"Oh HELL No!": TV Moments That Make You Irate

[Spartan Girl]

For the record, I can’t blame Charlie Brown for never standing up for himself. The poor kid was broken down by years of being crapped on.

Even though he doesn’t really remember any of the dance afterward, he still has that moment of happiness which he more than deserved. Doesn’t make up for any of it, but anytime he got to be even a little happy—rare as those moments were— I was happy.

16 minutes ago, Blergh said:

I guess this Sparky couldn't let CB have even a moderately pleasant time prior to getting that kiss. 

Supposedly on his deathbed, Schultz expressed regret that he never let him got to kick that football. 

[magicdog]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Another ire-inducing moment comes from It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown. Lucy costs the football team the whole game because she just can't resist pulling her little football stunt with Charlie Brown over and over. But who does everyone blame for losing?  Charlie Brown.

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!

Anyone with eyes could have seen that Lucy kept pulling the ball away. But is she held accountable? Does anyone call her out on her crap?! Nope.

I remember this when I first watched the special as a kid.  Even I thought it was ridiculous that Charlie Brown was blamed for the loss when it was obvious he wouldn't have missed if Lucy hadn't pulled the ball away!!  You'd think they were watching a different game!  It was also unfair for Charlie Brown to not even remember the night with Heather or the party beyond the kiss!!  He deserved that much!  

I have heard the Charles Schultz got a lot of angry letters from kids who saw that and felt they took Charlie Brown's misfortunes too far.     

[Shannon L.]

I could never get over the fact that grown adults were giving Charlie Brown rocks on Halloween.  WTF, people? 

[Constant Viewer]

On 11/17/2021 at 2:33 PM, Shannon L. said:

I could never get over the fact that grown adults were giving Charlie Brown rocks on Halloween.  WTF, people? 

Or that Linus' parents let him spend the night in a pumpkin patch. It is Lucy who actually has to go out and bring him home for the night!

[Haleth]

On 11/17/2021 at 3:33 PM, Shannon L. said:

I could never get over the fact that grown adults were giving Charlie Brown rocks on Halloween.  WTF, people? 

Right?  Why would someone(s) do that to an innocent kid?  It should be changed to something less mean.  Like black licorice or an apple or something.

[AgathaC]

Very much agreed on some of those Peanuts shows! I loved the Peanuts gang growing up. One of my first/favorite stuffed animals was a Snoopy with several outfits. I have a photo of the two of us with me wearing his “Dr. Snoopy” scrubs. (My parents must have been very bored.) We were kindred spirits.

So, when I got to about kindergarten age and started to see some of the animated specials, it was very disillusioning. The characters were so mean to Charlie Brown! I couldn’t understand it. With the Thanksgiving one, I got very mad at Peppermint Patty. “You invited yourself over! You don’t get to complain about the food!” Valentines just made me sad.

Finally I decided I just didn’t want to watch anymore and stuck with reading the comics, which usually didn’t seem as bad. But looking back at them as an adult, I get that same feeling of “what the hell is this?!?!”

[Wiendish Fitch]

6 hours ago, Haleth said:

Right?  Why would someone(s) do that to an innocent kid?  It should be changed to something less mean.  Like black licorice or an apple or something.

For your amusement, a preview clip of the gentlemen of RiffTrax quipping over It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.

 

[kathyk24]

On 11/17/2021 at 2:57 PM, magicdog said:

I remember this when I first watched the special as a kid.  Even I thought it was ridiculous that Charlie Brown was blamed for the loss when it was obvious he wouldn't have missed if Lucy hadn't pulled the ball away!!  You'd think they were watching a different game!  It was also unfair for Charlie Brown to not even remember the night with Heather or the party beyond the kiss!!  He deserved that much!  

I have heard the Charles Schultz got a lot of angry letters from kids who saw that and felt they took Charlie Brown's misfortunes too far.     

I heard that kids sent Charlie Brown Halloween candy and Valentine's Day cards after watching the specials. There is a special where he has to read War and Peace over vacation. Who does that? Charlie Brown is in elementary school not college.

[Blergh]

They sure had some negligent parents! Like why did not just Peppermint Patty's but also Marcie's and Frankin's parents just let them walk off on Peppermint Patty's whim to invite herself to the Round Head Kid's house instead of insisting they each stay home and eat Thanksgiving Dinner with their OWN families?! I know that Peppermint Patty would reveal herself to be the only child of a presumably widowed (albeit unseen) father who the audience might have given the benefit of the doubt may not have had the culinary skills to have put together a multicourse traditional dinner for himself and his daughter but both Marcie and Franklin seem to have come from homes with both parents living and residing under the same roof as their offspring. 

Of course, one could give Sparky more leeway to have avoided explanations in the funny papers since it's tough to depict extensive background stories-especially during the six days a week when he only had four panels to work with. However, there was far more time during the specials to have done so (and, yes, some of the less charming songs or pantomime segments could have been scrapped for that purpose).

Edited November 20, 2021 by Blergh

[Leeds]

I have never understood why the Charlie Brown strip or any of the characters were supposed to be amusing or even diverting.

[proserpina65]

I love It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown, but I do find myself wondering each time I see it, who the hell gives out rocks for trick-or-treating?

[Bruinsfan]

People who want to get them back through their windows later that night, I'm thinking.

[merylinkid]

Who the hell gives out vastly different treats?   I mean you might go to a house and they have the variety package of fun sized candy bars but that its.   If a house is giving out root beer barrels, EVERYONE gets root beer barrels.  If you have the variety pack, someone might have a payday, and someone a mars bar, but everyone gets a candy bar.   But no, every dicussion, even though they obviously just went to the same house, "I got an apple, I got a candy bar, I got a rock."  

