Here's the thing. The world is full of all kinds of people and all kinds of racists. Sure, you have the snarling idiots, but outside of Appalachia or a Black Panther meeting, you just don't find those people anymore. Instead, you find casual racists. These are people, typically liberals, who condemn racists and talk about how not-racist they are and how racist everyone else is. Yet, these people talk condescending about minorities, whom they view as childlike, and they think nothing of whipping out a racist joke at a party because "I'm not racist, I can tell this joke." These people also get racist when things go wrong for them economically: "Why is the government helping them (insert preferred racial epitaph) when we real Americans need help!"
You also have racist professionals. These are people like lawyers (or Harry Reid) who publicly profess disdain for racists, but wouldn't hire a minority on a bet and will whip out all the stereotypes when amongst friends... remember the Duke Brothers from Trading Places? Or how about the liberal artisan, like a fashion designer or movie star, who whips out the n-word when drunk?
Then you have an elite black class who profess all kinds of liberalism, but think nothing of describing interracial marriage and non-black adoption as "racial genocide" and smearing black conservatives in terms that would make the KKK blush. Obama invited some of these to the White House last year. They also falsely scream racism as if it were the phone-a-friend lifeline whenever they start to lose arguments.
If Hollywood really wants to oppose racism, why doesn't it show any of those people? Why only the neanderthals?
Ultimately, I think there are two things going on here. First, the problem with portraying these kinds of racism is that this would implicate most of the liberals I've met... and I'm sure Hollywood liberals are no different. Thus, admitting that people who don't hire blacks, who tell racist jokes, who spout racist stereotypes to their friends and who believe the government should care for "real Americans" first before it cares for minorities even as they profess hatred for racism are actually racists would point the finger at much of the liberal world and probably most of Hollywood. That's no good. Liberals don't do self-reflection.
Secondly, I think there is a fear of being accused of being racist by showing a racist as something other than a monster. Essentially, if you wrote a character who is otherwise charming or funny or likeable, but that character also says or does racist things amongst close friends, then I suspect that the thought-police would come down on you for making a racist out as a nice person. They would accuse you of being a racist yourself, and all kinds of problems would follow. Who wants that?
In some ways, this reminds me of the way portrayals of Nazism have changed in Hollywood. In the 1950s and 1960s, you still saw films with good Nazis. The Great Escape is a classic example. The commander of the camp is a decent man. He doesn't like Hitler or the SS, but he is doing his duty as a German soldier. Today, such characters no longer exist. If you are a German circa-1933-1945, you can be one of three characters: (1) a blood thirty monster, (2) a member of the underground who smuggles Jews to Uncle Gunter's cabin, or (3) a Jew in hiding. I can't think of the last average German from that era Hollywood portrayed as just a normal, decent person. And I think the reason is that all it takes is one member of the hive-mind that is liberalism to decide that you were too nice to an presumed evil group and they will start screaming about you being a Nazi-lover. That's bad press. I think it's the same thing here. Subtlety is lost on the permanently offended and if you make a racist anything other than blatantly evil... why, then you must be saying racists are good people! You're a racist!!!
This is why I think Hollywood only shows racists as monsters even though those racists no longer exist outside the meth industry. I think they genuinely don't want to recognize their own racism and they are afraid that presenting someone who is defined as evil as something less than 100% evil means you are endorsing that evil.
Thoughts?
85 comments:
I think you might be on to something!
Once in a while a "Good German Soldier" seeps through. See the General's speech in Band of Brothers: LINK
Of course, Band of Brothers was a step above even the best that comes out of Hollywood.
Kit, I think there's definitely some to this. Hollywood is becoming strangely blatant... everything is black and white, even when they pretend they are showing gray. I think this really fits that. Hollywood is afraid to do gray for fear of being accused of supporting bad things. Plus, as I say, they don't want to be in the position of accusing their liberal friends.
I thought about the German film Downfall until I realized that it was a German movie.
I think the reason that movie is so good is because it doesn't portray the Nazis as pure monsters or, rather, as obvious monsters. Hitler could be charming at times during the movie (when he was not batsh!t crazy). Look at the opening scene which subverts every cartoon-version of Hitler. In fact, some of the scenes his actions toward Traudl (his secretary) seem almost fatherly.
