Interesting Reading

In a post-feminist world, this is normal. In a post-feminist world, we just accept that men are both the do-gooders and the bad guys, and the women are only involved as part of the guys world. They can be helpless victims or helpful assistants, but they can't hold the prime spot.

Sigh.

I'm not condoning it. I can't fight it -- well, besides basically taking myself out of the economic equation that allows these films, television shows, books and other entertainments to thrive. (Though I am a big LOST fan, a show in which the female characters are only developed through their male counterparts or killed off [see: Anna Lucia's demise].)

But the fun part of the post-feminist world is that we say that this isn't sexism. No -- it's just "the way". And that's the fun. If it stand up and say "Whoa, this doesn't sit right," then you're a fun-killing femi-nazi who, if you had your way would have all the men in the world as unhappy, neutered slaves while the women did everything.

Barrak Obama is right, we should just get past the struggles of the '60s and '70s. (No, I can't get over his bizzare popularity among so-called progressives.)

Having finally caught up on Lost, I'd argue that Juliet may be the one exception to your developed-through-men or killed character argument there; yes, much of her introduction was in relation to Ben, but she's had SO much development on her own (and I just keep thinking of the scene when she tells Kate about the kiss, then tells Jack she knows he's awake, since I just watched that one last night and it was AWESOME, just like Juliet. Though I digress). But I just finished rearranging my office and am a dirty mess who needs to go home, so that's all you get for now. More soon. Promise!