[proserpina65]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:40 AM, merylinkid said:

Who the hell gives out vastly different treats?   I mean you might go to a house and they have the variety package of fun sized candy bars but that its.   If a house is giving out root beer barrels, EVERYONE gets root beer barrels.  If you have the variety pack, someone might have a payday, and someone a mars bar, but everyone gets a candy bar.   But no, every dicussion, even though they obviously just went to the same house, "I got an apple, I got a candy bar, I got a rock."  

At my house, it's more like "I got a Butterfinger, I got a Tootsie Pop".  Still no rocks, though.

[Mabinogia]

5 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Still no rocks, though.

I might have gotten some Pop Rocks once. I usually just got assorted chocolate bars though. We never had that one house who hands out apples or toothbrushes or whatever. If they weren't giving me sugar in some form, I wasn't gonna be stopping at their house. 

And from what I'm reading here, pretty much all of Charlie Brown makes me irate! How did I not remember how horrible everyone was to poor Charlie Brown? Granted my memory sucks and I really only liked Snoopy's Red Baron stuff so I probably didn't really notice anyway. 

[Spartan Girl]

I know I open a can of worms every time I mention anything about Buffy, specifically when it relates to Xander leaving Anya at the altar, but here it goes:

After Anya told Xander that since she couldn’t use her regained her vengeance demon powers to hurt Xander, she’d have to settle for hating him, his response “Okay, if that’s what you need to do” really made me see red.

He could have said “Okay, I deserve that” because, yeah, she IS entitled to hate him after what he did—not revenge, just hating him. Or he could have said nothing at all, kept his trap shut for once in his life instead of feeling obligated to share his “wit” with everyone. But no. He said “If that’s what you need to do” in a woe-is-me tone, right out of the playing-the-victim handbook. 

Making me madder is how when Anya rightfully called out that tactic and tells him their breakup was his fault, Xander goes off on a bizarre rant blaming himself for Tara and Buffy getting shot because he didn’t stop Warren blah blah when it was obvious that wasn’t even what Anya was talking about, and I really feel Whedon and writers did it on purpose to make the audience go “poor Xander poor Xander, Anya’s being such a bitch.” 

And let me clarify again: I’m not justifying Anya’s earlier attempts to trick the others into a wish that she could use to kill him. That was wrong, end of story. But that has nothing to do with this moment.

In fact, the whole “Anya getting her vengeance on again” story felt like an excuse for Whedon to treat his female characters like dirt, absolving Xander’s shitty actions by vilifying Anya and regressing her character growth. “Yes what Xander did was wrong, but look how much worse Anya is!” He did the exact same thing to Cordelia: Xander cheats on her, and she immediately regresses back to being the mean girl (albeit one who still helps out). Classic woman scorned trope. It’s pathetic and lazy.

[magicdog]

OK - another irate moment brought to you by The Millionaire:

In, Millionaire Jim Hayes (1959), the titular character is a freaking Class A jerk!

Early in the episode we're introduced to Jim Hayes and his wife Shelly.  They live in a small apartment.  He's a corporate drone trying to work up the ladder while his wife is a housewife.  However, Jim has a penchant for inviting either co-workers or supervisors  to his home for dinner and fun often with last minute notice to Shelly.  We see one such party mess the next morning, in which Jim is getting ready for work while lecturing Shelly how to be more efficient in keeping house (since she was exhausted the night before and Jim never bothered to do any cleanup either).  He tells her how she could just "organize" herself better (saving so many steps to go from kitchen to toaster to the table, etc.) and acting like he has no responsibility whatsoever!  Now, later in the day, Jim calls and tells Shelly the plant manager will be coming to town and he needs her to prepare something for dinner at their place that night.   

Shelly gets fed up and after cleaning the house, tells Jim he can take the manager out to dinner and she was taking the day off!  When he finally gets home she tells him if he wants a housekeeper, she expects to be paid as one ($35.00/week) and Thursdays off.  She also sleeps in the spare bedroom and says it would be improper to be too "familiar" with her employer.

He thinks it's a joke at first, but she gives him a taste of his medicine by acting like an employee and actually taking Thursdays off!  Jim is frustrated and thinks he blew it.  He seems to come to his senses when....

Mark Anthony shows up with the check.  He decides to go buy a big house (furnished and all) and even hires a housekeeper!  Then he coldly sends a note to Shelly that his new address is at this house and she can interview for a position.  The housekeeper treats her like a potential employee (being in on the gag with Jim) and tells her she'll "try her out".  

Eventually, Jim gets Shelly to reconcile if she'll stop being an employee and be his wife again.

The end

NO!! NO! NO!!

Now, I'm old fashioned myself, but this is beyond gender roles!  This is outright taking Shelly for granted and rather thoughtless of Jim to invite people without even giving her notice!  Then HE gets the million dollars (I honestly thought Shelly was going to get it to get away from Jim's horrible treatment of her!) and makes it look like SHE was the one who was wrong by making her point about being an employee because he never helped in any way!!  Where I come from, it wasn't uncommon for men and women (sometimes even party guests) to help the hostess with clean up after a party.  Shelly wasn't the one who needed to learn a lesson, Jim did!  He learned nothing from what I could tell! 

[Blergh]

OK, the headlines involving Chris Noth,etc. got me to think about a rather infuriating Facts of Life episode 'Double Standard' (1980).

