http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBiAtwQZnHs
An old video, but one that I expect most young white people haven't seen. The song was written and performed by Nana Simone in the 60's as a protest against recent acts of racist terrorism. More on Wikipedia. The lyrics allude to numerous acts of daily racism, most of which are still committed to this day. It brings a certain depth of poignancy to the struggles of black people that can never be attained through white-produced media.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Monday, April 11, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Oh, yes, Pokémon Black & White is racist.
(I went back and forth on this one for a while, trying to figure out whether to do it or not... I need to call this stuff out, but do we really need another white guy talking about racism? Etc. But it's got to be done, and since I'm a pretty big Pokémon player at the moment, I may as well do it.)
There were a lot of jokes going around when Pokémon Black Version and White Version were first announced. In America, the term "black and white" is practically synonymous with the race divide (as well as a particular damaging way of viewing the world, but that never got brought up), and a lot of people would going around saying things like "Black and White is racist!"
It was ridiculous and untrue. The names "Black and White" have very little to do with the race makeup of the game, and much more to do with the concepts of Yin and Yang, nature versus technology, and general color schemeyness. Still, I admit when I heard the title I had a sinking feeling that this was going to be awkward... and boy, was I right.
It started when it was announced that Pokémon Black and White would be the first game to feature a black gym leader: Aloe (Lenora in America), the "Natural-Born Mama." I cringed as soon as I saw that, and her character design was no better: a wide-hipped woman with a big cloth hairband and an enormous apron draped over her front. Apparently the character designer thought it would be a good idea to design the first black woman in the games after a mammy.
And it doesn't get better. The next black character to be introduced is Iris, another gym leader. She, at least, does not appear to be based on a racist stereotype (though I could be wrong). And despite being a young girl, she is the most powerful Gym Leader that the player faces in White Version.
But...
In the anime, Iris is depicted as a "wild child." She roams around the wilderness and swings on vines to get from place to place. To compound how savage/untamed this character is, she lets her Pokémon live in her hair. This isn't the first time a game designer has done this - a recent Final Fantasy title featured a black man who raises chocobos and has a chick who lives in his hair. It seems to be popular opinion in Japan that natural black folks' hair is no better than an animal's nest. This isn't cute. It's disgusting. Equally as disgusting is their choice to play on the "untamed animal" stereotype for the character.
In the Black version of the game, Iris doesn't show up for very long, so you'd think they wouldn't have time to mess up... aside from the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problem of "she spends most of the story arc babysitting a white/Asian girl whose Pokémon has been stolen." Yep, when poor Bianca is just too fragile to handle things on her own, Iris steps in to hold her hand through the ordeal. Which is not positive. It is racist.
Also, Iris is only available to fight as a gym leader in White Version. In Black Version, the final gym leader is Drayden... a white guy. Ho-hum.
The third black character is Marshal, a member of the Elite Four and the only black man in the Unova league. The first time I saw this guy, I got a pretty good of impression of him - he didn't seem to draw directly from a specific stereotype. Now, I'm not entirely sure. He uses Fighting-type Pokémon, and is depicted as a large, beefy brawler, which is par for the course with Fighting-type users, but it's also a common feature of black men in white entertainment - the thug or the soldier or prizefighter or whathaveyou. (I will point out that there is a lot of difference between a prizefighter or a soldier and a member of the Elite Four and master of martial arts. Namely, honor. But it feels suspicious to me anyway. Put this one down as a "maybe.")
Discussing this issue with a friend the other day, she and I agreed that the best way to start diversifying a game is in the non-League NPC's - the guys who just sit around towns and routes waiting to be fought. See, you can add in some Gym Leaders and the like and that's great, but unless they're also being represented in the general population, they become an exception, even an import, and are made foreign as a result.
Nintendo made some efforts in this regard. Firstly, the male backpacker sprite was given black-race-hair (although the character himself has fair skin, meaning he's probably mixed race, which is fine too.) And they added two black trainer types to the game: Dancers and Football Players.
Yes. The mind boggles.
Clerks? White or Asian. Fishermen? White or Asian. Female backpackers? White or Asian. EVERY CHARACTER TYPE WHO ISN'T A DANCER OR A FOOTBALL PLAYER? White or Asian.
They didn't even make any black cops.
In case I really need to point it out, this is another stereotype put into action: the idea of black physical prowess. Black men in Pokémon Black and White consist of excellent dancers, athletes, and one martial artist, period.
Oh, and Lenora and Iris are the only two black women in the game.
Now, I would be remiss if I said there weren't some good points as well. They're just not at the forefront of my mind, usually, because HOLY COW IS THIS GAME RACIST.
Mainly it centers around Lenora, because I've only seen a little bit of Iris and I'm not far enough in the game yet to see what Marshal is like. So we'll see what they did with her.
Firstly, in the American release (and in response to criticism from black Pokémon fans and allies), Lenora's description is changed from "Natural-Born Mama" to "The Archaeologist with a Backbone." And this makes many kinds of sense, since Lenora is, in fact, an archaeologist. Which brings me to my next point: aside from her design, Lenora is one kick-ass character. She's the lead archaeologist in Nacrene City. She has a significant participating role in a storyline that you have to play through in Nacrene before you can leave the city. She owns the museum. She's smart and in a position of power (as a Gym Leader.) And she is happily married to one of the researchers who works at the same museum (a white/Asian guy, of course, but she IS in a happy, monogamous relationship.)
In other words, she's one of the few black female characters I have ever seen that I feel like black children could be exposed to without the kick-in-the-teeth that accompanies so many portrayals. Now, I could be wrong - there could be something I've missed, and of course there's still the nasty role of explaining the "mammy" clothes, which could be more harmful than I'm giving it credit for. (Which makes me wonder how many white parents aren't explaining to their white kids what Lenora's outfit means. But then we're getting into "teaching tool" territory, and that's a subject for another post.)
Also, for once none of the black characters are criminals.
A final point: so far, I've limited this discussion to how the game treats two recognized races: black and white/Asian. And aside from the black/white mixed-race backpackers and an ambiguously tan male Psychic (who might be mixed race of any kind, Latino Mexican, indigenous North American Filipino, southern Japanese, or anything else you can think of) these are the only two racial groups depicted in the game. Meanwhile, the myriad of other races that comprise the visual and cultural makeup of the United States (and particularly New York, on which the Unova region is based) continue to be erased.
(By the way, I refer to the majority race in Black and White as white/Asian because the way these characters are typically seen is largely dependent on where the game has been released - the average Japanese player is going to see them as Japanese, whereas the average European-descended player is going to see them as European-descended, and the artists went to absolutely no effort to make a distinction between the two. Also because the region is based on an American location rather than Japan, so there's no way of telling which the artists intended.)
There were a lot of jokes going around when Pokémon Black Version and White Version were first announced. In America, the term "black and white" is practically synonymous with the race divide (as well as a particular damaging way of viewing the world, but that never got brought up), and a lot of people would going around saying things like "Black and White is racist!"
It was ridiculous and untrue. The names "Black and White" have very little to do with the race makeup of the game, and much more to do with the concepts of Yin and Yang, nature versus technology, and general color schemeyness. Still, I admit when I heard the title I had a sinking feeling that this was going to be awkward... and boy, was I right.
It started when it was announced that Pokémon Black and White would be the first game to feature a black gym leader: Aloe (Lenora in America), the "Natural-Born Mama." I cringed as soon as I saw that, and her character design was no better: a wide-hipped woman with a big cloth hairband and an enormous apron draped over her front. Apparently the character designer thought it would be a good idea to design the first black woman in the games after a mammy.
And it doesn't get better. The next black character to be introduced is Iris, another gym leader. She, at least, does not appear to be based on a racist stereotype (though I could be wrong). And despite being a young girl, she is the most powerful Gym Leader that the player faces in White Version.
But...
In the anime, Iris is depicted as a "wild child." She roams around the wilderness and swings on vines to get from place to place. To compound how savage/untamed this character is, she lets her Pokémon live in her hair. This isn't the first time a game designer has done this - a recent Final Fantasy title featured a black man who raises chocobos and has a chick who lives in his hair. It seems to be popular opinion in Japan that natural black folks' hair is no better than an animal's nest. This isn't cute. It's disgusting. Equally as disgusting is their choice to play on the "untamed animal" stereotype for the character.
In the Black version of the game, Iris doesn't show up for very long, so you'd think they wouldn't have time to mess up... aside from the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problem of "she spends most of the story arc babysitting a white/Asian girl whose Pokémon has been stolen." Yep, when poor Bianca is just too fragile to handle things on her own, Iris steps in to hold her hand through the ordeal. Which is not positive. It is racist.
Also, Iris is only available to fight as a gym leader in White Version. In Black Version, the final gym leader is Drayden... a white guy. Ho-hum.
The third black character is Marshal, a member of the Elite Four and the only black man in the Unova league. The first time I saw this guy, I got a pretty good of impression of him - he didn't seem to draw directly from a specific stereotype. Now, I'm not entirely sure. He uses Fighting-type Pokémon, and is depicted as a large, beefy brawler, which is par for the course with Fighting-type users, but it's also a common feature of black men in white entertainment - the thug or the soldier or prizefighter or whathaveyou. (I will point out that there is a lot of difference between a prizefighter or a soldier and a member of the Elite Four and master of martial arts. Namely, honor. But it feels suspicious to me anyway. Put this one down as a "maybe.")
Discussing this issue with a friend the other day, she and I agreed that the best way to start diversifying a game is in the non-League NPC's - the guys who just sit around towns and routes waiting to be fought. See, you can add in some Gym Leaders and the like and that's great, but unless they're also being represented in the general population, they become an exception, even an import, and are made foreign as a result.
Nintendo made some efforts in this regard. Firstly, the male backpacker sprite was given black-race-hair (although the character himself has fair skin, meaning he's probably mixed race, which is fine too.) And they added two black trainer types to the game: Dancers and Football Players.
Yes. The mind boggles.
Clerks? White or Asian. Fishermen? White or Asian. Female backpackers? White or Asian. EVERY CHARACTER TYPE WHO ISN'T A DANCER OR A FOOTBALL PLAYER? White or Asian.
They didn't even make any black cops.
In case I really need to point it out, this is another stereotype put into action: the idea of black physical prowess. Black men in Pokémon Black and White consist of excellent dancers, athletes, and one martial artist, period.
Oh, and Lenora and Iris are the only two black women in the game.
Now, I would be remiss if I said there weren't some good points as well. They're just not at the forefront of my mind, usually, because HOLY COW IS THIS GAME RACIST.
Mainly it centers around Lenora, because I've only seen a little bit of Iris and I'm not far enough in the game yet to see what Marshal is like. So we'll see what they did with her.
Firstly, in the American release (and in response to criticism from black Pokémon fans and allies), Lenora's description is changed from "Natural-Born Mama" to "The Archaeologist with a Backbone." And this makes many kinds of sense, since Lenora is, in fact, an archaeologist. Which brings me to my next point: aside from her design, Lenora is one kick-ass character. She's the lead archaeologist in Nacrene City. She has a significant participating role in a storyline that you have to play through in Nacrene before you can leave the city. She owns the museum. She's smart and in a position of power (as a Gym Leader.) And she is happily married to one of the researchers who works at the same museum (a white/Asian guy, of course, but she IS in a happy, monogamous relationship.)
In other words, she's one of the few black female characters I have ever seen that I feel like black children could be exposed to without the kick-in-the-teeth that accompanies so many portrayals. Now, I could be wrong - there could be something I've missed, and of course there's still the nasty role of explaining the "mammy" clothes, which could be more harmful than I'm giving it credit for. (Which makes me wonder how many white parents aren't explaining to their white kids what Lenora's outfit means. But then we're getting into "teaching tool" territory, and that's a subject for another post.)
Also, for once none of the black characters are criminals.
A final point: so far, I've limited this discussion to how the game treats two recognized races: black and white/Asian. And aside from the black/white mixed-race backpackers and an ambiguously tan male Psychic (who might be mixed race of any kind, Latino Mexican, indigenous North American Filipino, southern Japanese, or anything else you can think of) these are the only two racial groups depicted in the game. Meanwhile, the myriad of other races that comprise the visual and cultural makeup of the United States (and particularly New York, on which the Unova region is based) continue to be erased.
(By the way, I refer to the majority race in Black and White as white/Asian because the way these characters are typically seen is largely dependent on where the game has been released - the average Japanese player is going to see them as Japanese, whereas the average European-descended player is going to see them as European-descended, and the artists went to absolutely no effort to make a distinction between the two. Also because the region is based on an American location rather than Japan, so there's no way of telling which the artists intended.)
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
GUYS.
I have a friend, a woman incidentally, who is always finding gray smudges in her house. On the walls, on the refrigerator, in the food. It's no mystery how they get there - her husband works with vehicles and he's always coming home with filthy hands because he's something of a slob.
Nothing weird there. Nope, nope, nope.
But my friend is ALL the time bitching about these "black" smears. Hubby comes home, his hands are "black." Touches the cheese with dirty hands, the cheese is "black." Smears gray stuff on the front door, the door is "black."
This kind of microaggressive behavior falls into a pretty gray area. Even a lot of black people are hesitant to say whether this is really problematic, because it's so commonplace and nobody really thinks that black skin = dirty, do they? (At least, not anymore... not most of them, anyway.)
