"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.
The resentment problem of modern feminists is a real thing, egged on by the MSM and modern Establishment. Resentment is poison. Unless we collectively stop fostering victim narratives and breeding more resentment, this isn't going to end well, for anyone.
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.
Sad but true, Rick. I try to keep up a little so that I can understand what younger people are talking about, but it has become more and more difficult. This series, in particular, depressed me more than I have the power to say. It had not one redeeming moment for me, all left-feminist drivel from first to last. I was struck by how many people on Twitter and elsewhere simply said they "loved it."
I agree with these observations. Once in a while I see some TV at an airport or am forced to sit through an idiotic film, and I am reminded why I love the old things. True, there are few people you can talk to about them, but I don't mind, and now and then I do find somebody who knows about this material and loves it.
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?
I've lost count of the number of times I've pointed that same thing out to women who laughed out loud at the idea that kicking a male in the nuts was sexual abuse. Most of those same women, however, will still maintain that ANY unwelcome touching of a woman, from her head to her feet, IS sexual abuse.
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.
'Another marvelous, insightful essay from our hostess, if I may use such an anachronistic term.'
'Anachronistic' only because feminists, who paradoxically seem to despise the feminine, have said so. I'm not aware that feminine nouns are an issue in any other language and there is no good reason why they should be in English.
Spanish-speaking feminists have begun complaining about the use of "Latino" to signify all people, since the word is gendered masculine. That's why there are more people using the words "Latinx" or "Latine."
It's entirely typical that the gender police would embrace labelling a race/culture by its language roots (while somehow excluding the 'white' Romans whose language they 'appropriated') and simultaneously reject one of the the characteristic features of that language--the gendering of all nouns.
Thanks for that, I did not know. I suppose it was inevitable that nonsensical 'gender free' nouns and pronouns should creep into other languages. My pronouns, by the way, are old / dinosaur.
I'm glad you found my post informative, thank you. And I like your pronouns! My other favorite example is from Blair White (her laptop has a sticker that says "My preferred pronouns are That/Bitch."
Some did indeed abdicate, I would say. I've known some who joined with feminists in drumming out innocent colleagues merely to earn brownie points and increase their own power. But many were forced out and had no choice whatsoever.
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 haven't watched any of this (and don't intend to) but I'm guessing that the beating of her husband was because of her disrespect of him, compounded by her being too lazy to leave him, and further complicated by her resentment that he still loves her.
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.
Just what I said on Twitter, and then someone reminded me that feminists don't care about women and in fact prefer to have female victims to support their narrative.
Exactly. It's same with the race baiters. It's black deaths that matter, not lives, and the hatred of police and racial animus they stir up among blacks gets lots of them killed.
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.
Agreed. An economic analysis would be fascinating (not my forte, alas). I read 4 or 5 glowing reviews, and saw many comments on Twitter and elsewhere saying how this was the best thing they'd seen on Netflix so far this year, that shows like this would bring Netflix back from the brink, etc. I'm not sure if that sampling represents a large audience.
Yes, good point. The dictum ‘go woke, go broke’ doesn’t seem to phase these entities at all. The cult messaging is more important than the bottom line. We saw the same with Gillette. The common explanation for their obtuseness is they have been ‘captured’ by woke ideology and actually believe they are doing good for the company and society. I wonder.
It seems to be a result of this new, very unholy alliance between big business and the Western governments, a phenomenon Vivek Ramaswamy dubbed Woke Inc. The deal is that large private companies will toe the line with DEI--put women on corporate boards, have lots of black and brown people in their brochures, etc.--if the government regulators will leave them alone. So if Big Pharma makes a windfall on a vaccine but many people get injured from it, government will run cover for Big Pharma. Big Tech will agree to suppress vax skeptics in return for government not interfering with their monopoly. Etc. Mutual back scratching.
Seems so. The Twitter files is damning evidence of such an alliance. And even to the point of a significant loss of market share, but of course only by corporate behemoths that can absorb such losses.
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.
Exactly your point about the 'thinking' of the shows gradually replacing viewers' own thinking. While we were watching, I was struck by the gratuitousness of so much of the political messaging. The Foreign Secretary absolutely did not need to bash Brexit. There was no need for the condemnatory reference to the Proud Boys. Even the scene of physical abuse of the husband was utterly tangential. The show's writers and producers don't care about alienating millions of potential viewers. They're playing the long game, I guess.
I would like to, but for practical reasons I keep it. We don't have actual broadcast TV at all, mainly because we don't have a good aerial, and I was going to install one a few years back, but overall we are far better off without actual TV after seeing how the MSM has deteriorated in recent years, crap, woke and untrustworthy. We also don't have any cable, I refuse to pay for it. So Netflix, being cheap, is really our only choice for any kind of TV at all. So I live with it. And now will vet all my kids programming, after getting screwed by Ridley fucking Jones.
