Blog PostsReinventing the Romantic Comedy

So far I have viewed and reviewed 3 romantic comedies for The Rom-Com Project – only 49-99 to go (depending on the time I have). This weekend I had a conversation about my project at a birthday party. One of the party guests immediately and passionately expressed his dislike for romantic comedies and how they’re all contrived, stupid, and “always have posters with two people facing back-to-back with their arms crossed and smirks on their faces” (and then, quite amusingly, demonstrated said back-to-back smirkiness).

(He has a point.)

His reaction was rather typical of people who I tell about my rom-com project. I tell them I plan to spend a year reviewing romantic comedies, and they usually say, “God, why?” (And after watching something like Valentine’s Day, I’m asking myself the same question.) I tell them that these movies are marketed towards women, supposedly appeal to women, and I want to examine the feminist or social implications of these stories.

You know all this, so why am I repeating it? Because I have another motive for examining the romantic comedy that I’m divulging to all of you now: I’m in the process of writing my own. Two of them, in fact.

I’m not going to reveal the plot or characters or even concepts right now because I don’t want someone else on the ‘net stealing my awesome ideas, so I’ll give you the basic facts: one is a screenplay, the other is a novel that would make a really good movie eventually (but I’m writing it as a novel anyway). The screenplay is a modernized adaptation of a classic text, set in a high school (think 10 Things I Hate About You/The Taming of the Shrew and Clueless/Emma) and the novel is (what I hope is) an original story about grownups (well, people in their mid-twenties. They count as grownups, right?) In writing these stories, I’m trying to avoid some of the contrivances that seem to frustrate people with the romantic comedy genre: namely, the stupid reasons for keeping people apart until the very end.

There’s something inherently problematic with the modern romantic comedy structure, at least in terms of believability. Most romantic comedies center on getting the male and female lead together by the end of the movie. They can’t get together at the halfway point because then the movie will be over, so writers have to construct ridiculous contrivances to keep the characters apart. Usually, there’s some sort of stupid misunderstanding between the two characters that cause the couple to NOT get together, or break up for awhile, until someone makes a grand romantic gesture to win the person back.

Usually, these contrivances are over-the-top and don’t resemble what people do in real life: have a fight and then make up shortly afterwards. The movies where the characters don’t even get together at all are even worse. Those romantic comedies would have you believe that getting together with your true love is really hard where you face seemingly insurmountable obstacles (obstacles that are somehow still overcome by a public declaration of love or chase through the airport). It bears no resemblance to what usually happens in real life: you meet someone you like who likes you back, you start dating, and either stay together or break up and meet someone else.

I’ve noticed that some recent romantic comedies are starting to break away from this formula. Recent romantic comedies like Going the Distance, (500) Days of Summer, and the upcoming The Five-Year Engagement all follow couples over the course of time, where they get together or are already together at the beginning of the movie. The stories look at their relationships after the getting-together phase. I’d like to see more romantic comedies follow this structure.

Still, the more traditional romantic comedy has its appeal. Sometimes they do well commercially despite not being very good, and sometimes they make Oscar history. On the other hand, It Happened One Night was made almost eighty years ago – would that same movie with different stars be as critically successful today? I doubt it. If romantic comedy writers want to bring in the critical praise along with the big bucks when writing a more traditional script, they need to raise the stakes. They need to come up with logical, believable reasons why the two characters wouldn’t get together until the end of the movie.

In other words, they need to reread their Jane Austen.

Jane Austen’s novels have been called the predecessor to modern romantic comedies, and with good reason. All of her books have a romantic relationship at the center of the story, and the main character never gets together with her love interest until the end of the story. Yet all of her books are more entertaining and insightful than most of the romantic comedies we see in film. One of these reasons is obviously because her dialogue and biting social commentary is so witty and clever, but I also think her stories are successful because the characters have actual reasons for not getting together until the end of the story.

Take Sense and Sensibility. When Elinor Dashwood meets Edward Ferrars, he is already engaged to Lucy Steele. They obviously can’t get together when Edward is unwilling to break off his engagement (even though he loves Elinor) because he doesn’t want to leave Lucy in the lurch. Getting married was a very serious business and Lucy could have no future or financial stability if she didn’t make a good match, and Edward wants to do the honorable thing.

Or look at Persuasion. The obstacle that keeps Captain Wentworth from marrying Anne Elliot was their past relationship where she broke his heart after feeling pressure from her family. They haven’t seen each other for awhile and he needs to learn how to trust her again. The conflict is internally motivated and more sophisticated than a lot of romantic comedy films.

Or look at Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth doesn’t accept Mr. Darcy’s proposal the first time because she just plain doesn’t like him. Some of her dislike is based on incorrect rumors, and some of her dislike is based on the fact that, well, Mr. Darcy can be a total jerk sometimes. They get together only after she’s known him for a longer period of time, where her dislike turns to appreciation which turns into love.