I'm going to stick my white foot out here and say YES, this is problematic. YES, calling something "black" when it is dirty will breed racial prejudice. For exactly the same reason that calling something "gay" or "retarded" when it is wrong, meaningless, or just plain unliked breeds prejudice. Calling something "dark" when it is, in fact, morbid or morally wrong breeds prejudice - how can we associate darkness with things we are afraid of and not become afraid of things that are dark?
If my white audience isn't convinced, picture this - a small, black child listening to my friend, or any other human adult in earshot, exclaiming "This is black! It's disgusting!" Remembering what my life was like as a fat child, I can guess how xe would feel. Unclean. Unwanted. A burning urge to jump in the bathtub and scrub xis blackness away so that xe could be clean and white and right. The idea of putting a child through that kind of identity trauma is nearly enough to give me flashbacks to my own.
It's not harmless, it's not meaningless, and the kid sure as heck isn't going to figure out that when you said it you didn't mean "black-black." So please, for the sake of a child's innocence and self-worth, KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF.
Nothing weird there. Nope, nope, nope.
But my friend is ALL the time bitching about these "black" smears. Hubby comes home, his hands are "black." Touches the cheese with dirty hands, the cheese is "black." Smears gray stuff on the front door, the door is "black."
This kind of microaggressive behavior falls into a pretty gray area. Even a lot of black people are hesitant to say whether this is really problematic, because it's so commonplace and nobody really thinks that black skin = dirty, do they? (At least, not anymore... not most of them, anyway.)
I'm going to stick my white foot out here and say YES, this is problematic. YES, calling something "black" when it is dirty will breed racial prejudice. For exactly the same reason that calling something "gay" or "retarded" when it is wrong, meaningless, or just plain unliked breeds prejudice. Calling something "dark" when it is, in fact, morbid or morally wrong breeds prejudice - how can we associate darkness with things we are afraid of and not become afraid of things that are dark?
If my white audience isn't convinced, picture this - a small, black child listening to my friend, or any other human adult in earshot, exclaiming "This is black! It's disgusting!" Remembering what my life was like as a fat child, I can guess how xe would feel. Unclean. Unwanted. A burning urge to jump in the bathtub and scrub xis blackness away so that xe could be clean and white and right. The idea of putting a child through that kind of identity trauma is nearly enough to give me flashbacks to my own.
It's not harmless, it's not meaningless, and the kid sure as heck isn't going to figure out that when you said it you didn't mean "black-black." So please, for the sake of a child's innocence and self-worth, KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
I Fucked Up
What else is there to say? I fucked up.
I'm referring to an earlier post, "Criticism of the SWPD Community." There I ranted about how every time I wandered into a thread I found someone rageing about whatever I happened to be thinking about, calling it a white thing and (in my mind) accusing me of being some kind of savior and yadda. So I wrote a lengthy, ranty post on it.
Maybe I needed to write that post. I'm sure the catharsis at least helped me to get through that phase so I could eventually get to somewhere more stable. Doesn't matter. The fact is, it was a bad reaction. See, there is a lot of rage in old posts on SWPD. Rage directed against white people and their fuckeduppitude toward POC. And when I read those posts, I ended up absorbing that rage and feeling like it was directed toward me. And then I took it out on the writers, who I don't think really deserved it.
So, I fucked up.
Question is, what am I going to do about it? Well, the one thing I can do: use my fucked-up white experience to try and prevent further fuckuppitude in the future. How? Well, the takeaway lesson from this experience is that there's a lot more to Anti-Racism 101 than a single blog post or epiphany. I thought that since I'd read the post I was off too a good start, but all I had was a bad case of Novice Disease. I learned that breaking yourself of whiteness, no matter how good your intentions are, how smart you are, and how well you think you've got it, takes more than a few minutes of shock followed by a few days of radically rethinking your worldview.
BIG SHOCK, right? I know, I read that from people of multiple races. But I thought I was different. I thought I was getting it. That's something that a lot of white folks tend to do: assume they're getting it. Of course, assuming you're getting it + a safe space to blather about whatever you're supposedly getting without criticism or even a capacity to understand why you might deserve it = fail.
Starting now, I'm going to try and fuck up less. I've realized a lot of things that I think are going to help. I'm also going to try and turn my biggest disadvantage - my fucked-up white brain - into more of an advantage. I've figured out a few things, and I think that if I can explain them in a way that the white brain is actually capable of understanding, I can do some good. So I'm going to start there.
I'm really sorry, guys. I can only imagine that any POC who read that post (if any of them read it - I rather hope they didn't) were gobsmacked, disgusted, and probably enraged by the sheer amount of fuckedupittude. I don't blame you. And I expect any future readers to be good and cynical about what I'm about to do next.
(On the other hand, if you have no idea what I'm talking about and this post looks like so much existential baloney, feel free to ignore it.)
I'm referring to an earlier post, "Criticism of the SWPD Community." There I ranted about how every time I wandered into a thread I found someone rageing about whatever I happened to be thinking about, calling it a white thing and (in my mind) accusing me of being some kind of savior and yadda. So I wrote a lengthy, ranty post on it.
Maybe I needed to write that post. I'm sure the catharsis at least helped me to get through that phase so I could eventually get to somewhere more stable. Doesn't matter. The fact is, it was a bad reaction. See, there is a lot of rage in old posts on SWPD. Rage directed against white people and their fuckeduppitude toward POC. And when I read those posts, I ended up absorbing that rage and feeling like it was directed toward me. And then I took it out on the writers, who I don't think really deserved it.
So, I fucked up.
Question is, what am I going to do about it? Well, the one thing I can do: use my fucked-up white experience to try and prevent further fuckuppitude in the future. How? Well, the takeaway lesson from this experience is that there's a lot more to Anti-Racism 101 than a single blog post or epiphany. I thought that since I'd read the post I was off too a good start, but all I had was a bad case of Novice Disease. I learned that breaking yourself of whiteness, no matter how good your intentions are, how smart you are, and how well you think you've got it, takes more than a few minutes of shock followed by a few days of radically rethinking your worldview.
BIG SHOCK, right? I know, I read that from people of multiple races. But I thought I was different. I thought I was getting it. That's something that a lot of white folks tend to do: assume they're getting it. Of course, assuming you're getting it + a safe space to blather about whatever you're supposedly getting without criticism or even a capacity to understand why you might deserve it = fail.
Starting now, I'm going to try and fuck up less. I've realized a lot of things that I think are going to help. I'm also going to try and turn my biggest disadvantage - my fucked-up white brain - into more of an advantage. I've figured out a few things, and I think that if I can explain them in a way that the white brain is actually capable of understanding, I can do some good. So I'm going to start there.
I'm really sorry, guys. I can only imagine that any POC who read that post (if any of them read it - I rather hope they didn't) were gobsmacked, disgusted, and probably enraged by the sheer amount of fuckedupittude. I don't blame you. And I expect any future readers to be good and cynical about what I'm about to do next.
(On the other hand, if you have no idea what I'm talking about and this post looks like so much existential baloney, feel free to ignore it.)
Friday, October 15, 2010
Y'know what really pisses me off? Tsu'tey.
I know, I know. With all the things wrong with Avatar (White Savior Syndrome, the portrayal of Native Americans/Na'vi as amazing and powerful super-nobles who just don't have enough chutzpah/imagination to rescue their own sorry asses, yadda) I pick Tsu'tey, of all things, to bitch about. Why?
Well, I'm a writer - one that loves well-developed characters characters. And despite all the changes L.A.'s had, there's one thing our gold-rush pioneers in Hollywood are still good at doing in spades: pissing on tertiary guys, especially brown/blue ones. Case in point, Tsu'tey.
Who is this mysterious blue man? Well, according to the movie, he's a Na'vi warrior in Ney'tiri's tribe. Nobody knows where he came from, what his credentials are, or how he is in any way relevant to the plot - all we know is that he is engaged to Ney'tiri (what is with those apostrophes?) and slated to become the next tribe leader. Throughout the movie, he does such pivotal things as (1) standing around staring disapprovingly at Jake, (2) teasing Jake, (3) losing his fiancé to Jake, and (4) dying so Jake can take over the tribe.
WHAT THE FUCK.
I'm sure some people don't see why this is a problem. Y'know, every story has characters that aren't integral to the plot. They're there to give it some depth, y'know, make it look like there's an established world. They don't have to do great stuff.
Not Tsu'tey. He doesn't exist to give the story additional depth. He exists so that Jake can take everything he has.
I'm not even kidding. In the beginning, Tsu'tey is betrothed to Ney'tiri, the totally hot catgirl who ends up helping Jake out. It's stated that she's engaged to him. Jake is warned away from hitting on her because of this. Tsu'tey mocks him constantly and tries to get him killed because of this. Because of this, and the fact that they're supposed to be the next leaders of the tribe, you get the general idea that there engagement is kind of a big deal.
And then what happens? One day, without warning, Jake and Ney'tiri just go off and get laid/married. There's no explanation as to why this is suddenly acceptable. Jake just hits on Ney'tiri, and she's like "Oh, fuck tradition! I like you, let's get hitched." I'm all for her having the choice, but it pretty much flies in the face of all the setup about her Very Important Engagement. And what does Tsu'tey do when he sees them the morning after their wedding night? He's indignant for all of two seconds and then he's like "Hmph, whatever," and walks off.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty damn pissed if my FIANCÉ went and married someone else and didn't even TELL ME and I didn't find out until I walked in on their honeymoon. So what's with Tsu'tey? Maybe he didn't care because they didn't actually like each other that much (Hollywood Rule: Arranged = Loveless), but we never find out.
Okay, so what else does Tsu'tey do? Well, he becomes temporary leader after the old one dies, and he translates for Jake when addressing the other Na'vi, and then... he dies. That's it, that's his big accomplishment. It's a hugely badass scene, and it does end up saving everybody, but... well, let's just say he's not getting the girl.
Like I said, he exists just so Jake can take all his stuff. Take him out, and nothing would change in the plot (except Ney'tiri's dad would have to live a while longer). He is nothing more than a colossal "fuck you" to the Na'vi - a way for Jake to appropriate their things for his own benefit while Cameron appropriates the Natives' for his, and making it okay by giving his half-assed permission. And he's badly written to boot.
The way I see it, that "translate for me" exchange can only be interpreted two ways:
SULLY: Brother, please accept my asking you to translate for me as appropriate recompense for my stealing your girlfriend.
TSU'TEY: I absolutely consider your cheap token of respect to be equivalent to your phenomenal token of not giving a damn about my people or their traditions.
Or:
SULLY: Brother, please accept my asking you to translate for me as appropriate recompense for my stealing your girlfriend.
TSU-TEY: What, Ney'tiri? You can keep the bitch. Hell, I owe you for taking her off my hands.
Strangely, the least potentially canon option is also the most plausible. It could have been an interesting plot twist, but JC doesn't even give us that.
Well, I'm a writer - one that loves well-developed characters characters. And despite all the changes L.A.'s had, there's one thing our gold-rush pioneers in Hollywood are still good at doing in spades: pissing on tertiary guys, especially brown/blue ones. Case in point, Tsu'tey.
Who is this mysterious blue man? Well, according to the movie, he's a Na'vi warrior in Ney'tiri's tribe. Nobody knows where he came from, what his credentials are, or how he is in any way relevant to the plot - all we know is that he is engaged to Ney'tiri (what is with those apostrophes?) and slated to become the next tribe leader. Throughout the movie, he does such pivotal things as (1) standing around staring disapprovingly at Jake, (2) teasing Jake, (3) losing his fiancé to Jake, and (4) dying so Jake can take over the tribe.
WHAT THE FUCK.
I'm sure some people don't see why this is a problem. Y'know, every story has characters that aren't integral to the plot. They're there to give it some depth, y'know, make it look like there's an established world. They don't have to do great stuff.
Not Tsu'tey. He doesn't exist to give the story additional depth. He exists so that Jake can take everything he has.
I'm not even kidding. In the beginning, Tsu'tey is betrothed to Ney'tiri, the totally hot catgirl who ends up helping Jake out. It's stated that she's engaged to him. Jake is warned away from hitting on her because of this. Tsu'tey mocks him constantly and tries to get him killed because of this. Because of this, and the fact that they're supposed to be the next leaders of the tribe, you get the general idea that there engagement is kind of a big deal.
And then what happens? One day, without warning, Jake and Ney'tiri just go off and get laid/married. There's no explanation as to why this is suddenly acceptable. Jake just hits on Ney'tiri, and she's like "Oh, fuck tradition! I like you, let's get hitched." I'm all for her having the choice, but it pretty much flies in the face of all the setup about her Very Important Engagement. And what does Tsu'tey do when he sees them the morning after their wedding night? He's indignant for all of two seconds and then he's like "Hmph, whatever," and walks off.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty damn pissed if my FIANCÉ went and married someone else and didn't even TELL ME and I didn't find out until I walked in on their honeymoon. So what's with Tsu'tey? Maybe he didn't care because they didn't actually like each other that much (Hollywood Rule: Arranged = Loveless), but we never find out.
Okay, so what else does Tsu'tey do? Well, he becomes temporary leader after the old one dies, and he translates for Jake when addressing the other Na'vi, and then... he dies. That's it, that's his big accomplishment. It's a hugely badass scene, and it does end up saving everybody, but... well, let's just say he's not getting the girl.