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.
Well said. I've liked Rufus Sewell in the past, which was part of the reason we started. Once I realized where it was going, I continued with a pained sense of duty. I have never felt so repulsed when I knew I was supposed to feel flushed with bad-girl enjoyment.
Not that this is a "review streaming series" thread, but if anyone wants to see how a modern series can be believable, inspirational, gripping and aesthetically (cinematically) delightful, watch the Korean series, "My Mister [Naoui Ajeoshi]." Brilliantly written, directed, shot and (99%) acted, about modern life in Seoul but running along a Buddhist trajectory of suffering defeated--in the end--by human heartedness & compassion.
We don't need guns, diplomacy, faux unpleasantness or even plus-faux kick-assery, life itself presents the entire spectrum.
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?
My husband and I just re-watched the NYPD Blue series - it was so entertaining, I felt as though I had lost a best friend when we finished all the seasons. The women were terrific - Dianne, Connie, Sylvia, Jill, Rita. Equally the men were outstanding. Highly recommend if you are looking for some good entertainment.
NYPD Blues. There's a blast from the past. It was excellent. (On IMDB the production crew were 10 men and 2 women). In a world where were told that men are intimidated by strong women somehow men still write for excellent female characters. Even for male dominated audiences we had Princess Leia in Star Wars and Sarah Connor in Terminator. We know that women can write strong male characters, but it seems we have to go all the way back to Heathcliffe and Mr Rochester to find them. Is there a more modern one? I didn't read 50 Shades of Grey but I believe the man in that was an Alpha Male. But that book was considered sexual fantasy fluff.
And there it is: if a woman wants to write a strong, competent male lead she's indulging in her private fantasies. She must suppress what she wants and not betray the sisterhood. She must depict every woman's lived reality and populate her fictional world with men that either disgust her or good men who are so neutered they only exist to support her.
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.
The resentment problem of modern feminists is a real thing, egged on by the MSM and modern Establishment. Resentment is poison. Unless we collectively stop fostering victim narratives and breeding more resentment, this isn't going to end well, for anyone.
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.
Sad but true, Rick. I try to keep up a little so that I can understand what younger people are talking about, but it has become more and more difficult. This series, in particular, depressed me more than I have the power to say. It had not one redeeming moment for me, all left-feminist drivel from first to last. I was struck by how many people on Twitter and elsewhere simply said they "loved it."
Like Paul Elam once said: "Millennials are worthless"
I agree with these observations. Once in a while I see some TV at an airport or am forced to sit through an idiotic film, and I am reminded why I love the old things. True, there are few people you can talk to about them, but I don't mind, and now and then I do find somebody who knows about this material and loves it.
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.
Haha! Too true.
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?
I've lost count of the number of times I've pointed that same thing out to women who laughed out loud at the idea that kicking a male in the nuts was sexual abuse. Most of those same women, however, will still maintain that ANY unwelcome touching of a woman, from her head to her feet, IS sexual abuse.
And they've got the law on their side in thinking so. https://www.oykhmancriminaldefence.com/faq/what-is-sexual-assault/
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.
'Another marvelous, insightful essay from our hostess, if I may use such an anachronistic term.'
'Anachronistic' only because feminists, who paradoxically seem to despise the feminine, have said so. I'm not aware that feminine nouns are an issue in any other language and there is no good reason why they should be in English.
Spanish-speaking feminists have begun complaining about the use of "Latino" to signify all people, since the word is gendered masculine. That's why there are more people using the words "Latinx" or "Latine."
It's entirely typical that the gender police would embrace labelling a race/culture by its language roots (while somehow excluding the 'white' Romans whose language they 'appropriated') and simultaneously reject one of the the characteristic features of that language--the gendering of all nouns.
Thanks for that, I did not know. I suppose it was inevitable that nonsensical 'gender free' nouns and pronouns should creep into other languages. My pronouns, by the way, are old / dinosaur.
I'm glad you found my post informative, thank you. And I like your pronouns! My other favorite example is from Blair White (her laptop has a sticker that says "My preferred pronouns are That/Bitch."
Agree! Many men in leadership have advocated their leadership roles to radical feminism or their wives and daughters.
Abdicated?
Some did indeed abdicate, I would say. I've known some who joined with feminists in drumming out innocent colleagues merely to earn brownie points and increase their own power. But many were forced out and had no choice whatsoever.
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 haven't watched any of this (and don't intend to) but I'm guessing that the beating of her husband was because of her disrespect of him, compounded by her being too lazy to leave him, and further complicated by her resentment that he still loves her.
Pretty much. The beating is, I think it's fair to say, completely unjustified and lacking any kind of rationale even on feminist terms.
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.
Boycott is a good way of describing MGTOW, the modern version of 'Going Galt.'
Who is John Galt, anyway?
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.