Her other major novels are a little more contrived – In Mansfield Park and Emma, the characters (Edmund and Emma) don’t realize that they’ve been in love with their love interests all along! And in Northanger Abbey, Catherine Morland can’t get together with Henry Tilney because she thinks Henry’s father is a murderer (awwwwkward!) Still, that story is more of a parody of Gothic literature than a straight-up romantic comedy, so it works in the novel.

I try to think of Jane Austen when writing my own romantic comedies. The “teen adaptation of a classic text” screenplay combines the Persuasion method with the Emma method: there’s a past fling between the two characters that ended badly and forgiveness has to be earned, but they are also in deep denial that they have feelings for each other at all (with – I hope – hilarious results!)

The novel I’m writing uses a bit of the Sense and Sensibility method of outside, social problems keeping the main characters apart – but they still get together at the end of the first third of the story. That’s because the story is more about the female protagonist’s struggle to find a work/life balance and maintain her relationship while advancing her career. In fact, you could argue that it’s not a romantic comedy at all, but a coming-of-age story about self-discovery and identity that happens to have a romance as a very, very prominent subplot.

Then again, sometimes I wonder if any romantic comedy will be able to truly reinvent the genre. After all, there are no 100% original story ideas anymore. Most stories follow a particular structure and all stories follow a particular structure to a certain extent. Maybe the romantic comedy doesn’t need to be entirely reinvented in terms of structure. Maybe a romantic comedy can be entirely structurally predictable but still be enjoyable and artistic due to strengths in characterization and dialogue.

Anyway, these are the the things I think about instead of actually working on said novel or screenplay.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

Blog PostsReproductive Rights as a Bargaining Chip

Here’s a fun little exercise. Anyone who is a Democrat or wants Barack Obama to win the 2012 election is free to play!

Imagine, for a minute, that you are a person who considers yourself pro-choice. Imagine that you also support the reelection of Barack Obama, and are either actively campaigning for him, or simply stating your support for his candidacy.

Now imagine that you have a friend who is also pro-choice, and perhaps also voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 election. When you discuss your plans to vote for him in the 2012 election, your friend responds, “I don’t know if I can vote for him again because he’s not a strong enough advocate for reproductive rights. I might look into voting for a third-party candidate.”

After hearing this, how do you respond? Pick from one of these choices:

A. “Fine. Good luck expecting a Republican to nominate justices that will uphold Roe vs. Wade.”
B. “A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich, and you seriously want one of them to become our next president?”
C. “What do you care? You live in a blue state.”
D. “You want to become one of those single-issue voters? I thought you were smarter than that. You need to look at the big picture.”
E. “That’s a good point. I’ll contact Obama’s office and his campaign to encourage him to be a stronger pro-choice ally, and I’ll also donate to the pro-choice candidates on EMILY’s List.”

If your answer was anything but choice E, I suggest you continue reading. (And if you did pick E, why not continue reading anyway?) Continue reading

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 16 Comments

Blog PostsThe Best Actress Nominations: The More Things Change…

The 2012 Oscar nominations are out.

Am I the only one who looks at this list of nominees and immediately feels tired?

I saw quite a few movies this year that were interesting, thought-provoking, and immensely entertaining. Except for Bridesmaids, none of those movies are reflected anywhere in the 8 major categories (picture, director, the four acting categories, and the two screenplay categories).

In fact, for the first time in my recent memory, I haven’t seen a single one of the Best Picture nominees. More importantly, the only one I actually want to see is The Artist. There are a few others, such as The Help (because of the amazing cast) and The Descendants (because the Dean from Community co-wrote the screenplay), that I’m mildly interested in seeing, but I just can’t be arsed to care about the rest of them. Maybe I’m too critical or maybe I’ve seen too many movies and they all jumble together in my head, but so many of them – particularly Moneyball and War Horse – seem like stories I have seen a million times already and don’t need to see again.

Now, I don’t expect to be on the same page as the Academy about a lot of issues. They were never going to nominate The Muppets for Best Picture no matter how much I thought it deserved a slot (and it does). But Tilda Swinton’s last-minute snub for We Need to Talk About Kevin surprised me and got me thinking about the types of roles that were nominated for Best Actress this year. Continue reading

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 6 Comments

Blog PostsYou’re On Your Own. Like a Trolling Stone.

Ho-lee crap, everyone. I thought Shocked&Appalled was done with spraying his white privilege troll poop all over my blog, but he came back for a third round. This time, it was in response to my post about joking about race without being racist.

I thought that recent post of mine was, if not the best thing I’ve ever written, thoughtful and analytical and pretty fair.

Apparently, I was wrong.

