The Bullpen

[Old Dog]

I always assumed that phone call was from a boyfriend even though that didn't really fly with how Haley was pressurising Hotch to take the desk job. It was an odd thing for the writers to do - it screamed that Haley was having an affair but if she was, then Hotch's job taking him away all the time would have been a good thing.

[SSAHotchner]

I always assumed that phone call was from a boyfriend even though that didn't really fly with how Haley was pressurising Hotch to take the desk job. It was an odd thing for the writers to do - it screamed that Haley was having an affair but if she was, then Hotch's job taking him away all the time would have been a good thing.

Me, too. The look on Hotch's face when her cell phone rang immediately after the other call was very telling.

[zannej]

I figured it was either Haley's sister who didn't want to talk to Hotch but who was talking to Haley about ditching him and coming to live with her. Another possibility was a divorce lawyer. She might have seen the writing on the wall and decided to consult an attorney as a preemptive strike. I never bought that she was cheating on him.

 

Speaking of Haley, didn't they mention that she called her mother when she was supposed to be in hiding? That means the mother might still be alive. It would be interesting to see her sometime. Does she blame Hotch for her daughter's death or is she sympathetic to him? Surely she'd want to see her grandson.

[SSAHotchner]

That line about Haley's mother was just a convenient plot device. The only other time I remember hearing about her was when Haley confronted Hotch at the office about him missing Jack's medical tests. She says he's at home with her mom. But we never saw the woman, not even at Haley's funeral. She would also be someone who could babysit Jack, but they never mention her.

[Danielg342]

Considering how long it took for the show to remember that Hotch had a brother, I'm not really surprised Haley's mom has been MIA. In fact, not even I was aware of her existence...I'm guessing they only referenced her in throwaway lines?

[dusang]

I think that in some ways, Will is more of a doormat and he's more understanding. He probably realizes that if he and JJ split that she would be likely to get custody and he really loves his kid. Sometimes people stay in bad relationships because they don't realize how toxic they are-- or even when they realize how toxic they are, they just can't seem to let go. I have a friend who is in a horrible relationship and he knows that the bitch is bad for him and his kid. He's tried to kick her out several times but he always caves and lets her stay.

 

Why?  I'm not too clear on what his job is now or if he has one but it would seem to me that he's the primary caregiver and she's the primary wage-earner.  He would get custody and she would make support payments.  Or at the very least they'd get shared custody.  I see absolutely no reason he would imagine that he would lose custody entirely.

[zannej]

There tends to be a bias where the mothers are more often awarded custody, even if in cases where the fathers would be better primary caregivers. I believe Will is now a cop again. I really don't know how they can both work and then have trouble finding a sitter for Henry. That part didn't make sense. I mean, unless one of them had some family members that would take the kid off their hands. Of course, maybe Will just didn't want to mess with the problems of shared custody. But also, I think the writers just wanted some excuse to have JJ be able to be super-profiler and supermom without being burdened with actually having to be the one spending time with her kid at home as much, so they needed someone to be the babysitter.

[Danielg342]

He probably would get shared custody, perhaps with some language saying that it can vary with JJ's work schedule. Unless he's how I've written him in my fics (a perpetual drunk), Will doesn't seem bad enough to lose custody entirely.

[Knittzu]

Regardless of what would happen in the real world, in the AU-CM world there is zero chance super-mommy Mary Sue would lose custody of the kid. 

[idiotwaltz]

Here's what I think would happen if CM existed in the actual world and not a 5th dimension: Will and JJ would get joint legal custody of Henry. As for who gets physical custody, it would very much depend on who has been the primary caregiver and what is recommended by the social welfare officer and what would be deemed "in the best interests of the child". The bias used to be that children of tender age need their mother, and therefore the mother usually gets custody. Some courts have been veering away from this principle, with this being the new age of stay-at-home dads and what not. 

 

It would be stupid of JJ and Will to even bother fighting over custody. Courts like issues about children to be settled amicably. It's more of a power trip for the parent who is awarded custody to be called the custodian parent; if the other parent has generous and flexible visitation rights, it really doesn't matter. But some people go to court just to argue the construction of a single phrase. You never know how crazy people can get until it's suddenly about their kids.  

Edited November 1, 2014 by idiotwaltz

[dusang]

But some people go to court just to argue the construction of a single phrase. You never know how crazy people can get until it's suddenly about their kids.

Having worked around family court, I think you're being incredibly generous implying the fight is over the kids - vicious custody battles have more to do with fucking over the other parent and using any tools at your disposal to do it, even to the gross detriment of the health and welfare of your own children. [/OT]

[idiotwaltz]

Having worked around family court, I think you're being incredibly generous implying the fight is over the kids - vicious custody battles have more to do with fucking over the other parent and using any tools at your disposal to do it, even to the gross detriment of the health and welfare of your own children. [/OT]

 

I agree with you entirely. I've worked as a family lawyer for several years, though not in the U.S.A., and my observation is that the clients who settle early are the ones who actually try to co-parent in the interests of the child. The ones who drag things out to a full-length trial make it all about them. I wasn't implying that the fight is over the kids, but that as opposed to money --- where usually some common sense dictates (people tend not to spend more money on legal fees than what they're actually going to get back, or risk going to trial and doing worse and having to pay the other side's legal costs) --- when it comes to kids, they will stop at nothing. Rationality goes out the window. 

 

Again, I do not practice law in the U.S.A. so things may be different there. 

 

In an effort to stay on topic, I will add that I can't see --- and certainly do NOT want to see on my screen --- Will and JJ going through a bitter custody battle. They'll work something out and the divorce (if it happens) will be perfectly amicable, Henry will spend almost as much time with one parent as the other, he will have no adjustment issues whatsoever, JJ will never have to worry about childcare issues if any emergency crops up and if she does misses her time with Henry, everyone will be understandable because JJ is SUPER NINJA MOM WHO ALMOST CAUGHT BIN LADEN. 

Edited November 1, 2014 by idiotwaltz

[Danielg342]

As much as I hate angsty storylines, I think it might actually be nice to have an episode where, one day, JJ comes home and sees Will gone having taken Henry with him. JJ suffers from no adversity, so this would be a nice change of pace, and Will would be given something substantive to do.

I would agree that these two would likely end up settling things amicably. This is because they're not the combative types and a fight would drag out the storyline longer than it needs to.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Hey, old dog, please don't call the "kiddies" feminist because they cry misogyny. CM has had its feminist days when they had Elle and Emily being tough and taking charge without fanfare and without saying "look how tough I am." Just because these writers can't write JJ as a natural strong character who happens to be a woman, don't blame the kiddies for wanting her to be like Elle and Emily. JMO.

 

The show has dealt with Elle's PTSD in a realistic but ultimately tragic way because the actress wanted to leave the show. The show has dealt with Emily's PTSD in a clunky way because they boxed themselves into a corner having to get her back on the show. The show dealt with Garcia's PTSD with such ineptitude that it probably looks like farce or comedy to anyone just tuning in. JJ's PTSD will probably be like this X 10.

 

Let me preface this by saying that I never understand the insistence that something is misogynist when it isn't presented in an overwhelmingly 'Girl Power, Yay!' type of way. Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough to the current social climate, but I think female characters can and should be just as strong as male ones without it being a giant 'thing'.

