May 6, 2023·edited May 6, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
"The thought seems to be that because men allegedly abused women for centuries with impunity, a little fictional abuse now is nothing."
That bit of historical fiction is used as a rationalisation by some women so that they can subject men to abuse.
"This is the affirmation of Kate’s volatility as a marker of her liberation from female stereotypes."
The problem is if more women start acting like her, the situation is more likely to escalate out of control and more people of both genders will be killed and the majority of those being killed will be women.
"She barely glances at her husband and evinces no consciousness or remorse."
The problem is in real life there are women who are exactly like this, they exist.
That neatly summarises my own views on almost all such productions going back years if not decades now. Women are now encouraged by these means to emulate the behaviours that the feminists claim to have so despised in men in the past (and which was never the province of more than a few men), thus revealing that it was actually envy which inspired the feminists. As a result I long ago cut myself off from modern "culture", i.e., anti-culture. I don't watch TV or listen to the radio at all. I almost never watch a film (movie), whether on main release, Netflix or any other platform, unless I get a recommendation from someone whose judgment I trust. That happens maybe once or twice per year. Fortunately, we still have access to such a wealth of older, genuine culture that it hardly matters - except that communication with 95% of the public becomes impossible as their minds have been marinated in this pernicious garbage for so long.
Sorry Janice, but I think you've totally misunderstood these people's motivations. If you look up the definition of 'equality' in the latest version of the Feminist And Intersex Lexicon, you'll soon realize that it can manifest in just about any form imaginable. A few allowable means of achieving equality are listed and can include any combination of the following: violence, payback, revenge, public humiliation or embarrassment, guilt trips, malicious gossip, legal threats/actions, misrepresentation, victimhood claims and financial extortion. Murder can be excusable in a limited number of circumstances - generally only when the victim can be shown to have had a Y-chromosome and was threatening to use it.
May 6, 2023·edited May 6, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Whenever I see references to sexual predators "grooming" their victims, I ask myself if the media's continuous portrayal of sexual assaults on men over the past forty years has been anything other than grooming boys and men to accept sexual abuse as a natural part of their experience. Sexual assaults on men and boys have been portrayed as comic entertainment in scenes so common on the television and in movies that they have earned the nickname "nut shot": the viewer and the onlooking characters are invited to take pleasure in a male being hit, kicked, punched, or otherwise assaulted in the genitals. Elsewhere, they are portrayed--as Dr. Fiamengo so eloquently details--as righteous retribution that should give us all satisfaction. Who cares if the spurious claim that men have been "abus[ing] women for centuries with impunity" is nothing other than a smokescreen promoted by feminism to dissuade men from voicing their own subjection to sexual abuse and to remind us all of the primacy of female victimhood?
Another marvelous, insightful essay from our hostess, if I may use such an anachronistic term. I, too have observed the trend in popular culture, particularly the visual media like movies (I hate the word cinema) and television to masculinize the female characters, as if this somehow is a mark of "progress." My wife, all of her 5' 1" and 100 pounds that is, has also noted the absurdity of having female characters sharing her stature leap into physical action and destroy hulking, aggressive male opponents, using a combination of blinding speed, devastating punching and kicking maneuvers and acrobatic leaping about between impressive poses. Laughter is her general reaction, as well as mine. Of course, we understand that it is not to be taken seriously, since in real life, such confrontations would result in the pummeling, if not the outright death or dismemberment of the female participant. However, there seem to be some consumers of this fantasy view of male/female confrontations who think it reflects reality, much as it has now become required to believe that biological men can be women and vice-versa. All this appears to be the outworking of the Frankfurt School's desire to overturn all heretofore accepted social patterns and normal human relationships in order to destroy extant society and lay the groundwork for its replacement with some phantasmagorical socialist utopia, of which feminism is a primary culprit. Actually, I suspect the urge goes back much further in our history, back to The Garden, where Eve, being dissatisfied with her lot in life (which was merely to occupy Paradise!) decided to act upon the false allures of Satan, thereby destroying everything that had been carefully crafted to fulfill all her needs on Earth, out of her desire to be like a god. That didn't work out very well for her descendants, nor will the present situation do so if left unchecked. I do not mean to lay all the blame at the feet of women; just as it was Adam, whose decision to accede to Eve's request, bears responsibility for The Fall, it is men's decision to allow, if not outright foster, the goals of feminism who will ultimately be responsible for the dire outcome.
