Lately I have noticed a rather alarming trend in comments online, as a reaction to what has been happening lately on Castle and NCIS:LA with Kensi and Beckett in regards to their behaviour towards their respective partners, Deeks and Castle.
To backtrack - it was hinted at in last episode of NCIS:LA that Kensi went on a group hang-out with 3 guys and also with Nell and Rose. An unofficial, fun, group date. It was also clearly hinted she did not enjoy herself; in frank they couldn't have been more obvious with her reference to fairy tales and claiming that destruction follows people in groups of three's. And a very, very obvious shot of Deeks' empty chair (not exactly being subtle are we?).
And it seemed people went haywire. I saw comments upon comments on how Kensi could possibly dare to go on dates when Deeks was sick, he had just kissed her and she wasn't responding to him, why hadn't she been to his house, she wasn't trying hard enough, she was hurting Deeks et cetera.
Then there is Beckett. Beckett got an amazing job offer last season to become a federal agent, went to an interview in Washington without telling Castle and seriously contemplated taking the job. Meanwhile, Castle behaved in quite a bratty way in my opinion and it seemed this was threatening their relationship even if it seemed perfectly obvious Beckett wanted their relationship to work. She loves Castle. But she also had a duty to her heart. If Beckett had not taken the job because of her relationship with Castle it wouldn't have been who she is as a character. Castle saw reason and asked her to marry him, saying they would make this work. I was happy to see she took the job. It is Beckett.
And yet again the internet went haywire. I saw comments claiming that Beckett shouldn't take the job because it'd threaten her relationship with Castle - she should be with her man, how could she go behind him like that and threaten what they had, she was not thinking of him et cetera.
I was completely surprised by this reaction. I mean, it is a fictional characters we're talking about here. But what surprised me even more was the hostile reaction to their actions.
Last time I checked, one of the main features of Kensi and Beckett as characters are that they are strong women who are independent. They make their own lives and take responsibility for their own actions and follow their hearts. I genuinely enjoy that in them as characters. These are quite clearly not women that wait around for their man or let their own happiness become secondary to what their man wants and needs.
And isn't that okay?
Instead it seems, that because of their actions towards their partners, i.e. Beckett followed her own heart and Kensi went out - they are somehow terrible as women. They are not behaving like a proper woman should, putting her partner ahead of herself and letting his needs dictate their lives.
Did I somehow miss the memo that we're in the 1950's here?
As incredulous as I was at this reaction it got me thinking - If these are the parameters we place on fictional women, what does it say about the parameters we place on woman in the real world? I am of the belief that people can reveal a lot about themselves unconsciously through their opinions without meaning to. And it seems, that despite the fact that in the Western World women are meant to be progressing, it is a facade.
If people spend their time berating fictional women (emphasis on fictional!) for not following their men or putting their needs ahead of their own, what do they say about women in the real world that behave in the same way and follow their hearts?
Perhaps, we're still in the 1950's after all....
To backtrack - it was hinted at in last episode of NCIS:LA that Kensi went on a group hang-out with 3 guys and also with Nell and Rose. An unofficial, fun, group date. It was also clearly hinted she did not enjoy herself; in frank they couldn't have been more obvious with her reference to fairy tales and claiming that destruction follows people in groups of three's. And a very, very obvious shot of Deeks' empty chair (not exactly being subtle are we?).
And it seemed people went haywire. I saw comments upon comments on how Kensi could possibly dare to go on dates when Deeks was sick, he had just kissed her and she wasn't responding to him, why hadn't she been to his house, she wasn't trying hard enough, she was hurting Deeks et cetera.
Then there is Beckett. Beckett got an amazing job offer last season to become a federal agent, went to an interview in Washington without telling Castle and seriously contemplated taking the job. Meanwhile, Castle behaved in quite a bratty way in my opinion and it seemed this was threatening their relationship even if it seemed perfectly obvious Beckett wanted their relationship to work. She loves Castle. But she also had a duty to her heart. If Beckett had not taken the job because of her relationship with Castle it wouldn't have been who she is as a character. Castle saw reason and asked her to marry him, saying they would make this work. I was happy to see she took the job. It is Beckett.
And yet again the internet went haywire. I saw comments claiming that Beckett shouldn't take the job because it'd threaten her relationship with Castle - she should be with her man, how could she go behind him like that and threaten what they had, she was not thinking of him et cetera.
I was completely surprised by this reaction. I mean, it is a fictional characters we're talking about here. But what surprised me even more was the hostile reaction to their actions.
Last time I checked, one of the main features of Kensi and Beckett as characters are that they are strong women who are independent. They make their own lives and take responsibility for their own actions and follow their hearts. I genuinely enjoy that in them as characters. These are quite clearly not women that wait around for their man or let their own happiness become secondary to what their man wants and needs.
And isn't that okay?
Instead it seems, that because of their actions towards their partners, i.e. Beckett followed her own heart and Kensi went out - they are somehow terrible as women. They are not behaving like a proper woman should, putting her partner ahead of herself and letting his needs dictate their lives.
Did I somehow miss the memo that we're in the 1950's here?
As incredulous as I was at this reaction it got me thinking - If these are the parameters we place on fictional women, what does it say about the parameters we place on woman in the real world? I am of the belief that people can reveal a lot about themselves unconsciously through their opinions without meaning to. And it seems, that despite the fact that in the Western World women are meant to be progressing, it is a facade.
If people spend their time berating fictional women (emphasis on fictional!) for not following their men or putting their needs ahead of their own, what do they say about women in the real world that behave in the same way and follow their hearts?
Perhaps, we're still in the 1950's after all....
No comments:
Post a Comment