 

With that said, I agree with normasm that it has been done better on this show. Poison was on A & E recently, and I was surprised at how matter-of--fact Elle was at going about her job. The scene where she arrests the young guy on the motorbike because she thinks he roofied his girlfriend it noteworthy because she's completely no-nonsense about it. She keeps her gun trained on him until she puts him in handcuffs and she doesn't make room for his excuses, but she does go about her work without fanfare. What's ironic is, Gideon is the one who often behaved in an overly emotional way, and then refused to take responsibility for nearly getting her killed due to his aggravation that Garner was a step ahead of the team. How's that for an 'ism'?

 

And while Emily got the snot kicked out of her in Minimal Loss, I know she outed herself as the federal agent because Cyrus was pointing a gun at Reid, and it could have been a lot worse. Was she less strong because she was willing to take a beating rather than fight back? Not to me, and if anything I actually thought more of her after that. Not because she took a beating 'like a man', but because she did it to protect the (at the time) more vulnerable Reid.

 

Now we have JJ, and on the other end of the spectrum Garcia. JJ's status as the uber-heroine may have been toned down, but she's still in almost every damn scene and gets the supposedly sympathetic stance. And they've turned Garcia into an anime character or something, which is only less annoying than Steroid!JJ because Penelope isn't running around kicking people like River Tam on a Red Bull high. I know very little about modern feminism, and what I do know leaves me a little boggled, but are JJ and Garcia supposed to be some kind of ideal? Another irony is, much like Marti Noxon on BTVS, Erica Messer has IMO done a fair amount of damage to CM by taking the reins as showrunner, making things not better but worse.

 

Also, The Fisher King is on A & E right now, and between Elle's scenes with her dead father and Reid's scenes with his mother, I'm a little verklempt. Which may or may not be the first time that's happened. That's how you do emotional scenes.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Cobalt Stargazer

[normasm]

Let me preface this by saying that I never understand the insistence that something is misogynist when it isn't presented in an overwhelmingly 'Girl Power, Yay!' type of way. Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough to the current social climate, but I think female characters can and should be just as strong as male ones without it being a giant 'thing'.

 

With that said, I agree with normasm that it has been done better on this show. Poison was on A & E recently, and I was surprised at how matter-of--fact Elle was at going about her job. The scene where she arrests the young guy on the motorbike because she thinks he roofied his girlfriend it noteworthy because she's completely no-nonsense about it. She keeps her gun trained on him until she puts him in handcuffs and she doesn't make room for his excuses, but she does go about her work without fanfare. What's ironic is, Gideon is the one who often behaved in an overly emotional way, and then refused to take responsibility for nearly getting her killed due to his aggravation that Garner was a step ahead of the team. How's that for an 'ism'?

 

And while Emily got the snot kicked out of her in Minimal Loss, I know she outed herself as the federal agent because Cyrus was pointing a gun at Reid, and it could have been a lot worse. Was she less strong because she was willing to take a beating rather than fight back? Not to me, and if anything I actually thought more of her after that. Not because she took a beating 'like a man', but because she did it to protect the (at the time) more vulnerable Reid.

 

Now we have JJ, and on the other end of the spectrum Garcia. JJ's status as the uber-heroine may have been toned down, but she's still in almost every damn scene and gets the supposedly sympathetic stance. And they've turned Garcia into an anime character or something, which is only less annoying than Steroid!JJ because Penelope isn't running around kicking people like River Tam on a Red Bull high. I know very little about modern feminism, and what I do know leaves me a little boggled, but are JJ and Garcia supposed to be some kind of ideal? Another irony is, much like Marti Noxon on BTVS, Erica Messer has IMO done a fair amount of damage to CM by taking the reins as showrunner, making things not better but worse.

 

Also, The Fisher King is on A & E right now, and between Elle's scenes with her dead father and Reid's scenes with his mother, I'm a little verklempt. Which may or may not be the first time that's happened. That's how you do emotional scenes.

 

Love this post of yours, CoStar. Yeah, to me, feminism doesn't change over time because younger folks "discover" it and think they invented it! Feminism is and always will be treating females with the same respect and regard as males receive, not a whole lot more complex than that. While, of course, there are differences in male and female humans in lots of ways, just the XX or XY is not a criterion for unequal treatment. /rant

 

But, yeah, Emily just always was a strong female who simply did everything Morgan did without stretching credulity. It was never a comparison or competition. She saw Cyrus pointing the gun at Reid and knew that if he was the agent, Cyrus would have pulled the trigger. Male pride and dominance, ya know. With it being her, Cyrus (who, no doubt, was not a feminist by anyone's definition!) thought he just had to put her back in her woman-place by smacking that bitch up. 

 

The charge of misogyny that we've discussed a lot on this forum is bogus, but TPTB have bent over backwards to try to please this crowd with their squeaky wheel by turning reality on its head and having 20 times the percentage of female unsubs that exist in reality, and probably that many times the amount of male victims as exist in reality. All to placate a population of fans who are screaming from an uninformed position.

[Droogie]

But, yeah, Emily just always was a strong female who simply did everything Morgan did without stretching credulity. It was never a comparison or competition. She saw Cyrus pointing the gun at Reid and knew that if he was the agent, Cyrus would have pulled the trigger. Male pride and dominance, ya know. With it being her, Cyrus (who, no doubt, was not a feminist by anyone's definition!) thought he just had to put her back in her woman-place by smacking that bitch up.

This. I don't think Emily thought Reid was weak, but that Cyrus would've straight-up killed him because he is a man.

[Knittzu]

And they've turned Garcia into an anime character or something, which is only less annoying than Steroid!JJ because Penelope isn't running around kicking people like River Tam on a Red Bull high.

 

 

Reposting because this made me spit out my coffee with laughter. So, um, thank you? Hee.

[missmycat]

 

The charge of misogyny that we've discussed a lot on this forum is bogus, but TPTB have bent over backwards to try to please this crowd with their squeaky wheel by turning reality on its head and having 20 times the percentage of female unsubs that exist in reality, and probably that many times the amount of male victims as exist in reality. All to placate a population of fans who are screaming from an uninformed position.

I thinks this may also be one of the reasons why CBS continues to let EM push the less interesting female(s) to the forefront. IMO the last really interesting female on the show was Emily Prentiss. We all remember the screams of sexism hurled towards CBS when fans learned that AJ had been fired and that Paget's character was also being phased out. Now I don't believe for even a second that it was sexism on the part of CBS, blatant stupidity yes, sexism no. Nevertheless a lot of fans saw it that way. And then of course sexism once again reared it's ugly head when it was learned that AJ and Kirsten were being denied the same pay as their male co stars the last time they negotiated their contract. Now again this accusation came from a bunch of people who didn't understand that when you have an ensemble cast rarely if ever does the cast receive equal pay. Of course there was no damn way CBS was going to pay AJ and Kirsten as much as they are paying JM and TG. So they had to find other ways to placate the actresses in order to get them to re-sign.And at the same time defend themselves once again against the accusation of sexism. Which of course resulted in season 9 being the season of JJ. As well as a part time character like Garcia seemingly getting more focus( i.e centric episodes, story lines) than the main characters (Reid). And sadly season 10 looks to be a repeat of season 9. Which is why I am seriously considering taking a break from the show for a little while.

Edited November 2, 2014 by missmycat

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Reposting because this made me spit out my coffee with laughter.

 

Then my work is done.