You can see why people fell in line for him.
Andrew,
By the way, if you have never seen Downfall, you must rectify that immediately.
Trailer: LINK
Kit, Hitler is the early version of this syndrome. Yes, the man was an evil monster. But everyone who met him in person says he was really magnetic. And he wouldn't have reached the level he reached if he hadn't been.
So in trying to be sure that no one thinks they like Hitler, Hollywood and others do a disservice to the search for evil because they tell us that evil is always obvious and cartoony.
Andrew, I agree.
Again, if anyone here has yet to see that movie then you must see it now!
------------
Seriously, interracial marriage is "racial genocide"??? Methinks the black racists and the white racists have more in common than they realize. :)
Also, if you look at Hollywood, they almost never produce movies depicting black/white interracial dating. They seem to think Americans will not watch a movie about an interracial couple unless its a drama about the evils of racism or played for comedy (see, Archer). In other words, you never see a casual depiction of interracial dating.
Kit, You are seeing that start in commercials, but I don't think Hollywood does it very often. And when they do, they certainly don't show the most likely version statistically... they tend to show the least likely version statistically.
They do the same thing when they deal with spouse abuse -- they only show the least likely scenario, and they show it exclusively.
Yeah, racists of any color are pretty much the same.
Commercials? Would you by any chance be referring to this commercial?
What do you mean by "the least likely version of interracial relations statistically"?
Kit, Not just that commercial, but you're seeing it all over now. I suspect it's no longer a big deal for society or advertisers wouldn't do it, as they tend to be sensitive to society's whims.
Statistically: The government tracks these marriages and the data has come back showing a clear pattern of which races/genders pick which other races/genders when they marry outside their own race.
The pattern is that the biggest group by far (in real numbers) is Asian women marrying white men -- about 25% higher than the next group, which is white/Hispanic women marrying black men, which is almost double the next group. Bringing up the rear at not even 10% of the two leading groups is black woman with anybody.
Yet, Hollywood has lately shown mainly black women with white men... the least statistically likely combination you will find by far.**
What does this mean? I have no idea. But it does show that once again, when Hollywood shows a social trend, it presents a distorted view of it.
** Note that this is a new trend over the last half decade or so. Before this, Hollywood showed white women with black men when they were dealing with racism or white men with Asian women when they were dealing with feminism.
I'd say the analysis is pretty accurate, which is a real shame for storytelling. Reading through it I got several mental images of how rich stories could be if they went with the depictions of racists mentioned here. In my own writing ideas, while racism has never been their vice I've always enjoyed writing antagonists who are pleasant enough, or at least seem to be that way, but have something so twisted about them that it sets other characters on edge (no one like that's shown up in the idea I showed you yet, BTW, but as the world and cast develops one might appear). It really is a shame when PC and liberalism cheat everyone out of well-crafted, complex characters.
- Daniel
It's the Overton Window at work. Hollywood went from moderate to liberal and despite their protestations, it has seeped into their work. And that liberal becomes the new moderate and the window slowly creeps ever left-wards.
When's the last time you saw a Christian that was a decent person and not either a hypocrit of the highest order or some over-judgemental ass?
How about the honest hard-working CEO or small business owner?
A smart, caring father that isn't dumber than his kids?
The list goes on and on. Breitbart was right, we need to get into the entertainment business and fight the culture war.
Daniel, Liberalism does indeed cheat us of complex characters and really strong stories.
Interestingly, if you look at the past, most of Hollywood's greatest villains were all about shades of gray. Some were good natured with a hidden rotten side, others actually saw themselves as the good guys... Vader did. What made these such great characters was that they felt real because they had complete, believable personalities (unlike the cardboard villains who revel in being evil), and you could almost see their side of it. That made them compelling. It made you want to find out why they turned evil. It also made them so much more creepy because you could feel like, "Wow, I kind of agree with some of that... am I evil?" You don't get that from the archetype villains they are using today.
On racism, I think the injection of casual racism is a great way to get the audience to really hate a character: abuse of power and racism, are probably the two things people respond to most viscerally in a villain. And casual racism doesn't come across as heavy-handed as the neanderthal does.