Just what I said on Twitter, and then someone reminded me that feminists don't care about women and in fact prefer to have female victims to support their narrative.
Exactly. It's same with the race baiters. It's black deaths that matter, not lives, and the hatred of police and racial animus they stir up among blacks gets lots of them killed.
Very true
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.
Agreed. An economic analysis would be fascinating (not my forte, alas). I read 4 or 5 glowing reviews, and saw many comments on Twitter and elsewhere saying how this was the best thing they'd seen on Netflix so far this year, that shows like this would bring Netflix back from the brink, etc. I'm not sure if that sampling represents a large audience.
Yes, good point. The dictum ‘go woke, go broke’ doesn’t seem to phase these entities at all. The cult messaging is more important than the bottom line. We saw the same with Gillette. The common explanation for their obtuseness is they have been ‘captured’ by woke ideology and actually believe they are doing good for the company and society. I wonder.
It seems to be a result of this new, very unholy alliance between big business and the Western governments, a phenomenon Vivek Ramaswamy dubbed Woke Inc. The deal is that large private companies will toe the line with DEI--put women on corporate boards, have lots of black and brown people in their brochures, etc.--if the government regulators will leave them alone. So if Big Pharma makes a windfall on a vaccine but many people get injured from it, government will run cover for Big Pharma. Big Tech will agree to suppress vax skeptics in return for government not interfering with their monopoly. Etc. Mutual back scratching.
Seems so. The Twitter files is damning evidence of such an alliance. And even to the point of a significant loss of market share, but of course only by corporate behemoths that can absorb such losses.
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.
Exactly your point about the 'thinking' of the shows gradually replacing viewers' own thinking. While we were watching, I was struck by the gratuitousness of so much of the political messaging. The Foreign Secretary absolutely did not need to bash Brexit. There was no need for the condemnatory reference to the Proud Boys. Even the scene of physical abuse of the husband was utterly tangential. The show's writers and producers don't care about alienating millions of potential viewers. They're playing the long game, I guess.
My wife and I cancelled our Netflix subscription more than five years ago because we were sick of the woke rubbish we were offered.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11863181/Netflix-quietly-dumps-Ridley-Jones-bison-comes-non-binary-grandma.html
Children's socio-cultural propaganda. Only realized it after my kids were hooked.
I would like to, but for practical reasons I keep it. We don't have actual broadcast TV at all, mainly because we don't have a good aerial, and I was going to install one a few years back, but overall we are far better off without actual TV after seeing how the MSM has deteriorated in recent years, crap, woke and untrustworthy. We also don't have any cable, I refuse to pay for it. So Netflix, being cheap, is really our only choice for any kind of TV at all. So I live with it. And now will vet all my kids programming, after getting screwed by Ridley fucking Jones.
I see, thanks for bringing me up to date.
Who is Ridley fucking Jones?
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.
Well said. I've liked Rufus Sewell in the past, which was part of the reason we started. Once I realized where it was going, I continued with a pained sense of duty. I have never felt so repulsed when I knew I was supposed to feel flushed with bad-girl enjoyment.
Not that this is a "review streaming series" thread, but if anyone wants to see how a modern series can be believable, inspirational, gripping and aesthetically (cinematically) delightful, watch the Korean series, "My Mister [Naoui Ajeoshi]." Brilliantly written, directed, shot and (99%) acted, about modern life in Seoul but running along a Buddhist trajectory of suffering defeated--in the end--by human heartedness & compassion.
We don't need guns, diplomacy, faux unpleasantness or even plus-faux kick-assery, life itself presents the entire spectrum.
All the best.
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.
Feminism's goal is to allow women to be bitches, but never to be called bitches, and never to be recognized as bitches.
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?
My husband and I just re-watched the NYPD Blue series - it was so entertaining, I felt as though I had lost a best friend when we finished all the seasons. The women were terrific - Dianne, Connie, Sylvia, Jill, Rita. Equally the men were outstanding. Highly recommend if you are looking for some good entertainment.
NYPD Blues. There's a blast from the past. It was excellent. (On IMDB the production crew were 10 men and 2 women). In a world where were told that men are intimidated by strong women somehow men still write for excellent female characters. Even for male dominated audiences we had Princess Leia in Star Wars and Sarah Connor in Terminator. We know that women can write strong male characters, but it seems we have to go all the way back to Heathcliffe and Mr Rochester to find them. Is there a more modern one? I didn't read 50 Shades of Grey but I believe the man in that was an Alpha Male. But that book was considered sexual fantasy fluff.
And there it is: if a woman wants to write a strong, competent male lead she's indulging in her private fantasies. She must suppress what she wants and not betray the sisterhood. She must depict every woman's lived reality and populate her fictional world with men that either disgust her or good men who are so neutered they only exist to support her.
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."
My husband found it humorous at points; perhaps my funny bone was sleeping throughout.
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.