Like I said, he exists just so Jake can take all his stuff. Take him out, and nothing would change in the plot (except Ney'tiri's dad would have to live a while longer). He is nothing more than a colossal "fuck you" to the Na'vi - a way for Jake to appropriate their things for his own benefit while Cameron appropriates the Natives' for his, and making it okay by giving his half-assed permission. And he's badly written to boot.
The way I see it, that "translate for me" exchange can only be interpreted two ways:
SULLY: Brother, please accept my asking you to translate for me as appropriate recompense for my stealing your girlfriend.
TSU'TEY: I absolutely consider your cheap token of respect to be equivalent to your phenomenal token of not giving a damn about my people or their traditions.
Or:
SULLY: Brother, please accept my asking you to translate for me as appropriate recompense for my stealing your girlfriend.
TSU-TEY: What, Ney'tiri? You can keep the bitch. Hell, I owe you for taking her off my hands.
Strangely, the least potentially canon option is also the most plausible. It could have been an interesting plot twist, but JC doesn't even give us that.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Rethinking This Whole "Racism" Thing
Between Tim Wise and Noel Ignatiev, I've been doing me some thinking.
And I'm thinking they're right. (I know, I know... I think the white guys are right, what a concept.) I do think that attempting to disclaim whiteness when dealing with PoC is an utterly stupid idea, because the only thing it could possibly accomplish is to disenguilt the pale people of their connection to and at least former complacence in racism - not a good idea. So if a PoC refers to you as white, live with it.
On the other hand, what good does it do for you to identify as white to white people? 90% of the time, the only thing it will do is get you privilege. If you're very careful - if you make it pointedly clear to everyone you interact with that while you may be white, you are against racism - you may lose a tiny bit of that privilege, but still, "not playing by the rules" is a more forgivable offense than "not being white."
Many PoC have used the phrase, "The master's tools will never demolish the master's house." While I sort of grasped the general concept of "your oppressor will never try to help you unless he can do so without undermining himself," it has become clear that there is more meaning in it. In some countries - and certainly in the United States - being white is like being a member of the Catholic Church.
For those who haven't had the displeasure of being an ex-Catholic (or read about someone having the displeasure of being an ex-Catholic), here's how it works: Every person born into a Catholic family is baptized into the church as a baby. They go through the ceremony, get wet, yadda, and get their name enrolled in the Church's records. And in most cases, your name stays there for life. Even if you apostatize, even if you swear off everything your church stands for, even if you become a dedicated Satanist for the rest of your life, unless you fight tooth and nail to get your name taken out of the roster (and sometimes even then), you are counted as a member of the Catholic Church. This wouldn't be too bad if it was just a clerical issue - whoever's in charge of your new religion probably doesn't care what some fusty old church has to say, particularly if you've become an atheist - but it's not. Instead, the Church will use their artificially bloated member list at every opportunity to try and get power. You don't think Catholic law should become dominant in a given country? Look how many card-carrying Catholics there are in that country! Want to prosecute the Pope for complacency in child rape? You're going after a nation, and I have the papers to prove it. (This is the really insidious part: even Catholics don't have a say in how they're represented. Even if they hate the Pope. Even if they approve birth control or would like to sell the Vatican and use the proceeds to buy food for the hungry, their names still get used to back up the very things they oppose.)
Likewise, when you have the right set of genes to be assumed white and don't do anything to make people think otherwise, even if you don't agree with the principles that Whiteness has dropped on the country, you will be used to support its principles. Answer "White" on racial surveys? Politicians will point to the enormous white majority to justify racist laws. Be yet another pale face in your social circle? Somebody will think of a racist joke to "share," and they won't hold back on your account. Even arguing your innocence of a speeding ticket could cause a problem - the cop might give it to you anyway, or he might let you off and go home feeling happy and secure that he's helped out another innocent white person.
The Master's tools may not destroy the Master's house, but the unfortunate fact is that this concept of white supremacy will not be destroyed as long as us pale people remain complacent. A hundred well-read, well-argued, and intensely frustrated voices of color can explain the problem over and over again, but as long as white people believe that the pale are all on their side, most of them are never going to listen to them. This isn't fair, it isn't right, and it's supremely racist, but it's a fact. And us pale people - be we racially "white" or not - are in a unique position to do something about it.
But am I saying that the pale hold the sole power to end racism? Hardly! This is only one facet of anti-racism work, and it does not happen a vacuum. People like Noel Ignatiev and I have only come to realize this was even a problem because of the hours of hard work from PoC. And even if the white majority can be made to stop believing in the sanctity of the white race, that effect will not dissuade them of the inferiority of other races. Nor can it end oppressive lawmaking, increased poverty in communities of color, and many other issues that PoC face. In many aspects, PoC have and will continue to take the lead, with white/pale people assisting as is necessary and beneficial. This just happens to be one issue (possibly the only one) that pale people, specifically, must fight on their own.
And I'm thinking they're right. (I know, I know... I think the white guys are right, what a concept.) I do think that attempting to disclaim whiteness when dealing with PoC is an utterly stupid idea, because the only thing it could possibly accomplish is to disenguilt the pale people of their connection to and at least former complacence in racism - not a good idea. So if a PoC refers to you as white, live with it.
On the other hand, what good does it do for you to identify as white to white people? 90% of the time, the only thing it will do is get you privilege. If you're very careful - if you make it pointedly clear to everyone you interact with that while you may be white, you are against racism - you may lose a tiny bit of that privilege, but still, "not playing by the rules" is a more forgivable offense than "not being white."
Many PoC have used the phrase, "The master's tools will never demolish the master's house." While I sort of grasped the general concept of "your oppressor will never try to help you unless he can do so without undermining himself," it has become clear that there is more meaning in it. In some countries - and certainly in the United States - being white is like being a member of the Catholic Church.
For those who haven't had the displeasure of being an ex-Catholic (or read about someone having the displeasure of being an ex-Catholic), here's how it works: Every person born into a Catholic family is baptized into the church as a baby. They go through the ceremony, get wet, yadda, and get their name enrolled in the Church's records. And in most cases, your name stays there for life. Even if you apostatize, even if you swear off everything your church stands for, even if you become a dedicated Satanist for the rest of your life, unless you fight tooth and nail to get your name taken out of the roster (and sometimes even then), you are counted as a member of the Catholic Church. This wouldn't be too bad if it was just a clerical issue - whoever's in charge of your new religion probably doesn't care what some fusty old church has to say, particularly if you've become an atheist - but it's not. Instead, the Church will use their artificially bloated member list at every opportunity to try and get power. You don't think Catholic law should become dominant in a given country? Look how many card-carrying Catholics there are in that country! Want to prosecute the Pope for complacency in child rape? You're going after a nation, and I have the papers to prove it. (This is the really insidious part: even Catholics don't have a say in how they're represented. Even if they hate the Pope. Even if they approve birth control or would like to sell the Vatican and use the proceeds to buy food for the hungry, their names still get used to back up the very things they oppose.)
Likewise, when you have the right set of genes to be assumed white and don't do anything to make people think otherwise, even if you don't agree with the principles that Whiteness has dropped on the country, you will be used to support its principles. Answer "White" on racial surveys? Politicians will point to the enormous white majority to justify racist laws. Be yet another pale face in your social circle? Somebody will think of a racist joke to "share," and they won't hold back on your account. Even arguing your innocence of a speeding ticket could cause a problem - the cop might give it to you anyway, or he might let you off and go home feeling happy and secure that he's helped out another innocent white person.
The Master's tools may not destroy the Master's house, but the unfortunate fact is that this concept of white supremacy will not be destroyed as long as us pale people remain complacent. A hundred well-read, well-argued, and intensely frustrated voices of color can explain the problem over and over again, but as long as white people believe that the pale are all on their side, most of them are never going to listen to them. This isn't fair, it isn't right, and it's supremely racist, but it's a fact. And us pale people - be we racially "white" or not - are in a unique position to do something about it.
But am I saying that the pale hold the sole power to end racism? Hardly! This is only one facet of anti-racism work, and it does not happen a vacuum. People like Noel Ignatiev and I have only come to realize this was even a problem because of the hours of hard work from PoC. And even if the white majority can be made to stop believing in the sanctity of the white race, that effect will not dissuade them of the inferiority of other races. Nor can it end oppressive lawmaking, increased poverty in communities of color, and many other issues that PoC face. In many aspects, PoC have and will continue to take the lead, with white/pale people assisting as is necessary and beneficial. This just happens to be one issue (possibly the only one) that pale people, specifically, must fight on their own.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
No Ordinary Family: Pilot
This review is also belated - not because I didn't watch the episode, but because I had some other things to get out of the way first, but here goes.
First of all, the plot is as insipid as I expected. A middle-class white family's middle-class whiteness is causing them to become dysfunctional. GO FIGURE. That lifestyle is bad for you, you know. Of course, their failure (according to the story) is also that they are not heteronormative enough - Dad is taking care of his family instead of saving the world, Mom is working a full-time job instead of taking care of her family, and the daughter is (get this) USING HER OWN JUDGMENT TO CHOOSE HER BOYFRIEND. Which, according to tradition, means that he is a total douchebag who (as it turns out) is sleeping with her best friend and lying to her about it.
ANYWAY.
I was going to take the race angle first, but this mess is just too complex. The fact is, I have absolutely no quibble about a story about a white family. I have EVERY quibble about a story that just "happens to" choose a middle-class, heteronormative, almost entirely able (more on that later) white family as The Most Average People Imaginable. Like we haven't seen that a bajillion times before (Sky High, The Incredibles, The Gates, plus a slew of older shows and films) and done better to boot (see also: The Incredibles). A lot of people seem to think that this is acceptable because European-descended people comprise the majority in the United States. This kind of thinking betrays huge ignorance about the population breakdown of individual cities within the United States - many of which have non-white majorities. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Then there's the "black best friend" angle, which is also popular in television and brings nothing new to this show - except severe unfortunate implications, as George is all too willing to donate his garage and significant quantities of resources to his white friend's newfound powers. Only the addition of Stephanie's white friend, who is equally enthusiastic, and the Rule Of Superhero Worship (as follows: IT'S GONNA HAPPEN) keep this to an even tolerable level. Additionally, the person I took to be a nameless thug of color turned out to be a white guy in an Obama mask, so we're not throwing random POC-as-criminal stereotypes around yet.
Speaking of Stephanie's white friend, her inclusion and the conversation the two have about Stephenie's powers (and Kitty Pryde) means that this show passes the Bechtel test. Which says nothing about its validity as non-oppressive entertainment, obviously. Especially given the things I mentioned above: Stephanie's prioritization of career over family being repeatedly depicted as the wrong choice, and Daphne's atrocious taste in boyfriends (nothing less than a sexist/ageist stereotype).
We'll start with Stephanie (and by extension, Jim). The show does not expressly condemn the mother's choice to pursue her career, or the father's choice to take a less demanding job so that he can spend time with his family - instead, the characters express frustration at their roles, indicating the writers' sentiment that their family is somehow "broken" because of this. I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say maybe they were just trying to twist up the usual order. There have been plenty of stories (such as Multiplicity and 17 Again, also films about heteronormative white people) where the father wants more time with his kids and the mother wants an outside life. Problem is, the original formula is vaguely subversive of the traditional heteronormative family unit. Reverse it, and... yeah. Getting super-speed enables Stephanie to achieve that magic jugglement of career and family, which is what every woman should aspire to, right? Right?
NO. This is an unreasonable goal to set for a mother, even one with superpowers. A more realistic solution would be for her to negotiate some time off from her job so she can spend some more time with her kids. Her boss would totally go for that, even. Also to accept that maybe sharing the parenting job with her husband is OK.
Next up we have Daphne, the teenage daughter who is obsessed with her personal life, sucks at choosing boyfriends, and wants nothing to do with her parents... where have we heard that one before? (Hint: 17 Again, Modern Family, The Vampire Diaries.) It's not so much that her parents don't approve of her boyfriend, but that she doesn't appraise them of everything going on in their relationship, which is punished soundly when she learns that he is boinking her best friend behind her back. And of course it's not his problem for being a lying douchebag - it's her problem for having the naivete to actually trust the guy. Eeeeeyup. In addition to cluing her in to her boyfriend's shenanigans, her psychic powers force her to actually spend some time talking to her parents (yet another way in which they magically start fixing the family).
Remember, girls: your growing independence from your parents as you age is a bad thing. Mommy and Daddy know what's best for you, so make sure you attend all your Meaningful Family Talks, and always do what they say!
Now, I could be completely off on this. For all I know, Daphne could turn out to be an intelligent, independent character (as much as is reasonable for a teenage girl) whose opinion is valid and valued by her parents... but I'm not holding my breath.
Next up is JJ, the token learning-disabled kid. Knowing as little as I do about the learning disabled, I'm not going to take this one on in detail, but even I can tell that they're doing it wrong here. First of all, there's his mother, who is a total asshat about the problem. Paraphrased: "They want to put him in a SPECIAL EDUCATION class. MY son. In a SPECIAL EDUCATION class. This is ridiculous! I'm a middle-class white mother! WHY are they punishing me like this?" Seriously, she acts like it's about her, rather than about the actual difficulties her son is having. Her temper tantrum, and the rest of the show's context, further lead one to believe (without ever confirming) that there's nothing actually wrong with JJ, that he's perfectly intelligent and would be getting good grades if only his mommy was around to help him with his homework. This, of course, casts the school officials who want to put him into a special-education class as clueless monsters who just don't understand how speshul her kid is, and really denigrates the reality of being learning disabled.
