feminist blogs

LOST spoilers below the image!

This week on LOST, Ilana learns that Ben killed Jacob and seeks out revenge, while Jack tests his new-found faith at the same moment that Richard Alpert has lost his own. Meanwhile, Sideways Ben has to choose between power and someone he cares about.

Check out the discussion after the jump, and leave your own reactions and theories in the comments (with no spoilers for upcoming episodes).

General thoughts on the episode?

JILL: Loved! I know I said that last week, but Season Six keeps getting better and better, especially after that stab-worthy Jack episode. I also do love me a good Ben episode. And I liked that this episode was so funny — Miles had some amazing moments.

CARA: I love a good Ben episode, too. Much as I usually hate Ben as a person, I love his character. I didn’t think the episode was jaw-dropping, but I loved how we got a whole lot of little tidbits along the way. That’s the kind of thing that keeps me happy. Also, Richard! And Arzt! (That last one was just for you, Sady.)

SADY: ARRRRRRRRRRRZT! They just keep going out of their way to make me happy, don’t they? MORE ARZT, I say! NOTHING BUT ARZT! Have Hurley ditch his conversations with Jacob and reconnect with the benevolent spirit of ARZT!

LAUREN: As usual, some of the storytelling here was heavy-handed, re: the burdens of power, but regardless Michael Emerson (Ben) is hands-down one of my new favorite actors. He sells the hell out of Ben’s story. And dudes, MILES GOT THE DIAMONDS!

CARA: Yes, I was thrilled to see a little bit more of Miles! Now if only they’d give Sun something to do … why they’re wasting Yunjin Kim’s talents so blatantly and disgracefully, I do not know.

SALLY: I also loved this episode – two thumbs up!

In Ben’s flash sideways, he works as a teacher, Alex is his student, and he’s also a caretaker for his dad. He seems to generally be a far more giving, selfless person. What do we make of the changes?

JILL: I was actually surprised by how different Ben is — my suspicion about the flashes-sideways was that they would reveal that everyone is fundamentally the same, even in different circumstances. I kept expecting Ben to gas his dad, or to sacrifice Alex for his own ambition. And he didn’t! (Even though he’s still a little bit ruthless, or “a killer” as that spider-man science teacher said). So perhaps Ben is more a product of his circumstances than an actual Bad Guy?

LAUREN: I feel like island Ben — kind of like schoolteacher Ben — went through the motions of his life for a greater purpose without really understanding why he was doing the things he did. There was a purpose of course, the magical mysterious island in one world and THE CHILDREN in the other, but Ben doesn’t act like he really gets why or how he fits in to the bigger picture. The kicker of this story is, like I mentioned above, the burden of power that he accepted on-island (an empty power, I’d argue, since he was kept in the dark by Jacob), and how that changed him as a person. It made him meaner, more calculated.

CARA: I actually read a really interesting theory by Ack that kind of has me convinced. She suggested that this is what Ben is like if he had never been healed by the Others’ magical swimming pool. Remember how Richard said that he would never be the same? And how Mini-Ben was kind of how adult Ben is in the flash sideways, genuine, caring, and prone to being walked all over?

LAUREN: Yes! And what’s funny is that with all his manipulations, Ben was still always kind of a doormat. At the same time, I always got the feeling that island Ben was really pragmatic about his role — he worked with what he had and accepted that there would be consequences due to his position of power, i.e. human collateral. One of the only ways that Ben could be truly redeemed is showing that he cared for Alex, and that she wasn’t just collateral for his over-arching fight with Widmore. He sacrifices himself for her in sideways world.

SALLY: I think that’s a rather solid theory. It makes more sense that way because most characters do have some redeeming quality, but we never really saw Ben’s.

SADY: I mean, I really hate to go negative here, but. WOW. I don’t expect LOST to be a subtle show, exactly, but this? “You’re the best, Doc Linus!” “Indeed, Alex, I feel toward you as though you were… MY DAUGHTER.” “Unfortunately, someone is poised to SHOOT ME IN THE HEAD! Metaphorically speaking. With grades or something.” “Oh, no! I can sacrifice EITHER MYSELF OR YOU in this situation. I choose… YOU? So that no-one SHOOTS YOU IN THE HEAD this time. Metaphorically, with grades. Perhaps if we were on a magic island, I would have chosen differently, and regretted my choice!” I mean, OUCH.

And yet I really loved Emerson’s acting here. Especially in the scene with his Dad! There are so many subtleties that let us know we’re dealing with a similarly controlling and passive-aggressive, yet somehow more decent and lovable man. I particularly loved the way he said “I made the turkey dinner, that YOU LIKE,” with the extra emphasis on the last two words which so clearly meant, “eat it, old man, or it’s Fancy Feast from here on out.” But in, like, this really loving and sweet families-take-care-of-each-other way. I like Teacher Ben so much! I would watch an entire show about Teacher Ben, and his power-plays! And you know what the good thing about that show would be: MORE ARZT.

A conversation between Roger and Ben reveals that the two did go to the island and join Dharma, though details about when and why they left are scarce. Does this information confirm or conflict with any of your theories about the meaning of the flash sideways?

LAUREN: I have absolutely no clue how the timeline is working now.

CARA: I’m still trying to get it straight in my head. But I think it’s further evidence that the bomb didn’t necessarily cause the split, or didn’t cause all of it. After all, on the island when the bomb went off, Mini-Ben was still with the Others, and couldn’t have possibly have been evacuated. Roger and Ben had to leave before that happened, for some other reason. Hell, in this alternate timeline, who knows that the bomb even went off at all?

LAUREN: Right. See, everyone was operating under the assumption that the bomb went off which is why the island was under water in the flash sideways (see also: Juliet’s statement that “it worked”), but in this ep we got the reveal that Ben and his father did go with Dharma to the island but didn’t stay for the duration. We know then that the island was destroyed sometime in the last thirty or so years. What sort of circumstances might have destroyed the island? Or were the island-destroying circumstances something that we’ve already seen? Or was it indeed Jughead? I’m confused again.

SALLY: Well my thought was that we don’t know why Roger and Ben didn’t stay on the island. Personally, I’m pretty much in the camp that something other than Jughead is causing the flash sideways, but I think they’re leaving this open-ended precisely so that it could go one way or the other. It could be that they somehow made it on to the sub (or perhaps another? maybe the sub came back after the bomb went off to get whoever else survived? weird stuff happens on Lost, I don’t know…) and then couldn’t go back because the Dharma initiative was no more. I don’t think this scenario is very likely, but it’s still a possibility.

On the island, Ilana lets some answers drop. Not only does she confirm that the Candidates are all possible replacements for Jacob, she also reveals that there are only six left, she’s not sure whether Sun or Jin is the Kwon listed, and the reason she’s on the island is to protect them. Thoughts?

CARA: It’s about time that we know anything about Ilana! Thank god. I’m really surprised that Smokey was telling the truth about the Candidates — as I said originally, I don’t trust him. I think her note that there were only six Candidates left also confirmed that Kate is one of them. There are six numbers in our famous sequence, but Locke is dead. That leaves one slot open, for Kate at 51 (as we saw at the lighthouse). Personally, I just love the idea that the person taking over for Jacob could be Sun, Jin, or both of them. That’s totally what I’m rooting for now — Sun and Jin ruling over the island together as equals.

