Tag: Problematic

Categories
Health

What Is a Problematic Fave? How the 2010s Defined the Problematic Fave


Notably, the site stopped updating before the #MeToo era, and so the Louis C.K. post, for example, cites his use of the c-word, n-word, and homophobic slurs, but doesn’t mention the fact that multiple women have accused him of sexual misconduct—stories that he himself has admitted to be true.

The realization of this moment—that once-beloved entertainers might be monstrous predators—makes the idea of “problematic faves” somewhat less delightful.

At a certain level of terribleness, some people should not be anyone’s fave—problematic or otherwise. That awareness might explain how the common usage of “problematic fave” in culture has evolved from the blog’s original application—real, live people—towards fictional characters, or entire fictional universes.

With that more expanded definition, the concept has dominated the 2010s, a decade that witnessed both the rise of streaming, making older content more accessible, and a new framework through which to re-evaluate those once-beloved shows and movies. Out with the gendered, self-deprecating “guilty pleasure.” In with the problematic fave.

Take the television series Friends. If you were one of the millions of people who adored Friends at its peak, rewatching it in 2019 can be cringe-inducing. You (yes, you!) laughed at those fatphobic jokes and homophobic plot lines designed for an audience that once found them not just acceptable but hilarious. (Who can forget the entire subplot that rested on Chandler not wanting to invite his transgender father to his wedding because it would be a “distraction”!?) The show premiered in 1994, a different era perhaps. But even now, it remains one of the most popular shows offered on Netflix, with millions of new viewers who never saw it air live tuning in to binge it.

Another example? Sex and the City. Carrie Bradshaw’s outfits remain as over-the-top as ever and the sex puns still have their charm, but the unbearable whiteness that permeates this brunch foursome might make some wonder whether Carrie met Charlotte at a Reagan fundraiser.



Source link

Categories
Health

10 Relationships in Romantic Comedies That Aren't Problematic, According to Experts


“It’s like watching attraction catch fire in slow motion—and the attraction is multi-faceted. They listen to each other, they make each other laugh, they learn about each other,” she tells Glamour. “The chemistry is palpable and yet it’s not all about physical attraction, and it all takes place practically in real time over the course of an evening.”

For Dr. Bonoir, this on-screen representation of romance is both accurate and dreamy. She notes that, in particular, it’s not the relationship itself that’s meant to be idolized, but how the love interests meet. It’s the active listening, respect, and attention paid to each other that’s so unusual and highly appreciated.

“They build off of what each other is saying,” she says. “They meet each other’s vulnerability with respect and care. They entrust each other with aspects of themselves. They show attentive body language. They prioritize each other’s feelings and preferences. They ask good questions of each other and truly listen to the answers.”

For Dr. Pamela B. Rutledge, Groundhog Day, While You Were Sleeping, Something’s Gotta Give, and Love, Simon all check out.

“[Groundhog Day] centers on the transformation of Bill Murray’s character from a self-focused and smug newscaster into someone who emerges as both lovable and admirable. This reinforces the importance of internal values over looks and other superficial attributes,” she explains.

Adds McRitchie, “On the surface, [Groundhog Day] might not look like your average run-of-the-mill rom-com, as it centers mainly on the male character and the changes he must make in life to be ‘worthy’ of the love of the woman he wants. Years later, it does not surprise me to realize that it is perhaps the closest a movie can come to encapsulating the therapy process: if you want change to happen, you have to be that change. There is no magic romance fairy waiting to wave her wand.”

Bill Pullman and Sandra Bullock in While You Were Sleeping.

©Buena Vista Pictures/Courtesy Everett Collection

Meanwhile, Dr. Rutledge says While You Were Sleeping, with Sandra Bullock and Bill Pullman, “also underscores the importance of values⁠—humor, family, kindness—over superficial attractions with superb acting from the ensemble cast.” (It should be noted, though, that Bullock’s character in While You Were Sleeping does display some aspects of an unhealthy obsession. She lies about being the fiancée of a man in a coma, and the plot of the film snowballs from there.)