Secondly, none of it matters, because GUESS WHAT! Getting dunked in a lake full of magical glowing stuff has made him a SUPER-GENIUS! Ha ha, and you thought he was actually going to have to deal with his problem for a second. You noob. This is another fantastic example of disability erasure - where any character who is disabled either has some superpower to compensate (Daredevil, Percy Jackson et al), or is magically cured of it before the plot ever starts (many amateur Mary-Sue stories), which makes it completely moot. Anyway, becoming a super-genius magically fixes JJ's bad-grades problem, re-encouraging him to apply himself to his schoolwork and Be Successful.
Now here's the thing: Faildelivery aside, I'm enjoying that they've cast a supergenius into a main role. I'm a smart guy, and my kind are often deeply misunderstood in TV. Like Gil Grissom, Data, Bones, or House, they are typically brilliant but lacking in social ability; they have no sense of humor but are always played for laughs, and in many cases they are cast across a less-intelligent protagonist with whom we are supposed to sympathize for having to live/work with a stuffy, clueless know-it-all. Furthermore, we allegedly have only the nerdiest of hobbies - crossword puzzles, sci-fi shows, or randomly building amazing devices in our garages over the weekend (depending on the target age of the show in question).
Now, JJ wasn't raised smart, he became smart. So culturally, he should be more like a real smart person - calculating, liable to overthink things, continually frustrated that everyone around him is so dense, but otherwise no different from anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want his character to become worthless because he doesn't have a physical ability like his parents. If he ends up building incredible physics-defying devices and giving them all to Superdad, I'm going to be pissed. On the other hand, he could be more like Syndrome or Kick-Ass, which would be well worth my viewing time.
Now that that bit of ARGHWHATTHECRAP is out of the way, we'll go to Jimbo!
Jim is the protagonist of the story. This white, middle-class guy was written by white, middle-class guys, and it shows. He's an overall great guy; he works as a police artist, but his job isn't so demanding that he doesn't have time for his kids. He doesn't get his kids, to be sure, and he's convinced that their burgeoning independence is a sign that his family is falling apart (a sentiment the writers obviously agree with), but with a family as obviously dysfunctional as his (workaholic Stephanie, selfish Daphne, emo JJ), what's a guy to do? Man up! Force the family on a vacation to South America, where you continually nag them to enjoy themselves and do Family Things (read: the stuff you want) until you all get into a horrible plane accident. Then just go home and keep nagging them until BAM, they get superpowers, forcing your kids to turn back to you and Mom to help them. VICTORY!
But what's that? You want MORE? You want to fight crime and help people and other stuff you're inexplicably not doing just by working for the police force? Well, no problem! Just recruit your Black Best Friend for a sidekick, promise your wife that you're not going to start doing what you're about to do, and then launch yourself into deadly situations with absolutely no experience or idea of what you're facing.
GAAAAAAAW.
First there's the ageism. Jim's kids are growing up, which means that it is totally unreasonable for him to expect that they stay under his thumb. Not that they don't still need his guidance, but maybe he should try engaging them as the nearly-adult minds that they are instead of the children he expects them to be. (Yes, I know that's difficult. Real life usually is, even if you have superpowers.) Furthermore, Stephanie ignores her son's insistence that he is genuinely disabled in favor of her Important Adult Opinion that he only has self-esteem issues that he needs to get over. (She's never proven wrong, either.) Then there's the sexism. Jim somehow thinks it's okay to lie to his wife about his activity because he "needs" to "do this." He has a burning urge to fight crime which somehow supersedes his marriage vows, and apparently we're supposed to be okay with this. Well, I'm not.
Furthermore, he has no problem with co-opting George's garage for a superhero base. Now maybe it's just me, but I think if my best friend volunteered that much time and resources, I'd be a little hesitant. I might even say something like "Who there, Black Best Friend. You have a life and a family and stuff. I appreciate the offer, but you don't need to be the Magical Negro on my behalf." Again, it's about the wedding vows. Their families should be coming first - especially with the way Jim keeps carrying on about his.
Now that I've done ripped this show to shreds, you might find it crazy that I'm going to keep watching it. And you may be right. But one of the crazy things about us Smart People is that we find value in watching stuff that is crap, so we can analyze it, figure out why it is crap, and maybe educate others about the problems in it. Besides, I am curious, in a completely non-stereotypical-smart-guy way. The show managed to wrap up nearly every problem it started with in one episode. I really want to see where it takes the next. Hopefully somewhere where the kids learn to use their abilities to empower themselves and Jim realizes he can't control his family and run off to do whatever he pleases.
First of all, the plot is as insipid as I expected. A middle-class white family's middle-class whiteness is causing them to become dysfunctional. GO FIGURE. That lifestyle is bad for you, you know. Of course, their failure (according to the story) is also that they are not heteronormative enough - Dad is taking care of his family instead of saving the world, Mom is working a full-time job instead of taking care of her family, and the daughter is (get this) USING HER OWN JUDGMENT TO CHOOSE HER BOYFRIEND. Which, according to tradition, means that he is a total douchebag who (as it turns out) is sleeping with her best friend and lying to her about it.
ANYWAY.
I was going to take the race angle first, but this mess is just too complex. The fact is, I have absolutely no quibble about a story about a white family. I have EVERY quibble about a story that just "happens to" choose a middle-class, heteronormative, almost entirely able (more on that later) white family as The Most Average People Imaginable. Like we haven't seen that a bajillion times before (Sky High, The Incredibles, The Gates, plus a slew of older shows and films) and done better to boot (see also: The Incredibles). A lot of people seem to think that this is acceptable because European-descended people comprise the majority in the United States. This kind of thinking betrays huge ignorance about the population breakdown of individual cities within the United States - many of which have non-white majorities. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Then there's the "black best friend" angle, which is also popular in television and brings nothing new to this show - except severe unfortunate implications, as George is all too willing to donate his garage and significant quantities of resources to his white friend's newfound powers. Only the addition of Stephanie's white friend, who is equally enthusiastic, and the Rule Of Superhero Worship (as follows: IT'S GONNA HAPPEN) keep this to an even tolerable level. Additionally, the person I took to be a nameless thug of color turned out to be a white guy in an Obama mask, so we're not throwing random POC-as-criminal stereotypes around yet.
Speaking of Stephanie's white friend, her inclusion and the conversation the two have about Stephenie's powers (and Kitty Pryde) means that this show passes the Bechtel test. Which says nothing about its validity as non-oppressive entertainment, obviously. Especially given the things I mentioned above: Stephanie's prioritization of career over family being repeatedly depicted as the wrong choice, and Daphne's atrocious taste in boyfriends (nothing less than a sexist/ageist stereotype).
We'll start with Stephanie (and by extension, Jim). The show does not expressly condemn the mother's choice to pursue her career, or the father's choice to take a less demanding job so that he can spend time with his family - instead, the characters express frustration at their roles, indicating the writers' sentiment that their family is somehow "broken" because of this. I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say maybe they were just trying to twist up the usual order. There have been plenty of stories (such as Multiplicity and 17 Again, also films about heteronormative white people) where the father wants more time with his kids and the mother wants an outside life. Problem is, the original formula is vaguely subversive of the traditional heteronormative family unit. Reverse it, and... yeah. Getting super-speed enables Stephanie to achieve that magic jugglement of career and family, which is what every woman should aspire to, right? Right?
NO. This is an unreasonable goal to set for a mother, even one with superpowers. A more realistic solution would be for her to negotiate some time off from her job so she can spend some more time with her kids. Her boss would totally go for that, even. Also to accept that maybe sharing the parenting job with her husband is OK.
Next up we have Daphne, the teenage daughter who is obsessed with her personal life, sucks at choosing boyfriends, and wants nothing to do with her parents... where have we heard that one before? (Hint: 17 Again, Modern Family, The Vampire Diaries.) It's not so much that her parents don't approve of her boyfriend, but that she doesn't appraise them of everything going on in their relationship, which is punished soundly when she learns that he is boinking her best friend behind her back. And of course it's not his problem for being a lying douchebag - it's her problem for having the naivete to actually trust the guy. Eeeeeyup. In addition to cluing her in to her boyfriend's shenanigans, her psychic powers force her to actually spend some time talking to her parents (yet another way in which they magically start fixing the family).
Remember, girls: your growing independence from your parents as you age is a bad thing. Mommy and Daddy know what's best for you, so make sure you attend all your Meaningful Family Talks, and always do what they say!
Now, I could be completely off on this. For all I know, Daphne could turn out to be an intelligent, independent character (as much as is reasonable for a teenage girl) whose opinion is valid and valued by her parents... but I'm not holding my breath.
Next up is JJ, the token learning-disabled kid. Knowing as little as I do about the learning disabled, I'm not going to take this one on in detail, but even I can tell that they're doing it wrong here. First of all, there's his mother, who is a total asshat about the problem. Paraphrased: "They want to put him in a SPECIAL EDUCATION class. MY son. In a SPECIAL EDUCATION class. This is ridiculous! I'm a middle-class white mother! WHY are they punishing me like this?" Seriously, she acts like it's about her, rather than about the actual difficulties her son is having. Her temper tantrum, and the rest of the show's context, further lead one to believe (without ever confirming) that there's nothing actually wrong with JJ, that he's perfectly intelligent and would be getting good grades if only his mommy was around to help him with his homework. This, of course, casts the school officials who want to put him into a special-education class as clueless monsters who just don't understand how speshul her kid is, and really denigrates the reality of being learning disabled.
Secondly, none of it matters, because GUESS WHAT! Getting dunked in a lake full of magical glowing stuff has made him a SUPER-GENIUS! Ha ha, and you thought he was actually going to have to deal with his problem for a second. You noob. This is another fantastic example of disability erasure - where any character who is disabled either has some superpower to compensate (Daredevil, Percy Jackson et al), or is magically cured of it before the plot ever starts (many amateur Mary-Sue stories), which makes it completely moot. Anyway, becoming a super-genius magically fixes JJ's bad-grades problem, re-encouraging him to apply himself to his schoolwork and Be Successful.
Now here's the thing: Faildelivery aside, I'm enjoying that they've cast a supergenius into a main role. I'm a smart guy, and my kind are often deeply misunderstood in TV. Like Gil Grissom, Data, Bones, or House, they are typically brilliant but lacking in social ability; they have no sense of humor but are always played for laughs, and in many cases they are cast across a less-intelligent protagonist with whom we are supposed to sympathize for having to live/work with a stuffy, clueless know-it-all. Furthermore, we allegedly have only the nerdiest of hobbies - crossword puzzles, sci-fi shows, or randomly building amazing devices in our garages over the weekend (depending on the target age of the show in question).
Now, JJ wasn't raised smart, he became smart. So culturally, he should be more like a real smart person - calculating, liable to overthink things, continually frustrated that everyone around him is so dense, but otherwise no different from anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want his character to become worthless because he doesn't have a physical ability like his parents. If he ends up building incredible physics-defying devices and giving them all to Superdad, I'm going to be pissed. On the other hand, he could be more like Syndrome or Kick-Ass, which would be well worth my viewing time.
Now that that bit of ARGHWHATTHECRAP is out of the way, we'll go to Jimbo!
Jim is the protagonist of the story. This white, middle-class guy was written by white, middle-class guys, and it shows. He's an overall great guy; he works as a police artist, but his job isn't so demanding that he doesn't have time for his kids. He doesn't get his kids, to be sure, and he's convinced that their burgeoning independence is a sign that his family is falling apart (a sentiment the writers obviously agree with), but with a family as obviously dysfunctional as his (workaholic Stephanie, selfish Daphne, emo JJ), what's a guy to do? Man up! Force the family on a vacation to South America, where you continually nag them to enjoy themselves and do Family Things (read: the stuff you want) until you all get into a horrible plane accident. Then just go home and keep nagging them until BAM, they get superpowers, forcing your kids to turn back to you and Mom to help them. VICTORY!
But what's that? You want MORE? You want to fight crime and help people and other stuff you're inexplicably not doing just by working for the police force? Well, no problem! Just recruit your Black Best Friend for a sidekick, promise your wife that you're not going to start doing what you're about to do, and then launch yourself into deadly situations with absolutely no experience or idea of what you're facing.
GAAAAAAAW.
First there's the ageism. Jim's kids are growing up, which means that it is totally unreasonable for him to expect that they stay under his thumb. Not that they don't still need his guidance, but maybe he should try engaging them as the nearly-adult minds that they are instead of the children he expects them to be. (Yes, I know that's difficult. Real life usually is, even if you have superpowers.) Furthermore, Stephanie ignores her son's insistence that he is genuinely disabled in favor of her Important Adult Opinion that he only has self-esteem issues that he needs to get over. (She's never proven wrong, either.) Then there's the sexism. Jim somehow thinks it's okay to lie to his wife about his activity because he "needs" to "do this." He has a burning urge to fight crime which somehow supersedes his marriage vows, and apparently we're supposed to be okay with this. Well, I'm not.