LAUREN: KWON FTW! Though I wonder, could Locke still be a candidate in body? Like, Jacob’s final fuck you to Smokey/Flocke is making him lord over the island forever? Because that would be some just desserts for our MiB.

SADY: I think it’s interesting that EVERYONE (including me) is rooting for the Fightin’ Kwons at this point. I mean, I know why no-one is rooting for JACK, obvs. And Sawyer has gone Libertarian again, so I think we’ve lost him. But am I the only one still semi-pulling for a Hurley coup? That island would basically just become a Jimmy Buffet song once Reyes took over!

LAUREN: So my Kwon theory that I alluded to last time? It’s not as exciting anymore once I dusted it off and looked at it again. Anyhoo, my theory is that Sun going to be the chosen one because the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life is 42. Why Sun and not Jin? Because I say so. So yeah, not a great theory BUT IT IS MINE.

SADY: Oh heck yes! I am TOTALLY going to high-five you now! It’s better than my “it is Kate because 51 is the highest number” theory, by far. Also, Jin is being kind of a weasel lately. “Oh, I TOTALLY know where your baby is, heh heh! I just forgot about it before! Whooo, it’s a good thing I remembered before you totally murdered me, right? Anyway, bring your special Satan friend, and let’s head toward the place where all my friends and/or your baby are!” This is not the behavior of the Jin I know! Nor that of a leader.

SALLY: I am all about the Kwons taking over, though I still say Sun is a better candidate than Jin.

I think the most curious thing was Ilana being there to protect them. I was also a bit confused because she didn’t kill Lapidus initially because he “might be” a candidate, yet now she suddenly knows who the candidates are (or at least how many)? How, exactly? She’s been with Lapidus, Ben and Sun since they buried Locke and unless she’s started communicating with the dead, I’m confused about that…

The main story arc of the night involves Ilana wanting to avenge Jacob’s death by killing Ben. It resolves in Ben apologizing for the murder and Ilana inviting him back to the group. Do either of these actions surprise us? What are their motives?

CARA: I’ve always been the last person to trust Ben, and so I feel like I’m almost certainly just setting myself up here …. but when he apologized, I believed him. He’s a good liar, but he seemed incredibly sincere, especially when he said that Flocke is “the only one that’ll have me.” Ben has absolutely no one left, and for the only time since his character has been an adult, I actually feel bad for him. He also went with Ilana in spite of Flocke promising him leadership over the island, something Ben would have previously been jumping at the chance for. It’s entirely possible that he has an ulterior motive, but for the first time, I think that he actually doesn’t. Ilana, on the other hand, I have no idea.

LAUREN: I’ve always been sympathetic to Ben. Perhaps it’s understanding that people who are so corrupt in spirit are often covering up deep-seated fears and insecurities. I empathize with that. And since we learned that Ben killed everyone in Dharma, the writers on the show have been revealing him as far more human, more conflicted, about his role than settled in and happy with it. The guy lost everything — his family, his role in a community of peers, his self-respect — all in the name of a higher being that completely abandoned him.

Ilana, on the other hand. I don’t know. Jacob (JACOB!? Really?) was more like a father to her than anyone else in her life? The distant, cryptic semi-god who makes games of people’s lives for an unnamed purpose that had BETTER BE GOOD, damn it, for all the trouble it’s caused? That Jacob? That’s your daddy? Though I suppose I can’t get too irritated since it mirrors every other daddy issue on the show.

SADY: There are times, I think, when we forget how cheesy LOST can be, because of how good the acting sometimes is. Michael Emerson’s acting, especially. That whole scene with Ilana and Ben was really well-acted on his end, especially with him breaking down at the end, but seriously, look at the exchange here. It is, “My name is Ilana Somethingorother. You killed my father. Prepare to DIE! With DEATH!” And then he says, “but I murdered him because my feelings were hurt? Look at my sad faces!” And then she is like, “oh, okay. Let’s go grab a cup of Sanka together, new buddy.” Like…. WHAT?????

SALLY: I also thought Ben was being sincere, and I was really annoyed at the “he’s like a father to me” thing. Weird. But I think Ilana took Ben back because she’s feeling alone and if Jacob really was like a father to her and she really does know more about him and the island and all of that, she might understand how Ben is feeling and his desperation. It also seemed like one of those “I just want you to be honest with me” sort of scenarios. Ben was finally explaining what happened rather than trying to lie about it or make excuses.

Jack meets up with Richard and becomes convinced that Jacob won’t let him die. He proves it with a stick of dynamite. Can all of the Candidates not die, or is it just Jack? And can they not die, or can they only not kill themselves?

CARA: I have to say that I was totally bummed that Jack didn’t blow up, intrigued by the fact that he didn’t, and also relieved that Richard is still alive.

JILL: I honestly expected that the dynamite wouldn’t blow up, and that we’d all breathe a sigh of relief, and Jack and Richard would talk for a second and then right before Richard was going to say something really important, BOOM! DEAD! Sadly, no. Jack is still kicking.

SADY: This is the terrible price the writers exacted upon me (yes, ME SPECIFICALLY: I am that around which the entire LOST plot revolves, as does much of life, clearly) for fulfilling all my sexy Arzt fantasies (SPOILER: they were not that sexy). They have made it clear, now, that Jack is literally just never, ever going to die. That one point of hope I had has been eclipsed for all time.

ARZT: You know what gets Jack out? Nothing.

SADY: ARZT! You came back for me! Tell me more about your extremely detailed calculations as to which is the best parking space ARZT! ARZT I love youuuuuuuuuu.

CARA: Seriously, the last thing we need is Jack having even more of a complex about his importance and superiority. I have a feeling that he’s just going to get even douchier, now. I’m really interested, though, in the fact that Jacob can seemingly protect him even in death. I guess his touch has some kind of magical, lasting power that doesn’t die when he does? Maybe this means that Richard won’t start aging, as many had suspected.

LAUREN: Cara, were you happy with the pseudo-confirmation that Richard came in on the Black Rock? (I was wrong, I admit it.)

CARA: I was! I think that’s the strongest confirmation we’re going to get, and while I’d totally love a Richard-centric flashback episode (please, producers, pretty please?), I’m fine with him not giving a big speech about it. But yeah, that puts him at around 200 years old.

LAUREN: He’s bangin’ for a 200-year-old dude. And you know, I just realized we have another person who couldn’t kill himself thanks to Jacob’s touch: Michael Dawson!

SALLY: Hey, I had that thought too about Richard being from Black Rock. I shall take my bow.

LAUREN: *bows deferentially*

SALLY: In regards to the question or whether or not they can kill themselves, Richard implied that being touched by Jacob is what made it so that he couldn’t kill himself. We also know that Michael tried but couldn’t kill himself either. Mr. Friendly explained to him that no matter how hard he tried, he would never succeed. Oh, and we saw Locke try to kill himself and he failed too. Granted, that was because Ben walked in on him, but either way, he tried and failed.