Long-short is that Blair's one-shot boyfriend Harrison (Grant Wilson)  had previously hinted that he wanted to take her to some swanky cotillion at his country club and she was certain he was going to cough up an invite- only to find out that he had followed (read:stalked) Jo around in the game arcade and creeped her out but DID ask Jo to said cotillion. Naturally Blair is mortified that he'd prefer Jo's company for this event and Jo herself is ready to spell out to Harrison that she herself is NOT interested in going when Blair snubs Jo one too many times so Jo decides she WILL accept the invite just to spite Blair's snobbery. 

Jo, Natalie, Tootie and Mrs. G. get Jo all glammed up and all eagerly consider this to be a contemporary Cinderella deal while Blair sulks.

Then, Jo returns to the dorm with her fancy dress disheveled and carrying one of her shoes! Jo then tells Mrs. G. that Harrison did NOT take her to the cotillion itself but the county club's '9th green' and proceeded to 'push her down' onto the ground while telling her to 'relax'. Jo then relates how she DID hit him with her now-missing shoe before anything happened. Mrs. G. consoles her but mainly for the fact that Harrison had callously thrown Jo's Cinderella fantasy back into her face- NOT the fact that he had assaulted and attempted to rape Jo! Yes, Jo managed to clobber him before he was able to do that and run all the way back from the country club to Eastland ( in her fancy frock and barefoot but carrying one shoe- no less) but that doesn't mean he did NOT commit the crime of attempted rape.

Incredibly, Harrison comes back to the Eastland dorm carrying Jo's other shoe and Blair has heard enough of the convo to conclude that Harrison ONLY intended to have his way with Jo while saving Blair to be his eventual virgin bride because Jo was from 'the wrong side of the tracks'. Amazingly, Blair takes offense at Harrison's arrogant double standard and REALLY tells him off and is ready to beat Harrison up herself when Jo (the truly injured party) holds her back. While this is actually one of the best 'Blair-Jo' bonding times of the series and does hint at Blair's eventual growth as well as demonstrates their actual friendship beneath all the constant back-and-forth barbs and, yes, does make a good case about how totally unfair and sexist it is for someone to have different expectations for females of different background, it STILL is infuriating!

Why? Because Harrison assaulted and attempted to rape Jo- yet even though  this is known to Jo, Blair and even the adult Mrs. G.(and Harrison openly brags about having done this in front of Blair) - there's NO mention of considering contacting the police to report this  much less pressing charges! And, it seems there was  more outrage on Blair and Mrs. G's part for Harrison's double-standards toying with Jo's emotional expectations and having such disdain for her due to her background than there was over the fact that Harrison had  committed a crime via having attempted to RAPE Jo- someone they both cared a great deal about! 

Of course, this whole incident got swept under the rug and never mentioned again- even when Natalie got attacked and nearly raped  by a random stranger in 'Fear Strikes Back' (1981) . Mindy Cohn gave one of her most intense, chilling and dramatic performances as the understandably traumatized and upset Natalie! Now, in the latter episode, all of Natalie's friends and Mrs. G. did all they could to console her and tried to prevent a repeat by pressing the school for added security AND in themselves taking self-defense classes. Good that this was done (and, good that the show made it clear that there was absolutely nothing on Natalie's part for her to have 'deserved or asked for it') but why didn't they rally for Jo when SHE had become a crime victim the year before by a party known to them (and therefore would have been easier for them to pinpoint and have charged)?  

[Ceindreadh]

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

but why didn't they rally for Jo when SHE had become a crime victim the year before by a party known to them (and therefore would have been easier for them to pinpoint and have charged)?  

 

Because date rape wasn't a thing.  If Jo had tried to report it, I doubt she would have been taken as seriously once she mentioned that she'd been on a date.  Now maybe they should have done that Very Special Episode, but I doubt that it would have even occurred to any man in the writing room that it would have been an issue they should deal with.

[Blergh]

4 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

 

Because date rape wasn't a thing.  If Jo had tried to report it, I doubt she would have been taken as seriously once she mentioned that she'd been on a date.  Now maybe they should have done that Very Special Episode, but I doubt that it would have even occurred to any man in the writing room that it would have been an issue they should deal with.

Two of the three credited writers for FoL 'Double Standard'(1980) episode were women- namely Linda Marsh and Margie Peters. Hence, I think it was not impossible for them (or even their fellow writer, one Dick Clair) to have considered that an attempted rape HAD happened as per how they themselves had written it.

Even by Harrison's bragging, he had NOT attempted to ask for Jo's consent before he pushed her down on the 9th green (e.g. 'Hey, Babe!  Wanna try to do a hole-in-one or vice versa?'). Oh , and since he DID brag it up to Blair herself, that made her a witness and thus it wouldn't have been exactly a 'he said/she said' but  more'he said/ they said' deal. Yes, I know that the odds for Jo reaping justice for attempted rape may have been even more slim to none in 1980 once the officers found out it had happened on what she had been lead to believe was supposed to be a date  AND the fact that he was well-heeled and she was a Bronx scholarship case. However, for the three of them (Jo, Blair and Mrs. G.) not to even verbally consider the option of  trying to go against the odds despite the fact that a crime HAD taken place as per the legal definition of assault and attempted rape was infuriating (and a definite writing fail). I happen to think that not only would Mrs. G.'s unstoppable passion to right wrongs but also Blair Warner (the Warner Heiress) backing Jo up would have somewhat upped the odds for Jo. Hence, I think that should have been at least discussed within the episode- even if Jo ultimately decided against bringing forth charges. It definitely would have acknowledged not just the crime itself but also how vile it was that Harrison exited the episode still considering himself to have been entitled to rape a girl from an economically struggling background and that  in itself was far worse than just the mere snobbery on his part that the episode DID call out! 

