discuss what succeeds and fails in terms of a feminist reading, and we can't seem to talk to each other without being told that This Is Not Feminist, end of story. If you don't think this show has anything to say in terms of social justice issues, why are you in this thread about social justice issues?

As @mercfan3 says above, there's more than one way to read/define something as feminist, and I'm enjoying talking to those who want to discuss where and how the show succeeds and fails. But I'm quickly tiring of being told there's nothing to debate when it comes to the feminist potential of the show.

[lion10]

I do think the show is more feminist than not (though to be anti-feminist, a show would have to depict men and women as unequal), but Heather's post hasn't been adequately explained to me.  I feel like we're talking past each other at this point.  Could someone explain to me why they agree with this quote:  "At its core, Pretty Little Liars is a story about the way men assume ownership over women’s bodies, strip away their agency, deprive them of their of autonomy, deny them subjectivity, and silence them. It’s a story about how female victims are blamed for the crimes perpetrated against them by men. It’s a story about existing for the male gaze."  when the main villains are female and the reasons why they harassed the liars didn't have to do with sexism aside from some vague answer of "the patriarchy influenced them"?

 

 

When does Mona deal with the patriarchy?  When does Jenna?

[mercfan3]

Jenna and Mona are two "villains" or "anti heroines" that essentially..play dirty against the patriarchy..

 

but here are two examples.

 

The definition of patriarchy from a feminist perspective is: Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women. It often includes any social mechanism that evokes male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations

 

1. Jenna is one of the girls filmed in the NAT club. (Which is easily..and almost not even debatable..symbolic for the male gaze. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze) 

 

2. Mona is arguable the most intelligent character on the show..but the only thing she felt mattered was her appearance. (As was clearly outlined throughout the six seasons..) AKA, her value as a human being was tied up in her appearance, which is easily a staple of the patriarchy. 

 

Anyway, although it might be easier to just read Heather's recaps, as she sums up that quote..I will say I think she can take it too far at times, so I'll go for it. 

 

Here are a few literal examples

 

"the way men assume ownership over women’s bodies"

 

1.  Mr. D didn't like that he had a trans daughter, so he locked her in a nuthouse

2. Ben and Nate's behavior towards Emily (and Maya and Paige)

3. Ezra's whole backstory with Aria 

4. Cyrus' attack on Ali

5. Wren's (And Ian's) pushy behavior with Spencer (and Alison. And Hanna) 

6. Ted and Hanna

 

"strip away their agency"

 

1. Toby's insistence on protecting Spencer..by doing things like being A.

2. Mr. D's behavior towards CeCe and Ali (although to be fair, also Jason)..with once again, locking away CeCe, and the numerous ways in which he tried to control Ali..

3. Ezra's entire backstory with Aria. But also Aria's father's behavior towards her. (Although his response is normal and not harmful to her with who she's dating. His response to suddenly start criticizing the way she dressed..) 

4. Caleb and Mr. Field's over protection..putting a tracker on Hanna's car/locking Emily in her room. (These are the only two good men, but they did strip away Hanna and Emily's agency at this moment..despite good intentions.

 

Now, those are the literal examples. 

What I and a few others are saying is that A (despite A literally being a female character) is symbolic for the patriarchy. What A does to these girls is what the patriarchy does to all women. That's the whole point. And the show reinforces it in their side stories with the issues with male characters, and perhaps their redemption of the literal A character..(who both suffered from patriarchal social norms). But the true feminist theory on this show is that A is the patriarchy. And it's clear that A did all of those things that Heather suggests. 

Edited August 18, 2015 by mercfan3

[fitzcarraldo]

They dropped NAT entirely. Jason was portrayed as a relatively sympathetic character and even the more victimized in the end. Where were they going with nat? The gaslighting story didn't happen until season 6. Im not sure we weren't supposed to forget nat happened. Ezra fits the male gaze most of all and that was dismissed too.

Hanna was as much of a victim of the looks culture as Mona. Her parents sent her to fat camp six years running. She suffered from needing can't love to feel a person. This was handled great too. She also did it without terrorizing other people. There is something else going on with Mona than helpless pawn of patriarchy.

