![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lizbee...because I just finished watching season three, and my primary reaction was, "Is Sorkin gone yet?" cesario did warn me, but I don't think I quite comprehended the level of annoyance I'd feel.
The problem with the third season is that there are all these episodes that deal with feminism, and they all boil down to "Dammit, why can't you women just sit down, shut up and accept that Josh and Sam know what's best?". Which is problematic to say the least.
It probably doesn't help that I can't warm to Amy Gardner as a character; she's Mandy 2.0 only with less charm. And, admittedly, Mandy was far too ambitious to work for feminist lobby groups, but I keep looking at Amy and thinking, I WANT MANDY BACK.
And there was a WHOLE SUBPLOT dedicated to defending Sam's right to sexually harrass Ainsley. Complete with humourless straw feminist who is totally smacked down by the fact that Ainsley says she doesn't mind. That's nice, of course, and Ainsley is a Republican, so she probably doesn't care that her "one of the boys" banter that actually draws attention to her femininity and sexuality, which I don't really see the other "boys" doing in their interactions together -- oh, sorry, digression. I was going to say, Ainsley probably doesn't care that it might make other employees uncomfortable.
And this is without getting into "Women of Qumar", aka "Let's make CJ really out of character so she can talk about the evils of our made-up Middle Eastern straw man country".
In short: Is Sorkin gone yet?
On an unrelated note, except that it, too, relates to Issues With Women, one of this week's trashy gossip magazines has the cover story Ange's baby plans! Brad trapped! 'Cos, you know, leaving your partner and six kids is okay, but seven kids? That'll keep him. The artificial good man/evil woman dichotomy is frustrating.
As is RUSS-L, which managed a whole 24 hours of activity before we got some passive-aggressive concern trolling. Remind me again why I don't just burn the whole damn mailing list down?
cesario did warn me, but I don't think I quite comprehended the level of annoyance I'd feel.The problem with the third season is that there are all these episodes that deal with feminism, and they all boil down to "Dammit, why can't you women just sit down, shut up and accept that Josh and Sam know what's best?". Which is problematic to say the least.
It probably doesn't help that I can't warm to Amy Gardner as a character; she's Mandy 2.0 only with less charm. And, admittedly, Mandy was far too ambitious to work for feminist lobby groups, but I keep looking at Amy and thinking, I WANT MANDY BACK.
And there was a WHOLE SUBPLOT dedicated to defending Sam's right to sexually harrass Ainsley. Complete with humourless straw feminist who is totally smacked down by the fact that Ainsley says she doesn't mind. That's nice, of course, and Ainsley is a Republican, so she probably doesn't care that her "one of the boys" banter that actually draws attention to her femininity and sexuality, which I don't really see the other "boys" doing in their interactions together -- oh, sorry, digression. I was going to say, Ainsley probably doesn't care that it might make other employees uncomfortable.
And this is without getting into "Women of Qumar", aka "Let's make CJ really out of character so she can talk about the evils of our made-up Middle Eastern straw man country".
In short: Is Sorkin gone yet?
On an unrelated note, except that it, too, relates to Issues With Women, one of this week's trashy gossip magazines has the cover story Ange's baby plans! Brad trapped! 'Cos, you know, leaving your partner and six kids is okay, but seven kids? That'll keep him. The artificial good man/evil woman dichotomy is frustrating.
As is RUSS-L, which managed a whole 24 hours of activity before we got some passive-aggressive concern trolling. Remind me again why I don't just burn the whole damn mailing list down?