P.S. This episode's sole male writer Dick Clair DID help co-write the FoL Fear Strikes Back (1981) episode in which they acknowledged that what had happened to Natalie WAS an attempted rape- though, this time with only one female co-writer (Deidre Fay). 

[merylinkid]

In 1980s date rape was NOT a thing.   It was just "a bad date."   You did not even consider calling the cops.   Because it wasn't a crime.   You knew nothing would happen, so why even bring it up.   Sure in 2021, if they wrote that episode, she would have called the cops, there would have been forensics taken from her clothes, etc.   In 1980, all you could do was never go on a date with that guy again.   And maybe whisper to your friends to be careful.   How do you think Harvey Weinstein got away with it for so long?  

Heck in 1981 MARITAL RAPE was not even on the books.   You couldn't rape your spouse.   This is just the extension of that.   You couldn't rape your date.   Rapes were considered exclusively stranger danger.   

And yes, women perpetuated this.   Which is why they took self-defense classes instead of blaming the rapist.   It's why they were careful what they wore.   Rape only happened to people who weren't careful.   

[magicdog]

18 hours ago, Blergh said:

Blair Warner (the Warner Heiress) backing Jo up would have somewhat upped the odds for Jo. Hence, I think that should have been at least discussed within the episode- even if Jo ultimately decided against bringing forth charges. It definitely would have acknowledged not just the crime itself but also how vile it was that Harrison exited the episode still considering himself to have been entitled to rape a girl from an economically struggling background and that  in itself was far worse than just the mere snobbery on his part that the episode DID call out! 

Not to mention Jo's reputation would have been shattered if she did file charges.  Remember that episode when Natalie refused to sleep with a classmate, then he bragged she was easy.  Then a ton of boys started calling her, but because she never put out, they lied about it and did the same.  I can totally see that happening to Jo because scum like Harrison don't like being called out for bad behavior.

[Mabinogia]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

In 1980s date rape was NOT a thing.   It was just "a bad date."   You did not even consider calling the cops.   Because it wasn't a crime.   You knew nothing would happen, so why even bring it up. 

Exactly. Women wouldn't have thought to write this story as a rape back then any more than men would. It was exactly what you said, a "bad date". It wasn't "Jo was wrong for leading him on" or "He was wrong for trying to rape her" it was just something a lot of us just had to accept because the mindset for centuries has been it is a guys job to try to stick his dick in any female he wants to and it is the female's job to keep all dicks out of her or she will become "tainted". 

It is disgusting looking at it now but at the time, I'm about the age of the Facts of Life students, the idea that a crime was committed did not even cause a blip on the radar. 

We still have a long way to go, but I am glad we can look back at that not too distant past and realize how far we've come. 

3 minutes ago, magicdog said:

I can totally see that happening to Jo because scum like Harrison don't like being called out for bad behavior.

The truly sad, and still applicable today, part of it is, he would have easily been able to destroy Jo's reputation because he's a preppy rich boy and she's a poor tomboy. The talk would likely be, "who does she think she is" "She should feel lucky he even gave her the time of day", or the ever popular "she must be a lesbian if she didn't want that catch". Ugh, even as a date rapist he'd be considered a catch. 

[Bastet]

19 hours ago, Blergh said:

Hence, I think it was not impossible for them (or even their fellow writer, one Dick Clair) to have considered that an attempted rape HAD happened as per how they themselves had written it.

As has been stated, this ignores the context of the time (1980) in which the episode was produced.  We may like to think the era when date rape was not widely understood as a crime (and, in fact, among the most-common rape circumstances) and was instead just considered a "bad date" is a relic of an even earlier time than that episode, but that's simply not true.  Date rape was talked and written about in feminist circles and media in the '70s and '80s, but not at all part of mainstream media conversation at that time.  Really, not until the early '90s was there significant popular attention.

Especially because Jo got away (so attempted rape rather than rape), it is as realistic as it is sad that the writers and thus their characters would indeed have thought of this in purely personal, not criminal terms.  The fact the same folks did an episode a season later in which another character was the victim of attempted rape by a stranger and it played totally differently isn't some bizarre lack of continuity or a leap forward in understanding, it's a reflection of the prevailing attitude at that time and well beyond - rape happened via some scary stranger popping out of the bushes/a dark alley, and non-consensual sexual contact from a date didn't even register as rape.

[Shannon L.]

The only time I remember a marital rape story line was on The Guiding Light, in 1979.  For as often as soap operas get ridiculed, every so often they tap into a story line that gets people talking.  This was one of them. 

[Bastet]

7 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

The only time I remember a marital rape story line was on The Guiding Light, in 1979.

The terrific Roger and Holly storyline, which introduced Ross Marler as the Spaulding lawyer who defended Roger by challenging the new law, arguing for a return to the "of a person other than a spouse" almost all U.S. jurisdictions had in their penal code definitions of rape (that two states had changed their laws in recent years, acknowledging marital rape as a crime, is what prompted the GL storyline).  (Who would've ever thought then he'd turn out to be a good guy backbone of the show?)

Anyway, yes, that further speaks to the popular understanding of what constitute(d) rape depending on the nature of the relationship between victim and perpetrator; it wasn't until the early '90s that all states eliminated their spousal exemption, but to this day about half the states require additional elements be proven in marital rape cases (e.g. many require use of physical force, so it is perfectly legal to drug your wife and then rape her while she's incapacitated).  And that's just the law, that's not even getting into how rape is presented in media and talked about in society.