Source link

Categories
Health

It's Not Just Confederate Monuments—all Statues of Problematic Men Must Go


The death of Heather Heyer, the brutal beating of DeAndre Harris and the shatter of Marcus Martin’s lower leg as he pushed then-fiancée Marissa Blair from the path of James Alex Fields’s Dodge Charger weren’t enough to stop another white supremacist rally from taking place exactly a year after the violent Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

On Sunday, the world will watch as right-wing groups, white nationalists and neo-Nazis observe the anniversary of a deadly day in history—this time in Washington D.C.—that marked a turning point in national dialogue about Confederate monuments and racism. The groups rallied on Aug. 12, 2017 to protest Charlottesville City Council’s vote to take down a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, which a 2016 petition demanded be removed from one of Charlottesville’s parks. That petition was written by Zyahna Bryant, a Charlottesville High School rising senior with serious eyes and a quick wit that sliced through the rapid rhythm of her words. Bryant was just 16 when she penned the petition, inspired after watching human rights activist and artist Bree Newsome snatch the Confederate flag from atop a pole on the South Carolina statehouse grounds in June 2015. “This flag comes down today!” Newsome shouted, clad in all black, dark brown dreads swinging beneath a helmet.

“It blew my mind,” says Bryant.

Many who are taking to the streets for the Unite the Right Rally 2 would argue that there’s no harm in keeping these symbols. But when is a statue more than a statue? At this moment in America’s present reality, we question: Are monuments to men who rebelled against their mother country to preserve the institution of slavery appropriate in public spaces? How can a flag marked with stars and bars be a visceral symbol of shame to some, and pride to others? Women—like Newsome and Bryant, of different ages and heritages and in every quadrant of the country—are galvanizing efforts to remove, contextualize and understand these symbols of who we were to help us determine who we are. But for all that we lost in Charlottesville, we gained something else too; a seismic shift in public consciousness. Women are organizing to confront not just men of the Confederacy, but the problematic figures we’ve revered who used the tools of patriarchy and power to hurt women and people of color.

The message is clear. Women have had enough of bad men. And they aren’t going to let them stand forever.

Bryant’s petition helped push Charlottesville into a national conversation about Confederate monuments and their place in American society. “I wasn’t the first to talk about the [Lee] statue in Charlottesville,” says Bryant, whose petition stated that for her, Lee’s monument evoked slavery and called up thoughts of the “physical harm, cruelty, and disenfranchisement” her enslaved ancestors suffered. Her sentiments were shared and keenly felt by many in her community, she says.

“I talked to a lot of elder Black folks [who said] ‘This is a problem.’ They had been saying that for years.”

Women have had enough of bad men. And they aren’t going to let them stand forever.

Elsewhere in the country, women lead efforts to examine and contextualize statues of men other than Confederate soldiers, but whose place in history are also hotly debated.

In April, the life-size, metal likeness of man once lauded as the “father of gynecology” was deposed from a Central Park pedestal it had occupied since 1934. Doctor James Marion Sims mastered a method of repairing fistulas—abnormal openings between the vagina and the bladder, uterus or rectum—using enslaved black women as his guinea pigs during years of experimentation. Sims didn’t give the women anesthesia; their pain, he himself noted, “was extreme.” Sim’s unethical work was the bedrock of racist medical practices that persist today, many that result in the rising maternal death rates of black women, who are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women. Black women were at the forefront of activism to remove Sims’ statue from the Park; Black Youth Project 100 staged a protest last August, where a group of women rallied in front of Sims’ statue, their gowns saturated with blood-red paint. They represented Sims’ enslaved victims Anarcha, Betsey and Lucy and the other women butchered at the expense of Sims’ career.

Melissa Mark-Viverito, Vice President for strategic engagement at Latino Victory, was serving as Speaker of the New York City Council when Sims’ statue came down. (She had also advocated for its removal.) The previous years’ national dialogue about Confederate monuments “gave us the opportunity in New York to reevaluate who is being revered, who is being honored,” says Mark-Viverito.

“My district [New York City’s 8th District] is predominantly a community of color,” says Mark-Viverito. “[It is] largely Spanish speaking, largely Latina, with a sizable Black demographic.” The heritage of Mark-Viverito’s constituents, as well as her own as a Puerto Rico-born woman of color, led to her view that Sims’ statue had no place in the Big Apple’s public domain.

