Criminal Minds Analysis: Profile The Show

[Saje]

Looks like McCatry has spent a lot of time compiling all these figures, kudos. 

 

Seems highly unlikely anyone else will ever even come close to doing that, or even attempting it. Quite the feat indeed.

[Guesswht]

@OldDog Well, thanks for liking my post, means a lot <3

 

 

 

I don't think its as simplistic as that. If it is true that Kate's screen time exceeded JJ's this season, then as one of the few but faithful Alex Blake fans, I say that its by God about time. I mean, I get it, you resent Kate because she exists and/or because she's keeping JJ from being front and center all the time, but let's not act as if Super Tough Ninja Barbie hasn't worn the ruby combat boots almost exclusively before this when it comes to being up in the camera's grill. Just the fact that she got the totally contradictory The Forever People after Erica said that the book opened in 200 was closed tells me pretty much everything there is to be said about who the favorite is, and it ain't JLH.

Sorry, but i think it's not possible that Kate had less screen time than Rossi, Hotch, Morgan and JJ had. So many fans feel that Kate had so much more screen time in season 10 than other characters EVER had. They're allll crazy, right?

I don't how these numbers are possible...

 

--- when JJ and Kate (or someone else) are talking to each other -> it's all JJ's screen time. Lol. OK.

[Old Dog]

@OldDog Well, thanks for liking my post, means a lot <3

 

 

It was a BIG, BIG, BIG mistake! I think I was so overcome with astonishment at how anyone could dispute absolute fact that my finger slipped on the mouse! I would remove it if I could.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

@OldDog Well, thanks for liking my post, means a lot <3

 

 

Sorry, but i think it's not possible that Kate had less screen time than Rossi, Hotch, Morgan and JJ had. So many fans feel that Kate had so much more screen time in season 10 than other characters EVER had. They're allll crazy, right?

I don't how these numbers are possible...

 

--- when JJ and Kate (or someone else) are talking to each other -> it's all JJ's screen time. Lol. OK.

 

So, here's a potentially excessively stupid question, because its ten til four in the morning and I'm wide awake - what exactly would be an appropriate amount of screen time for Kate to have? A ballpark estimate will do. Would you prefer it if she'd been shoved into a corner the way Tripplehorn was, because Erica Messer is a fawning moron who thinks that the sun rises and sets and JJ's blonde head? And no matter how potentially stupid the question is, its a real one, because I notice that you don't dispute the fact that JJ got another episode centered around her Jack-in-the-box PTSD when MESSer said we were done with it.

[Guesswht]

 

So, here's a potentially excessively stupid question, because its ten til four in the morning and I'm wide awake - what exactly would be an appropriate amount of screen time for Kate to have? A ballpark estimate will do. Would you prefer it if she'd been shoved into a corner the way Tripplehorn was, because Erica Messer is a fawning moron who thinks that the sun rises and sets and JJ's blonde head? And no matter how potentially stupid the question is, its a real one, because I notice that you don't dispute the fact that JJ got another episode centered around her Jack-in-the-box PTSD when MESSer said we were done with it.

JJ got ONE episode centered around her in season 10. Shame on her.

I just don't understnd THIS: -  JJ had 1 centered ep,in S10, Kate had 3 or 4 IN A ROW... but JJ had more screen time than anyone else.

 

"What exactly would be an appropriate amount of screen time for Kate to have?"

Good question! She should have less screen time than Reid - that's for sure... and i think that she should have less screen time than Garcia. But no, she gets more than anyone else because she's jl..i mean Kate. Also: she gets a pregnancy storyline!! while AJ's baby bump is being hidden and she's hurting herself and her baby with wearing uncomfortable clothes +running around like she's not pregnant, but it doesn't matter, j... is happy and healthy, that's all what matters.

 

Btw I feel bad for Jeanne. The hate she got was totally undeserved... unlike when someone is "hating on" Kate. And E.M. treated JT's character badly.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Guesswht

[MCatry]

Kate has 2x more screen time than JJ ...

but JJ had more screen time in s10 than Kate had.

w t _??? ??? ???

Well, for me it looks like this:

idc for unsubs

1. - Kate - 4 hours 23 mins

2. - Hotch - 3 hours 54 mins

3. - JJ - 3 hours 26 mins

4. - Rossi - 3 hours 19 mins

5. - Morgan - 2 hours 47 mins

6. - Reid - 2 hours 13 mins

7. - Garcia - 1 hours 30 mins

For me Meg's screen time = Kate's screen time. I'm sick of both of them. It's not even sure that the 6 original cast members are coming back for s11, but they wasted the season finale on them anyway.

Whether you choose to believe me or not, is irrelevant for me. I actually started this counting in order to prove myself if I was being unfair to Garcia and Then JJ, because I started disliking those two characters rather strongly, and it is still the aim.

I really though Hotch had very little to do. I really though Morgan was way too much, and I also though Kate had more relevance in terms of screen time. I also though they had reduced the amount of Screentime for JJ. I truly though Reid had episodes with even less Screentime than the amount he actually got. I believed even Garcia had more Screentime.

And you know what? I was wrong. My own data proved me wrong, and I don't have a problem with that. I think its just a matter of how our personal desires to see one character over others affect the way we perceive time.

I was right about too much Unsub and too little Reid. And even though Garcia got the lowest figures, I still think that she should just have her time reduced at least in one half.

Another interesting point is that there are some episodes which are centred in one character, and there are others in which the side B story is dedicated to one character. Those are not designed the same.

For instance, a place in the table is a centric episode for Hotch. In Protection, there is a B story for Kate and family, but they are not distributed in the same way.

