S02.E01: War

[scartact]

5 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Certainly this happens. And you're right, you can't really know how something is until you're doing it. But even if you don't know how the sausage is made, it should be evident that contestants are edited to a particular degree. Someone like Ruby, who's savvy enough to know how black contestants have done historically, should understand at least this much.

I think the show (UnReal, that is) does a great job of making the contestants sympathetic, especially when it's showing how they're manipulated, but I'm still going to be critical of the contestants.

I think the show implied Ruby is aware of that because these are the criticisms she was going to bring to Rachel, who then appealed to the idea that being in the show would be a major platform for Rechel to bring her ideas and social activism. I'm sure Ruby will be someone who tries to play the game and will get burned for it.

But yes, I do agree that it is important to be equally critical of the contestants as well. Well, all the characters, really!

[Judi Sunshine]

I think part of the disappointment from Jay over Rachel's behavior is definitely in part due to his thinking she'd be better than this, but I also see it as disappointment in what he's worked/working for. Since he is far from perfect, maybe Rachel's transition gives him even less to strive for in his career and fear over what it's done and will do to him -- because it's a monster maker. 

I found it interesting that Rachel was doing coke. It would explain beyond just the power high why she is more aggressive this season. Last season she seemed to drink a lot, and I often wondered what was in some of the seemingly N/A bottles she walked around set with. But did she do coke, as well? 

Edited June 10, 2016 by Judi Sunshine

[earlbny]

I don't remember seeing Rachel do coke at all last season. We saw her drink. We also saw her take one drag from a cigarette. That's all I remember.

[phoenics]

On 6/8/2016 at 8:39 AM, dubbel zout said:

Rachel is an amazing manipulator, but ultimately Ruby is the one who said yes to appearing on the show. I think Ruby made a terrible mistake, but it's hers alone, so I can't feel too sorry for what might happen to her. She was aware enough to know the black women don't make it very far on the show, yet she decided to go on anyway. Whatever happens is partly on her.

Except Rachel actually promised her that she'd make it to the final two or four.  Also - Ruby probably doesn't realize how Rachel will manipulate her to create a caricature of her - and it's not like it will be a positive one.  Ruby might think that as long as she's honest and calm and nice, that she will be fine - but she doesn't really understand how this works.

Rachel clearly lied - but Ruby might be too idealistic to understand that. Rachel doesn't care about her, or her activism, she just wants to create a blacktivist angry black woman stereotype.  Jay is 1000% right to worry about Ruby potentially being destroyed and so overly stereotyped by her stint on the show - and cast as such an angry black woman blactivist that suddenly she becomes ineffective in her activism and is unable to "help the cause".  Or that she could potentially get expelled from Berkeley.  It's a real possibility and it would have real consequences in the real world beyond just Ruby.  So Jay's worries are that Ruby will give up her college education and Rachel will destroy her image with this show, which could derail Ruby's entire future.  

It feels like a cheap ploy by UnREAL to play in damaging tropes and stereotypes without actually giving us any true nuance or making the point that black women aren't tropes and stereotypes.  I actually don't have faith that they will make that point at all.  Last season they at least explained that Shamiqua went to Spelman, clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, etc.. and played the violin.  But they still pushed the stereotypical narratives on them because that's what "reality tv america" would demand.

My question now would be - with a black suitor - wouldn't those narratives have to change?  Or would they still push those narratives on the sistas and force them to be "othered" while the white girls would just get to "be themselves" and still get a path laid out for them to win?  It sounds like regardless - UnREAL would still set up the show so that even if it's a black suitor, the black girls would still have zero chance to win.  Because AmeriKKKa?  And worse - they wouldn't even have much of a shot to win - because now they're just walking stereotypes.

Oy - this is why I was really worried and uncomfortable about seeing a black suitor.  Because that doesn't change ANYTHING for the black women contestants.  They still won't win.  They'll still be shoved into stereotypes and undermined.

My only hope is that we get the nuance behind the scenes that illustrates how wrong all of that is.