Furthermore, he has no problem with co-opting George's garage for a superhero base. Now maybe it's just me, but I think if my best friend volunteered that much time and resources, I'd be a little hesitant. I might even say something like "Who there, Black Best Friend. You have a life and a family and stuff. I appreciate the offer, but you don't need to be the Magical Negro on my behalf." Again, it's about the wedding vows. Their families should be coming first - especially with the way Jim keeps carrying on about his.
Now that I've done ripped this show to shreds, you might find it crazy that I'm going to keep watching it. And you may be right. But one of the crazy things about us Smart People is that we find value in watching stuff that is crap, so we can analyze it, figure out why it is crap, and maybe educate others about the problems in it. Besides, I am curious, in a completely non-stereotypical-smart-guy way. The show managed to wrap up nearly every problem it started with in one episode. I really want to see where it takes the next. Hopefully somewhere where the kids learn to use their abilities to empower themselves and Jim realizes he can't control his family and run off to do whatever he pleases.
Monday, October 4, 2010
MUST SEE: Tim Wise on White Privilege
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc
Full transcript:
This is a brilliant, powerful, and utterly illuminating piece. One of the biggest flaws I have noticed in anti-racist work (at least on the blogosphere), from people of any color, is the simple inability to connect with white allies. They express the problem, they express their rage, and they have that right, but it is rare for someone to actually communicate, to cause the white person to truly appreciate that they useful in the battle against racism and in fact have a sizeable stake in it. This communication may not be cathartic, and one often feels that the other party does not deserve such treatment, but it is vital in the acquisition of allies - something that other marginalized groups have already discovered. Tim Wise (likely by virtue of being white himself) has managed to communicate with the white mind, bringing to light one of its greatest flaws - to believe, because of the repeated affirmation of their whiteness on all sides, that even the most disenfranchised white person has more in common with their own oppressors than with their fellow oppressed. This is, in a word, bullshit - and I will try to remember that in the future.
(I will also remember to double-check my sources. I wasted a huge amount of time transcribing the talk, optimistically thinking that I was doing something useful, when there was already a PDF version available. Oh, well.)
(Via stuff white people do.)
Full transcript:
'Cause if you know the history of the whole concept of Whiteness, if you know the history of the whole concept of the white race, where it came from and for what reason, you know that it was a trick - and it's worked brilliantly.
See, prior to the mid- to late-1600's in the colonies of what would become the United States, there was no such thing as the white race - those of us of European descent did not refer to ourselves by that term, really ever, before then. In fact, in the old countries of Europe, we had spent most of our time killing each other. We didn't love each other; we weren't one big, happy family. The side of my family that comes from Scotland, hell, they didn't even worry about fighting people outside of Scotland. Highlanders and lowlanders just fought the hell out of each other. So there was no white race, but in the colonies of what would become the United States, what did we see in the 1660's-1670's? We began to see that Africans of indentured servant status (many of them not enslaved yet, they were not necessarily permanently enslaved; some were, others were indentured like many poor Europeans for periods of seven to eleven years - they could work off their indenture and then they would be free labor, technically) realized, as did the white indentured servants, the Europeans (who hadn't even been called white yet) that they had a lot of things in common, like the fact that they were all getting their clock cleaned by the elites. And so they would get together, more than our history books taught us. To fement(?) rebellion against the elite, to try to get a better deal for themselves on the basis of economic necessity and economic justice.
And what did the elite do? When you see that you're outnumbered by black and white folks who are penniless, landless, peasants, you have to do one of two things: you either have to kill them all, but you can't do that, 'cause who's gonna work? Rich folks weren't going to. They had to get poor people to work. The whole point was to be a person of leisure, back in those days. That was the goal, was not to work. So you couldn't kill them all, you didn't want to kill them all, you'd have to do the work yourself! You'd have to build your own levy. Build your own house. No. Pick your own tobacco! Harvest your own cotton... no. We're not going to do any of that. So you can't kill them, but you can co-opt them, and so the elite in Virginia, for example, in the colony, begins to give certain carrots to people of European descent, saying things like "You know, we're going to let you own a little land. Not much, but just a little. And we're going to get rid of indentured servitude, now you're free labor - and by the way, once you're free labor you get fifty acres of land. Just because you're free labor, see, so we're going to cut you in on this deal. We're going to let you enter into contracts. We're going to let you testify in court, and here's the best of all: we're going to put you on the slave patrol. To keep those people in line," right? The idea was, "you're still going to get your clock cleaned. We still don't like you. We still aren't really going to empower you or change your economic subordination, but we're going to make you honorary members of this team, and you're going to help us keep those other people down."
And so they got a little taste of power, and it did effectively divide and conquer those coalitions - those rebellions began to stop almost instantly. Fast forward to the Civil War era, you have rich white folks in the South where I come from, standing up and openly admitting that the reason they're prepared to secede from the Union - and the only reason they ever articulated publicly, EVER - was to maintain and extend slavery and white supremacy, not only where it already existed, but into the newly acquired - that is to say, stolen - territories from Mexico, to the west. That was what they said. Now we lie about it. We say it wasn't about slavery. That it was about state's rights. Yes, the right of the states to keep and maintain slaves, exactly. But back then they had no shame, so they didn't try and cover it up. They only said it, but once again the rich didn't want to go and do the work - are you kidding? No. They're going to get poor people to go fight for them. And the poor folks didn't even own slaves. Now think: how do you get poor people, who don't even own the shirt on their back - let alone slaves - to go fight to keep your slaves for you? You've got to convince them that their skin is more important than their economic interest, because think about it: if I am a farmer who has to charge you a dollar a day or two dollars a week to work on your farm, to harvest that tobacco or pick that cotton, but you can get a black person to do it for free (because you own them), who's going to get the job? Not me. In other words, slavery actually undermined the wages, and the wage-based economic floor, of the typical white working-class or low-income person. But they were told, "if these people are free they're going to take your job." No, fool, they got your job. That's the point. And so at some level, again, working-class white people being harmed by white privilege. Relatively, being advantaged, right? Being given a leg up, being given a membership to the club, but in absolute terms being kept economically subordinated by the very thing that gave them a sense of superiority. How's that for irony?
Then in the present era - this hasn't stopped, this is not ancient history - now we have people running around insisting that we should close the border with Mexico because, if we don't, the wages of working-class people will continue to fall, the implication being that the only reason workers are paid like crap in this country is because the border is opened. But if you believe that, you would actually have to believe that if that border were closed, then all these owners of capital and industry would just say "Oh, well, you figured us out. Here, it's a raise." Do we really believe that the only thing keeping bosses from paying people more is the presence of low-wage, medium-semi-skilled labor from south of this artificial border? Is that really what we believe? We know that if that border was closed, it isn't going to be closed to capital. It isn't going to be closed to goods. If you have a border that can be crossed by capital, looking for the highest return on investment or goods, looking for the highest price, but labor is chained to its country of origin, how is that going to work to the benefit of working people? By definition, it doesn't. By definition, it emiserates the working class. Divide, and conquer.
But the best example of all, perhaps, in the contemporary era - in the greater New Orleans area after Katrina - here you have two communities that were the worst hard-hit: the Lower Ninth Ward, mostly black community, 94% African-American, about 40% official poverty rate, heavy working-class community, and right across the canal, St. Bernard Parish Chalmette, 95% white, also working-class, high levels of poverty, economically very similar. And at the end of the day, in those first few days of September 2005, more similar than they probably would have realized. Because when those levies broke, they all got their stuff jacked. They all got their stuff destroyed. But if you had asked the white folks in Chalmette - and I've done it - who was the cause of the problems in the greater New Orleans area part of that flooding, they would have pointed across the canal at those black folks (wouldn't have called them black folks) and would have said "there, that's the problem." 70% of the white folks in St. Bernard Parish voted for David Duke, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, former head of the largest Ku Klux Klan group in the United States, when he ran for governer in 1991. Seven out of ten gladly voted for him, because he was blaming black folks for all of their problems and they bough it. What's the irony? The irony is that while they were blaming black people for their problems, while they were blaming black people for the conditions of the greater New Orleans area in which they lived, nobody was paying attention (least of all they) to the fact that these white elite politicians, either in Baton Rouge or in Washington, whose job it was to secure those levies, to make sure that levy funds were spent in the proper way and that they were spent at all, those mostly white and mostly elite politicians did nothing at the end of the day, it wasn't just the black folks in the Lower 9th Ward they didn't care about, they didn't give a rat's ass about those poor and working-class white folks either. And yet when the people of Chalmette - people of St. Bernard Parish - got back into session, first time they had a city council meeting, parish council meeting after the flooding, the lights aren't even on yet. The water isn't even hooked up, and the first order of business was to pass an ordinance saying that you couldn't rent property in St. Bernard Parish to anyone who wasn't a blood relative. Now I'll leave it up to your imagination as to why they'd want to pass a law - that law had never existed before - but now that it's been emptied out and you don't know who might be coming back, that's a damn good way to keep black people out, isn't it? 'Cause if you're 95% white to begin with, if you pass an ordinance that says that, that's a great w-you can't say "no blacks need apply," you can't say "no blacks allowed," but that was an ingenious way to get around the law. Now, they got caught, there was a lawsuit threatened and they got rid of the ordinance. But my point in bringing it up is to say, once again, "divide and conquer" is working. These white folks in Chalmette need to march across that canal and join hands with the black folks who've been sitting there, more than willing to work with them for an awful long time, and march on Baton Rouge, and march on DC, and march on the Corps of Engineers, and recognize their commonality of interest. But the whiteness, and the lure of whiteness, has tricked these have-nothing-in-their-bank-account white people into believing that they got more in common with the rich white folks on St. Charles Avenue, that didn't lose anything in that flooding, than they have in common with the black working-class folks who live about five hundred yards away.
This is a brilliant, powerful, and utterly illuminating piece. One of the biggest flaws I have noticed in anti-racist work (at least on the blogosphere), from people of any color, is the simple inability to connect with white allies. They express the problem, they express their rage, and they have that right, but it is rare for someone to actually communicate, to cause the white person to truly appreciate that they useful in the battle against racism and in fact have a sizeable stake in it. This communication may not be cathartic, and one often feels that the other party does not deserve such treatment, but it is vital in the acquisition of allies - something that other marginalized groups have already discovered. Tim Wise (likely by virtue of being white himself) has managed to communicate with the white mind, bringing to light one of its greatest flaws - to believe, because of the repeated affirmation of their whiteness on all sides, that even the most disenfranchised white person has more in common with their own oppressors than with their fellow oppressed. This is, in a word, bullshit - and I will try to remember that in the future.
(I will also remember to double-check my sources. I wasted a huge amount of time transcribing the talk, optimistically thinking that I was doing something useful, when there was already a PDF version available. Oh, well.)
(Via stuff white people do.)
Undercovers: Pilot
This review is a bit belated, on account of I only got around to watching the episode yesterday (on account of spy shows aren't usually my thing), but here goes. Starting with race issues, since they're the elephant in the room here.
First of all, my predictions were correct: the main couple are a pair of Oreos. While I won't argue the importance of having any black characters in the main roles, it is pretty obvious that they were written by white people who have no idea how black culture works in the middle class. (Furthermore, while the creative minds behind the show were hoping to get black actors, their casting call was unracified, so... yeah.) In a way that's good - who says a role has to be intended for a black person for a black person to get it? On the other hand, who says it's not cool to write a leading role specifically for a black person? In addition, almost the entire supporting cast consists of white people. I guess that's how you be an acceptable black person in this country - hire white people to run your catering business, rescue white spies, work for white government agents, etc. I know they didn't mean to show it that way, but it's thoughtless.
The show has also been criticized for hiring two black foreigners (Gugu Mbatha-Raw is English; Boris Kodjoe is Austrian-born German) to play their American roles. Its critics have in turn been criticized for being too picky - after all, nobody had a cow when British Hugh Laurie was cast as American Dr. House. Well, that's all fine and good, but Dr. House isn't exactly the sole representation of cranky, middle-aged, white male doctors on television. Or one of only a handful of white leads, period. Here they had a chance to represent an entire demographic of American people with two roles, and they felt they had to bring in foreigners? Are American black actors just not good enough, or what?
The bottom line on race: Black protagonists are a great start, but they're a start. Keep working, folks.
Then there's the sexism angle. It continues to bother me that no woman is allowed to be a spy unless 1: she is partnered with a male spy, 2: she is married to a male spy, or 3: she is going to sleep with a male spy at some point. Also, the portrayal of Samantha and Leo's past relationship also bugs me - not because they had one, but because her repeated insistence that he could not be a turncoat comes across as an interference of her personal (womanly) feelings with what would otherwise be sound judgment. (The fact that Steven was Leo's partner for some time but does not feel this way compounds the idea.) She turns out to be right, which does vindicate the problem slightly, but the fact that they never confront this assumption leaves some niggling doubt in my mind. Then there's the scene where she has to hit on a guy she is repulsed by in order to obtain information.
On the other hand, Samantha gets some totally kick-ass moments. She disregards her husband's irrational insistence that she stays "safe," and in doing so manages to save Steven and Leo. Then when she takes off to try and stop the bad guy, she not only takes out his minion without a problem, but stops him single-handedly while Steven is busy rescuing Leo. That, dear reader, is girl power. And it rocks.