[Bruinsfan]

I seem to recall date rape having entered the public consciousness in the late 80s. A college classmate described what her different approaches would be to being attacked by a date vs. some stranger grabbing her. But that would have been a decade after the Facts of Life episode, and also years after Robert Chambers' Preppy Murder trial made the news.

[andromeda331]

21 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

The only time I remember a marital rape story line was on The Guiding Light, in 1979.  For as often as soap operas get ridiculed, every so often they tap into a story line that gets people talking.  This was one of them. 

I remember that one. It was very shocking at the time. Soaps did have some groundbreaking storylines and could be informative. GL also had a character get a pap smear and finding it was uterine cancer and another one getting a mammagram. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by andromeda331

[Leeds]

23 hours ago, merylinkid said:

In 1980s date rape was NOT a thing.   It was just "a bad date."   You did not even consider calling the cops.   Because it wasn't a crime.   You knew nothing would happen, so why even bring it up.   Sure in 2021, if they wrote that episode, she would have called the cops, there would have been forensics taken from her clothes, etc.   In 1980, all you could do was never go on a date with that guy again.   And maybe whisper to your friends to be careful.   How do you think Harvey Weinstein got away with it for so long?  

Heck in 1981 MARITAL RAPE was not even on the books.   You couldn't rape your spouse.   This is just the extension of that.   You couldn't rape your date.   Rapes were considered exclusively stranger danger.   

And yes, women perpetuated this.   Which is why they took self-defense classes instead of blaming the rapist.   It's why they were careful what they wore.   Rape only happened to people who weren't careful.   

Women "perpetuated" it?  Wow.

[Blergh]

I don't disagree that the laws exempting marital rape from prosecution were and are outrageous and would have made any attempt to prosecute a moot point almost universally in 1980. However,  the character of Jo was NOT married to Harrison AND was underage so I don't see how she would not have technically been in the right to have been attempted to prosecute him for having indisputably assaulted and attempted to rape her even as the law stood in 1980. Now, I understand that the odds of her (a girl from a working class background who had grudgingly gone on a date with a well-heeled heel at his country club) prevailing were appallingly stacked against her (to say nothing of what kind of flak his legal team, associates and, alas, probably the police would have given her in spades) . However, I think it would have done nothing to have hurt (and, in fact, would have helped) the episode's integrity had one of the characters (e.g. Mrs. Garrett) acknowledged that Jo HAD had an attempted rape happen to her and that she should at least consider reporting the technical crime. Even if Jo just shut down Mrs. G's and/or Blair's pleas to do so by saying that she knew that the odds were against her due to her background and didn't want to go through the ordeal of reporting,etc. (which one can perfectly understand and sympathize with)it still would have sent a valid message to viewers and maybe have gotten them to think of ways to  consider how to get the authorities to enforce/change the laws to actually protect the victims they were enacted to protect. The fact that this wasn't even mentioned much less attempted added to the 'Hell NO!' aspect of the episode.

[merylinkid]

But you are still looking at this very much from a not 1980s perspective.   Date rape was NOT considered rape or in this case attempted rape back then.   No one would have THOUGHT to report it to the police.   It was very much in keeping with the mindset OF THE TIME to not even mention it.   It would have been weird and out of character to mention it.   

Also weren't they still on probation at the time?

[Stats Queen]

On 12/19/2021 at 9:46 AM, merylinkid said:

And yes, women perpetuated this.   Which is why they took self-defense classes instead of blaming the rapist.   It's why they were careful what they wore.   Rape only happened to people who weren't careful. 

Huh?

[partofme]

I hardly ever watched The Facts of Life and would have been 6 or 7 when this episode aired, but I remember date rape being a thing in the 80's.  Difficult to prosecute, sure, but it existed and people knew what it was.

[merylinkid]

44 minutes ago, Stats Queen said:

Huh?

Instead of seeing it as something that could happen to anyone, women perpetuated the belief that it only happend to "those other people, who weren't careful or didn't defend themselves."   

 

I was real clear in what I wrote before.

[Blergh]

One last time then I'm dropping it: It's posters' individual calls to believe whatever one chooses to believe is/was the case regarding the circumstances.  IMO,   I acknowledge the likelihood   one-in-a-million shot that  this crime would have been prosecuted back in 1980  yet  even those  odds of one-in-a-million beat  odds of  zero-in-a-million. The fact that not even Mrs. G. acknowledged that a crime HAD taken place is an infuriating writing fail, IMO.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Blergh

[andromeda331]

10 hours ago, Blergh said:

One last time then I'm dropping it: It's posters' individual calls to believe whatever one chooses to believe is/was the case regarding the circumstances.  IMO,   I acknowledge the likelihood   one-in-a-million shot that  this crime would have been prosecuted back in 1980  yet  even those  odds of one-in-a-million beat  odds of  zero-in-a-million. The fact that not even Mrs. G. acknowledged that a crime HAD taken place is an infuriating writing fail, IMO.

I agree. Whether its a 1980s episode or now I hate when rape isn't acknowledged as a crime. I get why Jo probably wouldn't go to the police. But having her, the rest of the girls and especially Mrs. G not acknowledge what happened was attempted rape is infuriating. I hate when that happens.  

Edited December 21, 2021 by andromeda331

[proserpina65]

On 12/20/2021 at 11:20 AM, partofme said:

I hardly ever watched The Facts of Life and would have been 6 or 7 when this episode aired, but I remember date rape being a thing in the 80's.  Difficult to prosecute, sure, but it existed and people knew what it was.

I was a teenager/young adult in the 80s.  Date rape was becoming more widely acknowledged as a crime in the very late 80s but not so much in the early-mid 80s.  So the episode in question is very much in line with idea of rape at the time.