This makes me wonder 1) was Michael once a candidate and at some point touched by Jacob? and 2) why is Jacob preventing these people from killing themselves? Is it as simple as he has chosen them as candidates and doesn’t want the possibility that they’ll cave under pressure?

Speaking of Richard, what do we make of his loss of faith?

CARA: I think it’s interesting, because Richard could just be in shock and mourning over Jacob’s death. But he could also be genuinely realizing for the first time that he was completely manipulated and used by Jacob, and just as easily be in mourning over that. This would of course tie into the “Jacob is actually kind of a douche, and not the Good Guy we were originally led to believe” theory.

LAUREN: I almost felt like this was an allegory for general loss of faith in God, but that doesn’t totally fit. That said, it’s clear Richard feels betrayed (or “forsaken,” even) by Jacob, and with good reason.

SALLY: I thought that was one of the saddest scenes we’ve had on the show in a long time. I think it was a combination of all the things you mention, Cara. He’s just lost Jacob, he thinks he’s been manipulated by somebody for his whole (whoa, so long) life, his life seemingly has no purpose, he just found everybody dead in the temple, it’s a shitty moment.

Charles Widmore has arrived at the island via submarine. Is he who Jacob said was coming? Where’s this headed?

LAUREN: DUDE. I don’t know but this doesn’t bode well for our crew.

CARA: First things first: ABC folks, please, for the love of god, can you just give LOST a decent CGI budget? These submarines are just embarrassing, to both you and me. It’ll be worth it, I promise.

JILL: AGREED! When that submarine popped out of the water, I actually said out loud, “I could have filmed this in my bathtub.” And I never talk during LOST! It was that offensive.

CARA: With that out of the way, my faith in the ways of Darlton have been officially restored. I admit, after last episode with no answers at all, and still no off-island characters making an appearance, I was starting to lose the faith just a little bit. How are they going to tie this all up?, I asked myself. Are they just entirely dropping Widmore, Desmond, and Eloise? Do they really have a plan here? While I still don’t know the answer to the first question, it happily seems that I was wrong to even ask the last two. I’ve recovered both my belief in a greater plan, and my conviction that Desmond has a big role to play here.

SALLY: I have to say that while my initial reaction was “shit, my first prediction was right – it’s Widmore coming to the island!” My next reaction was “shit, this sucks, I wanted Desmond to come back! Screw Widmore!” That said, I hope the gang’s all here to save the day. Or, because this is LOST, wreck the day considerably and then somehow magically fix it at the last possible moment.

Today is the U.S. National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers.

In a different world, doctors who provide abortions would just be regular doctors. In this one, they — along with the nurses, administrative staff, and volunteers who work along side them — are uniquely courageous. For providing routine medical care, abortion providers face harassment, ostracization, protesters, threats, violence, and as with Dr. George Tiller, even murder. Giving up their jobs would be far, far easier than doing them.

But legalization of abortion is absolutely nothing without access. Just like those who try to frighten them out of their work, abortion providers know this. And so they continue, even in the face of danger. They do the best they can, in spite of the restrictions they must adhere to and the roadblocks thrown in their patients’ way, to ensure that everyone has a right to their own body, and that no one is forced to carry a pregnancy to term when they cannot or do not want to. Abortion providers are, quite frankly, heroes.

If you know someone who works in an abortion clinic, take them out to dinner, buy them some flowers, or just sit them down and tell them that you appreciate what they do. If there’s a clinic that performs abortions near you, drop in and say a quick thanks. And if you’re online reading this right now, head on over to the National Abortion Federation website, and write a note of appreciation.

If you’re able, today would also be an excellent day to financially support those organizations that make abortion access possible. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is a professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada, that offers training for abortion providers and referrals for patients. The National Network of Abortion Funds helps women with limited funds to afford their abortions. And Medical Students for Choice work to destigmatize abortion care and make it a regular part of medical training. They would all be worthy of any donation you could give.

Today, March 8, is International Women’s Day. Gender Across Borders is hosting a Blog for International Women’s Day, and one of their prompt questions asks: What does “equal rights for all” mean to you?

I, for once, will keep it relatively short.

International Women’s Day is essentially a day of symbolism. Many use it as a day of activism, solidarity, or reflection, but the world cannot be changed in a day. So symbolism is still at its core. In its own way, that can certainly be a valuable and worthwhile thing.

But it is useless for even that much if it does not recognize and center all women, including and especially those who are most vulnerable and commonly forgotten. International Women’s Day is useless if it does not recognize and respect both the womanhood and humanity of women who are trans, and dedicate to fighting for their rights and basic safety. International Women’s Day is useless if it does not include and remember women who have disabilities, and work for their essential rights and towards creating greater inclusion and accessibility within our own communities. International Women’s Day is useless if it does not center poor women all over the globe, including those in developing countries, who are struggling against hunger and violence. International Women’s Day is useless if it overlooks the rights and safety of those suffering the greatest violence, including (in addition to those listed above) sex workers, trafficking victims, and slaves. International Women’s Day is utterly pointless if it does not include and explicitly welcome women of all races and ethnicities, sexual orientations, ages, immigration statuses, religions, and nationalities; remember that women have multiple aspects to their identities, and “woman” does not necessarily come first; support the work that women are already doing; and give the bulk of its attention to those who need it most.

In other words, International Women’s Day is useless if it does not include all of the women who are reading this blog right now. And International Women’s Day has failed worst of all if it only includes women who are able to read this blog right now. Because a day that is not about equal rights for all is a day that is necessarily not actually about women, but a day about only some women.

And that is something that all of us can stand to remember in our daily activism, as well.

Check out the full list of blogs participating in the Blog for IWD and/or sign up your own blog as participant.

(Video transcript below the jump)

Chally recently posted a reminder about International Women’s Day coming up on Monday, March 8th. There are all kinds of events taking place all over the world, but I received an email about one particular set of events that I thought I’d highlight here.

As most blog readers are probably aware, due to war, women in both Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo face incredibly high rates of rape and other violent assault. On March 8th, Congolese and Rwandan women are taking action to demand an end to war and violence against women. Via the email:

On March 8, hundreds of Congolese and Rwandan women will unite on a bridge to demand an end to the violence that has caused 5.4 million deaths and hundreds of thousands of rapes. They will tie together banners of fabric on which they’ve painted their visions for a peaceful future.

To honor and support their resilience, Women for Women International is hosting a global campaign – Join me on the Bridge – which will replicate that meeting at bridges in different cities all around the world in a show of global solidarity. Already supporting the Congolese and Rwandan women in their call for war’s end will be thousands of women from Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, the UK and the US.

In New York City, we are rallying people to the Brooklyn Bridge at noon on Monday, March 8. Sponsors such as kate spade new york, Marie Claire and the ONE campaign are also joining us. Project Runway’s Tim Gunn will be in attendance. Self-organized bridge events will also be taking place in other cities, towns and schools nationwide.