[Christina]

I think, but haven't rewatched to be certain, that Rachel promised Ruby final two to convince her to appear. She said that she wasn't giving up her last semester when she would be cut quickly anyway, and with assurance of a long time frame, she's been lead to believe that she'll have a large audience for her platform.

I wonder if they are going to go with alcohol use while depressed and coke use while manic. Jeremy is all about her mental state and said that he thinks she will harm someone or herself, and I'm hoping it is him, just for being a jerk. Well, not really, I would hate the show to have Rachel become a domestic abuser, but do hope that Jeremy somehow screws himself over while trying to sabotage Rachel.

[phoenics]

I forgot to mention that I loved the premiere - and I'm cautiously optimistic about what happens.  

Can Jeremy just die?  I cannot stand him.  No redeeming qualities whatsoever and the actor is dull and charmless.  He's NEVER been interesting and I don't want to see him with Rachel EVER and I don't want him redeemed.  The only hope I saw was in the previews for the season that show another guy with Rachel and he looks like a cutie... give me something like that and MAYBE I can let go of Adam and Rachel - but right now I'm still Team Adam!  

Die Jeremy!  DIE!!

[RCharter]

3 hours ago, romantic idiot said:

I don't see the big deal regarding Ruby. She is not dropping out, just skipping a term with a very good and understandable excuse for her resume. Whether she is vilified by the show or not, she will get a good platform and start in her career. 

See, thats where I think there is a big question mark.  Right now, she is a politically active Berkeley UG, its doubtful that she wants a career as an actress or a career in entertainment -- if that were the case she would have jumped at the chance to be on the show no matter what.  She may want a career in politics, or in public interest law, or in government advocacy.  Those are all fields that would take a dim view to someone who has been presented as a polarizing angry black woman on a reality TV show.  

So - is this really a good platform for Ruby?  For what it seems like she wants to do....I doubt it.  The kool aid Rachel is selling is that Ruby will be able to discuss her POV on civil rights, and serious matters regarding race, and that she will be presented in a positive light. 

I haven't often seen "angry reality show villain" turn into a career as anything other than "angry reality show villain" or "reality show contestant"  The world is littered with the bones of people who probably thought that a reality show would give them a step up in their career, and for every Kardashian there are 10-15 people who were never able to get anywhere.

6 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Certainly this happens. And you're right, you can't really know how something is until you're doing it. But even if you don't know how the sausage is made, it should be evident that contestants are edited to a particular degree. Someone like Ruby, who's savvy enough to know how black contestants have done historically, should understand at least this much.

I think the show (UnReal, that is) does a great job of making the contestants sympathetic, especially when it's showing how they're manipulated, but I'm still going to be critical of the contestants.

But she may think that the editing represents who they are, that the show picks angry black women or wallflowers.

And the show does seem to pick people who they know will provide them with drama, as someone else said, you may go in thinking you'll game the system by just being nice or reasonable....but you never know.  There will be the opportunity for editing gold by putting Ruby with a racist, and Ruby may have a million and one reasonable and logical conversations with that person about race in america, and history and those all can be pieced together to make her look like an angry black lunatic.

So -- does Ruby know how the sausage is made?  Sure.  But she really doesn't know the exact recipe.

[RCharter]

20 minutes ago, phoenics said:

 

My question now would be - with a black suitor - wouldn't those narratives have to change?  Or would they still push those narratives on the sistas and force them to be "othered" while the white girls would just get to "be themselves" and still get a path laid out for them to win?  It sounds like regardless - UnREAL would still set up the show so that even if it's a black suitor, the black girls would still have zero chance to win.  Because AmeriKKKa?  And worse - they wouldn't even have much of a shot to win - because now they're just walking stereotypes.

Oy - this is why I was really worried and uncomfortable about seeing a black suitor.  Because that doesn't change ANYTHING for the black women contestants.  They still won't win.  They'll still be shoved into stereotypes and undermined.

My only hope is that we get the nuance behind the scenes that illustrates how wrong all of that is.