May 6, 2023·edited May 6, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
An absolutely tremendous piece. As someone who writes regularly about the outcomes of males in various measures (education, physical and mental health, and a host of other issues), Janice gets right to the point about the presentation of female characterization that has led me to completely abandon these types of shows. Domestic abuse is awful, no matter the victim male or female. We need to see Kate for what she really is: someone with serious mental health issues who is trying to navigate public policy.
I agree with your excellent analysis. But, it's not like we can fo a Bud Light style boycott, or perhaps we can. In essence isn't that what MGTOW really is? I wonder how many men, and a growing number of women, are so sick of these unrealistic portatrials of masculine women & woke female perspectives that this sort of propaganda parading as entertainment is destined to the trash heap of fianical failures.
It's worth mentioning that this culture of saying it's OK to hit men results in women hitting men - and then getting pounded by the man. Then this is paraded as 'male violence'.
If feminists cared about women they'd discourage them from poking bears or hitting men.
Thank you for writing about this. To say I was deeply disturbed by that scene is an understatement. Anyone who thinks that it was ok or diminishes it is very sick. Its an example of our society's continuing moral decay and disrespect for human beings.
It would be interesting to follow the money on these "woke" productions. You noted that this new series clearly praises the WEF/globalist agenda, in addition to pleasing the feminists. What's curious is that this genre appears to be a consistent commercial failure, the most recent example being Bud Light, where they hired a feminist VP of marketing to create a commercial that hates on men. It all has the look and feel of propaganda pushed--and funded--by the powerful.
May 6, 2023·edited May 6, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Good. I wont watch this now. I have enough woke propaganda from Netflix already. I told my kids I will be vetting every further kids show they watch on Netflix going forward, after realizing what the hell is in Ridley Jones (once they started watching it). Its alluring because its basically a cartoon rip-off of Night at the Museum and Indiana Jones films, with a kid and seriously woke lens. The only real male character is the bad guy (greedy owner of the for profit museum), it promotes single mothers and women in general (including as being bad-asses), promotes sex-sex marriage, gender ideology, attacks so-called culture appropriation (although not in so many words), and talks about 'misinformation' in the same late night talk show tones as the rabid anti-Trump crowd. Frankly, it is outright political propaganda. Really, I cant believe what Netflix is doing. They are increasingly shit.
My point in writing this isn't so much to condemn the ideas promoted by Ridley Jones (although I disagree with most of them) but to point out the explicitly political nature of what they promote. I don't want my kids shows filled with political messaging. I write this because of your opening comments about the Diplomat and its explicit and implicit messaging about left-wing/feminist ideology and the deep state. Unfortunately many people who watch this stuff don't look at it critically and just absorb it, and it replaces their own thinking, over time. Which is of course the point of the propagandists who develop it. Its all very distressing.
I started several Netflix series and always leave the worst after one episode. Or less. The Consultant? Flush. The Citadel? Flush.
I have generally liked the leads in this, Keri and Rufus, in their other roles (Zen, The Americans) but holy smoke, the arm-pit sniffing in Episode 1 was the earliest an unpleasant show gave itself away in a long time. Jump the shark in 35 minutes??? Flush.
Hollywood's requirement of a kick-ass female lead has made almost everything they (including Netflix, Prime etc) make unwatchable. They don't seem to understand that male violence in previous movies (High Noon, The Drifters, The Godfather, Lonesome Dove) always serves the male principle (serve & protect, at risk of self) to protect society & the female principle (home & family). No male hero randomly kills anyone except the enemy (all male, btw) but the new kickass female kills every male with a silly, unwatchable bloodlust.
