Comments on: Womanhood at the Hendricksons’

By: elthrilla

elthrilla — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:54:04 +0000

@Claire – actually, some people suspect it has less to do with plural marriages than with other “non-traditional” marriages.

I wrote a paper a couple years back on the way the creators may or may not have been using polygamy as a possible way of making gay marriage more acceptable. The creators refuse to say if they are; however, some critics assume that since the creators are in fact a gay couple, that perhaps there is some underlying pro-gay marriage arguments in the show.

Of course this was when the season first began, and in fact they do reference this argument when Roman is misquoted as saying “we’re just like homosexuals” in an interview. Since this is the third season, it has outgrown this theory and become it’s own show, but I don’t think it’s truly about polygamy as it is about normalizing non traditional/heterosexual families.

And one more note: the reason I love this show, is that I go back and forth all the time. I hate the woman for feeding into it and I hate the double standard, but at the same time I do feel perhaps they shouldn’t be judged for their choices. It makes me think about the bigger picture, and that’s the kind of media I like.

ok shutting up now.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:26:03 +0000

Yeah, you’d think that would be part of the job description…I guess he’s criticizing how mean and nasty other characters are?

Wait, that’s not how that works! Shenanigans, Prof. Fish!

By: Pilgrim Soul

Pilgrim Soul — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:41:50 +0000

Oh, PhD, but I don’t gloss over the misogyny like Fish does. So gross, to me, when critics don’t talk about their subjects… well, critically.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:43:40 +0000

I don’t have cable, so I can’t comment personally about Big Love, but Pilgy, you seem to have something in common with one Stanley Fish, albeit for different reasons: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/

By: Diziet_Sma

Diziet_Sma — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:01:26 +0000

@Kivrin: Yeah, I haven’t been able to put my finger on why I can’t get into this, but I think the religion angle may be a factor. I watched the first couple of episodes of the first season, and the opening one of this season, and it just doesn’t grab me. Having said that, Jon Krakauer’s book on Mormonism, Under The Banner Of Heaven, is definitely one of the best books I read last year.

By: aspiringexpatriate

aspiringexpatriate — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 07:28:05 +0000

I’ve only seen a couple episodes here and there, but it’ll go on my list. I’m in the middle of watching all of Deadwood. So it’ll take awhile, but I’ll get there.

What I saw I liked, I just, pretend I have other things to do… Or actually do have other things to do, which I wind up not doing because I’m constantly reading PS’s and Penny’s posts…

Yeah…

By: Penny

Penny — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:18:33 +0000

“High Patriarchy (which is to say, wholly unapologetic patriarchy) has revealed that the way women struggle to express and assert themselves with men’s feet on their necks holds far more dramatic interest than the actions of their oppressors.”

Jesus, marry me.

I watched the first two seasons while I was sick last week. The show IS about those women, not just the main three, but all of them. It’s endlessly fascinating. I find Nicki and Barb to be especially interesting. At the end of the first season, when they were outed and Barb sat down with the two other wives and said “I got what I deserved,” I totally lost my shit. The tenuous relationship between sex as pleasure and for the sole purpose of procreation is a theme I am hoping will implode on itself.

By: Claire

Claire — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:31:14 +0000

I was amazed in the second season by who seduced I had been by their marriage arrangement. My spuse and I — two largely irreligious people — were both a bit weepy when Margene decided to be baptized in the backyard pool. I think the show is an interesting apologia for fully consensual polygamy — with all of the complications that would produce for everyone involved.

By: Kivrin

Kivrin — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:50:46 +0000

I only watched the first season, but I think your analysis is still accurate/applicable. I lost interest after the first season because I absolutely could not relate to the religious aspects of the show. I couldn’t force myself to care about these people’s troubles week after week when so many of those troubles were self-imposed. I must confess: As a non-believer, I struggle to truly respect the notion (and practice) of faith in higher power(s).

But hey, maybe I’ll watch it on DVD someday, if only for the feminist aspects of the story!