In introducing my comments below, I will make mention of having once walked into my living room, to catch the following segment of a television sitcom:

A group of teenagers - one Girl, two Boys, are located in a room with a fireplace. Girl chats animatedly with mumbling and awkward-seeming Boys, then turns away to sink down to her haunches, and busy herself with something in the fireplace. While in that position, the two suddenly-animated Boys have a quick whispered chat...complete with canned audience-laugher ratcheting up delightedly in background.

Then suddenly, one Boy snatches a Fire Poker from its canister, lurches forward and proceeds to - surreptitiously, HOOK-AND-TUG THE STOOPING GIRL'S G-STRING PANTY UPWARDS FROM WHERE IT COULD BE SEEN AT THE TOP OF HER DROOPED JEANS.

I don't know what happened next - well, actually I do, but only the immediate portion: the girl whips up and around, the Boy drops the poker and steps backward to stand in half-smirking, half-stunned mock-bemusement by Boy No. 2...while the canned audience laughter rises to a roaring crescendo. It was at this point that my remote control took a hint from my scandalised sensibilities.

However, I can still clearly recall - then as now, being SICKENED by the ARRANT & STUNNINGLY ARBITRARY FEMININE-DEHUMANISATION within that scene: it was almost like: "see a Woman's Dody? Use a Woman's body!"

I can also recall quite clearly now, as I did then, wondering about the CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THAT SCENE WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRST RELAYED TO THE GIRL-ACTOR. HOW DID THE DIRECTOR "EXPLAIN" TO HER WHAT HE WANTED HER TO DO? DID SHE JUST NOD EXCITEDLY AND SAY..."OKAY; YES - I GET IT…."

However, the FUNDAMENTAL Question that will always remain UN-ANSWERED for me is...WHY DID THAT GIRL - AND ALL THE WOMEN WHO DUTIFULLY NOD IN AGREEMENT TO THEIR DIRECTOR'S SICKENINGLY DE-HUMANISING DIRECTIVES...ACCEPT SUCH SCENES IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I am always a little leery of interrogating such fundamentally people-based, yet ideology-intellectualised concepts as "Popular Culture.”

For, despite the fact of Culture – good or bad, existing only because of, and at the behest of HUMAN THOUGHT and ACTION, such concepts tend to morph uselessly into the philosophical, as such dangerously disregarding the HUMAN MIND and HAND that provides the impetus – nay, THE LIFE AND BEING of what is essentially only an amorphous concept.

In avoiding this trap, I want to draw attention here - NOT to that lie piously termed THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN MOVIES/FILM, but more honestly: THE ROLES THAT WOMEN UNDERTAKE IN MOVIES/FILMS.

For therein lies the discarded Key that subsequently helps to unlock all of the sexual objectification, savage de-humanisation and general gender-humiliation that women open themselves up to suffering when they undertake certain roles within films.

To exemplify: no matter how stunningly obvious industry personnel like Jerry Bruckheimer’s misogynistic agenda is, as a television producer of such shows as CSI, Women actors – whether inadvertently or deliberately, choose not to see his own calculated, relentless and systematic and Vilification of Women’s HUMAN-NESS. Instead, they would probably kill for what they sadly consider to be “choice” female character roles within his productions.

This same conundrum applies where screen writer Mark Cherry is concerned: namely, within such revealingly-NAMED films as DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, women ALLOW themselves to be FALSELY “REVEALED” as, and ESSENTIALLY thereafter REMAIN to be, nothing more than just Sick, Silly, Slutty and otherwise Humanity-Warped Pawns.

All this because of two men's determination to foster a psychologically false "take" on BLAMING WOMEN FOR THE EVILS PERPETUATED ON HER BY MEN, via the many nauseatingly-obvious FALSE, yet relentlessly proffered scenarios conjured up by Mr. Cherry, in cunningly depicting his NEW-AGE PANTHEON OF PERFECT BUT PREVIOUSLY MISUNDERSTOOD-MEN, ALL WISTFULLY WISHING FOR, OR MANFULLY STRIVING FOR NOTHING MORE SINISTER THAN TO "HELP" WOMEN BE BETTER-HELPMEETS WORTHY TO SHARE THEIR IDYLLIC LIVES...as Whores, Toys and Fools.