Check out the Women For Women International website to see all of the events that will be taking place. The two largest events will take place in New York and London, but there will also be many, many events in other cities. Most are in the U.S. and U.K., but there are also events in countries such as Australia, Canada, India, Mexico, and Nigeria. Almost all of the events will be held on either March 7th (this Sunday) or March 8th (Monday). Please consider attending if there’s one near you.

Video Transcript:

Video shows a collection of images of women from the DRC and Rwanda, including both still photos and video. Images include women smiling, embracing each other, teaching in a classroom, holding their children, and working.

Voiceover: Women across the globe are living amidst violence, yet dreaming of peace. Women for Women International is asking you to join us to honor women survivors of war. March 8th is International Women’s Day. Join me, along with thousands of women and men on bridges around the world. Join us in solidarity with women of both Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who will unite to call for an end to war.

Two women: (speaking into camera, each giving a “thumbs up” sign) Join me on the bridge

Voiceover: Join me. Say yes to peace and hope.

Women for Women International logo

I’m incredibly far behind on the recent Colorlines investigation into the practice of poor U.S. families selling food stamps for cash. But now that I’ve finally gotten to reading it, it’s certainly worth the time to bring it to the attention to those of you who have not.

Due to the welfare “reform” of the 90s, which placed time limits on how long one can receive cash welfare assistance, a substantial and growing number of families who have already used what the government is willing to supply literally have nothing else left. More still simply do not have enough for what they need. In order to buy basic necessities (soap, toilet paper, laundry detergent) and pay bills, they’re forced to illegally sell their food stamps as their only option for making ends meet. According to the article, not only were a staggering one in eight Americans (one in four among children) using food stamps in November, but about 6 million Americans receiving food stamps say that they have no other income.

And yes, women, and particularly women of color, are by far suffering the greatest impact:

Blacks, Latinas and Asians nationwide are about two times more likely than whites to have been pushed off cash assistance as a result of time limits, rather than for another reason, according to a ColorLines analysis of 2008 data from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Because women-led families make up 90 percent of TANF cases that have been closed, women of color like Eva are now more likely to be living without access to any cash assistance.

For many people then, food stamps are all they have.

Not discussed in the article is the conundrum of the legions in the U.S.’s bootstraps obsessed culture who will insist that women selling food stamps is not a sign that our system is broken, failing desperately, inherently cruel, and on the brink of collapse, but evidence that those receiving any assistance at all are “scamming” the system, and do not even deserve the scraps the middle-class is willing to throw their way. After all, this situation didn’t occur by accident; it was predicted and chosen.

But what the Colorlines investigation does do is follow the life of a woman, called Eva, who is unable to find a job, and must both sell her food stamps and run up a tab at her local store every month in order to ensure that she and her daughters can survive. It’s also the result of interviews with several other women in similar circumstances, as well as service providers. If you haven’t read it yet, go do that.

via Racialicious

Spoilers below!

This week on LOST, sideways Jack dealt with a new kind of daddy issue, regular Jack and Hurley visited (and destroyed!) a magical lighthouse, and Claire turned out to be a whole lot scarier than we’d predicted. We had an awful lot to say about it all, so let’s jump right in …

[REMINDER: No spoilers for unaired episodes in the comments!]

So, what did everyone think?

LAUREN: Number one, I’m spoiled. I watched the first five seasons on Netflix in under two months without commercials, so the commercial breaks and the wait between episodes is EXCRUCIATING. Number two, there were a lot of good zingers, a few answers (or pseudo-answers, re: The Numbers), and two new kids. Jack had a concert pianist and Claire had a skull baby! And they are cousins!

CARA: I really liked this episode, which due to the fact that it was a Jack episode, both surprises me and makes me a little bitter! But nevermind; I think it’s my favorite of the season so far. A simple way to win my heart is to bring the Adam and Eve skeletons back into the mix. Even if we didn’t learn anything new about them — other than, if my theory about the writers introducing fan theories into the show’s dialogue is correct, they’re not any of our Losties gone time traveling.

SALLY: The only thing I didn’t like about this episode was Adam and Eve because I’m guessing we’re not going to see them ever again and, therefore, won’t know who the heck they are. Darn! But, great episode! Loved it!

CARA: No! I’m seriously hoping that they’re just reminding viewers they’re there, so that they can bring them back again with an explanation. I’m going to be really annoyed if they brought them up and got me excited for absolutely no reason.

In the flash sideways, Jack has a kid, though with no indication of who the mother is. Is he the kind of dad we thought he’d be?

CARA: You know, this flash sideways gave whole new meaning to Miles’ Season 5 quip, “That douche is my dad.” /cheap joke.

SADY: There is no end to the relationships Jack can screw up and then throw a fit about and then make sensitive cryface speeches about not wanting to screw up any more. But he actually does seem to be somewhat more giving, in this alternate reality! Less “a little push” about it all, which lends credence to the idea that these are the characters sans-Jacob.

JILL: I like Dad Jack a lot better than Real Jack. I suspect the mother is Juliet — Kate is too obvious, and of the course the mother has to be someone we know.

SADY: Oh my god! That is perfect!

CARA: Ha! I was just assuming she was Sarah (his ex-wife from the original timeline), but there are certainly other possibilities!

SALLY: I thought it’d be Sarah too, but maybe it is one of the Losties. I’m going to throw a curveball in here and say Ana Lucia, just for funsies. Also, I’m with Jill, Dad Jack is loads better, though not any less emotional.

LAUREN: This episode made me hate sideways Jack, because, well, I’ll be real — as a custodial parent with an “arrangement,” I get really irritable with plotlines that redeem absent or nearly-absent parents with one schlocky loaded moment of understanding between absent parent and child, like one moment is totally going to erase years of your disinterest and your child’s feelings of insecurity and abandonment. Readers, here is a free lesson in parenting: if you don’t know that your child is a concert-level pianist, you either aren’t paying enough attention to your kid or you aren’t speaking with your co-parent. Also, if you’re the parent keeping important information about your child’s accomplishments from your fellow co-parent out of spite, you’re a dick, and your child is going to have a lot of questions about your behavior in the future, too. Don’t let the television tell you any different. /rant

I would have made that kid get in the car and visit his grandmother in her time of need, goddammit. Anyway. At least no one erupted in endless choruses of MY SON! WHERE IS MY SON! because I would have blown up an island.

JILL: But, Lauren, HE CRIED. That makes it all better!

In an early scene, we learn that Jack had his appendix taken out as a child in the alternate universe, and he becomes briefly focused on the scar. Is this scene a small reminder that many things in the characters’ lives would have happened no matter what? Or is it perhaps some kind of sign that Jack is remembering things from his “other” life, or that the timelines may be collapsing?

JILL: What struck me about the scar scene was that his mother told him he had his appendix taken out when he was seven — so this alternate/sideways reality doesn’t just assume that the plane never crashed and things were therefore different from the flight forward, it assumes that the plane crashing was a “meant-to-be” kind of thing that impacted the characters’ lives well before the plane crash. I think Jack’s confusion about the scar must be some sort of timeline-collapse issue…?