Mras love to accuse women of false rape claims a la Jenna's sex coercion of Toby (much like transphobes say they trick men into having sex with them). She didn't know she was on video either so nat didn't make her do that. Pll had a golden opportunity, though, to show what the pressure could do. Spencer and Emily trying to frame Ali is brushed over! What if the strain they were under made them do terrible things? Did A make Spencer hurt someone in the doll house? This is ignored what they'd do to survive but Cece is off the hook. Marlene told us we would feel sorry for A!

Edited August 18, 2015 by fitzcarraldo

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

Umm, actually it is? That's the whole point of this thread? To debate the various feminist/social justice merits and deficits of the show?

 

There's some weird kind of thing going on here of shutting down of anyone who wants to discuss this in a nuanced way and I just don't get it. Some of you don't think there's anything feminist about this show.

 

Please quote any post where anybody has said there is nothing feminist about the show because I don't see any such thing. Some of us are saying the show isn't quite as focused on feminist themes or quite as good in depicting them as certain reviewers insist, which is completely different than "there is nothing feminist in it". As for it being debatable or not, maybe I'm being obtuse, and have misunderstood your point, for which I apologize, but isn't it always possible to better fulfill your potential, in theory? Hence, PLL could always do better, in regards to feminism, or anything else, really, just like any other show.

 

 

"the way men assume ownership over women’s bodies"

 

1.  Mr. D didn't like that he had a trans daughter, so he locked her in a nuthouse

2. Ben and Nate's behavior towards Emily (and Maya and Paige)

3. Ezra's whole backstory with Aria

4. Cyrus' attack on Ali

5. Wren's (And Ian's) pushy behavior with Spencer (and Alison. And Hanna)

6. Ted and Hanna

 

What did Ted do to Hanna?

 

 

What I and a few others are saying is that A (despite A literally being a female character) is symbolic for the patriarchy. What A does to these girls is what the patriarchy does to all women.

 

All women in the world are being terrorized?

[mercfan3]

I apologize, I don't meant Ted, I mean Ella's ex..whose name I really don't remember but thought was Ted. (Was it just me or do they all look the same?) 

 

"At its core, Pretty Little Liars is a story about the way men assume ownership over women’s bodies, strip away their agency, deprive them of their of autonomy, deny them subjectivity, and silence them. It’s a story about how female victims are blamed for the crimes perpetrated against them by men. It’s a story about existing for the male gaze."

 

This is what A does to the liars, and this is what the patriarchy does to all women. Yes. All women. Yes. In 2015.  

 

It is symbolic...it's not literal.  

Edited August 18, 2015 by mercfan3

[itainttippithebird]

I think you mean (Baker Bro ) Zach, mercfan3I

Edited August 18, 2015 by itainttippithebird

[superman1204]

I think a big reason that people have differing options on the show is that most of the themes and ideas being discussed are presented in the books, but were muddled when the story made the jump from books to TV.  A really good example is william0102's post about society pitting women against one another.
In the books, the Lairs are constantly pitted against other women.  Hanna fights with other popular girls at school.  Spencer fights with Melissa.  Hanna and Kate have a rivalry that spans at least half the series.  Emily fights with her mom about her sexuality.  Aria hates Meredith for breaking up her parents’ marriage.  Even Aria and Hanna fight over Sean.  These plot lines are such a big part of the books that the Liars seem to be in constant conflict with other characters, nearly all of them women.  This leads naturally to the A reveals.  Mona is the vindictive mean girl and Ali is the two faced former best friend (technically the Lairs were never friends with Ali in the books only her sister Courtney, but I figured it was meant to be a metaphor of a how people can turn from friends to enemies very dramatically in middle school and high school).  Overall, the Lairs seem to almost instinctively fight with other women in the books.

 

This idea was somewhat lost on the show because of the writers trying to make the Lairs likable in every situation.  While most of the plot points previously mentioned have appeared in the show in some way, they are nowhere near as central to the story, with possible expect of the Spencer and Melissa rivalry.  This lead to at least four main problems.

