Tumgik
#and how it has to be sensationalized and tone deaf
daechwitamv · 11 months
Text
can people stop with the speculating on how he died jfc nothing has been confirmed yet. this is so disrespectful. people being so ready to drag jonghyun and sulli into this are especially tone deaf. just stop. keep him in ur thoughts, mourn him, but stop speculating and sensationalizing.
36 notes · View notes
septembersghost · 1 year
Note
i know actors need jobs but ana wasn't struggling. she took this role because she's well aware of how iconic marilyn is and she didn't care about the fact that this fictionalized take of her life is pure and simple torture porn. she should be ashamed. not only of that but actually saying that marilyns ghost approved of this shit
i was just reading a thread earlier where someone brought this exact topic up. i was trying to give ana some leeway, until the full scope of what this movie contains was revealed, plus her own comments, and, even more damningly, the director's. because she worked on the film with this man. he shaped and guided the whole process - and he has NO respect for marilyn as a human being whatsoever, and has made it abundantly clear that he wanted to make a sensationalized, gratuitously graphic film to do nothing but abuse marilyn to death. he said he doesn't see anything positive in the story. he's not only narrowed her down to her suffering and death, and decided that's all there was to her, he heaped fictional horrors onto her. what exactly was he providing on that set other than to encourage this exploitation?
Tumblr media
and ana, with full cognizance, read this script, and thought, sure. did she really think it was somehow honoring her? it's what's said in this post after some of ana's comments:
Tumblr media
she apparently didn't know much of anything about marilyn when she took the role, but then threw herself into researching her, which honestly makes it worse for me, because i don't know how you can read anything marilyn ever said or wrote, read about anything she dealt with, and still go through with portraying her like this. idc if she though it'd be acclaimed awards bait, exploring one single interview with marilyn should have been enough to tell her how disrespectful this is. then, to go to marilyn's grave (the resting place she didn't even want) and ask "permission" to desecrate her, to invoke marilyn's ghost and say she in any way would've approved and been with them on set, to have the audacity to say she's upset the nude/assault scenes will be taken out of context when she knew what they were doing and didn't give that respect to the subject? girl, what?
furthermore, and this is the part of the movie i've been avoiding discussing, but, there's zero evidence that marilyn ever had an abortion, though there's ample evidence of her miscarriages and her ectopic pregnancy (which itself could've killed her), how much she longed to be a mother, and how not being able to have a baby broke her heart. they took this, twisted it in the most vile way possible, fabricated a forced abortion, putting the camera in the pov of her cervix, depersonalizing her body and in essence assaulting her via the camera lens, having a fetus not only speak to her from her womb, but continue to haunt her in the film. in the year when roe v wade was overturned and women are fighting for their reproductive rights, and they release this. she really had no second thoughts about this? didn't grasp its implications at all? didn't see how invasive it is? how socially tone deaf in a broader sense?
from the nyt:
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
as you said, it's basically torture p*rn, a dramatized snuff film exploiting a real woman who was exploited more than enough when she lived, and it also has some of the creepiest misogynistic undertones imaginable, pretending to be symbolism. ana knew precisely what it was and signed on anyway, then tried to excuse it with mystical approval that does not, and would never, exist. much as my anger and disgust goes to the director, producers, and jco, i find it difficult to have any sympathy for her at this point either. what's shocking to me is that no one involved in this entire production ever seemed to consider its two prongs - the social commentary, and the humanity of its protagonist. so what value does it even have?
13 notes · View notes
josiebelladonna · 10 months
Text
i literally can’t stop thinking about kristin’s “support all women” mantra. not because she didn’t support me, but because it’s inane.
really. you support ALLLLLLLLLLL women.
even the narcissistic ones. the abusive ones. the hateful ones. the gross ones. the bullies. the racists. the thieves. the liars. the fact two of the absolute worst politicians we have right now are women (mtg and boebert).
oh, nooooo. no woman is like that. they’re being forced into that against their will by men. she says while she has literal hordes of men on her goddamn profile kissing up to her. jesus lip-stroking christ, are you kidding me.
and it’s not just her making it into a gender thing, either: it’s yet another thing i’m seeing all too often (me? i don’t care. if someone is being shitty, they’re shitty, and i don’t care what the gender is). it’s so tone-deaf, it’s actually mind-boggling, especially when i realize that some of the worst people i’ve ever known were women (interestingly, some of the best friends i ever had were guys). and, it’s actually dehumanizing when you think about it. really, you don’t think some women are capable of doing horrible things?
and just to further drive home her tone-deafness, i once caught her saying, and i quote (i’m not joking. i wish i was making this up, i will never forget this), “i have an overeating disorder because people talk crap about my body.”
okay. never mind the fact that that is literally not how eating disorders work for one second, be it anorexia or bulimia or binge-eating: you develop an eating disorder from a myriad of factors, not just ~someone talking trash about you~. she said it very nonchalantly, like it’s just another conversation piece and not some huge fact based out of a desire for connection and understanding. and the way she phrased that still irritates the absolute fuck out of me. “talking crap about my body”, this is fifth grade level understanding of a very complex and delicate subject, like “those girls were mean to me and now i can’t stop eating!”
i developed anorexia because… let’s see. i was body-shamed for being bigger just in size, told not to show off my belly when in public, made fun of for loving to eat, bodyshamed for having a heavy build even while thin, being told that being fat is the worst thing you can do to yourself, “it’s hard to lose weight”, feeling left out when i wanted to wear stuff made for slender girls and fashion models, and being scrutinized worse than women in communist china when i gained even a pound, plus 99% of the body shaming came from my own family, it was actually rare to hear it from my peers (they would just stare at me and act like i was a potato that sprouted legs). i wanted to be thin because i wanted to be perfect. i wanted to be thin because i was certain that no one likes me as I am—and you know, i still feel this way, too. you may recover and overcome those dark feelings, but they’re still with you, though. it’s like how when you’re a recovering alcoholic and you still feel the temptation every day (except here you’re not poisoning your body, you’re wasting away). when you think you’re kurt cobain, and then you drop a sentiment like “people talking crap about my body” with the sophistication of crap, i begin to wonder if you’re legitimate.
plus, her over-the-top, noisy, obnoxious atheism makes me want to seek out a faith of some sort. i’m kind of tired of christianity, i’m tired of it being so sensationalized and bastardized and abused by zealots, and i’m scarred by growing up with it, too (it’s sad, too, because i’ve known plenty of christians who are very good and kind people). i like reading about judaism, though, and all your eastern faiths. one of the best places of worship i’ve ever been to was a buddhist temple—a synagogue, too. at the temple, there was no one there but me and the statues of buddha, and it was so peaceful as a result. at the synagogue, the rabbis were really nice and friendly and weren’t trying to convert me like the vibe i usually get from churches. if someone wants to be atheist, good on you (and i totally get why, too) and be proud of your truth. but if you’re waving it in my face, telling me i’m wrong, shaming someone for being a christian… it’s hard for me to see you as different from the bible-thumpers who do the exact same shit.
this woman didn’t traumatize me, but she did trigger a lot of old traumas in me. what’s worse? she’s laughing. bitch is laughing at me right now and she doesn’t give a single fuck. it’s like she failed to understand how triggers work… ironic knowing how so fucking feminist feminist that ever fucking feminist she is.
that’s some supporting all women for you.
0 notes
Text
it's kinda sad how most nature or history shows play a whole ass trailer at the beginning of the episode like they're giving you reasons to keep watching.
Dude, I already clicked on it, I'll watch it
1 note · View note
scarlet--wiccan · 3 years
Text
open letter to Marvel's X-Men office
To whom it may concern,
I'm a longtime reader of Marvel comics and a weekly buyer with subscriptions and pull lists at my local comic store. I'm also an American of Romani descent who has spent years researching and writing about the function of pop culture in the systemic racism that my people endure. Much could be said about the record of Romani characters in superhero comics, particularly the Scarlet Witch, but I'm writing today to raise concerns about the character's throughline in the current X-Men era, which has come to a head with her apparent murder in X-Factor #10, written by Leah Williams. First, however, I would like to address the racial and sexual violence visited upon the character Prodigy, as depicted by Williams, who is a white author, and the history of racist microagressions and the objectification that many readers have observed in Williams' past work. In X-Factor #10, Prodigy, a Black bisexual, is shown to have been sexually assaulted and murdered by a predator who specifically targets Black bi and gay men. Prodigy's assault and death transpired while he was dressed in a drag-inspired look, an arbitrary decision which served only to further sensationalize the homophobic violence. This plotline was abrupt and underdeveloped, and leaped without warning into imagery that many Black and LGBT readers found traumatizing. This was not an authentic or meaningful exploration of Black and queer experiences-- rather it was an exploitation and objectification of the violence done to Black and queer bodies. Coming from a white writer, this is wholly inappropriate. Leah Williams being bisexual herself does not excuse that. I am particularly disturbed by the implementation of pro-police messaging, via white character Aurora, after we have all spent the last year protesting police violence against Black lives. At worst, this is tone deaf, but I, and many other readers of color, found it to be egregiously offensive. Readers of color, particularly East Asian readers, have long been wary of Williams and her treatment of non-white characters. The repeated and disturbing objectification of East Asian women in her series X-Tremists struck a serious nerve, particularly with Williams' original character, Nezumi, who seemed redolent of racist WWII-era propaganda conflating Japanese people with rats. Her over-sexed and racially tokenized treatment of Akihiro in X-Factor has also put readers on edge, although many bit their tongue and endeavored to support her new book on account of its numerous LGBT characters and plotlines. Unfortunately, it seems as though that tentative faith was misplaced, and we must reiterate that LGBT representation does not outweigh violent racism. The Scarlet Witch is a complex character with an ever-changing history. The most formative and consistent element of her origin, however, is that she was born to a Romani mother, and raised by a migrant, working class Romani family who faced racial discrimination and violent hate crimes. For context, the Romani people are a South Asian diaspora who are racialized in European society, and have endured systemic oppression ever since our arrival in the West, including an attempted genocide during the Nazi regime. Although Wanda is no stranger to taking a dark turn, the Decimation plot stands out as a uniquely damaging and harmful case of character asassination. You can imagine how the identity politics and acts of violence which were projected onto the character are offensive given her personal history, and the real-life history that she represents. For years, the vitriol and anger that were directed towards Wanda within this narrative, boosted by blatantly ableist tropes, shaped the way that readers and writers alike perceived her. That negative perception encouraged audiences to espouse hateful sentiments about Wanda without forming clear thoughts about their racist implications, or making any effort to better their understanding of Romani people and our needs regarding popular culture. The current era of X-Men comics has revisited the Decimation several times, but I fear that
they have done nothing to counteract the harmful messaging that was attached to Wanda during that time, and have only doubled down on her troubling political position in the mutant world. I shouldn't have to explain this, but characterizing a Romani woman as an interloper, and a bogeyman figure that Krakoans invoke to engender nationalism, directly parallels the racist propaganda that is used to subjugate real-life Romani people throughout Europe. Year after year, Roma communities face forced eviction, deportation, and property laws designed to weed out migrant travellers, while our lives are often endangered by violent hate. Earlier this month, on 19 June, 2021, a Romani man in Teplice, Czech Republic, was murdered in an act of police brutality, and the Czech state has refused to launch an investigation or deliver any sort of justice on behalf of his family. We have spent the last two weeks protesting for Roma lives. To be honest, witnessing Roma death on-page, particularly in the heartbreaking scene where Wanda's own son discovers her body, triggered a lot of the distress and emotional trauma that I've been carrying since the Teplice incident. Of course, the timing of it couldn't be helped, but I fear that Williams will continue to exploit our trauma and our pain in her upcoming series, Trial of Magneto, which promises to revolve around Wanda's death and Magneto's reaction. Given Williams' history, and her choices in this most recent issue, I simply have no faith, only grave misgivings. Leah Williams is a white woman who continues to profit from the exploitation racial trauma and stereotyping, and Marvel cannot claim to be inclusive while enabling her behavior. As readers, we feel we must demand her removal from upcoming and future Marvel projects. We cannot in good conscience support and continue to give money to the X-Men franchise with such creators at the fore. In general, Marvel needs to take a good hard look at how it employs. This won't be a solution to the company's ingrained problems, but removing Leah Williams would be a constructive place to start.
[certain cues have been taken from other readers who have posted and shared their messages to the X-Men office. Please feel free to borrow and modify any aspect of this letter, barring, of course, the passages regarding my own identity. This message has been sent to [email protected]]
348 notes · View notes
nitrateglow · 3 years
Text
Favorite films discovered in 2020
Tumblr media
Well, this year sucked. I did see some good movies though. Some even made after I was born!
Perfect Blue (dir. Satoshi Kon, 1997)
Tumblr media
I watch a lot of thrillers and horror movies, but precious few actually unsettle me in any lasting way. This cannot be said of Perfect Blue, which gave me one of the most visceral cinematic experiences of my life. Beyond the brief flashes of bloodletting (you will never look at a screwdriver the same way again), the scariest thing about Perfect Blue might be how the protagonist has both her life and her sense of self threatened by the villains. The movie’s prescience regarding public persona is also incredibly eerie, especially in our age of social media. While anime is seen as a very niche interest (albeit one that has become more mainstream in recent years), I would highly recommend this movie to thriller fans, whether they typically watch anime or not. It’s right up there with the best of Hitchcock or De Palma.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (dir. Sergio Leone, 1966)
Tumblr media
Nothing is better than when an iconic movie lives up to the hype. Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef play off of one another perfectly. I was impressed by Wallach as Tuco in particular: his character initially seems like a one-dimensional greedy criminal, but the performance is packed with wonderful moments of humanity. Do I really need to say anything about the direction? Or about the wonderful storyline, which takes on an almost mythic feel in its grandeur? Or that soundtrack?
Die Niebelungen (both movies) (dir. Fritz Lang, 1924)
Tumblr media
I did NOT expect to love these movies as much as I did. That they would be dazzlingly gorgeous I never doubted: the medieval world of the story is brought to vivid life through the geometrical mise en scene and detailed costuming. However, the plot itself is so, so riveting, never losing steam over the course of the four hours it takes to watch both movies. The first half is heroic fantasy; the second half involves a revenge plot of almost Shakespearean proportions. This might actually be my favorite silent Fritz Lang movie now.
Muppet Treasure Island (dir. Brian Henson, 1996)
Tumblr media
I understand that people have different tastes and all, but how does this movie have such a mixed reception? It’s absolutely hilarious. How could anybody get through the scene with “THA BLACK SPOT AGGHHHHHHH” and not declare this a masterpiece of comedy? And I risk being excommunicated from the Muppet fandom for saying it, but I like this one more than The Great Muppet Caper. It’s probably now my second favorite Muppet movie.
Belle de Jour (dir. Luis Bunuel, 1967)
Tumblr media
I confess I’m not terribly fond of “but was it real???” movies. They tend to feel gimmicky more often than not. Belle de Jour is an exception. This is about more than a repressed housewife getting her kicks working as a daytime prostitute. The film delves into victim blaming, trauma, class, and identity-- sure, this sounds academic and dry when I put it that way, but what I’m trying to say is that these are very complicated characters and the blurring of fantasy and reality becomes thought-provoking rather than trite due to that complexity.
Secondhand Lions (dir. Tim McCanlies, 2003)
Tumblr media
The term “family movie” is often used as a synonym for “children’s movie.” However, there is an important distinction: children’s movies only appeal to kids, while family movies retain their appeal as one grows up. Secondhand Lions is perhaps a perfect family movie, with a great deal more nuance than one might expect regarding the need for storytelling and its purpose in creating meaning for one’s life. It’s also amazingly cast: Haley Joel Osment is excellent as the juvenile lead, and Michael Caine and Robert Duvall steal the show as Osment’s eccentric uncles.
The Pawnbroker (dir. Sidney Lumet, 1964)
Tumblr media
Controversial in its day for depicting frontal nudity, The Pawnbroker shocks today for different reasons. As the top review of the film on IMDB says, we’re used to victims of great atrocities being presented as sympathetic, good people in fiction. Here, Rod Steiger’s Sol Nazerman subverts such a trope: his suffering at the hands of the Nazis has made him a hard, closed-off person, dismissive of his second wife (herself also a survivor of the Holocaust), cold to his friendly assistant, and bitter towards himself. The movie follows Nazerman’s postwar life, vividly presenting his inner pain in a way that is almost too much to bear. Gotta say, Steiger gives one of the best performances I have ever seen in a movie here: he’s so three-dimensional and complex. The emotions on his face are registered with Falconetti-level brilliance.
