• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Supergirl - Season 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've asked this before, but do you care to support this with specific examples.

Less than liberal or fair-minded--includes the issue from last week's episode; the father claims "the only thing they hate more than a Mexicano is a homosexual" (they--meaning white people in America, given the course of his stories), which is the showrunners' disrespectful way of showing how much they want to sell homophobia as the greater form of discrimination, when the history of the U.S. (where Supergirl happens to be set), and the world forcefully, repeatedly proves the polar opposite. Hell, with every passing day, we have a rise in Neo-Nazi/Klan/Skinhead/other groups in the U.S. (again, where Supergirl is set) and dominating the top of their neverending rallying cries are racial minorities, which they--as always--paint as the greatest threat to their survival. Yet the whites the father refers to hate gays more than Mexicans? Offensive and ridiculous in the extreme.

As a minority, I find that the kind of conscious downgrading of racism as the lesser form of discrimination to be the kind of opportunistic, bankrupt messaging (of generally white Hollywood liberals) that in the real world had (for one example) innumerable African Americans argue that they were not voting for Clinton (last year) because she--and the Democrats have long taken them for granted (and votes), while placing their greatest interest (gays) as their national priority. The point being African Americans believe they were being used to win elections, yet for all of the Democrats' "we support you" sing-song & glad-handing, socially and politically, that ever-threatened group feel they have little support from them, particularly when the like-minded in entertainment media sell messages like the one in question. The beliefs and actions of allegedly liberal minded people are loud and clear;.no one truly interested in fair minded truth would script something so false.

That's just one of the specific examples.
 
Maggie was dropped on the street, outside her aunts house.
And what if the aunts didn't want her? Straight to the orphanage? And even so, she was thrown out of the house where she grew up, and prevented from seeing her other sisters. And of course she has also been traumatized. Here, this would guarantee the visit by the social services warned by the school, considering that at the first parents-teachers meeting the former would not come because the daughter is a "dyke". And we are not talking about some low-income family living in the cracks of the society, we are talking about the Sheriff.

Here, deciding that you do not want to grow your children anymore because they do not match your standards of perfection is a crime. Yes, probably it's better for everyone that a child doesn't stay in family who doesn't want him/her, but still there are consequences, because a human being isn't a suit went out of style that can be thrown away.

And probably it's the same in the rest of the civilized world.

So why do everyone behave in the episode as if Maggie's father had done something disagreeable, but anyway he was entitled to it? And not that he did an action that he should pay for the consequences, or the fact that he is a hypocrite because he broke the law he swore to protect?
 
Because of time.

Almost everyone was more of a sexist bigot in the 80s than they are today... But if Maggie is 29... Then she probably came out near 2002.

The "time" excuse doesn't hold water after Ellen came out.
 
Last edited:
Because of time.

Almost everyone was more of a sexist bigot in the 80s than they are today... But if Maggie is 29... Then she probably came out near 2002.

There "time" excuse doesn't hold water after Ellen came out.
A little detail here. If a fourteen says "I like you" to a person of the same gender, every psychologist can say you that this isn't a sure proof that the kid is gay, bisex, or whatever. Yes, there will be rumors and gossips, but probably they will be confined in the school. But if the sheriff kicks her daughter out of his house because she's a lesbian, everyone in the town will know about it. So the rumor will be promoted to the absolute truth.

Congratulations sheriff. Did you believe that "the only thing they hate more than a Mexicano is a homosexual"? You had just put a giant spotlight on it. I suppose that this thing was great in your next re-election.
 
You are forgetting about how backwards people are in Blue Springs Nebraska (Earth 38).

Racists enjoy applauding the racism of other racists.

"You should have killed that queer, but kicking her out was a good first step sheriff. No mercy. Hopefully the AIDS will get her."
 
Thanks, this is a good, specific example. I don't really see dealing with racism against "non-African American minorities" (in quotes because I'm not sure of a better term) or homophobia as being mutually exclusive with the more unique historically charged racism against African Americans. Indigenous people should also be placed in a similar historical category perhaps.

