Posts Tagged ‘relationships’
So I’m not a big fan of Saturday Night Live. So it’s no surprise that I never know who is hosting at what time. But if I would have known that Tina Fey was hosting SNL this past Saturday, I might have tuned in…if I wasn’t at an amazing concert. I personally think that SNL started going majorly downhill (it was already going downhill from the previous seasons) when Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon left the show. So I probably would have tuned in if I could have if I knew that Tina Fey was hosting.
But then I caught this clip of “Women’s News” from the Weekend Update that Tina Fey did. Oh Tina Fey. I sometimes I have such high hopes for you, but then you go and do things like this:
So, I didn’t want to add to the mess that is the Sandra Bullock/Jesse James scandal. It’s been beaten with a stick and yet we are still talking about it. And then Tina Fey had to go an add to it. For those who didn’t feel like watching the clip, Tina Fey basically blamed Michelle “Bombshell” McGee (and all mistresses basically) for Jesse James (and men in general) cheating. Because everyone knows that the men wouldn’t cheat if it wasn’t for those horrible women that lure them away. It’s not the man’s fault at all. I expected better from you Tina Fey.
Oh, and don’t forget how she made the judgments based on McGee’s tattoos. I, personally, don’t really like the whole body tattoo look, but that doesn’t mean that the people that have those tattoos are horrible people.
I know that the media in general have been blaming and slut-shaming McGee for this whole situation (even though it has come out that Jesse James had numerous affairs). But I was just shocked to see Tina Fey join in just to get a laugh. I’m very disappointed in you, Tina.
The other day I posted this picture on my tumblr which I found on Post Secret this week with the question: do you think having your husband/partner/significant other(s) take out the garbage is unfeminist?
All of the answers that I got were of the “hell no” variety.
What I found interesting about this “secret” is that the sender felt it necessary to qualify the statement with “I’m definitely a feminist” as if having your husband take out the garbage would make this person not a feminist.
This got me thinking about why having your husband/partner/etc. take out the garbage might possibly be considered unfeminist. Chores are traditionally, stereotypically thought to be the woman’s territory. But stereotypically men take out the garbage and mow the lawn. So this is maybe why this person thought that having her husband take out the garbage was unfeminist…
But I don’t think that it has to be unfeminist, and neither do the people who responded to my question. I think that the important distinction is that it could be unfeminist if someone assumes that the husband will take out the garbage because he is the man and that the wife will do all the other chores around the house because she is a woman. I think that it is important to discuss what is expected of each person in the relationship when it comes to household duties and why each person should be doing those duties. The important thing is the communication about what is expected.
For example, if someone does the cooking, then maybe the other does the dishes. This doesn’t have to be the case, but discussing what is expected of each partner for the household duties is, I think, an important part of a feminist relationship. It shouldn’t just be assumed that one partner is going to do certain chores because that is what is expected of women and men. And it also shouldn’t be expected that one person will do all the chores, household duties should be shared, even if it is on a rotating basis. Taking care of the space that you live in together as a communicating team, I think, is important to building and maintaining a strong relationship.
*I should note that I have never been in a relationship where we have lived together, these observations are more from looking at my parents’ relationship and the experiences of friends and their families.
Oh, Bones. In “The Dentist in the Ditch,” a skeleton is found on a civil war reenactment. It turns out she was a gay dentist who plays football. Why do I word it like this? Because the team, primarily Booth, seemed fascinated by the gay football team and gay men playing football in general. On the side story, Jared, Booth’s brother, is back from his trip to India…with a girlfriend, Rebecca from Greek. Jared wants to propose but Booth thinks it is too soon as they have only been dating a month. Then Booth runs a background check on her and freaks out because he finds out that she used to be an escort. But of course Jared knew this already because they don’t have any secrets.
This episode really bothered me. I thought that the writers were desperately trying to say “it’s okay to be gay” with this story line, but it didn’t really come off that way. There were a bunch of comments, mainly from Brennan, about the fact that gay marriage is illegal not being fair and not making sense. But the fact that they paid soooo much attention to the fact that the victim was gay and based a lot of their investigating on this as well told the audience that being gay isn’t normal, that being gay is a significant factor in an investigation where as they wouldn’t have paid that much attention to the victim’s sexuality if he were straight.
