#this is not a value judgment on women creating and enjoying gay art | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lavenderek · 4 years ago

Text

i have a thought to express, feel free to scroll past.

i’m gonna discuss rape and sexual abuse in this post. it’s also long because i don’t really have a conclusion, it’s just some thoughts.

so i was looking into that reality show that facilitated shane dawson’s horrible movie “not cool” and i stumbled across a reddit thread posted by someone who was a fan of his as a preteen. the OP alleged that shane’s content contributed to them developing some serious issues including body dysmorphia and the normalization of sexual behavior involving children.

some of the comments were in support and agreement, but a large amount of them were like, “where were your parents? it’s not shane’s job to police what you see online. it’s not his fault you were too young for his content.”

now, shane was well aware from the jump that his fans were mostly kids and teens - he talked about it multiple times - but that’s not what this post is about. this post is about that particular argument, which does not sit well with me.

it reminded me of a couple years ago when i made a very critical post about c*ptive prince.

pause: i want to make it crystal clear that i am not drawing a comparison between people who like cp and shane dawson. i’m not mad anymore, so i am not making this post making a value judgment on cp or fans of it, positive or negative.

specifically, i was really bothered by the way cp content was posted and shared with no mention of or reference to the actual material. people were calling it a queer romance. it was a little-known series by a little-known author, so there were no synopses anywhere online, only the summary you’d see on the back of the book. so people would seek out cp thinking it was a romance and be blindsided by the fact that, spoilers, the story is set in a fantasy world where child rape is a major tenet of society. the scenes are explicit, detailed, and many. it’s not a thing that happens once or twice and is a major plot point, it’s a thing that happens multiple times in every chapter and is just kind of a thing that’s going on. if you’ve ever read twilight, i would compare the presence of rape in cp to the presence of rain in twilight.

like, that’s how often it happened, that’s how it was treated. sometimes with indifference, sometimes with a negative opinion, sometimes it caused problems, bella talks about it every two pages. it is a very rapey series.

and people like, did not want to discuss this. they were like, “the characters decide the rape is bad in the end. and that’s not even what the story is about, it just happens in the story. i don’t know what to tell you.” like... people were not receptive to any kind of conversation about this topic lmfao, it was very touchy. they wanted to acknowledge that rape itself is bad, and then they wanted the subject closed.

now, why is this a problem? i read the books. there were parts i enjoyed, and there were parts i didn’t enjoy. i’m not gonna reread them, but i’m still game to talk about it. ultimately i wanted to be able to talk about books with a friend of mine, and while i was like, “yikes, this is a lot of rape, was not expecting the volume of rape,” it didn’t occur to me this would be a pervasive issue at all until a different friend of mine happened upon it. this other friend was a rape survivor, and i happened to know she would find this content very upsetting. when she said she was thinking of buying the book, i was like, “halt, you know what happens in it, right?”

nope! she didn’t. she saw cute fanart and a ficlet on her dash, somebody told her it was a queer romance. nowhere was there any indicator in summaries online or the posts she was seeing that the book would describe a person being drugged and sexually abused. she was pretty relieved that i’d warned her and shaken that that’s what happens in the books lmao. she would never have guessed. the cp fandom was made up of people who loved the main pairing, and they’d talk about them being in love and draw them being in love, and it felt like everybody was just acting like the rape wasn’t even present in the books lmao.

pause: i didn’t go in the tags. this is not representative of the fandom as a whole. this is just my and my friend’s experience of it as passive internetgoers.

people got uncomfortable and a little defensive if i brought it up. they’d agree to tag for cp, but if you don’t know what cp is about, that isn’t helpful information. like that post that’s like, “waterboarding at guantanamo bay sounds like a lot of fun if you don’t know what either of those things are” lmao. if you don’t know what cp is about, tagging for it just tells you what it’s called. and it very clearly ruined everyone’s fun if i talked about this.