The Apartment (dir. Billy Wilder, 1960)
Tumblr media
While not the most depressing Christmas movie ever, The Apartment certainly puts a good injection of cynicism into the season. I have rarely seen a movie so adept at blending comedy, romance, and satire without feeling tone-deaf. There are a lot of things to praise about The Apartment, but I want to give a special shoutout to the dialogue. “Witty” dialogue that sounds natural is hard to come by-- so often, it just feels smart-assy and strained. Not here.
Anatomy of a Murder (dir. Otto Preminger, 1959)
Tumblr media
I’m not big into courtroom dramas, but Anatomy of a Murder is a big exception. Its morally ambiguous characters elevate it from being a mere “whodunit” (or I guess in the case of this movie, “whydunit”), because if there’s something you’re not going to get with this movie, it’s a clear answer as to what happened on the night of the crime. Jimmy Stewart gives one of his least characteristic performances as the cynical lawyer, and is absolutely brilliant. 
Oldboy (dir. Park Chan-Wook, 2003)
Tumblr media
Oldboy reminded me a great deal of John Webster’s 17th century tragedy The Duchess of Malfi. Both are gruesome, frightening, and heartbreaking works of art, straddling the line between sensationalism and intelligence, proving the two are not mutually exclusive. It’s both entertaining and difficult to watch. The thought of revisiting it terrifies me but I feel there is so much more to appreciate about the sheer craft on display.
Family Plot (dir. Alfred Hitchcock, 1976)
Tumblr media
Family Plot is an enjoyable comedy; you guys are just mean. I know in an ideal world, Hitchcock’s swan song would be a great thriller masterpiece in the vein of Vertigo or Psycho. Family Plot is instead a silly send-up of Hitchcock’s favorite tropes, lampooning everything from the dangerous blonde archetype (with not one but two characters) to complicated MacGuffin plots. You’ll probably demand my film buff card be revoked for my opinion, but to hell with it-- this is my favorite of Hitchcock’s post-Psycho movies.
My Best Girl (dir. Sam Taylor, 1927)
Tumblr media
Mary Pickford’s farewell to silent film also happens to be among her best movies. It’s a simple, charming romantic comedy starring her future husband, Charles “Buddy” Rogers. Pickford also gets to play an adult character here, rather than the little girl parts her public demanded she essay even well into her thirties. She and Rogers are sweet together without being diabetes-inducing, and the comedy is often laugh out loud funny. It even mocks a few tropes that anyone who watches enough old movies will recognize and probably dislike-- such as “break his heart to save him!!” (my personal most loathed 1920s/1930s trope).
Parasite (dir. Bong Joon-ho, 2019)
Tumblr media
This feels like such a zeitgeist movie. It’s about the gap between the rich and the poor, it’s ironic,  it’s depressing, it’s unpredictable as hell. I don’t like terms like “modern classic,” because by its very definition, a classic can only be deemed as such after a long passage of time, but I have a good feeling Parasite will be considered one of the definitive films of the 2010s in the years to come.
Indiscreet (dir. Stanley Donen, 1958)
Tumblr media
Indiscreet often gets criticized for not being Notorious more or less, which is a shame. It’s not SUPPOSED to be-- it’s cinematic souffle and both Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant elevate that light material with their perfect chemistry and comedic timing. It’s also refreshing to see a rom-com with characters over 40 as the leads-- and the movie does not try to make them seem younger or less mature, making the zany moments all the more hilarious. It’s worth seeing for Cary Grant’s jig (picture above) alone.
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (dir. Joseph Sargent, 1974)
Tumblr media
This movie embodies so much of what I love about 70s cinema: it’s gritty, irreverent, and hard-hitting. It’s both hilarious and suspenseful-- I was tense all throughout the run time. I heard there was a remake and it just seems... so, so pointless when you already have this gem perfect as it is.
They All Laughed (dir. Peter Bogdonavich, 1981)
Tumblr media
Bogdonavich’s lesser known homage to 1930s screwball comedy is also a weirdly autumnal movie. Among the last gasps of the New Hollywood movement, it is also marks the final time Audrey Hepburn would star in a theatrical release. The gentle comedy, excellent ensemble cast (John Ritter is the standout), and the mature but short-lived romance between Hepburn and Ben Gazarra’s characters make this a memorably bittersweet gem.
The Palm Beach Story (dir. Preston Sturges, 1942)
Tumblr media
Absolutely hilarious. I was watching this with my parents in the room. My mom tends to like old movies while my dad doesn’t, but both of them were laughing aloud at this one. Not much else to say about it, other than I love Joel McCrea the more movies I see him in-- though it’s weird seeing him in comedies since I’m so used to him as a back-breaking man on the edge in The Most Dangerous Game!
Nothing Sacred (dir. William Wellman, 1937)
Tumblr media
I tend to associate William Wellman with the pre-code era, so I’ve tried delving more into his post-code work. Nothing Sacred is easily my favorite of those films thus far, mainly for Carole Lombard but also because the story still feels pretty fresh due to the jabs it takes at celebrity worship and moral hypocrisy. For a satire, it’s still very warm towards its characters, even when they’re misbehaving or deluding themselves, so it’s oddly a feel-good film too.
Applause (dir. Rouben Mamoulian, 1929)
Tumblr media
I love watching early sound movies, but my inner history nerd tends to enjoy them more than the part of me that, well, craves good, well-made movies. Most early sound films are pure awkward, but there’s always an exception and Applause is one of them. While the plot’s backstage melodrama is nothing special, the way the story is told is super sophisticated and expressive for this period of cinema history, and Helen Morgan makes the figure of the discarded burlesque queen seem truly human and tragic rather than merely sentimental.
Topaz (dir. Alfred Hitchcock, 1969)
Tumblr media
Another late Hitchcock everyone but me seems to hate. After suffering through Torn Curtain, I expected Hitchcock’s other cold war thriller was going to be dull as dishwater, but instead I found an understated espionage movie standing in stark contrast to the more popular spy movies of the period. It’ll never be top Hitchcock, of course-- still it was stylish and enjoyable, with some truly haunting moments. I think it deserves more appreciation than it’s been given.
What were your favorite cinematic discoveries in 2020?
155 notes · View notes
iridessence · 3 years
Note
hi love 💕 i know this seems very out of the blue but what are your thoughts on lana recently? as a poc i only like to hear this kind of opinion from other poc, mainly because white people’s anger and frustration towards her feels so performative. personally i see many poc and more specifically black people take on the opinion that she doesn’t word herself correctly, is tone deaf, but is not actually a bad person proven by her past and actions and political stance, which is what i think as well. i’m asking because i like hearing from the people who felt targeted by her post and not really anyone else tbh
Tbh she comes across as the average ignorant white 30-something liberal. And honestly, that’s just gonna be most white people. I do see where some things she’s done/said were likely not understood as she meant them to be and also I see where there’s much that she doesn’t quite get like she needs to. But nothing she has done or said in response to claims of racist behavior has surprised me in the least. Disappointed, yes. Surprised? No.
With all of her resources could she afford to have access to anti racism education do better? Absolutely, and honestly that’s a LOT of white people. But typically you have to know the learning is required in order to seek it out— that is the issue with a lot of lack of awareness of social issues and how deeply they affect communities— not merely lack of resources but also never thinking you need them in the first place... because the miseducation around racism and issues stemming from it is so profoundly deep that it does not matter if you have money to learn about it. You learned the a dictionary definition of racism and about Martin Luther King Jr when you were a kid and you decided you didn’t hate Black people explicitly, so you can’t be a racist right?
I think there’s a lot of valid reasons people come for celebrities, and sometimes those valid reasons don’t always result in an appropriate response to the measure of what they may have done or said— there is nuance to a lot of this. Obviously it’s important to call people out/in but when it’s this sensationalized, I’m always amused because I wonder if people know that this is like most of their classmates, coworkers, the white people they know in their lives, that they are like this.
40 notes · View notes
shifuto · 3 years
Note
[On the subject of "we support you" but jumping ship once suicide is brought up] Most people don't have the tools and know-how to comfort someone who has already reached that point in their life, especially when it's a very real possibility that something they say or do could lead that person towards another attempt. I don't remember the exact quote off the top of my head, but when doing something like making art it's important to realize when to stop adding words or brush strokes to avoid cluttering the final result. I mentioned it because it's kinda similar; you don't want to say/do the one thing that causes another attempt, so it's... Potentially safer to stop before that point.
Uh, Tldr I guess; normal people aren't trained to handle stuff like that, which is a shame honestly. 🦄
thank you for this, really. Answering this actually made me feel better
putting it under the cut because it’s lengthy
this is exactly why suicide is considered taboo, the one thing no one wants to talk about. Ever. I feel like a lot of campaigns that are done to bring “awareness” are tone-deaf and work as a smokescreen more than anything, it all feels superficial and not exactly helpful for people dealing with Suicidal Ideation. Let’s discuss the root causes, let’s talk about the poverty, class struggle, capitalism.. without acknowledging some of the main and most important issues, all that serve as nothing more than a band-aid
they should teach that stuff in school, it should be talked about with family, friends and colleagues, it should be talked about in media, it should be talked about always, everywhere. Everyone dies because mortality is a natural part of life that cannot be avoided. Even when people don’t want to talk about it, or deal with it, it still is going to happen. Ironically enough, the death of many is trivialized and sensationalized due to race, gender, sexuality, etc.. suicide can very well fit in there, as a “unavoidable tragedy” of a few folks who aren’t “strong enough”
for someone to reach that point where they want to die, they must be suffering tremendous pain, so bad they don’t see another way out. This pain is either physical, emotional or both and whatever the case it may be, the person should be assessed by a professional and, hopefully, get the help they need. The problem is that, for a lot of people help is either unavailable, unaffordable, or it takes too long and it’s very convoluted. There’s a lot stigma and gatekeeping, too. If someone is all by themselves, chances are.. they will not get the support they need
no one wants to be held responsible for another’s death but I guess people forget that a failure to ensure one’s support system can and will worsen mental health issues, even more if that support was a crucial part of someone’s life
guess there’s not a lot of things one must do in order to keep their suicidal peers as safe as possible, it’s nothing too complicated either: being there for them when they need the most and offering a ear goes a long way. Empathy is not even necessary, one can just ask what they can do to help, ask if the person wants to talk, offer to call a doctor or go to an appointment with them. Being there when someone is suffering make a lot of difference
maybe it’s ingrained in people’s heads that they need to say something useful, or that they have to do anything to keep the other person from hurting themselves and it’s... such a self-centered way of looking at suicide, you know? It’s uncomfortable to see another suffer, and it’s tricky to deal with suicide in special because, in the end of the day, who wants to get involved in that mess? Heck, even saying “I don’t think I can help you with this” is better than giving the silence treatment or slowly walking away. Communication is extremely important
“normal” people are generally not trained professionals, so they might not know how to help, it doesn’t mean they can’t try to show they care somehow, or reach out for help themselves. Even if dealing with a suicidal person is a trigger or demands too much, it’s still better to be honest about it. Nothing feels worse than being at rock bottom and left to rot in there. Read about suicide survivors and see how the feeling of loneliness and alienation are really prevalent, even among the ones with, seemingly, a lot of support
these “normal” people might not know what to do but they can have just enough energy and focus to try to find someone who knows, why they don’t do that? Lack of awareness and knowledge about suicide? Seems like a problem with communication with the person suffering, or actual disinterested. They don’t want to deal with the responsibility of someone else’s life? I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t abandon a significant other dealing with a disease just because they don’t know what to do. It’s the same with Suicidal Ideation, which is probably a symptom of an underlying condition
people are not art pieces. The final result of a painting, whether it’s cluttered or not, will most probably harm no one. When a person dies, that’s it. They’re gone forever
when a life is lost by suicide it’s everyone’s problem, I believe. It was the neglect, it was the system’s failure to address issues in a timely manner, it was the society’s failure to do something other than feel sympathy, etc.. I wish there was a less complicated answer to this, and better solutions, but I’m afraid surviving is already a big enough task to take on
[this ask is referring to a vent post I shared earlier today: #''we support you'' (jumps ship immediately after hearing about a suicide attempt) #everyone is supportive until someone tries to off themselves huh? No one wants to bear with the responsibility]
1 note · View note
miningmyminecraft · 4 years
Text
Download pinoy Movies & Tv To Watch Offline
Download Movies & Tv To Watch Offline
It’s nice to see a romance featuring OFWs that doesn’t sensationalize the challenges of working life and strikes a meaningful, empowering tone. Helmed by prominent director Cathy Garcia-Molina, this romance topped 2019’s Philippine box workplace and gained great important acclaim. This is the plot ofJohn Denver Trending—a hidden Pinoy indie film gem from 2019. In an age when cyberbulling and social media-driven disinformation are hot matters, this film helps viewers understand that online speech has real-world penalties, while not feeling overly preachy. Our third finest Pinoy film of 2019 is a authorized procedural drama—Verdict.Verdict follows the case of Joy, a Filipino housewife who stabs her abusive husband Dante in self defense.
Download pinoy Movies & Tv To Watch Offline
Furthermore,Cleaners‘ visuals seem like highlighted black-and-white photocopies—evoking the appearance of Filipino high school reading supplies. Director Glenn Barit bodily printed out the frames he shot, manually highlighted them, after which scanned the highlighted printouts to craft the final movie.
It’s a sprinkle of coming-of-age mixed with a dash of magical realism. With wonderful manufacturing high quality, Alone/Togetheroffers a practical and heartfelt take a look at balancing romance towards particular person dreams.
The highest grossing films within the Philippines have a tendency to change every year, but what would not change is the fact that they're normally the same bubblegum-sort, feel-good flicks that is good for the second, but doesn't really age nicely. There are the Vice Ganda comedies, the John Lloyd Cruz romps, the Vic Sotto fantasies. Currently, the highest  grossing film is the freshly released Hello, Love, Goodbye, starring Kathryn Bernardo and Alden Richards, clocking in at virtually 900 million pesos. While it still falls principally under the standard tacky drama, it's become a well-reviewed movie that is deep, non-formulaic, and relevant.
Download pinoy Movies & Tv To Watch Offline
Shake, Rattle, and Roll movies if you need your horror film repair whereas staying at house. This one comes courtesy of Regal Entertainment for releasing a few of its basic SRR films in mild of the quarantine. K’na The Dreamweaver who centers on K’na , a princess of the T’boli tribe in South Cotabato.
The drama Caregiver stars Sharon Cuneta, John Estrada, and Rica Peralejo and takes place in the United Kingdom. The story follows English instructor Sarah Gonzales who is working abroad as a caregiver to make money to help her husband support their household again residence in the Philippines. The movie tells the empowering story of Filipino OFWs via Sarah’s journey to self discovery.
Set in Negros, Oro, Plata, Matatraces how the struggle affected the lives of two aristocratic households. Its imagery and dramamakeit a case research in nice Filipino films. In sum, the On The Job director asks the movie-going public to have faith in Filipino movies. Bernardo and Richards prepared intensely for their roles; Bernardo spent time away from the other cast members to construct a way of isolation. What results is a sensible and empathetic efficiency that avoids the hole sugariness of other Filipino romances.
No extra ticketing or scheduling problems; they’re finally obtainable with just a faucet. The movie was filmed in simply three weeks, and stars a lot-liked Filipino actress Nora Aunor, in what many pundits price as the best performance of her profession.
The movie walks the line between documentary and drama, strolling us by way of Joy’s seek for justice in opposition to Dante. The movie contains an anthology of 5 different tales that includes designated classroom cleaners in a Tuguegarao highschool. Each of the tales touches upon the theme of “cleanliness”—whether why not look here or not bodily, moral, or otherwise. A cast of first-time actors brings the five tales to life, and offers them an authentic, pure feel. Those who went to highschool in the Philippines could find moments of tender nostalgia in Cleaners‘ narratives.
Affluent Julie Monserrat falls in love with student-slash-combo participant (that's much like at present's DJ) Dido, and their forbidden romance rocks the entire town. Already a traditional, thisMike de Leon opus has been described by many as one of the best Filipino films of all time. Starring Mark Gil in his most iconic function as Sid Lucero, it explores the fraternity culture during the last phases of martial legislation in the Philippines.
Vic Silayan plays a terrifying patriarch with a stranglehold over his family, together with his newly married and hapless daughter (Charo Santos-Concio). Diaz-Abaya was one of many strongest feminine voices in Philippine cinema, and on this period drama she lambasted the commodification of girls as strongly as she ever had. A son returns to his hometown along with his new bride in tow, solely to have her be the item of his father’s lust as a result of her resemblance to his deceased spouse. Swirling with themes of oppressive patriarchy and Oedipal complexes, shot through with startling violence, Karnal is as close to noir as Philippine films can get.