I have a background in natural sciences and exact sciences, and that's probably why I like things I can measure and weight objectively. That is also why I don't trust social studies. More often than not facts are analysed in a subjective way to accommodate the view of the historician, economist, or whatever 'social studies' guy may be.

Besides, did I ever give the impression that I am a JLH fan? I truly have no reason to twist those figures.

The hate she got was totally undeserved... unlike when someone is "hating on" Kate. And E.M. treated JT's character badly.

I am sorry, but for me, this is just plain wrong. Edited May 18, 2015 by MCatry

[normasm]

Old dog, to prevent future trauma, just set things up to ignore posters who get your goat. S(he) is not looking to make sense, or to draw you into a real conversation. S(he) is looking to disrupt and obfuscate and get attention for her/himself. 

[Old Dog]

Old dog, to prevent future trauma, just set things up to ignore posters who get your goat. S(he) is not looking to make sense, or to draw you into a real conversation. S(he) is looking to disrupt and obfuscate and get attention for her/himself. 

You're right of course. I should know better by now!

[normasm]

Oh, and, if you "like" something by accident, just press the symbol again, and it goes back to "not chosen." I'm not sure that works with the report button, as I reported someone by accident once...

Edited May 18, 2015 by normasm

[Old Dog]

Thanks Normasm. I have a bit of a hair trigger on my mouse!

[secnarf]

I don't doubt the validity of the statistics, but I do think that the reason our perceptions so often are different from what the numbers tell us is simply because we're human. For example, if you hate JJ or Kate or whoever, you're going to notice more when she's on screen, and you'll feel annoyed/angry and therefore remember it more, than you would for a character you're ambivalent towards and therefore don't have as strong emotions about. Our perceptions are biased, and while the numbers may also be biased depending on how the screen time is counted (e.g. quality-time vs quantity-time), I don't think they're biased towards/against any particular character.

 

Strong emotion - especially negative - makes us remember things more vividly. A character may have got 10 minutes of screentime in an episode, and if those 10 minutes made you irritated/angry, you'll remember it far more than you will the other 30 minutes.

 

There's also confirmation bias - you only acknowledge facts that confirm your belief about something, and ignore facts to the contrary. It's quite remarkable actually, how people do this all the time, often without realizing it.

 

That's why these statistics are so helpful, because they can draw attention to these biases.

[Droogie]

Wow, I knew Matthew came from a fairly well-off family, but I had no idea his family was so posh! Though my parents are squarely in the middle to upper middle class category, my family history is very working class, if not downright poor, but I digress…

With his family’s wealth and all the privilege Matthew experienced in his life, he could have easily become the type of person I despise. Matthew could have become the type of person who refuses to acknowledge the privilege he had over less lucky souls and show no gratitude for the opportunities these privileges gave him from his top notch education to his internship with Wes Anderson to getting his now iconic role of Reid on a successful show like CM at a very young age to directing episodes of CM to all the cool more indie-based projects he has worked on and continues to work on. With all that, Matthew could have become an entitled shit, the type of guy who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple and totally looks down on people like me whose so-called silver spoon is covered a bit in rust and has had a more difficult life. Matthew seems truly gracious and grateful, a true mensch.

It does seem like he could've turned out to be quite the prick, doesn't it? I think he must have some excellent parents. And maybe the awkwardness and bullying he claims to have experienced when he was young helped develop his empathy, because he seems very kind. I do however think that, while his parents likely did likely pay for his education, all the other opportunities he enjoyed were of his own doing. He says everything sort of fell into his lap but I think he sells himself short, beginning with landing that internship with Anderson.

That said, he does seem as though he might poop gold ingots.

[MCatry]

It does seem like he could've turned out to be quite the prick, doesn't it? I think he must have some excellent parents. And maybe the awkwardness and bullying he claims to have experienced when he was young helped develop his empathy, because he seems very kind. I do however think that, while his parents likely did likely pay for his education, all the other opportunities he enjoyed were of his own doing. He says everything sort of fell into his lap but I think he sells himself short, beginning with landing that internship with Anderson.

That said, he does seem as though he might poop gold ingots.

He seems to get along with all people (even with some infamous bad tempered guys), and even though he normally plays dumb, he is indeed very smart. I like his attitude towards work: grabbing any/most job opportunities will at least leave you some connections, if not entirely successful, and working in stuff you want to do only makes it more fun.

Our perceptions are biased, and while the numbers may also be biased depending on how the screen time is counted (e.g. quality-time vs quantity-time), I don't think they're biased towards/against any character.

Just for the record, it's just screen time. I am in no way attempting to evaluate quality time, ever. Too subjective.

If there is a scene, and the character is on it, it is counted, no matter how silent that character is.

[Droogie]

He seems to get along with all people (even with some infamous bad tempered guys), and even though he normally plays dumb, he is indeed very smart. I like his attitude towards work: grabbing any/most job opportunities will at least leave you some connections, if not entirely successful, and working in stuff you want to do only makes it more fun.

Me too. He said on Craig Ferguson that he's had jobs since he was 8 years old. So obviously his parents weren't going to just hand him everything, and instilled a good work ethic in him.

[normasm]

I don't doubt the validity of the statistics, but I do think that the reason our perceptions so often are different from what the numbers tell us is simply because we're human. For example, if you hate JJ or Kate or whoever, you're going to notice more when she's on screen, and you'll feel annoyed/angry and therefore remember it more, than you would for a character you're ambivalent towards and therefore don't have as strong emotions about. Our perceptions are biased, and while the numbers may also be biased depending on how the screen time is counted (e.g. quality-time vs quantity-time), I don't think they're biased towards/against any particular character.

