The Fall series - a disservice to men

paralysed

Having watched the last season two years ago, it took me a while to realise that any man in the series is likely casted as - a killer, a wife beater, a paedophile, a door mat, cheating husband, etc - i.e. all flawed!

It made perfect sense when I heard the sexist comment delivered last season by Gillian Anderson - "female is the basic human form - male is just a sort of birth defect". Can you imagine how the reverse statement would have went down? I don't think it's good to have young impressionable people hearing such powerful slogans. And it's also not a coincidence how the writers constantly show men seeking emotional reassurance from the female lead character, who herself doesn't confide in anyone who isn't female.

There's many other subtle innuendos. Take the scene where they show Jim Burns realise that Stella is going to talk to Spector for the first time - although what's said is very true, there's another message beneath the lines delivered:

Jim - "are you sure about this, he's a monster"
Stella - "he's just a man"
Jim - "I'm a man and I hope I'm nothing like him?"

An example; in the first season, Gillian slept with a male police officer, without even wanting to exchange one word with him. That in itself shows she thinks that men are of little use apart from sex. Later in the season, they portrayed that same policeman as an idiot when he sexted her with pics of his torso. Following on from this, it made sense that towards the end of the season, that they had Gillian try to seduce a woman instead. Immediately after this scene they show a male colleague come to her hotel room in desperation of sex! The innuendo here is that men are rendered obsolete of the only pitiful purpose they have.

Anyway I heard all the writers of the show are all men! - so why the subtle hints that seem to imply a hidden agenda? There's probably more women who watch the show anyway!

johnnyskeleton

paralysed wrote: »

Having watched the last season two years ago, it took me a while to realise that any man in the series is likely casted as - a killer, a wife beater, a paedophile, a door mat, cheating husband, etc.

Probably understandable in a crime series. I suppose one could have a much broader debate about why aren't there more villains on TV shows,

It made perfect sense when I heard the sexist comment delivered last season by Gillian Anderson - "female is the basic human form - male is just a sort of birth defect". I don't think it's good to have young impressionable people hear such slogans. It's also not a coincidence how the writers constantly show men seeking reassurance from the female lead character, who herself doesn't confide in anyone who isn't female.

I think it's important to stress that just because a character says something like that, it doesn't mean that the show is making that point. Otherwise, you couldn't make a WWII documentary without being accused of supporting the Nazis etc. As for the men seeking reassurance from the female lead character, I understand that she is the senior ranking police officer. So they are not seeking reassurance from her because she is a woman, but because she is the leader.

I heard all the writers of the show are all men! - so why the subtle hints that seem to imply a hidden agenda?

Because there isn't a hidden agenda.

silverharp

based on the TV section here, its cr'p so can be parked either way

Wibbs

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because there isn't a hidden agenda.

Indeed. Keeping the beady eye open for nonsense is to be welcomed, but no need to go fully into lala land like a tumblr feminist, or a "writer" on Jezebel or the Indo.

paralysed

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I suppose one could have a much broader debate about why aren't there more villains on TV shows,

What?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As for the men seeking reassurance from the female lead character, I understand that she is the senior ranking police officer. So they are not seeking reassurance from her because she is a woman, but because she is the leader.

No, it's with other seniors too. Hardly a coincidence. And I don't seek emotional reassurance from anyone that's ranked higher than me in my work force.

I'd at least think about all this, if it's an angel you hadn't previously considered, before getting so obtuse.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because there isn't a hidden agenda.

Maybe 'hidden agenda' wasn't the phrase I was looking for, but there is a pattern. Open your eyes wider son!

paralysed

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. Keeping the beady eye open for nonsense is to be welcomed, but no need to go fully into lala land like a tumblr feminist, or a "writer" on Jezebel or the Indo.

Well I can expect more nonsense then!

mzungu

paralysed wrote: »

Having watched the last season two years ago, it took me a while to realise that any man in the series is likely casted as - a killer, a wife beater, a paedophile, a door mat, cheating husband, etc.

It made perfect sense when I heard the sexist comment delivered last season by Gillian Anderson - "female is the basic human form - male is just a sort of birth defect". Can you imagine how the reverse statement would have went down? I don't think it's good to have young impressionable people hearing such slogans. It's also not a coincidence how the writers constantly show men seeking emotional reassurance from the female lead character, who herself doesn't confide in anyone who isn't female.

I heard all the writers of the show are all men! - so why the subtle hints that seem to imply a hidden agenda? There's probably more women who watch the show anyway!

