![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Since Anna is off having fun in Montreal and left me all by my lonesome with no one to bounce rants off off, I'm afraid it's time for the rest of you to step up to the plate and listen to my rants on Sexism On TV.
So, here's a little thought exercise. Imagine you're a police type person, and you're investigating a case that involves a guy being stabbed to death while handcuffed to a hotel bed and a woman found sleeping next to him with no idea what happened. She tests positive for GHB.
(Note: for the purposes of thisshow exercise, we're apparently assuming GHB knocks you out seconds after taking it. I know, I know: GHB Doesn't Work That Way, as far as I know, but we'll go with it, because this is seriously the least problematic point in this entire scenario.)
In the course of the investigation, you somehow (I had a hard time paying attention to the actual plot through the red haze of anger) find a) another woman this bloke picked up, and b) evidence that at least some of the women weren't drugged before they went up to his room, at least. So you interview this other woman, and she tells you what happens: she met the bloke in a bar, she went up to his room with him, voluntarily, he gave her a vial of what he claimed was absinthe, and then it's heavily implied the next thing she remembers is waking up and finding her money and jewelry stolen. She ends her statement with, "I cheated on my husband, but that's not a crime, is it?"
Pop Quiz! What do you do/say?
If you answered either a) or b): Congratulations, you are, at minimum, a reasonably decentish human being! When the Revolution comes, you may be allowed to live.
If you answered c): Congratulations, you're Horatio Caine, you smug, self-righteous, douchebaggy git.
Oh, and later on in the show, it was implied there may never have been "sex" at all, that the women were just drugged so the bloke could nick their jewelry and money, and then they figure out the women were specifically targeted for these thefts (and possible rapes), which they figure out because they find their pictures hanging on the fridge (? I think?) at the dead bloke's house, and the two (female) officers who discover this refer to it as, and I'm not joking here, "The Wall of Shame," which is obviously short for "The Wall of What A Shame These Women Are Such Whoring Sluts."
(And lest you think I'm reading things into innocent dialogue there, it's fairly obvious what the "shame" refers to, and there's really no oterh interpretation possible.)
So here's my question: is CSI: Miami actually way more misogynistic than the other franchises, or is my dislike for Horatio Caine colouring my views?
Because all three versions are on my TV several times a week, and because CSI:M is the only alternative to Big Brother, I've ended up actually watching it in the background while I putter about and wait for CSI: New York to start, and seeing the three in succession seems to highlight the differences.
From what I've seen, CSI:NY tends much more towards the plain weird murders, and the terrorism and mass/serial murders and whatnot, and much less towards the sexually motivated/"titillating" ones. CSI: Original Flavour can be hugely problematic as a show, but Grissom especially tends to at least be open-minded and non-judgmental, and most of the others, if they get snitty about stuff, usually get smacked down by the others or by the story, more or
less.
CSI:M, on the other hand, has ... Horatio Caine. I mean, the man is a self-righteous, judgmental, smug douchebag at the best of times, but it's like he dials it up to eleven whenever women are involved (see above), and the show expects us to think he's his paragon of virtue and being-right and truthiness, and instead I'm over here still resenting the show for its bait-and-switch last season.
(YOU PROMISED ME HORATIO CAINE WOULD DIE, SHOW! AND THEN YOU LIED! D: *cough*)
Anyway, as I was saying: is there a lot more sexism and even outright mysoginy in CSI:M? Have I just been missing more of it in the other shows? And does anyone know which deity I need to sacrifice a goat to in order to get The TV Powers That be to put something watchable on opposite CSI:M, before I actually throw something at the TV?
So, here's a little thought exercise. Imagine you're a police type person, and you're investigating a case that involves a guy being stabbed to death while handcuffed to a hotel bed and a woman found sleeping next to him with no idea what happened. She tests positive for GHB.
(Note: for the purposes of this
In the course of the investigation, you somehow (I had a hard time paying attention to the actual plot through the red haze of anger) find a) another woman this bloke picked up, and b) evidence that at least some of the women weren't drugged before they went up to his room, at least. So you interview this other woman, and she tells you what happens: she met the bloke in a bar, she went up to his room with him, voluntarily, he gave her a vial of what he claimed was absinthe, and then it's heavily implied the next thing she remembers is waking up and finding her money and jewelry stolen. She ends her statement with, "I cheated on my husband, but that's not a crime, is it?"
Pop Quiz! What do you do/say?
a) You make some noncommittal noises, or acknowledge that no, it's not a crime. You then thank her for her time, finish the interview, and continue trying to find who killed this guy.
b) You try to gently point out that whether or not she voluntarily went to his room doesn't really matter, because the moment he took away her ability to consent (or withdraw consent) by drugging her, any sexual contact he had with her would be rape, although it would've been difficult to prosecute. You then give her contact details for a rape counsellor or similar, finish the interview, and continue trying to find who killed this guy.
c) You gravely intone, "Not yet," and then just ... stand there.
If you answered either a) or b): Congratulations, you are, at minimum, a reasonably decentish human being! When the Revolution comes, you may be allowed to live.
If you answered c): Congratulations, you're Horatio Caine, you smug, self-righteous, douchebaggy git.
Oh, and later on in the show, it was implied there may never have been "sex" at all, that the women were just drugged so the bloke could nick their jewelry and money, and then they figure out the women were specifically targeted for these thefts (and possible rapes), which they figure out because they find their pictures hanging on the fridge (? I think?) at the dead bloke's house, and the two (female) officers who discover this refer to it as, and I'm not joking here, "The Wall of Shame," which is obviously short for "The Wall of What A Shame These Women Are Such Whoring Sluts."
(And lest you think I'm reading things into innocent dialogue there, it's fairly obvious what the "shame" refers to, and there's really no oterh interpretation possible.)
So here's my question: is CSI: Miami actually way more misogynistic than the other franchises, or is my dislike for Horatio Caine colouring my views?
Because all three versions are on my TV several times a week, and because CSI:M is the only alternative to Big Brother, I've ended up actually watching it in the background while I putter about and wait for CSI: New York to start, and seeing the three in succession seems to highlight the differences.
From what I've seen, CSI:NY tends much more towards the plain weird murders, and the terrorism and mass/serial murders and whatnot, and much less towards the sexually motivated/"titillating" ones. CSI: Original Flavour can be hugely problematic as a show, but Grissom especially tends to at least be open-minded and non-judgmental, and most of the others, if they get snitty about stuff, usually get smacked down by the others or by the story, more or
less.
CSI:M, on the other hand, has ... Horatio Caine. I mean, the man is a self-righteous, judgmental, smug douchebag at the best of times, but it's like he dials it up to eleven whenever women are involved (see above), and the show expects us to think he's his paragon of virtue and being-right and truthiness, and instead I'm over here still resenting the show for its bait-and-switch last season.
(YOU PROMISED ME HORATIO CAINE WOULD DIE, SHOW! AND THEN YOU LIED! D: *cough*)
Anyway, as I was saying: is there a lot more sexism and even outright mysoginy in CSI:M? Have I just been missing more of it in the other shows? And does anyone know which deity I need to sacrifice a goat to in order to get The TV Powers That be to put something watchable on opposite CSI:M, before I actually throw something at the TV?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
That's ... kinda exactly my problem, too. I mean, it may well be that the level of sexism is the same and it just grates more because it comes wrapped in Horatio Caine's Smug Sunglasses of Self-Righteousness, but then again, the CSI:M writers keep writing smug one-liners for David Caruso's ego to deliver "dramatically," so the sexism is probably just part and parcel of the incredibly shitty writing. I think.