 

Strong emotion - especially negative - makes us remember things more vividly. A character may have got 10 minutes of screentime in an episode, and if those 10 minutes made you irritated/angry, you'll remember it far more than you will the other 30 minutes.

 

There's also confirmation bias - you only acknowledge facts that confirm your belief about something, and ignore facts to the contrary. It's quite remarkable actually, how people do this all the time, often without realizing it.

 

That's why these statistics are so helpful, because they can draw attention to these biases.

MCatry's numbers are dispassionate; she only counts when a character is onscreen, not the quality of that time, nor lack thereof. Not biased.

[Guesswht]

Whether you choose to believe me or not, is irrelevant for me. I actually started this counting in order to prove myself if I was being unfair to Garcia and Then JJ, because I started disliking those two characters rather strongly, and it is still the aim.

I really though Hotch had very little to do. I really though Morgan was way too much, and I also though Kate had more relevance in terms of screen time. I also though they had reduced the amount of Screentime for JJ. I truly though Reid had episodes with even less Screentime than the amount he actually got. I believed even Garcia had more Screentime.

And you know what? I was wrong. My own data proved me wrong, and I don't have a problem with that. I think its just a matter of how our personal desires to see one character over others affect the way we perceive time.

I was right about too much Unsub and too little Reid. And even though Garcia got the lowest figures, I still think that she should just have her time reduced at least in one half.

Another interesting point is that there are some episodes which are centred in one character, and there are others in which the side B story is dedicated to one character. Those are not designed the same.

For instance, a place in the table is a centric episode for Hotch. In Protection, there is a B story for Kate and family, but they are not distributed in the same way.

I have a background in natural sciences and exact sciences, and that's probably why I like things I can measure and weight objectively. That is also why I don't trust social studies. More often than not facts are analysed in a subjective way to accommodate the view of the historician, economist, or whatever 'social studies' guy may be.

Besides, did I ever give the impression that I am a JLH fan? I truly have no reason to twist those figures.

I am sorry, but for me, this is just plain wrong.

I'll count the screen time for JJ, Hotch, Morgan, Garcia, Rossi, Reid and Kate again (when i'm bored)

Not that anyone cares, i'm just doing it. lol

 

I feel bad for Jeanne because i feel like she got wayy more hate than Jennifer and it was totally undeserved, she didn't take away screen time from Reid (and others) like jlh did. Also: i can't feel bad for someone who has crazy, deranged, insane, "defending" fans. jlh will be fine. lol She's not taking the criticism to heart, she seems like someone who has enough (too much) self confidence. Jeanne? i'm not sure if she's fine or not. She didn't leave the show for happy reasons... Maybe she thinks that she destroyed the show because of the insane "i want Paget back, JT sux" ppl.

[Droogie]

Whomever JLH "didn't take away screen time from," it certainly wasn't JJ. Even if McCatry's tabulations are off by seconds, or even minutes (and I don't think they are), there is no disputing which character was onscreen the most.

[Saje]

All I know for a fact is that there's never enough Reid. 

[secnarf]

MCatry's numbers are dispassionate; she only counts when a character is onscreen, not the quality of that time, nor lack thereof. Not biased.

Sorry, I should have explained more - I think one could argue that counting when a character is onscreen is biased in the sense that you could have a character not say a single word all episode and still be onscreen for 15 minutes (sitting around the table, sitting in the car listening while the others talk, non-verbals, etc), and another character could be on screen for 8 minutes but dominate the screentime for those 8 minutes. Simply looking at the numbers and saying that the character got 15 minutes and therefore "took over the episode" doesn't give the whole story and makes it seem like they contributed more than they did - that's what I meant by "quality vs quantity time". The numbers tell us quantity, but there's really no good way of measuring quality, which leads to a systemic bias in the numbers. I haven't the slightest clue how one would go about fixing that, but I think it's important to acknowledge that it's there.

[Russet29]

Being part of a regular cast is not the same as being considered (and billed) as the main cast. Higher salaries nowadays go for both Gibson and Mantegna (and I guess Hewitt too, judging by they way she is placed in the titles). Then the second highest salaries were and are the ones of Moore and Gubler. Lower salaries for both Cook and Vangsness was a source of conflict before season nine, with both actresses asking to have salaries closer to their colleagues. They even said they would quit, and the CBS said it was fine for them. In the end, their pretensions were lowered, and the CBS worked out an agreement with both of them.

Conclusion: for the CBS, and probably also for the audience too, there are some members of the cast that are more valuable (now, and for future shows): the ones in that pack are the main cast. Everyone else, regular or recurring, is expendable.

You could easily make the argument that the reason the two women make less money than their male counterparts is because they're women. Unfortunately we live in a time when women still only make 77 cents to the dollar that a man makes, and this is at a time when more women are going to college than men. I understand JM and TG make more because they've had the most successful and long lasting careers outside of the show and I think you can make the argument that Reid has been the breakout character so it makes sense that MGG would make more. Why there's such a discrepancy between SM and the two women is where the network loses me. I don't think a long career in daytime television makes increases your pay rate.

 

Personally, as a feminist, I take real exception to your use of "their pretensions were lowered." They had every reason to want to get paid more. They were getting paid less than half of what the men were making while working just as many hours. We also have no idea what really happened behind the scenes. All we know is that they took a stand and eventually re-signed. There's no reliable report that says CBS was "fine" with them leaving and I doubt they would be after what happened before season 6 and the horrible PR they got as a result.

[jaytee1812]

I actually see no reason why AJC or KV would earn less than SM or MGG, apart from them being women. They are all supporting characters to the leads in TG and JM. Actually, you could argue with with statistics on this thread AJC should be paid more. 