There are a million places that this show can go, but I think this will be interesting.  Will they use Ruby as the "lunatic black rights angry girl" that makes it "acceptable" that the black suitor pick a white woman?  Will he be made to seem like a "good guy" for rejecting such an angry point of view?  Does he drop Ruby before he drops the racist?  Will their characterization of Ruby ultimately affect all the black women on the show?

And I'm even MORE interested in how they are going to play the muslim contestant?  Are they really going to try to paint her as some terrorist?  Isn't that just a bit much?  How come she isn't more suspicious about having to wear a head scarf?

[phoenics]

22 minutes ago, RCharter said:

There are a million places that this show can go, but I think this will be interesting.  Will they use Ruby as the "lunatic black rights angry girl" that makes it "acceptable" that the black suitor pick a white woman?  Will he be made to seem like a "good guy" for rejecting such an angry point of view?  Does he drop Ruby before he drops the racist?  Will their characterization of Ruby ultimately affect all the black women on the show?

And I'm even MORE interested in how they are going to play the muslim contestant?  Are they really going to try to paint her as some terrorist?  Isn't that just a bit much?  How come she isn't more suspicious about having to wear a head scarf?

I had the same questions - it's just that I feel like I've seen that played out so many times - so much so that it's a really ugly and painful black woman stereotype that I just don't want to see.  I don't have much faith that they won't do it though - because Hollywood doesn't seem to understand just how played out it is.  Race and colorism issues are so complex that I just don't expect this show to "get it" well enough to do them.  There was some racial nuances that they missed last season, imo.  

And the thing with the headscarf - oh man... UnREAL is playing with some SERIOUS issues right now.  I really wonder when this season began filming or when they began writing this season?  Because a LOT of the anti-muslim and anti-blacktivist rhetoric has kicked into overdrive and there are some very serious life or death things playing out in real life right now.  I'm actually concerned that they are going to have one of the contestants be murdered by some right-wing nutjob screaming "N-word!" or "Terrorist!" given the current political climate.  I hope the show doesn't do this wrong.

[RCharter]

^^its interesting -- I actually watched Bachelor in Paradise after watching UNreal and its the first "Bachelor" show I've ever watched.  It was fun and trashy, and I like my reality TV fun and trashy.  But I don't like crossing the line into real, serious issues like terrorism and racism.  I don't think thats much fun anymore.

I also think it will be interesting to show the suitors reaction to Ruby.  Will the show try to "neutralize" the threat of a black man as the suitor (especially a black man who dared to show anger) by having him outright reject Ruby?  The "angry black man" is just as much of a stereotype, and will it make the suitor seem like more of a traditional "white" suitor by straight out rejecting the angry black girl?

 I think these shows could and should make it more of a point to address colorism by having more contestants of color and showing them as serious contenders instead of the cannon fodder that you KNOW they are.  There is a show now called "Coupled" on Fox that I think does a better job.  Why not have a black wife?  Why not have a black wife type for a white dude?  And how about one that doesn't pass the paper bag test?

I agree with you, and I think the muslim thing could especially get real weird, real quick.

Edited June 11, 2016 by RCharter

[earlbny]

Sarah Gertrude Shapiro said she has 2 black woman on the the writing staff. She said they had heated discussions about race and said if something does not work or is told wrong they want the actors of color or the staff to voice their opinion. She said is scary telling this story from a white Jewish woman. I am on the fence. They could go either way. Part of me fears that will want to shock the viewers. They may just try and get people talking at the water cooler. I hope nobody dies. They did that last season. 

I was was also thinking that maybe the black contestant will have a complete 180 same with the racist or the bachelor will pick the racist or black contestant.

Here a link with an interview from a former black contestent on the Bachelor.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/06/08/former_bachelor_contestant_marshana_ritchie_on_the_black_suitor_in_unreal.html

Edited June 11, 2016 by earlbny

[RCharter]

@earlbny -- thank you, that article was very interesting

[backformore]

9 hours ago, romantic idiot said:

I don't see the big deal regarding Ruby. She is not dropping out, just skipping a term with a very good and understandable excuse for her resume. Whether she is vilified by the show or not, she will get a good platform and start in her career. 

