#succ meta

[reasoncourt]

the thing about Shiv is that she will only feel secure in a relationship if she’s the dominant one but - at the same time - she won’t respect people who are submissive to her. When she married tom, she felt secure but she didn’t really respect him - she didn’t see him as an equal. Now that he sold her out to Logan, she’ll respect him but she won’t ever feel secure with him again.

[mackliin]

Greg's "Wealth"

i wanted to put the numbers down on paper in case anyone was curious how much cash greg actually has on hand, because it's way less than i think a lot of people are assuming:

as tom's assistant, there's no WAY greg's making more than $150k, and more likely he's making ~$125k or less. when tom promotes him to chief of staff in 2.04, he says he'll make "tons more money" which, for greg, probably works out to ~50k more. $200k is the absolute top of the chart maximum for how much greg could be making as tom's chief of staff. that's already infringing on typical executive salary ranges, so that's MORE than generous for a chief of staff.

which means: even if you assume greg starts making $150k IMMEDIATELY, the absolute maximum he could possibly have on hand by the end of s3 is still less than $20k. Also note that this is factoring in the barest minimum of expenses (so no phone bill, no medical, no subscriptions, no surprise expenses, no more than $200 a month on clothes to fit this new lifestyle which is absolutely being supplemented by tom. there's no fucking way he'd have the clothes he does, otherwise, and an honestly unrealistically cheap hostel cost) AND isn't factoring in the fact that it sounds like (in 1.09) greg cleared some of his mom's debts too, which i would estimate at at least $10k.

WHICH MEANS: by the end of s3, greg probably has credit card debt of his own, and only a couple thousand in cash on hand (if any). kendall backing him into buying that $40k watch for himself absolutely wiped greg out, financially, and if kendall kicks him out of his free housing situation in s4, greg will have to go to tom for help.

[cuzngreglovebot]

hi for the love of god hello

edit: btw the last part is about the kiss tom gives shiv in the finale!!!!

[sunflowerdigs]

Shiv and Gerri and Generational Takes on Misogyny

I wrote up a comment on Reddit and was pretty proud of it, so I thought I'd share it here as well. Partially under the cut to protect your dash from length!

It's interesting to watch both Shiv and Gerri deal with corporate misogyny because, although they come at it from different generational perspectives, their sense of other women vs themselves is very similar. Gerri came up in an era where female sexuality wasn't as widely acknowledged or discussed, particularly in corporate. Being "one of the boys" in the office was encouraged. It's reflected a lot in her clothing, which, even when colorful, is very conservative and neat (hair styled, no bare legs or arms). Gerri avoids "mess" altogether and, when we meet her, has managed to erase almost all traces of sex and sexuality from her office persona. It's telling that they were easily able to switch her character from a man to a woman.

Shiv, on the other hand, has come up in a time when weaponized femininity has been applied to office environments, and women have been encouraged to be more feminine and flirtatious in presentation. There's this idea that a smart woman can wield her sexuality to her advantage at her job without the "mess" backfiring on her, and we see that with Shiv and Nate. We see it less at WR because Shiv is trying to play daddy's little girl, but even so, if you compare what Shiv and Gerri wear in that confrontation at the end of 3x08, it's like night and day. Shiv consciously participates where Gerri tries not to tread at all.

At the end of the day, though, both attitudes are similar in that they put the onus on the woman to avoid sexual harassment from men. In a way, Shiv makes it harder for herself because she actually participates in the game thinking that she can win when she can't. Gerri doesn't participate, however, in not participating I think she managed to delude herself into thinking that she wasn't even in the game, which wasn't true (thanks, Roman). Because this is a truth about rape culture (US culture) - women have no say in whether they're in the game or not, and participating or not participating doesn't guarantee safety. Women, no matter their prestige or degrees, are still objects to be used and then discarded sexually, and no matter if they participate or don't, they are always blamed for whatever befalls them because of a man's attention (even an impotent man, like Roman).

It kills me so much that one dick pic annihilated 30 years of succesful legal counsel. In 30 seconds Gerri went from being the most loyal to a bag of piss. And Shiv was an accomplice because she isn't able to see the similarities in their positions yet (ironically, since I think you can see a little of Gerri's influence in her). Much like the women on the cruises (who flaunted their sexuality in front of men) were "those women" to Gerri, poor old un-hip fuddy-duddy Gerri (who is unable to weaponize her sexuality properly) is one of "those women" for Shiv. And as for Shiv...I wonder whether she'll end up being one of "those women" for Jess (or a Gil intern).