Tumblr media
Download pinoy Movies & Tv To Watch Offline
, de Leon was making cinemagoers swoon with this mild coming-of-age love story between an aimless student/aspiring songwriter and the attractive woman whose marriage in the end proves to be a heartbreaking wakeup name to their dream of being together. I keep in mind being pissed off as a result of I was too younger to catch this true-crime thriller when it first got here out at the 7th Metro Manila Film Festival. Based on the Nick Joaquin article “The House on Zapote Street”, Kisapmata proved too darkish for audiences’ tastes for the time, however its standing as a harrowing exploration of the shadowy corners of the Filipino psyche stays unparalleled to this present day.
She aptly and intensely portrays Tin’s vulnerability in a way that doesn’t feel overly sentimental. As the second-highest grossing movie of 2019 within the Philippines,Alone/Together reaped nice financial rewards for telling its story properly. Adapted from the hit Korean movie agree with of the same name,Miracle In Cell No. 7won the love of critics and audiences with its heartwarming father-daughter story. Building upon the Korean unique,Miracle In Cell No. 7 tells the story of a mentally disabled man named Lito who’s wrongly jailed.
It is properly-acted and is likely one of the finest-crafted films within the decade. It indulges followers to revel within the state of kilig by seeing their favourite celebrities do a dance of will-they-or-won’t-they despite the fact that everyone knows the ending.
Dukot is a dramatic action crime film set within the Philippines starring Enrique Gil, Christopher De Leon, and Shaina Magdayao. The film tells the story of a center-class government official whose estranged son gets kidnapped. When the abductors demand a high sum for ransom, he should come up with the money before it’s too late. The dramatic comedy Four Sisters and a Wedding stars Brenna Garcia, Bea Alonzo, and Bea Basa and is ready in Manila, Philippines. The film recounts the story of a Filipino family consisting of four sisters and a brother.
After failing her structure board exams, Mara meets Gali , a deaf signal language instructor. The two develop an unlikely connection as they find consolation in every others’ imperfections. Made by millennial-focused Black Sheep Productions,Alone/Together follows a normal romance storyline but executes it well. The film stars real-life couple Liza Soberano and Enrique Gil as the leads—a girl named Christine “Tin” Lazaro and a boy named Rafael “Raf” Toledo, respectively. Tin research artwork, and Raf studies Biology en path to changing into a physician.
Set in a crowded and underfunded government hospital, the movie finds humanity within the dankest corners and the harshest of conditions. What might have been just another love story set in an unique land is reworked by Jason Paul Laxamana into an affecting portrait of escape, with the potential for romance between a beleaguered film star and a troubled expatriate. Lav Diaz and Brillante Mendoza are as active as ever, supported not by an area constituency however by the demand of foreigners for his or her distinctive views. There are additionally many other filmmakers who are producing films on their very own, risking fortunes and careers to not create content for media companies however movies to be screened in a movie show.
John Denver Trending has glorious cinematography and nicely-developed characters (John Denver’s mom is an particularly interesting figure). This makes its on-line witch hunt story feel all the extra resonant, and illuminates the raw horrors of internet-pushed mobs. Director Arden Rod Condez retains the narrative tightly centered, and never lets it descend into the same irrationality that a few of its characters embody. Impressively, this extremely relevant film is Condez’s directorial debut.
Download pinoy Movies & Tv To Watch Offline
A caregiver named Jaica is employed by Vivian, a successful businesswoman who recently found she was unwell. Little does Vivian know, Jaica performs a considerably larger function in her life— one which reconnects her to her distant son. At that time, Siguion-Reyna, son of movie legend Armida Siguion Reyna, was known special info for breaking barriers. One of his earlier films, additionally that includes Roces, wasLigaya ang Itawag Mo sa Akin, which illustrated rape. It was initially given an X rating and was only aired to the general public after quite a few concessions that resulted in scenes on the slicing ground.
When Lito’s fellow inmates notice he’s an harmless man, they assist smuggle in his young daughter Yesha so the two can proceed bonding. Starring Kapamilya actress Kathryn Bernardo and Kapuso star Alden Richards, Hello, Love, Goodbye is the best-grossing Filipino film of all time.
youtube
This intensive, months-lengthy course of results in a movie that literally looks like nothing else that Pinoy cinema has to offer. Ulan could be about love, nevertheless it’s not your average Filipino romance. The film stars Nadine Lustre as a author named Maya, who’s struggling to find romance and happiness. As Maya journeys via life,Ulan weaves fantastical tales from her creativeness and childhood as a reflection of her psyche. We see her speaking withtikbalangsin one second, and typhoons in one other.
If you’re trying to celebrate the occasion within the consolation of your personal house, you might be interested in doing so by catching up on must-see titles Philippine cinema has to supply — or, when you’ve already seen them before, watching them unfold all over again. Initially hard to find , these motion pictures have been made accessible to extra audiences thanks to different streaming platforms.
Most of the Philippines' critically acclaimed films are gritty and heavy, but this Maryo de los Reyes basic sticks to the reality of highschool, which is light, relatable, and fun. There are many extra intricacies between and after these occasions, and you may need to essentially watch Karnal to understand why it's such a fantastic Filipino movie. The combination of a powerhouse forged and formidable director Peque Gallaga led to this beautiful Filipino traditional.
The movie tells the story of mysterious happenings in a remote village which end in Ferdinand E. Marcos implementing Proclamation No. 1081, which locations all the Philippines under Martial Law. The movie delves into the difficulties of the village folks as they cope with this new proclamation. The drama Himala takes place in a poor Filipino village and stars Nora Aunor, Veronica Palileo, and Spanky Manikan.
When the brother, the youngest of the siblings, declares that he plans to get married, the sisters devise a plan to speak him out of it, revealing the deep-seated animosity they've for each other. The romantic drama The Hows of Us stars Kathryn Bernardo, Daniel Padilla, and Darren Espanto.
Any benefit thisAlvin Yapan filmevaporated when word got out that a canine was killed throughout production. Based on the true story of the "Gata Four Massacre" in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, it received a number of accolades and obtained positive critiques. The dog killing, nonetheless, resulted in Senate hearings and closed-door meetings. The scene was eventually edited out, but its impact has one way or the other lasted. Have you ever come across a movie so controversial, so bold that the President needed to step in to ban it from public viewing?
Download pinoy Movies & Tv To Watch Offline
Tumblr media
Anyone who didn’t will nonetheless benefit from the 5 stories’ easy however meaningful takes on adolescence. Another more distinctive Filipino love story that came out in 2019 wasIsa Pa with Feelings .
It seems to be the case for lots of the nation's most groundbreaking movies. Mang Kepweng was a popular comic strip by Al Magat a couple of humorous village albularyo. The character was dropped at life by comedy legend Chiquito and it spawned a number of installments, with Mang Kepweng and Son being the fourth film within the sequence. Dindo Fernando, Vilma Santos, and Hilda Koronel play a person, his wife, and his lover on this Danny Zialcita film about the intricacies of marriage and adultery. The in style Filipino movie won six prizes on the 31st Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences Awards , including Vilma Santos' third Best Actress win.
It’s a type of films where the protagonist has to make a tough alternative – on this movie, K’na has to make a sacrifice between her village clans and real love. all not on Netflix – can now be accessed freed from cost, due to the kind hearts of our filmmakers. We’ve listed 10 of these local films – from blockbuster hits to horror movies – under. It’s a black comedy by the use of city fairy tales and magical realism. It has impeccable use of cinematic language — from scoring, to cinematography, to editing.
It reached P880 million box office mark after a month of hitting the cinemas. The movie is not a typical “LizQuen” love story that showcases the Philippine Art and nostalgic 90’s vibes. It depicts the story of a pair who faced many challenges from their school romance to turning into actual adults entering the real world. 2019 has been a great yr for Philippine cinema as it supplied numerous motion pictures that entertained a lot of Filipinos throughout the globe. You can watch more award-successful Netflix Originals, documentaries, motion pictures and TV reveals by choosing a plan that’s best for you.
The film tells the story of the romance between the young couple, Primo and George, who dream of building a life collectively and are already devising their future. However, their plans are put to the take a look at when they're confronted with obstacles that put their relationship in danger. Set in the Philippines in 1972, the drama From What is Before stars Perry Dizon, Roeder, and Hazel Orencio.
The movie tells the story of Elsa, a Filipina villager who claims she has been visited by the Virgin Mary. The go to changed her life as she now appears to have particular healing powers. Her newfound talent begins to trigger hysteria in her small village.
Download pinoy Movies & Tv To Watch Offline
This Jose Javier Reyes movie is known for being known as "a properly-made gentle porn movie" by none aside from then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Live Show, which was originally named Toro, depicted the lives of poor individuals who had to resort to performing lewd acts on stage to outlive. It is among the few extensive-launch movies that featured full-frontal nudity. After pressure from the Catholic Church, the President herself had to suspend it from airing on theaters. Though initially banned by the MTRCB, it was allowed to re-air after the title, which meant pay-per-view sex, was changed.
The film tells the story of Basha and Popoy, a young couple deeply in love who spend all of their time together. But when clashing ambitions and tensions come into play and the couple splits up, they're both feeling devastated and heartbroken. Strangely sufficient, pandemic motion pictures have turn into extra in demand because the coronavirus outbreak. If you have received the guts to sit by way of movies that observe the results of a virus, check out our suggestions. A record of greatest Filipino motion pictures would be incomplete with no Dolphy starrer.
It indulges the equipment behind the love team to flex its muscular tissues, creatively and financially, proving the online value of the pair by putting out an enormous-display romance that’s so rigorously calculated to a fault . And lastly, it indulges the actors to show their benefit as reliable actors, with tacked in confrontation scenes and weepy dialogues that profess the true nature of formulaic love. The marriage is a attainable gateway to a greater life however Teria’s leaving, the way in which the movie is a one-take shot of her going across the island earlier than reaching the pier, more so embodies the ills and the heartaches that kind the core of the Filipino diaspora. Are the “mainstream” and “indie” labels even applicable nowadays, when budgets and industry don’t considerably differ?
Tumblr media
If it’s a matter of sensibility, how can we distinguish when “impartial” filmmakers are directing studio-backed motion pictures, whereas established actors and filmmakers from the big networks are also increasingly going “indie”? And let’s not even delve into the query of whether or not it’s primarily based on notions of quality.
Produced by then-married couple Nora Aunor and Christopher de Leon, the World War II-set drama follows Rosario , a woman deserted by her lover when he joins the Resistance, solely to then fall in love with a Japanese soldier . But Hello, Love, Goodbye is the mother of all migrant dramas—and never why not pinoy movies just because it's officially the best grossing Filipino film of all time. The dramatic motion crime movie Metro Manila, set in Manila, Philippines stars Jake Macapagal, John Arcilla, and Althea Vega.
The story revolves round beautician Coring as he takes in Nonoy , who is the son of his crush. With Lino Brocka behind the digital camera, Ang Tatay Kong Nanaydelves into the themes of homosexuality and single parenting through a comedic lens. This Filipino film is a traditional rich-woman-poor-boy romance delivered to life by actors Vilma Santos and Bembol Roco and director Celso Ad Castillo.
Download pinoy Movies & Tv To Watch Offline
Tumblr media
The movie follows the story of Oscar Ramirez and his household who flee a lifetime of poverty in a small village in northern Philippines to the bustling heart of Manila. The quick paced lifestyle and hardened locals quickly overwhelm the household, and Oscar should do what he needs to to survive in the massive metropolis. The romantic drama One More Chancestars John Lloyd Cruz, Bea Alonzo, and Derek Ramsay.
2 notes · View notes
elibasila · 4 years
Text
4: communication between things that are different simply because they are different
analyzing sensationalism in new video platforms, 
Background - 
When I first heard this prompt I immediately knew what I was going to do, and what I was going to talk about. Now ever since I was 9 or 10 I was watching Youtube and primarily got most of my information through the internet. Youtube however was not really the place (at least ten years ago) where I got most/or any sort of factual information as (for me and many other people) it was mainly a platform for entertainment. However, as the years went on and as the internet evolved and information adapted to these new ways of existing, new methods were used in order to get people to watch more. This would take the form of click-baiting, which is really just drawing an audience in with the promise of something while delivering another. This practice is heavily tied to concepts like sensationalism, yellow journalism, scandal mongering, advertising, etc. Things that basically try to get attention by appealing to the masses’ preference towards easily digestible media/entertainment. 
More specifically this prompt got me thinking of a certain phenomenon that’s been happening recently (I’d say about past 6 years give or take) mostly on video platforms like Youtube. You could say that this content falls into the category of ‘social experiments’, as they clickbait the audience into a video about two things that are so radically different from one another into interacting (especially if there’s high stakes/tension). Some examples of very prominent Youtube channels are Jubilee, Cut, SoulPancake all who produce content mainly relating to these concepts of sensationalism on video platforms that seek to gain more viewers for the purpose of making profit, as it’s also good to know that these channels have high production value to them. The most popular channels, especially ones that dominate concepts like these, bring in a lot of numbers and regularly push out a lot of content in order to keep their revenue steady and going, and if an opportunity arises in the form of a controversial recent event they are one of the first platforms to hop on it, in hopes of staying relevant/profitable. 
My intention is not to label these channels/videos or this type of content as inherently ‘bad’ nor am I telling anyone not to watch certain things because I said so. I would just like to analyze this type of content as a person who’s identity/experience is used as a source for profit/controversy, basically analyzing it as a minority who’s identity/experience is used as a debate topic (sometimes not all the time). While also keeping in mind of identities that I’m not a part of/experiences that don’t affect me as they are also used for these tactics just as much, if not more. 
Practice through Research - 
Can Trump Supporters And Immigrants See Eye To Eye? Rich And Poor People Seek To Understand Each Other. Cops And Ex-Felons Seek To Find Common Ground. Pro-Choice And Pro-Life Supporters Search For Common Ground. Atheists and Christians Debate Truth And Belief. Should You Watch Porn? Can Sex Workers and Pastors Find Middle Ground? Can Black Lives Matter & Law Enforcement See Eye To Eye? Traditional vs Trans: Are There More Than 2 Genders? Men and Women Seek to Understand Each Other. Can Scientists and Religious Leaders See Eye to Eye? Can Voters and Non-Voters See Eye to Eye? Millionaires vs Minimum Wage: Did You Earn Your Money? Can Socialists and Capitalists Find Middle Ground? Should We Cancel Celebrities for Their Crimes? 
In order to show the patterns of how these channels (these examples are taken from Jubilee from their popular series Middle Ground) title their videos or really how they advertise them, as you can argue that the title of a video/piece of media is technically the advertisement for it as well. As you can see why I clearly thought of these types of videos when the prompt was brought up, as the premise of these videos are quite literately; communication between things that are different simply because they’re different. Although that’s the premise behind their concept, what actually happens within the video follows a pattern similar to this: The two opposing groups of people start out civil or mildly defensive, there are two sides and one is usually the privileged while the other is usually drastically underprivileged. It usually ends civil and with plastered on smiles/hugs and ‘thank you’s’ as these videos try to keep an air of well-mannered behavior on both sides. The two groups are given prompted questions and are able to decide if they want to speak on them, first with addressing their similar views and then introduce the others that disagree. Again most of these videos/discussions/debates remain pretty civil and level-headed as they do a great job of that, but a lot of the conversation is fraught with micro-aggression and jabs at the other side, similar to passive aggressiveness, which reads like a watered-down debate/discussion. These videos are usually around 10ish min, which to me is pretty short for the topics that they discuss/debate.
Notes On Watching -
I was thinking about was how much they probably cut out of those 10-20 min long videos, as most of those topics definitely deserve a lot more time to be properly discussed/analyzed (as I’ll go into later).   
In the same vein, when they talk about these very difficult and complex subjects they almost try to minimize the actual scale/affect these issues/relationships really have, which is in part I think due to the length of these videos, and the nature of their ‘brand’
These videos definitely aren’t for the people who’re the least privileged in these ‘discussion videos’, they feel like they’re for people who either don’t know anything about the situation or for the oppressor/privileged (when watching the videos that would discuss/use the identity/experience I am associated with)
This feels really forced, and very ingenuine at times, the people definitely dont want to be there
Sometimes definitely falls into the type of interaction that goes like: well I don’t agree with you/the way you live (read:I don’t agree with your existence) but I still love and respect you! - colorblindness - faith in humanity restored - wow I wish people (read: the oppressed) could be this civil ALL the time - tone deaf -
A sense of false progress, something labelled as progressive and active in the discussion when it’s really just the same things being said just packaged differently, and way more subtly   
Somewhat Conclusions - 
I feel that this type of media content isn’t as helpful/ insightful as it’s trying to be, and for the sake of being authentic their intentionally clickbaity advertisements make their attempts at genuine connection between people arbitrary. This especially comes into conflict when they talk about real people/minorities who have suffered through historic/contemporary discrimination and tends to water down these concepts in ways that only help the privileged/oppressors be able to ‘safely’ digest them. It airs on the side of the brand of corporate political/social justice that just . 