Think back on Trade Places for a great example. Yes, the Dukes were rotten, but in a cartoony sort of way. But when the one says, "Did you think I would let a n-- run the family business?" you suddenly get a disgusted feeling that you didn't have before when the whole thing seemed like just a joke. With that little moment, they pushed those two into the realm of real evil and justified what the heroes were about to do to them. It was very well written.
Shawn, I concur. Sometimes, the things Hollywood does are done for storytelling purposes -- like why there are no Islamic terrorists... but the volume and consistency of the types of things you point out prove the pattern. Hollywood pushes an agenda, whether they want to believe it or not, and that agenda is corrupting their ability to tell good stories because it limits their choices and it is forcing them into this simplified world where everything is black/white.
Thank goodness we elected a black man to be President or I would never had understood just how racist this country is. Nuance in movies would only let the dirty racists off the hook.
= Sharpton, Schultz, Matthews.
I think this might be one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.
And while Hitler is mentioned, I always go to bin Laden - I just find it hard to believe that people would be okay with presenting him (along with his followers, etc.) as a fleshed-out human being.
Yes, villains of yesteryear had more shades of gray to them but so many reviews accuse certain movies, for example, of condoning bad behavior or making us sympathize with bad people. "How dare they!"
I guess it's all in the execution, but there are still people out there (like certain BH writers) who don't think it's necessary to show things like motivation or question why characters do certain things.
And yes, I could've phrased this differently - there's a point in here somewhere!
It probably has more to do with the public's view of racism than anything. Depicting a character as racist is a quick way to make the public lose sympathy with them.
I'll also point out that both parties happily insult/condescend to blacks who vote the wrong way and happily offer up spurious charges of racism when their own blacks are criticized.
Last but not least wealthy, powerful racists are a fairly common trope (though probably seen more in black movies than mainstream movies). They tend to be threatening/malevolent in action movies but snooty/condescending in comedies.
Does anyone else remember the hilarious (IMHO) Addams Family Values and the couple that ran the summer camp?
It shows the idiocy of most Hollywood films and screen-writing. Great literature -- art -- deals in archetypes. Hacks deal in stereotypes. Like Putin-Obama... chess/checkers.
Anthony -
I love those characters in Addams Family Values, especially as they name all the reject (read: non-WASP) campers... like Mordecai and Jamal (Ja, uh Jay-mal?). :-)
This is one of those cases where I don't think Hollywood is fooling the public at all. (Which isn't to say I don't agree completely with the point of the article.)
If the public really believed that the only racists were the obvious ones, there would be no sensitivity training industry. There would be no pussyfooting around racial issues for fear of causing offense. And minorities wouldn't be seen as having a leg to stand on when they complain about anything less than a burning cross on their front lawn.
That isn't to say that Hollywood doesn't convince anyone. Obviously there are people like those described in the article. But the average American is very sensitive to the low threshold that draws a charge of racism. How each person interprets that is different, of course. I'd suspect the liberal tends to think any charge is legit and goes home to do some weeping and soul-searching. (Where did I go wrong?) Meanwhile, the conservative tends to be dismissive, indignant, and pushes back on it. (If you are offended, that makes you the racist.)
"Why is the government helping them (insert preferred racial epitaph) when we real Americans need help!"
"and who believe the government should care for 'real Americans" first before it cares for minorities even as they profess hatred for racism"
Help! Care! from the Vogons that run the government....I am confused!
Wait...is Vogon a racist term now.... probably is oh well! I'm caught!
Addams Family Values is hilarious. The summer camp storyline makes that film. The rare sequel that stands right up with the original. Both of those films deal brilliantly with the general theme of being an outsider.
It's too bad Raul Julia passed away when he did. There were rumors of a third Addams movie at the time. (It's my understanding that the DTV Reunion film starring Tim Curry was an entirely separate project.)
Andrew said:
The pattern is that the biggest group by far (in real numbers) is Asian women marrying white men -- about 25% higher than the next group, which is white/Hispanic women marrying black men, which is almost double the next group. Bringing up the rear at not even 10% of the two leading groups is black woman with anybody.
Yet, Hollywood has lately shown mainly black women with white men... the least statistically likely combination you will find by far.**
-------
I agree that black (or to be a jerk about it, half black) female-white male pairings are overrepresented in big budget movies but Asian-white pairings are pretty common in movies of late.