“History is about learning and about awakenings,” she says over the phone between meetings. “If we get an accurate portrayal of who [Sims] was, we evolve. [Sims’ expertise] was at the expense of women who were enslaved; he used them as objects because he viewed them as his property. Anyone who believes in equity and justice, when they realize what the statue represents, [they realize] it’s just not appropriate.”

With Sims’ statue relocated to the Brooklyn cemetery where he is buried, Mark-Viverito senses an opportunity.

“It’s really about being inclusive of indigenous communities, and the contributions that they have made.”

“So now the statue has come down, and now the conversation is, what replaces it? It’s created an opening to engage in that conversation.”

Meanwhile, communities of indigenous people lead calls to rename holidays evoking the name of Christopher Columbus. Though he was indeed a remarkable navigator and explorer, Columbus also led violent campaigns of enslavement and ushered in centuries of abuse and exploitation of native peoples in the Americas by European forces. Indigenous Peoples Day now replaces Columbus Day in at least 55 cities nationwide. In January, the city council of San Jose, California, voted to remove a statue of Columbus from its city hall lobby. Like all other dialogues concerning memorializing controversial historical figures, the decision to boot Columbus from city hall was not an easy one, says council member Sylvia Arenas.

“We went through a process about the statue,” says Arenas, citing the concerns of the city’s Italian American community which contested removing the statue, believing the action was an affront to their heritage. (Columbus was Italian.)

“It’s not in opposition of Italian Americans, or to negate the contributions of Italian Americans,” says Arenas. ”It’s really about being inclusive of indigenous communities, and the contributions that they have made.”

Arenas, who says her heritage is Mexican, rarely saw her ancestors’ contributions to history reflected in common historical narratives. It was part of the reason she voted “yes” to the Columbus statue’s dismissal from city hall.

“As a woman of color, to be able to contribute to this decision of where the statue goes, it gives me the opportunity to correct that narrative about indigenous people here, and to create a new narrative about who we are as Californians and as people. … Everybody wants to find their community’s place in history.”

But even on the backdrop of a deadly Charlottesville day, it’s still difficult to convince protectors of these symbols otherwise.

And, there’s proof that the resolve to keep statues standing is strong, particularly of the Confederate type. Last month, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that 113 Confederate monuments and symbols have been removed from public spaces in various states and cities since 2015, while another 1,740 still stand and more monuments are cropping up. The United Daughters of the Confederacy, a women’s group which contributed to the creation of an estimated 450 monuments and commemoratives since its 1894 founding, continues its mission to “protect and preserve” Confederate symbols. When the San Antonio city council voted to remove a Confederate monument from one of the city’s parks last year, the local UDC chapter—one of the group’s chapters in 33 states—sued the city.

Debates about historically and socially significant symbols will likely keep rolling through the country. Whether the monuments and flags stay up or come down, whether we rename roads and schools to reflect standards of our time instead of the past, it’s clear that women enrich this national dialogue. By sharing their diverse perspectives gleaned from a range of identities and life experiences, women play a critical role in contextualizing the ideals and people in American history that we choose to memorialize—and those that we won’t.

Samantha Willis is a freelance journalist and co-creator of the #UnmaskingCville and #UnmaskingRVA series, based in Virginia. You can follow her on Twitter @WordsByWillis.

Related Stories:

‘We Made It Through’: Charlottesville Couple’s Marriage Is an Act of Resistance in the Face of Hate

Elizabeth Sines and Leanne Chia Were in Charlottesville When White Supremacists Descended—This Is What They Saw





Source link

Categories
Health

Matt Lauer's Problematic Past With Women On NBC


PHOTO: NBC

This morning, in a shocking move, it was announced that NBC had fired Today co-host Matt Lauer over “inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace.” He’s just the latest in a long line of powerful men, many in the media, to face a reckoning over their behavior in the weeks since the Harvey Weinstein scandal first broke.

We’re still waiting for more details on the Lauer situation, but looking back on his almost 20-year history with the Today show, it would appear that there were clues all along to his issues with women. Lauer joined as Katie Couric’s co-host on the show in 1997 and has since risen to a place of incredible power and influence at the network. His latest contract extension just one year ago was reported to be worth $20 million a year.