First they thought that the victims hunting ex-boyfriend killed him. Then it was someone on the victims football team murdered the victim because of “lingering glances” in the locker room that would have threatened a straight man’s masculinity. But then they found out the whole football team was gay, so they thought it was someone from a rival football team whose masculinity was threatened. Then they found out about his secret, closeted lover and thought that he killed him. But in the end, his murder had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they victim was gay. So why did we have to focus so much on the victim being gay? Pretty much no reason other than showing us that being gay isn’t normal and is something that should be considered in a murder investigation.
A lot of this was coming from Booth, but also from Sweets and Hodgins. It’s not too surprising that these reactions to the victim being gay were from the men on the show, especially the “hyper” masculine Booth. Then there was Booth who, upon meeting Jared’s girlfriend Padme complimented her on her English because she looked Indian, had an Indian name, and Jared met her in India. Then she was like “I’m from Virginia” and he felt like a jackass…which he was.
The investigations on Bones are usually what saves it from it’s insensitive self. But then they went and brought the insensitivity into the investigation. All in all, I was pretty disappointed with this episode.
But, favorite line of the night: “yeah, I’m gay and I hunt. Get over it.”
For a different take on the episode, check out meloukhia’s review up at this ain’t livin’.
So I saw Leap Year a week or so ago. I really like Amy Adams and even though the movie looked to be pretty predictable and cheesy (which it was), I thought I would give it a try.
But the whole premise of the movie was all about gender norms. Anna has been dating this jerk cardiac surgeon for four years (I think) and she was expecting him to propose before he went to Dublin on a business trip. But he didn’t. So she decides that she is going to go to Dublin to propose to him. Sounds fine, right? She wants to marry this guy and if he’s not going to ask her, then she’ll ask him. But the only reason that she is doing this is because of an old Irish tradition where a woman can propose to a man on leap day…once every four years.
It’s still pretty standard, even today, for the man to propose to the woman. But it’s not unheard of for a woman to propose to a man. But this movie is telling us that women are not allowed to propose to men except for one day every four years. A man is the only one that can propose marriage because it is the man essentially “buying” the woman with a diamond ring.
And this guy that she wants to propose to really is a jerk. He doesn’t really care about Anna (Amy Adams). He ends up proposing to her when they finally meet up in Dublin, but it turns out that it’s only to get an apartment (the tenant committee only wants married couples living there, apparently).
So it’s really no surprise that Anna falls in love with the guy, Declan, that she hires to drive her to Dublin once she gets to Ireland. A bunch of horrible things happen to them that, of course, bind them together and they end up falling in love and getting engaged at the end of the movie.
As with most “chick flicks,” Leap Year also promoted the idea that a woman cannot live, cannot have a complete life without a man. As Anna is flying to Dublin and they hit some turbulence, she starts freaking out about not wanting to die before she gets engaged. She doesn’t feel her life is complete without that ring on her finger and a husband to call her very own. Even in the end when she realizes that she doesn’t want to marry Jeremy, the jerk cardiac surgeon, she still ends up engaged to Declan because a woman’s life is not complete without a husband.
It is a good thing that she made the decision for herself that she didn’t want to marry Jeremy and didn’t enter into a marriage that she knew she wouldn’t be happy in just because she thought it would be the “right” thing to do. That’s a good thing. But the movie as a whole wasn’t really promoting the idea that women should make their own decisions. Not at all really. Leap Year told us women that men should make all the decisions about the relationship and how fast or slow things should be taken, especially when it comes to marriage.
It was a cute movie, though. And there were definitely some entertaining moments, especially in all the the “trouble” that Anna and Declan got themselves into on their journey to Dublin. And staring at Matthew Goode (Declan) for an hour and a half definitely wasn’t a bad things. I would say that if you enjoy chick flicks and Amy Adams doesn’t annoy you (like I know she does for some people), I would suggest renting it when it comes out on DVD, but I don’t really think it’s completely worth the money to see it in the theaters. Just my suggestion.