 

I thinks this may also be one of the reasons why CBS continues to let EM push the less interesting female(s) to the forefront. IMO the last really interesting female on the show was Emily Prentiss. We all remember the screams of sexism hurled towards CBS when fans learned that AJ had been fired and that Paget's character was also being phased out. Now I don't believe for even a second that it was sexism on the part of CBS, blatant stupidity yes, sexism no. Nevertheless a lot of fans saw it that way. And then of course sexism once again reared it's ugly head when it was learned that AJ and Kirsten were being denied the same pay as their male co stars the last time they negotiated their contract. Now again this accusation came from a bunch of people who didn't understand that when you have an ensemble cast rarely if ever does the cast receive equal pay. Of course there was no damn way CBS was going to pay AJ and Kirsten as much as they are paying JM and TG. So they had to find other ways to placate the actresses in order to get them to re-sign.And at the same time defend themselves once again against the accusation of sexism. Which of course resulted in season 9 being the season of JJ. As well as a part time character like Garcia seemingly getting more focus( i.e centric episodes, story lines) than the main characters (Reid). And sadly season 10 looks to be a repeat of season 9. Which is why I am seriously considering taking a break from the show for a little while.

 

Here's a question, both because I'm wondering and because I can't let it go. Were there also complaints about sexism when JT was brought onto the show and then pretty quickly shoved into the background, or not so much because she was shoved into the background IMO in favor of AJC? Is it really sexism if one female character gets short-changed while another so obviously doesn't? I'm not talking about salary, although to be a little pissy about it I think Tripplehorn should have been getting more money than both AJ and Kirsten. I mean actual screen time.  I really don't pay huge amounts of attention to what goes on behind the scenes, despite knowing actor's resumes and whatnot, so I'm genuinely curious. Was it just the JJ fans, and I guess the Garcia fans, who were doing the most complaining?

[Old Dog]

As far as I can see the majority of all the complaining came from social media - the Prentiss fans who won't accept that she isn't coming back, the anime fans who love the cartoon that is now Garcia and above all the JJ gang. They spent a lot of time screaming about equal pay for the girls which was incredibly naive and uninformed of them - and when AJ and KV were threatening to leave over pay they seemed to encourage this unrest from their fans. I have no doubt that the result of it all was the "season of JJ" and the emergence of Garcia as a "genius". There was little outcry over JT simply because the vocal fans on social media viewed her as taking Paget's rightful place and never gave her a chance. I read somewhere that Messer didn't want Paget replaced so I doubt there was too much effort made for Blake's character. I think it is very sad that the showrunner and production seem to gage their view of what the fanbase thinks on what they read on social media as that is just the extreme edge of the fandom. Personally, I think the show would have benefited immensely if negotiations had failed with AJ and KV and they had left the show. It is so sad and like so many others I am only hanging on to see MGG even though he rarely gets much of a look in now.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Old Dog

[Danielg342]

The charge of misogyny that we've discussed a lot on this forum is bogus, but TPTB have bent over backwards to try to please this crowd with their squeaky wheel by turning reality on its head and having 20 times the percentage of female unsubs that exist in reality, and probably that many times the amount of male victims as exist in reality. All to placate a population of fans who are screaming from an uninformed position.

 

This. A thousand times this. Heck, why not a million times this? Maybe it's just me spending way too much time on the Internet but I find that I can't have a reasoned discussion about feminism and feminist topics without someone getting oversensitive, playing the victim card and construing whatever I have to say as "women-bashing". Somehow I can't see how any of this is productive- or helps out women's rights at all.

 

When it comes to this show, it's a perfect example of just what's wrong with political correctness. You don't correct one extreme by going extreme the other way- all that does is anger another set of viewers with the net result being that you don't gain any new viewers- in fact, I think you'd wind up losing viewers, since you'd likely lose your original audience and others who might have been interested, and only gain people who'd appreciate the other extreme, which doesn't number much.

 

Furthermore, pandering to political correctness raises questions about tokenism and just how invested the writers are in the stories. To me, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a show where the leads are solely minorities or women or any other seemingly "politically correct" setup provided that the motivation is entirely creative. Otherwise, you're doing a disservice to inclusive television- if all people see is poor programming from shows that don't feature a white male lead, it'll be harder for those kinds of shows to get picked up or even given a look at all.

 

With CM, I see no motivation for the rise of JJ, female UnSubs and male victims as anything other than political correctness, and the show's quality is suffering because of it. I don't believe the writers seem all that invested in the stories, and the acting quality has gone down since it's pretty apparent that AJ Cook doesn't have the chops to be a lead actress. Seems to me like the rest of the actors have already acquiesced and have phoned it in realizing that Cook has pretty much taken over. It's unfortunate, and the series seems worse off as a result.

 

Of course, the past had its fair share of problems. Did we have too many cases where the victims were female for no other reason than the writer decided they would be female? Yes. Did CM treat its female characters rather poorly? For the most part, yes. Did the show resort to misogynistic tropes (such as the "damsel in distress") too much? Yes. However, I can't see the answer to all this being "overdose on male victims" and hand the reins to the show to someone without the acting chops, just because the person in question has breasts- there are so many other ways we can make CM "feminist".

 

For one, CM ought to have listened to its female fans and realized that, hey, Reid's a pretty big draw. So too is Morgan (maybe less so on this forum but I have a friend at work who is absolutely obsessed with Shemar Moore). Hotch too seems to be a pretty big draw. Having males who are central isn't a detriment, especially if you're careful- as CM did in the past- to make these characters less "manly" men and make them people capable of empathy and compassion as well as having vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the men of CM did their utmost to treat women with dignity and respect- even Morgan- and I think CM ought to be commended for doing that. Far too often you get men who do nothing but have perverted thoughts and get dismissive about their female colleagues, but you don't see that about the CM men. Think about it- when have you ever heard someone in the BAU get shocked the detective or the sheriff they're dealing with is a woman? I've never seen it. Sure, it might be idealized- as I understand, misogyny is still a big problem in law enforcement ranks- but I think it's an ideal that needs to be done, because it shows that men can still be tough and desirable and still have a healthy view of women, and in today's world we don't seem to have enough men like that.

 

Second of all, why can't the show use the opportunity to deconstruct why serial killers tend to be men hunting women? I used to like how in the first season you'd get Elle and Gideon make numerous references to how the men who did this stuff viewed themselves as powerful yet, deep down inside, they were really weak. It really helped put things in perspective, because it reinforced the idea that serial killers targetting women is a social problem, thus giving the show a valid reason to populate its victim pool with XX chromosomes. I think the show really could have built upon stuff like this, and expanded upon other themes such as suggesting that societal pressures on men to be "macho and dominant" creates hunters like serial killers, as well as the idea that, more often than not, life failures lead people to lash out against the world. Of course, I'm just barely scratching the surface, but you get the idea- there's millions of individual motivations and millions of societal pressures, yet we don't get much of the latter. The show seems to have started out like this but dropped the ball, seeming to forget that you don't need to sacrifice the cerebral elements just to have action.

 

As a corollary, I wonder why a character couldn't be a "card-carrying feminist"...I would imagine real feminists would be drawn to the topic of serial killers just because of their nature, so why wouldn't one join the BAU? I do wonder if the writers would be able to portray one well enough, but I do think having a feminist on the team would underscore the idea that the show can be about social commentary too. Furthermore, it would be worth having a team member that understands women's issues, since those things should crop up every now and then and I don't think the show does a good service to these issues. Everything seems to be done from a "male" perspective and I think this needs to be balanced out.