[normasm]

It could be, frances, that we could go through these numbers and apply a second set: say, Reid has 4 min and 24 seconds onscreen in an episode, we could divide the time dispassionately (more or less) as Time With Direct Focus (character is speaking dialogue or listening with focus on them (like when Reid's wheels are turning even though someone else is speaking), and Time Without Direct Focus (character is merely in the frame but the focus is solidly on someone else, or more than one team member is running around in the dark with guns drawn). This would, of course be tricky, but could be done if one took an oath to be blind to who they were enumerating...

[normasm]

You could easily make the argument that the reason the two women make less money than their male counterparts is because they're women. Unfortunately we live in a time when women still only make 77 cents to the dollar that a man makes, and this is at a time when more women are going to college than men. I understand JM and TG make more because they've had the most successful and long lasting careers outside of the show and I think you can make the argument that Reid has been the breakout character so it makes sense that MGG would make more. Why there's such a discrepancy between SM and the two women is where the network loses me. I don't think a long career in daytime television makes increases your pay rate.

 

Personally, as a feminist, I take real exception to your use of "their pretensions were lowered." They had every reason to want to get paid more. They were getting paid less than half of what the men were making while working just as many hours. We also have no idea what really happened behind the scenes. All we know is that they took a stand and eventually re-signed. There's no reliable report that says CBS was "fine" with them leaving and I doubt they would be after what happened before season 6 and the horrible PR they got as a result.

We've had this discussion before, and I say it's vapor. You are talking about JJ and Garcia. When there have been other women on the show, Paget, Jeanne, and JLH, who have been up in the "and" category right before TG, or the costar position between JM and SM, they have been paid considerably more than AJC and KV, because they are higher up in the chain. In fact, I'm pretty sure Paget made more than Matthew all the time she was there, and JT and JLH made at least as much and probably more than he, too. Look at the order in which they have been listed in the credits from the beginning, and you'll see why Shemar gets paid more than AJ.

 

Oh, and I agree, AJ and KV had and have every right to ask for more money and other things when their contracts come up for renewal, just as everyone else does.

Edited May 18, 2015 by normasm

[ForeverAlone]

I have no idea of what initial salaries were for the cast, so I won't speculate. But I do have a better clue of later salaries.

When Shemar started negotiating his contract renewal in season 6, he was making around $50,000. After his contract negotiation, his salary was bumped up to $100,000 per episode. I believe when AJ was rehired, she signed for $75,000 per episode. When Matthew renegotiated his contract after season 7, his salary was just north of $100,000 per episode (so a bit more than Shemar). I have no clue what AJ asked for a raise, but she didn't get what she wanted (since none of the men make the same amount of money), but she "settled" for $100,000 per episode, which was the same amount Jeanne was signed for. After his last contract negotiation, it seems like Shemar makes $175,000 per episode, but I have no clue what Matthew signed for during his last contract renegotiation).

Edited May 18, 2015 by ForeverAlone

[JMO]

I officially don't care who makes what.  Those decisions are entirely up to the actors, and negotiated by their agents on their behalf.  Only they can prioritize among salary, or perks, or free time, or freedom to do other projects, or whatever else is negotiated.  None of it adds or subtracts from my enjoyment of the show.  The only thing that does that is the quality of the product.

[MCatry]

You could easily make the argument that the reason the two women make less money than their male counterparts is because they're women.

 

Brewster, Tripplehorn and Hewitt were paid more than Moore and Gubler.

I am a woman, but I am not a feminist, nor I ever will be. I don't think a woman should have the same salary than a man just based on the fact that she is a woman. If they do the same job, ok. If they have the same responsibilities, also ok. But filling in the women quote just because doesnt suit right to me. For instance, when a specific percentage of findings for research are assigned to female researchers, no matter how useless they are, discarding good projects proposed by male researchers just in order to be politically correct. I've seen that. It is also unfair. A person should be paid for its value as a worker, independent of their gender.

I actually see no reason why AJC or KV would earn less than SM or MGG, apart from them being women. They are all supporting characters to the leads in TG and JM. Actually, you could argue with with statistics on this thread AJC should be paid more.

Oh, absolutely!

And that's what puzzles me the most. If the CBS think most of the audience is there just for Gibson and Mantegna, why don't they have more screen time?

If they think AJ Cook is the most valuable cast member, so they dedicate a lot of screen time, scenes and the 200 milestone, why were they so cheap when they refused to pay her what she wanted, and they were actually on the verge of not renewing her contract?

Why do they promote Moore to no end in their official facebook page using him as an object on display saying 'look! Abs!', and then they pay him an intermediate salary compared with the rest of the cast?

It just doesn't make sense, at all.

And I wouldn't mind kicking some doors for a whole year if someone is willing to pay me $175,000 at least once.

[normasm]

MCatry, dear, a feminist does not believe a woman should get special treatment, or be treated the same as a man, or fill a quota. A feminist believes, as you seem to, that a woman, if she does the same job as a man, should be paid the same, no qualifiers. A feminist believes that a woman's work should be as valued as that of a man. Not more, but on an equal consideration. A feminist appreciates men and what they do, but wants that consideration for herself. Hell, "herself"? be damned, I know many male feminists! 

 

Bottom line, when you hear someone say they are a feminist, please don't automatically assume they want special treatment, or to fill quotas on jobs they may not be qualified for. That's garbage for the most part, often propagated by people who are dismissive of anything past the 19th century.