With great power, there is supposed to become great responsibility but in Lauer’s case, he’s often mishandled his conversations with women, both on and of the air. The news of Lauer’s firing has brought many of these instances back into the conversation.

Here’s a rundown of some of the most obvious ones:

Ann Curry Departs Today

Matt Lauer Ann Curry

PHOTO: NBC NewsWire

Ann Curry’s tenure as co-anchor of “Today” ended in June 2012 after just over a year—though she had been on the morning show since 1997 as the news anchor. It was widely reported that she and Lauer did not get along and that he had much to do with her firing. According to a lengthy New York magazine piece on the inner-workings of “Today”, “Off air, Curry and Lauer had no relationship and barely spoke.” In her teary on-air farewell, the tension between Curry and Lauer is palpable as you can see her try to move away from his embrace—even more noticeable when contrasted with the warmth she shows Al Roker and Natalie Morales. Yet, Lauer prevailed and soon had a new co-host in Savannah Guthrie.

The Anne Hathaway Interview

Matt Lauer Anne Hathaway

PHOTO: NBC NewsWire/Getty Images

Back in 2012, amidst doing press for Les Miserables, Anne Hathaway was photographed getting out of her car for an event in such a way that it showed up her dress, revealing her to not be wearing any underwear. It was horrible enough that the photos were sold and published, but Lauer’s interview with her soon after on Today was extra icky. He opened by greeting her with, “Nice to see you, seen a lot of you lately”. It was icky then, and perhaps even more so now. He then goes on to ask her what lessons she’s learned from it, as if she’d done something wrong in the first place. Anne takes it in stride and with grace—as so many women do—saying: “It was obviously an unfortunate incident. It kind of made me sad on two accounts. One was that I was very sad that when we live in an age where someone takes a picture of another person in a vulnerable moment, and rather than delete it and do the decent thing, sells it. And I’m sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies the sexuality of unwilling participants. Which brings us back to Les Mis.” Lauer’s sexism is on bold display here, and yet outside of some internet and media chatter, there were no serious repercussions.

Hillary v. Trump

Matt Lauer Hillary Clinton

PHOTO: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

During the heat of the 2016 presidential election, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump sat down with Lauer during a live one-hour forum, with each answering questions for 30 minutes. Lauer was roundly criticized for his constant interruptions of Clinton, while allowing Trump to ramble on. He focused intently on her emails, but did not call into question apparent untruths from Trump on matters like Iraq and Libya. He questioned her fitness for office while asking Trump soft questions like “Why should you be Commander-In-Chief?” The difference in tone was evident and all-too familiar, at least to many women watching. Clinton herself wrote in her book, “What Happened”: “Now I was ticked off. NBC knew exactly what it was doing here. The network was treating this like an episode of ‘The Apprentice,’ in which Trump stars and ratings soar. Lauer had turned what should have been a serious discussion into a pointless ambush. What a waste of time.”

So while today’s news may be shocking to some, to others it’s been evident all along that at the very least, Lauer was an alpha-male with sexist tendencies that he used to put women at a disadvantage.



Source link

Categories
Health

Outlander Season 3, Episode 4 Recap: Melodramatic Possibilities and a Seriously Problematic Sex Scene


This article centers on Season 3, Episode 3 of Outlander, “All Debts Paid.” If you’re not yet caught up with the show, be warned: Spoilers abound.

Good news this week, guys: There is some reasonably hot sex in this episode of Outlander. Bad news: That sex does not happen between Jamie and Claire, and the circumstances begetting the sex are…uncomfortable, at best.

Most of the interesting stuff happens in 18th-century England this week so let me quickly summarize what is happening in 1968. Claire, Brianna, and Roger (the deceased Reverend Wakefield’s son from Season 2) work on finding Jamie in history now that Brianna knows her true parentage. They learn he was in prison until 1756 when the prison closed. After that, the trail goes cold. Brianna and Roger and Brianna and Claire grow closer as the three search various archives for more word of Jamie, but have little luck. After a particularly disappointing dead end in Edinburgh, Claire worries she is going to spend her life chasing a ghost, exactly as Mrs. Graham (Reverend Wakefield’s housekeeper) cautioned against in Season 2. Brianna doesn’t want to give up, but Claire says, “It’s time to go home,” and she and Brianna head back to Boston. We’re four episodes into the season but this show is clearly going to carry out this grand tease a bit (or a lot?) longer.