CARA: This scene seemed a little bit too considered, and a little bit too long to just be another “lol, stuff that happened is still gonna happen!” reminder. Like the scene with Desmond on the plane, Jack seemed just a little too confused, a little bit too much like he was recognizing something but didn’t quite know what. I don’t know what it means, but I’m kind of convinced that it means something.

SALLY: Yea, I thought the scene was supposed to be Jack remembering something about the other timeline. I think it’s interesting that so far Jack is the only one who senses something is wrong – on the plane and now the scar.

Back on the island, Claire has turned even more into Rousseau than I think we originally realized — though Rousseau’s baby actually was stolen, and Claire just seems to have forgotten that she left hers on a leaf. What happened to her?

SADY: The ominousness of Claire is really a mark against my “Smokey is the good guy” theory. But can I say that Emilie de Ravin’s PERFORMANCE is a mark against all of those OTHER “Emilie de Ravin is a bad actress” theories? Everything, even her accent is different! Good show, de Ravin. GOOD SHOW.

JILL: Claire seems to have forgotten a lot. Before she killed the guy she had tied up (did he have a name?), she says that his people kidnapped her, tortured her and branded her. He denies it, and says that she’s not remembering things correctly — I actually believe him. She does seem to have become infected with something that has altered her perceptions and memory.

CARA: Her memory certainly seems altered, but at the same time her account of what the Others did is very, very similar to what they did to Sayid.

More generally, the “baby” in the crib is going to give me nightmares for a long time. And was I the only one who was really perversely satisfied when she put the axe in that guy’s stomach? I think it’s just been way too long since we’ve seen any of the women get in on the violence that is so ubiquitous in the show.

LAUREN: I loved how Claire went all Jack Torrance on Other/Hallorann, who I think is having a semantic argument with her about why she was branded. She says “torture,” he says, “no, we were just checking to see if we needed to kill you or not.” Which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
SALLY: I think when he said that, it was because they were doing it to get the sickness out of her, whereas she seems to think they were doing it just to torture or kill her. It really was basically a description of what they did to Sayid, so I think he meant it more as “that’s not the full story” than “that didn’t happen.” But Claire definitely kicked ass in this episode. Good show, indeed.

LAUREN: The skull baby under mosquito netting was intensely hilarious. OTOH, Claire’s statement that she will kill Kate if she finds out Kate has Aaron portends some ugliness in the near future.

It also turns out that Claire’s “friend” is Smokey. Uh, what? Is this a further sign that she really is infected?

SADY: Okay, if Smokey’s special Island Break team includes Guns and Vengeance Sawyer, New Awesome Claire, Locke’s Dead Body, and now maybe Jin? I am going to be so enthused. This is my island A-Team. Get Sun there and hand her a few stare-you-down-in-the-face-until-your-soul-withers-before-my-awesomeness monologues, and I am set.

LAUREN: (Sady, I have theories about Sun that don’t belong in this recap, but you’re totally going to high-five me when I tell you.)

SALLY: This episode only confirmed my theory from last week. I’m sticking to that until I get more evidence.

CARA: I thought it was notable that even if she is sick, she has retained some aspects of her original character. Her allegiances are still there; she loves Aaron, and she considers Jin to be her friend, and seems to genuinely have no intention of harming him. Which to me means that a) either she’s not sick at all, or b) Dogen is wrong, and being infected does not completely obliterate your soul and leave you unrecognizable. Claire is very, very different, but she seems to still be Claire in there, somewhere.

LAUREN: I really don’t know what to do with this “infected” story, but I’m with you, Cara. It seems like this can go either way: they’re infected and it’s way bad, or “infected” doesn’t mean what we or the Others think it means.

SALLY: Well, if Claire is infected, this would go with Lauren’s theory that Rousseau was also infected. Certainly, the parallels between Claire and Rousseau are only getting stronger. If Claire is infected, maybe Rousseau really was infected as well.

LAUREN: The one hitch in my Claire/Rousseau theory is that Rousseau was highly dubious of the smoke monster, while Claire and Smokey are BFFs. We’ll see how it plays out, but it seems clear that Smokey appeared to her as her father, which affected her enough to abandon Aaron and completely forget about it, and accept Smokey/Fchristian/Flocke as her new pal.

Last night’s episode was named for the lighthouse, and with good reason! The same numbers and names from the cave also appeared on the lighthouse dial, and a scene from each candidate’s life appeared in the mirror. Why were the names/numbers on the dial? What was the lighthouse used for before Jack smashed it?

SADY: This is where the Jacob-as-Judeo-Christian-God thing got really intense – “he is always watching us! He has a special plan for our lives!” And also where I got that whole “Judeo-Christian God as total douche” thing folks were talking about in the comments last week. It is probably just a special monitoring station for the candidates, yeah? But also, Jacob can maybe see you poop, GROSS.

CARA: Interesting thought that the Lighthouse is a way to monitor the candidates. My original theory was that it was somehow used to summon the candidates to the island, since it is a lighthouse, which lights your way to somewhere you’re supposed to go. *symbolism* In any case, this was probably my favorite scene of the season so far. I was literally hanging off of my seat when we saw that the candidates’ names were on the dial, and when we saw the scenes in the mirror.

Of course, the best thing about it all was the factoid you probably had to screen cap to see – Kate is a candidate! And she’s number 51! She’s not crossed out, which means she’s still in the running. But she’s also not a part of the number sequence. What does this mean? Is the number sequence longer than we realized? Is she less important because she’s not one of the numbers? Or does that somehow make her more important?

SALLY: I was really excited when I saw the screencaps her name wasn’t crossed off!

LAUREN: I’ve seen a couple of theories about this. Some are suggesting that the numbers we know (and the cave we originally saw them in) are Smokey’s, bar-none, where the numbers in the lighthouse are Jacob’s, which means we don’t know everything about them yet. I don’t know if I buy this one but it seems to be the most plausible of all the theories.

SALLY: Wow, I hadn’t considered any of this…

I thought the mirror was a way to get them on the island, not monitor them, but I like that idea. And to Lauren’s point, I started to get a sense that the cave might be Smokey’s and the lighthouse Jacob’s, but not that the same people might mean different things to them. If so, why would they use the same numbers I wonder?

LAUREN: Someone suggested that they’re Jacob’s numbers and Smokey is just trying to figure out who is who. And I can see this — it makes sense that the resentment against Jacob that Smokey inspires in others is something he feels himself — he’s talked about being trapped, about feeling kept in the dark, about feeling helpless. It almost feels like the writers are setting up another daddy issue dynamic between Jacob and MIB, like MIB was always running around after Jacob trying to figure out what his plans were, and undermining them out of resentment. Like me at age fifteen, but with less global consequence.

SALLY: We also see Rousseau’s name and, of course, Sayid, etc. I’m interested in seeing how the names match up on the lists in the cave and the lighthouse. According to Lostpedia, there’s a Burke listed in the lighthouse as 58, but in the cave as 55 (though this could be an error).

CARA: And Ben! Don’t forget that Linus was on there, too! It’s an interesting theory about two sets of numbers, but the numbers seem to be remarkably similar. I’d have to check and see if the Faradays, Lewises, etc. line up in with each other terms of their corresponding numbers, but our 4 8 15 16 23 42 candidates certainly did, and many of the other names were aso repeated.