No agenda. There has been a zillion shows/movies where the lead was a man with the same traits. Nobody batted an eyelid then, which is why no eyelids were batted this time either because there is absolutely nothing there to get offended about.

eviltwin

It's a tv show, it's not meant to be anything other than entertainment. If anything the character has aspects of his personality that are redeeming. He's a good dad, works in a caring profession. Anderson's character, while one of the good guys, is very flawed. I wouldn't read too much into it. I don't think it's an agenda.

speedboatchase

Ah, stop. There are many, many groups online who sit around waiting to be offended all day about things that zero effect on them - Chinese detergent commercials and the likes. Don't be like that - choose your battles. The Fall is just an increasingly irrelevant BBC show stretched to a third season due to its star finding success in Hollywood. No one should take it seriously.

paralysed

eviltwin wrote: »

If anything the character has aspects of his personality that are redeeming. He's a good dad, works in a caring profession.

They only give him those few good qualities in the first place to show him as a such hypocryte! So naive!

eviltwin wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into it.

Right - don't question anything in this life, especially if you're suspicious.

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think it's an agenda.

Right, it's just a series of coincidences.

paralysed

speedboatchase wrote: »

Ah, stop. There are many, many groups online who sit around waiting to be offended all day about things that zero effect on them - Chinese detergent commercials and the likes. Don't be like that - choose your battles. The Fall is just an increasingly irrelevant BBC show stretched to a third season due to its star finding success in Hollywood. No one should take it seriously.

It is not irrelevant - I hear about it more than any other show at the moment. And I wouldn't compare it to silly ads on TV.

The quote in my original post is likely to resonate with people who heard it, whether they believe it or not. Can you think of a more offensive line than it? not a chance! And as I already said (since you can't think for yourself), it would not be tolerated if the reverse statement was made in any TV show!

That said, no I do not take it seriously, nor am I suggesting that men should react to it. Just to be aware to it.

Insect Overlord

Spot on, OP. Just like Breaking Bad made everyone think all men are drug dealers. Or how the Sopranos taught us that all men are gangsters. Or how the Simpsons made it clear that most men have bright yellow skin. They were all much talked about shows, so these are facts.

paralysed

An File wrote: »

Spot on, OP. Just like Breaking Bad made everyone think all men are drug dealers. Or how the Sopranos taught us that all men are gangsters. Or how the Simpsons made it clear that most men have bright yellow skin. They were all much talked about shows, so these are facts.

Making all men out to be gangsters is one thing, when the show's theme is about gangster stuff anyway. What's the theme here? Paedophilia? wife beating? cheating?

I think not!

silverharp

paralysed wrote: »

Making all men out to be gangsters is one thing, when the show's theme is about gangster stuff anyway. What's the theme here? Paedophilia? wife beating? cheating?

I think not!

if you look at the Sopranos all the men were scumbags in their private lives or if you look at The Wire they seemed to portray the Police private lives as being a mess but they didn't set out to make generalised comments. I watched the first 2 series of this but probably wont watch this one based on the bad reviews. probably need to know more about the writers but it seems to be a show to appeal to women more

Letree

British soaps do the same to Irish and Scottish men. They are always violent or dodgy or drunks or fools..

mzungu

paralysed wrote: »

Making all men out to be gangsters is one thing, when the show's theme is about gangster stuff anyway. What's the theme here? Paedophilia? wife beating? cheating?

I think not!

The Fall portrays humans, flaws and all. I don't think the producers want to you take it as portrayal or social commentary of every man out there, and that is not their intention either.

paralysed

mzungu wrote: »

the producers don't want you to take it as portrayal or social commentary of every man

You mean they don't want you to know you're taking it as a protrayal or social commentary of most men.

I think I'm crediting people here with too much intelligence. I thought I wouldn't have to give examples to spell out the examples I noticed throughout the show - there are strong subtle messages delivered throughout it, which sort of reinforce the idea of the modern man being obsolete.

paralysed

mzungu wrote: »

There has been a zillion shows/movies where the lead was a man with the same traits.

In this show, it actually doesn't have much to do with the way the lead female character is portrayed, more so the way all male characters are portrayed (flawed for a host of reasons).

mzungu wrote: »

Nobody batted an eyelid then, which is why no eyelids were batted this time either because there is absolutely nothing there to get offended about.

