Eh. I don't get Stana Katic on Castle. She's beautiful, but her character is pretty uninteresting and clearly written by men to appeal to other men. Unfortunately she is not a talented enough actress to make something more out of what she's given. Beckett also constantly objectifies her own self on the show, which is weird. "Oh yeah Castle I was involved with art in college." Was she painting or studying art history or doing something else worthwhile? Nope. Try again. "I was a nude model!" And then she gives Castle a knowing look while he fantasizes. Oy. Also, 5 inch heels at a crime scene. As if a real lady cop would ever do such a thing. Personally, I watch the show for Captain Malcolm Reynolds and his awesome soap-star mom.

I'm trying to get DistantThunder to clarify what he/she (I'm assuming he) meant. It sounds to me like he's saying the movies show that women are inherently valuable ONLY as companions to men, but not in any other arena, and he agrees with that portrayal. I'm hoping that I've misunderstood what he's saying and he doesn't actually have such bizarre beliefs. Relationships between human beings are, of course, important, but the one presented in Twilight is fundamentally flawed. Bella is completely passive; she exists only to please Edward. That is not a quality to be admired by anyone. If she had other relationships aside from her one with Edward (family, friends, school, work, hobbies) like a normal and productive human being, I wouldn't have such a problem with her character or the books/movies as a whole. There's nothing wrong with true love, but it's weird as hell for a woman in this day and age to literally center her entire life around a creepy, stalker-ish, 100-year-old, sparkly vampire creep.

Master and Commander is bad-ass. Also, on-screen at least, Russell Crowe is always real man, not a sparkly, broody loser like RPattz. Though RPattz was, admittedly, very cute as Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter. Bet he misses being in a good franchise.

So...women are only valuable as companions for men?

This article is ridiculous. Twilight is a horrible franchise, and it makes me shudder to think some young girls actually look to Bella as ANY kind of role model, let alone a "conservative" one. By the way, I would agree with you that her refusal to give up her virginity willy nilly is admirable, but that wasn't her choice at all. I'm sorry to say I read those silly books, and she was practically begging Edward to have sex with her the whole series. He's the one who made them wait (probably because he isn't really that into women *cough*), and only because he "might kill her" while they were getting it on. That was another part of the book/film that disgusted me: she wakes up with a broken bed, feathers everywhere, and bruises on her body, and that's supposed to be romantic. Sounds abusive to me. Also, being pregnant with a demon child that will probably kill you and go on a murderous rampage is one of the few times I'd actually agree with abortion, even if it did work out in the end. On the family values thing, she also essentially chooses to GIVE UP her family forever for a creepy stalker. How the heck is that admirable? Like a typical idiot teenager, she also engages in dangerous activity and then lies to her parents about it.

And what the hell marrying at 18. Is that really what we're telling young women to do now? Excuse me for being cynical, but I really doubt that most 18-year-olds are qualified to say that they've "found the love of their life" at that age. Sure, if someone did do that very thing and wind up happy, good for them. But that's not really an "example" we should be telling young women to follow. Bella should have friggin gone to college and maybe found her soul mate in grad school or at work once she'd had some time to be independent and figure out what she wanted. To me, the mainstay of conservative thought is a belief in the power of the individual. Bella is NOT an individual. She has no personality, no friends, a weird (at best) relationship with her parents, no interesting life-goals, and defines herself solely by what her boyfriend thinks and does. Her example should never be emulated.

This article just perfectly encompasses the archaic beliefs about women that liberals (usually erroneously) accuse conservatives of having. Ugh.

The ability to put on something as elaborate as the Hunger Games in addition to violently killing innocents is a far better way to demonstrate power and absolute control than just shooting someone. This is the most obvious connection, but the same philosophy applied in ancient Rome with gladiatorial combat. Sure, having some Christians quickly lined up and executed sends a message, but forcing them to reenact complex mythological/historical scenes only to be violently torn apart by lions in front of thousands of other citizens REALLY sends a message. It also keeps the more privileged masses (who wouldn't really see the participants in the games as real humans) entertained and happy. It's like in the movie Gladiator when the senators are talking about how Rome is "the mob," and the one who controls the mob's emotions ultimately has the power.

Well, it would make sense to use all British actors in Harry Potter given that it takes place in England and all the characters happen to BE British. Also, American actors typically seem to have a harder time with British accents than British actors have with American accents. And had they included American actors, I feel a lot of really annoying casting choices would have been made. I don't think any of us would have wanted to see Haley Joel Osment as Harry Potter, right?

I also read a fascinating article one time about why British and Australian actors (Christian Bale, Russell Crowe, etc.) have been given the more traditionally masculine roles in the past 10 years. According to a successful acting instructor, the Brits and Aussies are still trained to act in a very traditional way. They're supposed to have a strong, manly presence and give the appearance of being unyielding when it comes to their characters' convictions (whatever they are). In Hollywood, actors are being taught the opposite. Being weaker and more indecisive is what they think will gain audience sympathy. Hence all the girly actors that everyone is getting tired of.

My two favorites are probably Gladiator and the Harry Potter books and films.

In Gladiator, an individual (Maximus) risks everything to stand up for his belief in freedom and democracy. Family and religion are also clearly important to him. His belief in the afterlife isn't mocked or made to seem backwards, the audience is right there with him. Maximus is an old fashioned hero, a brave and moral man. A lot of critics took this on, saying that such an unflawed character is unrealistic. They're full of it. Also, though the audience pities Commodus (he obviously wasn't hugged enough as a child), it is still clear that he is essentially a cowardly douchebag, and no amount of support from his father or love from his sister (gross!) could have changed that.

What makes Harry Potter one of the most conservative works of fiction to me is the fact that Harry was able to rise above his circumstances. He was orphaned, raised by his abusive relatives, lost several close friends and surrogate father figures, and, was, simply put, a "marked man." But through all the hardships, he was still able to love, have faith in others, and do the right thing. I love the fact that J.K. Rowling made his and Voldemort's histories so similar. It shows that, no matter what life throws at them, people can still make the decision to be good if they are so inclined. Society and circumstance, though they can affect a person, don't ultimately decide who he will become. Voldemort isn't invulnerable or 2 dimensional, but it is still made clear that he is irredeemably evil.