As a Psychology graduate turned Hollywood producer, Cherry's counterpart Jerry Bruckheimer, no doubt considers himself well-placed academically to further his similarly misogynistic agenda.

For – much like a Machiavellian Fisherman, Bruckheimer nightly, and with liberal abandon, casts forth his myriad “CSI” scenes of dead women’s faces leaning against toilet seats… or: female child rapists, etc.; all in the hopes of netting a New and hopefully Global Mindset (…Mind-Twist..?) wherein WOMEN ARE ‘REVEALED” TO BE THE REAL BAD-GUYS within his new and rarified version of the Ol’ Man’s World. One where it is WOMEN – not really Men, who – despite, as Dixie Carter drawled in-character as Julia Sugarbaker in one memorable scene of Designing Women: are doing all the rapin’ and the killin’ and general war-mongerin’…SOMEHOW can still have a mock, mocking and mocked-up “Case of MORAL LEGITIMACY” presented by their BROTHERS on their behalf. A Case to be made ostensibly within Humanity’s Court; one that seeks to hide both their Bloodied Minds and Hands well away from the searching cinematic glare that is supposed to “reveal” Humanity’s Real Life; shining instead its unsparingly-FALSE "Light of Truth" - with much censorious MALICE - down upon Women as “true” Culprit.

No big surprise here, really. For whether one reads the CREATION STORY as told in the Christian Bible as religious Fact or historical allegory, ADAM – in his symbolic position as FIRST CREATED MAN, apparently got his FELLOW-MEN off to much the same cowardly cunning start.

For, according to the same scriptures that characterises AFTER-THOUGHT EVE (…besides being born to become Adams HELPMEET, of course …!) as EVIL DESTROYER OF MAN’S EARTHLY PARADISE –THEN, AS NOW, it would however be ADAM AS FIRST-MAN who, having taken and eaten OF HIS OWN VOLITION The Forbidden Fruit, when called to account by God for his DELIBERATE CRIME OF DISOBEDIENCE, would nonetheless attempt to DEFLECT BLAME FROM HIMSELF FOR HIS CRIME, BY SPREADING THE CULPABILITY AROUND, namely: “IT WAS NOT ME LORD, BUT THIS WOMAN, WHICH YOU GAVE ME. “ In other words, MAN – from times immemorial, and despite whatever stench of blood befouls the very air into which he breathes his cowardly LIE, seeks – nay STRIVES to blame others – WOMEN AS PRIMIER CHOICE, for HIS OWN MISDEEDS.

So that when we look at the two – most recent, examples of MALE TELEVISION PRODUCERS / SCRIPWRITERS who are – like their FATHER ADAM BEFORE THEM, seeking contemporarily to DESTROY BY RE-CREATING WOMEN IN LESS THAN A FAVOURABLE IMAGE, this is nothing new.

However - and ages-old misogyny aside, WOMEN-ACTORS PERSONAL CULPABILITY remain extant, by dint of their own complicitness in self-destructively “PLAYING THE ROLE OV VILLAINESS,” within a CALCULATED MALE AGENDA operating sinisterly under the pseudo-innocuous guise of "POPULAR CULTURE/ENTERTAINMENT," that nonetheless sets out to destroy WOMAN’S VERY CLAIM TO HUMANITY - and consequently and very effectively thereafter, NULLIFY AND ENEGATE ALL OF HER OTHER INALIENABLE FEMININE RIGHTS.

Maybe – although this is no excuse: these Women Actors are too busy building their outwardly flourishing, but inwardly cancerous “bodies of work” as competitive artists, to care overmuch about their -and other Women's Lives, after the Director yells "CUT!"

Either that, or they are - just as dangerously, placing too much faith in that old CINEMATIC FAIL-SAFE of: ‘EVERYTHING COMING RIGHT IN THE END.”

They must – unlike Cherry ‘n Jerry, reason that since REAL LIFE – and not some dreamed-up MALE PLOT, presents its own TRUE HISTORICAL AND YET-CONTEMPORARY PANTHEON OF A PREPONDERANCE OF MALE-CRIMINALS, there is little to be worried about in providing, as requested as "part of the Job," the odd Warm Female Body to operate as Dead Feminine-Soul in accordance with this scripted agenda.

Hmmm...but what is that saying again - the one about LIFE IMITATING ART....?