so that’s what i was mad about, i was mad that i felt as though there was no recourse here, and i was mad because i felt like the cp fandom was the emperor’s new clothes. nobody was acting like it even existed and everybody got uncomfortable if i brought it up, like, i legitimately wondered at some point if i had somehow accidentally read a kinky rewrite of it, that the real version did not have rape in it and nobody knew what i was talking about. i felt like i was going crazy and i got shitty in the middle of the night one time, and wrote that post.

i ultimately deleted it, so i do not remember how it was worded; but i do recall that it was a venting post, it was not intended to reach a wider audience. i was not trying to convince anyone in that moment, i was just talking shit. so i can bet that it probably came across as very judgmental and unkind.

i made a bunch of people very angry with that post. somebody got thousands of notes by reblogging with an impassioned smackdown saying basically what those redditors were saying about shane - it’s not their job to police what people see online. it’s not their fault you were unprepared for cp.

i do not think this is a nuanced enough argument because i do not think it acknowledges that not all content is created equal.

i even got an anon ask in good faith saying, well, a huge trigger for me is body horror, and people will draw or reblog stuff with body horror in it, and i can’t hold that against them.

and like, no, you can’t, but body horror is not the same as rape or child sexual abuse. body horror isn’t the same as sex trafficking. right? like those things aren’t comparable in the way that i think the anon was wanting them to be. they were saying that both of these are common triggers that people would want tagged and be unable to move past in media, you know? and i get that, i got what they were saying.

kind of like that cartoonist who wrote a spooky horror comic a while ago and somebody sent them an ask being like, “that was really scary, you usually post fun comics, this was damaging, unfollowed :/” like obviously a stranger’s fear of spooky things is not something he should be expected to take on on his own blog lmao. i am deeply afraid of ghosts, by the way.

but according to rainn.org, 1 in 5 women experience rape in their lifetime. 1 in 5 women are not frightened by literal ghosts in their lifetime. 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys aren’t body horrored. body horror and ghosts aren’t used on a global scale as tools to control and abuse people and they do not have the same connotations of shame, degradation, and control. the things are not the same.

i don’t have an easy answer. i can’t wave my magic wand and make people not enjoy the rape erotica, nor was that my goal in the first place. i wasn’t clutching my pearls like, “how dare you! do not draw this art! think of the children!” and i don’t know how else i would have solved the problem, aside from having a weird disclaimer under your art of two dudes cuddling that says “warning, these dudes are from a book that’s got several thousand words of explicit rape in it, and i know that, you’re not the only one seeing that,” like that’s a lot and i get it.

i don’t have an easy answer because there isn’t one. i felt like “well, that’s not my problem” was an easy answer.

as i get older, the more responsibility i have as an adult online to maintain boundaries between me and minors, for example. i am not responsible for their internet experience and they can’t get mad at me for cussing or writing about gay werewolves on my blog, but i do have to be mindful of that context if i’m interacting with someone online. that’s where the complexity comes in. you can’t wash your hands of the context of the things you say and do online.

just how to solve these problems, i did not know then and i do not know now. i guess we take it on a case by case basis.

if you’re curious about shane dawson and his horrible movie, by the way, this guy did a few funny videos about the horrible movie and this guy did a not funny but comprehensive breakdown of shane and his career.

and i tried to tint my eyebrows for the first time the other day, i have red hair and my eyebrows are darker than my hair for some reason, so i tried to use an eyebrow tint to lift my brows just like, a shade, so be closer to my hair? but in doing this i discovered that my eyebrows are a mixture of red and brown?

so the red hairs lifted to a sunny orange, and the brown hairs stayed brown. so my eyebrows are fully like, calico right now. boom, orange juice, that’s life

#diary post #long post

11 notes · View notes

deniscollins · 4 years ago

Text

The Trouble With Empathy

Does your organization assess job candidates empathy skills? If not, why not? If yes, does your organization conduct empathy training? How? Why?

When my daughter started remote kindergarten last month, the schedule sent to parents included more than reading, math, art and other traditional subjects. She’ll also have sessions devoted to “social and emotional learning.” Themes range from listening skills and reading nonverbal cues to how to spot and defuse bullying.