Off the top of my head, eyelids were batted when the lead female of "fatal attraction" was portrayed as psycho.

johnnyskeleton

paralysed wrote: »

What?

Sorry typo. I meant to say the broader issue is why there aren't more female villains in TV shows.

No, it's with other seniors too. Hardly a coincidence. And I don't seek emotional reassurance from anyone that's ranked higher than me in my work force.

Perhaps you can give a specific example of this, maybe a youtube clip or something?

I'd at least think about all this, if it's an angel you hadn't previously considered, before getting so obtuse.

Ok.

Maybe 'hidden agenda' wasn't the phrase I was looking for, but there is a pattern. Open your eyes wider son!

Surely if you want to identify a pattern you should point out more than one instance of something occurring?

paralysed

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Perhaps you can give a specific example of this, maybe a youtube clip or something?

The last episode for e.g - the cop that got shot in the arm being portrayed as weak. He was needy about the way Gillian called out "we're losing him" & annoyed for fear she might like the killer more than him. He questioned her about it, she reassured him & she finished the interaction by comforting him with a stroke to his cheek.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely if you want to identify a pattern you should point out more than one instance of something occurring?

I guess I thought anyone who hasn't spotted it isn't worthy of debating with. But then again, it is very subtle!

For example, in the first season, she slept with a male police officer, without even wanting to exchange one word with him. That in itself shows she thinks that men are of little use apart from sex. Later in the season, they portrayed that same policeman as an idiot when he sexted her with pics of his torso.

Following on from this, it made sense that towards the end of the season, that they had Gillian try to seduce a woman instead. Immediately after this scene they show a male colleague come to her hotel room in desperation of sex! The innuendo here is that men are rendered obsolete of the only pitiful purpose they have.

eviltwin

paralysed wrote: »

The last episode for e.g - the cop that got shot in the arm being portrayed as weak. He was needy about the way Gillian called out "we're losing him" & annoyed for fear she might like the killer more than him. He questioned her about it, she reassured him & she finished the interaction by comforting him with a stroke to his cheek.
I guess I thought anyone who hasn't spotted it isn't worthy of debating with. But then again, it is very subtle!

For example, in the first season, she slept with a male police officer, without even wanting to exchange one word with him. That in itself shows she thinks that men are of little use apart from sex. Later in the season, they portrayed that same policeman as an idiot when he sexted her with pics of his torso.

Following on from this, it made sense that towards the end of the season, that they had Gillian try to seduce a woman instead. Immediately after this scene they show a male colleague come to her hotel room in desperation of sex! The innuendo here is that men are rendered obsolete of the only pitiful purpose they have.

So you hate the supposed agenda of the show but you're still watching it. :pac:

mzungu

paralysed wrote: »

You mean they don't want you to know you're taking it as a protrayal or social commentary of most men.

And the purpose of this would be to send a subliminal message to all the lads watching that they are in some way inadequate? What possible purpose would that serve in your view?

I think I'm crediting people here with too much intelligence. I thought I wouldn't have to give examples to spell out the examples I noticed throughout the show - there are strong subtle messages delivered throughout it, which sort of reinforce the idea of the modern man being obsolete.

The 'modern man' is not obsolete. Instead what is happening is we are living in a period where the existing norms of old are changing (a continual process and good thing IMO). This does not mean we are all being consigned to a life of slippers, werthers original and excruciatingly poor rounds of golf on a sunday morning.

The claims you made so far have been based off your own opinion of events. But there has been little in the way of proper examples to support the your theory. It's a big claim you have made. Big claims require big evidence. Thus far you have not provided anything concrete.

In this show, it actually doesn't have much to do with the way the lead female character is portrayed, more so the way all male characters are portrayed (flawed for a host of reasons).

That's the way people are in real life, we all have flaws and the show is reflecting that. When it comes to TV these flaws are going to be exaggerated for entertainment value. I mean, would you watch the show, or even be entertained, if one of the guys flaws were of the more mundane variety? The rules of TV require this stuff be amped up into rock 'n' roll territory, otherwise nobody would bother there barney watching. It would be as monotonous as watching the live feed of Big Brother, only with far better production values.

Off the top of my head, eyelids were batted when the lead female of "fatal attraction" was portrayed as psycho.