Would you like to read this latest offering? Of course you do. *munches popcorn*

“Either this is brilliant satire or you really are a moron.

You take issue with stereotyping yet manage to be a near-perfect incarnation of the hectoring liberal elitist who sneers at the masses while hypocritically lecturing them about their myopia.

Who says stereotypes aren’t informative?

Well, you apparently.

Newsflash: the Mind’s function is to categorize the environment: this inevitably involves simplification and therefore some element of distortion. However, stereotypes are products of networks and their content can’t long survive the import of anomalous data. In short, ‘prejudice’ is a product of many sources of information – collective wisdom – and tends to provide reliable accounts of myriad phenomena. It may not be perfect, but it nonetheless retains a high degree of accuracy. It’s crazy to dismiss these processes out of hand and imply that stereotypes are uninformative – as you seem to.

Those of us who find amusement in the absurdities of other groups do so because we CAN: ‘groups’ really are greater than the sum of their parts and it is possible to identify amid the variation common themes. e. g. gypsy life is nomadic; in the context of ‘civilization’ (settled communities with the institution of private property) such a way of life contains within it a logic which lends itself to criminality. Why? i.) absence of certain factors in R. Axelrod’s three conditions for establishing reciprocity ii.) little capital to fall-back on iii.) lack of connections to established communities; little or no stake, few opportunities given absence of connections, little emotional attachment, etc. This is borne out by crime figures which show a marked increase in criminal activity coinciding with the presence of travelling communities. (Of course, correlation doesn’t prove causation but the coincidence is, for Travellers and their lefty acolytes, uncomfortably synchronous.)

I note you once again assume that ‘racism’ is so self-evidently iniquitous that it requires no elaboration and no fundamental definition. How very telling. Perhaps ‘racism’ is a myth? (Not in the sense that minorities don’t experience prejudice but that maybe minorities are exploiting human empathy and a misplaced sense of white guilt in order to undermine white ethnocentrism and so self-esteem – the basis of action, after all, is confidence – and so further their own interests?’)

Discuss (that is, if you can bring yourself to actually confront an alternative viewpoint).”

HA. Yeah. Okay, player.

Note to anyone who thinks about commenting on this blog: I like good faith discussions and I welcome disagreement, but if you want me to engage in an actual conversation with you instead of reposting your comments in a separate post so I can point out how ridiculous you are, you have to follow two rules. You have to treat me with respect, and you have to agree with the very basic principle that no group of people – whether the group is defined by ability, race, gender, sex, orientation, etc. etc. cover all my bases – is inherently superior or inferior to any other group of people. (I’m willing to reconsider that stance in the case of hipsters vs. non-hipsters, but that’s the only exception, because hipsters are terrible.)

In other words, you can’t be an asshole, and you can’t a) call me a moron and b) spend a really long time justifying your bigoted viewpoints and getting REALLY ANGRY when I don’t agree with you about said bigoted viewpoints.

(I don’t have to point out the irony in his sarcastic assertion that I don’t entertain alternative viewpoints, when he’s the one flipping his shit because he doesn’t agree with my alternative viewpoint, right? I didn’t think so. Y’all are smart.)

The part that amuses me the most, really, is his demands that I define what racism is, and his anger that I refuse to actually respond to him and tell him what constitutes racism.

Here’s the thing about blogging: personal blogs fall in a weird little gray area between the public and private sphere. In other words, by posting something online, a blogger is inviting the entire literate world to read the post. The blogger should, therefore, be prepared for any kind of reaction, positive or negative.

However, because the blog is the blogger’s personal platform, the blogger also has a right to filter and moderate each comment and decide which ones s/he wants to make public for everyone to see and respond to.

In a way, blogging and sharing opinions is like owning a museum. People are free to step in and view the work whenever they want, and they might not like or appreciate every piece in the gallery, and they are free to express positive or negative opinions about any piece.

Shocked&Appalled is not acting like a person who wants to browse through my museum and offer opinions or engage in discussions about the pieces in my gallery. He stopped by once to complain about one piece in the gallery. When I didn’t engage in conversation, he framed the complaint in a wordier way, but it was a complaint nonetheless. Now he’s stopping by for a third (and who knows – fourth?) time, and he’s shocked and furious that I haven’t taken down that piece in my gallery after he said he didn’t like it, and he’s demanding that I take it down – or, at the very least, agree with him that the piece sucks. Instead of, I don’t know, giving up and browsing through to find a piece that was more to his taste.

As for the rest of the comment – again, I’ll leave it up to the rest of you to mock as you will (or won’t. It’s your choice.) But this is the last time I’m going to post something that he says, because soon, I’ll reach the point where I no longer find these comments funny, and will simply find them boring. Now how do I set up that spam folder…

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Blog PostsOn Joking About Race Without Being Racist

My “white girl talkin’ about racism” tag has had plenty of use in 2012, and it’s still only January. Between 2 Broke Girls and “Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls,” I’m running into a lot of commentary and outrage about how white people should totally be allowed to make fun of people of color, and telling people that they’re making racist jokes is censorship. I’ve also been accused of playing the role of White Savior and treating people of color with kid gloves.