[secnarf]

MCatry, dear, a feminist does not believe a woman should get special treatment, or be treated the same as a man, or fill a quota. A feminist believes, as you seem to, that a woman, if she does the same job as a man, should be paid the same, no qualifiers. A feminist believes that a woman's work should be as valued as that of a man. Not more, but on an equal consideration. A feminist appreciates men and what they do, but wants that consideration for herself. Hell, "herself"? be damned, I know many male feminists! 

 

Bottom line, when you hear someone say they are a feminist, please don't automatically assume they want special treatment, or to fill quotas on jobs they may not be qualified for. That's garbage for the most part, often propagated by people who are dismissive of anything past the 19th century.

My alma mater recently did some sort of statistical analysis showing that women were paid $3,515 than male faculty members, and that this difference was unexplainable by length of tenure, faculty, or any other variables that they looked at. Therefore, they concluded that this difference was due to discrimination and increased the female faculty's salaries. The school "will add $3,515 to the base salaries of all full-time female faculty members to help correct what it calls "a systematic bias" in favour of male professors."

 

As I'm sure you can imagine, it's a bit controversial. I agree with what you wrote about feminism, but I think that sometimes it's a fine line. I don't doubt that the school genuinely wanted to eliminate any sexism in the way their faculty members were paid (I can't imagine them raising all of those salaries out of the goodness of their hearts), but I'm not entirely sure that's the best way to go about it. It's hard to prove that each person getting a raise deserves it, and some may deserve more or less of a raise than others.

 

[normasm]

Yes, I agree, there has to be accountability, individual consideration, not just blanket "EQUALITY" especially when there is no such thing. However, you are talking academic world, and there's a lot goes on there that I don't know much about. Except that they don't pay teachers enough, universally.

[MCatry]

MCatry, dear, a feminist does not believe a woman should get special treatment, or be treated the same as a man, or fill a quota. A feminist believes, as you seem to, that a woman, if she does the same job as a man, should be paid the same, no qualifiers. A feminist believes that a woman's work should be as valued as that of a man. Not more, but on an equal consideration. A feminist appreciates men and what they do, but wants that consideration for herself. Hell, "herself"? be damned, I know many male feminists! 

 

Bottom line, when you hear someone say they are a feminist, please don't automatically assume they want special treatment, or to fill quotas on jobs they may not be qualified for. That's garbage for the most part, often propagated by people who are dismissive of anything past the 19th century.

Well, I get that, but then I can tell you I've heard and read many of those 'feminists' whose arguments are rather twisted.

Take, for instance, the case of AJ Cook and KV. Many of those feminists were stating that they deserved to be paid as much as the men. In what universe? I wonder... And then, which men? The ones that are at the top, or the second group? Should everyone be paid the same, just so everyone would be treated equally? That's what bothers me: when the 'so-called feminists' use the argument that women should be equals to men in situations in which there is a hierarchy, and hence you cannot be valued all the same, just because in that way no one gets mad. For instance, cast members do not have the same curriculum, and hence they cannot be paid as if everyone would be bringing the exact stuff to the job. In the same way, you cannot expect to be paid at your University the same amount of money than someone that does the same job than you, but have more qualifications and experience.

I am not American, so sometimes I wonder if its just a matter of background, but there's this other thing that bothers me too: from time to time Criminal minds 'has to try to replace Prentiss', and in different news comments, blogs and similar sites there are always those posters asking things like 'bring an afroamerican woman', or 'bring an Asian agent', or 'Indian', or whatever. I think it is even worst to be picked to do a job just because they have to fill a position for a minority. If you are the best qualified for a job, then that job should be yours, no matter if you are male, female, mom, single, old or a baby genius. But I am aware that the world doesn't work like that. It's just that I think extreme feminism is just as bad as the worst chauvinism,

Why that has to be such a big issue?

[Danielg342]

MCatry, dear, a feminist does not believe a woman should get special treatment, or be treated the same as a man, or fill a quota. A feminist believes, as you seem to, that a woman, if she does the same job as a man, should be paid the same, no qualifiers. A feminist believes that a woman's work should be as valued as that of a man. Not more, but on an equal consideration. A feminist appreciates men and what they do, but wants that consideration for herself. Hell, "herself"? be damned, I know many male feminists! 

 

Bottom line, when you hear someone say they are a feminist, please don't automatically assume they want special treatment, or to fill quotas on jobs they may not be qualified for. That's garbage for the most part, often propagated by people who are dismissive of anything past the 19th century.

 

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but truth be told in today's day and age, "feminism" has become a dirty word because of nutbars like Anita Sarkeesian who assume just about everything "guy related" is bad and other nutbars who live by things like "Schrodinger's Rapist" and assume every man out there is a potential rapist or wants to commit some kind of harm against women. I'm a guy who wants to proudly support feminsim, because I believe in equal rights and opportunities and would never even think of hurting a woman, but it's hard when I get dirty looks simply because I decide to say "hello" to a girl.

 

Bottom line, is, modern-day feminism, the type that trumpets a gross misrepresentation of a heavy-edited video, needs to seriously evaluate its methods.

 

(I also don't understand what you're saying in the second paragraph there)

 

Well, I get that, but then I can tell you I've heard and read many of those 'feminists' whose arguments are rather twisted.

Take, for instance, the case of AJ Cook and KV. Many of those feminists were stating that they deserved to be paid as much as the men. In what universe? I wonder... And then, which men? The ones that are at the top, or the second group? Should everyone be paid the same, just so everyone would be treated equally? That's what bothers me: when the 'so-called feminists' use the argument that women should be equals to men in situations in which there is a hierarchy, and hence you cannot be valued all the same, just because in that way no one gets mad. For instance, cast members do not have the same curriculum, and hence they cannot be paid as if everyone would be bringing the exact stuff to the job. In the same way, you cannot expect to be paid at your University the same amount of money than someone that does the same job than you, but have more qualifications and experience.

