SPOILERS!
I know that Mrs. Maisel in general and L. Roy Dunham in particular have been talked about here and here already, but the way they've treated him compared with Susie has been so profoundly different that I can't help but be irked at the hypocrisy.
In nearly every episode this season, someone calls Susie "sir" or "mister" or assumes that she's male (even though she's obviously not male, as Mr. Weissman points out very early in the show). It's always played off as a gag or a joke, and "haha, everyone thinks this tiny, diminutive woman is a man because she's wearing masculine clothing!" No one seems to mind, least of all Susie.
Enter L. Roy Dunham, a giant, obviously male TIM with enormous man-hands, a deep male voice, and male mannerisms (as well as all the other classically male behavior) -- and he's treated as a woman. Even when Mrs. Maisel asks him, "You've always been a woman?" It's obvious he's male. We all have eyes. We can all SEE that he's a man. But no one is going to "misgender" him the way everyone, literally everyone, misidentifies Susie because we all know the truth about him -- and pointing it out isn't funny.
Maybe what irks me the most, though, is how this season seems like it's trying to focus really hard on "girl power" or something, with all the women in the burlesque rallying around Miriam and the changes she's made, with more women going to the burlesque and ridding it of its gross man-pee smell and making it more of an entertainment venue than a seedy sex show, with Susie being Susie (I freaking love Susie), with even awful Sophie pointing out that women have to stick together ...
All the jokes in the world about Susie being a man, but we've got an actual, literal man playing this vicious journalist who's crapping all over an actual woman to get ahead in his career ...
I’m a believer in the substitution hypothesis ie that humanity is predisposed for some sort of religious belief (or need to believe in something bigger in ourselves that we can share with others) and if no religion is available something else will take its place which will be given the same devotion and need to proselytise and inspire destructive impulses. Soviet communism and Maoism are examples as is the TRA cult. I think organised religion is almost a necessity (in evolutionary, psychological, and sociological terms) in civilisations where living in groups of more than 150 is the norm as it’s a common bond and reference point that can tie a community together. If it’s not organised religion it’ll be something else and so far the ‘something elses’ are more horrifying.
Agree