As millions of students start the school year at home, staring at glowing tablets, families worry that they will miss out on the intangible lessons in mutual understanding that come with spending hours a day with kids and adults outside their own household. We want children to grasp perspectives of people different from themselves. Yet in recent years, empathy — whether we can achieve it; whether it does the good we think — has become a vexed topic.

While teachers attempt to teach empathy through screens, the national context has become complicated in the months since the police killing of George Floyd. “Because our white leaders lack compassion and empathy, Black people continue to die,” wrote a columnist in The Chicago Sun-Times. When Joe Biden posted a video declaring that “the pain is too intense for one community to bear alone,” journalists called the message an effort to “project empathy” — while activists said empathy was not enough.

At the Republican National Convention, Ja’Ron Smith, a deputy assistant to President Trump, assured the audience that the president is empathizer in chief. “I just wish everyone would see the deep empathy he shows the families whose loved ones were killed due to senseless violence,” Mr. Smith said.

Few would quarrel with a kindergarten teacher’s noble efforts to teach listening skills to 5-year-olds. But as my daughter and her classmates get older, they will run into thornier dilemmas, our era’s version of old questions: Are some divides too great for common humanity to bridge? When we attempt to step into the shoes of those very different from us, do we do more harm than good? At the same time, trends in American education have worked at cross-purposes, nurturing social and emotional learning in some ways, hampering it in others.

Our capacity to see one another as fellow humans, to connect across differences, is the foundation of a liberal pluralist society. Yet skeptics say that what seems like empathy often may be another form of presumption, condescension or domination. In his 2016 book “Against Empathy,” the psychologist Paul Bloom argued that empathy can cloud rational judgment and skews toward people “who are close to us, those who are similar to us and those we see as more attractive or vulnerable and less scary.” The scholar and activist bell hooks put the matter more starkly. White desire to feel Black experience is predatory, exploitative, “eating the Other,” she wrote.

It’s impossible to perfectly inhabit another person’s experience. The important question is the value of the effort, and whether it leaves us separated by an asymptote or a chasm. Can a straight TV writer create an authentic gay sitcom character? If an author of European descent writes a novel from the perspective of Indigenous people, is it an empathic journey, or an imperialist incursion? “I don’t want to throw out what empathy is trying to do,” Alisha Gaines, a professor of African-American literature at Florida State University, told me. “I’m very critical of it though. Empathy has to be considered in the context of institutions and power.”

Ms. Gaines has devoted much of her scholarship to interrogating well-meaning white attempts at empathy for the Black experience, from the white journalist John Howard Griffin’s 1961 book “Black Like Me,” an account of his project to pass as a Black man on a trip through the Deep South, to a modern re-enactment of the Underground Railroad — whose organizers promised “empathy to the extreme,.” Ms. Gaines said: “If for 90 minutes I run around and look for the lantern in the window, what do I take from this into my everyday life? This is playing a slave, not an enslaved person. The humanity gets evacuated out of it.”

Yet, as a literature professor, she wants students to see books as passageways to experiences unlike their own. “I love books because I’m learning something about people I didn’t understand. I’m connecting,” Ms. Gaines told me. “I wasn’t reflected in books I read as a kid. I understood myself through ‘Anne of Green Gables’ and ‘Little Women’ — little Black kids often have to understand themselves through white protagonists.

At the same time, for me as a little girl reading ‘Anne of Green Gables,’ as much as I saw myself in her precociousness and her deep feeling, I also knew there wasn’t something speaking exactly to me. It was not a perfect mirror. We want to connect to the material on an emotional register and make space for the fact that each story tells a particular story.”

The impulse to participate in the feelings of another may be biological, rooted in our neurology. In the 19th-century German philosophers wrote of Einfühlung, or “in-feeling” — first translated in 1909 as the new English word “empathy.” They did not mean simulating someone else’s feelings, but projecting your own sentiments and memories in the course of an aesthetic or emotional experience, mingling your consciousness with the thing you are contemplating — whether it is a crying child, Picasso’s “Guernica” or a howling mountain landscape.