I am not American, so sometimes I wonder if its just a matter of background, but there's this other thing that bothers me too: from time to time Criminal minds 'has to try to replace Prentiss', and in different news comments, blogs and similar sites there are always those posters asking things like 'bring an afroamerican woman', or 'bring an Asian agent', or 'Indian', or whatever. I think it is even worst to be picked to do a job just because they have to fill a position for a minority. If you are the best qualified for a job, then that job should be yours, no matter if you are male, female, mom, single, old or a baby genius. But I am aware that the world doesn't work like that. It's just that I think extreme feminism is just as bad as the worst chauvinism,

Why that has to be such a big issue?

 

I think this is a very good point, and I believe a lot of it has to do with a long tradition of discrimination in the U.S. America is quite unique in this regard in being that so much of its history and its identity is pinned on the white male at the pinnacle of society, and it's been recently where the U.S. is trying to correct that. One of those manifestations is that Hollywood favoured- and still does, to a degree- white male actors for their leads, and will give them a variety of roles as opposed to minorities.

 

Unfortunately, the "solution" to the old way of doing things has always been to "reverse" the discrimination, instead of telling people to start looking at things objectively. There shouldn't be anything wrong with having white male actors fill in roles- if that's what the creative vision calls for, then that's what should get used- I just think Hollywood needs to stop assuming a "white male lead" is what is needed to ensure a wide audience, and that when they do create roles for minorities, they cover roles that have always been given to white men.

 

I think of this show as a perfect example of the perils of reverse discrimination- Erica Messer seems to think that by having more male victims and increasing the screentime of her Mary Sue will undo the damage when it really does the opposite. Treating any victim as a "pawn" is wrong- be it male or female- since it does a disservice to the whole idea of a victim, because it strips them of what makes us care about them- the fact that they had lives and families and a purpose in this world. Secondly, by using JJ as an idealized version of a woman, Messer doesn't realize she's basically equating womanhood with an unreasonable and quite frankly unattainable standard of excellence that, if I was a woman, I'd be insulted by. The media has had enough problems creating women that are frankly unrealistic, so adding JJ to that mix is flat-out wrong, plus Messer doesn't understand strength isn't about how many things you master but how you overcome your own setbacks- setbacks that JJ never seems to get...and that's the real crime.

 

May I ask what country you're from, MCatry? I'm Canadian.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Danielg342

[MCatry]

I am a TCK, third (and last child) of a couple of rolling stones. My dad was the son of a Spanish woman and a French guy living in Feuerland, while my mom was the daughter of a Galician woman and a Welsh shepherd living in the Falkland Islands. Unfortunately, I never met any of my grandparents, since they were long dead when I wasn't even in my parents plans.

Born in Patagonia Argentina because that was the most near place with a hospital, I spent my early childhood between Chile and the Falklands. Then moved out to Australia, then Germany, then Portugal, and finally Scotland. Once I finished the A levels I got my Univesity degree in Argentina, then the master in Spain and the PhD from an interamerican U based in Panama. I've had the opportunity to visit awesome places while doing research in coastal environments, but now I am currently on my last couple of months in the USA. I am on my way to move to Buenos Aires. The plan is to then try to move to Southern Patagonia, and then live happily ever after, but only after doing some more voluntary work whenever I win a position chasing penguins, black rats, marine snails or albatrosses, or running vegetation biodiversity studies.

I'll be gone by the end of August.

[Saje]

The definition of feminist is different for people, depending on how you grew up with it. It shouldn't be. I'm definitely a feminist, and I'm a guy.

 

The blanket, and most accurate definition seems to be just equal pay for equal work, equal leg space on the subway, don't sexually objectify me unless we've mutually agreed that's cool, don't think you can shut me up with physical violence, and just... stop. Stop and think. Golden Rule comes into play too. 

[normasm]

Daniel, to your point about giving some people who claim to be feminist the title simply because they claim it, when, in fact, they are extremists, plays into the whole identity issue, which is not just "American" but universal. Lots of people claim to be things they aren't; racists claim they are anything but, misogynists claim to be for equal rights, blah, blah.

I am a feminist, and I do cleve to what I believe is the true definition, as I defined. Of course, I could be wrong and/or mislead, but I'm really tired of people being dismissed because others have an agenda to get rid of what they are threatened by, i.e., strong women, or people of another color who want to live in their neighborhood. A feminist is a person who believes women are to be considered just as worthy of life without prejudice as men.

[Danielg342]

Normasm:

 

I do agree with you in principle. I was more about trying to explain why "feminism" has become such a "bad" word to use (in fact, it'd been a "bad" word for quite some time- recent events have just underscored it, I think). Plus, while I agree that identity politics take hold in many other places of the globe, I think it forms a far larger part of the public discourse in the U.S. than it does elsewhere in the world, mainly because the discourse is different. In Europe, it's almost always about bringing ideas together and finding common ground, whereas in North America we're very combative and have a "me-first" mentality (not to mention a very sensationalist news media). Which is why I think some people wind up pushing things too far.

[Peter Rhea]

So Prentiss and Kate will return in season 11

http://www.movienewsguide.com/criminal-minds-season-11-renewed-emily-prentiss-kate-callahan-returns/64991

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I do agree with you in principle. I was more about trying to explain why "feminism" has become such a "bad" word to use (in fact, it'd been a "bad" word for quite some time- recent events have just underscored it, I think).