I agree.  the objection was "she won't be able to graduate with her class."  So?  my experience is that some people graduate in 4 years, some less, some more,  and some are in programs where a Bachelors and Masters are combined into 5 years.  Switching majors can mean more time, so can a double major, some students take summers off, some take summer classes, others do internships.  It's no big deal to not graduate with your class. 

[earlbny]

3 hours ago, RCharter said:

@earlbny -- thank you, that article was very interesting

Your welcome. :)

[RCharter]

59 minutes ago, backformore said:

I agree.  the objection was "she won't be able to graduate with her class."  So?  my experience is that some people graduate in 4 years, some less, some more,  and some are in programs where a Bachelors and Masters are combined into 5 years.  Switching majors can mean more time, so can a double major, some students take summers off, some take summer classes, others do internships.  It's no big deal to not graduate with your class. 

But I don't know if that was really Jay's objection or just what he thought might play with Rachel.  

Perhaps he thought that somewhere deep inside Rachel still was sort of a feminist who would really think that Ruby putting off her graduation would be a bad idea.  Because, as you both pointed out, it doesn't make sense any other way as people miss graduating "with their class" all the time.  And in a school as big as Berkeley there is a good chance that you don't know that many people to where it would make a difference.

[romantic idiot]

10 hours ago, RCharter said:

See, thats where I think there is a big question mark.  Right now, she is a politically active Berkeley UG, its doubtful that she wants a career as an actress or a career in entertainment -- if that were the case she would have jumped at the chance to be on the show no matter what.  She may want a career in politics, or in public interest law, or in government advocacy.  Those are all fields that would take a dim view to someone who has been presented as a polarizing angry black woman on a reality TV show.  

So - is this really a good platform for Ruby?  For what it seems like she wants to do....I doubt it.  

I'm not sure I agree with this. If she goes anywhere, she will have been seen by a lot of people who would follow her. Unless she kills someones or gets into a cat fight, I don't see being known as an angry black woman is going to hurt a career in activism or in law. Her known face will give her a leg up that the other unknown fresh graduates will not have. Rachel wasn't wrong about that platform. The fact that other contestants haven't used it as such doesn't mean that they can't. 

[ivgotspirit02]

On 6/7/2016 at 4:30 PM, ClareWalks said:

I actually had to look on IMDB to make sure it was the same actor playing Jeremy. He was totally unrecognizable. Obvious weight gain, but even his facial hair looked totally different, color/texture-wise. 

I had to do the same thing! I thought his whole "the old Jeremy is gone" speech was a nod to an actor change or something. He just looks SO different. 

[RCharter]

2 hours ago, romantic idiot said:

I'm not sure I agree with this. If she goes anywhere, she will have been seen by a lot of people who would follow her. Unless she kills someones or gets into a cat fight, I don't see being known as an angry black woman is going to hurt a career in activism or in law. Her known face will give her a leg up that the other unknown fresh graduates will not have. Rachel wasn't wrong about that platform. The fact that other contestants haven't used it as such doesn't mean that they can't. 

How many people are clamoring over Omorosa right now because of her positive message of female empowerment?  None.  People only want her on a reality show to be an angry black woman.  And Omorosa has a very impressive educational background.  I wouldn't be surprised to hear that she was sold on the idea of the Apprentice under the same selling points.  

Being the "angry black woman" can certainly hurt a career in law.  As an attorney you are generally going to need to get hired  by someone, and most places that hire an attorney realize that reputation is important to clients, judges and the legal community overall...so they are far less likely to hire someone with a questionable reputation.  This is why people routinely scrub their social media accounts/post under alias's when looking for a job in the legal field.  

I honestly believe that a fresh face out of law school stands a much better chance at a firm than someone who is known as the "angry black woman" on a national TV show.  How are you going to send her out to client meetings without people thinking you're a joke?  How are you going to send her to court appearances without a judge thinking that your firm must be a joke if you all are hiring someone who made a fool of themselves on national TV?  Can you really convince a client that having someone that was known as the "angry black woman" on TV may not have a negative impact on a jury?  The best Ruby could one day hope for is that everyone just forgets -- because "angry black woman" is not a reputation you want to carry into a courtroom.  

