Friday, December 17, 2010

Another hulu comment round

As I've stated before, when I miss shows on their regularly scheduled channels I turn to Hulu and watch the shows on there and when I do, I read the comments. Now most of the time I just find the comments hilarious. I'm not big on really making issue of topics made about T.V. characters, however, this comment stopped me and since I don't have a Hulu account I'll just respond here (with a spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't seen the episode, manly you CSI and the British Twins, you may skip the comment and just read what I have to say):

First let me say this, I’m all for Bones & Booth getting together, I’m fully behind that pair, but….
I got to get this off my chest…Bones is reaping what she sowed by rejecting Booth. Booth has no obligation to entertain Brennan’s feelings after a rejection….
I’m kind of wondering why people keep focusing on Booth moving on when it’s a possibility 2 years may have passed since he confessed to Bones and got shot down. As I said in another post, Bones wanted to have her cake and eat it too…similar to how she was dating the two guys, one for sexual pleasure and one for mental stimulation. Booth maintained the position of Bones’ consistent one-sided loyal monogamous platonic relationship….
Booth had a right to move on; Booth has a right to turn Bones down now because he’s in a relationship.
People need to let this play out as it’s pretty obvious Booth and Hannah are on a doomed road due to Hannah’s own personal goals.
Booth doesn’t need to jump just because Bones now feels like she needs a relationship to complete her since she now realizes that living the way she does is pretty empty. She’s the one who shut down the relationship and she needs to be the one who works to bring it back to that level between them…
COntinued....
Roy Whitaker posted on Dec 12 2010, 16:21:56

Continued...
This erroneous romanticism falsely projected on to males in fictional stories doesn’t help. Why do people think the man needs to chase the woman around no matter what she does…why does he need to do this until the woman feels she is “ready” to accept the guy? Why is it when the guy moves on and does something realistic he’s labeled a bad guy?
Someone asked why he followed her? Had he not followed her she’d be laid out in the street after the car hit her…and plus this is classic Booth. People kill me with their wishy washy nitpicks about their relationship….especially when it comes to Booth.
I feel sorry for Bones, but she’s really reaping what she sowed back in season 5. People should just let this play out and stop being so nitpicky…
Even in that scene, which people want to smack Booth for, one could tell it was really bothering him to have to send her home alone after watching her cry in the car.
Roy Whitaker posted on Dec 12 2010, 16:22:13 [ Reply ]

then later to someone else's comment:

I agree with you and your husband. He's doing the "guy" thing and as a guy it always irked me when I watch a romantic based film or read a movie with females and they project what I like to call the "knight in shining armor" vision onto every guy in a romance situation and it even bothers me further when they project it on to guys in real life.
Booth told her when she rejected him he would move on and as you pointed out she pushed him to move on. However, Bones has always been like a stingy child when it comes to Booth. In one hand she delighted in expressing her sexual freedom to him and seeing his discomfort but on the other hand I always noticed how slightly irritable she got when another woman started competing for Booths attention. It was most notable with Cam from a positional point of view and now with Hannah.
I don't dislike Hannah, but I can tell she's a temporary replacement like so many other relationships in the show...heck I just got finished watching Season 5 and I was wondering about the Female Doctor from the Aquarium? Nevertheless, I feel the writers already wrote a way out of Hannah & Booth...Hannah's going to eventually want to go back to the Middle East...
Roy Whitaker posted on Dec 12 2010, 17:48:39