1. The writers softened Hanna and Spencer.  In the books Hanna and Spencer are so driven to be popular and successful that the girls are constantly coming into conflict with other characters.  As you would expect neither of the character are the most likeable.  On the show, Hanna and Spencer are still driven, but they put more pressure on themselves to be good enough.  You still have situations where they come into conflict with other characters because of this, like Spencer and Melissa’s relationship, but it is much less common and has all but disappeared as the show went on.
2. The Lairs are best friends, instead of frenemies.  The friendship between the girls is one of the show’s strongest points, but it does undermine the idea that society pits women against each other when your four female leads have some of the healthiest relationships on TV.  That’s not to say the show could not have still made the point, but does not help.
3. The fact that on the show, a lot of supporting characters were made into b-list villain.  A good example of this is Meredith, Bryan’s girlfriend.  In the books, Meredith and Bryan move in together.  Aria blames Meredith for her parents splitting up, so while Meredith has nothing against her, Aria sees her relationship with Meredith as adversarial.  On the show, the writers felt the need to make the storyline more dramatic, so Meredith drugged Aria and locked the Lairs in a basement.  The problem with this is Aria’s resentment is completely justified.  She is not unnecessarily viewing another woman as an adversary, she is fighting against someone who is out to get her.
4. Mental illness has been used way too often as a motive, to allow the writers a way around making character truly evil.  When a character is mentally ill, at least on this show, it’s depicted as them being completely irresponsible for their actions and the mental illness is to blame, as opposed to society the person was raised in.  Mona didn’t want to lose Hanna, Cece was mad the Lairs did not miss Ali, Meredith did not want Brian to break up with her.  Most of these motives just do not make sense and since the character is mentally ill, it gets attributed to them being crazy, instead of a hyperbolic version of female rivalries like in the books.

[lion10]

Does society pit women against each other? More than it arguably pits men against men? The war of all against all...

[superman1204]

Does society pit women against each other? More than it arguably pits men against men? The war of all against all...

I do agree that society pitting people against each other isn't specifically a women's issue.  If anything I would be interested to see if anyone has done a study comparing men and women's attitudes to competition.  I was just trying to say that if the show and books* are trying to make a point about this issue, it is that society pits women against each other.  Whether or not that is true, that's up for debate.

 

*To be fair I only read up to book six, at least so far, so for all I know that theme completely disappears in the later books.

[mercfan3]

Society pits men against each other for achievements. (Although there is also definitely an old boys club, where they help each other out too.)

 

Society pits women against each other for the attention of men. 

[dradiscontact]