At the time it was controversial, raised many eyebrows, so it was always bound to attract negative reaction in some circles. Is your point here about people at the time being offended at how she was portrayed in the film? If so, there was a few groups who were offended at how she was portrayed in the movie. That is nothing new, though. People were up in arms about Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, stating the movie had transphobic, homophobic and sexist undertones. Which misses the point totally, because that is what the character is. It is part of the artistry of storytelling in entertainment to draw you into a murky world that is outside of your everyday existence. It is not meant to cast aspersions on a grouping in society, rather it takes bits and pieces from real life, ramps them up a few notches for consumption by the viewing public. There is no conspiracy or underlying attempt to subjugate anyone, just simply a case of entertainers doing their job.

paralysed

mzungu wrote: »

And the purpose of this would be to send a subliminal message to all the lads watching that they are in some way inadequate? What possible purpose would that serve in your view?

I don't know, nor do I need to know. It mightn't even be a conscious decision on the writers part. Maybe by a pure fluke they all happen to be like minded or something, I don't know. All I'm saying is the pattern I've noticed is not a coincidence.

mzungu wrote: »

The 'modern man' is not obsolete. Instead what is happening is we are living in a period where the existing norms of old are changing (a continual process and good thing IMO).

Well a gender can never be obsolete. But men are ridiculed more now then 30 years ago.

mzungu wrote: »

This does not mean we are all being consigned to a life of slippers.........

But it does mean (especially at a young age) that the ones of us that aren't super cool get less sex than before! And no I'm not bitter or paranoid about this fact in itself - in fact it motivates me.

mzungu wrote: »

The claims you made so far have been based off your own opinion of events. But there has been little in the way of proper examples to support the your theory. It's a big claim you have made. Big claims require big evidence. Thus far you have not provided anything concrete.

I've 3 examples in my OP now since people hadn't already spotted the obvious.

mzungu wrote: »

That's the way people are in real life, we all have flaws and the show is reflecting that. When it comes to TV these flaws are going to be exaggerated for entertainment value. I mean, would you watch the show, or even be entertained, if one of the guys flaws were of the more mundane variety? The rules of TV require this stuff be amped up into rock 'n' roll territory, otherwise nobody would bother there barney watching. It would be as monotonous as watching the live feed of Big Brother, only with far better production values.

Where it's exaggerated or not is actually beside the point.

mzungu wrote: »

People were up in arms about Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, stating the movie had sexist undertones.

Towards men!!?? Because if towards women, then that only strengthens my argument.

mzungu wrote: »

It is part of the artistry of storytelling in entertainment to draw you into a murky world that is outside of your everyday existence. It is not meant to cast aspersions on a grouping in society, rather it takes bits and pieces from real life, ramps them up a few notches for consumption by the viewing public.

Stating the obvious... beside the point.

paralysed

eviltwin wrote: »

So you hate the supposed agenda of the show but you're still watching it. :pac:

It's a deep show - and I'm deep. I was about to stop watching it, but I guess I can't now. After all this discussion my curiosity is peaked!

I do admit that when I hear the "yes mam" being said to the lead female, I just think "oh for fcuk's sake". Who actually says that? The show set up suggests the illusion of that much power and authority being giving to females. Come back to reality.

Mark Tapley

paralysed wrote: »

It's a deep show - and I'm deep. I was about to stop watching it, but I guess I can't now. After all this discussion my curiosity is peaked!

I do admit that when I hear the "yes mam" being said to the lead female, I just think "oh for fcuk's sake". Who actually says that? The show set up suggests the illusion of that much power and authority being giving to females. Come back to reality.

I think ma'am is an accepted form of address for a high ranking female superior officer. Although WPC was phased out.
Why would you think it is unrealistic to have women in authority? You just undermine yourself with this kind of comment. Women are in positions of power in many arenas. Stella Rimmington for instance was the DG of M.I.5 for a number of years. The current British Prime Minister is female . The front runner for the US presidency is female . This is reality and I think you might consider getting checked for tunnel vision.

mzungu

paralysed wrote: »

I don't know, nor do I need to know. It mightn't even be a conscious decision on the writers part. Maybe by a pure fluke they all happen to be like minded or something, I don't know. All I'm saying is the pattern I've noticed is not a coincidence.

If you stare at a wall long enough you can make a Caravaggio out of it.

But men are ridiculed more now then 30 years ago.

What does this have to do with it?

I've 3 examples in my OP now since people hadn't already spotted the obvious.

Nobody spotted it because it's not there.

Where it's exaggerated or not is actually beside the point.

Not beside the point at all. TV will from time to time deal with loads of different themes, you can't have every show being exactly the same.