Why?
Because the viewer has to 1) identify with the lead (leads) AND 2) sincerely wish for the lead (leads) to accomplish their goals. The fictional goals become the viewer's goals. There was nothing ab initio about The Diplomat that did anything but repel any sentient, compos mentis viewer.
So, into the trash bin. Along with Michelle Dockery, Emily Blunt as gunslinging heroines of the Old West, and the disaster of 1883.
Years ago, Colttaine published a video on YouTube entitled “The Power Fantasy.” Basically, the video aimed to highlight the differences between the respective “power fantasies” of males and females, as reflected by characters in movies, television, video games, fictional literature, etc.
As presented in the video, while many male heroes lived in a grey area of morality and exhibited some less-than-heroic character flaws (James Bond, Han Solo, Batman, etc.), the overall aim was always the betterment of the world, triumphing over evil and “saving the day” so to speak. Conversely, the female power fantasy as presented in modern arts and entertainment mediums largely centers around the question of “How big of a piece of shit can I be and get away with it?”
I remember being struck by this, as it became all too obvious how this observation proved true in the real world, rather than just the realm of fictional entertainment. Whether it’s the romanticization/lionization of mental health disorders, the casual excusing of violent and other abhorrent behavior, abject lack of accountability and consequence, or the open lauding of rank narcissism and self-absorption, fictional female characters (and the completely non-fictional women who exist amongst us) seem to seek out, demand, and largely be handed a world where they’re incapable of flaws or foibles, let alone repercussions for such.
Weakness is strength. Violence is “empowerment.” Abuse/mistreatment of those around you (particularly men) is the karmic comeuppance for centuries of (allegedly) enduring the same. Meanwhile, there is no drive toward the betterment of the world or some other, grander good. It is purely centered around the advancement and pleasure of the self.
I don't have Netflix so I won't get to see this show. I did look up IMDB for more info. It's produced and mostly written by Debora Chan - who seems to have a good resume of writing and co-producing other acclaimed shows, such as the West Wing. She was part of a team on these shows. She also has experience as an Executive Producer - which is usually an organising role, rather than creative. This seems to be the first show where she is both the main producer and writer. I wonder if this Kate character is some kind of revenge fantasy for all the years Debora spent sitting in the 2nd seat as co-producer to some man. Also all the episodes, bar 2, are written by women. Equity and all that.
I think I'll stick to binge watching 'Cagney and Lacey' for interesting, tough women. I haven't seen that in over 30 years! It was considered ground breaking then. I wonder how it stands up today?
Janice, thank you for watching so I and we don't have to. Horrible as it looks, and as grateful as I am for not having watched the dang thing, could "The Diplomat" be read as a modern comedy, worthy of our laughter? As someone said, "No throne so high it can't be shaken by laughter from below."
A brilliant and comprehensive summation of an all-too familiar template. Such productions are tiresome not only for their full frontal ideological load and predictability, but also for the utter absence of genuine wit, charm and inner life in the stock heroines.
Europe has done this much better on a few occasions; Capitaine Laure Berthaud (played by the disarming Caroline Proust) in the Paris-set 'policier' 'Engrenages' ('Spiral' in the subtitled English version), whilst still prey to one or two of the tropes you outline in the first few paragraphs, is a genuinely rounded, conflicted, and recognisably human creation, loyal and brave in her professional and personal relationships with male colleagues, exhausted, baggy-eyed and almost palpably unwashed when appropriate, and far from exalted in her shocking maternal denial and neglect in a later season. Sophie Lund in 'The Killing' likewise, in a frostier Scandi mode. But in general the drama-by-feminist-numbers is widespread, and the escalation to violence can be seen in a purely literary sense as the only possible direction of travel for a zombie formula desperate to inject some kind of novelty and engagement. Much like feminism itself.
