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.

let's be honest here for a second. RT isn't exactly known for not succumbing to cliches. especially for tertiary characters. Marcos and Peter anyone? with that being said, i'm not at all surprised by the way he's been portraying the feminists.

RT isn't exactly known for not succumbing to cliches. especially for tertiary characters. Marcos and Peter anyone?

Although with Peter, if I recall, he deliberately poked fun at Veronica's cliché representation of him. VM is known for turning clichés on their head most of the time. That's not exactly happening with the feminists, though.

For the record, I told him that all feminists aren't man-hating bitches a few weeks ago, and he responded thusly:

Agreed. By and large, feminists aren't this mean-spirited, but then, by and large, frat boys aren't this morally bankrupt either. It's noir. We deal with the shady characters. The genial ones don't make for great suspects.

We deal with the shady characters. The genial ones don't make for great suspects.

Eh. Weak rationalization. You can have a shady, noir character that's fully realized and fleshed-out without resorting to stereotypes.

Oh, I agree.