So far, this TV season seems to be the year of female empowerment. Each female character must now show that she is both the mental and physical equal of every other male character. For example, in the new show “Blindspot”, the female protagonist, “Jaimie Alexander” cant JUST be a woman stranded alone in TImes Square who suffers complete amnesia. No, she also must posess kick-ass fight skills on par with a super-hero. Sure, she forgot who her mom was or her favorite color but she conveniently remembers how whip the asses of two martial arts experts in record time. She’s quirky that way. So, don’t ever make fun of her inability to name all the Beatles because “mama don’t like when you make fun of her brainy wainy”.

This season will also introduce a new version of “Supergirl” to the viewing public. It goes without saying that she’ll be insanely strong and fast but the shows producers may also have to work at tempering her physical prowess with an equally feminine side to be more pallatable to middle America.. So, expect her to whip out a few verses from the poems of Emily Dickinson, as she’s mercilessly bashing a thiefs skull in. While she’s not in leotards and cape, watch her to don a frumpy robe and pig-out on Mallomars as she binge watches The Bachelor from her couch.

Similarly, shows like “Limitless” and “Quantico” will now introduce kick ass female fbi agens (aren’t all FBI Agents kick-ass though?) and “The Blacklist” has even promoted FBI Agent, Elizabeth Keen to fugitive FBI Agent, Elizabeth Keen so that she can-like a cornered animal- prove even more formidable when attacked.

Like most trends, It won’t be long before this years female empowerment theme spills over into politics. conveniently, this year we have two women running for the top political office in the land. (incidentally 2 women is not that many as the crow flies, but two more than usual). With Clinton and Fiorina vying for top banana, enterprising Execs might come up with the brilliant idea to pitt them against eachother and their male counterparts in some sort of televised cagematch. So, in one match Fiorina might be forced to lock horns with Chris Christie (this match will no doubt be sponsored by planned parenthood). Hilary Clinton may not be able to hide-like she did her classified emails- from the agressive counterpunches of Donald Trump in their anticipated match-up.

With the rise of the strong female protagonist in the recent slew of shows comes the inevitable demise or “demasculation” of the strong, take-charge, male protagonist. The male stalwarts of many of today’s dramas have been sidelined to be house husbands (Secretary Of State), riding a desk, or in some thankless managerial position where their sole task seems to be to shout bitterly at their female kick-ass subordinates to “Just go by the book, damnit!”

When Donald Trump made his controversial jab at fellow Republican Candidate Carly Fiorina, “Look at that face…Would anyone vote for that?!” it was considered a low, below the belt comment. It was considered below the belt because candidates should be judged on their accomplishments, not looks and also misogynistic because women’s looks are typically prized more than men’s and Trump was simply parroting that same old frat-house mentality.

Trump should not have said the comment. It was “ugly”. However, that doesn’t mean that a lot of the people in the audience weren’t thinking the same exact thing. In many households across America, it was not on politicians stand on issues but it was the superficial: how poised they looked, how snappy they dressed, how unflappable they were in the face of criticism, how snappy their comebacks were. The famous Kennedy/Nixon Debate illustrates how powerful the visual image is on TV. Nixon (sweaty beady eyed) Kennedy (polished, tan, unsweaty). Truth is Fiorina does look like she’s had a lot of work done…also Trump has bad hair, Christie is fat and Fred Flintstone-ish, Bush (looks like a Mr Potato-head version of his brother) etc. When the TV Camera was on them, all their faults, including their sweatiness, facial tics, were highly magnified.

People say that they vote on issues not looks. But, what if Harrison Ford was standing on the podium, how many women in the audience would be that critical on his stand on illegal immigration? if Jessica Alba was a hard-liner against Planned Parenthood how many men would raise up their hands-not to land dates-but to disagree?

True appearance, most would argue, is not as important in politics since our politicians have a heavy influence over our quality of life in the same way that doctors and accountants are in charge of our money and health. So, they don’t have to be hot just good.

However, its different with the president. we have look at the president all the time: CNN, state of union, debates, adresses etc. and ugliness is hard to take for long periods of time. For example, I know lots of people who wont watch any show with Jay Leno or Steve Buscemi regardless of their talent. Paul Giamatti has to act his pants off in every role just to get work in the next.