I even found an article (granted, in the Daily Beast but it did name a lot of examples) that supports my belief. The article's claim that more Asian women are being cast because Hollywood wants to appeal to Chinese audiences makes sense.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/03/what-s-behind-hollywood-s-asian-flirtation-china-s-box-office.html
Advertisers have no problem showing multi-racial families but Hollywood does?
Kinda makes you wonder where the real racists are, doesn't it? ;)
And notice that whenever its depicted Hollywood, even in modern day, everyone around them tends to respond angrily. If Hollywood is to be believed, its still 1950.
In reality I've noticed the reaction to a black male/white female is to raise one's eyebrow and with a smile go "huh" in surprise. Not negative, just surprise and then moving on.
I wonder if this surprise at such a relationship is because Hollywood still depicts it as a taboo.
Hell, they depict happy gay couples more often!
Your first point is a given.
Your second point -- YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!! Especially "Subtlety is lost on the permanently offended".
I LOVE subtle writing, particularly in the writing of characters -- I don't want to watch/read/listen to the good stereotype vs. the bad stereotype. I also tend to think that I am not in a tiny minority on this point. For this reason I'm a big fan of Steven Moffat (who I can't imagine writing for Hollywood). I'm also enough of a nerd to hang around in online-y type places to talk about Steven Moffat. So I've noticed and interesting phenomenon:
1. All the females on the internet want to have Cumberbatch's babies, so they cannot stop watching Sherlock. Which is a shame because . . .
2. All the females on the internet are part of one large liberal big toe that is just waiting to be stomped on, and Steven Moffat stomps on it by doing things like making his main character be potentially bad NOT because he has a mental disorder, sometimes having minorities as bad guys, and, most notably, not letting a strong dominatrix leading lady thoroughly and utterly crush all the men around her. In fact, in a previous series that Moffat wrote, a misogynistic conservative Don Juan who makes sex tapes of every encounter ends up marrying the independent liberal woman who thinks she should be leading men around by the nose, because both of them have good and bad characteristics, and they both grow into much better human beings because they learn from one another. Anyway, all of this means that . . .
4. All the females on the internet spend their time bashing Moffat for himself being misogynist, racist, and probabably sexual-orientation-ist (is there a word for that yet?). Despite the fact that with a little teeny bit of attention they might discover that he is the opposite of those things.
The thing is, that he condemns behaviors, but rarely one class of people as a whole. And that is WAY too subtle.
But as an interesting side note -- Steven Moffat shows are WILDLY popular, and I think he just earned some sort of lifetime achievement award which isn't bad since he's only 51.
All of which is to say, I think Hollywood COULD be portraying things more subtly, and making money out of it. Because the general populace is much less stupid than the liberal hive mind.
K, Lack of nuance keeps these guys in business.
Scott, That is my point exactly though -- there is a group of people who start screaming the moment you don't show bad people as 100% cartoon evil... "How dare you sympathize with them!"
That is robbing films of the ability to present some great villains. Think back on Vader who was devoted to his religion and his empire, Bartholomew in Rollerball who thought he was helping Jonathan E and society, everybody in The Caine Mutiny who thought they were saving the ship, Robinson in Key Largo who though he was a nice guy, Roy from Blade Runner who only wanted more life and who had an epiphany at the end, etc. So many of the older villains could be charming or dedicated or thought they did the right thing. It's only recently that they've all become puppy kicking sociopaths.
We are losing those great villains because there is this fear that you might make the villain too sympathetic.
fyi, Be back soon.... work calls. :(
Andrew -
And my point is that those people inhabit both sides of the spectrum making this more of a partisan problem. (Of course, both sides have their pet peeves, whether its race or sex or whatever.)
Work calls for me, too. :-)
Scott, Stupidity is not bounded by ideology... it is available to all.
Anthony, I think this is one of those points where Hollywood isn't reflecting society, it's created a rather skewed view of society.
Floyd, Absolutely right -- great lit often deals with archetypes... hacks deal with stereotypes, and this is all about the most obvious stereotypes: "Oh, we need a racist, ok, make him a truck driver who screams the n-word out his window every five minutes and is a member of the KKK... that's what racists are really like, right?"