When watching these I try to remember what their intention is behind these videos as the only hint we get is their statement in their about section: “We believe in the power of empathy for human good”. Now this is a very noble statement, and a very idealized one at best, but these videos don’t invoke a sense of empathy in me, but rather a half-assed attempt at trying to show false progress between marginalized communities and oppressors to make the privileged feel better. And watching their videos that have to specifically deal with experiences/identities that I occupy doesn’t benefit me directly, it gives me the sense that nothing has changed except people are more polite now with their hate and/ ignorance, which is still as harmful as outright hatred/violence.
I propose that maybe this isn’t the best way to approach subjects like these, at least subjects that are extremely complex and ones that deserve careful, lengthy and well thought-out execution that I feel these types of shows lack. I can feel that these shows’ primary objectives aren’t to provide information/education to people, but that they’re mainly doing this for profit and banking on trendy/controversial/cancel culture (that’s not to say that maybe the creators/employees believe they’re doing this with pure intentions). I feel that if these types of discussions were to take place that the leading voices shouldn’t be from both sides of the issue, it should lead from the groups of people who’re historically/contemporarily under-privileged and marginalized, and mindfully include the opposing side’s views in carefully researched relation to the affected. I feel strongly that conversations about complex subjects should take place, but not necessarily in a place meant for monetization where these nuances are abused and minimized for profits’ sake.
0 notes
jadelotusflower · 7 years
Text
It’s cold in that fridge: The case of Lady Marian
Christmas, 2007.  I was among the scores of viewers across the UK tuning in to see the season 2 finale of Robin Hood, which saw the gang trek to the Holy Land on a mission to rescue Marian from the clutches of the Sheriff, and prevent the assassination of Good King Richard™.
There had been rumors and hints that a character would be killed off in the last few episodes and speculation was rife.  But almost everyone was shocked when Marian was stabbed, this time fatally, by Guy of Gisborne, married Robin on her deathbed and was buried in the sands of Acre to show that this was no fakeout and she was really, truly dead - although this did not stop people clamoring for an “it was all a dream” reveal just to bring her back. 
But nope, welcome to the fridge, Marian.    
To say that people were angry would be an understatement -  the BBC was flooded with complaints and the rumor mill was strong - arguments were made that Lucy Griffiths wanted to leave the show, because why else would they kill off such a beloved character, one of the only two female regulars on a show, and not only one of the defining, enduring aspects of the Robin Hood legend, but a fantastic character in her own right.  Lets take a look at some of the comments just on the BBC website:
My 6 year old daughter was in floods of tears.
BBC and Tiger Aspect have traumatized millions of children with Marian’s death. 
They ruined the show when they killed marian, SORRY BBC…..I will not watch the third series. 
The decision to kill Marian was gratuitous sensationalism - designed for headlines not for the (young) audience.
Killing Marian off is senseless and has obviously upset many children, let alone me and I’m an adult! 
The ending was a huge disappointment and I’ve never seen my family in so many tears!   
My daughters are devastated!  The main reason they watched Robin Hood was to see Marian, I can’t imagine they (and many other 7 year old girls) will want to watch a series without her.
Horrible! My children and I watch the show and to see the looks on their faces when Marian died….I will NEVER watch this show again.
Basically:
Tumblr media
and
Tumblr media
Of course, devastation and fan outrage are common whenever any popular character is killed off, but Marian’s death in particular seemed to strike people very deeply not only in fandom, but in the general audience.  
It’s important to remember that Robin Hood was conceived as a family friendly show - it occupied the pre-watershed Saturday night timeslot when Doctor Who was in the off season, and Marian was a character that many young viewers, particularly young girls, looked up to.  It was shocking for them to see their heroine killed, and many of the complaints, while indulging in a bit of “won’t someone think of the children”- was not without foundation - it’s clear that many a tear was shed over Marian by viewers who’d tuned in for a fun, all-ages retelling of the Robin Hood legend and instead saw Marian impaled.  Even in Australia, when the finale aired many, many months later, I read letters in the tv guide lamenting Marian’s demise and the effect it had on their daughters.  It’s important to note that many of these viewers would not return for season 3.  
But shocking as it was, maybe we shouldn’t have been so surprised.  This was, after all, a Classic Fridging.  Women killed in horrible way?  Check.  Excessive manpain?  Check and check.  The male character(s) story/conflict driven by female character’s death? Check and check again.  
But what makes the death of Marian somewhat different from your average fridging was her status as a folk heroine.  Marian is an integral part of the Robin Hood legend and we’ve seen her in many iterations - from Olivia DeHavilland to cartoon vixen.  This version of Marian, in particular, was entirely suitable for a modern re-telling; she was a capable fighter, smart and strategic, chaffed against society’s expectations for her, and was a hero in her own right as the Nightwatchman.  Her goals were aligned with Robin’s, but her agenda was her own. 
So there was a double backlash - against the killing of this Marian in particular, and against killing Marian in general, in what was seen as a dishonour to her iconic status.  Many of the comments in the article linked above speak of disrespect to the legend, to folklore.  Whatever else may change in a Robin Hood story to adapt to changing times, we expect there to remain some constants, and one of those is that Marian lives.  Whether she goes on to marry Robin in that church in Edwinstowe is of less relevance, what is important is Marian’s status as an iconic, feminist figure who the viewer desperately wants to see get their happy ending, because she is not a tragic figure, but a transformative one, the May Queen.  
These stories and characters have such power that a complete subversion of them without warning, and for no real purpose is upsetting, and not in the “wow, what a twist, I can’t wait to see what happens next” way the showrunners desired.    
(At this point I should also mention that Marian was also killed off in Once Upon a Time, but the less said about that trainwreck of a storyline, the better.)
It came out later that Marian’s death in fact a showrunner decision, and while Richard Armitage has been free in expressing his displeasure in the outcome, producers Dominic Minghella and Fox Allen were unrepentant, if not completely tone deaf:
Minghella - Her position was to an extent untenable in that, without a father to protect, she no longer had reason to pretend she was “on-side” with the Sheriff and Gisborne. There was no reason not to declare her affiliation, and affection, for Robin. So she did. There was no way Gisborne could allow that. He would rather kill her than let Robin have her. So he did.That was the core logic. Marian’s days were numbered once her father died.
MARIAN’S DAYS WERE NUMBERED ONCE HER FATHER DIED.
Tumblr media
Here we have a textbook example of why fridging is part of a larger issue in how female characters are written.  Marian’s role, in Mighella’s view, was the spy in the castle and object of affection, and when that role ended so did her life.  Male Writer Logic.  There was literally no other story left for Marian except to remain the focal point of the Love Triangle and that she could easily remain in death.  Except, you know, the myriad of other, infinitely more interesting storylines they could have explored, such as Marian joining Robin’s gang in the forest, Marian marrying Guy and still trying to work the inside, Marian striking out on her own - any of the plethora of scenarios that have since been explored in fanfic.  
That’s not even getting to the gross assertion that once Sir Edward died, Marian by necessity wasn’t far behind.  Really, Marian had NO other reason to remain a spy once her father died?  A character who created an alter-ego in the Nightwatchman to “go to war against poverty” who declared that “England needs me” and who tried to kill the Sheriff to stop him from killing the king?  Nope, her only driving force was a desire to protect her father, and she could have no other motive for pretending to remain on the Sheriff’s side.   
This is something I will always believe no matter what denials or counter-arguments are made: they wrote themselves into a corner with the love triangle and took the easy way out.  This way they could still write Robin and Guy fighting over Marian but didn’t have to worry about her pesky feelings or agency.  They didn’t have to worry about her at all, they could just let the male characters grieve and brood and fight over her, without Marian actually being present, without them needing to have her make a choice.  This way, Marian can remain the object of the love triangle rather than an active participant.
It’s laziness, pure and simple.  Far from shaking things up, it’s taking the cliche-ridden, well-travelled path of the hero and the antagonist at each other’s throats, so sad over the death of the woman they loved, each able to memorialise her as they wish.  
Minghella again -  There were several considerations in play. The main one was that after 20+ episodes, the show was in danger of getting stuck. We needed to shake up the world. Whenever we tried to move away from the ‘format’ of Sheriff chasing Robin/Outlaws break into Castle it didn’t quite work… and yet at the same time we were worried about repeating ourselves ad nauseam. Marian’s demise also seemed to me inevitable once we had taken away her father. His role was pivotal in that it kept Marian in the castle, for fear of repercussions against her Dad, and meant she could not run off with Robin and declare her hand. Once he was gone, she had no reason not to go off with the outlaws. That felt to me like a potentially uninteresting place for Marian and Robin – there would be no barrier, no tension, leaving room only for bickering about strategy.
Tumblr media
As a Robin/Marian fan, I find this particularly egregious.  I hate that it’s “uninteresting” to explore the dynamic between a couple once they’ve gotten together, especially characters like Robin and Marian who, let’s face it, have Issues™ and Marian in the forest would certainly not remove any tension between them - if anything the opposite would be true. 
But far worse is viewing Marian only in terms of her relationships with the male characters - her father, Robin, and Guy.  Even if they felt they had nothing further to explore in Robin and Marian’s relationship, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have anything further to explore with Marian herself.  Losing her home and father, learning to live in the forest and be one of “the gang”, and likely being ill-suited to such a role, continuing her work as the Nightwatchman, growing closer with some of the outlaws and likely having tension with others.  How would Much and Marian learn to live with each other, for example?  Would she become the person in Allan’s corner, having grown to know him better in the castle?  Would she and Djaq have grown close and become the female friend likely neither of them ever had before?  Would she threaten Robin’s leadership, convinced that she could do better?     
But no, she no longer has a father to protect, her role as spy/fooling Gisborne is finished, and she declares her love and allegiance to Robin.  There’s nothing left for her to do, except die.  Male Writer Logic.        
This is the ultimate sin of fridging, not only because it removes a female character from our screens, but because it diminishes that character, making her worth and value dependent on the men in her life and not even conceiving that she could lead a story of her own.  It’s “shock value” to “shake up” the narrative, to explore what “losing the thing he loves most” does to the male lead.  It becomes about grief, rage, and revenge, and no longer about the female character at all.  
The worst thing?  Marian was a fully realised character - bold, brave, capable, flawed.  She didn’t always do the right thing or make the right choices, she could be stubborn and prideful and reckless, but she was always interesting.  
She had so much more to give.  
83 notes · View notes
lodelss · 4 years
Link
Soraya Roberts | Longreads | January 2020 |  8 minutes (2,233 words)
On the cover of Susan Sontag’s 2003 book-length essay Regarding the Pain of Others, her last publication before her death, is a Goya print from his graphic 19th-century series The Disasters of War. It shows a reclining soldier passively taking in a dead man hanging from a tree, a body in a row of indistinguishable dangling bodies. Its pain — and the indifference with which that pain can be met — is the perfect illustration of Sontag’s book, which was her response to the query, “How in your opinion are we to prevent war?” She questioned whether the representation of suffering has any hand in ending it. “For a long time some people believed that if the horror could be made vivid enough, most people would finally take in the outrageousness, the insanity of war,” Sontag writes. 
Is that why American Dirt, a sensationalized, stereotype-ridden piece of telenovela exploitation written by a self-identified white (later Puerto Rican–grandmother identified) woman, was met with a seven-figure deal and trumpeted by a publishing industry — Oprah’s Book Club most notably — that ignores countless Latinx stories? Is that why On the Record, a documentary initially backed by Oprah about various women accusing Def Jam cofounder Russell Simmons of sexual misconduct, premiered at Sundance when so many other films about women’s oppression have not? Both of these works have been held up in the tradition of pain iconography and as part of a wider culture that both defers to and is let off the hook by Oprah, its designated high priestess of compassion. An indigent black girl from the rural South, she was an exemplar of one of the most neglected demographics in America. That this capitalist society made her a billionaire for inspiring a cultural bloodletting has immunized it from the sort of criticism levied when white men like Jerry Springer (or white women like Gwyneth Paltrow) do the same thing. 
But the merciless critique Oprah has received both for her support of American Dirt and lack of support for On the Record points to a framework that simultaneously benefits her and uses her as a shield. This empathetic entrepreneur’s predictably myopic choices — just like her acolytes’, from Dr. Phil to Reese Witherspoon — may not serve the majority, but they do serve the system that lets her take the fall for its larger failures of representation. Oprah is one of the most salient testaments to capitalism. 
***
  “People want to weep,” Sontag writes. “Pathos, in the form of a narrative, does not wear out.” She may have been referencing war photography, but the sentiment applies to all narrative forms of suffering, which “are more than reminders of death, of failure, of victimization. They invoke the miracle of survival.” This almost superhuman transcendence of misfortune, this ability to raise yourself out of your primordial pain toward the heavens, is the prototype for the American Dream. It is also the perfect paean to plutocracy. Oprah is the prime example: teen mom, child sex abuse, teen pregnancy, drug use. While working her way toward a journalism career, she was told early on that she was too emotional while anchoring the news. It was here that she found a gaping hole in the market: Oprah turned her “failure” into a touchy-feely talk show, eventually netting herself a cult of personality and an empire approaching $3 billion. Her triumph over her past imbued her with the authority to turn beleaguered strangers’ private torment into public good and served as testament to a hierarchy of success founded on flagellation. “There is nothing greater than the spirit within you to overcome,” she said on The Oprah Winfrey Show. “You and God can conquer this,” conquering here implying profiting. She was proof that it worked. Oprah may not think you are responsible for your own misery, but she does believe you are responsible for flipping your misfortune, just like she did. As she told a women’s economic conference in 1989, “There’s a condition that comes with being and doing all you can: you first have to know who you are before you can do that.”  
Her suffering was transformative, a brand of anguish Sontag defines in her book with an unintentionally spot-on characterization of how Oprah, who referred to her talk show as her “ministry,” secularized (and capitalized on) a pious approach to hardship. “It is a view of suffering, of the pain of others, that is rooted in religious thinking, which links pain to sacrifice, sacrifice to exaltation,” Sontag wrote. The people Oprah chose to interview (Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston), the books she chose to plug (Toni Morrison, James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces), and the films she chose to produce (Beloved, Precious) — all followed this same general trajectory from trauma to some semblance of deliverance, hewing with her own personal experience. They also served to convince the most downtrodden members of the population that the system was only failing to work for them because they failed to plumb their own souls deeply enough. If capitalism was unprofitable for them, it’s because they weren’t doing the work — not in the industrious sense, but in the therapeutic one.
Oprah’s recent projects fall well within that tradition, including On the Record, the Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering documentary she was executive producing for Apple TV+ (it will now air on HBO Max), which centered around a group of women accusing Russell Simmons of sexual abuse. (He has been accused by at least a dozen women in total and denies all the charges.) The question is why this high-profile film by multiple-award winning filmmakers that already had a distributor was playing at a highly sought-after festival, when a struggling independent film could have used that rare opening to seek distribution? Instead, the news out of Sundance focused on whether Oprah, who pulled out of the film at the last minute over creative differences, was siding with Simmons or not — whether she was betraying not only her own race, but her own brand (the enabling of struggling black women to claim their due). “In my opinion, there is more work to be done on the film to illuminate the full scope of what the victims endured,” she said in a statement. This reads to me as uncomfortably on brand, Oprah squeezing as much as possible out of a desperate situation — particularly if it’s at the expense of another capitalist success story, in Simmons’s case — to get maximum returns. But this isn’t all down to her own prurience. It’s the industry around her (including Apple) that encourages her to do this, that pays her excessively for it — the same industry that doesn’t even consider the marginalized stories that do not comply with those standards (standards upheld by a black woman, remember).
Having said all of that, it is also a function of technology that our culture expects us to bleed out to survive. The more intimate media becomes, Sontag argued, the further our shock threshold moves. “The real thing may not be fearsome enough,” she wrote, “and therefore needs to be enhanced or reenacted more convincingly.” This is where you get a situation like Jeanine Cummins’s “trauma porn” American Dirt, the latest Oprah’s Book Club pick, about a Mexican migrant fleeing a drug cartel across the border with her son. “I’m interested in characters who suffer inconceivable hardship,” Cummins writes in her author’s note, “in people who manage to triumph over extraordinary trauma.” It was a direct dial to Oprah, and in particularly unfortunate timing, she expressed her support for this hyperbolic yarn about a fictional woman of color’s pain on the same CBS morning show in which she discussed pulling her support from a documentary full of actual women of colors’ pain. In a video posted on Twitter, Oprah held up the Cummins book, with its cover of watercolor birds and barbed wire, and gushed: “I was opened. I was shook up. It woke me up. And I feel that everybody who reads this book is actually going to be immersed in the experience of what it means to be a migrant on the run for freedom.” Her description reminded me of Sontag’s portrayal of graphic battle imagery: “Stop this, it urges. But it also exclaims, What a spectacle!” American Dirt was another in Oprah’s Apple streaming projects, part of her ambition to make “the world’s largest book club,” and it showed a level of outdated hubris that was revisited tenfold upon her mentions.