SALLY: Some actually think it’s his father, Roger. That would certainly throw daddy issues back into the mix, especially given Ben’s resentment of Jacob.

JILL: I think it’s gotta be Ben. But speaking of Daddy Issues, what about that blonde kid running around the jungle? Is that Baby Jacob, or am I missing something?

In order to get Hurley and Jack to go to the lighthouse, Jacob told Hurley that someone was coming to the island. Jacob was playing Hurley for the most part, but was he telling the truth when he said that someone was coming? If so, who is it?

SADY: Like I said: Jacob is coming off like a holy douchebag here. I know this is all part of his “little push” agenda, but could he not just have said, “I need you to go up to the lighthouse and I need you to watch Jack throw a fit AGAIN but this time he will BREAK THINGS and you will feel as if you are in PHYSICAL DANGER with that suddenly violent cryface coming at you, but ultimately he will have some kind of realization, so be chill?” Maybe someone is coming, though. MAYBE. I trust Jacob very little at this point.

JILL: Seriously, fuck Jack. What a big fucking baby. “I found a magical lighthouse, now I am mad and I will SMASH IT!” Can Claire please axe him now?

CARA: There was a second where I was seriously concerned that Jack might throw Hurley over the side of the lighthouse. Thankfully that didn’t happen! In any case, my first thought was that the person coming was Desmond. And I really want Desmond to come back into this story! This also makes sense, because Desmond lives on a boat. But it could also be Aaron. As for whether or not anyone is coming? Who knows! Jacob seems to have about the same level of truthfulness as Ben.

It struck me as interesting that Jacob wanted Hurley to turn the dial to 108 — a very significant number in the show — but that 108 didn’t turn out to be anyone we knew. I was really hoping it would say “Hume.” Or “Austen” (though of course Kate showed up anyway).

SALLY: I think somebody’s coming and that somebody is Desmond. I initially thought Widmore, but looking back on the way Desmond said “why would I ever go back” to Penny, I’m not liking his odds. Besides, we know he’s important and we haven’t really seen him yet this season.

LAUREN: Unless this was all just a red herring for Jack’s verra important realization about his purpose.

Lastly, the real reason that Jacob wanted Jack to go to the lighthouse was so that he could learn he is important, and “has to do something.” Any predictions?

SADY: And Hurley asked, “but what of the times when I only saw one set of footsteps, oh my Jacob?” And Jacob said, “that is the time when I was carrying you. Also, looking out at the ocean is important, so it is a good thing you are on an island where that is basically what you do all the time.” Jack is totally going to be the Savior of the Island, and I am going to be sour.

LAUREN: I so hope for a Alien type of ending, where someone unexpected suddenly emerges as leader at the end, because Jack is so loathsome. Or, like, Jack dies so the rest can live.

JILL: Or Claire’s goat-baby kills them all. The end. (Seriously, I hated ALL of them by the end of this episode).

CARA: By “he has to do something,” I’d really like to think that Jacob means “die in a fire.” That’s probably not true, I’m sad to say. Though I’m optimistic, based on the fact that the last time someone was told they were “important” and had to complete a very special task, he ended up in a coffin and had his likeness taken on by a big black cloud of smoke. Even if the special thing he has to do is “save the island,” that’s not necessarily going to end well for him.

SALLY: I think the “something” will be an attempt to take MIB’s life – assuming he can die. And, yeah, not gonna end well for Hurley… well, unless he’s got a hot pocket handy..

A new UK study shows that most people still blame rape victims at least some of the time — and women are even more likely to victim-blame than men. I offer my analysis on these findings in my first ever piece for the Guardian.

A new survey by the Havens service for rape victims shows that most respondents blamed rape victims for their assailants’ assaults at least some of the time. In particular, well over half said that victims should take responsibility if they climbed into bed with someone who went on to rape them. While the widespread notion that getting into bed with another person equals consent to any and all sexual activities is certainly worthy of discussion and dismantling, the headlines are focusing on a different matter altogether – that more women than men held victims responsible.

This news will likely come as a shock to most. Some will inevitably use it to claim that if women blame victims in such large numbers – even though women constitute the vast majority of victims – victim-blaming can’t be too off-base after all. Others will use it to hold women primarily culpable for societal attitudes regarding sexual violence, and in doing so shift the focus off men. As far as revelations go, this one is disappointing – but it shouldn’t be considered particularly surprising.

Check out the full piece here.

Spoilers below the image!

This week on LOST, we got a bit of a break from the confusion and excitement of the season premiere. In What Kate Does, Kate helped Claire with her pregnancy in one timeline and followed Sawyer out into the jungle in the other, while the newly-alive Sayid was tortured and “diagnosed” back at the temple.

And for an episode in which not a whole lot happened, we had an awful lot to say! Leave your own thoughts and theories in the comments (while remembering no spoilers for upcoming episodes!).

Alright, first things first. What did you think of the episode?

CARA: I have to say, that with an episode title like “What Kate Does” — especially in light of the the Season 2 episode “What Kate Did” being a really great one — I expected that Kate might actually do something, particularly something of significance and importance. And especially after a few seasons of Boring Kate, I was hoping we might get Badass Kate back. Instead, what Kate “did” is what she always does: follow people she was told not to follow, and be a softhearted fugitive. My expectations were pretty high, and then I felt like we got what more or less amounted to a filler episode.

SADY: What Kate does is, Kate follows along on other people’s far more interesting plot lines. Apparently.

JILL: I interpreted “what Kate does” as “Kate runs away.” Or “Kate runs after people.” As in, this is some commentary on her character. I thought the episode was ok; I was particularly annoyed at the replay of the Sawyer runs away, Sawyer says don’t come after him, Kate follows, Jack tells Kate to be safe, blah blah. Haven’t we seen this exact same exchange about 14 times now? Doesn’t it always end badly? And hasn’t Sayid been tortured about as many times? New drama, please!

LAUREN: Now that you say that, Jill, I’m thinking that “what Kate does” is “the same wherever she is,” answering one of the basic questions viewers have had about the alternate reality. The characters we know have essential qualities that will be unchanged regardless of their involvement with the island and one another.

So, in the flash sideways, Kate and Claire are BFFs.

LAUREN: See, I know they’re supposed to “know” each other thanks to all this time they shared in another life (“brutha”), but if someone in handcuffs kidnapped me and hijacked my taxi at gunpoint, I would generally regard that as a red flag.

CARA: Agreed! Things I Would Not Do If I Were Claire: Get in the car with the woman who had just hijacked my cab and kidnapped me at gunpoint, because taking the bus is annoying. But then again, Claire has always been a bit irrational. In any case, I did like seeing two women working together and helping each other. Reminded me of Kate’s other adventure with Cassidy.

SADY: Well, yeah, it was great to see these women together. But I was just not sure about how it painted them both as totally irrational and swayed by the power of Baby. “You kidnapped me! But right now I am concerned about my baby. Will you help me with my baby?” “I have noticed that you are going to have a baby! I will help you, with the baby! We are women. Women care about babies!” That’s how that plot line went, in my own personal head.