Towards men!!?? Because if towards women, then that only strengthens my argument.

You don't have an argument, I'm afraid. Not even close. What I was referring to had absolutely nothing to do with your view that there is subliminal messaging designed to push the idea that the modern man is obsolete. If you want to try and gain acceptance for your theory, you are going to need to work a bit harder.

You edited out some key words in my quote in your attempt to strawman, I will include them again for you:

People were up in arms about Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs, stating the movie had transphobic, homophobic and sexist undertones.

The point was that varying groups will get all outraged over portrayals in the movies that they view at the time to be unfair. The passing of time shows this not to be the case.

To go back to that point. what you originally said:

I heard all the writers of the show are all men! - so why the subtle hints that seem to imply a hidden agenda? There's probably more women who watch the show anyway!

My reply:

No agenda. There has been a zillion shows/movies where the lead was a man with the same traits. Nobody batted an eyelid then, which is why no eyelids were batted this time either because there is absolutely nothing there to get offended about.

Your reply:

Off the top of my head, eyelids were batted when the lead female of "fatal attraction" was portrayed as psycho.

So you see, I referred to the lead man, your example was a movie with a lead woman. Bit of a strawman there eh?

JohanFr

The book/film 'the girl with the dragon tattoo' was a bit like this too.
Man-hateiness may be trending.

RDM_83 again

I do think the OP has a small bit of a point, I watched the first two seasons.
Is there a male character that's portrayed as anything but really deeply flawed? Everybody has flaws but not such deep ones. As far as I remember the female doctor is pretty flawless and the killers wife acts in a human but understandable way.

I was pretty disappointed in the show overall, felt like a real missed opportunity for something great, if u pay any attention the storyline editing is terrible (I know they cut lots of stuff out and it shows). For example the corruption stuff, the fact that they didn't mine the real world children's home abuse scandal to tie the stories together.

My thinking on it is that they wanted to make a negative/grim crime show but then realised they had mainly female viewer base so they started pandering and couldn't make the main character (Anderson's detective) as ****ty and dislikeable as they should have and made the male characters more pathetic apart from Sexy McMurderer.
There's hints of it when Anderson forgets the male victims name and gets pulled up for it but it's only flashes.

johnnyskeleton

paralysed wrote: »

I do admit that when I hear the "yes mam" being said to the lead female, I just think "oh for fcuk's sake". Who actually says that? The show set up suggests the illusion of that much power and authority being giving to females. Come back to reality.

Perhaps this is your real issue. That you think it is unrealistic that a woman be a senior police officer who commands respect from her subordinates. Well:



Maybe it's you who needs to look at reality.

silverharp

paralysed wrote: »

It's a deep show - and I'm deep. I was about to stop watching it, but I guess I can't now. After all this discussion my curiosity is peaked!

I do admit that when I hear the "yes mam" being said to the lead female, I just think "oh for fcuk's sake". Who actually says that? The show set up suggests the illusion of that much power and authority being giving to females. Come back to reality.

from my vague memories of watching The Bill I think its a standard enough term in the Police and military I assume. I don't know if the same term is used in Ireland , but if you have to call a senior officer Sir then its probably going to be Mam.

You address a superior officer as Sir or Ma'am (not Mam!), it's not a sign of male submission and the annihilation of all that's manly and hairy-chested. It's just the correct way to address a senior.

You're reading too much into too little, OP.

SarahMollie

paralysed wrote: »

The last episode for e.g - the cop that got shot in the arm being portrayed as weak. He was needy about the way Gillian called out "we're losing him" & annoyed for fear she might like the killer more than him. He questioned her about it, she reassured him & she finished the interaction by comforting him with a stroke to his cheek.
I guess I thought anyone who hasn't spotted it isn't worthy of debating with. But then again, it is very subtle!

This thread is bordering on the incredible but however...

I watched last Sundays episode and remember this scene - this is not remotely what I took from it. Anderson (the officer shot in the arm) questioned Gibson on why she went to Spector first because he is suspicious of her, and that theres more to the relationship between Gibson and Spector than meets the eye. I didnt get any sense of neediness off him.

paralysed

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Perhaps this is your real issue. That you think it is unrealistic that a woman be a senior police officer who commands respect from her subordinates. Well:

Perhaps I don't fit you're stereotype and you're reading into it too much.

Well didn't I waste my breathe on you earlier!