First of all, it’s not censorship. This is censorship. It’s been defeated for now, but we should all keep following news updates for when Congress eventually tries to put through a different version of the bill. CONSTANT VIGILANCE! – as Mad-Eye Moody would say.

Secondly, I don’t talk about racism and stereotypes because I think black people need a White Savior to rescue them from the perils of racism. As a white person, I’m never going to understand racism the same way a person of color would, much like a man is not going to understand institutionalized sexism the same way a woman would, the way an able-bodied person will never understand what it’s like to have to use a wheelchair (and so on, and so on, and so on). I add my voice to the mix on the issue of racism because I believe that it’s important to be an ally, and every little bit helps.

Thirdly, there’s the issue of “kid gloves” and giving people of color “special treatment” in terms of comedy.

I think that making racist jokes that rely on stereotypes is morally questionable, not to mention creatively bankrupt. When people whine about not being able to make fun of certain groups of people, I wonder, “Why do you want to?”

BUT – and this is an important difference – I do think all individuals – every single person in the world, living or dead – is fair game for comedy.

I also think there’s an important difference between racist humor and racial-based humor. The first kind reinforces stereotypes, while the second lampoons and criticizes stereotypes while also being funny.

I have a lot of praise for Community and one of the reasons I love the show is because it has several characters of color who are just as well-developed and funny as the white characters, but the first show that really made me start thinking about race and its role in comedy was Scrubs.

Continue reading

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

Blog PostsHow NOT to Respond to Criticism that Your Show is Racist

I watch 2 Broke Girls. Do you watch 2 Broke Girls?

Watching that show from a social justice perspective is a bizarre experiment in emotional whiplash. On the one hand, it’s a show about a complementary friendship between two smart, hardworking young women, whose storylines do not revolve around dating or shopping, but about their entrepreneurship and growing bond. It’s one of the few shows in my recent memory that frequently passes the Bechdel test.

On the other hand, it’s a show about two white girls who work at a diner with a supporting cast of racial stereotypes that make the crows from Dumbo cringe in secondhand embarrassment.

That’s really the problem with 2 Broke Girls right there. Max and Caroline are allowed to be fairly complex (at least for a sitcom), but Earl, Oleg, and Han seem like they’re on a completely different program. They have very few (if any) character traits that exist outside their designated stereotypes.

Fans and critics (not that those two things are mutually exclusive) asked questions about the ethnic/racial jokes and stereotypes at the press tour, to which Michael Patrick King (co-creator of the show) essentially said, “I’m gay so that makes it okay for me to make fun of other marginalized people!”

That’s not an exaggeration. Read more here.

Of course, someone pulled out the “equal opportunity defender” card. Someone always pulls out the “equal opportunity defender” card. We make fun of all groups! FREE SPEECH STOP REPRESSING ME WAAAAH!

I’m so glad Michael Patrick King and his defenders can use the “free speech/equal opportunity” defense for their so-called “irreverent” comedy that “pokes fun at all groups.” Because if there’s something that comedy really needed desperately, it was another sexless Asian male character. Han Lee is a pioneering character in the comedy world, because Michael Patrick King said so.

Reading about this controversy over 2 Broke Girls was oddly refreshing, to tell the truth. King’s butthurt response to the criticism was not refreshing, but the criticism itself was. I was pleasantly surprised to see several members of the mainstream media push forward with the “Seriously, what’s up with all the racist stereotypes?” questions.

In response, King did what any socially responsible or creative person would do: he made a creative decision to add a “hot” Asian male character to his show so people would shut up about the stereotyping in his existing characters.

*facepalm*

This is not an exaggeration, people. Read more at The A.V. Club:

“Keeping CBS’s promises that the future would see 2 Broke Girls creator Michael Patrick King attempt to “dimensionalize” some of its racist stereotypes—this despite King being gay, which means he doesn’t have to—the show recently put out a casting call for a “hot Asian guy” to come and romance Beth Behrs’ character with some of his hot Asianness. The arrival of this hot Asian guy would provide a much-needed balance to the comedy’s Korean caricature Han, demonstrating that there are many colors in the Asian rainbow: hot, hilariously indecipherable, unable to drive, etc. Of course, the blog that first picked up the casting call, Angry Asian Man, argues that showing that Asians can also be hot and worthy of making out with Beth Behrs doesn’t exactly make up for 2 Broke Girls’ egregious, simplistic Asian stereotyping. But then, he’s probably just upset that he’s an angry Asian man instead of one of those hot ones.”