On 12/20/2021 at 12:07 PM, Blergh said:

The fact that not even Mrs. G. acknowledged that a crime HAD taken place is an infuriating writing fail, IMO.

How?  By getting in a time machine and going ahead to when it would've been considered a crime?  I mean, no one has to like that attitudes of the early 80s didn't acknowledge date rape as a real thing, but I don't get trying to make a show acknowledge something ahead of its time.

[GHScorpiosRule]

On 12/20/2021 at 10:50 AM, merylinkid said:

But you are still looking at this very much from a not 1980s perspective.   Date rape was NOT considered rape or in this case attempted rape back then.   No one would have THOUGHT to report it to the police.   It was very much in keeping with the mindset OF THE TIME to not even mention it.   It would have been weird and out of character to mention it.   

Also weren't they still on probation at the time?

They had just been put on probation. This was the third episode after the introduction of Jo's character.

[magicdog]

A twofer brought to you by The Millionaire:

These are from the first season which I had missed.

In The Ken Fowler Story (1955), Fowler and his wife adopted a little girl, now age 6.  It's hinted that the adoption was not formal or legal (sounds like the baby was brought to them by another party).  They love her and do their best raising her but look over their shoulders afraid someone might take her back.  They are awarded the million and are thrilled to be able to take things to the next level.  They get a nicer house, a maid and private school for their little girl.

Enter her biological father, who somehow found out where she was and demands to take her back.  He says he didn't know she existed until recently (he'd been in prison for forgery) and he spent the last several years wondering about her.  He claims kids are resilient and would adjust to her new life with him.  The Fowlers offer to pay him off, and explain they raised her and they can't let her go off with a virtual stranger.  Bio Dad asks how much would they be willing to pay.  They give him a blank check and let him pick a figure.  He apparently must have asked for 500K or more because it would have nearly emptied their savings.  The child comes down the stairs to say goodnight to her parents.  Bio dad sees her and how she turned out.  When she goes to bed, the parents turn around and find Bio Dad slipped out the door without the check.  Family saved.

I was mad more at the Bio Dad claiming he had a right to the child!  He was in prison (had no job, no money, and an ex-con with no prospects) and while he didn't intentionally abandon the kid, she had parents and to take her away would only have traumatized her IMO.  Yes, kids are resilient, but by age 6, she knows who Mommy and Daddy are.

The second one is The Quentin Harwood Story (1955).  Quentin works as a fundraiser for a local hospital.  He's also an awful tightwad.  His wife tries to be understanding, but he doesn't want her to spend a dime on things they truly need - or even to tune the piano!  She announces she's leaving him because she can't stand it anymore.  He receives the million, and his wife decides to stay.  She hopes to spend a bit of it on things like new bras, lingerie, a new piano and maybe a vacation.  Nope!  Ole Quentin sends the items back!!!  She then announces she's divorcing him unless he spends HALF of the million on things (but not stocks/investments).  She gives him a deadline to do it or she will be out!  He reluctantly is seen spending obscene amounts of money on jewelry, fur coats, paintings, etc. .  He has 85K left to spend and is running out of time.  Eventually, he resigns that he lost his wife for good.  Then it's revealed he donated 100K to the hospital as an anonymous donor.  Wifey says she's satisfied and also says she has all the receipts for the other stuff they bought and can return them for cash.  Supposedly her point has been made.  They reconcile.

OK, it was wrong for Quentin to be so tight even before the windfall, but was it right to make him spend so much money on useless stuff to get him to loosen up?  She would have been better off taking half the money and head for Reno!!

[Blergh]

Remember: The Millionaire was produced in the same era as Perry Mason in which murder,extortion, blackmail and bribery were perfectly acceptable to be depicted but  depicting non-marital children were verboten . Hence,   a divorce from a protagonist would have been beyond the Pale! At most they might have had the story end with Quentin's wife opting for an informal separation ["I'm going to visit Mother and each of my sisters for a few years at a time!"]while Quentin would have set about trying to woo her back! 

[meep.meep]

On 12/19/2021 at 12:42 PM, Shannon L. said:

The only time I remember a marital rape story line was on The Guiding Light, in 1979.  For as often as soap operas get ridiculed, every so often they tap into a story line that gets people talking.  This was one of them. 

I know you wrote this a long time ago, but the seminal British drama the Forsyte Saga has marital rape as a major plot point.  It aired in the US in the early 70's and is based on a set of books by John Galsworthy written in the 1920's.  The title of the first book is  A Man of Property.

It got the point across.

[Zella]

5 hours ago, meep.meep said:

I know you wrote this a long time ago, but the seminal British drama the Forsyte Saga has marital rape as a major plot point.  It aired in the US in the early 70's and is based on a set of books by John Galsworthy written in the 1920's.  The title of the first book is  A Man of Property.

It got the point across.

I noticed that the British shows that aired on American public TV in the 70s tended to get away with more than what would have been shown on regular network TV in the US at the time. I, Claudius is another one that pushes the envelope content-wise. 

[magicdog]

Another "Hell No" moment courtesy of The Millionaire:

In, The Tom Bryan Story (1955), The titular millionaire spent the last five years in prison for a robbery he didn't commit.  He was convicted on circumstantial evidence as his car was at the robbery scene and only his fingerprints were found in it.  His wife lied to their young son, Tommy telling him his dad was doing engineering work overseas during that time.  Finally daddy comes home.  A police detective still thinks Bryan hid the money (25K) he stole and is pursuing him to get him to confess what he did with it.