Two points of what he said really stuck with me. One, that people believe men should have to chase around women and two, that women project a "knight in shinning armor" stereotype on men.
First off, it is true that as humans we believe the opposite sex should put in some effort into the whole romancing schtic. However, if you talk to a man, they often believe women think the man should do it. If you talk to a woman you get the reverse. It's not so much that people truly believe one side or the other to really be at fault but that dealing with someone from the opposite sex is hard, understanding people, no matter the gender, even harder, and all people like things to be easier for them. Of course it's hard to see that the other side might also be feeling the same things, because you aren't playing for that team. We all have our issues with feeling like we are doing all the work. That's why real relationships are partnerships. Doesn't matter who your partner is, the point is that both of you have to work together to make it work. This isn't just once you've agreed to live together or hold hands or tell your friends you are a "thing". This starts from the very beginning, if you aren't willing to compromise a bit here and there (obviously not on big moral issues or deal breaker sort of situations because then you are changing your core beliefs and in the end that only leads to arguments or loss of self) then you are always going to be "finding" that one feels as if they are doing all work, since you end up striving even harder to make the other person see your point of view and become the person you wish them to be instead of the person they are. Sounds cheesy but meeting in the middle holds true in this situation. It's not hard to tell if someone is going to be someone willing to do some of the leg work for you, sure their face might be beautiful but that doesn't mean you always have to catch the bill, doesn't mean you only see them when they have free time even if you have to rearrange things, doesn't mean you should let them slide on forgetting important days like your birthday or your anniversary. People are so overtaken by beauty that they often let others use them just to keep in their good graces but that's really another rant all together which I'm sure I'll touch on again later. If they treat you like that then they probably will whether you are just dating or married. People only change if they want to themselves, no one can truly change you unless you let them.

Onto that second point. He mentioned Knights. I always find that topic a bit ridiculous, for centuries Knights have been regarded as the crowning achievement of male honor and chivalry and yet Knights were mostly just bullies, hired thugs. It's such a false ideal it's almost saddening, people still believe that these men were somehow above the attitudes of "normal" men towards women, when the reality is that they only were to women of certain classes. To many women and men under the knight's particular class they were often barbaric in their terms of treatment. How chivalrous, to be able to choose whom you deem worthy of ones basic human kindness. There wasn't some "treat all women as gems" clause for them to follow, they had rules, to be sure, but these were only for the lucky few, and I say lucky lightly as women were treated more or less like objects to be bartered and sold. What I find most ridiculous about this is that we have kept the idea alive, both male and female, and both find it troublesome when a man falls short of this ideal. Women for most of our history as humans have been considered on the lower end of the spectrum, this still happens today in many parts of the world. I hear someone crying "But they were treated better then other races" and they would be right to some extent, when two societies collide the one that loses out the war ends up dominated by the other, this is just how it has always been, a woman from the winning society would be deemed more worthy than a man from the losing society but less then a man from her same society and a woman from the other society practically inhuman. When you are deemed inferior in your own society, there is something seriously wrong. What I'm getting at, is because they were considered inferior to men they were often not taught what men were, reading and writing among many other things. Meaning it has been mostly men throughout the centuries that have kept the tales of those gallant knights alive. They have been writing the fluff that turns into the garbage people then base their ideals upon. No one likes looking at the ugly side of things because then one has to question and wonder why such things were let to happen, which is why people only try to remember the better side, not just of knights, and what really happened becomes a faded memory. That's not to say it's just a faulty decision on our male counterparts, women are just as equally to blame, though I am far less biased in that direction. Wanting to be treated like a lady, having those special rules apply to oneself, it's no wonder women for centuries have dreamed of such. A man to come in, swoop them up, and make their life easier by elevating their status to one where they are treated, at least partially, with dignity and respect. I can see the appeal of that, most people can. Everyone wants that to some degree, some are just better at realizing thats probably not going to happen so they help themselves. Being a woman, we are taught, even inadvertently that we are weaker beings, that we need someone to protect and help us. Part of that I sort of agree with, not the forefront thought but the subtle message that we connect to people and share our troubles with them and it makes us grow and bond and feel secure. Everyone wants to feel they have someone they can rely on but I sure as hell am not weaker just because I don't have a dangle between my legs. However, that doesn't mean that men should be judged based on a faulty and highly unattainable ideal.

I think we fail at seeing both sides because we are so worried about just our own. It's why so many people fail at relationships in general, there is always the "what about me" syndrome that occurs. We often overlook the other person trying or don't even bother to try ourselves because we feel they should have to do it because we are always the one doing it and feel jilted. When did we become so lazy with relationships? Maybe we have never really been able to work through relationships, maybe we have only really been trying for the last couple of decades, when people stopped marrying for money or status and started marrying for what they believed was love. Maybe thats why we all struggle with relationships so much, we haven't really been trying to marry for a feeling till recently and we haven't truly grasped what that means, so we are really just fledglings in this regard.

No comments:

Post a Comment