For all you conspiracy theorists out there, this was the episode of Bones for you. The episode starting out with mysterious government men taking over the lab insisting that the team work to discover the cause of death of a set of remains which they are not allowed to identify. But of course they try to identify them and come to the conclusion that the remains belong to JFK based on some pretty convincing evidence. The episode was pretty much a deadlock between our team and the government men that took over the lab, with the team constantly trying to find ways around these men.
Using the impacts on the skull, the team comes to the conclusion that there were two shooters. Booth is very upset by this because it would me that the government that he loves so much was a part of a cover up. At the end of the episode, though, Brennan disproves that the remains belong to JFK (at least it’s statistically unlikely). The team decides that it was like a dry run because there were congressional hearings debating whether or not to exhume JFK’s remains to do similar testing.
In the meantime, Cam finds a pregnancy test in the lab bathroom and becomes convinced that Michelle, the teenager she adopted, is pregnant. Turns out though, that is was Angela’s pregnancy test and the whole episode she has to talk with Hodgins about whether or not she wants Wendell’s baby. Hodgins thinks that she will keep it. Because of this, he admits that he is still in love with Angela and that he wants to help her raise the baby. But at the end, Cam reveals that she retested the test and it turns out to be a false positive. So basically nothing good happened…
I was really liking this episode until the end. I like hearing about conspiracy theories (man, was Hodgins in heaven in this episode). And I thought it was an interesting storyline with these mysterious government agents taking over the lab. But in the end, it turned out not to be JFK (most likely) and Angela’s not pregnant. They took away all the good storylines right at the end.
Speaking of Angela’s pregnancy… I actually really kind of liked that storyline, but not the fact that Hodgins was and wanted to be so involved in the decision about whether or not to keep the baby. Shouldn’t that be a conversation to have with Wendell? And I didn’t like that they gave Wendell so little credit, I’m sure he would be a good dad and rise to the occasion. But I would be really interested in seeing Angela as a mother. I think it would add a lot to the show. But my prediction is that this pregnancy “scare” is going to make Angela realize that she really does want to have a baby and will try to get pregnant…but probably with Hodgins, which I don’t know how I feel about.
It was also a really interesting point in the plot to kind of pit Hodgins and Booth against each other. They were both working on the same team, but Booth is very patriotic and refuses to believe that the government would be involved in such a cover up and Hodgins is convinced that that is exactly something that the government would do. Of course it did kind of come off as painting Hodgins as the crazy liberal and Booth as the unreasonable Republican. But, it still made for an intersting part of the plot, even if it did rely of political stereotypes.
And I’d just like to note that the past couple episodes they haven’t been blatantly playing up the Booth/Brennan romantic relationship, but there have been a lot of “knowing looks” from the other characters on the show when they are around each other…which kind of makes me want to gag, but that’s just me.
And one last comment…Booth is related to John Wilkes Booth? Really? A desperate attempt to add another weird layer to Booth?
Bones is back! This week’s episode revolved around the case of a murdered UFO chaser and was full of alien speculation. The storyline outside of the case was mainly about Angela and Wendell. As we saw a while back, Angela and Wendell were starting a relationship, which they have now delved into deeper, yet they are still keeping it a secret…or so they think. But throughout the episode, they have to tell Hodgins about their relationship, which is sufficiently awkwards and makes Hodgins realize that he is still in love with Angela.
Ok, so while I think Angela and Wendell are cute together, I have some major problems with their relationship and the storyline around their relationship. First of all, I think Wendell is too young/immature for Angela. He just seems like this cute little puppy that Angela is playing with. This is most clearly demonstrated in a scene when Angela and Wendell are out to lunch with Hodgins. Hodgins makes coments about how they shouldn’t feel uncomfortable around them and they can hold hands, etc. So Wendell randomly kisses Angela, which she was not prepared for and did not appreciate. I did like that she made the comment that she didn’t like being kissed when it wasn’t about her. I thought that was a good touch.