In the hands of the social scientists who rule our own time, empathy has become one piece of “emotional intelligence,” a term coined in the 1960s and developed by the psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer in 1990. The journalist Daniel Goleman popularized that phrase in his 1995 best seller “Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ,” which argued that focusing on emotional skills would reduce school violence and equip students for greater success in life. Research has shown that these capacities are at least as important for long-term happiness and economic security as “hard” skills like reading and math.

In 2004, Illinois became the first state to adopt standards from preschool through high school for social and emotional learning, or SEL. Since then, anti-bullying workshops, classroom rules stressing compassion and wall charts of “feeling words” and “emoji meters” have become more common in schools nationally. “The overwhelming majority of educators and parents acknowledge that teaching children SEL skills is critical,” Marc Brackett, director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, told me. “At the other end, in corporate America, employers are looking for people who have these skills.”

But the colorful classroom posters and the drive for data through “social-emotional competencies” student assessments — not necessarily bad things in themselves — risk reducing our idea of empathy to yet another job skill. The mania for standardized testing that followed the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act has further hampered teachers’ best and oldest tool for developing emotional understanding: the study of literature.

“I really do believe literature is an empathy tool, and reading literature widely can actually make you an empathetic person,” Sarah Levine, a professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, told me. In many classrooms, the structure of standardized tests, especially multiple-choice questions and narrow essay rubrics, pushes teachers to drill students on finding arguments and literary devices rather than encouraging them to reflect on their own emotional response. “The standardized testing movement reduces literary reading to fact-finding,” Ms. Levine said.

She recently completed a study of a century of New York Regents exams and found that from the 2000s onward, “the reader disappeared from the questions that these tests are asking students. The reader is being asked to figure out what the central idea of the text is, as opposed to being asked to talk about how a text made them see something differently, or sympathize with someone,” she told me.

“We have to ask: Is this the kind of reading we want kids to do? It makes kids really dislike reading. That doesn’t mean we don’t read critically, but we should be using some of that critical and interpretive firepower on political speeches, political tweets, things that demand attention to the way people are using language because they have immediate impact on us as citizens of the world. We should use fiction for empathy, aesthetic pleasure, examining ethical dilemmas and just the experience of escaping.”

Ms. Levine taught high school English on the South Side of Chicago before Stanford. She said that despite the life of privilege she sees around her now, “the danger we’re exposing students to in English classrooms is just as bad for kids in Palo Alto as for kids in Chicago with many fewer resources. We’re teaching them that literature is not for them, because they aren’t a part of what they read. I don’t mean because they feel, ‘I don’t see Black and brown faces in my literature,’ but ‘I’m supposed to write an argument about a motif,’ and not do what kids do outside of the classroom: read and enjoy the experience.”

Emerson Holloway, an English major at Oberlin College in Ohio, read a lot on her own to make up for the fact that in high school, she didn’t always have “the opportunity to connect and empathize with characters,” she told me.

At Oberlin, she helps facilitate a student group called Barefoot Dialogues, which invites students to discuss a text or work of art over a home-cooked meal in order to “engage in trust and vulnerability to make connections across differences,” she said.

She acknowledged that in academia, empathy across identity lines has become controversial, and it’s crucial to “know your own boundaries,” she said. “You can ask, ‘What’s the point if we’re all so different? I’ll never be able to truly understand,’ and that’s true to an extent.”

Yet the effort to understand feels more important now than ever, she said. When Covid-19 hit in March, Barefoot Dialogues switched to Zoom meetings; its leaders are hoping for a hybrid of in-person and remote conversation this fall.

The college students I interviewed for this story stressed the role of empathy in firing up their curiosity, critical thinking and self-interrogation. “People often dismiss emotion as a weakness,” Andie Horowitz, a political science major at the University of Michigan, told me. “But a certain level of emotion makes you interested in something, wanting to find the truth.”

She explained how her professor in a course on gender and the law led students in a deep dive into the lives of the individuals in cases they studied. “When you understand the people behind the movement, it becomes so much more personal,” she said. “That’s where empathy comes into critical thinking and being motivated to learn more.”