I have to say that I thought the appearance of Ethan was particularly well played. What do you think all of the close parallels between the two realities/timelines mean?

LAUREN: I think there is a basic set of events that were “meant” to happen that will happen to the characters in both timelines. Kate was meant to help Claire with her birth. Ethan was meant to be a part of that process. Why? No idea. One thing that was interesting was how upbeat and un-creepy this Ethan was about Claire’s birthing process. Part of what I’m looking out for this season is what other events will be a part of this structure, like, if they make further appearances, whether Charlie, Eko, Ana Lucia, and Boone were meant to die. Also, how the characters we know are affected by the removal of the effects of the island.

JILL: I think that’s about right. The writers have been clear, too, that there’s only one ending — I think each character has some sort of basic life story arc, and they cross over in a few places, and when their lives end, they end. Kate was meant to help Claire with her birth; Boone was meant to follow John; etc etc.

CARA: re: Ethan being un-creepy, I’ve just got to note that Ethan always creeps me out. Ever since his Otherness was revealed when he kidnapped Claire and Charlie, Ethan has always scared the bejesus out of me, and I have a visceral reaction to him. I mean, right after it was revealed that Amy and Horace’s baby was named Ethan I started yelling “KILL IT!!! KILL IT!!!” So him saying that he wasn’t going to hurt Claire? *shudder*

SADY: Yes! Ethan screws me the heck up, just with his face. And although I appreciated the careful parallels, and the implication that no Island = good Ethan, I also started freaking the heck out, going, “no needles! Don’t let Ethan touch you with the needles! NOOOOO, CLAIRE.” (Potential alternate title for this episode: We Disapprove of Claire’s Decisions.)

CARA: Sudden realization! If Ethan is alive and well and practicing medicine off the island, this clearly means one of two things: a) the bomb didn’t cause the split timeline, or b) somehow, the Dharma folks survived a hydrogen bomb going off, as Ethan was on the island cooing in his crib at the time. If it’s the latter, it means that Faraday most likely was born and everything is cool there. If it’s the former … wtf?

SALLY: OMG CARA! I guess this is more evidence for those who think it was something other than Jughead… which I am quickly becoming one of…

LAUREN: Didn’t they women-and-children-first most of the people off the island before the bomb went off?

CARA: They did! But I always assumed that Ethan and Amy had stayed, since Ethan outlived The Purge and went on to join the Others. It seems more likely, anyway, that he stayed than that he left and came back.

LAUREN: Very curious.

Back on the island, Sawyer is understandably distraught, and Kate is predictably unwilling to give him any space.

SALLY: I kept yelling “Kate, just STOP! Pause for a moment!”

CARA: Kate does not understand the concept of “alone time.” Poor Sawyer.

LAUREN: I was really struck by Sawyer’s loss. He and Juliet made a life together on the island, the kind of life he’d never have been able to have on the mainland, and it’s just gone. Kate’s insensitivity to this is pretty appalling.

SADY: Yeah. I also started cracking up when Sawyer told Kate that “some of us are meant to be alone.” Like, “ALONE, Kate. Get it? Meant to be ALONE, without KATE HERE? Like, maybe Kate should LEAVE these people, these people who are meant to be ALONE, so that they can be ALONE AND BY THEMSELVES????”

JILL: I still have a soft spot for Kate, and I think she and Sawyer do have similar personality types and that’s why she keeps trying to misguidedly help him — they’ve both been abandoned and they’re both used to abandoning other people, so it’s important that they’re there for each other, blah blah. But the point where I kind of wanted to slap the writers? When Sayid comes back to life and Kate says to Sawyer, “How is that even possible?” Um… remember how you’re living on an island with polar bears and smoke monsters, and you just returned from the year 1977? Yeah. I think you can suspend disbelief for a moment, sister.

Dogen, the Head Temple Other, says that Sayid has been “claimed” and wants to kill him. He also tells Jack that the same thing happened to Claire. Are we to think that this is “the sickness” that Rousseau was always talking about?

SALLY: I can’t think of anything else it could be. With this news, I firmed up two theories: 1) MIB used Christian’s body the way he’s using Locke’s and 2) when he doesn’t have a dead body to take over, part of his Smokiness gets inside wounded, near-dead people. There are some who say Claire, Sayid & Rousseau’s clan did, in fact, die, but I don’t think it’s that simple. I know Miles got shifty around Claire & Sayid, but I think it’s because he sensed something was going on, not because they were actually dead.

CARA: My theory is that if he does have the sickness, it’s because of the water in the temple. The Others remarked that the water was not clear; presumably, it turned that weird murky brown color because Jacob had died. As it’s believed, based on what happened to Rousseau’s crew, that Smokey is the cause of the sickness, it makes sense that Jacob dying and Smokey taking over did something to the water that made it go from healing to “infectious.”

SALLY: Which makes me wonder – why on earth would they dunk Sayid into the water if it’s normally clear? I mean, really, weren’t they just asking for it?!

SADY: Because they’re EVIL! Is now the appropriate time to bring up my widely-discredited “Jacob and all who follow him are EVIL” theory? Because, you guys, they were all acting really EVIL!

JILL: Maybe I’m a sucker, but I don’t think they’re evil. I mean, that John Lennon-looking guy seems pleasant enough, and the guy from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia? Kind of a dick, but not EVIL-evil. I think they might be good-ish guys, and I think Sawyer and Kate just effed it up by running.

LAUREN: Well, Jacob told them (via ankh-mail, it’s slower than e-mail but it travels through time) to keep Sayid alive, and we don’t know why yet, so I’m assuming that’s why they put him in the water without knowing whether it would work. I told you guys last week that I was really against the idea of island-zombies, and I know Hurley joked about it in the temple, a writing device Cara mentioned last week, but this is veering very close to zombie territory. I’m pretty sure that if the Others want to take care of this Sayid situation they can avoid the poison and just shoot him in the brains.

JILL: I refuse to believe that this is a zombie issue.

CARA: I also rule out zombies, in no small part because I cannot get behind any theory that involves shooting Sayid in the brains!

LAUREN: Oh c’mon, entertain me for a minute. We’ve got at least two people on the island who were dead, but are reanimated BECAUSE THEY WERE INFECTED! They even used the word “infected!” Just like every good zombie movie from the last ten years. For the record, I’d still lick Zombie Sayid.

SADY: Whatever it is, I just hope Dogen punches the crap out of Jack for being too damn pushy again. In fact, I hope it happens in every episode.

JILL: Seriously, what is with Jack’s Big Macho Man schtick of walking up to giant armed guards and demanding answers? Isn’t it a universal rule of life that when someone has a gun you do not get in their face and make demands? I hope It’s Always Sunny guy punches Jack in the face as soon as he gets back to the temple.

Out in the jungle, one of the Others says that they can’t kill Jin because he’s “one of them.” What on earth does that mean? And did Dogen save Jack’s life from the poison pill because he’s also “one of them”? Is that why he’s so insistent on all of the Losties being at the temple?