I think the difference in the separate competitions of men vs men and women vs women, in our reality, can be viewed as (but obviously not limited to) men being encouraged to be in competition with each other to prove how manly they are, i.e., that a man is not a man unless he is physically strong, sexually accomplished, decisive, stoic, successful in his career, financially capable of providing for his family, being the protector, etc. Whereas a woman is encouraged to be in competition with other women in the realm of outwardly expressing her femininity, i.e., being physically attractive, being nurturing, etc. It becomes more complex, the competition among women, because there is an obvious added external pressure from men to achieve certain ideals of femininity, such as being sexually attractive but still remaining chaste, sustaining a certain amount of independence while also being submissive, while men seem to have little-to-no acknowledged external pressure from women. "Seem to have" being a key phrase here, because in our reality, the most egregious crimes that are committed in our society are largely perpetrated by men. While we can never truly know the internal struggles of these perpetrators, I find it easy to navigate the why of it by assuming that their internal struggles stem from perceived rejection by women, which in turn leads to perceived rejection by their male peers, and deep-seeded insecurities that are masked by the stoicism they are encouraged to present to the world culminate in a disastrous and often deadly fashion. This relates to the reality of PLL, because in their society, these ideas of men and women in competition with their own genders are still in play, but the men are shown to be less adept at fulfilling their roles--their shortcomings are made to be glaringly obvious. An example of this is Toby and a few of his greater story arcs. His turn as A as an attempt to protect the Liars blew up in his face as he mostly just ended up being manipulated by A into handing over key evidence and betraying Spencer. His most recent attempt to protect the Liars by becoming a cop has also been met unsuccessfully by his ineptitude at actually being able to perform the duties of his position. RPD is a great example, as well, of the men in this universe being less than capable of fulfilling their gender roles. While we all like to joke about how useless the cops are, who are primarily portrayed by men, I think their uselessness is intentional in displaying the role reversal in the show. Because the women, and this is where I can see PLL as a feminist show, are largely more capable of fulfilling both heteronormative roles of men and women. They are depicted as being physically strong by surviving at the end of each day; being decisive even if those decisive actions mostly amount to nothing in ending A's pursuit of them; displaying stoicism by trying to outwit A mostly on their own and not cowering in a corner at the relentless torture by their enemies; being successful in their careers, whether you view their careers as being A, playing the stock market, excelling at creative, athletic, or academic pursuits; providing for their families even if it is by robbing a bank; being cunning and resourceful, all while still maintaining their femininity by being sexually attractive and nurturing. In this reality, the perpetrators of the most egregious crimes are women, which I think in the show's intention, illustrates that women are the dominant force in this society, the greater gender, if you'll allow that phrasing, because they subvert the norm of our own reality. In viewing PLL in this light, I take some issue in the claim that one of the main themes of this show is that the patriarchy is the root of all evil, because while the men do lend themselves to this concept, at the end of the day, it's the women that are at the forefront of driving the narrative, that are making the plays. To undermine their power, even if they are wielding it imperfectly, by saying the patriarchy is responsible for the bad in this universe, is what takes away their agency and weakens the feminist message of the show. That's where I disagree with the comments of the likes of Norman Buckley and Heather Hogan, because I think somehow they are both missing the point of the show that they are working on and critically analyzing respectively. 

Edited August 20, 2015 by dradiscontact

[lion10]

Society pits men against each other for achievements. (Although there is also definitely an old boys club, where they help each other out too.)

 

Society pits women against each other for the attention of men. 

 

You're not wrong, but a lot of the achievements men earn, they use to become more attractive to women.  It's a cycle.  

 

Something I've been thinking about is what's the show saying by having the Liars' fathers repeatedly absent?  The mothers are absent too but the fathers are even more so.  Are the fathers supposed to be criticized for not really caring for their daughters or is the show mocking the idea that a family needs a father to be successful by having the four girls turn out mostly fine?  It's interesting how many of the Liars' fathers seem to be mostly apathetic to what their girls are undergoing.

[DigitalCount]

Something I've been thinking about is what's the show saying by having the Liars' fathers repeatedly absent?  The mothers are absent too but the fathers are even more so.  Are the fathers supposed to be criticized for not really caring for their daughters or is the show mocking the idea that a family needs a father to be successful by having the four girls turn out mostly fine?  It's interesting how many of the Liars' fathers seem to be mostly apathetic to what their girls are undergoing.

I don't know if all of them are absent. I'd say Byron has been around more than Ella, and Veronica and Peter seem to be pretty much even in terms of neglecting Spencer. But I think the Liars being closer to their mothers is partially because a) it makes sense, and b) the show is mostly female-oriented.

 

In viewing PLL in this light, I take some issue in the claim that one of the main themes of this show is that the patriarchy is the root of all evil, because while the men do lend themselves to this concept, at the end of the day, it's the women that are at the forefront of driving the narrative, that are making the plays. To undermine their power, even if they are wielding it imperfectly, by saying the patriarchy is responsible for the bad in this universe, is what takes away their agency and weakens the feminist message of the show. That's where I disagree with the comments of the likes of Norman Buckley and Heather Hogan, because I think somehow they are both missing the point of the show that they are working on and critically analyzing respectively. 

This is pretty much how I feel as well.

[Cranberry]

Heather Hogan calls out the official PLL Twitter account.

[mercfan3]

That was bad. 