 

Think about it this way - if you gender-flip the situation when Seaver showed up and a female agent who had previously been perfectly competent suddenly said that the Bureau had relaxed the rules in a fairly significant way so that she could become an FBI operative, there'd be a stink like ya'll wouldn't believe. But because it was Reid, that's somehow supposed to be acceptable? Yeah, no. Let's not even get into how uncute it would be if he told Garcia to her face that never in a million years could he ever think she was attractive. There would certainly be no defending it from some quarters about how he only saw Penelope as a friend, or that he was just kidding with JJ if he told her he was even nice to "girls like her" when he was in high school. If its not okay in one case, why is it somehow okay just because the roles are reversed?

[Saje]

... 

 

Not sure... how any of that has anything to do with feminism?

[Saje]

Hmm. Didn't say they would, just that they could.

[normasm]

Peter Rhea, that's just a spin on a previous article, and it has a title that's totally fabricated.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

... 

 

Not sure... how any of that has anything to do with feminism?

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenderFlip

 

Basically its what happened when they re-booted Battlestar Galactica and Starbuck was suddenly a woman instead of a man. As it relates to CM, when the unfortunate Seaver showed up as a cadet that Rossi consulted for some crazy-ass reason, Reid had dialogue to the effect that they'd had to relax the requirements for him as it related to "marksmanship, physical training, obstacle course, Hogan's alley, you know, pretty much everything that wasn't technically book-related." Mind you, this happened in the sixth season of the show, and at no point before that had Spencer ever mentioned that such allowances had had to be made so he could join the Bureau.

 

I will grant you that Reid's claim is bad writing, but basically Ashley Seaver's only real qualification to be on the team at that point was that she was.....wait for it....the daughter of a serial killer. She hadn't even graduated from the damn Academy yet, since David first meets her while she's running the obstacle course. But somehow its okay to make Reid look like he can barely walk in a straight line so that her narrow little butt can stick around, particularly since she screws up spectacularly her first time out of the gate and could have gotten herself killed, and all she gets out of Hotch and Rossi is "don't do it again"? Despite how this probably sounds, I minded Ashley less than some other viewers did, but it worked my nerves that the newb was the cause of a long-time character looking less than. I hope that makes sense.

[Danielg342]

...

Not sure... how any of that has anything to do with feminism?

Because, in short, people have used “feminism” as a means of promoting discrimination against men (with the media using “feminism” as an excuse to let all of this slide), when, if the ideas were flipped, there would be an outrage.

Case in point: I remember once a former friend of mine on Facebook posted a link to a video from a group that claimed to be “promoting equality in the media” when it was clear it was just a front for radical feminist propaganda. Part of the video focused on criticising the objectification of women, with two male musicians- one being Justin Timberlake, the other I think was Robin Thicke (for “Blurred Lines”)- and one female musician, Rihanna, taken to task for portraying women as sexual objects. I remember commenting on the post by noting that the video did not take to task Christina Aguilera, who released a song- “Your Body”- in that same timeframe that spared no expense to assert it objectified men as sexual objects (the video is even worse in this regard). I remember expressly saying that “if we're going to rail against objectification, it should go both ways- not just when a man does it to a woman.”

In response, one of her friends jumped in and called me a “misogynist” for making the comment that I did. At that point I knew the conversation was just going to go nowhere so I basically just offered a token response just to save face and left, deleting the friend who posted the link off of my Facebook list.

Still, I pointed out then, as I am now, that you can't use “feminism” and “equality” to justify hypocrisy, and a disappointingly loud group of “feminists” misconstrue the original idea of feminism (which is all about gender equality, not making things unequal for men) and insist that by “flipping the switch” and committing wrongs against men that were once committed against women is somehow “okay” when it isn't.

Which is where this show comes in. As Cobalt Stargazer noted, the show seems to have the mistaken belief that if Reid (and Morgan, who I throw in here) is somehow “reduced” in capacity in favour of JJ that it is somehow “okay” when it isn't. Now, I think there are a lot of other factors in the “rise of JJ” than radical feminism, but I do believe it plays a part.

To wit:

Let's say that, for years, JJ (and let's put Amy Davidson (Zoe) in this role instead of AJ Cook) was the “daughter figure” with a special mind with a troubled past who needs guidance in order to realize her true potential and understand the horrible world she's been thrust into. She becomes a beloved figure for her “quirks” and her own special brand of empathy, because even though she doesn't know how the world works, her knowledge at least allows her to understand and relate to the pain that it causes.

Now, let's assume in this scenario that Reid- formerly in the background as the capable but otherwise un-noteworthy media liaison- suddenly rises to prominence in Season 7 after getting fired from the show a year before. This Reid, though liked in his old role- which is why people wanted him back- comes back as not in his old role and not just as a profiler, but the best profiler there is, also being able to kick some ass too! The rest of the team fawns over his abilities, never failing to mention how “special” he is.

The kicker? To give Reid credibility, lines and qualifications that were normally given to JJ are given to Reid, with JJ often being “shown up” by Reid just to drive the point home.

Given all that, imagine what the uproar would be. You wouldn't hear the end how CM became sexist because it promoted a male character over a female character, let alone a female character that was beloved. More than likely, Reid would have to get “dumbed down” again in favour of JJ just so CM could save face and stem the backlash, if it ever could recover from such a faux pas.

The only reason why that would happen in that scenario? It's because- to quote the familiar refrain- “a man has been elevated above a woman, and we just can't have that!”

Yet, somehow, when the reverse- a woman is elevated over a man simply due to her gender- happens in reality, no one ever really raises a stink, out of the misguided idea that discriminating against “the majority” because they'd been oppressors somehow makes it “okay” when in truth you're just switching one problem for another- and alienating the very people who could actually help end inequality in the first place.