As a feminist and someone who cares about social justice, I feel like I should be outraged. But I don’t have it in me to be outraged because I’m just overwhelmed by the cluelessness behind this P.R. move.

I really need Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler (and Kermit the Frog) to help me with this, because…Really?!

King is criticized because his character Han Lee, the Asian male stereotype, is…well, nothing but an Asian male stereotype. Instead of, I don’t know, fleshing out his existing character, he decides to add a Hot Asian Guy character – like he’ll get EXTRA token points for having TWO Asian characters on the same program, and that it will shut up all those HATERZ who don’t like Han Lee!

Brilliant move, Mr. King. I’m sure Asians will be completely pacified and pleased knowing that you’re throwing in an obligatory Non-Stereotype Character whose sole purpose will be to sex up a white woman and prove that you are TOTALLY NOT RACIST.

I could point out how stereotypical characters just continue to perpetuate stereotypes and how harmful those stereotypes can be, but forget about that for a moment. When you get right down to it, the use of these stereotypes shows a complete lack of imagination.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Reviews‘He’s Just Not That Into You’ – and that’s a dealbreaker, ladies.

My third installment of The Rom-Com Project of 2012 is He’s Just Not That Into You, a romantic comedy based on the self-help book of the same name. I did not read said self-help book, but I knew the basic premise because I was familiar with the episode of Sex and the City that introduced the phrase to the world. The book is, from what I can tell, a guide for women on recognizing and interpreting signals from men, and the movie follows the same premise, telling stories about five different women who try to determine whether or not their boyfriends, husbands, or dates are…well, really into them.

In this way, He’s Just Not That Into You is different from Love Actually or Valentine’s Day. Those two movies revolved around holidays, while this movie centered on a theme – a theme that Liz Lemon would call, “That’s a dealbreaker, ladies!”


The movie takes place in Baltimore, and if I didn’t know any better, I would think that Baltimore was inhabited almost entirely by a) white people, and b) gay people who have nothing better to do than give snarky and sassy relationship advice to their straight, unattached friends. Setting the movie in Baltimore seems so pointless, as though the producers pulled the name of a city out of a hat and decided to film a movie there. It seems especially egregious when the cast is so overwhelmingly white.

Anyway, the (white) people in this movie trying to analyze the behaviors of their relationship partners are Ginnifer Goodwin, Jennifer Connelly, Jennifer Aniston, Scarlett Johansson, and Kevin Connolly. The result is a movie that is better than I thought it would be, and yet, still a disappointment. Continue reading

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 16 Comments

Blog PostsTrolling in the Deep: More Totally Not Racist Thoughts from a Totally Not Racist Person

Holy crap, y’all. For the first time in my blogging history, a troll came around for a second trip! And this time, he left a dropping the size of my parents’ living room.

Seriously, people. This rant amounted up to 1,016 words.

Do you want to see it in all of its trolling glory? Of course you do.

“Let’s try this again.

Winston Churchill once said that Brits and Americans were two people divided by a common language; no more evident was this than in our recent exchange. Much of what I wrote appears to have been ‘lost in translation’- i’ll do my best to clarify things.

Throughout your post you assume that Black people are the ‘victims’ of unwitting White ignorance, ignorance which is implicitly characterized as racist (whatever that means). Consequently, you expect White people to amend their ways to suit their alleged victims. However, this analysis stems from your failure to distinguish between intuitive ethnocentrism (people really do prefer the company of those with whom they share a lot in common) and its more excitable variant, xenophobia. It’s like failing to appreciate the distinction between patriotism and Fascism, milk and water or Blank Slaters and Flat-Earthers (oh wait, forget that last one). It is because you conflate the two that you end-up advocating something which you think is pretty reasonable but is in fact totally beyond the pale. It is not me who thinks that White culture is at its core racist, but you. You want to ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’ because you – and well-meaning idiots* – like you see in every innocent, light-hearted ribbing a deplorable manifestation of White Superiority Complex. You would forever have us tip-toeing around difference for fear of offending anyone, and in the absence of candour ‘free expression’ is as meaningless as the freedom to starve.

Essentially, we disagree about what constitutes ‘racism’ – a term used with such profligate license that it has lost practically all meaning. You appear to be advocating a definition of racism which includes making light of cultural differences whereas I am arguing that it’s a perfectly innocent thing to acknowledge these differences and revel in finding them, and so the ‘Other’, absurd. Doubtless, this will on occasion cause offence, but isn’t that what tolerance is all about? Tolerance is forbearance; it is not acceptance. Mine is the true spirit of ‘celebrating difference’ whereas yours is the totalitarian tyranny of political correctness. Freedom and Equality are not perfectly reconcilable; there exists a tension between the two which sees their relationship in terms of a trade-off: every advance made by one occurs at the expense of the other.