[dwmckim]

Heather makes good points throughout but her big flaw in her article is in reference to the quote in the redone post.  Alison's referring to Charles/CeCe as a "he" was earlier in the season before she ever knew anything about who "Charles" was in terms of sexuality.  To get upset because they didn't change the pronoun of a direct quote from a character who at the time they said the quote had nor reason to believe Charles wasn't anything other than male is really quite ridiculous.

[SadieT]

I agree that keeping Alison's direct quote from the episode in tact with the male pronoun isn't an issue because it's a snapshot of the past and at the time Alison didn't know about Charlotte. It's not like current Alison is referencing the past and using he instead of she which would be a problem. But yikes, that original post was ridiculously offensive. Who the hell thought that was a good idea? I think PLL might need a new social media manager, their snapchats and tumblr posts tend to be incredibly stupid as well, although I've never seen anything this egregiously gross. And so far no apology. They just removed the tweet and carried on. 

[Cranberry]

I think they probably shouldn't have used the old quote at all. Certainly there was some quote they could have pulled from the finale instead of going for something from before the reveal. Just a baffling choice all around.

[dradiscontact]

Heather makes good points throughout but her big flaw in her article is in reference to the quote in the redone post.  Alison's referring to Charles/CeCe as a "he" was earlier in the season before she ever knew anything about who "Charles" was in terms of sexuality.  To get upset because they didn't change the pronoun of a direct quote from a character who at the time they said the quote had nor reason to believe Charles wasn't anything other than male is really quite ridiculous.

 

I can see where you're coming from on the quote's usage based on when it was said on the show, that is was pre-reveal. The quote, though, regardless of when it was said or in what context, post-reveal is still connecting a gender identity to a character who does not identify as that gender. That's the issue here, that this promotional image is unconsciously making the connection for its audience that "he" is "A" is "Charlotte" when we all know now that A is Charlotte, who is a transgender woman. The fear and the result of having that seed planted is violence against members of the trans community, violence that stems from misinformation and misunderstanding. You and I both understand the context of that quote, and we both understand Charlotte's gender, but you and I are also interested in having a discussion about it in a positive, productive manner. Hundreds of thousands of people will see that image, and some of them won't be coming across it with that same understanding and won't be interested in discussing it in that same manner. What they will be seeing is that the network that airs the show with the transgender character on it and the show itself are still referring to Charlotte as "he" only hours after referring to Charlotte as "he/she/it", so it must be okay for them to do the same. That kind of unconscious assimilation, the internalizing of that message, culminates in transphobia. That's the point, I think, Heather is trying to make.

[SparedTurkey]

 

That kind of unconscious assimilation, the internalizing of that message, culminates in transphobia. That's the point, I think, Heather is trying to make

Sure. I think there are two points:

1) The post was bad and offensive and should not have been done. Call her a her or A. There is no takebacks and that quote shouldn't have been used. That is/can be construed as transphobic and is connecting a gender identity to someone who doesn't identify as that gender.

BUT

2) In context of the episode in which that quote aired - in that episode I don't agree that was transphobic as none of the characters either knew or suspected A was a transgendered person. And neither did the audience for that matter because no clues were given. I don't consider that transphobic. Possibly part of an issue with the reveal but not inherently transphobic.

 

For me, that means, while the quote viewed in that episode is not transphobic - not even subconsciously - because no other information is given. But the social media posting WAS transphobic and that should definately be called out (as it has been).

[raytch]

Sure. I think there are two points:

1) The post was bad and offensive and should not have been done. Call her a her or A. There is no takebacks and that quote shouldn't have been used. That is/can be construed as transphobic and is connecting a gender identity to someone who doesn't identify as that gender.

BUT

2) In context of the episode in which that quote aired - in that episode I don't agree that was transphobic as none of the characters either knew or suspected A was a transgendered person. And neither did the audience for that matter because no clues were given. I don't consider that transphobic. Possibly part of an issue with the reveal but not inherently transphobic.

