#lsasks

because i can’t imagine the roles being reversed — if it were tk sitting in that chair being pushed to talk about what sadie did to him. imagine carlos speaking on tk's behalf, telling a therapist that his husband is going to “too many” meetings or spending “too much” time doing AA work, feeling like he's in a neglected relationship so they end up in couples therapy for it.. because even if carlos isn’t the most forthcoming, tk speaking for him — reducing his struggle to a progress report — came off invasive and tone-deaf imo. but it wasn't framed like that in 3x13, they handled TK's trauma carefully and with respect. as it should.

sometimes the worldview of the writers slips through so clearly, you end up with a case of double standards like that. i'm saying that because we live in a world (well- america lmao) where the collective standards, logic and psychology are colonial and doesn't deem justice a demanding urgency, unless it fits certain narratives. it tend to prioritize emotional regulation and moving on over confrontation or sustained grief. justice-seeking is often reframed as bitterness/obsession/ failure to heal, because it disrupts the social narrative of "closure"

that's what's pissing me off. those western frameworks that psychologize moral struggles — turning acts of justice into questions of mental health. instead of "has justice been served?" the question becomes "have you found closure?" which is devious to redirect the responsibility from the world (to fix what’s wrong) to the individual (to accept what’s wrong)..

and there’s also the deep rooted faith in western institutions — the belief that of course justice "will take its course." so when someone takes that pursuit into their own hands (like carlos) (and it doesn't really matter if he's cop here with more access to resources) it’s perceived as distrustful, even destabilizing (TK questioning him..)

so when you end up with a piece of art that echoes this reality and doubles down on appearance of stability over the actual thing, it really isn't surprising but still equally infuriating. it reinforces that something so essential can be reduced to be secondary/ an inconvenience. you’re expected to process pain, not pursue it to its source.

western media (and by extension, western art) often demands that victims remain palatable and contained — the "perfect victim". once a victim becomes active — seeking justice, demanding accountability, or expressing anger — they’re often reframed as obsessive, vengeful, or self-destructive.. etc

i'm curious actually but there aren't certain positive expectations I'm waiting for here with this storyline. the inaccuracy of the name thing alone was something i immediately rolled my eyes at lol. I mean lucky the pilot was so good in every way I was hooked from the jump because otherwise if i had to think twice about Marjan's disastrous praying I'd have been turned off.

It's clear that Natacha did not get the assistance she needed to give Marjan what she needs. not as simple as guiding her on how to properly pray. But are we surprised that the american TV's portrayal of Arabs falls short in many ways due to lack of cultural competence in writers' rooms/ lack of research and guidance from diaspora Arab Muslim creatives? I mean their first thought about Marjan was like hmm how can we introduce this veiled woman in a storyline that portrays her well without trying to objectify her? oh let's take that veil off and see her hair! I don't hate this storyline but it just doesn't fully sit right with me either. especially as an intro.

so I don't know how they're going to go about this whole thing with Joe but I for one really hated the arranged marriage storyline. Yes it's so normal here for family & friends to try to set up adults. but i just can't stand watching the portrayal of I've-been-engaged-since-I-was-12 and playing it into "love is something you grow into" as a commonplace in muslim Arab culture and not something so questionable and rather a fucked up constraint on people (that has been fought against for decades). not even considering the class, ethnic and national difference that plays into it, given how underage arranged marriage or forced marriage is an actual piled up generational struggle rooted in gender inequality and exacerbated by colonial violence and wars. being cut off from the access to education, the creation of extreme poverty that makes families (especially displaced ones) struggle to provide for their kids and fear for their safety and future and so some come to the conclusion that marriage somehow could protect their kids from harm while providing them with a level of financial stability or facilitating moving in and out of besieged areas/cities and crossing boards etc.

And so it's clear that no one of Marjan's class/background in diaspora or back home would consider this to be the norm. so it's weird to me that this was welcomed normally. The writers just took a bunch of stereotypes about Muslims at large with no regard to national/ethnic or class background differences and turned them on their head.

another inconsistency is the chaperone/Mehrem (family member) thing. because first, actually once you're in public you don't need that during a date. second, someone like Marjan with her lifestyle, background, worldview/character and being a diaspora lebanese muslim in her 20s, would not follow an old Mehrem fatwa (the Islamic laws that change according time, place, people, and other prevailing conditions) unless she actually wants that out of having company.

I just don't think the writers engage with Marjan's background in a consistent realistic or authentic way. I didn't really see anything especially Lebanese about Marjan. beside what the mention of cuisines?