That said, I do think there is a serious element of pressure here too though. These writers don't want be attacked for pointing a finger at their friends or supporting racism by showing a racist "in a sympathetic light" (even if that's not the case. So they stay well away from the line.
Scott and Anthony, That was an hilarious moment. What's funny about it too, is that this was aimed right at the kind of casual racism I'm talking about. You can just see those camp counselors in their next breath telling all their friends about the wonderful diversity of their camp, can't you?
tryanmax, I don't think society buys this either. And the things you mention are proof of that. Society very much recognizes that racist come in all shapes, sizes and professions... though I will say that the liberals I know genuinely think they aren't racist even as they display heavy amounts of racism.
I think this is simply fear. This Hollywood not wanting to put something on screen that points a finger at their friends, and not wanting to put something on screen that will bring charges of racism. I think it really puts the lie to the idea that Hollywood types are courageous or willing to tackle hard issues.
Indi, That's actually a quote from a very liberal person I know (borderline socialist) who HATES conservatives because "they're all racists." He said we only voted against Obama because we're racist, etc. etc. But then, with unemployment so high and several of his friends without jobs, he whipped out the trope about "all blacks are on welfare" and he said, "How come the government helps them f**ing n--s when we real Americans need help?!" Nice.
But don't worry, he's not racist... he'll tell you so himself... everyone else is racist, but not him.
And no, Vogon is not racist.
All the females on the internet want to have Cumberbatch's babies
I will never understand what makes any man attractive to women. To me, Cumberbatch is a weird, slightly creeping looking dude. I don't even think he has good hair. I could relate to good hair.
Anthony, Thanks for the link. LINK
I hadn't noticed that because I haven't seen those three films yet, but it makes sense. Hollywood has been injecting a lot of Asian characters lately into films to appeal to China and giving the white hero an Asian love interest would fit that nicely with both white and Chinese audiences, (especially if the Asian female isn't presented as the submissive type).
In any event, the point made above is just that I don't get why they've been picking (until the films in the Daily Beast article) the least statistically likely pairing? I'm not sure if there is a political point, a political correctness point, or just random chance. Not sure. But I have noticed that Hollywood often picks the least accurate portrayal and treats that like the stereotype. They do this particularly with guns, domestic abuse, and criminal matters.
Kit, I think the surprise is just the rarity of that type of relationship. I don't see people bat an eye to "white woman with black man" or "white man with Asian woman"... though this does bring snarling from feminists.
And yes, I think Madison Avenue is well ahead of Hollywood on these issues.
Tyranmax, as a female who would watch a movie solely on the strength of Cumberbatch being one of the actors in it, but does NOT find him very attractive, I'm afraid I can't help you. I, too, think he looks slightly creepy and very weird. He has moments -- I do think there is something attractive about his Sherlock, but not sexually attractive. If that makes sense?
I actually saw a hilarious clip of an interview about Star Trek where Alice Eve was clearly incredibly puzzled that the girls were going for Cumberbatch when Chris Pine was in the movie.
In other words -- the fact that you don't get why Cumberbatch is attractive does not have anything to do with the fact that you're a man. :-P Maybe it proves that you're sane?
(I actually have this weird theory about modern ideas of male attractiveness being antithetical to traditional ideas of masculinity, which Cumberbatch-worship supports, but it's not yet well thought out.)
goldvermilion, LOL! I wasn't aware of the Moffat bashing club. But I agree with your point. :) All the evidence I've seen tells me that the public seeks out shows that offer more subtlety... those are the shows that generate loyalty, controversy and fan clubs. Those are the shows people talk about.
But those are the very thing Hollywood doesn't want to give us anymore. They prefer to throw clear stereotypes at us, engaging in well-worn storylines at us.
And while I think there are many reasons for this, one of the big ones that hems them in is the belief that they can't do subtle because audiences will misunderstand it. And if they misunderstand it in the wrong way, like with your Moffat example, then they face blowback... which they don't want.
tryanmax, Me neither. I was pretty sure he was gay until I read otherwise.
goldvermilion, That's entirely possible. I've heard lots of women say they like "nerds". Maybe what is attractive has changed?
gold, attractive but not sexually attractive? Speak English! I'm kidding.
I can kinda guess where your theory might be going and I'd tend to agree with the premise. I don't think it's as pronounced as it was maybe a dozen years ago, but it's still in force.
