rectifying what should've been

i think it's kind of unfair to completely demonize fiyero for something like how he treated glinda in the train station scene the same way it's kind of unfair to completely demonize glinda for the engagement thing. because in both instances you end up ignoring framing and tone and how each scene is functioning in the story and what the writers are trying to convey. like, i find the fact fiyero doesn't say a word to glinda and barely looks at her and then gives flowers to another woman right in front of her and leaves pretty shitty. but if you look at what that scene is trying to accomplish it's not trying to say "fiyero is a shitty and neglectful partner" but rather "fiyero is more interested in elphaba and glinda is oblivious to this." same with the engagement; i don't think the writers were necessarily trying to convey "glinda is an abusive and controlling partner who is willing to force this man into matrimony" but rather "glinda is desperately trying to make this relationship work but fiyero is only interested in finding elphaba." in both instances the point the writers are trying to get across is that fiyero is in love with elphaba and glinda is (willingly) oblivious to this. my problem with these scenes are less about the characters being bad evil people--glinda and fiyero aren't real (thank god)--and more about why these scenes were framed the way they are. because i think the way the play sanctifies fiyero as elphaba's perfect prince charming while lowkey framing glinda as the overly obsessive gf getting who's getting in the way because she's air-headed and self-centered plays into misogynistic tropes. and this is probably why fiyero's conduct in the train station pmo me while i'm never really blamed glinda for the engagement thing. in both instances, glinda's the butt of the joke while fiyero is cast in as positive a light as possible