My problem is that presenting feminists as man-haters who will do anything including lying and taking hurtful action is such a tired cliche, and a right-wing cliche at that (feminazis, anyone?).

But Mac and Veronica are feminists, our primary feminists, and not man-haters. I don't expect to ever see a good zealot in Neptune. Regardless of cause. I thought this was the first episode that humanized Fern, Nish, and Claire, so I'm a little torn. I still need more coffee, and maybe a review, before I reach anything approaching a verdict on it. I know you (and Teppy, Consuela, Lee, etc.) aren't wrong, but I'm not sure P-C is wrong, either. I almost had the why of it fleshed out in my head, but then I started thinking about Dick and Veronica's scene again. I may need professional help.

But I expect people to do evil things in service of good causes, in Neptune. I just do. Even our moral centers aren't above it.

This is true. And I think last night went part of the way toward explaining why Nish and the others went that route -- as well as making them understand, via Veronica, that their plan was dangerous. I still don't like it, though.

I guess what I want to know is, which came first, the chicken or the egg? As P-C pointed out (here? in LJ?), Parker isn't likely to have been in on the fake rape plan, so it seems clear some of the women are actually being raped. But were the original rapes, last year, faked or real? i.e. did the feminists inspire a rapist, or did they ride his coattails to serve the cause?

I'm not sure it matters, really -- both possibilities are really distasteful. But if the first instance (a real rapist mimicking the fakes) is true, wouldn't the girls have stopped faking them? Wouldn't they have already come to the conclusion that they had taken the cause too far?

I don't understand why it's bad for fictional characters to do something especially when it's clear the show doesn't condone it in the least.

I know this is true on a logical level. On an emotional level, I hate that this is the way the first mystery of the season seems to be playing out.

My problem is that presenting feminists as man-haters who will do anything including lying and taking hurtful action is such a tired cliche, and a right-wing cliche at that (feminazis, anyone?).

Couple points: First being, I think it's a misnomer to refer to Nish, Claire and co. as feminists. Not that they're not or that they might not have some of that going on, but that's not what they've been acting on. Their target has never been men in general. It's been the Greek system, both fraternities and sororities. And however far their actions have gone, it's become clear that it's a personal vendetta, not entirely an ideological one.

Second, they've not confessed to faking any rape except Claire's, and I'm pretty sure the figure that attacked Veronica was male. So I don't think the mystery is entirely solved on that front.

This is true. And I think last night went part of the way toward explaining why Nish and the others went that route -- as well as making them understand, via Veronica, that their plan was dangerous. I still don't like it, though.

Thank you, Amy. This reminded me of my point I lost when remembering the Dick-Veronica scene. There is no justice in Neptune. We were reminded of that last night, in the MoW. The Dean couldn't even get Lamb to care about the missing woman. The only way to avenge the wrong being done to the missing woman, was to pay someone to lie about it.

There-is-no-justice-in-the-system is a big part of the show's premise, and certainly a major part of its...I want to say 'mythology' but it's not quite a mythology is it...their rules, I guess. People get crazed by the lack of justice, and do wrong, trying to right wrongs.

What happened to that young woman (I'm forgetting her first name, the Petrelli person who strolled off the roof), was damned wrong. It was evil. That frat should have been shut down, then. That's the lack of justice. Noir is sort of a vigilante's world, but often, the characters who are wronged, become obsessed with vengeance, rather than justice, and that's what trips them up. They become the monsters they sought to bring to justice.

I don't want a bunch of women being treated like sacred cows, because they're claiming the label 'feminist.' Feminism is about equality, not about revenge.

Couple points: First being, I think it's a misnomer to refer to Nish, Claire and co. as feminists. Not that they're not or that they might not have some of that going on, but that's not what they've been acting on. Their target has never been men in general. It's been the Greek system, both fraternities and sororities. And however far their actions have gone, it's become clear that it's a personal vendetta, not entirely an ideological one.

Second, they've not confessed to faking any rape except Claire's, and I'm pretty sure the figure that attacked Veronica was male. So I don't think the mystery is entirely solved on that front.

I think the figure that attacked Veronica was female, probably in big clothing. If you have the show on TiVo or tape, watch that scene from last week. When Logan looks down, and sees that it's Veronica's car alarm going off, there is a figure visible near her car. The figure looks to be blond and female. In fact, I would say it was Veronica, except that Veronica had already hit the garage floor by that time.

I don't think the mystery is solved, either. I still think Parker was actually raped.