[Saje]

TL;DR, but I get your gist. And I know that it exists, but I personally don't know any women that want to 'attack' us. They just want to be considered equal to, not less than. 

[zannej]

Thanks for the final season screentime calculations, McCatry.

The unsubs really have waaay too much screentime. They should be the ones with less than 10min per episode.

[missmycat]

Re: AJ Cook's salary. I can see the point being made about AJ getting paid more. So far CBS deemed her worthy of a 2 hour season finale. And she had an entire season dedicated to her character in which she got the milestone episode of "200". And unlike Hotch who basically had to share "100" with the team,"200' was pretty much JJ's exclusively.And then of course there has been the ton of screen time/focus she has been getting ever since she returned often at the expense of the other characters

 

The bottom line is if CBS believes AJ Cook is worthy of all this screen time/focus.( I am still waiting for JJ to get a season premiere dedicated to her) Why then is she not worthy of top billing both in the credit and salary. Especially since she is treated much of the time as though she is the one who brings in the majority of CM's viewers.

 

And on that note since the show is looking to cut the budget. I would suggest that CBS force MGG to take a huge pay cut. If he refuses then show him the door.Hey don't get me wrong I adore the guy. But CBS must view Reid as being rather irrelevant to the show's success. What with the lack of screen time/focus he has been getting these last couple of seasons.Let's face it. Nowadays he is basically there to bring "the pretty" to the show as well as spout some useless and irrelevant wikipedia facts. And it's not like they need him for his genius anymore since Garcia and JJ pretty much got that covered.So is he really worth about 2 million a year.

 

I am of course being somewhat facetious while at the same time hoping I've gotten my point across.

Edited May 19, 2015 by missmycat

[Cobalt Stargazer]

TL;DR, but I get your gist. And I know that it exists, but I personally don't know any women that want to 'attack' us. They just want to be considered equal to, not less than. 

 

And that's fair. What isn't fair is when equality is achieved through false means, or in this case through a bogus re-write. I mean, if the argument is that its okay for Reid to be dumbed down (in the physical sense) so that Seaver's lack of qualifications never comes up, then fine, I guess, but if you're gonna go there, then it should be just as acceptable for them to have replaced JJ with Ashley on a permanent basis. If only because the team only needs one vaguely annoying blonde around at the time. She was either qualified or she wasn't, and if she wasn't then they should have brought her on-board under some other pretense.

[missmycat]

 

And that's fair. What isn't fair is when equality is achieved through false means, or in this case through a bogus re-write. I mean, if the argument is that its okay for Reid to be dumbed down (in the physical sense) so that Seaver's lack of qualifications never comes up, then fine, I guess, but if you're gonna go there, then it should be just as acceptable for them to have replaced JJ with Ashley on a permanent basis. If only because the team only needs one vaguely annoying blonde around at the time. She was either qualified or she wasn't, and if she wasn't then they should have brought her on-board under some other pretense.

I totally agree with you. However what I personally find even more offensive are the times they've dumb Reid down intelligence wise in order to make JJ look good.I don't remember the earlier writers showing off Reid's genius by making the rest of the team look less intelligent. If they want to show JJ as being intelligent that's fine. But damn it they need to stop doing it at the expense of Reid and the rest of the team. And even more important they need to stop writing JJ(Garcia) as though she(they) were the genius nowadays.

[Saje]

I was speaking in general, coblatstargazer. I wasn't talking about Reid or Seaver or anyone else from the show, specifically.

 

I'm actually one that wasn't overly impressed with Seaver and I thought that season would have benefitted from her absence. 

[normasm]

Saje and CoStar, i agree with both of your points: if they had had Seaver consulting a bit on that one episode and then said, "come back when you've passed the academy with flying colors," and then had her come back later in the season as a trainee, but one kept to the back, I could have maybe bought Seaver. But, yeah, to marginalize Reid to just a brain when we saw him struggle to pass weapons requirements early on, was dumb and insulting. Nothing the character of Seaver could do from that point on made any difference to me (and you notice i'm not saying anything bad about Rachel) - from this point on they seemed to want to destroy the character of Reid. Even before JJ came back. What kinda what is that?

[SSAHotchner]

One thing I want to say about screen time for each character is that once Erica was put in charge, the screen times began to change for the worse. For instance, folks genuinely liked Garcia. She had some cute quirks and often delivered some comic relief. From season 6 on, Garcia became more and more quirky and her lines got more and more ridiculous. A little Garcia was welcome and fun. A lot of Garcia became (for me, at least) unbearable. Her character ballooned to a ridiculous caricature of her former self. The same can be said for JJ. I really don't have a major problem with JJ becoming a profiler, although I preferred her as the media liaison. But she is now over-the-top master profiler, even taking charge over Hotch in some cases, total ninja-like fighter, and she has lost the gentle compassion she once had and is now cold and hard. In the meantime, Reid's character has been dumbed down, as others have noted, or he has been reduced to a fact-spouting machine. Hotch and Rossi, the real experienced agents, often have very little to do, and they, and Reid, often disappear midway through an episode not to return again. This is so disappointing and frustrating. I realize that after 10 years the younger agents will have honed their skills, but it's annoying to have JJ and Morgan taking over every aspect of the case and seasoned agents like Hotch and Rossi hanging around the local police station barely contributing a thing. And despite all this talk about contract negotiations, it feels to me like this shift in screen time is Erica's preference.  I don't care what the reasons are for this change. I just want it to stop. I wouldn't even focus on who got a few more minutes of screen time if the scripts were well-written and made sense and each of the team would get something significant to do. You know...like in the old days of Criminal Minds.