[ SECRET POST #3272 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3272 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 060 secrets from Secret Submission Post #468.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I also like season 2 better, even though the last two episodes were somewhat disappointing. And looking back on both seasons, there's a strange thread of vague sexism, and I can't tell if the showrunner is trying to point it out or is actually just a bit sexist.

But yeah, I really didn't like either Lester Nygaard or Lorne Malvo in S1 (Billy Bob especially skeeves me out). I found the characters in S2 generally more enjoyable, even the bad guys.

[kaijinscendre]

"there's a strange thread of vague sexism, and I can't tell if the showrunner is trying to point it out or is actually just a bit sexist."

Pretty sure that is one of the theme in both the show and movies people are meant to notice. And it wasn't at all vague in Season 2.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, I'm not really very observant in my TV watching. I only realised it because the Fargo podcast I listen to pointed it out (like Peggy, who doesn't want to have children, is depicted as crazy; Betsy doesn't think she's good enough for Lou etc), along with some things that happened in S1 (Molly getting shunted to the side so that Gus could save the day).

The thing is though, I honestly can't tell if it's deliberate or not.

[sabotabby]

I felt like they were trying to make a point about sexism and then the sexism ended up being supported by the narrative.

Floyd isn't good enough to lead the Gerhardts, and it is because she's a woman.

Simone gets murdered for rebelling against her abusive criminal family.

Betsy tells that Noreen that existentialism is bullshit and having kids is the only thing that matters.

Betsy gets sidelined completely.

Lou gives a long speech about how the best thing is for the menfolk to protect their wimminz.

Peggy tries to talk about her struggles and her suffering, only to get told to STFU by Lou.

I can completely get behind the show depicting sexist attitudes, but it seemed to me that the last episode supported, rather than deconstructed, those attitudes. Add to that the literal whitewashing of Hanzee and I'm just going to pretend that the finale didn't happen to ruin what was otherwise a spectacular show.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

"I can completely get behind the show depicting sexist attitudes, but it seemed to me that the last episode supported, rather than deconstructed, those attitudes. Add to that the literal whitewashing of Hanzee and I'm just going to pretend that the finale didn't happen to ruin what was otherwise a spectacular show."

Yes, this. I thought season 2 was fantastic, especially episode 8 (in which Peggy was the best part), but the last two episodes were mostly disappointing to me and kind of soured the whole thing. I found the sexism harder to take than the deus ex machina spaceship...

[sabotabby]

I was this close to declaring that season 2 was better than 1, and then the finale happened. I didn't even mind the UFO. The UFO made more sense than Hanzee getting plastic surgery to become an Italian guy.

[(Anonymous)]

It totally does. And the origin of Numbers and Wrench also made me roll my eyes.

[sabotabby]

Oh God, I'm trying not to think about that. I can't tell if I disliked it because it made no sense or because it Jossed a novel-length fanfic that I wrote about them. It was pretty cute though.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

It was kinda cute, if I don't think about it too hard.

Link to fanfic? :D

[sabotabby]

Exactly. I wanted to see them again, and I was happy to see them again, but it falls apart when examined too closely.

The fanfic in question, wherein they have a ten-year age gap, grew up in different parts of the country, and meet as adults: http://archiveofourown.org/series/247207

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree with a few points:

* Floyd was held back by men's sexist attitudes, not her own lack of ability, IMO.

* I'm not sure how Simone's murder is sexist. She didn't just "rebel" against her family, she betrayed them and endangered their lives by passing on information to the Kansas City gang. She's not fighting the patriarchy, her motives were purely selfish.

* I don't think that was Betsy's point. I don't think she's saying that having kids is the only thing that matters. You have to look at it in the context that Betsy is dying, she knows she's dying, and to her life is precious, not absurd. She'd like to see her child grow up and see how the world changes and live to a ripe old age with the man she loves, but she knows she probably won't get to do that. Betsy is basically in the exact position Camus is talking about-- she knows she's going to die, but she can't be flippant about it. It's not a joke, knowing that you'll probably go out slowly and suffering the whole time, and that your family will have to go on without you. That's what she's trying to tell Noreen.

[sabotabby]

That's how I felt at the time (at least re: Simone and Floyd) but the cumulative effect of having all the women's stories end up badly or sidelined, with Lou and Hank giving longwinded speeches about protecting women, and the narrative celebrating the restoration of order at the end, means that they all end up with sexist overtones even if that wasn't the original intent.

[(Anonymous)]

I can see why the cumulative effect might give the overall series that feel of sexism, but it doesn't retroactively change some of the specific examples you cited. That doesn't make any sense.