To elaborate on your comment about Mexicans, though, there is a very similar thing that happens with Democrats as does with African Americans. All Latinos are painted with the same brush when the Democrats are trying to get votes. They look at all Latinos as underprivileged and oppressed when this is not the case at all. In fact, where I have worked in Central and South America, I would say that a large majority of wealthy Latinos are Republican supporters and in Central America the most prominent attitude is Libertarian-ism. I'm not defending that as being right, just stating that that's the way things are.

One thing I do have a problem with is that when Trump (and many others) says Mexican, he actually means Latino because he has never bothered to acknowledge that he is actually discussing numerous countries when talking about "Mexican" issues.


Less than liberal or fair-minded--includes the issue from last week's episode; the father claims "the only thing they hate more than a Mexicano is a homosexual" (they--meaning white people in America, given the course of his stories), which is the showrunners' disrespectful way of showing how much they want to sell homophobia as the greater form of discrimination, when the history of the U.S. (where Supergirl happens to be set), and the world forcefully, repeatedly proves the polar opposite. Hell, with every passing day, we have a rise in Neo-Nazi/Klan/Skinhead/other groups in the U.S. (again, where Supergirl is set) and dominating the top of their neverending rallying cries are racial minorities, which they--as always--paint as the greatest threat to their survival. Yet the whites the father refers to hate gays more than Mexicans? Offensive and ridiculous in the extreme.

As a minority, I find that the kind of conscious downgrading of racism as the lesser form of discrimination to be the kind of opportunistic, bankrupt messaging (of generally white Hollywood liberals) that in the real world had (for one example) innumerable African Americans argue that they were not voting for Clinton (last year) because she--and the Democrats have long taken them for granted (and votes), while placing their greatest interest (gays) as their national priority. The point being African Americans believe they were being used to win elections, yet for all of the Democrats' "we support you" sing-song & glad-handing, socially and politically, that ever-threatened group feel they have little support from them, particularly when the like-minded in entertainment media sell messages like the one in question. The beliefs and actions of allegedly liberal minded people are loud and clear;.no one truly interested in fair minded truth would script something so false.

That's just one of the specific examples.
 
You are forgetting about how backwards people are in Blue Springs Nebraska (Earth 38).

Racists enjoy applauding the racism of other racists.

"You should have killed that queer, but kicking her out was a good first step sheriff. No mercy. Hopefully the AIDS will get her."
Immigrants are a hot topic in Italy in these days. And you know what I learned? That the thing they hate more than an immigrant or a homosexual are bigoted immigrants, because they confirm every prejudice about them.

I imagine the debate for the sheriff re-election.

"My opponent here kicked his daughter out of his home because she didn't meet his backward convictions. What's next? Will he come in the night to take your children even if they didn't break any law? Will he arrest you because you didn't celebrate the Cinco de Mayo? He's trying to recreate a piece of Mexico here, in the old U.S.A."

And by the way, after a quick Google research, throwing your 14-year-old daughter out on the street and saying her that she can't return to her home or meet again her sisters again is a crime in many states.
 
Yeah, on the street, into vagrancy is clearly neglect and abandonment.

On the street ten feet from the aunts front door, less so.

Daddy didn't walk her to the door... Least of your issues Mags.

Giving up on Maggie's heterosexuality at 14 is ridiculous.

Telling your bigot parents that they are wrong to hate gays, because you are gay is the work of a moron, if you still need them to continue eating, even if Maggie's intellect would have had to maybe double by the time she was an adult.
 
So why do everyone behave in the episode as if Maggie's father had done something disagreeable, but anyway he was entitled to it?