Also, the white guy got shot. That was funny.
But what about the show itself? Does it have entertainment value? Definitely. I'm a little irked by some of the spy tropes (ooh, we're spies, we get to go to these exotic European locations!), but I enjoy the storyline, I enjoy the action, I definitely enjoyed Samantha's dress, and I appreciate the implication that they can successfully juggle their spy careers with their catering business. And I loved the little robot-shaped flash drive. So cute.
However, there is one last thing that I do not appreciate: the continued normalization of the overworked middle-class citizen. They spend all day working so they can afford all these luxuries that they're now too tired to enjoy - what's the point? Heck, what's the point of working so hard every day that you're always too tired for sex? More than a spy job, it struck me that these characters needed some time off to rethink their priorities. Maybe they're not so middle class; maybe they're struggling just to keep food on the table and clothes on their backs. But I doubt it. It certainly isn't made to seem that way.
I will, of course, keep watching to see how things play out.
First of all, my predictions were correct: the main couple are a pair of Oreos. While I won't argue the importance of having any black characters in the main roles, it is pretty obvious that they were written by white people who have no idea how black culture works in the middle class. (Furthermore, while the creative minds behind the show were hoping to get black actors, their casting call was unracified, so... yeah.) In a way that's good - who says a role has to be intended for a black person for a black person to get it? On the other hand, who says it's not cool to write a leading role specifically for a black person? In addition, almost the entire supporting cast consists of white people. I guess that's how you be an acceptable black person in this country - hire white people to run your catering business, rescue white spies, work for white government agents, etc. I know they didn't mean to show it that way, but it's thoughtless.
The show has also been criticized for hiring two black foreigners (Gugu Mbatha-Raw is English; Boris Kodjoe is Austrian-born German) to play their American roles. Its critics have in turn been criticized for being too picky - after all, nobody had a cow when British Hugh Laurie was cast as American Dr. House. Well, that's all fine and good, but Dr. House isn't exactly the sole representation of cranky, middle-aged, white male doctors on television. Or one of only a handful of white leads, period. Here they had a chance to represent an entire demographic of American people with two roles, and they felt they had to bring in foreigners? Are American black actors just not good enough, or what?
The bottom line on race: Black protagonists are a great start, but they're a start. Keep working, folks.
Then there's the sexism angle. It continues to bother me that no woman is allowed to be a spy unless 1: she is partnered with a male spy, 2: she is married to a male spy, or 3: she is going to sleep with a male spy at some point. Also, the portrayal of Samantha and Leo's past relationship also bugs me - not because they had one, but because her repeated insistence that he could not be a turncoat comes across as an interference of her personal (womanly) feelings with what would otherwise be sound judgment. (The fact that Steven was Leo's partner for some time but does not feel this way compounds the idea.) She turns out to be right, which does vindicate the problem slightly, but the fact that they never confront this assumption leaves some niggling doubt in my mind. Then there's the scene where she has to hit on a guy she is repulsed by in order to obtain information.
On the other hand, Samantha gets some totally kick-ass moments. She disregards her husband's irrational insistence that she stays "safe," and in doing so manages to save Steven and Leo. Then when she takes off to try and stop the bad guy, she not only takes out his minion without a problem, but stops him single-handedly while Steven is busy rescuing Leo. That, dear reader, is girl power. And it rocks.
Also, the white guy got shot. That was funny.
But what about the show itself? Does it have entertainment value? Definitely. I'm a little irked by some of the spy tropes (ooh, we're spies, we get to go to these exotic European locations!), but I enjoy the storyline, I enjoy the action, I definitely enjoyed Samantha's dress, and I appreciate the implication that they can successfully juggle their spy careers with their catering business. And I loved the little robot-shaped flash drive. So cute.
However, there is one last thing that I do not appreciate: the continued normalization of the overworked middle-class citizen. They spend all day working so they can afford all these luxuries that they're now too tired to enjoy - what's the point? Heck, what's the point of working so hard every day that you're always too tired for sex? More than a spy job, it struck me that these characters needed some time off to rethink their priorities. Maybe they're not so middle class; maybe they're struggling just to keep food on the table and clothes on their backs. But I doubt it. It certainly isn't made to seem that way.
I will, of course, keep watching to see how things play out.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Discrimination Litmus Test (The Easy Version)
Whenever someone points out a case of heterosexism/cissexism/sexism/racism/ableism/any form of non-imaginary discrimination, it's only a matter of time before this happens:
We find these truths to be self-evident, but for easy reference, here is the most recent example. Scroll down to the comments where a Well-Intentioned White Liberal (we presume) immediately argues that Glee is not transphobic (read: perpetuating transphobia) because "Ryan Murphy likes to play with gender lines," not racist (read: perpetuating racism) because "Tina [the Asian girl] had a storylone(sic) before" and because it has "one of the most diverse casts on television," and not misogynistic (read: perpetuating misogyny) because "Artie is a teenage boy" and therefore he's expected to be misogynistic. Oh, and it's not heterosexist (you know how to read this by now) because its creator is gay. (They didn't touch the ableism, strangely.)
WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Here's how it works, guys. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character and does nothing to combat it, it's discriminatory. Period. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character, then attempts to combat it without actually empowering the character in question, it's discriminatory. Period. This is a complex issue that I could spend pages upon pages trying to explain, but who wants to read that? No one. Instead, I offer this quick-and-dirty litmus test that will allow you as a viewer/reader/other form of consumer to determine whether X's portrayal of Y is, in fact, discriminatory. Just a few simple questions and then you'll know.
Why are these things discriminatory? That's an extremely complex issue that would require multiple paragraphs to explain in-depth, so I'll sum up: To express an idea is to perpetuate the belief that that idea is valid. The only exception is when you express said idea with the direct cause of invalidating it - and even then, unless everyone knows that you are a past or possible victim of the idea you're expressing, it's risky.
Of course, there are other ways for stories to be discriminatory, even if they pass this test. This is nothing more than a quick way to weed out obvious instances.
(Initial Argument): And that's why X's portrayal of Y is discriminatory.
(Rebuttal): That's not discrimination! That's just how X happened to portray Y. It's a joke/based on reality/just how that character is/a fluke/ironic.
We find these truths to be self-evident, but for easy reference, here is the most recent example. Scroll down to the comments where a Well-Intentioned White Liberal (we presume) immediately argues that Glee is not transphobic (read: perpetuating transphobia) because "Ryan Murphy likes to play with gender lines," not racist (read: perpetuating racism) because "Tina [the Asian girl] had a storylone(sic) before" and because it has "one of the most diverse casts on television," and not misogynistic (read: perpetuating misogyny) because "Artie is a teenage boy" and therefore he's expected to be misogynistic. Oh, and it's not heterosexist (you know how to read this by now) because its creator is gay. (They didn't touch the ableism, strangely.)
WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Here's how it works, guys. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character and does nothing to combat it, it's discriminatory. Period. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character, then attempts to combat it without actually empowering the character in question, it's discriminatory. Period. This is a complex issue that I could spend pages upon pages trying to explain, but who wants to read that? No one. Instead, I offer this quick-and-dirty litmus test that will allow you as a viewer/reader/other form of consumer to determine whether X's portrayal of Y is, in fact, discriminatory. Just a few simple questions and then you'll know.
Question 1: Is a stereotype being perpetuated? If not, is a member of a marginalized group being put down for their membership in that group, by the storyline or by another character? (Use your own judgment, but before you do, read the work of someone who belongs to that minority so you have some idea what you're looking for. For instance, a trans woman becoming a prostitute, a black teenager becoming involved in drug use, a teenage girl falling prey to a jerkwad boyfriend and being rescued by her father.)
Question 2: Is the character in question the only member of his/her minority to be portrayed?
Question 3: If yes, is the character in question the only member of the cast to fall under said stereotype/be put down? If no, are other characters belonging to the same minority treated the same way? (Protip: Using a stereotype or putting down a marginalized character for their marginalized trait is NEVER okay, but if the answer to either of these questions is "no," then you can safely say that the work is doing something to fight it.)
Question 4: Does the story, through plot or another character, obviously break the stereotype or re-empower the character? (If yes, and only in this case, is it safe to argue that the portrayal was "ironic" or "subversive." Examples of this happening would be a trans person finding a happy ending, an Asian pointing out that not all Asians are math geniuses, etc.)
Question 5: Does the re-empowerment of the character come at the hands of someone who is not a member of the same marginalized group? (If yes, it's not re-empowerment, and it's still discriminatory.)
Why are these things discriminatory? That's an extremely complex issue that would require multiple paragraphs to explain in-depth, so I'll sum up: To express an idea is to perpetuate the belief that that idea is valid. The only exception is when you express said idea with the direct cause of invalidating it - and even then, unless everyone knows that you are a past or possible victim of the idea you're expressing, it's risky.
Of course, there are other ways for stories to be discriminatory, even if they pass this test. This is nothing more than a quick way to weed out obvious instances.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Hulu's Fall Lineup: The Good, The Bad, and the What-The-Fuck-Were-You-Thinking
It's September, and that means it's time for new shows. Hulu is on the ball as usual, throwing up trailers for all the cool stuff we can expect this fall. Or is it all cool?
Or: does it sound interesting (a must for entertainment), and is it offensive to one or more major marginalized group(s)?
I dunno, Billy! Let's find out!
(Note: These are first impressions of the shows in question and are subject to change.)
Trailer #1: The Event.
Plot-wise, I have no idea what's going on here. There's a string of events (but not The Event, we're told) that show an assassination attempt on the President, a man who suddenly finds that his girlfriend is missing, a group of underground something-or-others in Canada... or... something? and some other stuff. It looks like it could be cool, but I can't even tell.
On a racial level alone, it sort of passes. We have a black President with a black military advisor (good roles, but are these getting to be stereotypes?) Another of his advisors is white, and the guy who's missing his girlfriend appears white, as is the woman who runs the underground whatevers. Dig deeper into the kyriarchy, though, and it falls apart. The Event is clearly an able, straight, cisgendered, adult man's club, with only one female character of importance (aside from the missing MacGuffin girlfriend), no women of color in important roles, and no disabled, "alternative sexuality," lower-class, and/or any other members of the mosaic. It's not offensive enough to write it off the watch list (though erasure IS offensive), but it's worth noting.
Trailer #2: No Ordinary Family
The plot: A middle-class, white, dysfunctional (A.K.A. "normal") family takes a vacation to South America. While they're there, they get into a plane crash and end up in water with some weird glowing stuff. When they get back, they discover that they have superpowers. Fun for the whole family! If you're a white, patriarchy-induced, nuclear family, anyway.
I went beyond the trailer on this one, checking out the other promotional material on Hulu, and what I found was not pretty. It's not that the family is white that bothers me - hey, we have stories to tell too - but the other facts. The clear protagonist is the father: a middle-aged, middle-class, able, straight, cis man who feels like he's not strong enough because he... can't control his family? I'm not exactly clear, but the reason seems to be because his teenage children are becoming independent and have less need for an authorative dad, which just bothers him. His wife is a career-oriented power lady who, according to the promotional material, is a "failure" as a mother because she focuses on her job more than her kids. That's right, lady, get back into the kitchen. (Fortunately, as far as I can tell, getting superpowers isn't an instant ticket into stay-at-home-mom mode. But seriously, guys.) The teenage girl is a walking stereotype: addicted to text messaging, constantly trying to blow off her parents, and dating a guy who is only into her for her pussy. (Remember, honey, the only man you need in your life is Dad.) The boy - the only character whose problems aren't inextricably tied to gender - has a learning disability (or at least seems to) that is holding him back in school.
So there are no people of color in main roles, no trans characters, no gay characters (unless the teenage boy is gay, which I doubt because again it's not "that kind of show"), yadda. The only important minority character you see in the trailer is the protagonist's black best friend, who encourages him to try out his powers and then arranges to have a superhero lair installed in his garage (out of the goodness of his heart, we presume). Okay, I understand enthusiasm, but the black guy's willingness to do ALL this stuff for the white guy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
This is ridiculous. One of the protagonists is a young woman who feels like her familial responsibilities are stopping her from growing up, and she's portrayed as a "rebel" who needs to get over herself and come back to Dad. Another one is a woman who is a "failure" because she can't juggle her 80-hour work week with her kids, leaving Dad (OH NOES!) to fill in. Dad sucks because he's not the glue holding everyone together (the "head of the household," as they say.) Furthermore, the title perpetuates the idea that white, straight, cis, able, and middle class = ordinary. The only thing "ordinary" about this family, EVER, is that one time they did not have superpowers. But the writers don't seem to get that.
At least they didn't get their powers from some "ancient Aztec artifact." The last thing they need to stack onto this nonsense is a dose of cultural appropriation.
Also, what happened to the pilot of the plane? Did he get superpowers too, or what?
In conclusion: Despite the obvious flaws out of the gate, I will be giving this one a shot. It looks entertaining, and it might be better than it sounds. And, y'know, SUPERPOWERS!
(Bear with me! It gets better.)
Trailer #3: Raising Hope
The plot: Some dude living with his mother has a baby fall into his lap and decides to raise it. Hijinks ensue.
This one didn't give me a lot to work with, as the trailer was less than a minute long. But here's what I know: The protagonist is (naturally) a cis, straight, able, white male, but then I'm not sure anyone else would want to get close to this silliness. The story plays the stereotype that men are bad with babies for laughs, while perpetuating it, which sucks. It doesn't look so much offensive as just plain dumb.