 

Thirdly, and I think most importantly, the victims ought to matter. They shouldn't be used as pawns to show us how depraved the UnSub of the Week is- these should be people that we get to know on at least a superficial level and thus care that they're being hurt. I also believe that the gender of the victims should be based purely on creative reasons and nothing else. It's one of the reasons why I think "Burn" could have been a good episode, because at least the male victims served as an exposition into the UnSub's mind- those victims mattered, if for nothing else that you couldn't change their genders without impacting the story. "Boxed In"? Why just boys? Don't girls also go out and egg houses too? Then there was "The Itch" where the first two victims, both male, were shown only as instruments of the UnSub's methods of torture, and if even one of them was a woman, the story wouldn't have changed at all.

 

Lastly, if we're going to have female leads, give us some good actresses that can carry the load. Throughout CM's entire history, I can only think of three that seemed capable of the challenge- Lola Glaudini (Elle), Paget Brewster (Prentiss) and Jennifer Love Hewitt (Callahan). I know Hewitt is new but she's impressed me so far. It's why I'm not so skittish about this direction because I think Hewitt would do a great job as CM's star- I just don't want her flanked by two actresses (Cook and Kirsten Vangsness, who, despite her comedic abilities just doesn't seem to have the flair for more emotional, "dramatic" work) that can't hold a candle to her. If CM replaces its males with toothless characters that have no business being with Hewitt then I'm out. CM is and always will be an ensemble- the showrunners should never mess with that, and should always pick the best actors for any role- regardless of their gender.

[Old Dog]

Danielg342 that was brilliant! I just wish someone from the show could read this. Well said.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Lastly, if we're going to have female leads, give us some good actresses that can carry the load. Throughout CM's entire history, I can only think of three that seemed capable of the challenge- Lola Glaudini (Elle), Paget Brewster (Prentiss) and Jennifer Love Hewitt (Callahan). I know Hewitt is new but she's impressed me so far. It's why I'm not so skittish about this direction because I think Hewitt would do a great job as CM's star- I just don't want her flanked by two actresses (Cook and Kirsten Vangsness, who, despite her comedic abilities just doesn't seem to have the flair for more emotional, "dramatic" work) that can't hold a candle to her. If CM replaces its males with toothless characters that have no business being with Hewitt then I'm out. CM is and always will be an ensemble- the showrunners should never mess with that, and should always pick the best actors for any role- regardless of their gender.

 

*headshake*

 

IMO, had the writing for Alex Blake been adequate, Jeanne Tripplehorn could have acquitted herself admirably in the role. Admittedly, she has a different, more reserved style of acting, but given good material she might have left more of an impression. At this point, I should probably let it drop, but it's an irk when she doesn't even get a mention. :-)

 

With that said, I agree with everything else you posted, Danielg342. I mind Hewitt less than I thought I would, and if whoever is still lavishing all of this attention on JJ would step back about ten thousand paces, the show might stand a chance of once again being an ensemble. If JJ must be ever-present, they should at least stop giving her scenes like the one in The Itch. I don't expect any of the characters to be perfectly well-mannered considering the kind of people who commit these crimes, but the woman JJ and Kate were questioning actually wasn't an UnSub, so all the snotty smuggery was really not called for. Whether that was the acting or the writing is up to you.

[zannej]

Daniel, I wish I could "like" your post more than once. I agree with all of it (although I do think Jeanne Tripplehorn had the chops if she'd actually been given something). Although, when she was paired with AJ it was painful to watch because the lines fell flat and it was like they weren't truly interacting with one another. One option is that AJ wasn't comfortable with Jeanne and wasn't giving enough. Her line delivery was awful. When you're acting and the other performer gives you nothing, it can be difficult to muster up the energy to put out a good performance. Its sort of like when you have people singing and one person sings off key. Even if the other person is a fantastic singer, the off-key singing can throw them off key as well.

 

I think there is a tendency for people to mix up misogyny and sexism. There was a loong debate on this about GamerGate. People tend to throw around the word misogyny quite liberally without seeming to understand what it actually means. Its an exaggeration and it is one of my pet peeves.

 

I think the reason the unsub in Boxed In chose boys was because I think he was somehow projecting himself on these boys. Perhaps he felt guilty for playing a part in disposing of his father's body and he felt he needed to be punished and the boys were proxies. He might not have felt it was right to hurt girls. 

 

Anyway, I think a lot of the stories lately seem to be more about showing just how horrific the acts of the unsubs are rather than actually caring about the victims. The victimology is usually skimped over OR they try to make the victims in to jerks or at least somewhat less sympathetic. I've also noticed that there is often a lack of urgency and suspense compared to earlier years.

[normasm]

Daniel, you made so many salient points, I can't address them all. Heck, I may not agree with them, even. But your expression was apt and solid.

 

The whole "political correctness" dreck started way back in the day, when people wanted a code for saying nasty things while being given credit for being truth-sayers. Garbage. Back in the day (as us old folks say, shaking our canes), I felt what naysayers called political correctness was just folks being polite and respectful of others who may (or may not) be in your ken, so to speak. I would certainly call a people by what the majority wanted to be called, unless corrected by an individual to his specifics. Polite, eh? Respectful of others, eh? Well, no, it's that awful political correctness. 

 

People harped about calling having to call black people African American, or having to call what they thought of as retarded people "mentally disabled." It gathered steam from there, and, yes, sometimes the so-called PC labels became more cumbersome than truly talking about what folks are going through, and so, reasonable people started to think, "yeah, this political correctness is grievous, burdensome and pernicious." Today, any time someone wants to discount an argument on a hot topic like rape, misogyny or gun proliferation, they scream "political correctness," and lots of people immediately dismiss the whole argument.

 

There is definitely still racism, misogyny and yahoo-ism in USA, and on its TV. It should be fought against. But it shouldn't be replaced by a false "correcting" of the correctness. IMO.

[alexvillage]

My take on some of the things here, starting with the poetical correct terms.

Sometimes these things are, indeed, annoying and pointless. Most of the time because it comes from NOT MEMBERS OF THE GROUP being talked about. I have friends that are activists, real activists, in minorities, intersectional minorities. The ones who are black, use the term "black". I really cannot say when the "African-American", or any hyphenated term to indicate ethnicity began and I cannot say for sure it was started by the non minority. I can say that among activists there is a little, sometimes a lot of push back.

As for "intellectually disabled" instead of "retarded", I can say, because I live this 24/7, that "retarded" is a very triggering and hurtful word that makes people unable to respond or interact when they hear the word. Not mentioning, like this conversation, but saying something, or someone, is "retarded" is truly hurtful. When you know the people and how this played out in their lives, then you can understand. And this is from people who are actually hurt and still devalued because of how they have been "classified".

There is a growing movement of people with mental illness that want the words "crazy", "insane", "deranged", "lunatic" to just not be used anymore. I could go into the details about that that but my point is, when people from a group actually ask that the privileged majority stops using some words in certain ways, my personal approach is to listen and try to understand why. As I said, in my life I can completely understand and emphasize with them because I can see how this affects them, still, even after a long time. This happens to the point that it triggers ME, since my best friends are activists in intersected minorities.

 

As for sexism, etc: Hollywood still is a white male, able bodied, neurotypical, heterosexual, jewish-christian club. I wish it could be more diverse and some shows are trying to be, really trying. But the majority still relies on the quota/token system: we need a woman, or two, we need a black, asian, hispanic - this are the most obvious and now we can sometimes see the religious theme getting into the mix. And even when good actresses are available, the men usually have top billing in the credits - it is a silly thing but it does happen, to have the name appear first in the opening credits. Again, some are trying to change that, as a real effort based on merit or to just play along. 