While the flesh-and-blood migrants who are dying at the border have not been much of a priority to the world of capitalist enterprise, the literary industry’s corner offices have been effusive in their tone-deaf praise for American Dirt, which last year celebrated its release with — no shit — barbed twig centerpieces. The hypocrisy was too much for the Latinx community (and social media) to bear. They balked at a non-Mexican woman who claimed her husband was undocumented (he’s Irish) and painted her nails with her book cover (more barbed wire) being edified for a cheap piece of Mexican cultural appropriation, while their own perhaps less uplifting (see less white) stories were serially overlooked — Oprah’s Book Club has never chosen a Mexican author. “The clumsy, ill-conceived rollout of American Dirt illustrates how broken the system is,” wrote Mexican American author and translator David Bowles in a heavily circulated New York Times op-ed, “how myopic it is to hype one book at the expense of others and how unethical it is to allow a gatekeeper like Oprah’s Book Club to wield such power.” He pointed out that a bestseller doesn’t just happen; it’s deliberately made by big publishers sinking money into its promotion and rallying press and booksellers around it. One book’s immoderate gain is then every other book’s loss: For three months in the wake of Oprah’s book announcements, other books’ sales plummet. This is a clear impoverishment of culture, but, more importantly, it limits the dissemination of ideas that do not serve big business’ hierarchical ideals. Trauma is valued as long as it’s sanctioned by the small number of powerful people who maintain an overwhelming amount of sway over the capitalist system they uphold. The voices that are ultimately projected are their own, serving their interests and no one else’s. As Drew Dixon, the woman at the center of the Simmons doc, said, echoing Bowles: “Oprah Winfrey shouldn’t get to decide for the whole rest of the world.” More importantly, the machine that created her shouldn’t get to either. 
***
“So far as we feel sympathy, we feel we are not accomplices to what caused the suffering,” Sontag writes at the end of her book. “Our sympathy proclaims our innocence as well as our impotence.” In the case of Oprah, it proclaims hers while hiding the main accomplices. Once among America’s most oppressed populations, her triumph is not only immune to interrogation, so is American plutocracy for having anointed her as its apostle. Oprah gamed the system that once neglected her, and her success lends it a veneer of progress and perpetuates it into the future. With her accumulated power, she shifted taboos and secured the first black American president approximately 1 million votes. But Oprah’s $2.7 billion net worth, her $25 million private jet, her empire — none of these are incidental. They are emblems of a world which has traded millions of people’s poverty for a handful of people’s riches, millions of perspectives for one authority. Oprah may still be full of good intentions, but good intentions are no longer as significant as actions, and every one of us is now accountable — and not just for ourselves. It is not enough anymore to ask people to lift themselves by their bootstraps now that people are aware that those straps are all rigged to snap.
In the midst of American Dirt landing at No. 1 on the Times bestseller list, its publisher acknowledged mistakes but also announced its epic book tour, the one which elbowed out so many other more worthy books and authors, was being canceled over safety concerns. The move proved that Flatiron — also publisher of five Oprah books — fundamentally buys into the notion that when the country’s marginalized populations interrupt the capitalist machinery, it’s a risk to the country itself. The Hispanic Caucus has since requested a meeting with the Association of American Publishers. Bowles, meanwhile, praised the director of a border library — Kate Horan of Texas’s McAllen Public Library — for declining to be part of a pilot partnership with Oprah’s Book Club. Sontag writes that a transformative approach to suffering like Oprah’s is “a view that could not be more alien to a modern sensibility, which regards suffering as something that is a mistake or an accident or a crime. Something to be fixed.” But Horan’s response to the question “How in your opinion are we to prevent war?” is neither Oprah’s nor the opposite — it is to reject the war itself. Oprah serves up war stories to the system that is responsible for them — her response is to meet suffering with suffering. The Latinx community sees the paradox even if Oprah, in her prism of privilege, cannot. “We’ll never meekly submit our stories, our pain, our dignity,” writes Bowles, “to the ever-grinding wheels of the hit-making machine.”
* * *
Soraya Roberts is a culture columnist at Longreads.
0 notes
ladystylestores · 4 years
Text
Voices of Fashion’s Black Creatives on the Work to Be Done, Part 2 – WWD
https://pmcwwd.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/instagra-2.jpg?w=640&h=415&crop=1
The protests go on ⁠— and the voices for change grow louder.
Marches protesting the killing of George Floyd filled streets across America over the weekend, and the sense among many is that this time feels different. While there have been strings of similar protests over the years, all of those eventually subsided, with tiny steps of change, but no fundamental shift.
But in this second part of a series, WWD’s conversations with black creatives indicate they strongly believe ⁠— and hope ⁠— that the fashion world ⁠— and world in general ⁠— might finally be on the road to systemic change toward eliminating racism and unconscious bias. If nothing else, the protesters have made one thing clear: Racism sadly still exists.
Aurora James, Brother Vellies
Aurora James  Stephane Feugere/WWD
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race?
As a business owner, and during this pandemic, I am especially torn up by how much black businesses are suffering. The number of working black business owners has fallen by 40 percent during the coronavirus ⁠— more than any other racial group and according to the Center for Responsible Lending, 95 percent of black-owned businesses were unlikely to receive the first round of the PPP.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
Immediate next step is to grow our network and get more people to support by signing up for Pledge updates. This can put pressure to get to the second step of securing the first company to commit to the 15 Percent Pledge. Individuals can head to 15percentpledge.com and sign up to Stand With Us (15percentpledge.com/stand-with-us). They can also text “PLEDGE” to 917-540-8148 to walk in this journey with us.
And, of course, please follow us on Instagram: @15percentpledge.
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
If they really want to make it happen, change can happen. No one else is going to make this change happen for them. Brands need to mobilize and think about what kind of change is real and attainable for their business. Whether it is setting a goal of more diversity in your workforce, the content you create, or the brands you carry in your store, what we are asking is not that tough and we are here to help brands attain that 15 percent with clear and attainable goals. First they need to take stock of where they are and complete an audit of their business. Then they need to accept where they are at, own it and figure out how they got there. Last, they need to commit ⁠— commit to achieving a minimum of 15 percent, set a deadline to achieve this and put a system in play where they can be held accountable. It could take a few years, but we are here to help lay out that plan and strategy. And we have some of the most brilliant black minds on board to help make it happen.
What role can the media play?
The media can also take part in the Pledge. Whether it is committing to hiring more black writers, copy editors, designers, etc. Or committing your content to covering more black-owned businesses. The media is not exempt from this need for racial equality.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
Seeing and reading all of the comments from supporters of the Pledge. People want this to happen, and I am hopeful that they can help make this change a reality.
  Kimora Lee Simmons
Kimora Lee Simmons  Courtesy
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
There is something reassuring in seeing so many eyes, hearts and minds finally being open to the trauma and pain that black Americans have experienced for years. Once those are open, it’s not likely they’ll be shut again.
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
I’ve been inspired by many media outlets ceding space and bandwidth to black voices and allowing stories to be told on their own terms. Just having the presence of mind not to censor, not to sugar coat, not channel or translate. It’s something I’ve rarely seen in the media.
What role can the media play?
Baby Phat social media has taken a pause for now on product marketing. We’re using our platforms to spotlight stories that must be told and offering meaningful guidance to our community ⁠— one that is uniquely impacted by all that is going on around us. That’s our responsibility as a black-owned brand that cleared a path for so many that came after us.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
I’ve seen a lot of brands make clumsy entries into the social justice space. In many cases, it feels stilted because it doesn’t come across as authentic. Which doesn’t mean they don’t care. It means they’re new to the space. This is a learning process for people, so of course it will be a process for brands as well.
  Ted Gibson
Ted Gibson  Courtesy Photo
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race?
People make assumptions based on the color of my skin. In my career, in the fashion business, I have faced this. If you know me, I am always in a suit jacket. The reason for this is because my mom taught me at an early age that I was different because of the color of my skin, that I need to look a certain way for people to be receptive. I was looking for representation, a new agent. I went to the Wall Group to drop my book off. When I arrived, I felt it immediately, that feeling of: What are you doing here? I dropped my book off. A couple of days later they called me to come pick my book up. As I walked in I felt the same thing: What are you doing here? The person said they actually thought I was a bike messenger. I was wearing a suit. At that time they didn’t have any black hairdressers on their board or makeup artist on their board ⁠— I lost respect for them after. I have worked with some of the most amazing women in the world, on red carpets, in fashion shows, in every market and Vogue still viewed me as a black hairdresser, not a hairdresser.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality? 
Well, first of all, stop acting like it doesn’t exist. Over the last two years specifically we have seen major brands ⁠— Gucci, Prada, Celine, Burberry ⁠— create a storm of racist items that were to be sold. They did it on purpose. It’s unacceptable and ridiculous that we have had that conversation before. People just don’t think about anyone but themselves.
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products? 
I think it’s more than just having a person of color in an ad. It’s about having people of color on your teams to help guide brands in the right direction when it comes to race.
What role can the media play? 
Bring it to light when they see it. Talk about it. Have focus groups to make changes and shed light on a subject that should not make people feel uncomfortable.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment? 
That people are not putting up with it anymore, that’s what makes me hopeful.
    Shantell Martin, Artist
Shantell Martin  Gregory Pace/Shutterstock
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race?
Being underestimated. Being ignored. Being devalued. Having to justify any of my accomplishments. As a black artist it’s always interesting to see how many people don’t want to even comprehend how I could achieve what I have just because of the color of my skin. But my favorite is when I’m told that my being straightforward and professional is “aggressive.” I’m sure many black women can relate to that one.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
Historically, the fashion industry has profited off of black culture, black designers, black creatives, black artists, black bodies, black consumers, and so on. The list is endless. The change that needs to occur, so that the fashion industry can be a part of the fight against racism, is to first acknowledge and take accountability for the systemic racism within the industry itself and then make steps to change that. It can’t just be about having conversations and listening. There needs to be actions taken toward true change starting at the top such as hiring black ceo’s, black board members, and black creative directors, etc. The excuse that there aren’t black people qualified for those positions is not acceptable. The industry must also begin celebrating and supporting black-owned businesses and investing in black-owned brands so that they are able to grow and reach broader audiences.
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
Things have to be authentic, honest and usually it’s from the inside out and really engaging with the communities that they’re trying to reach. Companies that are tone-deaf or profit from glamourizing the byproduct of systemic racism should not have a place within the industry.
The industry should have standards and do its homework. There are so many resources out there so that companies can educate themselves. No more excuses.
Instagram posts from Armando Cabral and BLK MKT Vintage. 
What role can the media play?
The media profits from sensationalizing or veering into “entertainment” and perpetuating negative stereotypes instead of being a tool of education and exposing the truth and truly being unbiased. If the media wants to play a positive role than like, I’ve said before, it all starts from within and at the top and creating a culture where it’s about education over education.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
That, if you like it or not, we have to innovate and change and I’m hoping that some progress comes from that.
I also find a lot of hope knowing that so many young people have the tools to educate themselves and be exposed to different perspectives, different cultures, and different people, and so many of them are already taking steps to become the leaders that so many have lacked before them.
  Jeffrey Banks
Jeffrey Banks and Stephen Burrows  Frenel Morris
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race?
Interestingly, the only major obstacle I faced was as an assistant to Ralph Lauren, when he asked me to check out a potential showroom space at 550 Seventh Avenue on a very hot and humid August day. I was denied access to the building through the front entrance, because I was not wearing a tie, allegedly! This, despite the fact I was dressed in a Polo suit and wearing Gucci loafers. I was told to take the freight entrance. I complained bitterly afterward, and that policy (which was  clearly discriminatory) was quickly abandoned.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
The industry, through various leading voices like Fashion For All Foundation and the CFDA, has to continue to be vigilant and uber-vocal whenever and wherever they see unjust policies continuing.
Instagram posts from Sandrine Charles, Third Crown, and Bianca Saunders. 
What should brands be doing to enact change from within and promote inclusion in their workforces, imagery and products?
I think the fashion industry has always been a leader when it comes to inclusive hiring, it’s always been about creativity and qualifications, not the color of one’s skin. As far as imagery, we have made strides in representing diverse faces in advertising, though we still have a ways to go in that area. The biggest problem is getting the financial world to loosen its purse strings more when it comes to minority-owned businesses.
What role can the media play?
The role of the media is, and always has been, to showcase what is vibrant and new, wherever it comes from. And good journalists always do that.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
The fact that we are no longer sweeping these issues under the carpet, but are actively discussing the inequities inherent in the fashion business, makes me feel hopeful that change is possible.
  B Michael
B Michael  Gregory Pace/Shutterstock
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race?
Access to real investor capital to compete and scale as a proven luxury brand and business, and our industry’s recognition.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
As a $3 trillion global industry, the fashion industry has the financial strength to truly affect legislative and economic/equity change. The fashion industry must also be accountable for its long-standing practice of systemic racism.
I read with great interest the press alert you sent out with the subject line “Platitudes” about the CFDA statement and wanted to reach out for further comment:
Thank you for your question regarding our platitude statement. B Michael is a longtime CFDA member who was sponsored by Oscar de la Renta.
B Michael has elected to be a nonactive member of the CFDA, he believes the CFDA has never benefited him personally or his brand as a black fashion designer. All of the CFDA initiatives continue to be sanctioned by industry elites practicing bias exclusion. This is a contradiction to the original core mission of the organization. Including black celebrities and honoring black celebrities at the CFDA awards does not truly address the economic/equity exclusion independent black designers and brands continue to see from the fashion industry and media.
Instagram posts from Salomon Diaz and Yashua Simmons 
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforce and in their imagery and products?
As designers and brands, we must foster value-added relationships across the board. Economically empowering black-owned brands and businesses would organically promote inclusion in the workforce, imagery and products.
What role can the media play?
The media must be more inclusive of independent black fashion designers in its coverage, media outlets cannot continue to base editorial coverage on advertising buys and nepotism. The collateral designers and brands receive from editorial coverage clearly plays a huge role in attracting investors, retail partners and consumers.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
This movement gives us hope, and we expect transparency and real economic/equity change and inclusion.
  Anifa Mvuemba, Hanifa
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race?
Being black in America is exhausting. We constantly feel like we have to defend our belonging in all spheres of life: existing, innovating, etc.
Most recently a notable publication discredited our Pink Label Congo Collection as the first Livestream 3-D Fashion Show simply by failing to fact check. The writer claimed an AI start-up brand is planning to stream the “first show,” despite our show going viral on media outlets including theirs less than two weeks ago. It still wasn’t enough for them to credit a black designer and fashion brand for actually being the first.
All of that fails in comparison, however, to the challenge of managing our emotions on a regular basis. Having to show up when our hearts are heavy. I worry about our black men, our black women, our black children, and our communities. Racism in this country is woven into the fabric that many wear every day. As a designer, I’m constantly challenged to do more to support the black women who have contributed to our success. They’re the reason why we’re here. Hanifa has to mean more than the clothing, we owe it to them.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality? 
The fashion industry should be honest, present and action-driven about the racial disparities among our industry. To be quite frank, the industry is often the beneficiary of black culture but seemingly tone-deaf to the systemic injustices facing our community. The best thing the fashion industry can do right now is to be as intentional about defending our rights as they are about using our culture and heritage in their marketing. It’s also incredibly important for the industry to lead by example. We need diversity from the entry level designer to the decision maker. At this point, it’s overdue.
In the words of Rihanna: “Pull up.”
Instagram posts from All Cap Studio and Tyler Mitchell 
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
Inclusion has to start from the top down, but inclusion on its own is not enough. In addition to hiring diverse qualified team members, managers have to empower those hires to actually influence the position they occupy. Too often we are “included” but in a very limited capacity where we can’t make any real change.
What role can the media play?
In many ways the media has one of the biggest responsibilities. They shape our view of the world by the images they show. It’s time for the media to do their research and to ask informed questions that reflect what our world actually looks like. Enough of superficial advertisements and launches. We want to see our meaningful selves in the media. Editors should be sensitive to consider the emotional climate during situations like the recent passing of George Floyd, and all of the other black lives that have been murdered. It’s incredibly disrespectful and insensitive to send a pitch about a new collection when the state of black America is mourning.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
I’m encouraged by my generation. We are mobilizing in a way I have never seen before. The allyship is also inspiring. I feel more needs to be done after the outrage settles but this tragedy feels different. I think we are finally reaching people who previously didn’t listen.
  Matthew Harris, Mateo New York
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race?
