Members rhythmchyc Posted July 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 I want to know why the misogyny and the emotional sadomashochism is running rampant on this show? Why there are no strong young women left on the show? Why everyone's an idiot, except for K and Nina? You can be plot drien and have shock value and still have none of these things going on. Look at Julia raping Jack on ATWT, even though she had become this larger than life character, she was never the victim like Mary Jane is quickly becoming. Oh, and I wanted to also ask if Lily loved those Hitchcock movies because they featured shallow ditzes with no personality? Hitchcock loved beating his women down. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cheap21 Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 He's not doing it bc he hates her; its bc he's in lust with her. Yeah this is something he would do....7 years ago. He hasnt seen her in years so it makes no sense why now all of a sudden he's back doing this crazy scheme to win her over. They were never a couple and she never recipricated any love. What I find even dumber is why Amber is letting herself be blackmailed. Why not just tell Daniel that Deacon once was obsessed with her and he is the fatehr of the boy she raised as a son. I dont see why this is even a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 I think Julia was played for shock and laughs. Hogan wanted us to wonder what would happen next as Julia raped a man and killed animals. I think he probably wanted the same for Mary Jane but with MAB and Rauch and Hamner around, the show does not have that campy air his ATWT writing had, so she is just more pathetic. I also think the plans for MJ changed somewhere along the line because of bad viewer reaction to the way Sharon was being written. This sudden bond between Sharon and Phyllis is difficult to believe and seems like a way to keep the triangle in place. Now Phyllis and Sharon are both liars, and mentally feeble, but they're presented as poor victims who are just doing what they can for Nick's precious children. Then eventually when MJ is gone, Phyllis will probably go back to the dark side, and we'll get more of what we got earlier this year. Unhinged Phyllis contrasted against sweet, precious Sharon who needs a man to help her, and whose grief means she can't stop sleeping around. Any show with Hamner, Rauch, and Sheffer is going to be sadistic and have views of women as being all about men, all about babies, mentally unbalanced. They aren't even pretending Lily's cancer is about anything other than men. I don't want to see Dru return because of what would be done to her, but more than ever I miss her presence in stories like this which should be about the pain a woman is going through and her struggles to survive, not about a woman's overbearing/creepy father and brother or about her waiting for Cane to be her hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 Not gonna deny the misogyny on Y&R or Hitchcock's work. But Hitchcock's women all shallow ditzes with no personality? Oh, far from it! Undercover Ingrid Bergman in Notorious, feisty Madeleine Carroll in The 39 Steps, Grace Kelly in Rear Window (she does all the detective work while James Stewart is stuck in a wheelchair!) and To Catch a Thief, secret agent Eva Marie Saint in North By Northwest, even prankster Tippi Hedren in The Birds... all those women, while demurely dressed, had balls, brains and sexiness. Not like the passive Mischa Bartons and Megan Foxes of today. Sorry. Just had to put in my $0.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 Thank you for the translation. I really liked the idea of that final scene. But because I have never seen or (I confess) heard of Gilda, I missed something. I guess I need to watch it now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhythmchyc Posted July 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 I knew someone was gonna bring up Grace Kelly in Rear Window lol. But that wasn't one of the movies mentioned in yesterday's episode lol. It was North by Northwest and Vertigo. That female lead (I cannot remember her name) and Bel Geddes, who pined after Jimmy's character for some unknown reason, were two women written in Vertigo with very little respect. They were like children, as was the case for Bel Geddess's character or simply not real, in Novak's case. And I hated North by Northwest so I can't recall Saint's role as readily but she wasn't nearly as revered as Kelly is in just about all of Hitchcock's films. The crazy thing is. These films were done when chauvinism and misogyny were the norm. It's the [!@#$%^&*] 21st century and these girls still pine after men who don't deserve it and who have no career goals or self-respect. K is the only woman left who represents that it seems, Chloe to a lesser extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 The fabulous Kim Novak was the lead in Vertigo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhythmchyc Posted July 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 Thanks Paul. I just looked it up. She was just an object to Stewart, an obsession or a mirage. Far from a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 Is anyone else feeling a little weirded out by Thom's appearance? I think his surgery is quite noticeable and distracting,and coupled with the writing for Phillip,is contributing to a creepy vibe surrounding the character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brimike Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yeah, where did he come from, huh? He made quite an impression on me as well, in only a couple of scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhythmchyc Posted July 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 That chin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brimike Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 I also read Playboy for the articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 So agree and I'm glad you brought up the historical context because I edited that from my previous post. We cannot always compare today's standards with, say, 1955-1965 when women were expected to look and act like delicate hothouse flowers. In some ways, I'm glad that I grew up in the 80s and 90s because at least I had female "role models" like Debbie Harry, Alexis Colby, Brenda Walsh (lol -- c'mon, she was fierce. "I hate you! Never talk to me again!!"), Madonna and Buffy in the public eye. I look at the Hannah Montanas and Britneys and LiLohans and "The Hills" chicks -- all these pretty and passive girls utterly controlled by parents, corporations or drugs. I sort of feel sorry that this is what teenage girls have to "aspire" to. Like aspects of "feminism" -- or at least the perception that women can be strong and smart -- has taken a step backwards since the progressive 70s or bitchtastic 80s. Not least in Daytime where we have child-bride Lily craving to be the perfect 1950s mother & housewife: giving up work, concentrating on makin' babies, tending to the dream house that Cane brought for her. I'm not laying this at Khalil's feet since she herself is a working young actress now... but I wonder if sometimes the writers do not dare stray outside of what they believe is an actor's comfort zone. CK married exceptionally young and maybe the writers have made assumptions about that and the sort of character she might want to play. Kind of like the way they portray JT and Vamptoria as essentially extensions of the actors themselves and their RL romance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dm. Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 For someone that was thankfully dead, she gets more airtime than half the cast. Sabrina, Sabrina, Sabrina... why mention something that was a disaster? Same thing with the freakin' chipmunk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted July 22, 2009 Members Share Posted July 22, 2009 EDIT: NEVERMIND Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.