 

I have mixed feelings about this. I think any effort is valid, if nothing else to get viewers used to images of minorities. I still think it is not enough and tokenism still rules. At the same time it annoys me the obvious silly effort to make it happen. CM HAD to replace JJ with another woman, the same for Prentiss. While I welcome more women, I am pretty sure it is based on the "need" to have a quota.

 

I am still waiting for the transgender FBI agent, the disabled profiler (the real profiler), and so much more.

 

I will stop now because this can become a loooooong post. 

 

Before I go, I wish they had made Emily at least bisexual. That would make me VERY happy. I wished the same about Olivia in SVU, but that's another story and I don't care about her anymore ;)

[normasm]

Yes, I agree with what you said, alex, although I may have given you the opposite impression. I don't like to hear "political correctness" charged when a person (or a show, or a political party) is simply being respectful and/or compassionate by striving to use unhurtful words. When a large group asks that people use the term African American, but an individual tells me, "I prefer the term black," I don't think it's too taxing on my poor little brain to try to keep that straight. There's some terms I would not like to hear used in reference to my white hide, and if people don't use them because political correctness, I'm still grateful not to hear them. 

 

My response to the charge that such'n'such is being politically correct has always been, "what's wrong with being respectful of people?"

[alexvillage]

I wasn't criticizing any of the posts. This is just something that is always on my mind and I let my activism come out pretty often. 

I totally agree with you and I am grateful when I hear people saying what you just said:

 

"what's wrong with being respectful of people?"

And to me, this is going both ways. For example, like I said, my life is 24/7 around disabilities. Most of my friends are Autistic and they call themselves "Autistic". There is always someone - usually non-autistic and non-disabled - that says: "no, you are a person WITH autism. You are a person first"

Without going into the debate of the language, how can someone tell someone else how to identify? Because literally all my Autistic friends prefer identity first language, that's my default when talking about autism. But if an Autistic person hears me and says: I prefer person-first language, it is my obligation to respect that. So, to that person, and when talking about that person I will use person first language.

The same goes for African american and black. My friends prefer black but I know some prefer African american. I say black but I don't correct people who use african american, unless it is what I call an empty expression. I go by the preference of the people who are being referred to. Or at least I try.

[normasm]

Without going into the debate of the language, how can someone tell someone else how to identify? Because literally all my Autistic friends prefer identity first language, that's my default when talking about autism. But if an Autistic person hears me and says: I prefer person-first language, it is my obligation to respect that. So, to that person, and when talking about that person I will use person first language.

The same goes for African american and black. My friends prefer black but I know some prefer African american. I say black but I don't correct people who use african american, unless it is what I call an empty expression. I go by the preference of the people who are being referred to. Or at least I try.

Yes, ma'am!

[Cobalt Stargazer]

As for sexism, etc: Hollywood still is a white male, able bodied, neurotypical, heterosexual, jewish-christian club. I wish it could be more diverse and some shows are trying to be, really trying. But the majority still relies on the quota/token system: we need a woman, or two, we need a black, asian, hispanic - this are the most obvious and now we can sometimes see the religious theme getting into the mix. And even when good actresses are available, the men usually have top billing in the credits - it is a silly thing but it does happen, to have the name appear first in the opening credits. Again, some are trying to change that, as a real effort based on merit or to just play along. 

 

I have mixed feelings about this. I think any effort is valid, if nothing else to get viewers used to images of minorities. I still think it is not enough and tokenism still rules. At the same time it annoys me the obvious silly effort to make it happen. CM HAD to replace JJ with another woman, the same for Prentiss. While I welcome more women, I am pretty sure it is based on the "need" to have a quota.

 

I swear I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, but are there people who aren't used to seeing minorities, either on television or in real life? Maybe fifty years ago, sure, but with the advent of the internet and the proliferation of TVs in almost every home, most people know that they exist. I'm also sure that there are people who are content to live under a rock and pretend that minorities don't exist, but they probably don't watch television very much. I don't know what neurotypical means, by the way, could you define it for me?

 

As for the thing about the credits, in the early days of the show Mandy got top billing, and now its Joe. Thomas, who's been here since the beginning, has been relegated to the tail end while AJ and Kirsten appear before him. In Mandy and Joe's case, it sort of makes sense that they would get top billing, if only because they were the 'names' in the cast. Most shows generally need someone recognizable to say to viewers, "Hey, come watch this!"

 

For me personally, it isn't so much the quota thing, although because it's Hollywood there might very well be one, just as there's a quota in "real life" jobs. For a long time, Morgan was the only black member of the team. They had Jordan for a while, but then she left, and then Morgan was the only one again. Is that racist, or is that just the easiest assumption to make? And then we have JJ, who can't be just a female agent, she has to be some kind of Uber-woman who almost killed Bin Laden in order to appease the twittering twitterers on Twitter. It's not that women can't be tough, and quite frankly I could see Elle or even Emily taking down a  major terrorist before JJ. They ran Compromising Positions on A & E this morning, and Emily shot the UnSub through the bag she was carrying before he could go postal in the middle of a crowd. That's being an effective agent, plus Prentiss with a gun is just....yeah.

 

So I guess what I'm really saying is that if it was less obviously a pandering effort to make JJ (and characters like JJ, for that matter) into Sarah Connor, I wouldn't mind her at all. IMO, that's not sexist, it's being annoyed at the obnoxiousness of it.

[alexvillage]

 

I swear I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, but are there people who aren't used to seeing minorities, either on television or in real life? Maybe fifty years ago, sure, but with the advent of the internet and the proliferation of TVs in almost every home, most people know that they exist. I'm also sure that there are people who are content to live under a rock and pretend that minorities don't exist, but they probably don't watch television very much. I don't know what neurotypical means, by the way, could you define it for me?

Neurotypical is the opposite of neurodivergent. Neurotypical are the majority, the ones who do not identify (or do not have a diagnosis) of autism, ADHD, bipolar, dyslexia or anything that makes the brain function in a different way, perceiving things differently, reacting to things differently. Neurodivergent people do have a different brain, biologically speaking.

To your point of everyone sees majorities. Yes, that's true. What is also true is that privilege exists. In America the most privileged ones are White male able bodied, neurotypical, christian, heterosexual. Any of these identifiers will make a person privileged. And even if culturally we have made progress, the attitudinal progress is way behind.

 

 

As for the thing about the credits, in the early days of the show Mandy got top billing, and now its Joe. Thomas, who's been here since the beginning, has been relegated to the tail end while AJ and Kirsten appear before him. In Mandy and Joe's case, it sort of makes sense that they would get top billing, if only because they were the 'names' in the cast. Most shows generally need someone recognizable to say to viewers, "Hey, come watch this!"

Right, your account is correct. The thing is, when JM came in, TG moved to the back but with a "special" reference. Something like a "with", or another modifier. The same happened with JT, I think. Agents do that web there are two "stars", to make sure they have a mention that differentiates them from the others in the main cast. I speculate that it was acceptable that MP had a higher billing than TG but then he left and TG would move to the first name in the credits. But JM is considered a "big star" so they got him first and made the "special" reference to TG in the end. It happens in every show.