Now to the good stuff. In 1756 England, Jamie is working as a groom at Helwater, an English estate, in service of the Lord and Lady Louisa Dunsany and their daughters Geneva and Isobel. Because of his reputation as “Red Jamie,” Jamie is now going by the name Alex MacKenzie. There’s always a twist or three to every plot in Outlander, and this episode is no different: Lord Dunsany tells Jamie to keep his involvement in the Jacobite rebellion to himself because he and Lady Dunsany lost their son, Gordon, in the war. The Lady Dunsany is still grieving and would not take well to knowing there was a Jacobite in her service.

All things considered, life doesn’t seem too bad at Helwater. The name is a bit misleading and as with last season, this show loves a good period costume—whether it’s the British aristocracy or French nobles or Scottish Highlanders in their kilts. Visually, this episode is sumptuous, and the attention to detail is meticulous.

We quickly learn that Geneva is what you might call a “difficult woman”—imperious, haughty, demanding. When she wants to go for a ride, the grooms always draw straws because they hate her so much. Geneva is promised in marriage to the Earl of Ellesmere and after her betrothal, she insists Jamie accompany her on her next ride like a predator playing with its food. As they trot around the grounds, Geneva asks Jamie provocative questions and insists they ride further when Jamie wants to turn back, reminding him, “You have to do my bidding.”

Geneva rides ahead, leaving Jamie frustrated and following. Suddenly, Geneva shrieks and Jamie rides to her rescue, finding her passed out on the ground. After Jamie picks her up, Geneva starts giggling and says, “I knew you’d do as I told you.” Jamie, none too pleased at being toyed with, dumps Geneva in the mud. She says, “I look forward to our next ride,” which, of course, she does. Jamie is extremely attractive and uninterested in nonsense, which is a novelty to someone like Geneva, who has never had anyone stand up to her before.

As he promised in the previous episode, Major John Grey visits Jamie, and the two play chess. Conveniently, Grey’s brother, Lord Melton, happens to be perambulating with Geneva and Isobel while Grey and Jamie are talking. Geneva quickly realizes there is more to Jamie’s story, and not one to pass up an opportunity to make trouble, she later pays Jamie a visit in the stables as he is, literally and metaphorically, shoveling shit. Geneva is going to be married in three days and she doesn’t want her first time to be with the crusty, old ass man she has been promised to. She orders Jamie to come to her bed and deflower her. Who can blame her?

Jamie’s delicate sensibilities are offended by Geneva’s “indecent proposal,” but Geneva refuses to take no for an answer. She threatens to have Jamie’s parole revoked. When that doesn’t sway him, she threatens his family at Lallybroch, and family is his Kryptonite, so he acquiesces, reluctantly.

The whole situation is really problematic. The show is depicting a gentler kind of rape than what Jamie endured at the hands of Black Jack Randall, but it’s still a violation. Jamie does indeed go to Geneva’s room that night and quickly disrobes. He is gallant and tender. He asks Geneva if he can touch her and when Geneva is nervous he says they don’t have to go any further. She firmly says, “No, I’m doing this for myself. I want my first time to be with someone like you.” Jamie warns her that “the first time can be vexing,” and assures Geneva that it won’t hurt as much “if I take my time.” It’s all very erotic—beautifully shot and well acted—but incredibly uncomfortable because of what precipitated the events.

It is a strange, awkward juxtaposition to see Jamie saying and doing all the right things while robbed of his own right to consent. It’s an equally strange, awkward juxtaposition to see a woman asserting her agency over her body and her sexuality, something we see far too little of in popular culture, when she is coercing her partner (without his consent) at the same time. If the roles were reversed, people (myself included) would be absolutely up in arms about a man coercing a woman into sex and then having the resulting scene portrayed as somehow sexy and romantic. This is a grating tension in the episode that cannot be neatly resolved. It is, in fact, not a sex scene we are witnessing, but a rape scene, and no amount of script and screen manipulation can make it otherwise.