Most would say they value experience and character over looks because they find it hard to admit that they could be superficial with such an important decision. I think in a lot of cases, its a more close contest. If Look at the last 6 or 7 political match-offs. The more attractive, dapper candidate in 9 out of 10 cases wins. You call it a coincidence, say they had other positive qualities that also went into the decision etc. But good looking people are always getting brownie points for things they don’t deserve…avoiding parking tickets, getting free food, skipping lines etc. If one day you are walking down the street and see two women are arguing on the street,who do you think is right? yep.. the better looking one. Sure…of course she’s the one that’s right.

In Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream” the character, Lysandra famously says, “The course of true love never did run smooth”. The Hollywood Romantic comedy takes this statement and takes it to ridiculous extremes: A botched wedding ceremony.

The climax of most romantic comedies is the obligatory wedding scene toward the end. The music swells, the couple makes the famous march down the aisle, and the preacher/rabbi begins the familiar oath. Yet, for some reason, the film-makers inevitably take this moment to get “real” and steer the wedding violently off its tracks. The groom puts his hand up to stay “stop” andmay awkwardly confess a former infidelity, the bride may counter with a former pregnancy, or even a third party may dramatically interupt (like Patrick Dempsty did in Maid Of Honor) and gallop in on horseback to stop the wedding.

What usually follows the interuption is a series of avowals by the bride and groom, a hashing out of their true feelings toward one another, and with a few stammers or a few awkward silences later, they resolve things in perfect unity and, in the end, decide either to proceed with the wedding or to go their separate ways. This is, of course, all good for the couple…clearing the air has given them the understanding and closure they have never had before. They sigh contentedly. In complete harmony. It does, though, happen to suck for the rest of the wedding party.

The bridal party in a romcom is treated like collateral damage. (examples are: The Wedding Crashers, The Proposal, “While You Were Sleeping”, ” 4 weddings and a funeral”, and the grandfather of all wedding interruption movies, The Graduate “Elaine!!!!” Elaine!!!) Guests must sit in the wedding hall quietly, Like stunned animals, watching helplessly as the bride and groom grapple with the supposed finality of the phrase “I Do”. But “aunt Irma” and “Cousin Jessie” probably had to take off work, buy plain tickets, hotel reservations, and expensive flatware in order to be spectators at this fiasco. They should be steaming mad. The bridal couple had all the time in the world to resolve their feelings. Nowadays with the internet, everyone is so eager to instantly express their feelings on Facebook and Twitter, Guests should be wondering why couldn’t this couple at least virtually “Get it together” before the ceremony.

Of course the romcom doesn’t deal with the emotional/financial fallout of wedding guests. That would be too time consuming and messy. it’s a film after all and the supporting players don’t really have feelings or lives. If we are lucky maybe the jilted bride or father of the bride may punch somebody in the face for putting them through the ordeal but for the rest of the 199 guests are expected to just dissapear; go back to their dreary un-cinematically interesting lives.

But where is the emotional payoff for the wedding spectator?

What I propose is turning the tables. Hold the bride and groom hostage and make them suffer through the emotional upheaval of their guests. Yes, both bride and group will pull up a comfy chair and plop themselves resignedly on the dais. Each guest, then will, in turn will confront their spouse in a highly overdramatic, yet emotionally cathartic way . Jim Soble will confront Jill Soble, his wife, and they will bare their emotional souls to each other. Jill never knew Joe resented her close bond with her brother. That made him extremely threatened. Bill Mansfield always resented rhonda Mansfield’s independence. How could he feel like a good provider then? Soon, the wedding hall will turn into an emotional free for all : Angry oaths, resentments, insecurities will fill the air like cheap wedding pasta-salad and the wedding-couple will be held hostage forced to listen.

Then the bride and groom will know what if feels like to sit through other people’s emotional baggage while you sweat through your tuxedo?

With any luck, the beleagured bride and groom will soon snap out of their own selfish emotional fog and realize that they have hijacked the lives of a room full of other people. I as a Romcom viewer have always looked forward to this kind of a moment of clarity or epiphany. If the wedding couple wont financially reimburse their guests for their time and expense, at least the maudlin duo owe them their own type of emotional closure and happily ever after.