Trailer #4: My Generation
Again, I'm not entirely sure what this is. It seems to be a fictional documentary about ten people who were teenagers in the year 2000, and what they're doing now in 2010. It's an interesting concept, but the execution looks trite. To be honest, my biggest complaint is that the trailer was deceptive - at the beginning, it looked like a story about 9/11 and its impact on the way members of that generation grew up, but then it switched directions and became more "slice of life"-ish.
From the trailer, I can tell that most of the cast are white, cis, able, straight, and a whole slew of other "default"-isms. There are a few POC, including two women (the cast is almost half female, which is nice), no gay characters that I know of, no trans characters, disabled characters, dwarves, fat characters, and/or yadda. I can't tell if there are any poor characters or anything else I might have missed. Still, it seems like decent mainstream entertainment, even though I probably won't watch it.
Trailer #5: Outlaw
A Supreme Court justice resigns from the Court so he can become a defense attorney and use his totally kickass knowledge of the law to help a man who was falsely imprisoned for murder. He succeeds! So he decides to help others, too. Definitely worth checking out.
Now here's the surprise: The protagonist is... a Latino! The guy he helps is... a black dude! His legal team is a mixture of races and sexes (though all the women seem to be white, and have minor roles compared to the big boys). The bad news is, our guy is a misogynist. He "can't remember the names of the last three women [he] slept with," and hired one team member "because [she's] pretty." And there are STILL no characters who aren't cisgendered, straight, able, full-sized, yadda - at least not that is mentioned in the trailer.
Trailer #6: Running Wilde: Will Interviews Will
Will Arnett interviews Will Arnett. I don't know what this is supposed to promote, nor do I even care. He just douches around for a couple of minutes - which is enough time for him to crack misogynistic and ageist. Whoopee.
Trailer #7: Lone Star
A charming, attractive, talented, and secretly nice con man (who is not Josh Holloway) falls in love with a couple of his marks and wants to quit the business. Dad says no. Angst happens. It's all very dramatic; looks like a decent show, but not my thing.
So, the protagonist is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, his dad is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, the girl characters are plot devices for the protagonist to play off of, and that's all we know. Not a great showing, I have to say. However, I am liking the growing tendency of story writers to portray in their stories that it is possible to really be in love with multiple people at the same time. LOST did this as well. It's a nice counter to the monogamist propoganda.
Trailer #8: Undercovers
A happily married black couple has their lives interrupted by a guy from their past... who knows that they are ex-spies and wants them to come back to the job. Very traditional spy story. Might be interesting.
As mentioned above, the protagonists are black (pale, pointy black, of course). ABC's motto this season is "more colorful," and they seem to be living up to it pretty well. Of course, they are a middle-class, cisgendered, heterosexual, able-bodied couple. In fact, aside from skin color, there's really nothing to distinguish them from an equally-endowed white couple. Also, why is it a woman can't be a spy unless she's (A) married to a male spy, (B) going to be married to a male spy, or (C) going to sleep with a male spy (or already has)? This SUCKS.
Even so, it's nice to have some non-white protagonists.
Trailer #9: Chase
A U.S. Marshal tracks a serial killer cross-country. He avoids her and kills more people, 'cause he's good at it. Then she catches him! Not really my thing.
Finally, after eight shows, there's a female protagonist (white, able-bodied, cisgendered, straight... eh) who isn't sharing the stage with a man. Plus she's competent at her job. Every other minority group (because you can't have more than one!) is ignored, of course. But just MAYBE this will give young, law-enforcement-ambitions girls who watch NBC someone to look up to.
Trailer #10: Outsourced
A white dude gets a managerial position at a novelty-item company's call center... which has just been moved to India. Lulz ensue.
Naturally, most of the characters in the show are Indian. This being a comedy, however, they are strictly gag Indians. Laughs are gleaned both from the protagonist's ineptitude and from... LOADS AND LOADS OF RACISM! Indian culture is played for laughs, as is the protagonist's racist reactions to it. YAAAAAAY. In between insulting Indian headgear and teaching the locals about America's culture through pop music, he finds time for romance... with a white woman, who was clearly dredged out of the woodwork just so he'd have someone to date who wasn't brown.
Kill me now.
This is also put out by NBC "more colorful," which really makes me wonder WHAT THE FUCK THEY WERE THINKING.
Trailer #11: School Pride
Nonfiction! A bunch of rich guys find one of the crappiest schools in the country and engage the students and faculty in a huge effort to improve it. And they do.
This show looks AWESOME. Being a really run-down school in a poor neighborhood, it's naturally attended by children of color - intelligent, hardworking, enthusiastic children of color who are shown as nothing less than the victims of a bad situation. The School Pride team features a mix of races and sexes (including a woman of color), and they work together with the faculty and students to renovate the facility and get things back on track. The show's upbeat tone seems to prevent it from being exploitative of the children's suffering, though I could be wrong on that since reality television tends to be exploitative by its nature. It is upbeat and inspiring, though - something that children of color need to see more of in mainstream media.
Or: does it sound interesting (a must for entertainment), and is it offensive to one or more major marginalized group(s)?
I dunno, Billy! Let's find out!
(Note: These are first impressions of the shows in question and are subject to change.)
Trailer #1: The Event.
Plot-wise, I have no idea what's going on here. There's a string of events (but not The Event, we're told) that show an assassination attempt on the President, a man who suddenly finds that his girlfriend is missing, a group of underground something-or-others in Canada... or... something? and some other stuff. It looks like it could be cool, but I can't even tell.
On a racial level alone, it sort of passes. We have a black President with a black military advisor (good roles, but are these getting to be stereotypes?) Another of his advisors is white, and the guy who's missing his girlfriend appears white, as is the woman who runs the underground whatevers. Dig deeper into the kyriarchy, though, and it falls apart. The Event is clearly an able, straight, cisgendered, adult man's club, with only one female character of importance (aside from the missing MacGuffin girlfriend), no women of color in important roles, and no disabled, "alternative sexuality," lower-class, and/or any other members of the mosaic. It's not offensive enough to write it off the watch list (though erasure IS offensive), but it's worth noting.
Trailer #2: No Ordinary Family
The plot: A middle-class, white, dysfunctional (A.K.A. "normal") family takes a vacation to South America. While they're there, they get into a plane crash and end up in water with some weird glowing stuff. When they get back, they discover that they have superpowers. Fun for the whole family! If you're a white, patriarchy-induced, nuclear family, anyway.
I went beyond the trailer on this one, checking out the other promotional material on Hulu, and what I found was not pretty. It's not that the family is white that bothers me - hey, we have stories to tell too - but the other facts. The clear protagonist is the father: a middle-aged, middle-class, able, straight, cis man who feels like he's not strong enough because he... can't control his family? I'm not exactly clear, but the reason seems to be because his teenage children are becoming independent and have less need for an authorative dad, which just bothers him. His wife is a career-oriented power lady who, according to the promotional material, is a "failure" as a mother because she focuses on her job more than her kids. That's right, lady, get back into the kitchen. (Fortunately, as far as I can tell, getting superpowers isn't an instant ticket into stay-at-home-mom mode. But seriously, guys.) The teenage girl is a walking stereotype: addicted to text messaging, constantly trying to blow off her parents, and dating a guy who is only into her for her pussy. (Remember, honey, the only man you need in your life is Dad.) The boy - the only character whose problems aren't inextricably tied to gender - has a learning disability (or at least seems to) that is holding him back in school.
So there are no people of color in main roles, no trans characters, no gay characters (unless the teenage boy is gay, which I doubt because again it's not "that kind of show"), yadda. The only important minority character you see in the trailer is the protagonist's black best friend, who encourages him to try out his powers and then arranges to have a superhero lair installed in his garage (out of the goodness of his heart, we presume). Okay, I understand enthusiasm, but the black guy's willingness to do ALL this stuff for the white guy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
This is ridiculous. One of the protagonists is a young woman who feels like her familial responsibilities are stopping her from growing up, and she's portrayed as a "rebel" who needs to get over herself and come back to Dad. Another one is a woman who is a "failure" because she can't juggle her 80-hour work week with her kids, leaving Dad (OH NOES!) to fill in. Dad sucks because he's not the glue holding everyone together (the "head of the household," as they say.) Furthermore, the title perpetuates the idea that white, straight, cis, able, and middle class = ordinary. The only thing "ordinary" about this family, EVER, is that one time they did not have superpowers. But the writers don't seem to get that.
At least they didn't get their powers from some "ancient Aztec artifact." The last thing they need to stack onto this nonsense is a dose of cultural appropriation.
Also, what happened to the pilot of the plane? Did he get superpowers too, or what?
In conclusion: Despite the obvious flaws out of the gate, I will be giving this one a shot. It looks entertaining, and it might be better than it sounds. And, y'know, SUPERPOWERS!
(Bear with me! It gets better.)
Trailer #3: Raising Hope
The plot: Some dude living with his mother has a baby fall into his lap and decides to raise it. Hijinks ensue.
This one didn't give me a lot to work with, as the trailer was less than a minute long. But here's what I know: The protagonist is (naturally) a cis, straight, able, white male, but then I'm not sure anyone else would want to get close to this silliness. The story plays the stereotype that men are bad with babies for laughs, while perpetuating it, which sucks. It doesn't look so much offensive as just plain dumb.
Trailer #4: My Generation
Again, I'm not entirely sure what this is. It seems to be a fictional documentary about ten people who were teenagers in the year 2000, and what they're doing now in 2010. It's an interesting concept, but the execution looks trite. To be honest, my biggest complaint is that the trailer was deceptive - at the beginning, it looked like a story about 9/11 and its impact on the way members of that generation grew up, but then it switched directions and became more "slice of life"-ish.
From the trailer, I can tell that most of the cast are white, cis, able, straight, and a whole slew of other "default"-isms. There are a few POC, including two women (the cast is almost half female, which is nice), no gay characters that I know of, no trans characters, disabled characters, dwarves, fat characters, and/or yadda. I can't tell if there are any poor characters or anything else I might have missed. Still, it seems like decent mainstream entertainment, even though I probably won't watch it.
Trailer #5: Outlaw
A Supreme Court justice resigns from the Court so he can become a defense attorney and use his totally kickass knowledge of the law to help a man who was falsely imprisoned for murder. He succeeds! So he decides to help others, too. Definitely worth checking out.
Now here's the surprise: The protagonist is... a Latino! The guy he helps is... a black dude! His legal team is a mixture of races and sexes (though all the women seem to be white, and have minor roles compared to the big boys). The bad news is, our guy is a misogynist. He "can't remember the names of the last three women [he] slept with," and hired one team member "because [she's] pretty." And there are STILL no characters who aren't cisgendered, straight, able, full-sized, yadda - at least not that is mentioned in the trailer.
Trailer #6: Running Wilde: Will Interviews Will
Will Arnett interviews Will Arnett. I don't know what this is supposed to promote, nor do I even care. He just douches around for a couple of minutes - which is enough time for him to crack misogynistic and ageist. Whoopee.
Trailer #7: Lone Star
A charming, attractive, talented, and secretly nice con man (who is not Josh Holloway) falls in love with a couple of his marks and wants to quit the business. Dad says no. Angst happens. It's all very dramatic; looks like a decent show, but not my thing.
So, the protagonist is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, his dad is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, the girl characters are plot devices for the protagonist to play off of, and that's all we know. Not a great showing, I have to say. However, I am liking the growing tendency of story writers to portray in their stories that it is possible to really be in love with multiple people at the same time. LOST did this as well. It's a nice counter to the monogamist propoganda.
Trailer #8: Undercovers
A happily married black couple has their lives interrupted by a guy from their past... who knows that they are ex-spies and wants them to come back to the job. Very traditional spy story. Might be interesting.
As mentioned above, the protagonists are black (pale, pointy black, of course). ABC's motto this season is "more colorful," and they seem to be living up to it pretty well. Of course, they are a middle-class, cisgendered, heterosexual, able-bodied couple. In fact, aside from skin color, there's really nothing to distinguish them from an equally-endowed white couple. Also, why is it a woman can't be a spy unless she's (A) married to a male spy, (B) going to be married to a male spy, or (C) going to sleep with a male spy (or already has)? This SUCKS.
Even so, it's nice to have some non-white protagonists.
Trailer #9: Chase
A U.S. Marshal tracks a serial killer cross-country. He avoids her and kills more people, 'cause he's good at it. Then she catches him! Not really my thing.
Finally, after eight shows, there's a female protagonist (white, able-bodied, cisgendered, straight... eh) who isn't sharing the stage with a man. Plus she's competent at her job. Every other minority group (because you can't have more than one!) is ignored, of course. But just MAYBE this will give young, law-enforcement-ambitions girls who watch NBC someone to look up to.
Trailer #10: Outsourced
A white dude gets a managerial position at a novelty-item company's call center... which has just been moved to India. Lulz ensue.
Naturally, most of the characters in the show are Indian. This being a comedy, however, they are strictly gag Indians. Laughs are gleaned both from the protagonist's ineptitude and from... LOADS AND LOADS OF RACISM! Indian culture is played for laughs, as is the protagonist's racist reactions to it. YAAAAAAY. In between insulting Indian headgear and teaching the locals about America's culture through pop music, he finds time for romance... with a white woman, who was clearly dredged out of the woodwork just so he'd have someone to date who wasn't brown.