I want to start by saying this: I am from the island of Jamaica, where I was raised on the national motto, “Out of Many, One People.” I went to school with kids from all over the world, as far as Burma. I have navigated my way through life with this principle and mind-set.
With that being said, working in the fashion industry, I was quickly reminded of the color of my skin (a reality I never paid much attention to) and have faced many obstacles and challenges over the years. From retailers asking me to join minority organizations or trying to buy my collection to fill their minority portfolios. Of course, I refuse.
I believe my talent and not my skin color was enough. Some buyers will not look at black brands. End of. I have seen it over and over again. Sometimes if they feel guilty they will send the assistant of the assistant of the junior buyer as a courtesy. Look at the top retailers and gather how many black brands they stock?! The proof is in the evidence. I am not saying all retailers are this way, but many have failed to adjust with the times. There are some incredible people such as Elizabeth von der Goltz from Net-a-porter, Tanika Wisdom over at Matches, Caroline Maguire at Shopbop, among others.
Another challenge is also real mentoring. No one truly takes the time to mentor young black designers. I have seen it firsthand. I entered the CFDA Fashion Fund for that exact same reason and received no such thing. Pushed to the back burner because I was too outspoken. This is one of the core explanations as to why so many American brands have failed and are failing. Black designers need the right tools to be able to compete effectively with their other counterparts. Not to be used as a publicity stunt. Train them, give them access to the resources and financials in order to have a long-term and successful brand. I will always applaud the Workshop at Macy’s headed by Shawn Outler as they have gotten it right with that program, where many have and continue to fail.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
The fashion industry has to start from the root, the core, to fight racist policies and police brutality. You cannot have a board of all white people making fundamental decisions. This is not the multicultural, multiracial world we live in today.
The moment we truly make changes at the top, then we will see a real trickle-down effect to have real diversity! Not a trend of the moment, but a radical, life-changing and long-lasting new way of life.
There also needs to be a cleaning out of racist executives. They need to be held accountable. Too often I have heard of many using the “N” word in corporate e-mails. It’s unacceptable and until they are fired, we can’t have change, as it sets the tone for the firm.
Instagram posts from Kimberly Drew (illustration by ggggrimes) and Grace Mahary.  Photos by ggggrimes and Grace Mahary
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
I would like to write a long extended answer, but the answer remains the same. It starts at the top of the organization and we don’t care if you hire a director of multicultural and diversity or whatever ridiculous title you want to name it. Hire qualified blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. Period!
Then, only then, we will see changes. Changes to imagery, advertising, marketing, and so forth.
What role can the media play?
Again, it comes back to the overused word, diversity, but long-lasting, real ingrained diversity.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
This time around feels different, as people are beyond overwhelmed with the racial injustice in this country. And that makes me hopeful as more people are becoming outraged as they ought to be. I have been marching in the protest here in Los Angeles for four days now and I see people from all walks of life, race and ethnicities. Americans are tired of the nonsense.
No American should want to live in a country where such madness is taking place. Especially when the answer is so simple. To simply treat our brothers and sisters as how we would like to be treated. Really, that’s it! That’s where it starts.
  Kevan Hall, designer and cofounder of the Black Design Collective
Kevan Hall  Debbie Lee
What unique challenges have you faced in fashion because of your race?
When I accepted the prestigious post of design and creative director for the iconic American brand Halston, I couldn’t have imagined the firestorm that would be ignited. New York fashion players can be insular but beyond that, there were rumblings as to how a black man had been chosen to head the house and could he do it. With four weeks to show time, I assembled a new team, designed and presented the spring 1999 collection.
Seated in the front row was a stellar lineup of fashion editors and retailers: the late Liz Tilberis (Harper’s Bazaar), Polly Mellen (Allure), André Leon Tally (Vogue), Constance C.R. White (The New York Times) and Joan Kaner (fashion director, Neiman Marcus). With 42 stunning looks, all doubters were silenced. Senior vice president Joe Boitano was waiting at the Halston showroom the following morning at 8 a.m. to be the first to negotiate placement for Saks Fifth Avenue. Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman soon followed as did every other major boutique in the U.S.
In spite of the wonderful reviews and increase in sales, when the company was sold the new owners did not renew my contract as they preferred a different face for the brand.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
To fight racist policies, there has to be a change in the mind-set throughout the industry regarding hiring and promoting practices. If they’re serious, they should be transparent and be willing to publish information as to the diversity of their staff.
It’s easy to hop on board to be politically correct in the midst of the protests but the proof will be in the company’s long-term commitment to provide opportunities for black people to have positions on boards, management and in the design rooms. Time will tell.
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
Less than 10 percent of fashion designers in the U.S. are black. What makes a successful fashion brand? Support! If the fashion industry would support black brands, they would have an opportunity to build their companies into household names as many others have done. It’s a matter of economics.
What role should the media play?
Retailers and media need to adjust their merchandise mix and include diversity. Celebrities also need to wear black designers on the red carpet for exposure. We know how the right celebrity at the right red carpet event can propel a designer’s career. There are incredibly talented black designers that are more than capable of providing beautiful quality collections in every category, if given the chance.
Instagram posts from Mel D. Cole and Yvonne Orji. 
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
I feel a shift in the zeitgeist and believe America and the world has finally opened its eyes and is ready to address the social inequality, economic disparity and systemic racism that has plagued black people for hundreds of years. To witness such a diverse assembly of protesters for 10 days joined in peaceful solidarity and to see the swell of the crowds gives me hope that this time, change will come.
  TJ Walker, cofounder of Cross Colours, and cofounder of the Black Design Collective
What unique challenges have you faced in fashion because of your race?
The challenges that I face as a black man in the fashion industry are the same challenges that any black person faces. We are black! We cannot change being black, but I do hope people change how they view black people overall because we contribute a great deal to the human race.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
The fashion industry should do what many are doing around the world. “Speak Yo Mind” as we said in the ’90s through our clothing brand Cross Colours. I see that the industry is stepping up, and this is so needed. The other thing that the industry can do is help change the policies, lobby and petition for stronger induction procedures based on mental health.
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products? 
This is a loaded question…To enact change ⁠— people have to change and be accepting of permanent change, not a trend of change. To promote Inclusion ⁠— people need to be “inclusive” and this needs to be simply represented by the culture and make up of the people who are on the team. The imagery of a brand is so very important, but we need to also change the policies around this based on the standards that are currently viewed as the norm. Let’s enact change by changing and holding to change until things need to change based on equality forall. Creating our brand Cross Colours, our tagline was and still is “Clothing Without Prejudice”!
What role can the media play?
The media’s role in the current events and all events should be the same: the unbiased truth! The media’s role has become in many cases driven by ratings and entertainment. The media has a huge responsibility to the world to serve us the truth based on facts, and here I also think that the rules governing the media need to be looked at as well.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
What makes [Cross Colours cofounder] Carl [Jones] and I feel hopeful at the moment is that change is here! What we also hope is that “change” is here not just as a trend but as a core item in the DNA of our brand as humans.
  Nyakio Grieco, founder of Nyakio Beauty
Nyakio Grieco  Jason Au
What unique challenges have you faced in fashion because of your race?
As a black woman and clean beauty founder, I have encountered numerous challenges in my entrepreneurial journey. When I entered this space in 2002, there were very few women who looked like me focused on globally sourced, sustainable ingredients. It can be endemic in the beauty space for women founders ⁠— especially black women founders ⁠— to be elevated as leaders and drivers of their own businesses, not just figureheads.
As a black clean beauty founder, it was paramount for me to source ingredients from around the globe that are used by underrepresented women in their traditional beauty rituals. My challenges were twofold: As a black founder, the perception that I would not be qualified to speak to the beauty needs and traditions of women of other ethnicities and cultures, in contrast to the perception that I am only adept to speak of ingredients often associated with black consumers like African Black Soap, Kenyan Coffee, and Argan Oil.  What I learned from my Kenyan family, who passed down wisdom from my grandfather who was a medicine man, is that natural beauty goes beyond the limits of skin color.
As black women, we know how to mobilize. We know that it all starts with creating generational wealth in our communities. The beauty industry should be helping us to level that playing field. That can start by giving more black women more seats in the boardroom, more funding for our businesses and more mentorship to our young so that we can help them shape their future. It is all connected.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality, and what role does the media play?
It’s been so heartening to see the level of diversity in beauty and fashion media. It is so important to continue sharing stories of inclusivity from all women from all walks of life. There is no longer a boiler plate for the “typical” fashion and beauty reader or lifestyle.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
What gives me hope is finding comfort in the uncomfortable. While the heartbreaking events of senseless brutality have devastated us, it has exposed hatred to a level that can no longer be ignored. I embrace the questions of “what can I do”? “How can I help”?  Because only in those moments can we usher in change. The more we have these conversations, the less uncomfortable they become. That gives me hope.
  Romeo Hunte
Romeo Hunte  Courtesy Photo
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race? 
My greatest challenge was coming into this industry on my own as a self-funded brand, all while building a name for myself in an industry that wasn’t so welcoming of black designers. I remember my first show being called “ghetto” by one of the most prominent editors in the industry, realizing that one of the reasons why it was deemed as ghetto was due to an all-black team, from models to production. This also takes me back to my first deskside with a marketing editor at a major publication company. They thought my Asian employee was actually the designer of the Romeo Hunte Brand: They acknowledged him as Romeo. Black designers are often not included in the constantly recycled coverage of luxury brands. One of the biggest retailers told me that If I was a CFDA baby then they would buy into the collection immediately.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
People should be held accountable for their actions against black people within the fashion industry. Acknowledge more designers for their talent and skill, and place them with other diverse designers. Do not just throw us on The Top 10 Black Designers for Black History Month; give us a seat at the table where we deserve. We shouldn’t be separated from the fashion industry when it comes down to editors showing up for us. Black designers always get served last. For example, big retail companies pick and choose one or two black designers for placement.
The fashion industry can assist with dismantling racist policies and police brutality by first making it a part of their duty to constantly keep both their employees and audience informed on the history of racism and systemic oppression within the United States and beyond. The fashion industry can also help through assisting with more year-round donations and job placements, not just when it is convenient to them. A relationship should be established between the industry and the Black Lives Matter movement, including donations for victims and the families affected by police brutality. #8cantwait is a great first-step call to an action plan devised by Campaign Zero, a nonprofit organization that is steadfast in making a sustainable change against police brutality. Bringing #8cantwait to the forefront as a means to decrease police brutality violence by 72 percent; these policies include the banning of chokeholds and strangleholds, de-escalation, warning before shooting, exhausting all alternatives before shooting, highlighting the duty to intervene, banning shooting at moving vehicles, establishing use of force continuum and lastly requiring all force to be reported. This is not a trend, this should be an ongoing education to the viewers, from donations to spreading awareness. George Floyd was yet another reminder of how a system instilled to protect us shouldn’t cost us our lives no matter our background or race. We call on the fashion industry to be more than just an ally but an advocate for change. This shouldn’t be an incident that is here today and forgotten tomorrow, dismantling racist policies and police brutality should be a commitment.
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
Brands within the industry can enact change by educating staff on racial profiling within the workplace, from retail stores to publications, marketing teams to p.r. agencies. Include more black employees across the board. This has several benefits such as ongoing assistance with the fundamentals on culture and race appropriation in efforts to educate the audience on black history in a way that leaves no room for error. When a more diverse team is set in place within the industry, there will be more people of color willing to speak up without the fear of losing their jobs because equality is all we’ve been asking for. A more diverse workplace can create opportunities and changes which reflect across all of these issues: from social injustice to the cultural sensitivity of the imagery and the products we consume.
What role should the media play?
The media should use social media platforms to educate consumers! It presents a room for opportunity which black designers should not be excluded from. It should work to promote black designers, their business, storefronts. I think the industry should help mentor emerging designers who need investment through campaigns and covers. Create more opportunities for them, more awards, more recognition. It shouldn’t just be black magazines who are doing this like Essence, Ebony, etc. Diversity should be the focus of the images the media chooses to portray. Children should not be growing up only seeing white skin associated with everyday consumption. This leads to implicit biases which only perpetuate the cycle of systemic racism. We are now presented with an opportunity for brands to integrate these philosophies long term. Consumers will also have to stand up against this for both the media and the fashion industry to have a more inclusive, equitable future.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
What makes me feel hopeful at this moment is my persistence. Throughout my life, I have always had to adapt as a black man, especially in this industry. Right now, for the first time, I don’t have to adapt because my community is standing with me in solidarity! Thank you for everyone who has been protesting and putting their lives on the line; George Floyd has amplified the voices in the black community! I feel as though this racist pandemic urges the fashion industry and those in power to come forward to help fix things. Solidarity is powerful and should not be temporary.
  Bethann Hardison, former model, modeling agency owner, activist 
Bethann Hardison  Clint Spaulding/Shutterstock
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race? 
Not many. I was lucky to grow up in the garment business. Only when I started my own [modeling] business I heard from one young white guy, who I represented, that they said there was no way I was going to succeed because I was black. But I knew I had to make it, because I was being told that all along that I could. I was being offered by everyone to go into business, even when I didn’t know what I wanted to do. My first fashion show with Chester Weinberg on Seventh Avenue in the late Sixties was a little different. But I never thought it was because of my race. I thought it was because of the way I looked…I was raised every summer from the time I was 18 months old to 18 years old in North Carolina. Even though North Carolina was the best state in the South when it came down to segregation, you still got to understand how to live amongst others. How to only use the colored toilets and colored water fountains ⁠— you couldn’t go in the front door at the five and dime store, you had to go in the back. All of those things you grow up knowing and understanding. But my industry, if I thought they were racist, I don’t think I could have thought I could change anything. That’s where I lean back and think, “It’s all possible.” We can change an industry. So many young people are so reliant and so smitten with fashion. It saddens me a little. I know this is all they’ve got, but I don’t want it to be all they’ve got. You’ve got to have more to your life than being in an industry that has gotten so glamorous that this is all that you breathe, and then you want to point fingers at it and accuse it. I just think, “Wow. Jeez. You’ve got to have more to your life than that ⁠— please, please.”
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
There are a lot of good organizations like the NAACP and many others. Young people today are listing them all on social media. If you want to get involved and throw somebody a coin, there are a lot of wonderful organizations that are doing things. They need your support. If you’re not sure who that is, go to the great ones that are known. If you feel, “How can I affect the police?” That’s a whole other story. That’s a DNA. How can you change that?
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
People put too much on this industry. They expect them to turn into little leprechauns. First of all, just stay in your lane and create…This industry has changed so greatly in so many ways. We’ve gotten so involved with popular culture and many other things. Now you’re responsible. You’re no longer an elitist island. The Garment District wasn’t at one time. It was a manufacturing business. Once it became glorified and glamorous, it was still an elitist island but then it became open to the world. Now you’ve got to bear the world’s problems. Now you’ve got to get involved. The only reason that racism exists is because you don’t integrate other races into your companies. If you’re walking around in an all-white office, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. That doesn’t necessarily mean putting in all black people. Anything that is other than Caucasian needs to be integrated. A lot of white people and black people need to get to know each other so that we can get strong and get smart. A lot of us think exactly the same and are on the same side of culture. What’s getting ready to happen in our country is something that no one is prepared for. Our democracy is in a challenged position. It’s chess now ⁠— you’ve just got to make the right moves.
What role should the media play?
What I like is that you can have good ole time journalism, where people just dig up things. They want to talk about it before it becomes so [widespread] and make people feel responsible. They can feel there is something there and they want to shed a bigger light on it. All the media can do is to continue to report, but have individual journalists who care to talk about things that most people aren’t talking about so easily. There are a lot of things happening in society that people just let rest because they don’t think it’s being made enough noise of. It’s [a matter of] what sells quote-unquote. At the end of the day, there are so many things of great importance. It’s like the kid, who got shot in Georgia outside of Savannah [Ahmaud Arbery]. It was not known to any of us on a normal media wavelength until a month or two later. It’s because it got to Shaun King and he made noise about it and that changed everything. That’s not really what people get paid by a company to do.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
I don’t think in hope. I’m more of an action person. There are things that need to be done. You have to get out the shovel, come with your pick, have your machete and go to work. Now we have to pray and work toward getting people to change…creative industries can make a shift right now because everyone is talking about race and oppression and trying to come together.
  Jerry Lorenzo, Fear of God
Jerry Lorenzo 
What unique challenges do you feel you have faced due to your race?