This fall, the sight of students of all ages squirming in front of iPads — struggling to learn about themselves and each other through apps and spotty Wi-Fi — drives home the urgency of social and emotional learning. But empathetic education was under attack long before Covid-19 hit. The desiccation of great books in the hands of testing bureaucrats and the politicization of literature in university classrooms is not a neatly left-wing or right-wing assault. It is a collective failure of confidence in our teachers and students. “When we think our students can’t do something, we’re done. Pack it up,” Ms. Gaines, the professor at Florida State, told me. “Given the opportunity, and the space to be vulnerable and space to say they don’t understand and don’t know, lots of growth can happen.”

This is the gift of liberal education: the invitation to read a book and think about both the variety and the common threads of human experience across time, space and culture. “Empathy extends beyond trying to put yourself in other people’s shoes,” said Ms. Holloway, the student at Oberlin. “Success is not part of that definition, really. The act of listening is a form of that empathy. You’re willing to attempt to understand.” Only by constantly making that attempt — however imperfect — can we learn empathy’s hazards, and its power.

Molly Worthen is the author, most recently, of “Charismatic Leaders Who Remade America,” an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a contributing opinion writer.

#Empathy

0 notes

smokeybrandreviews · 5 years ago

Text

Go Woke Go Broke

I am a fan of great stories. I adore brilliant, unique, art. I adore when both are integral to a creation be it film, comic, book, short story, light novel, fan fiction; Whatever. I find the ability to build worlds in almost any capacity, incredible. I’m also an older Millennial; Part of the tweener, X/Y, Oregon Trail generation. Born in the 80s, raised in the 90s, and came of age in the early 00s.We played until the street lights caught us, my first game system was an NES, and all my Saturday morning cartoons were sans Disney, toy commercials. I got an honorable mention once at a science fair and my parents were unimpressed so Participation Trophies were a joke to me and i learned how to deal with bullies by dealing with bullies. I had to worry about gangs shooting up my school, not that lone, weird kid in a trench coat. I’m all about representation but i understand that if you want people to look like you on film, you’d better find a way to make that film in white ass Hollywood. Basically, i have sense whereas most Millennials born after 89, do not. I need to make that distinction because we are about to get into some sh*t.

The merit and value of representation or visibility in mainstream media is dependent on the quality of said portrayal in the cultural zeitgeist. I’m a giant black dude who lives in America so representation for me basically begins and ends with a thug persona. As a black person in general, watching actors who look like me get passed over in roles that are uplifting and enriching to the culture like Hurricane or Ali for very specific, very demeaning, very marginalization, stereotypes, is disgusting. Black people, however excellent they are, never win for anything other than the magical Negro, uplifting slave, or non-threatening service person. Hidden Figures is an amazing tale of the trio of black women who saved NASA during the height of the space race. It was nominated for three Oscars and won none. Mahershala Ali did win an Oscar for best supporting actor portraying Juan, a drug dealer. Another movie he was in won several Oscars as well, Green Book. Ali plays Dr. Don Shirley characterized by the magical negro trope. I can go on and on. Denzel Washington got his second Oscar for Training day playing a corrupt ass cop when he turned in a much better, far more emotional performance, in Hurricane the year before. His first? Glory, where he played a former slave. A few years later? Snubbed for Philadelphia. Washington played, deftly i might add, a lawyer named Joe Milller who had to reconcile his own prejudices bout what it meant to have AIDS. Dude wasn’t even nominated. Tom Hanks won, though. See that pattern?