After they have sex, Geneva is feeling the afterglow and tells Jamie she loves him but Jamie’s all, Nah girl, you’re just dickmatized. I mean, basically that’s what he says. He goes on to explain, “Love is when you give your heart and soul to another and they give theirs in return.” He doesn’t mention Claire, but it’s obvious that she is to whom he refers.

Months later, Geneva returns to Helwater to visit her family and is heavily pregnant. Outlander is never, ever subtle, and it’s crystal clear Geneva is carrying Jamie’s child, because, of course. The night she goes into labor, and of course there are complications, so the Dunsany family rushes to her side—led by Jamie, of course! It’s all completely plausible, right? Right.

Jamie learns he has a “fine healthy boy” as a son, but Geneva dies. Just like that, this character becomes a martyr despite all her bad behavior. And look, I understand Geneva and her difficult personality. Being a woman in the 18th century was a really confining experience, and though she was confined in luxury as a woman of breeding, she was confined nonetheless. But does that justify how she became pregnant? Or is the show suggesting that when a woman takes control of her sexuality, the consequence is death? It’s all a mess.

The Earl of Ellesmere threatens to kill the newborn in a fit of rage, holding a knife to its wee body as he screams at Lord and Lady Dunsany, “You promised me a virgin. What I got was a whore.” Turns out, the Earl and Geneva never had sex, so he knows the baby isn’t his. Before long, Lord Dunsany has whipped out his pistol and Ellesmere is gonna stab the poor baby. Jamie steps in, takes the gun from Dunsany, and kills Ellesmere to save his son—even though he can’t fully admit the baby is his. Honestly, this episode is amazing, but it is also one of those episodes where the most melodramatic possibilities come to pass.

Outlander Season 3 2017

PHOTO: Aimee Spinks

Not long after, Lady Dunsany and Isobel are out on a walk with the baby and run into Jamie. Isobel tells him they named the baby William and Jamie says it’s a fine name. He is so close to his son, yet so far. He has a few moments alone with the boy and says loving things that make him even sexier than he already is, but most importantly, he tells his son, “I am here.”

Lady Dunsany tells Jamie he will not be held culpable for Ellesemere’s death. She offers Jamie his freedom by way of thanks for saving her grandson. Jamie offers his gratitude but says, “I will not go just yet.” He pretends it is so he can send money back to his family, but we know the truth. Jamie Fraser is our man in the storm.

And then it is 1764 and William, who goes by Willie, is the handsome young Earl of Ellesmere. Jamie teaches him to ride and they are obviously close. Lady Dunsany observes to a friend that Willie and Jamie spend so much time together that they’re starting to look alike. We all know what that means…it is time for Jamie to return to Scotland. Willie doesn’t take the news of Jamie’s departure well, but Jamie knows if he stays much longer, everyone will know Willie’s true parentage.

As Jamie gets his affairs in order, he meets with Major John Grey, who has figured out Jamie is Willie’s father. (It’s a little hilarious that everyone else remains oblivious to Willie’s true parentage. We are getting Clark Kent/Superman levels of subtlety here.) Jamie asks Grey to look after his son as a father and even offers himself to Grey in exchange, which is kind of rude when you think about it. They are clearly friends! Why do this? Grey tells Jamie he’ll always lust for the Scotsman, but doesn’t want Jamie out of duty or sacrifice. Good on John Grey for that and for recognizing what Geneva never did—true consent is whole hearted consent and not transactional.

Grey also has news of his own. He’s going to marry Lady Isobel and, conveniently enough, they are going to raise Willie. The two men have a sweet bonding moment and it’s nice to see how they’ve forged and sustained a friendship over the years.

Later, Willie visits Jamie in his quarters where Jamie is staring at a carving of St. Anthony. Soon the two are talking about “stinking papists,” and Willie says he wants to be Catholic like Jamie. Jamie christens the boy as William James and gives his son a carving of a snake with his name on it, promising Willie he will never forget him. It’s unbearable watching Jamie yet again do the “right” thing instead of what’s best for himself.