"In the episode?" Nobody in the episode said he was entitled to it. Of course he did a terrible thing. But he was willing to try to atone for it, to reconcile with his daughter. He wasn't able to do it, but at least he tried. And she was willing to try to forgive him as long as he was willing to make the effort to atone. Forgiveness doesn't mean excusing the offense or pretending it was justified. On the contrary -- earning forgiveness requires admitting your wrongs, understanding the harm you did. He inflicted a great wound on Maggie, no question. But the way you treat a wound is to try to heal it. Maggie, Eliza, Alex, and the rest were giving Oscar a chance to heal the rift, to atone for his past mistake and start over. But he failed to rise to the challenge. He proved unable to fully understand why his actions were wrong. He still blamed Maggie and her "lifestyle" for the rift instead of accepting his own culpability for it. And that's why Maggie was ultimately unable to forgive him, why the episode ended with her realizing that she didn't need his acceptance to be happy. The episode was absolutely not saying he was justified -- exactly the opposite. The only character who thought Oscar was entitled to his actions was Oscar, and that's why the reconciliation failed.
 
Giving up on Maggie's heterosexuality at 14 is ridiculous.
Exactly. Do you know what a bigot family would really do in such a situation?

1) situation assessment: did she really say it? Was she misunderstood?
2) try to discredit the other person. Affirm that you daughter is a perfectly straight girl.
3) change the school.

Remember, she just said to another girl that she liked her. It's not like she distributed GLAAD brochures in the school.

Kicking you daughter out of your home because an hearsay is the last option, not because it's wrong, but because it's stupid. In this way you are just confirming the gossips.

"In the episode?" Nobody in the episode said he was entitled to it. Of course he did a terrible thing. But he was willing to try to atone for it, to reconcile with his daughter. He wasn't able to do it, but at least he tried. And she was willing to try to forgive him as long as he was willing to make the effort to atone. Forgiveness doesn't mean excusing the offense or pretending it was justified. On the contrary -- earning forgiveness requires admitting your wrongs, understanding the harm you did. He inflicted a great wound on Maggie, no question. But the way you treat a wound is to try to heal it. Maggie, Eliza, Alex, and the rest were giving Oscar a chance to heal the rift, to atone for his past mistake and start over. But he failed to rise to the challenge. He proved unable to fully understand why his actions were wrong. He still blamed Maggie and her "lifestyle" for the rift instead of accepting his own culpability for it. And that's why Maggie was ultimately unable to forgive him, why the episode ended with her realizing that she didn't need his acceptance to be happy. The episode was absolutely not saying he was justified -- exactly the opposite. The only character who thought Oscar was entitled to his actions was Oscar, and that's why the reconciliation failed.

They were still too kind. In the episode, Maggie's father was presented as a fairly intelligent person, but he was still convinced he had behaved in the right way, when he did the wrong thing from a moral point view and from a utilitarian point of view. He wasn't simply bigoted, he was borderline delusional at this point. And still Maggie talked to him like he was a functional member of the society saying things like "Now I know that I didn't need your approval" and not "You need help. Why am I still talking to you?".

And even Alex did the wrong thing. Best case scenario: Maggie's father did a incredible immoral thing. Worst case? He committed a crime. And I would not insist on telling a friend to look for a closure with, I don't know, the thief who robbed him.
 
They were still too kind. In the episode, Maggie's father was presented as a fairly intelligent person, but he was still convinced he had behaved in the right way, when he did the wrong thing from a moral point view and from a utilitarian point of view.

How is that in any way unusual for fiction? You seem to want simplistic, one-dimensional fiction where every bad guy is unambiguously evil and has no nuance. How is that desirable in any way? How is it even a reasonable thing to expect from this series? Is Maggie's wish to reconcile with her father any different from Kara's wish to reconcile with her Aunt Astra, who was a revolutionary and a terrorist who'd killed many people?


And I would not insist on telling a friend to look for a closure with, I don't know, the thief who robbed him.