Even as a public face for advocacy, your job is to advocate for a particular group to the larger population, get legislation, find solutions.  There are going to be so many people that are will just automatically shut down if they have the preconceived notion that they have to deal with an "angry black harpy."   You could argue that Al Sharpeton/Jesse Jackson may not always come off great, but their careers as public figures started with the civil rights movement, not a reality show.

A known face is a double edged sword, it can be good but it certainly can be bad.  The idea that there is no bad publicity is not true, IMO.

People want different things from their entertainers than they would want from someone who is going to represent them in an advocacy role or as an attorney.  Now if you're a wifey type, or given a great and kind edit of course people are going to want to hire you or have you advocate for them.  But a reputation as an angry black woman....I just don't much see it.

The only way the "platform" idea works for an "angry black woman.", is the way it would last season for the darker skinned black girl.  She wanted to remain on TV and was willing to play the game so that she could get publicity for her hair salon.  In that way, it probably doesn't really matter because she just wanted to get her name out there...good or bad because it would mean more business.  Because you don't really need a sterling personal reputation to be a hairstylist, and because clients would just be interested in hearing about the show.

This conversation reminds me of this recent season of The Real World.  It was the first one I had watched in many years, and they had a housemate (CJ) who had to deal with a racist housemate (Jenna) and most of the time I think CJ explained herself and her beliefs well. She lost her temper a few times, and she was still called out as an "angry black woman."  Even with CJ being given a pretty good edit, I'm glad that by the time she goes to law school and takes the bar exam she will be at least 4-5 years removed from the show, because I couldn't really see her being successful in that arena right now.

tl;dr - not all publicity is good publicity, not every platform is a good platform.  No one really wants to be publicly represented by stereotypical "angry black woman."  It would be difficult to get a position when you have to worry that a judge, jury, public at large will simply view you as an "angry black woman" and apply that filter to everything you say/do.

Edited June 11, 2016 by RCharter
this post is long! I had to add a tl;dr...curse my 95 wpm typing speed!

[snowblossom2]

I'm optimistic about this season. With being paired with the racist, along with Rachel - I think - mentioning she would skewer the racist, they will not fall into perpetuating the angry black woman stereotype

[guilfoyleatpp]

Sorry for the weird empty box message. 

After rewatching part of this last night, the part where Julia talks Rachel into not firing Jeremy (forgive me if I'm getting the names screwed up - the only one I'm sure about is Rachel) by saying it could be "sexual harassment," felt to me like Julia manipulating Rachel.

Their relationship is complex and they are rivals just as much as friends and Julia threw out the "you can fire him" as if she was mentoring Rachel, but it felt like there was something else underneath it. For some reason she doesn't want Jeremy fired - is it for continuity on the show? Cameramen are important. Her point about not firing everyone you sleep with was a good one too.  

Also the part where Jeremy apologizes to Madison on behalf of Rachel...in TV I worked with a guy who did that. It drove me crazy. Do not apologize to assholes on my behalf. If I want to apologize to them I will. I don't need your knight in shining armor ass to try to smooth things over on my behalf.

Anway, I'm so glad that I'm watching this show this season and that you're all here with your great comments and discussion! YAY!

Edited June 11, 2016 by guilfoyleatpp
weird box I couldn't get rid of

[Neurochick]

On June 10, 2016 at 7:37 PM, phoenics said:

It feels like a cheap ploy by UnREAL to play in damaging tropes and stereotypes without actually giving us any true nuance or making the point that black women aren't tropes and stereotypes.  I actually don't have faith that they will make that point at all.  Last season they at least explained that Shamiqua went to Spelman, clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, etc.. and played the violin.  But they still pushed the stereotypical narratives on them because that's what "reality tv america" would demand.

My question now would be - with a black suitor - wouldn't those narratives have to change?  Or would they still push those narratives on the sistas and force them to be "othered" while the white girls would just get to "be themselves" and still get a path laid out for them to win?  It sounds like regardless - UnREAL would still set up the show so that even if it's a black suitor, the black girls would still have zero chance to win.  Because AmeriKKKa?  And worse - they wouldn't even have much of a shot to win - because now they're just walking stereotypes.