It is not the fault of White people that Black people inhabit a society which happens to be largely the creation of Whites, and Whites shouldn’t be expected to change their outlook to accommodate Blacks because of the accidents of history. This is what is so strikingly unfair about what you advocate – it’s not racism you take exception to, but White ethnocentrism (which you think to be racist). After all, you’re not calling for Blacks to integrate. If they don’t like the criticisms whites have of their customs and practices, then they ought to repudiate them. I don’t consider Rap and ‘Ghetto’ culture, which so many Blacks glorify, to be particularly edifying – does that make me racist? Of course not.

The call for Black integration brings us back to the point about democracy. Democracy has many failings, but its principal virtue lies in its accountability: responsive government makes for effective government. This means majority rule. Why should the majority bend itself to the will of an obstreperous minority?

I described your characterizations of each group’s prejudice as ‘naive’ not because they were without credible foundation (although anecdote is hardly the most informative type of evidence), but because you’re implying that each group’s prejudice is fundamentally different in its nature – Black prejudice is passive, innocent, defensive; White prejudice is oppressive, sinister, borne of ignorance. This is what is so naive: it necessarily depicts Blacks as innocent victims and Whites as villainous oppressors. This smacks of White Guilt Syndrome where you’re seeking to atone for misdeeds which just don’t exist. Whatever enmity exists between Blacks and Whites is primarily the product of their differences, not some inverse power-relationship. If the two groups were equal in power and resources, none of the distrust would disappear; it would simply manifest itself differently. Undeniably, the uneven distribution of power colours the hue of each group’s prejudice, but this is not the root/ultimate CAUSE of enmity but a proximate factor in its constitution. In other words, Blacks resent the power enjoyed by their White peers because it marginalizes their world, not because they abhor inequality full stop.

Finally, two points of order: I haven’t a problem with authority, you might be surprised to learn (note: sarcasm (note: sarcasm)). What I found so objectionable was the suggestion that it would be perfectly acceptable to send a White child to the AP’s office for making a racist remark, but that you wouldn’t do likewise with a child of minority heritage for doing the same thing. I’m glad you made it clear that you wouldn’t do that… right?

I attached quotation marks to my use of the word ‘fair’ because you and I clearly don’t agree on what constitutes fairness – i’m not even sure there IS such a thing. No-one considers rival interests as equally legitimate: everyone, everywhere – save the manipulated or the misled – looks out for number one; if your best friend fell into a river along with a perfect stranger and you only had the power to rescue one, you would (I hope) always select you BF, because they hold MEANING – utility – for you. And yet, from the POV of ‘fairness’ distinguishing between the two is an impossible choice to make. This is an example of what I mean when I talk about ‘intuitive ethnocentrism’ – we work to advance our interests, and this involves maximizing the utility of those like ourselves. If existence consists in the stabilization of matter (Materialism/Physicalism) then surely ethics – as real phenomena – are reducible to these same premises? A morality which winds-up leaving you dead is arguably not very ‘moral’.

I look forward to your reply,

A Brit.

P. S. you owe me a new monocle.
* Forgive my tendentious rhetoric; I do not consider you an idiot. I genuinely care about what you think.”

Wow.

I don’t know which part of this post is most surprising (and by “surprising” I mean “so predictable a toddler could have seen it coming.”): the accusation of advocating censorship, the long list of arguments against things I never said, the “Not liking rap music doesn’t make me racist!” (no one said it does, dude), the whitewashing of centuries of slavery and oppression as accidents (“We didn’t mean to drag your ancestors from their native lands, I promise!”), the claim that “majority rule” is democratic (I’m sure when Hispanic people eventually outnumber white people in the United States, Shocked&Appalled would totally be fine with a law that changed Spanish to the official language), the idea that I believe all blacks to be innocent of racism and all whites perpetrators of racism (nope, never said that), and to top it all off, a claim that he totally means this all in good faith even though he spent one thousand words essentially accusing me of acting like a character in a George Orwell novel.

Do I need to point out the irony of this statement: “After all, you’re not calling for Blacks to integrate. If they don’t like the criticisms whites have of their customs and practices, then they ought to repudiate them,” within a declaration of how unfair it is to ask white people to repudiate criticisms that black people have of them? I didn’t think so.

(Oh, and I love the promise that he doesn’t think I’m an idiot. Too bad. I hear they make a decent living.)

I will never cease to be amazed by the sense of entitlement and victimization that some white people have when it comes to racism. The idea that saying, “Hey, that’s a little racist,” is the equivalent of calling someone a Klan member. The idea that saying, “Hey, that’s a little racist, and here’s why,” is censorship of thought and speech.

It can’t be that I’m possibly trying to, I don’t know, expand people’s thoughts by suggesting that they think more carefully about how their words affect others, or historical contexts of certain words and phrases.