While Bryan was away, a neighbor lady Myrtle, acts like a grandmother figure to Tommy and friend to his mom.  She herself suffered a devastating loss 3 years earlier when her son died.  Shortly after Tom's arrival he gets the million and can't wait to make up for the lost time with his family.  He comes back with a brand new convertible and travel trailer and tells the family they'll be taking a long vacation across the country.  Detective shows up and thinks he spent the stolen loot on the stuff and tells Tom he can't leave town.

Tom then buys a nice house (actually, the same house used as the exteriors of the Barkley Mansion in The Big Valley) for 75K and he and the Mrs. and his son settle into their new lifestyle.  While playing with friends, one of them blabs to Tommy that daddy was really in prison all that time, not work.  Devastated, he asks his parents if it's true.  They admit it but explain why.    Myrtle confirms his dad was innocent and tells him she was a witness to HER SON stealing his father's car while wearing gloves (apparently he got involved with some older boys who were up to no good) and brought the car back after the robbery.  Then she acts like Nora Desmond at the end of Sunset Boulevard looking out into space talking about what a good boy her son was (turned a new leaf after the incident and died in the war) and walks out of the house.  

The End.

Let me get this straight:  you let an innocent man go to jail for 5 years KNOWING you son was responsible for the robbery, all the while bragging about what a good boy he was, then when the man is behind bars, be a grandmother hen to his son and mom while his family suffered hardships and humiliation because you couldn't bear to stand up and be a witness at the trial????  Then you just go dotty at episode's end, while Tom and his family get no apology, no closure, and the cops still threatening him and demanding to know where the money was.

Bull!!

 

[Dr.OO7]

On 12/18/2021 at 1:48 PM, Blergh said:

OK, the headlines involving Chris Noth,etc. got me to think about a rather infuriating Facts of Life episode 'Double Standard' (1980).

Long-short is that Blair's one-shot boyfriend Harrison (Grant Wilson)  had previously hinted that he wanted to take her to some swanky cotillion at his country club and she was certain he was going to cough up an invite- only to find out that he had followed (read:stalked) Jo around in the game arcade and creeped her out but DID ask Jo to said cotillion. Naturally Blair is mortified that he'd prefer Jo's company for this event and Jo herself is ready to spell out to Harrison that she herself is NOT interested in going when Blair snubs Jo one too many times so Jo decides she WILL accept the invite just to spite Blair's snobbery. 

Jo, Natalie, Tootie and Mrs. G. get Jo all glammed up and all eagerly consider this to be a contemporary Cinderella deal while Blair sulks.

Then, Jo returns to the dorm with her fancy dress disheveled and carrying one of her shoes! Jo then tells Mrs. G. that Harrison did NOT take her to the cotillion itself but the county club's '9th green' and proceeded to 'push her down' onto the ground while telling her to 'relax'. Jo then relates how she DID hit him with her now-missing shoe before anything happened. Mrs. G. consoles her but mainly for the fact that Harrison had callously thrown Jo's Cinderella fantasy back into her face- NOT the fact that he had assaulted and attempted to rape Jo! Yes, Jo managed to clobber him before he was able to do that and run all the way back from the country club to Eastland ( in her fancy frock and barefoot but carrying one shoe- no less) but that doesn't mean he did NOT commit the crime of attempted rape.

Incredibly, Harrison comes back to the Eastland dorm carrying Jo's other shoe and Blair has heard enough of the convo to conclude that Harrison ONLY intended to have his way with Jo while saving Blair to be his eventual virgin bride because Jo was from 'the wrong side of the tracks'. Amazingly, Blair takes offense at Harrison's arrogant double standard and REALLY tells him off and is ready to beat Harrison up herself when Jo (the truly injured party) holds her back. While this is actually one of the best 'Blair-Jo' bonding times of the series and does hint at Blair's eventual growth as well as demonstrates their actual friendship beneath all the constant back-and-forth barbs and, yes, does make a good case about how totally unfair and sexist it is for someone to have different expectations for females of different background, it STILL is infuriating!

Why? Because Harrison assaulted and attempted to rape Jo- yet even though  this is known to Jo, Blair and even the adult Mrs. G.(and Harrison openly brags about having done this in front of Blair) - there's NO mention of considering contacting the police to report this  much less pressing charges! And, it seems there was  more outrage on Blair and Mrs. G's part for Harrison's double-standards toying with Jo's emotional expectations and having such disdain for her due to her background than there was over the fact that Harrison had  committed a crime via having attempted to RAPE Jo- someone they both cared a great deal about! 

Of course, this whole incident got swept under the rug and never mentioned again- even when Natalie got attacked and nearly raped  by a random stranger in 'Fear Strikes Back' (1981) . Mindy Cohn gave one of her most intense, chilling and dramatic performances as the understandably traumatized and upset Natalie! Now, in the latter episode, all of Natalie's friends and Mrs. G. did all they could to console her and tried to prevent a repeat by pressing the school for added security AND in themselves taking self-defense classes. Good that this was done (and, good that the show made it clear that there was absolutely nothing on Natalie's part for her to have 'deserved or asked for it') but why didn't they rally for Jo when SHE had become a crime victim the year before by a party known to them (and therefore would have been easier for them to pinpoint and have charged)?  

Agreed. I liked that episode, but it saddened me to realize that thanks to the way the girls handled it, Jo became a #MeToo and a #WhyIDidntReport story.

There's a similar story on an episode of "Maude", when she encounters a guy who nearly date raped her 30-something years prior. Everything she said holds true today--how her father blamed her, how it still affected her despite how long ago it was, blasting her husband when he tells her she should be over it, etc.