Oy - this is why I was really worried and uncomfortable about seeing a black suitor.  Because that doesn't change ANYTHING for the black women contestants.  They still won't win.  They'll still be shoved into stereotypes and undermined.

My only hope is that we get the nuance behind the scenes that illustrates how wrong all of that is.

To me this feels more like real reality; that in these shows black women more than not are the ones who get screwed over.

[queenanne]

On 6/10/2016 at 7:54 PM, RCharter said:

See, thats where I think there is a big question mark.  Right now, she is a politically active Berkeley UG, its doubtful that she wants a career as an actress or a career in entertainment -- if that were the case she would have jumped at the chance to be on the show no matter what.  She may want a career in politics, or in public interest law, or in government advocacy.  Those are all fields that would take a dim view to someone who has been presented as a polarizing angry black woman on a reality TV show.  

So - is this really a good platform for Ruby?  For what it seems like she wants to do....I doubt it.  The kool aid Rachel is selling is that Ruby will be able to discuss her POV on civil rights, and serious matters regarding race, and that she will be presented in a positive light. 

I haven't often seen "angry reality show villain" turn into a career as anything other than "angry reality show villain" or "reality show contestant"  The world is littered with the bones of people who probably thought that a reality show would give them a step up in their career, and for every Kardashian there are 10-15 people who were never able to get anywhere.

 

15 hours ago, RCharter said:

How many people are clamoring over Omorosa right now because of her positive message of female empowerment?  None.  People only want her on a reality show to be an angry black woman.  And Omorosa has a very impressive educational background.  I wouldn't be surprised to hear that she was sold on the idea of the Apprentice under the same selling points.  

Unless Omarosa's Wikipedia is spit-polishing the apple, she has taught (or is teaching) at Howard University, and commenting on CNN (I assume for times other than pitching in about Donald Trump).  That doesn't exactly sound like a dead-end life of doom.  I grant she may be "the exception that proves the rule", and the Apprentice isn't the Bachelor, but it's not impossible.

I thought Jay’s reservations were logical and based around the fact that Ruby has a chance at a real life (and heck, maybe it is a logical character outcropping of his feeling bad about Mary/Shia/etc.).  UnREAL (hence name), thus Everlasting, is not real life, and it seems logical that someone would have a tipping point where they would try to tell someone that living a real life is better than famewhoring.

Aside:  Myself, I rather loved both Chet and Jeremy.  Chet because he didn’t lay down and stop fighting, and the outré writing of his character, is so simultaneously not OTC when you really think about Chet being the person that Chet is – and Jeremy.  I mean, wasn’t one of the primary complaints of last season (and I include myself) that Jeremy was boring as fuck and should just die in a fire?  Well, you can’t say he’s boring now, hahahahaha. 

I also think it’s more complicated that just snapping fingers and getting rid of him because, camera operators have unions; and at least theoretically, Jeremy is a cameraman because older male family members have also been cameramen and unionized because that’s what almost always happens IRL, meaning Quinn and Chet could easily piss off several members of a small community they need with one fell swoop.

[Charm]

I LOVE THIS SHOW! A few thoughts... Quinn has said a few times last season that Madison was her, 15 yrs ago, which leads us to assume that Madison will walk in one day (season 3?) without those innocent looking pigtails and blow them away with a lot of blackmailing little issues (Mary's suicide, Chet raping her, etc) and command a bigger presence. Also, there's going to be something coming back re: Mary's suicide. Why else would Rachel have Quinn repeat it 3 times at last yr's season last episode? Was she recording it? Is Rachel going to blackmail Quinn or better yet, Chet...now that he thinks he's got Darius in his corner? My thoughts on Jeremy? Hmmm, I do believe he still loves Rachel and is going to try, with her mom, to bring her down and he'll then be her saviour OR he hates her and will undermine her authority at every turn, starting with the recording of Madison's vomiting from the words Rachel made her say. He's going to show these secret, edited, tapes to her mother and she'll be thrown in the psych ward. It's going to be a dark season and I love it!