"The thought seems to be that because men allegedly abused women for centuries with impunity, a little fictional abuse now is nothing."
That bit of historical fiction is used as a rationalisation by some women so that they can subject men to abuse.
"This is the affirmation of Kate’s volatility as a marker of her liberation from female stereotypes."
The problem is if more women start acting like her, the situation is more likely to escalate out of control and more people of both genders will be killed and the majority of those being killed will be women.
"She barely glances at her husband and evinces no consciousness or remorse."
The problem is in real life there are women who are exactly like this, they exist.
That neatly summarises my own views on almost all such productions going back years if not decades now. Women are now encouraged by these means to emulate the behaviours that the feminists claim to have so despised in men in the past (and which was never the province of more than a few men), thus revealing that it was actually envy which inspired the feminists. As a result I long ago cut myself off from modern "culture", i.e., anti-culture. I don't watch TV or listen to the radio at all. I almost never watch a film (movie), whether on main release, Netflix or any other platform, unless I get a recommendation from someone whose judgment I trust. That happens maybe once or twice per year. Fortunately, we still have access to such a wealth of older, genuine culture that it hardly matters - except that communication with 95% of the public becomes impossible as their minds have been marinated in this pernicious garbage for so long.
Sorry Janice, but I think you've totally misunderstood these people's motivations. If you look up the definition of 'equality' in the latest version of the Feminist And Intersex Lexicon, you'll soon realize that it can manifest in just about any form imaginable. A few allowable means of achieving equality are listed and can include any combination of the following: violence, payback, revenge, public humiliation or embarrassment, guilt trips, malicious gossip, legal threats/actions, misrepresentation, victimhood claims and financial extortion. Murder can be excusable in a limited number of circumstances - generally only when the victim can be shown to have had a Y-chromosome and was threatening to use it.
Whenever I see references to sexual predators "grooming" their victims, I ask myself if the media's continuous portrayal of sexual assaults on men over the past forty years has been anything other than grooming boys and men to accept sexual abuse as a natural part of their experience. Sexual assaults on men and boys have been portrayed as comic entertainment in scenes so common on the television and in movies that they have earned the nickname "nut shot": the viewer and the onlooking characters are invited to take pleasure in a male being hit, kicked, punched, or otherwise assaulted in the genitals. Elsewhere, they are portrayed--as Dr. Fiamengo so eloquently details--as righteous retribution that should give us all satisfaction. Who cares if the spurious claim that men have been "abus[ing] women for centuries with impunity" is nothing other than a smokescreen promoted by feminism to dissuade men from voicing their own subjection to sexual abuse and to remind us all of the primacy of female victimhood?
Another marvelous, insightful essay from our hostess, if I may use such an anachronistic term. I, too have observed the trend in popular culture, particularly the visual media like movies (I hate the word cinema) and television to masculinize the female characters, as if this somehow is a mark of "progress." My wife, all of her 5' 1" and 100 pounds that is, has also noted the absurdity of having female characters sharing her stature leap into physical action and destroy hulking, aggressive male opponents, using a combination of blinding speed, devastating punching and kicking maneuvers and acrobatic leaping about between impressive poses. Laughter is her general reaction, as well as mine. Of course, we understand that it is not to be taken seriously, since in real life, such confrontations would result in the pummeling, if not the outright death or dismemberment of the female participant. However, there seem to be some consumers of this fantasy view of male/female confrontations who think it reflects reality, much as it has now become required to believe that biological men can be women and vice-versa. All this appears to be the outworking of the Frankfurt School's desire to overturn all heretofore accepted social patterns and normal human relationships in order to destroy extant society and lay the groundwork for its replacement with some phantasmagorical socialist utopia, of which feminism is a primary culprit. Actually, I suspect the urge goes back much further in our history, back to The Garden, where Eve, being dissatisfied with her lot in life (which was merely to occupy Paradise!) decided to act upon the false allures of Satan, thereby destroying everything that had been carefully crafted to fulfill all her needs on Earth, out of her desire to be like a god. That didn't work out very well for her descendants, nor will the present situation do so if left unchecked. I do not mean to lay all the blame at the feet of women; just as it was Adam, whose decision to accede to Eve's request, bears responsibility for The Fall, it is men's decision to allow, if not outright foster, the goals of feminism who will ultimately be responsible for the dire outcome.