For me, that means, while the quote viewed in that episode is not transphobic - not even subconsciously - because no other information is given. But the social media posting WAS transphobic and that should definately be called out (as it has been).

They could've used the A is a girl callback. I think Heather is a bit too worried but her heart is in the right place, and she has a point when she says not everyone wants to be part of a constructive discussion.

ABC should apologize for this and stop treating the fandom like shit.

[lion10]

They could've used the A is a girl callback. I think Heather is a bit too worried but her heart is in the right place, and she has a point when she says not everyone wants to be part of a constructive discussion.

ABC should apologize for this and stop treating the fandom like shit.

 

Yes to this.   Marlene especially needs to realize that just because people don't like the reveal doesn't mean that "they're not ready for a trans character".  

 

And to echo what others have said, the "He. She. It. Bitch" quote was really gross in light of the Charles = Cece reveal and I don't understand why ABC Family thought it was a good idea to post that quote after the reveal.

[SparedTurkey]

agreed 100% abc family should apologise. I'm just saying I don't blame the show for providing the quote in the episode. If that makes sense. Misuse of a quote shouldn't be put on the show when the network does it - and lets face it, the show has enough issues at the moment.

[raytch]

Yes to this. Marlene especially needs to realize that just because people don't like the reveal doesn't mean that "they're not ready for a trans character".

And to echo what others have said, the "He. She. It. Bitch" quote was really gross in light of the Charles = Cece reveal and I don't understand why ABC Family thought it was a good idea to post that quote after the reveal.

This is why I have a problem with the Charlotte reveal. If you don't like it it's because you have a problem with a trans character not because you are pointing to the fact that they backtracked 6 seasons of background story to accommodate the character. It's plausible deniability because there are people out there who do have a problem with trans people and trans characters being portrayed on TV shows.

Does anyone else feel they went there because they thought they wouldn't be able to please everyone and figured they'd be able to bump the bad reactions if they could just say "Now a lot of people are having trouble accepting that we told the heartbreaking story of this transgender person because they had theories about someone else and or because they refuse to accept that A was meant to be trans all along because of their own conservative convictions"

Ugh.

Edited August 25, 2015 by raytch

[lion10]

I think Marlene included a trans character as A for two reasons:  The first was it would be a good twist.  The viewers are scrutinizing all the men that are regulars on the show so by making A trans, you completely throw the viewers off the scent.  They expect a man and they get a woman.  The second reason is that trans rights are (rightfully) taking off and so including a trans person in the show in such a pivotal position would be trendy.  

 

It didn't work because Cece being trans was interpreted by the viewers as being instrumental to her being A, thus playing the trope of the mentally ill and dangerous trans person.  And more than that, Cece just wasn't a satisfying reveal.  Cece has been on the show very little compared to many other supporting characters, she comes out of nowhere and then disappears for SEASONS only to reappear as A?  

[superman1204]

I think the article by Heather really illustrates that there was little to no hope of the reveal being sensitives to the transgender community, even if we ignore all the negative tropes the reveal included.  I mean the Lairs spent a couple of episodes playing around with the pronouns they used to describe A (because at the time in their minds 'fuck A, who cares what we call A'), and all of that dialog is super problematic when we find out A is transgender.  Even if we take out all of the lines like "he/she/it/bitch", did it not occur to anyone that having the Lairs refer to A by both masculine and feminine pronouns throughout the course of the show means that everyone selecting past quotes and clips to describe A would have to be careful pay attention to how A is described.  Basically nothing from season 6A can used without misgendering Cece.  

[lorikauai]

Well Heather that's what you get for defending this shit. Thank you PLL Twitter for waking her up to what the rest of us knew. The intent of the transgender storyline was to shock, not enlighten.

[Sakura12]

There's a right way to tell transgender character stories that brings awareness to help us understand (Sense8 or even Orange is the New Black) and there's a wrong way to tell the story which is making the transgender character crazy and the villain. If they had a couple of transgender characters and one happened to be a villain that would be a different story. But PLL chose to have the first time they introduce a character that is transgender be for shock value and made her a crazy villain. 