Someone on my flist linked this analysis, which I like.

For people who missed the link when P-C provided it, it's here: [link] and is a PopGurls essay, "You've Really Got Some Minerva, Veronica Mars."

I only wish I'd written it myself. Thanks for the link, P-C.

Cindy, I kind of resent the implication that feminists are sacred cows.

that all fictional characters who are written as identifying with that cause must be upright characters.

Not in any way. What I demand is characters, not charicatures. And the activists -- Fern and Nish and their pals--have been portrayed since the beginning of the season as humorless, man-hating, and unreasonable. It's a classic stereotype of feminism, and it's not challenged in the text in any way (even while their cause is acknowledged as just). Veronica never bonds with them, they don't like her--which is generally a signal that there's something wrong with them--and she has no connection with them.

And then to find out that in addition to being humorless and unattractive (well, one of them is clearly supposed to be the ugly hippie who won't shave her legs), they've actually raped someone themselves, and faked a bunch of others?

No. I call bullshit. It's not even as grounded as Cassidy's reveal last season--it's just nasty and ugly with no grounding in the characters beyond petty vengeance. Look at it this way--all of the dialogue in that scene could have been spoken by any one of the three women, and it wouldn't have made any difference at all.

That's not characterization: that's categorization.

Look at it this way--all of the dialogue in that scene could have been spoken by any one of the three women, and it wouldn't have made any difference at all.

This. Any differences between the characters is purely superficial (one has a nose ring, one was the editor of the paper, on has her head shaved as she was a "victim"). They could have come out of the Rush Limbaugh play book.

I think it's a misnomer to refer to Nish, Claire and co. as feminists. Not that they're not or that they might not have some of that going on, but that's not what they've been acting on. Their target has never been men in general.

I disagree that it's a misnomer. Nish, Claire, et al., have been coded as feminists since the first episode. And yes, while lots of discerning viewers might understand that a stereotype does NOT, actually, define someone as a feminist, I think that Rob Thomas was absolutely using the unfortunate (and unfortunately widely accepted) stereotype of the angry, humorless feminist, particularly the *college* angry, humorless feminist.

Their actions so far have been actions that fall in line with that stereotype. They go on the radio to talk about a violent crime against women, and nobody is going to say "Oh, there's that group of anti-Greek-life protesters who happen to be all women." They hold a rally about the rapes that's very similar to Take Back the Night, which is associated with feminists, and even though they loudly decry the Greek system at the rally, they still come across as stereotypical angry feminists.

(And, honestly, had those rapes actually occurred, I'd say they have every right to be angry. Rape pisses me the hell off.)

When you have rape as the central issue -- and until last night, we didn't have any proof that some (most?) were faked, so I'd call it a very real issue -- the response to it is invariably going to be coded as feminism.

And even though the feminists in question (on VM) *are* humorless and angry, being opposed to rape is, most people can agree, a good thing. Then RT turns around and takes this group that purports to be pro-women and makes them responsible for faking -- and then committing -- the very act which they've been decrying.

The resulting hypocrisy (of the characters) is not, unfortunately, the hypocrisy of an actual 3-dimensional character (or characters). Like Consuela said, all the angry feminists were interchangeable, and instead of indicting a *character* who's clearly fucked-up (Aaron Echolls, Woody Goodman), this reveal simply serves to indict an amorphous group which they're meant to represent (feminists).

And THAT is what I have a problem with.

Nods as much as my neck will allow.

Who wrote it? The dialogue was possibly the funniest I've ever heard, in any episode, yet the episode was heavy.

Diane Ruggiero.

I'll say I resent the idea that any cause I support has to be treated with kid gloves, and that all fictional characters who are written as identifying with that cause must be upright characters.

Well put.

But if the first instance (a real rapist mimicking the fakes) is true, wouldn't the girls have stopped faking them?

The first rape was Dawn, the Hawaiian girl, and there was nothing that suggested she wasn't real, especially considering, you know, she didn't publicize it at all. So I think only the most recent one, Claire, was fake. (Someone pointed out that Nancy helped point Veronica to the ATM photo with Claire's boyfriend in it, which she wouldn't have done had she been in on it.)

and until last night, we didn't have any proof that some (most?) were faked, so I'd call it a very real issue

But we already knew Claire's rape was fake.

Look at it this way--all of the dialogue in that scene could have been spoken by any one of the three women, and it wouldn't have made any difference at all.

That is true.