Why not? What good does it do if you just damn a wrongdoer for all time? How does that solve anything? When people do wrong, there has to be a chance for them to atone, to recognize that they did wrong and make amends for the harm they did. As I said, that's what forgiveness is about -- not excusing the wrongdoer, but giving them a chance to admit the wrong they did and do penance for it.

Our society has become so toxically addicted to anger and condemnation that we've forgotten it's just the first step. It's just identifying the problem -- it does nothing to solve it, or to heal its damage.
 
Neither of those links shed any light on whether what Maggie's father did was a crime.
 
Again, what does legality have to do with anything? Aunt Astra was a convicted revolutionary. Kara was still willing to forgive her. Barry Allen was willing to reach out to Savitar and try to help him, even knowing he had killed many people and intended to murder Iris. Oliver Queen has forgiven Slade Wilson for all the crimes and killings he committed -- not to mention that Oliver, Sara, Dinah, and other Arrowverse heroes have dark and violent pasts of their own.

As I keep saying, forgiveness does not mean denying the crime. It's just the opposite of that. Earning forgiveness requires admitting one's crimes and understanding why they were wrong. It's an incentive to reform, not a license to get away with it. Maggie gave her father a chance to atone for his wrongs. He failed to do so, because he couldn't accept the blame.
 
Neither of those links shed any light on whether what Maggie's father did was a crime.
I'm sorry are you really convinced that a person can choose to stop being the parent of a child when it is convenient for him/her???
 
Again, what does legality have to do with anything? Aunt Astra was a convicted revolutionary. Kara was still willing to forgive her. Barry Allen was willing to reach out to Savitar and try to help him, even knowing he had killed many people and intended to murder Iris. Oliver Queen has forgiven Slade Wilson for all the crimes and killings he committed -- not to mention that Oliver, Sara, Dinah, and other Arrowverse heroes have dark and violent pasts of their own.

As I keep saying, forgiveness does not mean denying the crime. It's just the opposite of that. Earning forgiveness requires admitting one's crimes and understanding why they were wrong. It's an incentive to reform, not a license to get away with it. Maggie gave her father a chance to atone for his wrongs. He failed to do so, because he couldn't accept the blame.
And still they explicitly said that these people were criminals. But instead they treated him as he just did a questionable parental choice, not something that it was borderline criminal. And he was a sheriff. So he wasn't only a bigot, he was a hypocritical bigot.
 
Last edited:
Skipper, I just rewatched the episode, and you're really misremembering a lot about it. First off, nobody was forgiving to Oscar except Maggie. All Eliza said was that his treatment of Maggie was shameful. Nobody pressured her to reach out to him. The only reason Alex suggested it was because she could see that Maggie still loved him and wished they could reconcile. She suggested it for Maggie's sake, not Oscar's. And Alex did not say he'd been entitled to his actions -- she said what he did was "incredibly hurtful," but that maybe he'd changed since then. She was offering Maggie a chance to find out if there was hope that he was willing to make amends. And Maggie then chose to reach out on her own after Alex had dropped the subject. It was what she wanted and hoped for.

And in the end, the episode was unambiguous that Oscar was in the wrong. He hadn't changed, and thus he failed to live up to Maggie's wishes. And her closure was realizing that she didn't need his acceptance or approval after all, that he was no longer relevant to her life. She saw him clearly and wrote him off as a loss, and that was the positive outcome she gained from the experience. So it bewilders me that you can think the episode was going easy on Oscar or saying he was justified. As I keep pointing out, exploring a character's motivations is just part of competent writing, and does not in any way equate to approving of those motivations.

As for the child abandonment thing, I think you're reaching. The episode made it clear that he left her at her aunt's house, and we know that her aunt raised her from then on. I assume he called her aunt to arrange it beforehand -- after all, he had Maggie's bags packed when she got home, so he'd had time to prepare, and logically that would've been part of the preparation. I don't think that leaving one's child with a responsible relative constitutes abandonment. Obviously what he did was wrong -- both the episode and I have been unambiguous about that. But you're twisting the facts to fit some strange narrative of your own that's got nothing to do with this episode of Supergirl or anything that actually happened in it.
 