 

Then the biggest issue is, it doesn't even make sense. How was Charlotte able to go to high school enough to make friends, date her brother, become prom queen and go to college when she was supposed to be committed to Radley? Also would they even allow her to have the surgeries required when she was under the age of 18? The body is still growing and changing. To pull off all that she has, she would've had to been 14/15. That and they would never let her leave for a long enough time to accomplish any of that. That pretty much shows that this wasn't planned, it was just brought up because they needed a shock. 

Edited August 26, 2015 by Sakura12

[dwmckim]

Marlene King herself responded to that Instagram/Facebook post - "The Pretty Little Liars oficial Instagram account is not run by the show's creators, cast or crew.  We too were upset by the post yesterday and were happy to see that it was removed."

[lorikauai]

Marlene King herself responded to that Instagram/Facebook post - "The Pretty Little Liars oficial Instagram account is not run by the show's creators, cast or crew.  We too were upset by the post yesterday and were happy to see that it was removed."

Oh Marlene, then maybe you shouldn't have included that line when you knew A was going to be transgender. I have a feeling she felt that was a clever clue in that episode without realizing how offensive it would ultimately be. 

[Cranberry]

Heather Hogan on her faith in PLL's creative team (it's a good read)

[mac123x]

Then the biggest issue is, it doesn't even make sense. How was Charlotte able to go to high school enough to make friends, date her brother, become prom queen and go to college when she was supposed to be committed to Radley? Also would they even allow her to have the surgeries required when she was under the age of 18? The body is still growing and changing. To pull off all that she has, she would've had to been 14/15. That and they would never let her leave for a long enough time to accomplish any of that. That pretty much shows that this wasn't planned, it was just brought up because they needed a shock. 

 

That's pretty much where I am.  If they'd actually planned it out starting when CeCe first showed up, there wouldn't be all these plot-holes that they try to paper over after the fact.  Marlene's subsequent comments definitely come across as Dear Negative Reader which is never a good sign.

[superman1204]

So I was not sure if I should post this here or in the S06 E00 thread, but this seem like a bigger issue than just that one episode.  When I watched the sneak peak with Alison and Mona, it struck me that this shows is weird about women's intelligence.  The show has five characters who are women and who's intelligence ranges from high school valedictorian to genius, but none of them really did anything with that intelligence in the five years fast forward.

 

• Hanna, despite the fact she scored high enough on the SAT's to get into Ivy League schools without studying, went to school for fashion.
• Spencer, class valedictorian, went into politics.
• Mona, who taught herself how to hack computers and phones, also went into politics.
• Alison, who planned a ridiculous amount of schemes and plans when she was fourteen, is an english teacher
• Charlotte, was able to make hundreds of thousands of dollars by teaching herself stock brokering and economics, is now a mental patient. (I get that Charlotte couldn't really accomplish much being locked in a mental institution, but they still made her one of the smartest characters on the show)

 

I just feel like with all the crazy stuff this show tries to convince us that these girls are smart enough to do, shouldn't one or two of them be an engineer or scientist or at the very least attending grad school?  I am not trying to say there is anything wrong with liberal arts or social science degrees, but shouldn't at least some of the girls want to do something like physics or computer engineering that is generally considered a more challenging degree?  It just seems like the only time one of the girls is intelligent, its portrayed as bad or at least a source of conflict, but never positive. Mona, Ali and Charlotte were basically evil geniuses.  Spencer had a mental breakdown in part because of her overachiever type A personality.  Hanna started being smart just in time for her to freak out about not having money for college.

 

In comparison, Caleb touches a computer and saves the day, and then actually gets a job as a computer programmer.  Maybe I am noticing this because the show tries to push other feminist issues, but the writers seem to be doing a really good job of reinforcing the idea that technical fields are for men and arts and humanities are for women.  Now knowing this show I doubt that is intentional, but you think they would be a little more aware of how this comes off.

[mercfan3]

I think it's extremely biased..and actually sexist, to suggest that a career as a scientist is more challenging than a career as a teacher, or that liberal arts is not as important or challenging as science and math. 