However, my girlfriend thinks Cumberbatch is hot while simultaneously maintaining a healthy lust for Hugh Jackman. Square that for me.
And the reason Moffat keeps writing is that he loves telling people who tell him he's a terrible person that they are stupid.
:-P
Maybe your girlfriend saw him as the not-at-all unhealthily scrawny Khan?
Andrew, gold, I predict a forthcoming hybrid: the fit nerd. Picture Jim Parsons's head on Mark Wahlberg's body. I think that's the future.
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
And now may I please have some brain bleach to eradicate that horrendous mental image?
We also have the problem that the fit dudes are usually portrayed as (and encouraged to be!) dumb jocks. I'd rather spend time with an ugly, dumpy or scrawny but intelligent man than with the most classically handsome idiot. Maybe those are the only two choices being presented?
There was an article in the WJS a few years ago I believe written by a black man. He pointed out that probably the most racist group are black women. They just will not date or marry outside their race. He believes that this is one of the problems in the black community because black men don't have to be held accountable for their actions. If more black women rejected the lifestyle of black men and dated/married/had children with men who respected them and held good jobs, it would force black men to straighten out. Not sure if he is right but interesting point. Only a black man could have written that piece and not be sent to re-education camp.
AndrewPrice said...
Kit, I think the surprise is just the rarity of that type of relationship. I don't see people bat an eye to "white woman with black man" or "white man with Asian woman"... though this does bring snarling from feminists.
And yes, I think Madison Avenue is well ahead of Hollywood on these issues.
-------------
Andrew,
Hollywood has long worried that a black guy being involved with a white woman becomes the movie and turns off audiences. It doesn't work that way in real life, but it might work that way on celluloid. Madison Avenue has to worry a little less because they aren't making big bets on individual ads.
Below is a very interesting article I found. I don't agree with all of the writer's conclusions (I don't think whites are the only ones executives fear alienating) but some interesting points are made, especially in the segment below.
------------
http://ivoryroad.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/black-men-white-women-and-the-hollywood-shuffle/
Prominent black actors such as Cuba Gooding, Jr., Will Smith, and Denzel Washington have commented on Hollywood’s tendency to avoid the issue of interracial intimacy and the hesitancy of white executives to place a black male lead opposite a white female lead for a romantic story line. When Denzel Washington was asked how people would react to a black man and white woman in bed on-screen, he replied “I don’t know. . . . I wouldn’t do it just for the reaction. If it’s a good story, I’d do it. . . . I haven’t turned down any scenes like that because I haven’t been offered any. So again that’s a question for some guys [waves his arm toward the Hollywood Hills] behind those big gates.” While black male actors are often blamed or rumored to avoid love scenes with a white woman, Denzel Washington, as well as Will Smith and Cuba Gooding, have all acknowledged that it is the filmmakers who make these choices.
In Hollywood today, a black man kissing a white woman is still largely a taboo as far as studio executives are concerned, as evidenced in the large number of movies that pair a black man opposite a white woman that do not include a romantic relationship. Films based on books that contained an interracial relationship, such as The Pelican Brief and Kiss the Girls, altered the story lines from the books they were based on to eliminate any sexual tension or relationship between the white and black lead actors.
Chickens. Save the Last Dance was twelve years ago! It was a box-office success. It received virtually no criticism on account of race issues. Mostly, it got treated like a run-of-the-mill teen movie, which it was. I don't know who they think they're afraid of? The vocal idiots who attacked the Cheerios commercial?
gold-
Don't you know about rule 30 of the internet?
Pfft. If Rule 30 were real, then rule 34 wouldn't be . . . at least not in the world of fan fiction.
(to my chagrin, I must add)
If rule 30 was real then rule 34 COULD still be real but in a weird homo-erotic sort of way.
Somehow, I'm glad I don't know what Rule 30 or Rule 34 are... I think my life is richer that way. :)
Koshcat, That's an interesting theory. The guy sounds like an economist... "lack of competition spurs bad traits."
I supposed that could contribute to it. I do know that people start to act strange when gender numbers get lopsided.
Anthony, That's interesting.
On the one hand, I think it shows that Hollywood is out of touch with society, because I don't think this would be a big deal with the public. If Will Smith and some white female co-star got it on, no one would bat an eye these days.