Kill me now.
This is also put out by NBC "more colorful," which really makes me wonder WHAT THE FUCK THEY WERE THINKING.
Trailer #11: School Pride
Nonfiction! A bunch of rich guys find one of the crappiest schools in the country and engage the students and faculty in a huge effort to improve it. And they do.
This show looks AWESOME. Being a really run-down school in a poor neighborhood, it's naturally attended by children of color - intelligent, hardworking, enthusiastic children of color who are shown as nothing less than the victims of a bad situation. The School Pride team features a mix of races and sexes (including a woman of color), and they work together with the faculty and students to renovate the facility and get things back on track. The show's upbeat tone seems to prevent it from being exploitative of the children's suffering, though I could be wrong on that since reality television tends to be exploitative by its nature. It is upbeat and inspiring, though - something that children of color need to see more of in mainstream media.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Skip This One: It's A Boy Girl Thing
Being a trans guy, I'm into genderflip movies. It's just one of those things, like gay men being into gay male movies, kids being into movies about teenagers, and the entire film industry being obsessed with movies about white people. (One of these is not okay, but that's been covered by much more qualified writers than I.) Basically, I like these movies because some small part of them reflects the kind of things I go through, or would like to go through. I also watch them just for a laugh, because hey - nobody's serious all the time, not even the super serious trans man.
This one, though, can be skipped.
It's A Boy Girl Thing is a (SPOILERS!) romantic comedy about two white teenagers of opposite sexes. Nell, the girl, is fairly well-off. She's educated, well-mannered, nicely dressed, and hoping to get into Yale University. Woody, the boy (nice name, eh?), comes from a working-class family. His clothes are worn out, his manners are lacking, and his mom can't cook very well. He'll be lucky if he gets into any university.
Nell and Woody hate each other with a passion. So much that they get into a fight in a museum, which awakens the statue of an ancient god (for serious), who does some magical mist-fu that causes them to switch bodies. I will admit, this part of the movie is actually pretty entertaining. Aside from a couple of blunders, the two actors playing the roles do so very well, and the jokes are mostly funny. (Very raunchy, but funny.) The film does an average job of subverting gender roles, in that the characters do learn to appreciate each others' hobbies, but the male is still such a dunce that he can only learn to appreciate something that he already appreciates. Long story. The movie also comes down a little bit on classism, and has a bit in support of rap music, which is nice.
Those are the redeeming qualities. Now for the bad stuff.
First of all, the film just misses its mark. It's supposed to be about the differences between boys and girls (or so one would assume, based on the title), but it's as much, if not more, about the differences between class levels. It's entertaining, but it doesn't fit the title. Another gripe of mine - minor, I will admit - is that the setting of the film is a little too reminiscent of The Fantasticks. The two live right next to each other, she in a nice house with a neat lawn, he in a shabby house with a filthy yard, and while the families are presumably locked into feud, secretly their fathers would like nothing better than to see them together.
Those are just infractions - things that are a little annoying, but don't really ruin the movie for me. No, what really gets me is the bigotry. While the film fights gender roles and class divides with one hand, with the other it dispenses racism, homophobia, and slut shaming in the traditional "I'm not really bigoted" way that white cinema tends to do.
First of all, let's look at the racism. There are exactly two characters of color in this film (neither of which are the protagonists, naturally). One of them is a randy, apelike, teenaged black boy who is obsessed with sex to the point that he cheats on his white girlfriend regularly. The other one has very little character, but is a motorcycle-driving Latino who will have sex with any girl on campus at the drop of a hat, and comes dangerously close to destroying Nell's virginity (except he doesn't - more on that later). Of course the filmmakers didn't intend the film to be racist, but when the only lesson we learn is that teenaged boys of color are all sex machines who will cheat on/destroy the innocence of your white daughters, guess what I call it. Yup.
Also, it is implied throughout the film that the black character is extremely well-endowed, which never fails to catch the attention of the characters who get an eyeful of his junk. 'Cause all black guys have big penises, get it?
Now the homophobia. This is mostly character-driven, in a scene where Woody (in Nell's body) attempts to have sex with the aforementioned Latino, only to realize at the last minute that it's a terrible idea because he's not into guys. That's not bad. In fact, it was a great idea. But then he starts going on: "This is so gay! He's gonna make me his bitch!" He's more worried about having a "gay" experience - which he is certain will be demeaning and disgusting - than he is about having sex with someone that he's not into.
Just in case you thought this was just a character thing and had no bearing on the writers' views: first, no effort is made to contradict Woody's opinions, and secondly, it happens again, at the end of the movie. The aforementioned black character, having been dumped and thoroughly humiliated by his girlfriend, finds himself naked at a party, in front of a gay man who is obviously impressed with his super-sized black junk. Lesson #2: Don't cheat on your girlfriend, or else the gays will come after you. And while you might not think that's a bad thing, the filmmakers obviously believe that it would be gross and embarrassing.
After those two whoppers, this one is more of a footnote. See, there isn't actual slut shaming in this movie per se, but its effects are quite visible. Nell, trapped in Woody's body, is thoroughly convinced that her hymen is her virginity, and that if Woody in Nell's body has sex, that means that Nell is no longer a virgin. This would be horrible, because she was saving her first time for someone special. While there's nothing wrong with Nell's desire to wait for her first sexual experience, there is something hugely wrong with her assumption. Regardless of whose hymen is abused, if Woody had gone through with his plan, all it would mean is that Woody had sex that night. Nell wasn't there, she didn't have sex, she's still a virgin, end of discussion. And again, the movie does nothing to counteract this idea.
So, that's it in a nutshell. You might think that these things are minor - after all, nobody is going to watch one movie and think "Well, gee, I guess all boys of color are bad and gay sex is disgusting!" Can't I just forget the bad parts and enjoy the movie?
Well, no. Because the bad parts are in the movie. And people are going to watch this film and come away with a niggling subconscious idea that white boys, like the eventually honorable Woody, are better potential mates than boys of color, just because this movie showed it. A conscious knowledge to the contrary cannot completely overcome a subconscious suspicion. And this movie offers way too many of them for comfort.
This one, though, can be skipped.
It's A Boy Girl Thing is a (SPOILERS!) romantic comedy about two white teenagers of opposite sexes. Nell, the girl, is fairly well-off. She's educated, well-mannered, nicely dressed, and hoping to get into Yale University. Woody, the boy (nice name, eh?), comes from a working-class family. His clothes are worn out, his manners are lacking, and his mom can't cook very well. He'll be lucky if he gets into any university.
Nell and Woody hate each other with a passion. So much that they get into a fight in a museum, which awakens the statue of an ancient god (for serious), who does some magical mist-fu that causes them to switch bodies. I will admit, this part of the movie is actually pretty entertaining. Aside from a couple of blunders, the two actors playing the roles do so very well, and the jokes are mostly funny. (Very raunchy, but funny.) The film does an average job of subverting gender roles, in that the characters do learn to appreciate each others' hobbies, but the male is still such a dunce that he can only learn to appreciate something that he already appreciates. Long story. The movie also comes down a little bit on classism, and has a bit in support of rap music, which is nice.
Those are the redeeming qualities. Now for the bad stuff.
First of all, the film just misses its mark. It's supposed to be about the differences between boys and girls (or so one would assume, based on the title), but it's as much, if not more, about the differences between class levels. It's entertaining, but it doesn't fit the title. Another gripe of mine - minor, I will admit - is that the setting of the film is a little too reminiscent of The Fantasticks. The two live right next to each other, she in a nice house with a neat lawn, he in a shabby house with a filthy yard, and while the families are presumably locked into feud, secretly their fathers would like nothing better than to see them together.
Those are just infractions - things that are a little annoying, but don't really ruin the movie for me. No, what really gets me is the bigotry. While the film fights gender roles and class divides with one hand, with the other it dispenses racism, homophobia, and slut shaming in the traditional "I'm not really bigoted" way that white cinema tends to do.
First of all, let's look at the racism. There are exactly two characters of color in this film (neither of which are the protagonists, naturally). One of them is a randy, apelike, teenaged black boy who is obsessed with sex to the point that he cheats on his white girlfriend regularly. The other one has very little character, but is a motorcycle-driving Latino who will have sex with any girl on campus at the drop of a hat, and comes dangerously close to destroying Nell's virginity (except he doesn't - more on that later). Of course the filmmakers didn't intend the film to be racist, but when the only lesson we learn is that teenaged boys of color are all sex machines who will cheat on/destroy the innocence of your white daughters, guess what I call it. Yup.
Also, it is implied throughout the film that the black character is extremely well-endowed, which never fails to catch the attention of the characters who get an eyeful of his junk. 'Cause all black guys have big penises, get it?
Now the homophobia. This is mostly character-driven, in a scene where Woody (in Nell's body) attempts to have sex with the aforementioned Latino, only to realize at the last minute that it's a terrible idea because he's not into guys. That's not bad. In fact, it was a great idea. But then he starts going on: "This is so gay! He's gonna make me his bitch!" He's more worried about having a "gay" experience - which he is certain will be demeaning and disgusting - than he is about having sex with someone that he's not into.
Just in case you thought this was just a character thing and had no bearing on the writers' views: first, no effort is made to contradict Woody's opinions, and secondly, it happens again, at the end of the movie. The aforementioned black character, having been dumped and thoroughly humiliated by his girlfriend, finds himself naked at a party, in front of a gay man who is obviously impressed with his super-sized black junk. Lesson #2: Don't cheat on your girlfriend, or else the gays will come after you. And while you might not think that's a bad thing, the filmmakers obviously believe that it would be gross and embarrassing.
After those two whoppers, this one is more of a footnote. See, there isn't actual slut shaming in this movie per se, but its effects are quite visible. Nell, trapped in Woody's body, is thoroughly convinced that her hymen is her virginity, and that if Woody in Nell's body has sex, that means that Nell is no longer a virgin. This would be horrible, because she was saving her first time for someone special. While there's nothing wrong with Nell's desire to wait for her first sexual experience, there is something hugely wrong with her assumption. Regardless of whose hymen is abused, if Woody had gone through with his plan, all it would mean is that Woody had sex that night. Nell wasn't there, she didn't have sex, she's still a virgin, end of discussion. And again, the movie does nothing to counteract this idea.
So, that's it in a nutshell. You might think that these things are minor - after all, nobody is going to watch one movie and think "Well, gee, I guess all boys of color are bad and gay sex is disgusting!" Can't I just forget the bad parts and enjoy the movie?
Well, no. Because the bad parts are in the movie. And people are going to watch this film and come away with a niggling subconscious idea that white boys, like the eventually honorable Woody, are better potential mates than boys of color, just because this movie showed it. A conscious knowledge to the contrary cannot completely overcome a subconscious suspicion. And this movie offers way too many of them for comfort.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
WHAT IS THIS. (Or: the ACTA.)
AND WHY DID I NOT HEAR ABOUT IT SOONER.
Oh, of course! Because the combined governments involved in the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" have refused to release the content of their proposed bill to the public.
So what is the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement?" This video on YouTube sums it up:
Unite Against ACTA - To Arms!
Think the video's being a little scare-tacticky? Think again. The passage of the ACTA will:
Read more about it at http://www.anti-acta.com. Seriously, do. The government officials behind this heap of shit want to sign it into effectiveness no later than next month. We're almost out of time, people.
(If this seems a little excessive, check out the Wikipedia page.)
Here is a draft of the text, released back in April.
Oh, of course! Because the combined governments involved in the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" have refused to release the content of their proposed bill to the public.
So what is the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement?" This video on YouTube sums it up:
Unite Against ACTA - To Arms!
Think the video's being a little scare-tacticky? Think again. The passage of the ACTA will:
- Make ISP providers accountable for the behavior of their customers. They will be required to monitor their customers' movements and block websites that they decide are unsuitable - including BitTorrent, one of the best sites available for easy sharing of freeware.
- Give copyright holders the legal right to search and seize the property of anyone they suspect of copyright violation. (And what makes you a suspect? Here's a hint: age, race, and sex will be bigger factors than criminal history or downloading habits. Black kids with iPods, watch out.)
- Enable copyright holders to demand compensation for stolen property - at rates that far exceed actual loss. A precedent lawsuit, waged by the RIAA, demanded damages at the rate of $150,000 per song. (Source: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8175/riaa_sues_allofmp3_for_165_trillion/)
- Operate independently of the World Trade Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization, and United Nations.
- Require that all media files be DRM-protected, essentially placing an expiration date on everything you download.
- Restrict the transportation of generic medical drugs between countries, keeping needed treatments out of the hands of people who can't afford the big-business versions.
- Allow copyright holders to demand damages from people who had no idea they were infringing copyright in the first place.
Read more about it at http://www.anti-acta.com. Seriously, do. The government officials behind this heap of shit want to sign it into effectiveness no later than next month. We're almost out of time, people.
(If this seems a little excessive, check out the Wikipedia page.)
Here is a draft of the text, released back in April.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Read.
I'm not going to qualify this further. The content of this blog post proves that it should be read.
http://stuffwhitepeoplesay.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/912/
http://stuffwhitepeoplesay.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/912/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)