Skipper, I just rewatched the episode, and you're really misremembering a lot about it. First off, nobody was forgiving to Oscar except Maggie. All Eliza said was that his treatment of Maggie was shameful. Nobody pressured her to reach out to him. The only reason Alex suggested it was because she could see that Maggie still loved him and wished they could reconcile. She suggested it for Maggie's sake, not Oscar's. And Alex did not say he'd been entitled to his actions -- she said what he did was "incredibly hurtful," but that maybe he'd changed since then. She was offering Maggie a chance to find out if there was hope that he was willing to make amends. And Maggie then chose to reach out on her own after Alex had dropped the subject. It was what she wanted and hoped for.

And in the end, the episode was unambiguous that Oscar was in the wrong. He hadn't changed, and thus he failed to live up to Maggie's wishes. And her closure was realizing that she didn't need his acceptance or approval after all, that he was no longer relevant to her life. She saw him clearly and wrote him off as a loss, and that was the positive outcome she gained from the experience. So it bewilders me that you can think the episode was going easy on Oscar or saying he was justified. As I keep pointing out, exploring a character's motivations is just part of competent writing, and does not in any way equate to approving of those motivations.

As for the child abandonment thing, I think you're reaching. The episode made it clear that he left her at her aunt's house, and we know that her aunt raised her from then on. I assume he called her aunt to arrange it beforehand -- after all, he had Maggie's bags packed when she got home, so he'd had time to prepare, and logically that would've been part of the preparation. I don't think that leaving one's child with a responsible relative constitutes abandonment. Obviously what he did was wrong -- both the episode and I have been unambiguous about that. But you're twisting the facts to fit some strange narrative of your own that's got nothing to do with this episode of Supergirl or anything that actually happened in it.
Oh well, I take your word for it. :)
 
Supergirl--
"The Faithful"

Kara/SG: One wonders why a cult had not been developed around Superman--or are Metropolis residents just accepting of the idea that Superman is an alien, not God?

The coda of SG visiting Coville was one good scene, in that he saw how "free" she was on her first night of using her powers in public, as opposed to the present day, where she is clouded. That's an observation the showrunners should not drop..

James: "What makes somebody blind because they believe?" Best line of the season, if not the series (a surprise, considering the dominant message of the episode), however, his "In this life, prayer does not work" speaks to the platform of the showrunners (see NOTES), and makes James contradict his own story (beliefs) when he was not expecting Superman (or anyone) to save him, so he was not seeking someone to be his figure of worship, like Coville.

Thomas Coville aka Fake David Miscavige: The Church of Rao / Scientology stand-in. Nutty as a fruitcake in thinking SG is God, at least. It was yet another self-defeating plot when SG was not supposed to be Rao--the god--yet Coville's followers ran when she cut herself, revealing that she bleeds.

Alex: The entire "child" business and Maggie not wanting any just sends up fireworks that Maggie is on her way out of the series door, even if the actress was not known to be leaving the series.

Samantha: Finally.

NOTES:
The Church of Rao / Scientology stand-in. Too on-the-nose with the idolatry of Supergirl, in the way Scientology followers speak of L. Ron Hubbard. Of course, this was a story for two impressions: to paint a negative about faith in general (despite Kara actually believing in her native faith), and a hapless manipulator (Coville) being manipulated by forces beyond his control. A scatterbrained message.

The collective negative reaction to Lena being asked if she had been baptized, along with James' aforementioned contradictory position of saying he prayed, but that people look to SG as a figure to believe in (i.e. worship): once again, the showrunners' own platform drops like an anvil into the series. This time, the platform of atheism.

Wow. CG flames still out of scale with the toy-looking CG plane from the pilot, but the low angle of the burning building was nice--sort of an homage to The Towering Inferno-type disaster.

GRADE: C-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top