So either Hollywood is more racist than the public, or they have a skewed view of the public, or they are scared of what could amount to even a tiny backlash, i.e. they are nearly completely risk averse.
tryanmax, The Cheerios commercial did draw a lot of nasty comments when it first came out. There were news stories about it. Essentially, the world's racists descended upon it.
If you're going to blog, you have to know the rules.
Rule 30: There are NO girls on the internet.
Rule 30.1: Rule 30 only applies to the deep internet.
Rule 30.2: If girls are found on the deep internet, CODE RED, RED ALERT, ALL SYSTEMS BREACHED!
Rule 34: There is porn of it, no exceptions.
The ONLY explanation for posters such as goldvermilion87 and Bev is they must be intelligent, independent women.
(How's that for saving my butt)
LOL! I see. Ok, Rule 34 is true... humanity needs a lot of help.
I'm not so sure about Rule 30 though. That was definitely true ten years ago, but I've run into a lot of girls online. I'm actually amazed how many girls are into video games.
Nice save on our local female audience. :)
Andrew,
The full line to Rule 34 is "if it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions."
Yes, humanity needs a lot of help. And to further prove it, here is Rule 36: "No matter what it is, it is somebody's fetish, no exceptions."
Rule 63: "For every given male character, there is a female version of that character (and vice-versa).
Kit, My internet rule book doesn't go that high. It stops at 3 rules:
1. You do not talk about the internet.
2. You do not talk about the internet.
3. There are no rules.
Rule 34 has ruined many a childhood...
In fact, there is probably a porn version of this website somewhere out there right now.
If not, then Rule 35: "If there is no porn of it, porn will be made of it."
No. Exceptions.
""white man with Asian woman"... though this does bring snarling from feminists."
Why does it bring "snarling from feminists"?
Kit, We actually run a porn site... it's called CommentaramaPorn. It's got pictures of naked Congressmen doing the nasty with each other. It's been banned in most countries... and has the death sentence on 12 systems.
Feminists view the "white man with Asian women" relationship as being about neanderthal white males looking for a submissive woman because they can't handle modern, liberated white women blah blah blah.
Submissive? Apparently they have never watched Sullivan and Son. ;)
CommentaramaPorn? Was it your or Bev that hacked their cell phones?
Not yet. See below:
Your search - commentaramaporn - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Search Results
Advanced searchSearch HelpSend feedback
Google HomeAdvertising ProgramsBusiness SolutionsPrivacy & TermsAbout Google
Kit, I haven't seen "Sullivan and Son," but I do know a number of Asian women who dated white guys. I can't say that any of them have been submissive... a couple could even have been James Bond villains. But the stereotype is that Asian women are submissive because their cultures are male-dominated. So that is what feminists claim.
As for our stash of Congressional porn, no, everything we have was texted to us. It's easy. We just put up an ad:
"Innocent young taxpayer looking for Congressional sugar daddy. Text incredibly stupid photo by way of application. The dirtier the better."
Works every time.
Koshcat, Uh... yeah, we're so hot they won't link to us. Too hot to handle.
That's funny, Andrew because that is the first two rules of the internet except:
Rule 3: We are Anonymous
I also like:
Rule 42: Nothing is sacred.
Rule 46: If it exists, there is furry porn of it. No exceptions.
Rule 81: Anonymous is a virgin by default.
Hey, what's is wrong with a little yellow fever? Darn feminists taking the fun out of life. Put on a bra for God sakes! (unless they are perky then go for it).
Koshcat, Clearly, I need to download the update to my Internet Rules.
LOL! The first time heard the term "yellow fever" was in law school from a Korean girl I knew whose was talking about a friend of hers who was dating a white guy.
I can also attest that the submissive Asian woman stereotype is completely wrong.
Andrew said:
But the stereotype is that Asian women are submissive because their cultures are male-dominated. So that is what feminists claim.
-------
I am sure sour grapes tinges the complaints of the feminists, but its worth noting that whether or not a stereotype is true doesn't impact whether or not it informs behavior. The 'submissive Asian woman' stereotype is widespread so its a safe bet its coloring the behavior of a fair amount of guys.
The 'submissive Asian woman' stereotype is widespread so its a safe bet its coloring the behavior of a fair amount of guys.