An absolutely tremendous piece. As someone who writes regularly about the outcomes of males in various measures (education, physical and mental health, and a host of other issues), Janice gets right to the point about the presentation of female characterization that has led me to completely abandon these types of shows. Domestic abuse is awful, no matter the victim male or female. We need to see Kate for what she really is: someone with serious mental health issues who is trying to navigate public policy.
I agree with your excellent analysis. But, it's not like we can fo a Bud Light style boycott, or perhaps we can. In essence isn't that what MGTOW really is? I wonder how many men, and a growing number of women, are so sick of these unrealistic portatrials of masculine women & woke female perspectives that this sort of propaganda parading as entertainment is destined to the trash heap of fianical failures.
It's worth mentioning that this culture of saying it's OK to hit men results in women hitting men - and then getting pounded by the man. Then this is paraded as 'male violence'.
If feminists cared about women they'd discourage them from poking bears or hitting men.
Thank you for writing about this. To say I was deeply disturbed by that scene is an understatement. Anyone who thinks that it was ok or diminishes it is very sick. Its an example of our society's continuing moral decay and disrespect for human beings.
It would be interesting to follow the money on these "woke" productions. You noted that this new series clearly praises the WEF/globalist agenda, in addition to pleasing the feminists. What's curious is that this genre appears to be a consistent commercial failure, the most recent example being Bud Light, where they hired a feminist VP of marketing to create a commercial that hates on men. It all has the look and feel of propaganda pushed--and funded--by the powerful.
Good. I wont watch this now. I have enough woke propaganda from Netflix already. I told my kids I will be vetting every further kids show they watch on Netflix going forward, after realizing what the hell is in Ridley Jones (once they started watching it). Its alluring because its basically a cartoon rip-off of Night at the Museum and Indiana Jones films, with a kid and seriously woke lens. The only real male character is the bad guy (greedy owner of the for profit museum), it promotes single mothers and women in general (including as being bad-asses), promotes sex-sex marriage, gender ideology, attacks so-called culture appropriation (although not in so many words), and talks about 'misinformation' in the same late night talk show tones as the rabid anti-Trump crowd. Frankly, it is outright political propaganda. Really, I cant believe what Netflix is doing. They are increasingly shit.
My point in writing this isn't so much to condemn the ideas promoted by Ridley Jones (although I disagree with most of them) but to point out the explicitly political nature of what they promote. I don't want my kids shows filled with political messaging. I write this because of your opening comments about the Diplomat and its explicit and implicit messaging about left-wing/feminist ideology and the deep state. Unfortunately many people who watch this stuff don't look at it critically and just absorb it, and it replaces their own thinking, over time. Which is of course the point of the propagandists who develop it. Its all very distressing.
Janice,
I started several Netflix series and always leave the worst after one episode. Or less. The Consultant? Flush. The Citadel? Flush.
I have generally liked the leads in this, Keri and Rufus, in their other roles (Zen, The Americans) but holy smoke, the arm-pit sniffing in Episode 1 was the earliest an unpleasant show gave itself away in a long time. Jump the shark in 35 minutes??? Flush.
Hollywood's requirement of a kick-ass female lead has made almost everything they (including Netflix, Prime etc) make unwatchable. They don't seem to understand that male violence in previous movies (High Noon, The Drifters, The Godfather, Lonesome Dove) always serves the male principle (serve & protect, at risk of self) to protect society & the female principle (home & family). No male hero randomly kills anyone except the enemy (all male, btw) but the new kickass female kills every male with a silly, unwatchable bloodlust.