But what happens when she confronts the guy? He apologizes. . .then declares that it happened because he found her too beautiful and sexy to resist. . . and she starts BLUSHING and GIGGLING and acting FLATTERED.

That's right, ladies. All that stalking/harassment/assault is actually a compliment.

(It reminded me of how my own FATHER laughingly told me "That's how a man gets a good woman" in response to my complaints about the ex-boyfriend who was stalking me)

[Spartan Girl]

45 minutes ago, Dr.OO7 said:

There's a similar story on an episode of "Maude", when she encounters a guy who nearly date raped her 30-something years prior. Everything she said holds true today--how her father blamed her, how it still affected her despite how long ago it was, blasting her husband when he tells her she should be over it, etc.

But what happens when she confronts the guy? He apologizes. . .then declares that it happened because he found her too beautiful and sexy to resist. . . and she starts BLUSHING and GIGGLING and acting FLATTERED.

That's right, ladies. All that stalking/harassment/assault is actually a compliment.

What. The. FUCK?!

That is just…ugh.

The miniseries Women of the Movement the depicted the murder of Emmett Till was just one long rage stroke. The fact that Mamie had to endure repeated insult to injury after another, watching his murderers be acquitted and going on to smear his character with their own version of “If I Did It” was just unfathomable. I hope those monsters are burning in hell.

Edited January 23, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[magicdog]

Here we go again:  

In, The Nora Paul Story, (1955) our protagonist is in dire straits.  Her husband died in prison, she was left with their baby son whom she decided was best to give up for adoption.  She has a change of heart 6 years later and goes to the adoption agency to ask for the location of the family that adopted him.  They say it's a closed adoption and tell her it's best to forget she even had a son.  Nora even pulls an unloaded pistol on the agent demanding info.  She's arrested and goes to trial but gets a suspended sentence.

Seriously considering suicide via a gas fireplace in her apartment, Mike Anthony strolls by with the million dollar check.  She enlists a detective to get the info she wants and finds the kid living with an upper class family in Chicago.  She managed to pose as a nanny for the boy (convenient the family needed a new one at that moment) and she has her son again - sort of.  She decides to run off with him and leaves a note for "mom" about taking him and why.  They're at the airport (had a good laugh that it was exteriors of LaGuardia Airport, not O'Hare!!) has second thoughts and returns with the kid and mom is never the wiser.  She gets to raise her little boy!

The end.

Except, what's going to happen in about 10 years when the kid is a teenager, starting to drive, having a life of his own and the family will no longer have need of her services?  What annoyed me most was making it seem like everything was just dandy since she and the kid are living in the same house and she gets to do the work his adoptive mom chose not to do!!

Quote

 

There's a similar story on an episode of "Maude", when she encounters a guy who nearly date raped her 30-something years prior. Everything she said holds true today--how her father blamed her, how it still affected her despite how long ago it was, blasting her husband when he tells her she should be over it, etc.

But what happens when she confronts the guy? He apologizes. . .then declares that it happened because he found her too beautiful and sexy to resist. . . and she starts BLUSHING and GIGGLING and acting FLATTERED.

That's right, ladies. All that stalking/harassment/assault is actually a compliment.

 

Wow!  Funny coming from the people who wrote a far better story with Edith's almost date rape (when she was talking to Gloria about HER attempted rape at the construction site).  Not to mention Edith's second attempted rape later on!

Edited January 25, 2022 by magicdog

[Spartan Girl]

Like many of you, I’m furious with Miranda’s plot on And Just Like That. There was a way to have Miranda come out and break up with Steve in a way that was thoughtful and mature without being cruel to Steve and assassinating Miranda’s character. Unfortunately, what we got was none of that.

It was bad enough to have her cheat with Che (who is pretty much an asshole, but I digress). But to be completely callous and indifferent to Steve, acting like he and Brady are just burdens she’s stuck with? Yeah, Miranda could act like marriage and parenthood was nothing but a big chore sometimes (think the SATC movie), but it was never to this level. Hell, she didn’t even give a shit how to break the news to Brady, she was just salty that he and his girlfriend were having more sex than she was!

Not to mention that when she’s with Che, she devolves into this whiny needy mess—the kind of woman that the REAL Miranda Hobbes would mock mercilessly.

[Spartan Girl]

So I’m watching the Breaking Bad season 3 marathon right now, and it really says a lot that even knowing all the despicable things Walt has done, the moment that sets me off is when, after Skylar pleads with him to help Hank after he lands in hot water for assaulting Jesse because “he’s family” and he replies “Not lately.”

OH. HELL. NO.

Hank was never anything but good to Walt, even after Skylar threw him out. And for him to him to say that just to spite Skylar, especially considering the role he played in causing Hank to go off on Jesse, is why I never was and never EVER will be Team Walt.

[Blergh]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

So I’m watching the Breaking Bad season 3 marathon right now, and it really says a lot that even knowing all the despicable things Walt has done, the moment that sets me off is when, after Skylar pleads with him to help Hank after he lands in hot water for assaulting Jesse because “he’s family” and he replies “Not lately.”

OH. HELL. NO.

Hank was never anything but good to Walt, even after Skylar threw him out. And for him to him to say that just to spite Skylar, especially considering the role he played in causing Hank to go off on Jesse, is why I never was and never EVER will be Team Walt.

Thanks for giving me another reason for being grateful to have NEVER spent a moment watching this series despite ALL the overhype and wild overpraise the critics.etc. had for this show in trying to concoct sympathy for a drug dealer! 

[Zella]

FWIW I never got the impression the showrunners intended for viewers to sympathize with Walt.