 

They're considered harder and more difficult disciplines because they are so male dominated. 

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

The show has five characters who are women and who's intelligence ranges from high school valedictorian to genius, but none of them really did anything with that intelligence in the five years fast forward.

 

    Hanna, despite the fact she scored high enough on the SAT's to get into Ivy League schools without studying, went to school for fashion.

    Spencer, class valedictorian, went into politics.

 

I like the way you think in regards to politics. :)

 

 

I am not trying to say there is anything wrong with liberal arts or social science degrees, but shouldn't at least some of the girls want to do something like physics or computer engineering that is generally considered a more challenging degree?

 

To be fair, except for Mona none of them has ever been portrayed as all that interested in science and technology, so this is nothing new.

 

 

I just feel like with all the crazy stuff this show tries to convince us that these girls are smart enough to do, shouldn't one or two of them be an engineer or scientist or at the very least attending grad school?

 

Then again, considering the astonishingly stupid things that we have seen the Liars do on a daily basis, it's somewhat hard to believe that they even managed to graduate from high school, let alone get into prestigious universities. There is a huge dissonance between how smart we are supposed to believe the characters are and most of what we see them actually do on screen. The comedy of errors that is the murder of Bethany and the burying of Alison alive is just the most egregious of many examples of that.

 

 

It just seems like the only time one of the girls is intelligent, its portrayed as bad or at least a source of conflict, but never positive. Mona, Ali and Charlotte were basically evil geniuses.  Spencer had a mental breakdown in part because of her overachiever type A personality

 

Yes, I mentioned that a few months ago, could have been in this very thread (too lazy to check). It's rather annoying how being wicked smart and female in this show means you are either evil or crazy (or at least on the verge of mental breakdown).

 

I would Melissa to your list of five characters - she is supposed to be about as smart as Spencer but so far we have seen her do things like fake a pregnancy or get back together with the guy who hit on her underage sister - typical "irrational woman trope" stuff and I don't think we have seen her hold a job yet, let alone have a prestigious career.

 

 

I think it's extremely biased..and actually sexist, to suggest that a career as a scientist is more challenging than a career as a teacher, or that liberal arts is not as important or challenging as science and math.

 

They're considered harder and more difficult disciplines because they are so male dominated.

 

I think they are considered harsher because most people genuinely think they are harder and that was the case when liberal arts were almost as male dominated as hard science and maths. There is some sexism at work but I doubt it's a major factor.

[superman1204]

 

To be fair, except for Mona none of them has ever been portrayed as all that interested in science and technology, so this is nothing new.

True though I was thinking of Hanna's random turn towards being a genius.  The writers fairly clearly showed that Hanna being the fashion obsessed queen bee was her compensating for her insecurities and that she was hiding the fact that she was smart.  Now that doesn't mean she necessarily would have gone into one of the hard sciences but I thought the writers were going to have her do something with science or technology to show how much she had changed.  Also Spencer spent the past like four seasons rebelling against her family, but she seems to have gone into the field that most closely embodies everything she hates about her family.  I guess my complainant isn't entirely about the fields that the girls choose but also that the writers seemed to have regressed the characters back to who they were at the start of season 1, which I found particularly frustrating with Hanna and Spencer who are were portrayed as extremely intelligent and, in Spencer's case, hardworking.  Again I know that in large part that has to do with the mediocre writing on this show, but it still bothers me.

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's extremely biased..and actually sexist, to suggest that a career as a scientist is more challenging than a career as a teacher, or that liberal arts is not as important or challenging as science and math.

They're considered harder and more difficult disciplines because they are so male dominated.

I think they are considered harsher because most people genuinely think they are harder and that was the case when liberal arts were almost as male dominated as hard science and maths. There is some sexism at work but I doubt it's a major factor.

Also I would just like to add that nursing, a field that is overwhelming female, is considered one of the hardest, if not the hardest, undergraduate degrees.  Nursing or premed actually would have been a good fit for Spencer if they wanted to have her choose something other than law or business.