[sabotabby]

Well, they presumably planned it out from beginning to end. It isn't actually based on a true story.

[kaijinscendre]

"Floyd isn't good enough to lead the Gerhardts, and it is because she's a woman." According to Otto. Bear was all for Floyd leading everyone.

"Simone gets murdered for rebelling against her abusive criminal family." Has nothing to do with being a woman. This is a common trope in crime family stories. You betray the family, you die.

"Betsy tells that Noreen that existentialism is bullshit and having kids is the only thing that matters." I don't remember this enough to comment but, Betsy seems to love what she does (plus historical context).

"Betsy gets sidelined completely." ??? Betsy was on the show a lot. This is amazing considering she is not an essential character. The show is about mainly about the cops and the various crime syndicates.

"Lou gives a long speech about how the best thing is for the menfolk to protect their wimminz." Historical context is cool.

"Peggy tries to talk about her struggles and her suffering, only to get told to STFU by Lou." Yeah. She is a bit off her rocker PLUS she killed several people (was the catalyst for this whole situation). They are not friends. She is a criminal being taken into custody. Also, Lou has had a bit of bad time himself. Why should he have to take care of this idiot who thought she could turn into some kind of mastermind?

[sabotabby]

Like I said, it's all of them in combination, with nothing in the last episode challenging period attitudes. Individually, they all make sense; together, it becomes a theme.

[kaijinscendre]

Theme of what? That the 1970s was sexist?

[(Anonymous)]

Does that mean that there can be no shining examples of women having power and living life on their own terms unless they live in an era that isn't sexist? Which era is that exactly? Why were all of the female characters depicted as either powerless or inept?

I feel like the female characters had the PROMISE of being more, but they all fell flat in the end, just as they did in season 1.

[kaijinscendre]

Floyd was not powerless (at least no more powerless than every other criminal around). I never saw her as inept either. Why do you think she was?

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Perhaps I was a bit too vehement in my comment. I didn't really feel these things until the last couple of episodes. There was just something...off about the way things wrapped up for many of the characters, mostly the females.

With Floyd, well. She went to the police and made a deal with them, which could be construed as similar to what Simone did - betraying/turning snitch on the criminal underworld. She seemed for the most part ineffectual and like she was grasping at power that was never going to be hers. One son didn't respect her position as head at all and was trying to usurp her, and the other one killed her granddaughter without consulting her about it. She was never in control.

[kaijinscendre]

I wasn't a huge fan of the final two episodes but I really did not get that about Floyd at all.

What she did was entirely different from what Simone did. The issue isn't betraying the "criminal underworld" the issue was betraying the family. Floyd did what she did to save her family (and to use the police to help take out some people). She was the leader in a time of great change in their family. It isn't her fault Otto is a sexist asshat. Bear may have killed Simone without telling her, but I don't see that as a show of her not being in control.

Considering she had Otto fucking everything up (over and over) she did the best she could.

[sabotabby]

I just think period pieces walk a fine line between depicting or subverting beliefs of the era and endorsing them. Generally speaking, the show has made the characters conservative but the narrative progressive (see people dismissing Molly in S1, but she's of course right all along, or Reagan spouting good ol' boy reassurance and Lou shooting him down). I don't actually believe that Hawley is a sexist pigdog or anything; I think the storytelling failed and fell on the side of endorsement, conscious or otherwise, in a way that it didn't in previous nine episodes and in season 1. I can see how people might feel otherwise, but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm kinda getting the same vibe as you, you're not alone! I mean, to be fair, the women on the show are all well-developed and interesting (I mean, Peggy was messed up but still sympathetic imo, and Molly is great). But yeah, pretty much the same issues that you have. It seems like the show kinda favors "wise", quiet, nurturing women (Betsy & Molly) over women who lash out (Peggy, Simone). I do think the show tries to engage with things like sexism, but they're not always nailing it.

[(Anonymous)]

To be fair, she's not depicted as crazy for not wanting to have kids, she's depicted as crazy for thinking she can change her life via some BS seminar that's likely a scam. I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think it's more nuanced than that. Peggy's not wrong for wanting to break out of her traditional gender role, but the way in which she tries to do that is a little misguided and I can see where that looks like the writers are trying to make her look bad for not wanting to be a wife and mother.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't mind the Lester Nygaard or Lorne Malvo characters at first, but they got a lot of screentime and in the end they felt more like caricatures than real people. Season two doesn't seem to have that problem... even characters who seem kind of goofy and cartoonish at first (like Peggy) end up being multi layered and very human.