Comments on: SEXIST BEATDOWN: Lost Appreciation Edition

By: Big Fat Deal » We Put The “Round” In Roundup

Big Fat Deal » We Put The “Round” In Roundup — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:03:48 +0000

[...] of the awards, I will point you to the awesome feminist blog Tiger Beatdown, which recently did a feminist analysis of LOST. My problem with the “most interesting story lines” though, to be troublesomely ladybusiness [...]

By: Bonasi

Bonasi — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:45:53 +0000

@Sady: It’s the same thing with Claire in season four. Charlie’s just died, and instead of having Claire dealing with Charlie’s death like they do with male characters when their female love interests die, they had Claire…not being affected by Charlie’s death. Like, at all. And then they Put Her On a Bus until season six.

It’s like the writers couldn’t conceptualize Claire’s character apart from status as Charlie’s lust object/obsession. A man being motivated by the death of a female love interest they get, but a woman being motivated by the death of a male love interest seems beyond them. (Queer characters being, of course, limited to Tom.)

By: Bonasi

Bonasi — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:23:05 +0000

@Charley: Oh, so I’m not the only one? I’m currently holding out for Richard and Ilana…some bi characters would also be appreciated, but given that these are the same writers who have only managed to include one recurring textually gay character (Tom!), I don’t have terribly high expectations there.

I do love Lost. I just wish that it loved me back.

By: charley

charley — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:33:20 +0000

the whole show, I just kept hoping that characters who were never confirmed as NOT GAY were gay, just to make me feel better. I was like, hey, maybe frogurt is gay! or, like, libby! or cindy? I don’t know! but then frogurt had a crush on libby in an online episode, and libby had a crush on hurley, and cindy got kidnapped ten seconds after I learned her name, and now that she’s back she’s probably going to fall in love with sayid or sawyer or something. or JACK. gross. but I would bet money on that probably happening.

By: Sady

Sady — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:14:38 +0000

@Bonasi: This is a trope that really bothers me, too!

By: Bonasi

Bonasi — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:42:20 +0000

The Biggest Reason Why I Hated Juliet Dying: Originally, Juliet’s plotline had a lot to do with her having to fix the women-can’t-have-babies-on-the-Island issue. When she died, that plotline went unresolved. It got discarded. The writers didn’t consider it important enough to have Juliet not die. Juliet’s plotline wasn’t consider important enough for Juliet to not die until it had been resolved.

Also, seconding the wish for more queer characters. Who don’t die. Please?

By: Sara

Sara — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:42:08 +0000

Actually, on reflection, I retract part of my earlier comment: Jin was abusive, at least for a time. Frequent controlling behavior is abusive. I think what I meant to say is that the show clearly and consistently portrayed his abusive behavior as a function of the fucked-up gangster life he got drafted into, and not as a function of his basic personality. So when he got away from the gangster life, he was able to adjust.

That matters to me because it’s not like Sun “fixed” him by being loyal and patient with his abusiveness. That would seem misogynistic to me. Rather, it’s more like Jin was able to begin fixing himself because he got away from the primary destructive influence in his life.

By: Sara

Sara — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:12:26 +0000

I’m with all of you on the general awful treatment of women on the show.

BUT…but, but, but…Jin was never abusive! That was a red herring. He was occasionally bossy and domineering (like the cardigan thing), and also secretive because of the whole gangster working-for-Sun’s dad thing, but not abusive. Yes, being controlling can be a sign of abuse, and is often a prelude to it. But in this case, the bossiness isn’t the general pattern of the relationship. It just looks like it because we first see it out of context.

Which is also why Jin is able to drop the bossiness relatively quickly.

Of course, Sun getting away from Jin at the airport would still have been a good thing because of the whole gangster factor.

Margaret: one of the things I actually liked about the show was that they didn’t attribute Jin’s domineering behavior to their “culture.” Rather, it was because he was working for a violent thug of a man, and THAT in turn related to the class dynamics. Since Jin was marrying “up,” he felt he had to prove himself by working for the gangster dad-in-law, which led to his personality deterioration. It wasn’t because he was Asian. After all, Sun and Jin didn’t start out like that, and they were relatively quick to get out of that pattern.

I think their storyline is the best on the show, but Sun is still woefully underused.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:13:51 +0000

I actually didn’t read Juliet detonating the bomb as “because Sawyer looked at another girl for two seconds.” Yeah, she had a hissy right before the detonating that was really irksome and out of character, but the detonation was ultimately a moment of self-sacrifice– well, she was down there and she knew she was gonna die, and she ultimately wanted Sawyer to be able to get off the island. All of that had zippity to do with Kate.

Anyhow, Isabel and RDM both made fantastic points!

By: carovee

carovee — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:07:22 +0000

I have a slightly different take on Juliet. I did not liker her at all until she and Sawyer hooked up at the Dharma Initiative. I felt like they were both really morally ambiguous characters but once they were stuck in the past they could put their own pasts behind them and try to make a decent life for themselves and each other. It would have been a crappy storyline if only Juliet changed but Sawyer did too. So instead of being “girl meets guy, suddenly loves housework” it was more “two people that no one else can understand decide to try to have a happy life despite all the weirdness”.