I don’t like Steven Universe. I don’t think it’s a very good show but because it has a massive fanbase among the LBGTQ community, it’s bullet proof from criticism. Nah, i’m about to go in. I adore Rebecca Sugar and i commend her creativity. My favorite episodes of Adventure Time are often attribute to her in some way, wither s0rt direction story boarding, or song writing. Marceline wouldn’t be Marcy with Sugar and i’ll always love her for that. That said, Steven Universe is melodramatic trash that uses pandering as a crutch. I don’t have a problem with the gays or whatever getting their visibility, but there are ways to do it without coming across as plagiarized drivel. Euphoria immediately comes to mind. Universe wears it’s anime inspirations on it’s sleeve. Sugar is a massive fan of Sailor Moon and you see, just, SO much of that in this show. Entire scenes and plot points are directly lifted from Usagi’s epic adventure but, because of the nostalgia goggles, cats are blinded to the straight-up theft. I’m not. That lack of originality is hindrance to the message. I mean, not really, i guess, because people love this show but it’s hard for me to acknowledge anything genuine about it because i know it is all a fraud. Hell, Land of the Lustrous, a manga by the name of Hoseki no Kuni, bares more than a striking similarity to Universe and came out a full year before Steven first bared his belly gem! Guess what Lustrous is? A manga! Guess who loves anime and manga? Sugar! Guess who has built a career on Sailor Moon images and Fan art? Sugar! Hell, Lustrous does a better job of LBGTQ representation by accident. Seriously, check that sh*t out. It’s an excellent narrative that doesn’t pander to the SJW crowd. It just tells it’s story about gem girls and space monsters. Sh*t is dope.

Where i feel the most sting, however, is in the US comic industry. All of this PC wokeness is in direct contrast to creative storytelling, for the most part. Marvel is hilariously guilty of this sh*t. I was on board when they decided to turn carol Danvers into Captain Marvel, effectively retiring her leotard costume and pretending kike it never happened. Fine. I liked that design but i get how impractical is was. The homage to Mar-Vell in her current duds is cool, too. I was one of the few that waited before running to judgment as Bendis race-bent Spider-Man into Miles Morales and then gender bent Iron Man into Riri Williams. Riri is a sh*t character in her own right but the outrage was more about her gender and race which made the criticism seem neckbeard nerd rage. Even then, i stuck around. Hell, when that Mockingbird run dropped and was literally a feminist manifesto, i let it ride because it was cleverly written and, foe the most part, i am kind of a feminist. More Equalist but there are feminist undertones in there. More recently, however, we got this New Warriors book and this is where i have to draw the line. Snowflake and Safe pace? Token non-binary hero? Marvel used to be at the forefront of this sh*t. They had gay superheroes in the 70s. They got married in the 80s. They addressed AIDS in the 90s and muslim bigotry in the 00s. Marvel was always crazy social conscious. That was one of their story telling staples and they delivered those messages with a light but firm touch.

F*ck, dude, the X-Men are an allegory for black people and the Civil Rights movement! Magneto and Professor X are literally caricatures of Malcom X and Dr. King. mainstream comic, broaching the subject of discrimination, camouflaged in the vibrant arto f superhuman clashes, sold to white kids across America, during the f*cking 60s? Are you serious? That sh*t changes minds. That sh*t starts a conversation. That sh*t is status quo changing! Snowflake and Safespace? F*cking really? This is your social discourse now? Disrespectful parody of a marginalizing slur and already absurd concept derived by weenies? This isn’t even satire, it’s outright disrespect. I think safespaces are detrimental to proper, healthy, discourse or that the notion of those who stand up to offense are snowflakes who “need to get a sense of humor”, but for real? The fact that cats just tacked on the one is non-binary just outright exposes the true intent. This sh*t is pandering, straight up. It’s non representation It’s not progress. It’s disrespectful Woke point grabbing. It’s superficial lip-service being played to those that feel like their label isn’t getting enough media scrutiny. I think all of these new genders or whatever are stupid but i’m an old person. Some kid might identify with being non-binary or whatever and THIS sh8t is what they have to look forward to seeing. You can’t be serious.

Now, the whole reason i’m writing this, the entire reason i was even thing king about this subject, is because of Late Night with Lily Singh. Singh is a comedy Youtuber who has crossed over into the mainstream. I, personally, don’t find her funny, but i understand how important her success is in the world. Singh is, if you haven’t deduced by her name, a Desi woman. She’s a Canadian of Punjabi descent and she’s making moves. Ma is one of the most popular channels on the platform and, indeed, i first came across her through another cat i follow. Even though i personally do not enjoy her content, the breadth of what she has accomplished does not elude me. Singh is a powerhouse and should be recognized as such. However, her actual, on-air, late night talk show is f*cking dog sh*t. Singh is not geared for that. Like, at all. Her jokes are bad, her monologues are delivered with a clumsy anxiousness that belies the energetic skit-maker from her Youtube channel, and she is the worst interviewer on television! Her guests are often visibly bewildered. Watching James Corden interview someone is off-putting, dude does his best impression of graham Norton, but Seeing Singh just assault her guests with mediocrity is textbook cringe. Why the f*ck was she put into this very public position, thrown to the wolves, doomed to fail?