 

 

So I guess what I'm really saying is that if it was less obviously a pandering effort to make JJ (and characters like JJ, for that matter) into Sarah Connor, I wouldn't mind her at all. IMO, that's not sexist, it's being annoyed at the obnoxiousness of it.

I agree with you. 

My point was a general one, not specific about CM

 

As for your point on quotas this is absolutely what happens in real life. There is also some racism, even when internalized racism. Black people are less likely to (insert example of high accomplishment here) when presenting same qualifications as white people. Even tough blacks are a minority, they are a majority in prisons; in NYC blacks are more likely to be stopped and frisked, even when they don't fit the stereotypical "gang dress code"; even tough more whites use drugs, more blacks are arrested and convicted for the use of the same drug. The list goes on

 

And sexism follows the same pattern. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

My point was a general one, not specific about CM

 

As for your point on quotas this is absolutely what happens in real life. There is also some racism, even when internalized racism. Black people are less likely to (insert example of high accomplishment here) when presenting same qualifications as white people. Even tough blacks are a minority, they are a majority in prisons; in NYC blacks are more likely to be stopped and frisked, even when they don't fit the stereotypical "gang dress code"; even tough more whites use drugs, more blacks are arrested and convicted for the use of the same drug. The list goes on

 

And sexism follows the same pattern. 

 

Fair enough, but part of my point was also that, in order to combat the claims about sexism, the character of JJ has been ratcheted up to the power of a million, so that she's better, stronger, faster than any other agent in the history of ever. It's that kind of "Look how sexist we're not!" that seems a little self-defeating. Add that to the stuff about how she's also a mother, as if that's an alien species, and it's even more annoying to me. And before that, they had all of the team members being nearly interchangeable, with blandly perfect skill sets. I don't disagree that people have thoughts that they shouldn't, or that isms don't still exist because they do, but the solution to that is to become genuinely enlightened, not to make Harrison Bergeron reality.

[alexvillage]

I haven't given much thought on the why CM made JJ the super bestest at everything. But what you said makes sense

[normasm]

Fair enough, but part of my point was also that, in order to combat the claims about sexism, the character of JJ has been ratcheted up to the power of a million, so that she's better, stronger, faster than any other agent in the history of ever. It's that kind of "Look how sexist we're not!" that seems a little self-defeating.

 

And that is part of what I was trying to say also, thanks CoStar. 

[Knittzu]

Most of my friends are Autistic and they call themselves "Autistic". There is always someone - usually non-autistic and non-disabled - that says: "no, you are a person WITH autism. You are a person first"

 

 

Dear lord. You know, stuff like this really makes me question the assumption that Autistic people are the ones with social communication problems.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Dear lord. You know, stuff like this really makes me question the assumption that Autistic people are the ones with social communication problems.

 

I agree with this. I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone what their identity should be, particularly if they aren't educated about things like autism. I know people who have been diagnosed with Asperger's, and they have similar issues.

 

OTOH, to be fair, identity has become politicized, along with feminism IMO. A perfect example of this, as it relates to television, is the character of Paul Robinette, who was an A.D.A on the Mothership of L & O and played by Richard Brooks. Paul worked in Ben Stone's office (this was before the cheese slid off of Michael Moriarty's cracker) and he was a tough but fair prosecutor. Brooks left the role in '93, then returned three years later, only this time Paul was a defense attorney fighting to keep the same people out of jail that he'd wanted to lock up before. I think it was Sam Waterston's Jack McCoy who asked him about the radical shift in his attitude, and Paul told him "there was a point where I realized that I had to decide if I was a lawyer who was black or a black lawyer" and that he had chosen to be the latter. Of course people change their minds and their perspective on life all the time, but it was still a total one eighty from Original Recipe!Paul.

[missmycat]

The credits go as following: Joe, Shemar, Matthew, AJ and Kirsten followed by "With Jennifer Love Hewitt  "And Thomas Gibson" This gives both JLH and TG special status. In actuality Kirsten would be considered the lowest billed cast member.

 

So for all intense purposes AJ Cook, who is the second lowest billed actress on the show, has so far been given tons of screentime/focus, a 2 hour season finale and a milestone episode. And now we know she is on par to get another special episode. All that is left for Messer to give her "golden girl" is a season premiere episode.

 

Now nobody needs to explain to me why Erica Messer keeps showing AJ/JJ this blatant favoritism at the expense of some of the other cast members who just so happened to be billed higher than AJ in the credits. But I do find myself wondering at what point is CBS going to decide to grow a pair and say enough is enough. Sadly I don't see any sign of that happening anytime soon. 

Edited November 4, 2014 by missmycat

[spinner33]

The way Messer plays favorites with AJ is appalling!  =\  

[missmycat]

The way Messer plays favorites with AJ is appalling!  =\  

I agree. But the fact that CBS keeps letting Messer get away with her blatant favoritism of the JJ character often at the expense of some of the other characters is even more appalling to me. It was beyond disgraceful that CBS actually signed off on that travesty of an episode known as '200'

[Katenotplus8]

I keep hoping with each new episode that my dislike of JLH will lessen.  It doesn't.  I really wish they would have left her out of this show.  

[Knittzu]

LOL, apparently you haven't heard the good news, Kate!

JLH has returned the show to its former glory!

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452046/board/thread/236454544

[Katenotplus8]

Thank you Knittzu for bringing me up to speed!  I had no idea I was missing this.  I never liked Elle, and neither liked or disliked Blake, but I'd take either of them back in a flash if it could mean getting rid of JLH's Kate.  In my perfect world, Emily would be back, we'd have JJ 1.0, even screen time for all, no full reveal of unsubs until near the end, and they never would have killed Maeve off.  But that's my dream world.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

LOL, apparently you haven't heard the good news, Kate!

JLH has returned the show to its former glory!

 

FFS.....

 

"When news first broke that the 35-year-old was scheduled to join the hit CBS series, many eyebrows were raised and full-blown scepticism reared its head in regards to how well the Texas native would fit in with the beloved cast. This scrutiny was in no doubt warranted, as previous new character installment member Jeanne Tripplehorn failed to impress die-hard fans of the show, and this lack of approval was not exactly unwarranted.

 

While Tripplehorn was in no way unqualified for her role of Alex Blake through season’s eight to nine, it was more that her acting ability did not quite fit in with what the show’s fans had become accustomed to. While the woman had certainly made her mark on various crime shows and movies, the issue was that she just did not fit in with the show’s dynamic and characters, no matter how much she tried. Her leave of absence after two years was, without prejudice to the actress herself, welcome to viewers of Criminal Minds due to the show’s lacklustre performance over the past few years."

 

'Without prejudice'? Really? Don't kid a kidder, okay? UGH.

 

I might have to change my mind about Hewitt if this is the kind of thing her fans are putting out there on the 'net. No offense to Jennifer*, because at least she's a better actress than AJ, but I cannot endure another round of "let's bash JT". It's like they're all a bunch of Mandy Patinkins or something.

 

*I don't blame Paget either, just to be clear.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Knittzu]

I know, right?

 

I don't have a problem with Callahan but maybe that's only because she's barely present. They could have installed a new potted plant in the round table room for all the impact she's had so far. Besides, with 99.9 percent of my annoyance tied up with JJ, she'd have to.... oh, I dunno. Maybe whip off her shirt and dance the cha-cha across the bullpen while insulting Reid and executing perfect mixed-martial-arts moves before she'd even start getting a share of my stink-eye.