The only people who get angry or offended when I point out, “Hey, that’s a little racist, and here’s why,” live under the incorrect assumption that I am trying to censor them and tell them what to do.

Let me be clear: you can do whatever you want. You can say whatever you want. You can think whatever you want. You can do, say, or think whatever you want without fear of political or legal consequences. However, you shouldn’t expect to say something like, “I like them because they’re not, like, stereotypical black people,” without fear of social and personal consequences.

You can think, say, or do whatever you want. And other people have the same right to tell you, “I don’t like what you said because of this reason.” You’re free to say what you want, and I’m free to think that you’re a douchebag for saying it and I’m also free to tell you my opinion of you. In turn, you are free to not care what I think about you, and I am free to not care that you don’t care what I think…and so on, and so on, and so on.

Also: I’ve noticed that white people who make racist jokes will often defend themselves with the “God, why can’t we talk about race, why does it have to be such a loaded issue, why can’t you just take a joke? CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARE FUNNY!” It’s pretty common. And what happens when black people, in turn, make a joke about white people not being able to dance or play basketball (just for an example?) Most of the time, those same white people who cry “CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARE FUNNY!” will get really mad, or pouty, or annoyed, and they will usually say, “Sure, you can say that, but if I made a joke about your people, I’d be racist. How is that fair?”

Anyway, I usually respond to troll droppings with line-by-line responses, but gosh, why should I have all the fun? Feel free to continue in the comments! (But please stay away from personal attacks.)

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , | 13 Comments

ReviewsWatching ‘Valentine’s Day’: “I’m surrounded by assholes!”

Remember that part in Spaceballs where Dark Helmet, played by Rick Moranis, realizes that he’s surrounded by assholes?

A few days ago, I watched the romantic comedy Valentine’s Day, another entry in The Rom-Com Project in the Ensemble Romantic Comedy category. Like Love Actually, the movie centers on a group of people who are connected to each other in different ways. Love Actually focuses on the weeks leading up to Christmas, while Valentine’s Day takes place exclusively on February 14th.

Because Love Actually wasn’t as good as I expected it to be, I wondered if Valentine’s Day would surprise me in a similar way and perhaps be better than the reviews indicated.

Yeah. That wasn’t the case. Valentine’s Day was not the piece of Hollywood mediocrity that I expected, but possibly the worst piece of garbage I have seen in my life. This was largely because, much like Dark Helmet in Spaceballs, I felt surrounded by assholes.  Continue reading

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 2 Comments

A White Guy Responds to This White Girl’s Response to “Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls”

If you read this blog regularly, you’ll know that a) I recently wrote a response to the backlash against the popular video “Shit White Gilrs Say to Black Girls,” and b) I often get trolls who leave inflammatory and/or stupid comments in response to something I’ve written.

Fewer than forty-eight hours after I published that post, I received a troll dropping about my unfair standards for white people.

I am so surprised that it took fewer than two days for a white person to get outraged by what HA I ALMOST FINISHED THAT SENTENCE WITH A STRAIGHT FACE LOL. Just kidding. I’m not surprised at all.

As is my wont when I get a troll dropping, I take my readers through the trolling comment so we can all have a good laugh.

This dropping is courtesy of a person named “Shocked&Appalled” and has a UK email address, so I’m assuming he’s the rich guy from The Simpsons who says, “That was my third monocle this week. I simply must stop being so horrified.”

“i.) So, prejudice exhibited by minorities is permissible on the grounds of ‘the sins of the father’? Hardly seems ‘fair’. It sounds like you’re (albeit no doubt unintentionally) advocating ‘one rule for ‘them’, another for ‘us’.’ The onus is not on white people to change their culture to accommodate minority sentiment: the suggestion otherwise is anti-democratic. “

Aww, it’s so cute when they misuse quotation marks! The quotations around “fair” are completely unnecessary, see, as they imply the opposite of what he meant. (Then again, I’m an American – what do I know about English when I have someone from the father country to school me?)

Anyway, could someone please point to the part in my post where I said that “prejudice exhibited by minorities is permissible,” because I can’t find it. I believe the point of my post was to show where different forms of prejudice come from, and to explain how this form of “reverse racism” white people whine about is, in fact, a sense of justifiable mistrust based on experience, combined with a defense mechanism.

Now, if this video had been of Franchesca Ramsey calling white people “honkies” and “crackers” for two minutes, my response to the video would undoubtedly be different (though I probably still would not have been offended – just bored). But no, sorry, I don’t find it racist to point out the racist things white people say to black people. And sorry, I don’t think “White people always follow me around when I go into their stores” is on the same level as a white girl once asking me why I had a black American Girl doll because “those people smell bad.”