Her show is bad, man, but when you say so, the PC Police come out to beat your sh*t in. Singh is Indian, female, and bisexually; The three biggest spaces on the Marginalized bingo board. Being brown, or queer, or prone to vaginas gets you them woke points whenever you create anything but to have all three at once? Boy, you bulletproof! Saying anything remotely resembling criticism gets you cancelled on the grounds of sexism, homophobia or just plain classic racism, all the while, her show i literal sh*t! Singh, herself, is often racist and sexist throughout her “comedy” skits! I’m not one to subscribe to white people being discriminated against. A a black dude with a firm grasp of history, i personally believe white people should just take it when a minority goes after them because they never have a problem taking from everyone else. Goose/gander, you know what i’m saying? That said, there’s an art, a nuance, to that racial observation. Singh does not deliver her content with that deft touch. She’s built a career on malicious caricatures of the whites and the penises, which would be fine if there was a message in her satire, but there’s not. It’s base and uninspired.

You can build a career on that type of content. Dave Chappelle’s entire career is that type of content and he’s one of the greatest comedians to ever comedy. The difference between his material and Singh’s is that Chappelle says something. Chappelle hits you in the gut and forces you to look within. His sh*t is actually profound. Lily Singh is not. She’s skews closer to that trainwreck, Nicole Arbour, than she does Eddie Murphy. She’s more Amy Schumer than Wanda Sykes and that sh*t is on full display with her terrible, terrible, talk show. I read somewhere that it might be getting cancelled soon and my first thought was, “It’s not cancelled now?” If i am aware that Singh’s content is pedestrian, surely the studio knew it was. I mean, the ratings of her show are abysmal. She even found her way into a race controversy as a female, lesbian, Desi on TV! Then it dawned on me; This wasn’t true representation This was NBC casing Woke points. They never believed in this show, rather, wanted to use Singh as a sounding board. She’s a trophy for a network trying to court that meek, 90s baby, everyone-is-special, “Muh anxiety”, crowd. It didn’t work and Singh’s show is getting shelved, as it should, but it’s f*cked up that this is what representation at the corporate level looks like. This sh*t is tokenism, plain and simple

Representation is great. I want all of us to be seen. People around the world judge our various cultures based on what our entertainment contributes to the cultural zeitgeist of the world. Mot blacks aren’t gang-bangers, rappers, or dug dealers. Most Muslims aren’t terrorists. hell, most Muslims aren’t even of middle eastern descent! Islam is the largest religion in the world. You’re more likely to meat an south Asian with a Koran than an Iranian with a suicide belt. Gays aren’t going to turn you, Women don’t have vagina dentata, and the handicapped are more resilient than you think. Don’t pander. Don’t token. This game of playing for Woke points in the media and arts needs to stop. All of this faux outrage by mostly rich, white, people on behalf of the people their privilege marginalizes, needs to stop. Patting yourself on the back because you’re book has a Sudanese, paraplegic, lesbian, lead is not being progressive, it’s masturbatory at best. Approach your project with a sense of levity, common sense, and, more than anything, respect. Is what you deem “representation” a good look for whatever class you’re trying to champion? Or is it just a means to stroke your ego and push your politics? Are you Brad Pitt or are you Kathleen Kennedy? Is what you want to show us going to do more bad than good?

At the end of the day, create what you ant to create, just be conscious of how you create. Evaluate your message. Make sure it’ something that needs to be said. Something that, when said, can’t be ignored. Make the message profound and the representation enriching. Make that sh*t count because doing so in an effort to appear the Wokest, just trivializes everything you are attempting to do.

0 notes

smokeybrand · 5 years ago

Text

Go Woke Go Broke

0 notes