Additionally, I'm curious about whether there's something similar going on with Willa and Marcia (different generations of women seeing their role differently). Idk, I've got more to say on this topic but that may be a different meta for a different day.

[toms-gregxit]

i just need to say that the way some people portray greg and tom is way out of left field!! greg, who is hapless and lost most of the time, while still being a devious little fcker that tries to get ahead in the game.. that's greg! the guy that tries to make himself smaller, not just to earn sympathy and gain trust but because he is a genuinely timid and naturally submissive guy. he couldn't pick up a desk either, btw!

meanwhile tom is aggressive, full of showmanship. he likes to be in control, at least when it comes to greg, and yes we have seen this dynamic shift and waver as their relationship has been altered, but at his core, tom still needs to be needed. he craves that validation that he's important to someone, that he's giving them what they need. he's a caretaker, really; it sorta comes natural to him, i think.. also, he's decently strong (at least stronger than greg)!

I think it would be nice if this were explored more when people were writing about the characters, as opposed to shaping them to fit into a narrative that isn't them at all!

[kimwexlers-brownhair]

I want to know so much more about Sally-Anne. I feel like we get two very different takes on her. First Gerri seems almost dismissive of her when Roman compares his dad’s fixation on Rhea to when he “bought that chick a harp”. But then we have Karl referring to the “black cloud” after Sally-Anne as one of the biggest catastrophes the company ever faced.

Even though they share the same name, I’m not sold the interviewer in Argestes is the Sally-Anne. Logan doesn’t seem affected seeing her and is instead totally preoccupied with Nan. Logan’s kind of a tempestuous whore; I don’t think he wouldn’t react to the person who left a “black cloud” in her wake. So is she someone else and the writers got lazy with names for minor characters? And is Gerri downplaying Sally-Anne’s significance to better convince Roman that Rhea’s a threat?

Oh god… or what if the black cloud was Sally-Anne trying to file a sexual harrassment claim or restraining order back then? And Logan was so embarrassed (because what an ego slap to know that Sally-Anne didn’t think his gifts of horses and harps were worth getting propositioned repeatedly) that he doesn’t even let Gerri in on it. Only the closest scumbags in his life help him get rid of it: Karl, Frank, Laird. Colin.

Whether you think he loves his kids or not, it’s plain that’s not something he’d ever want them to know. With the boys it’s a show of weakness, of being so aggressively unattractive and monstrous to a woman that she’d take that step. And with Shiv, I do think there is actual shame involved. Just like he wants to convince Roman and himself that he’s not the kind of man who’d strike his son, I think he’s desperate Shiv think he’d never harass or hurt a woman. "You’ll never find anything in those emails that makes you ashamed of me.” He’s a good “Catholic boy”, all those other animals stepped out of line with women. Never him. He’s not that kind of man.

I want to know moooore.

[reasoncourt]

i love caroline as a character because she's like "these kids are awful! who raised them? who did that?" and it's like - you did, Caroline. you raised them. and she goes "NO, actually, i didn't raise them. LOGAN (read: the au pair logan hired (read: frank)) raised them. i left them. and i did it when the youngest was 13 and practically middle aged, mind you. so i'm not responsible for that".

and i really do think her worldview revolves around a core belief that she never really did anything wrong to those kids because she never really did anything. but leaving is an action and turning a blind eye is an action and inaction itself is an action. but she really thinks that if she's non-confrontational and if she doesn't win any fights because she lies down and refuses to engage with anything difficult then she can avoid any and all culpability. like she REALLY believes that. and also i think she thinks that lying down and taking it was the difficult thing to do because you can see how much she resents the fact that she doesn't think she's ever won a fight in her life. that constant sense of losing eroded something in her. but i don't think she ever fought in the first place is the thing.

[reasoncourt]

The thing about the way the Roy siblings were raised is that they have no boundaries in their interpersonal relationships. Nothing is too far, nothing crosses the line, nothing is unforgivable. They’ve adopted that attitude in their actions towards other people just as much as they’ve adopted it in their reactions to other people’s actions towards them. The major issue with that is that they confuse a lacking of boundaries with unconditional love and the upshot is that it becomes easy to think no one else will love them like their family loves them. No one else will accept them like their family accepts them. Their family are the only ones who will let them cross every line and, in return, they’ll let their family cross every line right back. A lacking of boundaries, though, isn’t acceptance and it’s not unconditional love (at least not a healthy kind), it’s literally just a lacking of boundaries.