That’s a lifetime answer. If I keep this somehow related to the platform that brings you and I together, which is fashion, everything that I do with Fear of God comes from a lifetime of dressing in a way that, number one ⁠— disarms people, and number two ⁠— puts me in a room where hopefully my fashion can somehow serve as a way to disarm or remove any preconceived notions of who I am. And so for many POC, although your blackness enters the room before you do at all times, what you wear is also ⁠— I can take this the far and left side, kind of like with Trayvon Martin, you don’t get to wear a hoodie and put your hood up, and not be looked at in a certain way, the way we present ourselves is something we don’t have the luxury to not consider. That being said, it’s been considered for me at such a high level my whole life, so translating that consideration into what I design is not a hard thing to do, because every day of my life I have to make this conscious, considered decision of how I’m presenting myself, and as a black man, when you take a day off or when you maybe don’t consider it, ironically those can be the same days where you are looked at differently, or where you’re assumed to be potentially something that you are not, and so fashion for many POC is a way of disarming others of their preconceived notions of who that person may be.
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
I don’t think the fashion industry as a whole should do anything other than look internally. I think before they are quick to speak or support a subject, that change needs to happen within their respective organizations. It’s tough to come out and say we are about inclusivity if your front office and your campaigns have not been inclusive, if your design team has not been inclusive, if your employees and the workforce is not inclusive. It’s a hard thing that needs to be practiced before it can be spoken on. 
What should brands be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
I think they have to really just ask themselves the tough questions, is inclusivity the next “N” word, like “sustainability” is, or is inclusivity really something that we want to be about? I think as soon as you begin to inject policies that are in contrast to the culture of the organization, is when you have a lot of the distress within. You can’t have a policy around hiring POC if that’s truly not something that your company is about or if that’s truly not something your company values. And so I think it’s a “value” thing before it becomes an “action” thing.
What role can the media play?
The role hasn’t necessarily changed, I think writers and editors can understand that what this movement is about isn’t necessarily about police brutality and injustice more so than it is about consideration of other people, and I think before a story is written, if this is about racism and injustice, have we gone through the proper layers of consideration and empathy and compassion and understanding all sides affected by this story? Or is this story being led by some agenda or some p.r. push to further position the publication as an inclusive publication or doing the kosher thing at the moment. In the same way that organizations need to really closely and slowly consider how they move, I think the media should do the same thing.
Instagram posts from Lemlem Official, Muehleder Label, and Mimi Moffie. 
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
Seeing all of the different races in the protests, seeing the different voices that are popping up across social media, maybe their lives haven’t always matched what they are saying now, but at least they are now seeing things differently. I’m happy the protest wasn’t a one-and-done thing, that this is going on longer, that inspires me. That people are still protesting, they are still in the streets, it’s not a reflection of the way that we’ve consumed a lot of these injustices in the past ⁠— whether it’s Trayvon, you can go down the line about some of these POC that have been murdered. There was a lot of news and then it was forgotten about, and the situation never changed and the climate continued to stay the same. My hope comes that it really feels like we are at a boiling point, and I feel blessed that more eyes and ears are opened and that more people are just attempting in trying to have a conversation.
What were your thoughts on the backlash that Virgil Abloh received on social media and what would you tell those individuals?
I don’t really have any words for those individuals. I FaceTimed Virgil directly, we spoke earlier this week, and I just wanted to encourage him and let him know that his track record speaks louder than any Instagram post you could ever write, you have been the face of inclusion all the way from what you have done, from the models on the runway to the inclusion within your campaigns, to the battles that only you fight that no one else is aware of, being a black man and carrying such a prominent position. The weight he’s had to carry, those people that are making comments have little idea the weight he’s carrying and the work he’s done, and if you do a little bit of research, the work is there. I was just calling to encourage him, to say: “hey man, your track record is louder than this noise that is happening now, it’s going to blow over, and just stay encouraged.” I don’t know that I have words for people that are quick to judge, for the most part a lot of those people have made up their minds based on whatever information they have. I told Virgil our job is to continue to be examples and lights of change; we can’t get caught in the minutia of trying to explain our actions, our life’s work has to speak for us, and hopefully our life’s work is what can ignite change, not an Instagram comment back-and-forth battle, and really try to stay away from those traps.
  Damien Crews, Agent, Women’s and Men’s Division, Red Models
Damien Crews 
What unique challenges have you faced in fashion because of your race?
I think the most unique challenge that I’ve had to face due to my race would be the constant feeling of always having to overachieve. In the past and often times now, minorities have been looked down upon as less intelligent or less capable so throughout both my personal and professional life I have always felt the need to overachieve and always strive for perfection to receive the minimum amount of respect from the majority of society.
Instagram posts from Marjon Carlos and Tremaine Emory. 
What should the fashion industry be doing now to fight racist policies and police brutality?
The fashion industry and all of its creatives within: designers, art directors, modeling agencies, casting directors, photographers, stylists, makeup artists, producers and media outlets should all be using their platforms to condemn racist policies and police brutality. The fashion industry collectively should also be using their platforms of broad reach to create an open forum for us to discuss and bring awareness to not only these systemic issues and injustices within politics, but also bring awareness to the injustices that still exist within the fashion industry.
  What should brands/model agencies/casting directors be doing to enact change from within, promote inclusion in their workforces and in their imagery and products?
I believe that each entity that makes up our fashion industry has its own responsibility to contribute toward equal inclusion. While more models of color have become more included over the years, the consistent use of as well as the light and oftentimes undertone of which they are used is not equal nor is it just. Those at the helm of top global fashion brands need to first change their outlook on people of color and consistently promote a far more diverse cast of talent to represent their brands, both in front of and behind the camera. Throughout my career as a model manager I have heard far too many times that we should refrain from bringing on another “black” model because “we already have one with the same look.” This notion stems from there already being a severe lack of representation of models of color in the industry and belief that only a handful of models of color will work consistently and become successful on the high level until there is another trend of a wave of inclusivity. Casting directors are hired to cast talent for these brands while maintaining the aesthetic and essence of the brand/designer. If the brand is not progressive with being more inclusive of POC then it’s less likely that the casting director will request [from modeling agencies] a large pool of talent of color.
What role can the media play?
Media in general controls the world. What we see on television, social media, and in advertising campaigns in magazines and at airports, etc., often times shapes our perspective on the society in which we live. The media in all of its forms is a tool to broadcast and sends messages (both positive and negative) to the world. I believe that if global fashion brands greatly shifted and became equally as inclusive of POC then it will create a trickle-down domino effect within the industry where casting directors would be forced to cast more diversely. Modeling agencies globally would be able to acquire more models of color without having to hesitate out of fear of internal competition within their agencies. If a modeling agency can have dozens of brunette and blonde Caucasian models then why can’t an agency have dozens of models of color? Once those responsible for shaping the image of fashion brands are able to become equally inclusive, then the media will be able to showcase this change and inclusion globally.
What makes you feel hopeful at this moment?
During these unprecedented times in which we live, it can be very challenging to find hope and hang on to it. At the moment, platforms and outlets like this one with an intent to amplify black and minority voices to bring awareness and change is what makes me feel hopeful. The current global outrage which has brought so much unity against police brutality and racist policies around the world is what makes me hopeful at the moment. Change doesn’t happen without awareness.
Source link
قالب وردپرس
from World Wide News https://ift.tt/2YeLvMK
0 notes
expansion-joint · 6 years
Text
In public, Republicans have been growing more defiant by the day about Brett Kavanaugh’s prospects to reach the Supreme Court. But as Christine Blasey Ford prepares to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault, Republican campaigners are, in private, fretting about the potential political repercussions of sticking with Kavanaugh.
And that was before a new allegation of sexual misconduct surfaced Sunday evening.
With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vowing to “plow right through” the confirmation process, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pledging to stand by Kavanaughno matter what Ford tells the committee this week, some Republicans see a party that has not properly and fully grappled with the political realities of the #MeToo movement.
On Sunday night, The New Yorker revealed that Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale with Kavanaugh, alleges that he exposed himself to her at a party 35 years ago.
Kavanaugh and the White House quickly issued statements on Sunday night denying the allegations. Kavanaugh, in a statement, called the claims a “smear, plain and simple.”
Even before the most recent allegations surfaced, Democrats were increasingly bullish that November’s elections could be a re-run of 1992, when women stormed into office after the Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas to the high court despite Anita Hill’s sexual-harassment allegations against him.
“How the Senate handles this and the Senate Republicans handle this will be a test of this time, of 2018, in the #MeToo movement. Can we do better? And I fear we are failing that, if we don’t do it correctly,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who was first elected in the 1992 “year of the woman,” said on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Graham and other Republicans who sit on the judiciary committee have said Ford should be respected and heard, but they have publicly pushed back on her decades-old allegations, pointing to alleged witnesses who said they have no memory of the party where Ford says Kavanaugh pinned her down and tried to take off her clothes. President Donald Trump has also cast doubt on Ford’s claims.
Murray had a stark warning for Republicans who dismiss Ford’s allegations, in a year when Democrats are already favored to re-take control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate.
“If the Senate ‘plows through’ this, if it’s a ‘hiccup,’ if they don’t do it right, there will be a tremendous backlash again,” she predicted.
Republicans don’t disagree. They point to Trump’s falling approval numbers in addition to the enthusiasm among female voters which was already a concern for the party even before Ford and Ramirez came forward with their allegations. And they’re worried that unforced errors on the part of some of their candidates who are running against Democratic women this year could cause them to be swept away by a new, more powerful blue wave. Moreover, Kavanaugh’s approval rating in a recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll is under water, with women and independent voters fueling his collapsing popularity from when he was first nominated.
All of those factors combined, strategists say, could spell disaster for Republicans come November.
“This is an election year with a highly motivated Democratic party that is electing historic numbers of women, minorities and outsiders to Congress,” Sophia Nelson, a former Republican counsel for the House Oversight Committee, told The Daily Beast. “The Republicans act at their peril if they just ‘plow through’ this nomination, when America’s biggest demographic—women—are making clear they do not want Kavanaugh on the high court.”
At least two prominent Republican candidates running against a woman this year have taken heat from their opponents in recent days for making comments about Ford’s allegations that were criticized as tone-deaf and insensitive. The remarks have GOP strategists fretting that if voters believe Ford—who is testifying on Thursday—is being treated poorly, there could be political consequences.
Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), perhaps the most vulnerable Senate Republican this year, appeared to dismiss Ford’s allegation as a “little hiccup” in Kavanaugh’s path to the Supreme Court. Heller later said he was referring to how Democrats were handling the matter, but his opponent, Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), called his remarks “tone-deaf” and “disappointing.”
In another race, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said Ford’s allegation was “even more absurd” than Hill’s “because these people were teenagers when this supposed alleged incident took place.” His opponent, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), called those comments “disturbing,” adding: “They don’t reflect the values of North Dakota.”
Before Ford’s and Ramirez’s allegations were made public, Republican candidates like Cramer who are running against vulnerable Democrats in conservative states were using the Supreme Court nomination to their advantage, insinuating that their opponent was too aligned with national Democrats in opposing Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Now, Republicans worry that that line of attack, once an easy blow against conservative Democrats, no longer works—especially in states like North Dakota, where the incumbent Democrat is a woman.
“Assuming there are no new revelations and Kavanaugh is confirmed, I think the biggest impact is that Republicans can’t use SCOTUS as a cudgel against red-state Democrats,” said a Republican strategist working on a 2018 Senate race. “SCOTUS nominations always motivate the base on both sides. I don’t think that’s changed. If anything I think it’s been amplified.”
Indeed, some GOP candidates have stopped mentioning the Supreme Court nomination altogether when attacking their opponents. For example, Indiana businessman Mike Braun, the Republican running against Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) in a state Trump won by 20 points, has not mentioned Kavanaugh in a campaign email ever since Ford went public.
But while many Republicans fear the political costs of pushing Kavanaugh through to the end, other conservatives and allies of the president have criticized the judiciary committee and its chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), for being too accommodating to Ford and her attorneys—even delaying the planned vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination to make time for another hearing. Some Republicans, echoing the Trump base, have argued that the Ford legal team’s efforts to prolong negotiations over her testimony amount to a delay tactic, and they’ve encouraged Grassley to put his foot down and barrel ahead with a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination.
“At this point one must conclude that some Repubs on the [Senate Judiciary] Committee enjoy being held hostage to maintain a facade of sensitivity. So weak,” tweeted Fox News host Laura Ingraham, a staunch supporter of the president. She also accused Ford’s attorneys of “emotional and political extortion.”
On Friday, Republicans and Kavanaugh allies mounted a full-court press across Washington. On one end of the city, more than 75 women who have known Kavanaugh at various points in his life surrounded a podium in the J.W. Marriott hotel to attest to his character and respect for women. Of the six women who spoke at the press conference, two had known Kavanaugh in high school.
“Brett was the kind of guy you wanted to take home to meet your parents,” said Maura Fitzgerald, who said she knew Kavanaugh in high school and briefly dated him in college.
Meghan McCaleb, another longtime friend from high school, said, “More than five dozen of us, the girls who were his closest friends in high school and hung out with him virtually every weekend, had no choice but to stand up and say, ‘that’s not the Brett I know.’”
On Sunday evening, just as The New Yorker revealed the identity of a second woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, attorney Michael Avenatti announced that he, too, had “credible information” about Kavanaugh and his high school friend, Mark Judge.
The media-savvy lawyer told The Daily Beast on Monday that his client would be coming forward “in the next 48 hours” with details and accusations that mirrored those already leveled and could, in his estimation, torpedo Kavanaugh’s confirmation—all of which would seem helpful for Democrats as they make the case that Kavanaugh is morally unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.
And yet, Avenatti’s late appearance in this heated confirmation fight has some in the party fearful that he will end up doing more harm than good—in particular, giving Republicans the ammunition they would need condemn and dismiss the allegations against Kavanaugh as a political hit job.
“Mr. Avenatti has a tendency to sensationalize and make his various crusades more about himself then about getting at the truth,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “This moment calls for the exact opposite.”
Avenatti, who has flirted with running for president in the 2020 elections, has so far revealed only some information about the allegations he is set to bring forward. He has yet to provide evidence or the identify the woman he is representing, only teasing that he may do so via a television interview before Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford—who has accused him of sexual assault—appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Democratic senators stopped short of criticizing Avenatti, but appeared to be low on patience with his tactic of dribbling out information before a dramatic big reveal, fearful that it undermined the seriousness of the issue of sexual assault.
“If Michael Avenatti has any evidence, he should come forward promptly. If he has a client who has relevant information, I welcome hearing from him,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), a member of the judiciary committee, said in an interview. “If there are additional allegations to come forward, this would absolutely be the time because I don’t see us pursuing this matter much more than the next week or two at most.”
Coons suggested Avenatti should have followed in the footsteps of Ford, who “attempted to contact news outlets and the committee before Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed as being the nominee.” The Senator added that her claims are “credible” because she was “trying to balance a deep yearning to remain confidential… while also wanting to make sure that the general public knew her allegations.” But Avenatti is thus far dragging his feet, according to committee aides and senators who say he has yet to provide the committee with evidence or any other information. As a result, some on their side of the aisle are skeptical of the claims.
“I believe there is a decent chance the person he reps may have a real allegation,” said another Democratic source working on the confirmation proceedings. “But he undercut it. If he had vetteed it through a media outlet and had journalists represent it in a well reported way or have the committee introduce it, it would have been better.”
Avenatti showed little concern that his involvement might complicate matters for Democrats as they press the case against Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. Instead, in a brief phone interviewed, he ridiculed his detractors for not appreciating the stakes of the confirmation battle ahead of them.
“I think that is ridiculous and I think it is another example of certain Democrats being weak-kneed and not up for the fight,” he told The Daily Beast. “If heat is too hot in the kitchen they need to just get out.”
Avenatti is a reviled figure among Republicans. And his involvement in the Kavanaugh fight quickly gave them talking points after the New Yorker story was published. Leah Vukmir, the Republican running against Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), pointed to Avenatti as evidence that the allegations writ large were politically motivated.
“Michael Avenatti, presidential aspirant of Stormy Daniels fame, has decided he also wants to join the Democrat delay circus and what has become clear is that the Far Left is engaged in an all-out, no-holds-barred, last-minute character assassination, rather than responsibly vetting and filling a seat on the Supreme Court,” Vukmir said in a statement.
0 notes
cartoonessays · 7 years
Text
OFF-TOPIC: The Great Debate That Will Never Take Place
Tumblr media
Anyone who watched The Daily Show several years back might remember that Jon Stewart held a half-hour pay-per-view debate with longtime adversary Bill O’Reilly.  It was the debate where Jon Stewart coined the term “bullshit mountain” as a takedown of the way O’Reilly constructs narratives to justify his points of view.