SALLY: I think there’s definitely meant to be something special about the Losties. Maybe they’re supposed to stop MIB from taking over? That’s all I’ve got…

LAUREN: Dogen did make some cryptic comments to Jack about “being brought” to the island for some greater purpose, and when Jack denied knowledge of this, Dogen insisted that Jack knew exactly what he meant. Someone needed to call Jack out on his constant denial. His higher purpose is what motivated Jack to bring everyone back to the island — we know they are there for a reason, but I can’t figure out what that reason is. Jacob was really cryptic about this before his death, too, only saying that everything up to “the end” was “progress.” Are they meant to save something physical, like a person or the island itself, or is it something more esoteric, like saving themselves? Are we progressing toward a desired outcome for all, or will there be clear winners and losers?

CARA: It’s possible that the Losties were the “they” that Jacob was referring to as he died and said “they’re coming.” The obvious conclusion is that he meant Ilana and her people, but Smokey didn’t seem too put out by them at all, and he did seem very displeased with the prospect of whoever Jacob was referring to. This is of course just a guess; both of these comments were extremely cryptic, and I think it’s possible that they’re related.

And lastly: CLAIRE! She’s not only back, she’s the new Rousseau!

SALLY: I’d like to say that I WAS RIGHT! CLAIRE IS ALIVE BUT UNDER A SPELL! Granted, I said it was a Christian-induced trance, but if my theories above are correct, then I wasn’t that far off because both Christian and Smokey are MIB.

LAUREN: For all the filler in this episode, I think this was the one satisfying thing. The small explanation about what happened to Claire answered so many questions I had about Rousseau’s life on the island and why she was the way she was. It’s ironic, too, that Sayid, who had such a complicated relationship with Rousseau, may be facing her same fate.

JILL: Yes, the end with Claire was glorious. The Rousseau connection is perfect — what with the baby-stealing and the dirty hair and whatnot. I’m also interested to see when we get back to the whole “a psychic told me I had to raise my baby myself” thing with Claire — what happens if she doesn’t raise the baby herself? But if Claire has the sickness, does that mean Rousseau was sick too? I thought she killed her crew because they were sick but she wasn’t. I’m confused.

LAUREN: Rousseau talked about her crew getting “sick”, and during one of the flashbacks last season, Jin (I believe) witnessed her shooting the last of her crew because they were “sick” too. It adds another layer of irony that Rousseau was sick herself, and that the Oceanic team was following around and taking direction from someone who was really, truly unwell, not just an eccentric, loner island lady.

CARA: I don’t think that Rousseau was sick. I’d always assumed that the reason she was not sick was the fact that Jin kept her from going underneath the temple into Smokey’s lair. If Claire is actually sick, I don’t think that her living out in the jungle is a symptom of that. But hey, I could be wrong. I mean, it’s LOST, right?

SALLY: I’m with Cara, I don’t think Rousseau was sick – she couldn’t fit that pregnant belly down that hole.

LAUREN: I’m totally open to criticism on this one, but I thought that because Claire and Rousseau’s jungle habits are virtually identical, because there is clearly a before and after with Claire’s behavior, and this is related in some way to the “sickness” because it’s such a distinct pattern. And you know what? I feel like I know what I’m seeing, and then you all have to point out what show I’m watching. Thanks.

SALLY: Maybe this is supposed to make us think that Claire isn’t actually sick. Maybe there was another way to get the Smokiness out of her heart and she did that? I think the real key to this is to figure out why Claire is alone in the first place. Did she skip through time with the others? Did Christian abandon her once Flocke was on the island (we still don’t know if he can be in two places at once)?

CARA: Well, I’m sure they’ll answer all these questions and more … by the time the series is over. Maybe!

After deliberating for 37 minutes, a jury has found Scott Roeder, the murderer of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, guilty as charged. He now faces a mandatory life sentence with consideration for parole after 25 years. The prosecution is aiming for 50 years without parole.

Dr. Tiller is still dead, and abortion providers and clinic workers are still living in fear, so it’s a little difficult for me to celebrate in a moment like this. But what I do feel is intense relief.

Consider this an open thread.

This is a guest-post by Eva Sweeney.

“Nice shoes!” “Great smile!” “You have pretty eyes!” Those are the kinds of compliments I get on a regular basis and they are wonderful. However, people never comment on my body. You might be thinking- as a woman, wouldn’t you be offended if someone came up to you and commented on your body? “Nice tits!” I would be offended by that. However, one little piece of information you should know is that I’m “severely disabled”. I have Cerebral Palsy (CP) and I use a wheelchair to get around. CP has influenced the way I developed physically. My muscles continually spasm and I have little control over my arm and leg movements. I definitely view myself as sexy and attractive. But other people are either afraid to look or think they shouldn’t comment on my body because it’s “broken”.

I am in no way condoning cat-calling. I definitely think that cat-calling is sexual harassment (and can be the beginning of sexual assault) and is a big reason that women don’t feel safe in their own neighborhood. That being said, my body is never the topic of conversation, eye-gaze, or interest with adults I have just met. My girlfriends have definitely been “interested” in that topic, but that’s after we got to know each other. I don’t want to be cat called. But I don’t mind people asking me questions about my body or flirting with me if we are having a nice conversation. Even something as benign as “I like your shirt, where did you get it?” would show me that they notice my body and aren’t afraid of it. People are conditioned to think that people with disabilities hate their bodies. They think they shouldn’t bring it up because they think it will offend me or remind me that I’m gross. The lack of attractive people with disabilities (and I define attractive as an attitude versus some standard of beauty) on TV, in movies, and in pop culture reinforces that stereotype.

Adults are afraid to ask me questions about my body. Again, they think it will remind me of the “hideousness” or it’s a taboo topic. One example of how uncomfortable my body makes some people is when I go to the sauna. Like every other female in the sauna, I go completely nude. And even though we are all there stark naked together, some of the women keep staring at me and I guarantee its not because they were checking me out. Because my body looks different, they have to look. And I wouldn’t mind them looking, except that their gaze says “Oh my god, what a weirdo. Doesn’t she know what her body looks like?”

Kids, on the other hand, will just come right up to me in public and say “why are your legs like that?” One little girl asked me, “Why are you in an armor chair?” I think that’s great because after I explain, kids are usually like “Cool!” and proceed to talk to me about other things. Their parents on the other hand, usually yell at them for asking such a “rude” question. I honestly wish that more adults would just come up and ask questions because then they might actually see that I’m attractive, intelligent, and disabled too. I know that some people would think that’s intrusive and this is just my opinion, but I’m totally cool with adults just saying “So tell me about your disability.” I am happy to answer any questions, even the “silly”ones. It all helps them understand something significant about me and it’s much more interesting than “Nice weather, eh?” Ignoring my body cuts out a huge section of who I am. And because people don’t want to learn or ask questions, they don’t get to know who the whole Eva is.

____________________________
Eva Sweeney is a 26-year-old college graduate. She majored in gender studies. She recently started The Deal with Disability (http://thedealwithdisability.blogspot.com/) which gives accounts of her daily life as a person with Cerebral Palsy. Her other hobbies are photography, creative writing, and painting.