Whoo boy! Are they in for a surprise!
Anthony, It sounds like sour grapes to me as well... always did. In fact, the feminists I've heard talk about it spoke with such disdain that it couldn't be anything else. It was the same level of disdain they had in the 90s for "cookie baking" stay-at-home moms.
On this coloring guy's behavior, I'm sure you're right. It becomes kind of an adverse selection process. If everyone is told, "Asian women are submissive, which is why guys want them," then guys who can't deal with regular women will seek out the ones they've been told are submissive. So those guys will be attracted to them because of that.
But as tryanmax points out, won't they be surprised! In fact, the little bit I've experienced Asian culture, the men may hold the titles, but the women run the show. And things like the Tiger Mom are super common.
Exactly. First-hand experience trumps stereotypes.
I used to know a fresh off the boat Korean woman and currently know a fresh of the boat Chinese woman. Both wear the pants in their families.
Most feminists that I have encountered have been remarkably uninformed.
Shawn, Same here. It's the rare feminist who has any knowledge of the real world.
Andrew: You said earlier: "The pattern is that the biggest group by far (in real numbers) is Asian women marrying white men -- about 25% higher than the next group, which is white/Hispanic women marrying black men, which is almost double the next group. Bringing up the rear at not even 10% of the two leading groups is black woman with anybody.
Yet, Hollywood has lately shown mainly black women with white men... the least statistically likely combination you will find by far.**
I have a theory or two on that. Full disclosure: I am married to a Filipina.
Even 30 or 40 years ago White/Asian marriages hardly raised an eyebrow. A cousin of mine married a Japanese girl in the 60s, they met when he was in the Navy, and there was a bit of a backlash among my fairly conservative/blue collar/Pittsburgh relatives but that washed away quickly. Now my Uncle and Dad were both WWII vets, but my Dad was stateside and my Uncle shot at Germans not the Japanese.
I think that this has to do with Asians being considered "de-facto White people" due to their traits and beliefs, such as strong family values, cultural traditions and value of education and respect for authority, unlike some other "minority sub-cultures" we could name (Ahem........) Post World War II, I think you could probably add the Jews to that list as well. Anti-Semitism seemed to go underground (except for liberals and their love of the Palestinians of course) and there was hardly a peep about this inter-faith marriages.
My second thought is just the plain fact that White men with black women has been a more accepted thing in this country since a long time. Believe it or not, I do agree with the Farakans of the world on this point that it goes back to slavery, and the black slaves having their master's children, who were mostly lighter skinned. Look at how many successful actors and performers, white males have been with or married light skinned black women? Robert DiNiro and Roger Ebert come to mind right away. And look at all those famous Mo-town black female singers, Aretha, Diana, Donna Summer, Dionne, they almost all married white men, usually European though.
And say what you will about the views of the Black Man/White woman trope, but let's be honest. My parents would have accepted me bringing home a black girl way before my sister dating a black man. Sorry, that's the truth.
Also one last politically incorrect theory on the Black Man/White Woman thing. I've always felt that the backlash against that had as much to do with economics as social status. Starting with the 60s as social mores opened up a bit more and there was a lot more interracial hookups, the sad truth is that a lot of those white girls chose poorly and let's just say they were not bringing home "Dr. Sindey Poitier" to meet Dad and Mom, but a guy who was of a much lower social and economic status. I came from a blue collar area and I have taught at working class/blue collar schools, and you often see the low self esteem (usually chubby) white girl who attracts black losers like a magnet. Also on the other side of the coin, you see urban black males whose rule is "anything white is better than the nicest prettiest black girl.
Just my two cents.
PikeBishop, I agree with that. I think there are historical and cultural aspects to consider as to why certain things happen in the public. I have also seen what you say about low self-esteem girls. It's not the choice of another race that's the problem, it's the choice of losers from another race.
In any event, I think you have given some very accurate reasons why society does what it does. What this does not explain, however, is why Hollywood insists on showing a portrait that isn't true -- one that goes against the statistics. I don't understand why Hollywood does that.
Andrew
Good to know that the term Vogon is still politically correct.
I find your recant of the individual who made those comments quite amusing, laugh out loud funny even yet I must confess even with that knowledge I am still confused.
C'est la vie
Post a Comment