5+1 Sentences On The Walking Dead: “Triggerfinger” s2e9

Posted on by TheLastPsychiatrist and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

If you follow the logic of the show, when God dies we retreat to the safety of old school biblical values: men become hunter/gatherers, women become homemakers/babymakers, and though men “rule” the women are the ones who really decide the alliances and ok the selfishness.   Maggie’s need for Glenn makes him almost give up his friends; Carol latches on to self-sufficient Daryl and draws him into her own misery; and Lori will, apparently, move back and forth between alpha males and whisper just the right things to make rivals kill each other, things like “no matter what, the baby is yours.”  When God and The Law don’t exist a woman will need a man to protect her, doesn’t matter who and  everyone else– especially future amputees from another tribe– be damned.  You might not have noticed the show’s undercurrent of misogyny, but it’s there, because when your value set goes Stone Age gender equality isn’t just diminished, it’s happily abandoned; the only thing that is TBD is whether the show’s popularity reflects a present longing in us for that same old value set.

And yet still they do not call them zombies.

No related posts.

10 Responses to 5+1 Sentences On The Walking Dead: “Triggerfinger” s2e9

  1. alexeyconrad says:

    “…and though men “rule” the women are the ones who really decide the alliances and ok the selfishness”

    how’s that misogyny? a situation where women have social power and can manipulate others is misogynistic? i dont get it.

  2. Hypocrisy Illustrated says:

    Misogyny?

    Surely you’re joking?

    The world has come to an end, society has disolved, and the greatest concern is the loss of soft values of equality that have been able to flourish in peacetime decadence?

    You notice the misogyny, but what about the barbarism and misanthropy in general? If all people are base, then isn’t it a kind of equality if women are also just as nasty and brutish as the men, if but in their own peculiar feminine sneaky way?

    Must confess, haven’t seen the series, but the premise reminds me of a story by an Anonymous “Woman in Berlin,” and her account of survival under Post-War Soviet occupation. In short, to avoid constant horrors of privation and abuse (repeated rape, etc.) under Red Army soldiers (not quite Zombies…), she’s canny enough to exploit her feminine assets to “acquire” a high ranking Soviet officer as protector and “lover.”

    • ThomasR says:

      “isn’t it a kind of equality if women are also just as nasty and brutish as the men, if but in their own peculiar feminine sneaky way?”

      I think this is his point. You, like the writers of the show, are assuming that women are not naturally equal to men, and that their basic nature is “sneaky.”

      You could be correct, but that doesn’t make your opinion less misogynistic.

      • Hypocrisy Illustrated says:

        I grew up being fed the cultural maxims that women are somehow more noble than men… you know all the BS that if women were in charge there would be no war and more justice and fairness in civilization. Perhaps there is something to the belief that women exert a civilizing influence on men.

        Women, the fairer sex…
        Boys are made of snips and snails and puppy dogs’ tails while Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice…

        Calling somebody a misogynist is kind of a knock out argument. After all what is the point of discussing with an uncivilized subhuman “misogynist”?

        I’m not religious, but I won’t hesitate from using some of their religious imagry. If all men and women are fallen and sinful, than everybody is weak and burdened with base instincts. If you are a misanthropist and think that all people have the potential of being rotten, then that’s a pretty universal truth that would apply to both men and women – no matter how much it contradicts all the pro-woman propaganda. Is it really misogynist to say that women are no less rotten and selfish than men – even if their espressions of rottenness manifest themselves with a style quite different from that of men?

        Just look how boys and girls treat each other. Both can be quite monstrous. Boys terrorize each other with bullying but observe girls it’s a bit different – more psychoterror than flying fists if I may say.

        If my opinion that men and women and their behaviors are different = misogyny, then I’m guilty. Equal value and dignity notwithstanding, what fools actually believe that men and women, are also identical?

        • ThomasR says:

          “even if their espressions of rottenness manifest themselves with a style quite different from that of men?”

          All I’m saying is that the point of TLP’s post is to explain that this is a fundamental assumption of the show that is not really explicitly addressed (or even noticed).

          I don’t really disagree with any particular point that you’ve made. I’m just pointing out how it’s viewed.

  3. JohnJ says:

    Pastabagel must be happy. The tearing down of institutions like gender equality is what zombie shows are supposed to be about. “Might makes right” is what progressivism is all about, according to PB.

    • Hypocrisy Illustrated says:

      The “misogynist” anti-feminist mens’ rights activists have something in common with their foes feminists. Both hope for a revolution which overturns power structures so that somebody of a low male social status ( or a female beauty endowment) can rise to the top. If you can’t be more attractive to the opposite sex, change the rules to define attractive to suit you.

      Too bad that all us pasty, basement-dwelling and rum-drinking blog readers will never have a chance to rise to the top of a post-apocolyptical society. We’ll be wishing for the good old days once the assertive, athletic, frat-jock types really start lording it over us.

      • operator says:

        We’ll be wishing for the good old days once the assertive, athletic, frat-jock types really start lording it over us.

        Even if you’re on a budget, $1000 towards rifles and ammunition (or a compound bow and hunting arrows) equalizes the whole physicality thing pretty quickly – preparing for a zombie apocalypse is actually cheap, given that one need not spend much on other supplies (presumably there will be very little competition for other resources).

        Of course, if you’re primarily interested in your own survival, you should spend more on non-perishable food, water, first aid gear, and other supplies than you spend on weapons (this book is a fairly comprehensive guide if you’re stocking up).

        Hiding under a rock (or underground) is a fairly well-established survival strategy, so a basement-dwelling rum-drinking blog reader is already doing at least one thing right…

      • philtrum says:

        Both hope for a revolution which overturns power structures so that somebody of a low male social status ( or a female beauty endowment) can rise to the top.

        Except for the minor issue that a major tenet of feminism throughout the past hundred years was that beautiful women were not empowered or protected either; being beautiful doesn’t get you access to credit or education or “men’s” jobs or birth control or protect you from rape and domestic violence.

        Honestly. This argument was old and tired when Gloria Steinem was working the Playboy Club.

  4. Grosvenor says:

    I’m not sure the ‘show’ is misogynistic, though many of the characters are clearly not the most advanced forms of human life. Would a band of southerners, forced together by the world’s end, exhibit some backwards and backwoods ideas about gender roles? Yes. Is AMC promoting Rick’s/Shane’s/Herschel’s view of womanhood? No.

    I can understand the concern raised in the final sentence of the post. Do people watch because they find the regressive approach to gender roles appealing? I suspect very few really come for that reason.

    I can only really speak for myself, but the reason I watch (and the reason I’ll probably stop watching) is to see how people respond to the threat of zombies. The more I watch TWD, the more I see the writers and directors are committed to focusing on only the most petty of personal differences between the living. I’m more interested in the potential TWD has to explore ideas of society building, governance and large-scale problem solving. The powers that be seem entirely uninterested in telling those stories.

Leave a Reply