 

(Although I REALLY should not be daring the writers to create a character even more annoying than JJ because I'm certain they're up to the task.)

[SSAHotchner]

Love this post of yours, CoStar. Yeah, to me, feminism doesn't change over time because younger folks "discover" it and think they invented it! Feminism is and always will be treating females with the same respect and regard as males receive, not a whole lot more complex than that. While, of course, there are differences in male and female humans in lots of ways, just the XX or XY is not a criterion for unequal treatment. /rant

 

But, yeah, Emily just always was a strong female who simply did everything Morgan did without stretching credulity. It was never a comparison or competition. She saw Cyrus pointing the gun at Reid and knew that if he was the agent, Cyrus would have pulled the trigger. Male pride and dominance, ya know. With it being her, Cyrus (who, no doubt, was not a feminist by anyone's definition!) thought he just had to put her back in her woman-place by smacking that bitch up. 

 

The charge of misogyny that we've discussed a lot on this forum is bogus, but TPTB have bent over backwards to try to please this crowd with their squeaky wheel by turning reality on its head and having 20 times the percentage of female unsubs that exist in reality, and probably that many times the amount of male victims as exist in reality. All to placate a population of fans who are screaming from an uninformed position.

 

I always felt that Emily stepped up in that scene because she had seen Reid being tortured in Revelations and didn't want to see him hurt again. I felt it was kind of an "it's my turn" thing for her. And it allowed Reid to get closer to Cyrus and find out what his plans were. He never would have revealed anything to Emily. They were all so intuitive in that episode. Rossi knowing how to deal with a hostage situation. Hotch knowing that Rossi would be the right one to handle it. Reid innocently playing up to Cyrus' vanity and correctly assessing the situation. And Emily reading the signals from Cyrus, deducing that Jessica's mother was the one who made the call to the authorities, and knowing that the team would come to get them out. Emily could be strong when necessary but she also was very in tune with her teammates and reached out to them whenever they were stressed, sad, whatever. I also loved the way she worked with Jordan Todd. She extended the hand of friendship, empathized with her, went to bat for her with Hotch. I think that Blake could have been a great character and that there's plenty of potential for Callahan, but it's clear the current writers don't know how to write such complex characters.

[Danielg342]

Heh. GamerGate...I could on all day about how the whole thing is nothing more than one big petty high school fight with people doing everything they can to bully the other side and not have an actual dialog about ethics in gaming, but I digress. That's a topic for another forum.

 

I do think it'd make a great CM episode though...all the commentaries GamerGate raises about gender issues and how people behave in the gamer community and how it responds to criticism is ripe for lots of profiling. It'd also give Garcia something substantive to do that's actually up her alley.

 

With regards to political correctness, just to clarify, I use the term only to mean instances where it's clear the usage is being done in a faux sense of inclusiveness, not when people are actually trying to be inclusive. For me, using "African American" versus "black" is a matter of style- the former is more formal while the latter, though having acceptable usage in a formal setting, is typically informal. Obviously, if someone wanted me to identify themselves as "black" I'd do so, but otherwise, since I believe in describing things "properly" (as in, more "exact" terms than informal designations tend to allow), I'd rather use "African-(country)" or the actual country someone is from, like Kenyan or Zimbabwean or Jamaican, than to be, for the lack of better terms, "lazy" and say they're simply "black".

 

That's just me though. Anyway, that's the kind of political correctness I'm railing against, because I can't see how current trends really help things out in the long term.

 

A corollary to this is something I read in "If The Shoe Fits". Zannej had said that if the UnSub is female then the victims ought to be female too, and I think there's something to this. We've had men targetting women, men targetting men and women targetting men but we've never had women targetting women (except maybe "Somebody's Watching", but even she was an omnivore), so it seems natural to me that we get a case that's like this. It wouldn't even take too thinking outside of the box to invent- a beauty pageant would be a nice venue for something like this, for instance, or even just high school or college.

 

The only thing that would worry me about a situation like this is that, on CM, they don't tend to write for their women particularly well. As seems to be the case on a lot of TV shows, the women seem to act the way that a man seems to think they would act instead of acting the way that a woman would actually act. I do grant that the writers of CM tend to do a better job than on other shows- at least we get women that are strong, intelligent, independent women that are at least somewhat grounded in reality, as opposed to a show like Gotham that writes its women to either be vulnerable or highly sexualized, essentially creating nothing more than "male fantasy types" than anything remotely realistic.

 

That said, CM seems to fall into the trap, more often than not, that its female characters cannot be warm or cute without sacrificing their inner toughness and we all know that's not true. We either get women who are outwardly tough and display a cold, detached "distance" from others (JJ, Prentiss, Strauss), excessively vulnerable (the preferred "female victim" type) or so cute that they're essentially overgrown children (Garcia). It seems telling that the character whose traits would present the most realistic depiction of a female is actually a male character, Reid, which I think explains part of his appeal (in fact, I'd probably argue that Hotch and Morgan too, with their empathy, can be more "feminine" at times than the women on this show). I do think Callahan might appear that she could be a warm, fuzzy woman with toughness on the inside, but so far it seems like this interpretation comes from Jennifer Love Hewitt, not from the writing, which seems to want to reinforce the idea that Callahan likes beating up perps (please just let this be a phase). I hope that the warm, loving but tough Callahan is the character we get, since it may indicate to me that CM finally realizes that "feminine" doesn't have to mean you sacrifice your toughness, but I'm not getting my hopes too far up.

 

I also can't remember the last time CM actually tried to tackle something that's considered a "woman's issue". Sure, we've had episodes with prostitutes and rape, but, again, those seemed to be written with a male perspective in mind. When it comes to rape, as far as I understand, we've only had one case that dealt with it specifically- "Aftermath"- but that episode was more about why the man wanted to rape the women, and didn't do too much exploring about the effects of rape on women. Considering how much attention things like "rape culture" or the Steubenville high school case or the suicide of Amanda Todd got, it's apparent that there's a lot of ripe storylines for exploring the topic. I did a fic once that mirrored the Todd case and in another short story series of mine, I tried to understand one possibility about why rapists escape prosecution. Certainly I think CM could cover those topics themselves- the only question would be whether or not they'd do it well. The old writing team could. I'm not so sure about this one.

 

Also, if the writers believe rape is too sensitive a topic to explore, there's plenty of other women's issues that they can cover. We could have an episode about a pimp that exploits women and explores why women get into prostitution. Or, if that's too sensitive a topic, how about an episode about a career woman who's held back advancing in her career by narrow-minded men? What about an episode about the difficulties of single motherhood, or even just a career woman with a family (something JJ's storyline conveniently bypasses addressing)? This is just the tip of the iceberg- we can get into other forms of sexual harassment, domestic violence, or even just simple female jealousy...the possibilities are endless.

 

We just need CM to be visionary enough to see that.

[zannej]

I do think there is a point to some "political correctness" but it often just goes beyond reason. I think it was Winston Churchill who said "Political Correctness is tyranny with manners."

 

I do think it is stupid when they want to take a word and speak about it without saying it-- like saying "The R Word". It only gives that word more power. Plus then people get bent out of shape when it is used as one of its literal definitions (hindered or slowed). The ironic thing is, retarded was actually coined because it was deemed less offensive than idiot, imbecile, and moron. Those terms did not originate as insults-- they were different classifications of people with low IQs. I forget what the order was on which was the lowest and which was the highest.

