|
In the earlier days of Hollywood, the women who did not conform to the rules of the day eventually met with a sad endings. Actually, Hollywood just continued the stories of the great novels, of Anna Karenina and of the lady with the camelians and others.
And it appears that, no matter what the RWers say about Hollywood, this treatment of women continue.
Twelve years ago they gave Murphy Brown breast cancer. Now, we know too many women who are victims of breast cancer. We know that it does not discriminate among its victims, cutting across demographic and socio-economic strata. This, even though the fundies would like to point out "relations" between what they consider unacceptable life style, like child free and, of course, abortion. Buy why interject it into a comedy? Was it supposed to have been because Murphy shook part of the nation by choosing to have a child in the absence of a husband?
I have never watched HBO's "Sex and the City" during its first run but now found it interesting and am watching the semi-clean version on TBS and the raunchy, but more true to life version on HBO. And yesterday was the program when they gave Samantha breast cancer. Why Samantha? Is it because she is the most sex-loving character? The ones who loves sex anyplace anywhere in any form, never apologizing, never confusing it with love and romance and commitment?
Many of know wonderful women who have been victims of breast cancer and some of them eventually lost their battle. I understand writers trying to inject real life events into stories on television. But these two examples caused me to pause.
Or, am I overreacting?
|