I also love the whining about “rules,” like I’m proposing a Constitutional Amendment or law against saying racist comments and suggesting we throw people who say the “n-word” in jail, or something. Please. There’s no reason to be so put-upon. The original post is, at most, a suggestion about how we conduct ourselves. People can take it or leave it. I’m not violating anyone’s First Amendment rights by saying, “This is why many of my students didn’t trust white people.”

Anyway, there’s more. Shall we see what else “Shocked&Appalled” has to offer?

“ii.) Despite your qualifications, your characterizations of the prejudice exhibited by the respective ‘groups’ is grossly naive.”

Oh, I see what he’s doing here. “Naive” is his word for “largely based on the author’s personal experiences and observations in four years of hearing black students make comments about racism.” I’m believing this stuff because it’s a fairy story told to me by Mommy and Daddy at bedtime, not because I actually heard them with my own ears or anything. Okay, player.

” I concede that the nature of each group’s prejudices is informed by the asymmetrical distribution of power (which is a product of history)…”

He concedes? Oh, thank GOD. I was worried there for a minute.

Actually, he really should have stopped with that.

“…but Black prejudice is, like all prejudice, informed primarily by Man’s intuitive ethnocentrism (about which there is nothing inherently malicious, that is until it is converted by exigency into xenophobia, which then becomes potentially susceptible to hysteria and irrationality), that is to say, people mistrust each other for the simple reason that they’re different: solidarity stems largely from propinquity.”

Translation: “I use a lot of big words and that makes me smart! BOW BEFORE ME, YANKEE!”

Or, another translation: “People can’t help if they’re drawn to other people who look like them, and repelled by people who don’t look like them!”

Sigh.

Look, I get that there are extremely white areas of the United States, and extremely black (and Latino and Asian and Jewish, etc., etc.) areas of the United States, and sometimes people simply don’t run into other people of different ethnicities on a regular basis. But that argument really has no place in a discussion where I’m talking about my students and their particular experiences dealing with racism. They didn’t “assume” white people were racist because white people look different from they do. Their mistrust is based on experience, for Christ’s sake.

“Again, you’re asking people to change their culture to suit others: the placing of the boot on the other foot.”

*spit take*

I’m sorry. I’m asking people to change their culture because, at the end of the original post, I suggested that white people should become vocally anti-racist?

Being racist is such an inherently important part of white culture that it’s a huge imposition to ask people to change it? Really?

Yeesh. If being racist and saying racist shit to black people is all white people have to offer as part of our culture, then we really do suck. Fortunately, I think we’re better than that.

It also occurs to me that the idea that all people are just inherently racist or mistrustful of  people of different ethnicities, and therefore completely unaccountable for the assumptions they make about others, sounds awfully familiar…claiming that a certain type of urge is “natural” and cannot be helped, and therefore an excuse for hurting other people…where have I heard that before?

“iii.) Please explain this remark:

‘Except for that one incident, I can’t say that I was offended at all by any comments that my students made about “white people,” but if a white student had made a comment about black people, he would’ve had to haul ass to the assistant principal.’”

Sure, I’ll explain. “Haul ass” is a slang term we Yanks use to mean “move extremely quickly.”

“- I sincerely hope that this is not a serious proposal, or an example of something you yourself would have practised. If either, i’m glad you’re no longer a teacher.”

Well, I’m glad I’m no longer a teacher, too, because I signed up to teach kids literature, not test prep, and did a lot more of the latter than of the former.

In “Shocked&Appalled’s” defense, though, I admit that I was unclear when I wrote that part of my post. The “white student” I used as an example is purely hypothetical, as I didn’t have any white students in all four of my years of teaching. The only non-black students I had were Latino/a or Arab. When my students made comments about “white people,” I was the only white person in the room. I didn’t allow them to go on rants about white people while white students sat uncomfortably.

I do love the outrage at the suggestion that I would send a student to the AP’s office, as though a single visit to an AP’s office for inflammatory language is the equivalent of sending a kid to prison. It’s a trip to the AP for a conversation about his words, dude. Calm down.

“On an unrelated note, good work on the ‘Lyanna Stark’ article. Pity about this one.

Yours,

An Unimpressed Brit (you know, of ‘Colonial Oppressors’ fame).”

That signature, folks, is the reason for my sarcastic references to the poster’s English-ness throughout this post. He’s making it fair game.

It just occurred to me that I have been subconsciously referring to this poster as “he” and “him” when I have no evidence that the troll is, in fact, male. Is this sexist of me?

Perhaps. It’s not fair of me to assume that a condescending doucheturd is necessarily a man. However, throughout my life, I have had many people condescend to me, and most of the time, the condescending doucheturd was a man.

It’s not that I don’t like men. It’s that so many men have condescended to me throughout my life that I have a built-in defense mechanism combined with a fair amount of mistrust.

Sound familiar?

Tagged , , | 6 Comments