(no subject)

[wavyarms]

Re: stress - thank you, Eddie Izzard!

In other news, Cranky Curmudgie McCrankpants today read this article about the Facebook movie and whether it's sexist on Slate, and had no problems with it really (haven't seen the movie) with one glaring exception, where the writer says, "The writer Rebecca Davis O'Brien found Christy to be an Asian-American stereotype, a reading that never occurred to me while watching: Neither the opportunistic seduction of powerful men nor the melodramatic burning of silk scarves seem like ethnically specific behaviors."

Now, I don't have an opinion on whether either of the examples mentioned is stereotypical or not, because I am not well-versed in how Asians are stereotyped in popular culture, but how obnoxious is it to dismiss someone's claim with "Well, that never occurred to me." Because clearly, whether or not things OCCUR to you is directly related to whether or not they are true! FAIL. There are quite a lot of things that it never OCCURRED to me are insulting or prejudiced, but once it was explained to me, and I listened, then I learned that they were! Amazing.

Comments

[ethicsgradient.livejournal.com]

I don't know what it means for a movie to be sexist, but the film chronicles social outcasts gaining power and riches and the "male fantasy" fulfillment that they engage didn't seem surprising or out of place to me.

I don't have much of a response to the core thrust of your post. She was portrayed as a crazy, paranoid and power hungry. As far as I am concerned, her ethnicity was not central to her character. The movie never seemed to suggest that her behavior was related to her Asian-ness. Not being acquainted with the prevailing Asian-American female stereotypes, I'm in no position to judge whether this was inspired by them, but if it was, the movie did a poor job of propagating them.

[ethicsgradient.livejournal.com]

That should have said "engage in"

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

I believe you can edit comments nowadays - I just did it to this one!

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Well, that's not the main thrust of my post though. Whether or not she is an example of a given stereotype is not crucial - I was complaining that someone apparently thinks a logical comeback to a given argument is "Well, that never occurred to me."

[ethicsgradient.livejournal.com]

The more I look at the article and that line, the more I think that the comeback isn't the "it didn't occur to me" but the "X and Y behaviors don't seem ethnically specific." The author gives a specific reason that ethnic issues didn't occur to him/her (Dana?). It's not just a blanket "It didn't occur to me so it's not there." I read it as "Nothing I saw was remotely ethnostereotypical, so it didn't occur to me."

Is the alternative that we assume every action we see in a movie probably stemmed from some stereotype that we aren't aware of yet?

I think that article is right on target about the relationship of the movie and its characters to women, btw, having gotten a chance to read it more closely.

[meranthi.livejournal.com]

I read that as "That thought never occurred to me" not "That incident never occurred to me." Does that make a difference?

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Well, no. :)

Basically, it's fine to say "that thought never occurred to me." However, the writer is using that phrase as an argument against this particular claim. To my reading, he seems to be saying, "Well, SINCE that thought never occurred to me, THEREFORE I dismiss your argument, because if it was worthwhile, it WOULD have occurred to me."

It is a subtle point, I grant you, but the devil is in the details. :)

[meranthi.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I can see your point.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Also, I feel that I just passed up the opportunity for a G&S reference. Something about the phrase "it is a subtle point, I grant you" seems like it could be related to something Gilbert wrote? However, nothing is coming to me. Alas.