I watched the debate between Stewart and O’Reilly and by the time I got to the end, I couldn’t help but wonder what the point of it was.  I didn’t feel like anything of substance came from the debate besides a couple of funny lines from Stewart (like “bullshit mountain”).  It was just a longer form of the same old debates Stewart and O’Reilly have on each other shows all the time, except now they were asking for money to watch it (I thankfully found an upload on YouTube to watch for free).  The debate wasn’t about enlightening the audience in understanding differing perspectives of points of view.  All the audience was there for was to rally behind whatever side they already supported.  The whole spectacle was more comparable to watching a Dallas Cowboys/Philadelphia Eagles game than a robust, intellectually stimulating debate.
One thing I will give Jon Stewart credit for is his appearance on CNN’s Crossfire in 2004, where he tore into the hosts and how shows like Crossfire dumb down debate and present reductive “Crips vs. Bloods” points of views on issues.  Crossfire got cancelled soon after Stewart’s appearance on the show, but to use Stewart’s words, the “theater” of debate that defined the show has permeated everywhere to the detriment of us all (too bad Stewart fell into this trap himself with his debates with Bill O’Reilly).
Tumblr media
I like the idea of The View.  I like the idea of various women with different points of view discussing issues of the day and attempting to understand the other’s point of view.  The keyword in those last two sentences is “idea”.  That’s a very different thing from “execution”.  In execution, The View revels much more in puerile sensationalism than robust debate.  The most attention The View got was sometime last decade during Rosie O’Donnell’s controversial tenure as a host.  The new attention brought to O’Donnell and The View only focused on the pissing matches she had with Donald Trump at that time, her racist “ching chong” portrayal of Chinese language, and most of all the “mean girl” backstage drama she had with co-hosts Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Barbara Walters.  The ratings for The View have never been as high since Rosie O’Donnell left the show, but that hasn’t kept the show from scraping the bottom of the barrel since then.  Raven-Symone’s short-lived tenure as a host on The View attracted a lot of attention due to the incredibly tone-deaf statements she would make regarding the black community, be it tacitly defending racist comparisons of Fmr. First Lady Michelle Obama to monkeys, defending a South Carolina cop who brutalized a small, teenage black girl at her school by making a bigger deal about the fact that the girl didn’t get off her phone, or defending discriminatory hiring practices towards black people with “ghetto” names and comparing such names (many of which actually originate from Arabic or various languages across Africa) to the racist, fake name “Watermelondrea”.  None of this is robust, intellectual conversation.  It’s just inflammatory right-wing “dog whistle” talking points disguised as “contrarian” or “free thinking” since it’s being recited by a black person.  Raven-Symone is no longer on The View, but Stacey Dash played this same role Raven did during her tenure as a Fox News host, and Stephen A. Smith and Charles Barkley play the same role on ESPN and TNT respectively.
Like I said before, I think the idea of The View is a great one, but the execution is ultimately counterproductive.  Lately, the issue of allowing or disallowing certain points of view on college campuses has flared up once again in light of protests towards invitations given to polemic figures like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannapoulos for lectures.  The idea of young minds intellectually discussing differing points of view, some of which may even be controversial, and leaving the conversation with a new found growth in perspective is a romantic one, but people who get so angry with college students protesting figures like this (especially people who call themselves liberal) need to get it through their heads that this is not at all what is happening.
Get past your lofty ideas of what you think debate should be and take a look at what is actually happening.  Figures like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannapoulos are not intellectuals interested in any rousing debates around issues.  They are cults of personality who are more interested in using the discord they sow to sell their brand.  They don’t debate any issues in good faith.  Their conservative politics aren’t even in good faith; they just adopt whatever views they think will piss off liberals.  This also applies to figures that may legitimately believe on the abhorrent ideas they spread, like Richard Spencer, whom the liberal rag Mother Jones once referred to as, “the dapper Nazi”.
With that said, I’m not interested in rehashing dead-end arguments about the First Amendment or whenever or not universities are or are not allowed to invite figures like these as speakers.  People who only discuss this issue around their romantic idea about what debate should be have already argued around this point into the ground.  I’m more interested in asking why universities are inviting figures like these, and I ask why based on how I know these debates actually go.  Knowing that the Coulters and the Yiannapouloses of the world are just intellectually bereft fire-starters, what educational value does inviting figures like these have?  Why not invite an actual principled conservative to discuss or debate their theories of laissez-faire economics instead of carnival barkers who would rather rant about how they think transgender people are weirdo perverts or Syrian refugees are just going to rape white Western women?
Do the heads of these universities actually have a problem with what figures like these say?  If so, why would they pay these figures to give lectures or commencement speeches?  They’re hiding behind the First Amendment in their defense is bullshit to me by the way.  You can’t tell me that the buck does not stop with the head of the university on whether or not a speaker gets invited on campus, or else anybody off the street could be invited to give lectures or presentations.  This defense is also bullshit because these universities have no problem uninviting or refusing to invite potential speakers that may have controversial views on other things.  These aren’t only right-wing speakers either; plenty of anti-war activists and feminists that speak against the sex industry have been protested and uninvited from universities across the country too, except those particular speakers don’t spin it into some false narrative of First Amendment martyrdom.
So what does this say about these universities that invite bigoted firebrands for speaking engagements?  Do the heads of these universities think that whether or not trans people are perverts or whether or not Syrian refugees are more inclined to sexually assault Western women are worthwhile debates to have?  Do they think Richard Spencer’s idea of, as he calls it, “peaceful ethnic cleansing” should be up for debate?  Are the heads of these universities so disengaged from the potential ramifications of these ideas to care, are they trying to seize on some sort of market value these figures have in this current political landscape, or are they just stupid?  I honestly don’t have the answer to that.
I’m not wholesale against figures like the ones I’m been referring to being debated, but as long as they’re adept in how those figures manipulate the parameters of this debate and don’t buy into it.  Otherwise, this debate isn’t going to be any different than it has been; the figures in question further polarize their already polarized audience by spinning the narrative into their being constitutionally persecuted by this great big liberal, politically-correct gestapo, plenty of other high-profile liberals come to their defense and serve as useful idiots for the narrative the polemic figures are crafting around this issue, and everybody blames college students for everything, who have the least power in this equation.
And the big, dumb, culture war train chugs on….
I have more to say on this subject, but I’ll get into that on my next post.  Here’s a preview of what’s to come next.
youtube
youtube
0 notes
lodelss · 4 years
Text
Regarding the Pain of Oprah
Soraya Roberts | Longreads | January 2020 |  8 minutes (2,233 words)
On the cover of Susan Sontag’s 2003 book-length essay Regarding the Pain of Others, her last publication before her death, is a Goya print from his graphic 19th-century series The Disasters of War. It shows a reclining soldier passively taking in a dead man hanging from a tree, a body in a row of indistinguishable dangling bodies. Its pain — and the indifference with which that pain can be met — is the perfect illustration of Sontag’s book, which was her response to the query, “How in your opinion are we to prevent war?” She questioned whether the representation of suffering has any hand in ending it. “For a long time some people believed that if the horror could be made vivid enough, most people would finally take in the outrageousness, the insanity of war,” Sontag writes. 
Is that why American Dirt, a sensationalized, stereotype-ridden piece of telenovela exploitation written by a self-identified white (later Puerto Rican–grandmother identified) woman, was met with a seven-figure deal and trumpeted by a publishing industry — Oprah’s Book Club most notably — that ignores countless Latinx stories? Is that why On the Record, a documentary initially backed by Oprah about various women accusing Def Jam cofounder Russell Simmons of sexual misconduct, premiered at Sundance when so many other films about women’s oppression have not? Both of these works have been held up in the tradition of pain iconography and as part of a wider culture that both defers to and is let off the hook by Oprah, its designated high priestess of compassion. An indigent black girl from the rural South, she was an exemplar of one of the most neglected demographics in America. That this capitalist society made her a billionaire for inspiring a cultural bloodletting has immunized it from the sort of criticism levied when white men like Jerry Springer (or white women like Gwyneth Paltrow) do the same thing. 
But the merciless critique Oprah has received both for her support of American Dirt and lack of support for On the Record points to a framework that simultaneously benefits her and uses her as a shield. This empathetic entrepreneur’s predictably myopic choices — just like her acolytes’, from Dr. Phil to Reese Witherspoon — may not serve the majority, but they do serve the system that lets her take the fall for its larger failures of representation. Oprah is one of the most salient testaments to capitalism. 
***
  “People want to weep,” Sontag writes. “Pathos, in the form of a narrative, does not wear out.” She may have been referencing war photography, but the sentiment applies to all narrative forms of suffering, which “are more than reminders of death, of failure, of victimization. They invoke the miracle of survival.” This almost superhuman transcendence of misfortune, this ability to raise yourself out of your primordial pain toward the heavens, is the prototype for the American Dream. It is also the perfect paean to plutocracy. Oprah is the prime example: teen mom, child sex abuse, teen pregnancy, drug use. While working her way toward a journalism career, she was told early on that she was too emotional while anchoring the news. It was here that she found a gaping hole in the market: Oprah turned her “failure” into a touchy-feely talk show, eventually netting herself a cult of personality and an empire approaching $3 billion. Her triumph over her past imbued her with the authority to turn beleaguered strangers’ private torment into public good and served as testament to a hierarchy of success founded on flagellation. “There is nothing greater than the spirit within you to overcome,” she said on The Oprah Winfrey Show. “You and God can conquer this,” conquering here implying profiting. She was proof that it worked. Oprah may not think you are responsible for your own misery, but she does believe you are responsible for flipping your misfortune, just like she did. As she told a women’s economic conference in 1989, “There’s a condition that comes with being and doing all you can: you first have to know who you are before you can do that.”  
Her suffering was transformative, a brand of anguish Sontag defines in her book with an unintentionally spot-on characterization of how Oprah, who referred to her talk show as her “ministry,” secularized (and capitalized on) a pious approach to hardship. “It is a view of suffering, of the pain of others, that is rooted in religious thinking, which links pain to sacrifice, sacrifice to exaltation,” Sontag wrote. The people Oprah chose to interview (Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston), the books she chose to plug (Toni Morrison, James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces), and the films she chose to produce (Beloved, Precious) — all followed this same general trajectory from trauma to some semblance of deliverance, hewing with her own personal experience. They also served to convince the most downtrodden members of the population that the system was only failing to work for them because they failed to plumb their own souls deeply enough. If capitalism was unprofitable for them, it’s because they weren’t doing the work — not in the industrious sense, but in the therapeutic one.
Oprah’s recent projects fall well within that tradition, including On the Record, the Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering documentary she was executive producing for Apple TV+ (it will now air on HBO Max), which centered around a group of women accusing Russell Simmons of sexual abuse. (He has been accused by at least a dozen women in total and denies all the charges.) The question is why this high-profile film by multiple-award winning filmmakers that already had a distributor was playing at a highly sought-after festival, when a struggling independent film could have used that rare opening to seek distribution? Instead, the news out of Sundance focused on whether Oprah, who pulled out of the film at the last minute over creative differences, was siding with Simmons or not — whether she was betraying not only her own race, but her own brand (the enabling of struggling black women to claim their due). “In my opinion, there is more work to be done on the film to illuminate the full scope of what the victims endured,” she said in a statement. This reads to me as uncomfortably on brand, Oprah squeezing as much as possible out of a desperate situation — particularly if it’s at the expense of another capitalist success story, in Simmons’s case — to get maximum returns. But this isn’t all down to her own prurience. It’s the industry around her (including Apple) that encourages her to do this, that pays her excessively for it — the same industry that doesn’t even consider the marginalized stories that do not comply with those standards (standards upheld by a black woman, remember).
Having said all of that, it is also a function of technology that our culture expects us to bleed out to survive. The more intimate media becomes, Sontag argued, the further our shock threshold moves. “The real thing may not be fearsome enough,” she wrote, “and therefore needs to be enhanced or reenacted more convincingly.” This is where you get a situation like Jeanine Cummins’s “trauma porn” American Dirt, the latest Oprah’s Book Club pick, about a Mexican migrant fleeing a drug cartel across the border with her son. “I’m interested in characters who suffer inconceivable hardship,” Cummins writes in her author’s note, “in people who manage to triumph over extraordinary trauma.” It was a direct dial to Oprah, and in particularly unfortunate timing, she expressed her support for this hyperbolic yarn about a fictional woman of color’s pain on the same CBS morning show in which she discussed pulling her support from a documentary full of actual women of colors’ pain. In a video posted on Twitter, Oprah held up the Cummins book, with its cover of watercolor birds and barbed wire, and gushed: “I was opened. I was shook up. It woke me up. And I feel that everybody who reads this book is actually going to be immersed in the experience of what it means to be a migrant on the run for freedom.” Her description reminded me of Sontag’s portrayal of graphic battle imagery: “Stop this, it urges. But it also exclaims, What a spectacle!” American Dirt was another in Oprah’s Apple streaming projects, part of her ambition to make “the world’s largest book club,” and it showed a level of outdated hubris that was revisited tenfold upon her mentions.
While the flesh-and-blood migrants who are dying at the border have not been much of a priority to the world of capitalist enterprise, the literary industry’s corner offices have been effusive in their tone-deaf praise for American Dirt, which last year celebrated its release with — no shit — barbed twig centerpieces. The hypocrisy was too much for the Latinx community (and social media) to bear. They balked at a non-Mexican woman who claimed her husband was undocumented (he’s Irish) and painted her nails with her book cover (more barbed wire) being edified for a cheap piece of Mexican cultural appropriation, while their own perhaps less uplifting (see less white) stories were serially overlooked — Oprah’s Book Club has never chosen a Mexican author. “The clumsy, ill-conceived rollout of American Dirt illustrates how broken the system is,” wrote Mexican American author and translator David Bowles in a heavily circulated New York Times op-ed, “how myopic it is to hype one book at the expense of others and how unethical it is to allow a gatekeeper like Oprah’s Book Club to wield such power.” He pointed out that a bestseller doesn’t just happen; it’s deliberately made by big publishers sinking money into its promotion and rallying press and booksellers around it. One book’s immoderate gain is then every other book’s loss: For three months in the wake of Oprah’s book announcements, other books’ sales plummet. This is a clear impoverishment of culture, but, more importantly, it limits the dissemination of ideas that do not serve big business’ hierarchical ideals. Trauma is valued as long as it’s sanctioned by the small number of powerful people who maintain an overwhelming amount of sway over the capitalist system they uphold. The voices that are ultimately projected are their own, serving their interests and no one else’s. As Drew Dixon, the woman at the center of the Simmons doc, said, echoing Bowles: “Oprah Winfrey shouldn’t get to decide for the whole rest of the world.” More importantly, the machine that created her shouldn’t get to either. 
***
“So far as we feel sympathy, we feel we are not accomplices to what caused the suffering,” Sontag writes at the end of her book. “Our sympathy proclaims our innocence as well as our impotence.” In the case of Oprah, it proclaims hers while hiding the main accomplices. Once among America’s most oppressed populations, her triumph is not only immune to interrogation, so is American plutocracy for having anointed her as its apostle. Oprah gamed the system that once neglected her, and her success lends it a veneer of progress and perpetuates it into the future. With her accumulated power, she shifted taboos and secured the first black American president approximately 1 million votes. But Oprah’s $2.7 billion net worth, her $25 million private jet, her empire — none of these are incidental. They are emblems of a world which has traded millions of people’s poverty for a handful of people’s riches, millions of perspectives for one authority. Oprah may still be full of good intentions, but good intentions are no longer as significant as actions, and every one of us is now accountable — and not just for ourselves. It is not enough anymore to ask people to lift themselves by their bootstraps now that people are aware that those straps are all rigged to snap.
In the midst of American Dirt landing at No. 1 on the Times bestseller list, its publisher acknowledged mistakes but also announced its epic book tour, the one which elbowed out so many other more worthy books and authors, was being canceled over safety concerns. The move proved that Flatiron — also publisher of five Oprah books — fundamentally buys into the notion that when the country’s marginalized populations interrupt the capitalist machinery, it’s a risk to the country itself. The Hispanic Caucus has since requested a meeting with the Association of American Publishers. Bowles, meanwhile, praised the director of a border library — Kate Horan of Texas’s McAllen Public Library — for declining to be part of a pilot partnership with Oprah’s Book Club. Sontag writes that a transformative approach to suffering like Oprah’s is “a view that could not be more alien to a modern sensibility, which regards suffering as something that is a mistake or an accident or a crime. Something to be fixed.” But Horan’s response to the question “How in your opinion are we to prevent war?” is neither Oprah’s nor the opposite — it is to reject the war itself. Oprah serves up war stories to the system that is responsible for them — her response is to meet suffering with suffering. The Latinx community sees the paradox even if Oprah, in her prism of privilege, cannot. “We’ll never meekly submit our stories, our pain, our dignity,” writes Bowles, “to the ever-grinding wheels of the hit-making machine.”
* * *
Soraya Roberts is a culture columnist at Longreads.
from Blogger https://ift.tt/31q3rp8 via IFTTT
0 notes