 

I also think that intent is an important part of communication and that people should consider a person's intent when they say something. If they don't mean any harm or don't mean to insult someone, that should be considered. I do say things like "That's retarded" and make the Tropic Thunder reference "went full retard", but I would never refer to someone who was actually mentally disabled as a retard, nor would I call them that. My brother, on the other hand, is Retardo Montelban (said affectionately). 

 

I could really go off on a long rant about how banning words won't change people's attitudes. Speaking of autism, a friend of mine put up a blog called autisticandawesome.wordpress.com. She didn't speak until she was about 9 years old and now she's working at Caltech doing brain scans and participating in research to study autism and ways to teach autistic students. She DESPISES behavior modification. She's also quite amusing. I wish she would post over here, but I think she's too busy now.

 

My sister was laughing at GamerGate because there were guys in their late teens and 20s that were whining about girls butting in to gaming when my sister and I have been playing video games since before those guys were born. 

 

As for people not being used to seeing other races, that *does* actually happen. They view people as "the other race" and think of them as some sort of alien species in a way. "They" live in the other part of town. And when they started moving in to the mostly white neighborhoods, the elderly folk started complaining that their neighborhoods turned to crap-- but it was my observation that it was the white druggies/thieves that were turning the neighborhood to trash. I've talked to some elderly people who don't hate other races, but they grew up with the mixing of races being such a social stigma that they can't accept that people are intermingling and sharing workplaces and such. It blows their minds. It's not that they are hateful, its that they were raised that way and in some of them it was literally beaten into them.

 

It is sad to see so many racist and sexist attitudes in the world-- and now there is politicism where people are discriminated on based on politics. But that is a rant for another day.

 

I do hope that if they have Callahan pushing the "let's beat these scumbags up" attitude that Morgan will step in and say "That's now how we do things" and maybe have Reid say why that doesn't help. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the team disagree (respectfully) about how to handle people.

 

As to female on female crime on CM: In "I Love You Tommy Brown" the woman shot a girl who got in the way (but it wasn't a planned attack). In "Today I Do" the unsub (who was dubbed "Orca the Babbling Narcissist" on the IMDB) abducted a woman. The girls in "North Mammon" eventually killed one of the girls, although that was coerced. Most of the time the women tend to target men or both genders and not women exclusively.

 

I agree that CM currently has the extremes where the tough women can't be soft and the soft women can't be tough to an extend. I admit that just once I want to see Reid roll his eyes at JJ for saying something ignorant or stupid or showing a lack of understanding something. Like she tries to understand it and can't get it and Reid is facepalming and not wanting to insult her. of course, they would probably never have that happen. I also want to see Reid try to explain how it is simple to be able to solve mathematical equations in your head if you practice certain memory techniques. Like if someone needs to add something up and doesn't have a calculator-- then they call in Reid. I also wouldn't mind seeing Hotch having a debate on literature with Rossi and Reid.

[Droogie]

Danielg342, I wanted to quote part of your post but I couldn't because iPad. Anyway, the Steubenville rape case would make a phenomenal episode. I live near Steubenville (I can see it from my house) and the entire region is still at odds over that case. I mean, you literally cannot talk about it at all without starting a fight at work, the hair salon, anywhere. The fire was reignited recently due to one of the boys being released from the detention center and allowed back on the football team.

I hear that a movie is already in the planning stages. It would be awesome for CM to get the jump on that and do a related episode.

[alexvillage]

 

I'd rather use "African-(country)" or the actual country someone is from, like Kenyan or Zimbabwean or Jamaican, than to be, for the lack of better terms, "lazy" and say they're simply "black".

The problem is most people are ignorant. there is a recent case of a teacher who was using "African-American" in class and four students asked her to refer to them (the four of them) as "black" because they were not African-american, they were from Jamaica. The teacher went on a rant about how long ago they would be called N****r and that African-american is the "right" term, they should be happy or she would call them the N-word

A TEACHER!

 

Zannej,  First the order of the terms you mentioned is correct. 

My problem with using the words, even if "lightly", is that I have seen the reactions of people I love just by hearing the word. It is a gut, emotional reaction that I don't like to feel when triggered by something that causes me to remember or even relive certain situations. "Idiot", "Imbecile" and "moron" would, imo, cause the same reaction if they had continued to be used to demean people. The older people I know still ask that we don't use it. I say "I am an idiot" quite often and I am trying to police myself because I really hurt someone I love by doing this, even if I say it about myself. 

I do know some people don't care, yet some people say that the people they are referring to don't care, which is unfair, if we never ask.

Words are interesting. We change their meanings and they become something else. I try not to use words that are hurtful, specially to minorities, because they were oppressed by those same words. Not offended, really oppressed, like sent to institutions because of the wording of the doctors, or mocked and neglected because of the terms a school used (this I have seen with my own eyes, and got chastised, to say the least, for stepping up against it), or treated without dignity because the family was so used to call this person "retarded" that after they could not longer assist him, the ones who did refused to see his qualities and humanity). All this because of words. But that's me. I usually ask people not to do this but I have somewhat resigned (shame on me, but true) to the fact that people will do it. So, if I glance at such words that trigger me, I stop reading. If someone says them in from of me, I walk away (or say something, depending on who said it).

I agree with your point that trying to ban words only make them more visible. I do think some words should not be used. I just don't agree on how the R-word project was done. Again, non-disabled people trying to direct the conversation. I do believe that it should have been done by the people who were hurt by the word.

I will try to stop now. Sorry about the long post

[Cobalt Stargazer]

The problem is most people are ignorant. there is a recent case of a teacher who was using "African-American" in class and four students asked her to refer to them (the four of them) as "black" because they were not African-american, they were from Jamaica. The teacher went on a rant about how long ago they would be called N****r and that African-american is the "right" term, they should be happy or she would call them the N-word

A TEACHER!

 

Firstly, yikes. I hope that teacher was reported and then summarily dismissed, because they need to be selling air conditioners at Sears or something, not working with children.

 

I do, however, think that it's possible to discourage ignorance without swinging wildly to the opposite end of the spectrum. We Americans are a sensitive, and let's face it, a litigious bunch, and in a world where a fast food joint can be sued because someone burned themselves with their coffee and have to pay out two hundred grand, there has perhaps been an over-correction somewhere. Teachers should not be allowed to use such language in the classroom, obviously, but unless you specifically order an iced coffee, its going to be hot. Hell, they even put a damn caution warning on the cup.

 

To bring it back to the show, CM started with an actual genius character in Spencer Reid, and over time they've gradually both stripped him of his smarts and pushed him into the background. I don't care that he wasn't a totally realistic character. For one thing, this is television, and for another MGG brings as much to the role as he can considering the scattershot writing. If I wanted real life, I'd hang out with my neighbors or something. Were they worried that he was 'too smart' so they had to dumb him down because he made the other characters look dumb? That he made viewers feel bad because he made them feel dumb? I'm only being partly facetious, particularly since they've pushed JJ to the forefront and made her the awesomest awesome that ever awesomed. I could make a big point about the PC overtones of sidelining a man in favor of a woman, but I probably don't have to because I'm sure ya'll are smart enough to get it for yourselves. It kind of tickles me a little bit to think that they don't care about making JJ's fans feel bad by making her the be-all and end -all, since I'd like to think that there's an actual reason that they took away Reid's brains and not just that they're over-employed lazy asses. There's an 'ism' for you.