Edited June 13, 2016 by Charm
spelling error

[earlbny]

According to Sarah Gertrude Shapiro Rachel can't fire Jeremy because she slept with him. That was she says at the following link. She never mentions anything about a union.

 https://amp.twimg.com/v/48ece2b1-13f7-4a30-b412-0f738b831c9c

Edited June 13, 2016 by earlbny

[RCharter]

15 hours ago, earlbny said:

According to Sarah Gertrude Shapiro Rachel can't fire Jeremy because she slept with him. That was she says at the following link. She never mentions anything about a union.

 https://amp.twimg.com/v/48ece2b1-13f7-4a30-b412-0f738b831c9c

I couldn't view the video, but if he has a sexual harassment claim, he has it right now, whether he is fired or not....or at least thats what I would think.  But if the primary reason for your firing is just cause and not as retaliation for not sleeping with someone or for ending a relationship than I think you're SOL.

If Jeremy were fired, he would most likely argue that he was in some sort of "quid pro quo" scenario, where he was forced to have sex with Rachel in order to keep his job, and he was only fired because he refused to comply with her sexual demands.  But if Rachel could show that he was fired for cause (insubordination) than she wins because Jeremy would have to show that his change in employment status was due to his refusal to comply with her sexual demands.  I guess he could argue that he only got the DP position because of his relationship with Rachel, or thats how Rachel represented it, but I think thats a stretch.

I would imagine that right now he has a case for a hostile work environment, and it seems like he is trying to get more evidence of that by making sure to film Madison throwing up.  If I were them, I would start documenting all his behavior and get rid of him ASAP.  Because I suspect he will be doing everything he can to collect more evidence throughout the season.

But I don't even know if he could win there......because that would require showing a pattern of offensive sexual harassment aimed at a person or a group.  I guess he could argue that between he and Madison having sex with Chet/Rachel there is an environment where a person is expected to sleep with a supervisor to get ahead.   Interesting.

[aradia22]

Quote

Ruby might think that as long as she's honest and calm and nice, that she will be fine - but she doesn't really understand how this works.

That's why I'm so excited that they're apparently going to be including things like Frankenbites (according to the commercial with the dead-fiancee girl). 

[jhlipton]

On 6/11/2016 at 9:09 PM, queenanne said:

 

Unless Omarosa's Wikipedia is spit-polishing the apple, she has taught (or is teaching) at Howard University, and commenting on CNN (I assume for times other than pitching in about Donald Trump).  That doesn't exactly sound like a dead-end life of doom.  I grant she may be "the exception that proves the rule", and the Apprentice isn't the Bachelor, but it's not impossible.

Teaching at Howard doesn't fit the "narrative" of Omarosa, so the media would never report it.  Same with any other "angry black woman" that's doing well.

 

On 6/13/2016 at 5:15 AM, RCharter said:

I couldn't view the video, but if he has a sexual harassment claim, he has it right now, whether he is fired or not....or at least thats what I would think.  But if the primary reason for your firing is just cause and not as retaliation for not sleeping with someone or for ending a relationship than I think you're SOL.

I find the "sexual harassment" more than a bit ridiculous.  If Jeremy did file, all that Rachel would have to do is show his little stunt from the end of last season. No one will look at that and think he's the one who had been wronged.

[phoenics]

On 6/11/2016 at 9:55 PM, Neurochick said:

To me this feels more like real reality; that in these shows black women more than not are the ones who get screwed over.

I agree - I just want the show to acknowledge this.  right now it's being played straight which means the show is actually being racist in an ironic way, which is still racism.

6 hours ago, jhlipton said:

Teaching at Howard doesn't fit the "narrative" of Omarosa, so the media would never report it.  Same with any other "angry black woman" that's doing well.

I don't understand your point?  Could you elaborate?

[jhlipton]

7 hours ago, jhlipton said:

Teaching at Howard doesn't fit the "narrative" of Omarosa, so the media would never report it.  Same with any other "angry black woman" that's doing well.