At least she's not flaunting a gorgeous pair of tits tho!

paralysed

mzungu wrote: »

My reply:


Your reply:

So you see, I referred to the lead man, your example was a movie with a lead woman. Bit of a strawman there eh?

I'm getting mixed up here now. By referring to a lead female (fatal attraction) instead of a male, I was pointing out the fact that men don't complain. But I could argue the other way too - and I will:

If a show has a misogynist, it really only looks bad on that character, not on women in general. However, if a show has a misogynist, AND all the women in the show are protrayed as flawed (for a whlole series of reasons) then that's what makes all the difference. And it's that equivalent in the Fall.

paralysed

mzungu wrote: »

transphobic

As you'd say yourself, what does this have to do with it?

I assume no one outside of San Franfrisco uses that word anyway!

paralysed

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I do think the OP has a bit of a point,

The posters here are really stubborn though! They're clearly learning more from me than I am from them! Maybe I should have used honey rather than vinegar!

RDM_83 again wrote: »

My thinking on it is that they wanted to make a negative/grim crime show but then realised they had mainly female viewer base so they started pandering and couldn't make the main character (Anderson's detective) as ****ty and dislikeable as they should have and made the male characters more pathetic apart from Sexy McMurderer.

Well there's reason for ye lads! Is this fella a conspiracy theorist now?

RDM_83 again wrote: »

There's hints of it when Anderson forgets the male victims name and gets pulled up for it but it's only flashes.

I actually didn't mind that so much, seeing as the show was at least addressing the issue by it's mere mention. And in all fairness, Spector didn't set out to kill the male victim.

paralysed

SarahMollie wrote: »

I watched last Sundays episode and remember this scene - this is not remotely what I took from it. Anderson (the officer shot in the arm) questioned Gibson on why she went to Spector first because he is suspicious of her, and that theres more to the relationship between Gibson and Spector than meets the eye. I didnt get any sense of neediness off him.

I think it might be best for you to just continue liking comments rather than getting drawn into the discussion.

Good girl

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - Paralysed we have given you alot of leeway here even though the majority of your posts have been below the standard we expect on this forum. If you can't discuss this like an adult then don't post at all.

Wibbs

This is real non joined up writing simple marketing stuff. It's aimed squarely at a section of the mostly middle aged female audience, average to low IQ, cubicle jockey, therefore the lead woman will be flawed but better than everyone else especially the men. Like an extended TV advert for cleaning products. They know their audience. Just like stuff aimed at a mostly middle aged male audience, average to low IQ, cubicle jockeys tends towards loud explosions and the lead bloke attracting women that in reality wouldn't touch him if his mickey brought forth diamonds. Just like stuff aimed at elderly widows concerns murder and an attendant old dear or John Nettles who runs rings around the young uns. Big whoop.

To get wound up about this kinda thing is or should be the sole reserve of easily triggered blue haired child women on tumblr.

SarahMollie

You're beginning to sound like you're drinking the same coolaid as the OP Wibbs. You've also made a drama which is popular among a lot of people sound like a remake of Loose Women. If its not your thing then fine, but it sounds like you're being derisory just for the sake of it.

I'll agree with you on this - getting wound up over any TV show is an absolute nonsense.

paralysed

SarahMollie wrote: »

You've also made a drama which is popular among a lot of people sound like a remake of Loose Women.

What? you're user name explains you're lack of insight.

cowboyBuilder

BBC show ... no surprise there.

eviltwin

paralysed wrote: »

What? you're user name explains you're lack of insight.

You're not doing your argument much justice by insulting other posters. If you have an issue with the show just watch something else. Life is too short to waste on rubbish tele.

SarahMollie

paralysed wrote: »

What? you're user name explains you're lack of insight.

Perhaps spend more time improving your grammar and less time trying to insult people.

When you've mastered the difference between you're and your, then come back to me.

You're welcome.

Wibbs

SarahMollie wrote: »

You're beginning to sound like you're drinking the same coolaid as the OP Wibbs. You've also made a drama which is popular among a lot of people sound like a remake of Loose Women. If its not your thing then fine, but it sounds like you're being derisory just for the sake of it.

Maybe you missed the part where I was "derisory" about similar dramas for men.



Well this thread went down the rabbit hole of nonsense. Oh and paralysed make no mistake, any more of that condescending nonsense from you again and you'll be taking a break from here. You're breaking the Don't be a Dick rule of Boards.ie all over the place. If you can't understand attack the post, not the poster then don't post here again. Simples. Only warning.