Why?
Because the viewer has to 1) identify with the lead (leads) AND 2) sincerely wish for the lead (leads) to accomplish their goals. The fictional goals become the viewer's goals. There was nothing ab initio about The Diplomat that did anything but repel any sentient, compos mentis viewer.
So, into the trash bin. Along with Michelle Dockery, Emily Blunt as gunslinging heroines of the Old West, and the disaster of 1883.
Years ago, Colttaine published a video on YouTube entitled “The Power Fantasy.” Basically, the video aimed to highlight the differences between the respective “power fantasies” of males and females, as reflected by characters in movies, television, video games, fictional literature, etc.
As presented in the video, while many male heroes lived in a grey area of morality and exhibited some less-than-heroic character flaws (James Bond, Han Solo, Batman, etc.), the overall aim was always the betterment of the world, triumphing over evil and “saving the day” so to speak. Conversely, the female power fantasy as presented in modern arts and entertainment mediums largely centers around the question of “How big of a piece of shit can I be and get away with it?”
I remember being struck by this, as it became all too obvious how this observation proved true in the real world, rather than just the realm of fictional entertainment. Whether it’s the romanticization/lionization of mental health disorders, the casual excusing of violent and other abhorrent behavior, abject lack of accountability and consequence, or the open lauding of rank narcissism and self-absorption, fictional female characters (and the completely non-fictional women who exist amongst us) seem to seek out, demand, and largely be handed a world where they’re incapable of flaws or foibles, let alone repercussions for such.
Weakness is strength. Violence is “empowerment.” Abuse/mistreatment of those around you (particularly men) is the karmic comeuppance for centuries of (allegedly) enduring the same. Meanwhile, there is no drive toward the betterment of the world or some other, grander good. It is purely centered around the advancement and pleasure of the self.
Life imitates art.
I don't have Netflix so I won't get to see this show. I did look up IMDB for more info. It's produced and mostly written by Debora Chan - who seems to have a good resume of writing and co-producing other acclaimed shows, such as the West Wing. She was part of a team on these shows. She also has experience as an Executive Producer - which is usually an organising role, rather than creative. This seems to be the first show where she is both the main producer and writer. I wonder if this Kate character is some kind of revenge fantasy for all the years Debora spent sitting in the 2nd seat as co-producer to some man. Also all the episodes, bar 2, are written by women. Equity and all that.
I think I'll stick to binge watching 'Cagney and Lacey' for interesting, tough women. I haven't seen that in over 30 years! It was considered ground breaking then. I wonder how it stands up today?
Janice, thank you for watching so I and we don't have to. Horrible as it looks, and as grateful as I am for not having watched the dang thing, could "The Diplomat" be read as a modern comedy, worthy of our laughter? As someone said, "No throne so high it can't be shaken by laughter from below."
A brilliant and comprehensive summation of an all-too familiar template. Such productions are tiresome not only for their full frontal ideological load and predictability, but also for the utter absence of genuine wit, charm and inner life in the stock heroines.
Europe has done this much better on a few occasions; Capitaine Laure Berthaud (played by the disarming Caroline Proust) in the Paris-set 'policier' 'Engrenages' ('Spiral' in the subtitled English version), whilst still prey to one or two of the tropes you outline in the first few paragraphs, is a genuinely rounded, conflicted, and recognisably human creation, loyal and brave in her professional and personal relationships with male colleagues, exhausted, baggy-eyed and almost palpably unwashed when appropriate, and far from exalted in her shocking maternal denial and neglect in a later season. Sophie Lund in 'The Killing' likewise, in a frostier Scandi mode. But in general the drama-by-feminist-numbers is widespread, and the escalation to violence can be seen in a purely literary sense as the only possible direction of travel for a zombie formula desperate to inject some kind of novelty and engagement. Much like feminism itself.