1 hour ago, phoenics said:

I agree - I just want the show to acknowledge this.  right now it's being played straight which means the show is actually being racist in an ironic way, which is still racism.

I don't understand your point?  Could you elaborate?

First of all, HI! phoenics!!!!!! 

What I was saying is that Omarosa teaching at Howard doesn't fit the narrative of "angry black woman" (who consigned to that role forever).  So if and when Omarosa's name is mentioned, such as on UnREAL, it's always as The Apprentice and never as the teacher.

[phoenics]

1 hour ago, jhlipton said:

First of all, HI! phoenics!!!!!! 

What I was saying is that Omarosa teaching at Howard doesn't fit the narrative of "angry black woman" (who consigned to that role forever).  So if and when Omarosa's name is mentioned, such as on UnREAL, it's always as The Apprentice and never as the teacher.

Hi jh!!  

Now I get it - thanks!  I'm still salty with Omarosa - I feel like she crystalized that stereotype forever - in such a huge way that black women like myself are still paying for it.  I know the stereotype existed long before she was on that show, but I still hated how she played right into it... on purpose.  It's a burden many of us are still trying to shake off.

[Zuleikha]

I'm late on this, but I really wish the show had held off on Chet shenanigans until later. I liked this episode, but I did not love it as much as last season because I didn't have a chance to breathe into the new reality of Quinn and Rachel before things went extremely topsy turvy. I know the show got over the top ridiculous from real reality last season with Mary's death and things filming, but it built to that. This is starting at ridiculous with the idea that any high-level network honcho would support Chet swooping in an stealing Darius on opening night of a highly-rated show. I think the show could have left things at everyone adjusting to new roles/responsibilities and Chet threatening Quinn with war (or coming up with a different storyline for Chet entirely).

That said, I think there are interesting pieces. I am interested in Madison as almost an anti-Rachel/proto-Quinn. Madison wants this in a way that Rachel doesn't. Jay always embraced his moral compromises last season, but already found one line that he wasn't willing to cross with Ruby (and then had Rachel go and make that sacrifice meaningless). What is the racial dynamic going to reveal for him? Could Jay end the season on board with the show as Satan's asshole? Rachel seems to be embracing her evil and her power, but she also seems to have convinced herself that she can subvert the show to create something meaningful with having a black lead. What's going to happen when she has to realize that even in charge, she still can't stop the evil?

Chet vs. Quinn just doesn't seem interesting compared to the above. I did appreciate Chet as a character by the end of last season, and I'm interested in following him for his own sake. But I'm not interested in this MRA version, and I agree with the poster that this whole trying to do actual work thing seems like a huge step down for him (and something we've already seen that he can't do). 

[hilaryvm]

I'm just catching up on season 2, since I recorded season 1 when it reaired, and had to watch that first...

At any rate, I don't find that the network would go for Chet's whole "male empowerment" scenario for Everlasting.  Surely the vast majority of viewers for this show are women, and they're not going to want to watch women in bikinis being treated poorly by a man who has to be ab alpha.  There is probably a place for that, but not on a network, and certainly not on Everlasting.  If it is like The Bachelor, I just can't imagine a network head with any sense would want to change things in that direction.  It just really rang untrue for me.

[Guest]

I had a feeling this was off the rails from the tattoo scene.  That rubbed me wrong.  No one who wears a $1000 suit is getting an ugly-ass prison tat of 'money dick power' on their wrist.  And why even those words?  Dick?  Please.  Is Shapiro writing with a man like Chet now or what?  I don't think Noxon would've signed off on any of this.  It feels like the soul is gone and all that's left are the cliches.  

[Miles]

Calling bullshit on Jeremy not being fired because "he is a sexual harrasment lawsuit waiting to happen". That is such a flimsy excuse to keep him around while him still being able to be a huge dick. When he and Rachel were together she wasn't his boss.

Speaking of which, man the guy somehow changed his appearence completely. I wouldn't have recognised him. Almost thought they might have recast him, but I recognise the voice.