The second major thing that I have a problem with about this storyline is the way that Sweets talked to Hodgins about it. Hodgins went to Sweets because he needed advice on how to deal with his feelings about Angela and Wendell. Sweets tells Hodgins that it sometimes feels like it’s ok to feel lonely when the object of your grieving is also lonely. So, now that Angela is in a relationship, Hodgins is starting to feel lonely again and grieving over their lost relationship. Ok, this makes sense to some extent. But did everyone just forget that Angela was in a relationship before this…with a woman? So, she wasn’t lonley for a good portion of time between her relationship with Hodgins and her relationship with Wendell. It just seemed to me like they didn’t take Angela’s relationship with the woman (I’m sorry, I don’t remember her name) seriously…like it wasn’t a real relationship, so Hodgins didn’t need to feel upset about it. Why not just address what the real problem is…that she’s in a relationship with Wendell, Hodgin’s friend.
Then there was the representation of people who believe in UFO’s as “crazy,” “idiots,” and “morons.” While I may not believe in UFO’s and I don’t always understand how other people could believe in UFO’s and aliens, I don’t think it’s completely appropriate to use ableist language in describing them. Brennan makes a comment at the end about a man being a moron, “figuratively, not literally,” because “it’s exciting to use insulting colloquialisms even when they aren’t accurate.” This is just basically a round about way of saying that she’s using ableist language and likes it. But Bones doesn’t always have the best track record with ableism and representing disabilities.
Well, anyways, as I hear, we have some “great” (depending on who you are and what you like about the show) situations to look forward to between Booth and Brennan and the rest of the season progresses. If you’ve read any of my other reviews of Bones, you know how I feel about this storyline.
Dollhouse is back this week with the start of the final three episodes of the series and some majro things happened this episode. We learn how Caroline and Bennett (guest star Summer Glau) first met and became friends, Dr. Saunders has come back to the dollhouse (it tunrs out she has been shacking up with Boyd for the last two months), and we learn the identity of the leader of Rossum (this is where the hating of cliffhangers comes in).
As you may have guessed, Summer Glau has reprised her role as DC programmer Bennett, ex-friend of Caroline and love interest of Topher. They need Beennett to reconstruct Caroline’s original personality which has been destroyed. Caroline is, of course, the only person who has seen the leader of Rossum and “lived” to tell the tale, so they need that information to bring Rossum down. Now that Dr. Saunders is back, some things seem to be tense. Then she goes and shoots Bennet after giving a speech about how she is surprised that Topher can love another human being. It is assumed by everyone that Rossum got to her while she was away from the dollhouse.
And that assumption is not surprising when we get to the end of the episode. At the very end of the episode we see the face of the leader of Rossum. There are two men in the room. One we’ve never seen and … Boyd. So if Boyd is not the leader of Rossum (which we can assume that he is), he is at least lying about his involvement with Rossum.
Why does Boyd need Caroline? What is his endgame? Does Dr. Saunders know who he really is? What is her involvement with Rossum? What whill happen when Caroline comes back?
They are obvioulsy building up to the world that we saw in “Epitaph One.” In fact, there was even a scene in this episode that was in “Epitaph One” — the one between Boyd and Dr. Saunders when Boyd is runnng away from the dollhouse, which was nwo know he was not intending to do. And everyone is getting closer to being trapped in the dollhouse. Sierra and Victor have their original personalities. Etc, etc.
One of the major questions that came up throughout the episode was what happens to Echo if she is imprinted with Caroline. I think this is a pretty legitimate quetion especially considering the trajectory of the show. The show has put a lot of effort into creating Echo into a “real” person. We have been forced to question what makes pershonhood and if Echo is a real person even if she started out as Caroline. The show has obviously been telling us, especially in the past coupel episodes, that Echo is in fact a person. So will Caroline be absorbed into Echo’s personalities or will Caroline take over and cease Echo’s existence? I guess we will find out in the next episode. My guess is that Caroline will just be absorbed into Echo.
Oh, and now that Ballard has had his brain rewired and is a doll in order to keep him alive, he doesn’t remember his connection with Echo. He has all the memories but none of the feelings associated with them. I don’t really know if this will be important but it could be.
I really wnat to know what Boyd is up to and if he is really the evil leader of Rossum! This is why I sometimes hate cliffhangers (especially Joss’ cliffhangers)! They just dropped this bomb on us and then we have to wait a whole week to get some sort of answers. But this is just how it works I guess. Joss also has a tendency to build up characters into these people that we like and have a connection with and then rip that away by making them out to be this completely different person who may or may not be evil.