Outlander Season 3 2017

PHOTO: Aimee Spinks

As Jamie rides out, Isobel promises, “We’ll take good care of your son.” Willie runs after Jamie, begging him to come back, but Jamie, ever stoic, wills himself to not look back.

As we look ahead to next week, it’s interesting to see how Jamie and Claire have each made a family during their years apart—the very thing they longed to create together—even if those family dynamics are fraught. It will be interesting to see what their families become when they finally find their way back to one another.

Roxane Gay is the author of Bad Feminist, Difficult Women, and most recently, Hunger. She is also the author of World of Wakanda for Marvel and a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times.



Source link

Categories
Health

Even Fan Theories Can't Explain the Problematic Timeline of 'Grey's Anatomy'


At this point, Grey’s Anatomy, which returns tonight for its 14th season, is less of a show and more of a cultural institution. It’s the bedrock of the Shondaland empire, required viewing (and tweeting) for its legion of devoted fans, and the place young actors go for career-boosting arcs—much like ER before it or, on the East coast, Law & Order: SVU.

There was a time, however, when Grey’s was a show like (and unlike) any other, when it hadn’t been running for a thousand years and killed off a dozen main characters. A time when it was just this juicy drama starring really, really good-looking people that I would binge-watch with my camp friends at our semi-regular sleepovers. After those had petered out, I didn’t pay attention to the show until a couple months ago, when it was on at the gym and I found myself watching it; before I knew it, I had fallen down a hole and started the series from the beginning. (Side note: Grey’s is the perfect gym show because it’s addictive, chatty, and will make you terrified of death so you want to work out more.)

But friends, as I watched I noticed something that I never noticed before, but now it’s completely blown my mind and I can’t get past it: The first three seasons take place over the course of one calendar year. Just think about what that means for a second. That means by the time Burke leaves Christina at their wedding, he has known (not dated, not been engaged to, known) her for 12 months. Meanwhile, George falls in love with Meredith, sleeps with Meredith, loses his father, falls in love with Callie, marries Callie, and sleeps with Izzie between July and the next July, approximately. Let’s not even get into the Denny of it all.

If you watch the episodes week by week, you might think the show’s romances move kinda fast; if you look at it in terms of a single trip around the sun, they’re insane. These people start sleeping with each other within days of meeting one another, and they get married at an alarming rate. And apparently, it’s not only normal but good to not know if you want to be with someone on a week-to-week basis. From day one, these interns are like, “We gotta be extra smart and dedicated because there aren’t very many female interns and it’s a competitive program” before they immediately and ceaselessly start sleeping with their attendings and talking about it to anyone who will listen, ad nauseum. And then they break up a bunch! Over and over! In front of patients!

It makes sense that after a short first season (9 episodes) the writers would extend the intern year dynamic into the second season. They set up a pecking order and a chain of command, so, sure, they wanted to continue exploring that. But season 2 is also a whirlwind, including the fact that Bailey has a baby. If little Tuck was conceived on, say, the very first day of season 1 that means that by the middle of season 2, when Bailey delivers, nine months have passed, and the rest of season 2 and all of season 3 take place over the course of three more months?

And it doesn’t get better after season three: Seasons 4 and 5 are over the course of George’s second year as an intern, which means all of the many, many, many things that happen in the first five seasons of this show are supposed to be over two years. At the end of season five, these people have known each other for two years max.

I’m not alone in my confusion. After discovering this, I spent hours combing through timelines that superfans made online trying to make sense of it all, and it just doesn’t work, no matter how many convoluted fan theories—Lexie Grey doesn’t exist, for instance—you pile on top of it. Maybe the first seasons just exist on a different plane of existence. There are multiple references to Meredith being blonde even though she demonstrably isn’t and in the super early days, there was a cheesy theme song:

[embedded content]

Maybe (and most likely) the writers’ room just didn’t care. Or maybe—and hear me out here—Meredith’s arrival at Seattle Grace opened up a rift in the space-time continuum and suspended the laws of physics as we know them? Yeah, that’s probably it.



Source link