#culturally insensitive barbie | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

denimbex1986 · 1 year

Text

'The Barbenheimer craze is showing no signs of subsiding any time soon. While expectations that Barbie and Oppenheimer would dazzle critics and audiences alike were high, it's safe to assume that even the most attuned industry insiders couldn't have predicted how enthusiastically the world would embrace such a unique double feature. Giving movie theaters a much-needed boost, and proving that a cross-promotion marketing strategy rather than a bitter rivalry can do wonders for competing blockbusters, the movie event of the year has only just begun and will no doubt sustain its place in the cultural zeitgeist as awards season approaches.

For all its stunning success, however, the high-profile nature of Barbenheimer has raised thought-provoking questions and inspired debate regarding the relationship between media hype and historical reverence. At a time when mainstream marketing machines are increasingly dominant and influential over public perception and discourse, the line between entertainment and exploitation seems to be getting ever-thinner. And given Oppenheimer's contextual nature, particularly the world-changing events at the center of its titular protagonist's story, the sensational glitz and glam surrounding the cinematic phenomenon have struck some as unintentionally undermining the tragedies that occurred in Japan in August 1945.

Warner Bros. Has Come Under Fire for Some of its Barbenheimer Marketing

Though the idea of films cross-promoting one another isn't unheard of, the notion of films as tonally and thematically divergent as Barbie and Oppenheimer debuting together has led to a once-in-a-generation set of marketing campaigns operating simultaneously. The word "Barbenheimer" first began appearing online in April 2022. However, it was hardly intended to kick off a media firestorm but rather was meant to playfully acknowledge the upcoming double feature. Matt Neglia, editor of Next Best Picture and the man first credited with using the term, told NBC News, "It's cool statistically that I might show up as the first, but I never meant to start a hashtag or anything like that." It didn't take long for Barbenheimer to make an impression, going viral across social media platforms and rousing the interest of people around the globe. And once the pop culture event seemed to gain the momentum of a runaway train, sensible and carefully considered marketing strategies ultimately gave way to some more egregious forms of advertisement.

Shortly after the films hit theaters and became box office sensations, several tweets put out by Warner Bros. to promote Barbie were met with backlash by the studio's Japanese affiliate. One tweet in particular features Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) holding Barbie (Margot Robbie) atop his shoulder as an atomic mushroom cloud rages in the background. This prompted #NoBarbenheimer to trend in Japan, and the nation's Warner Bros. branch issued the following statement: "We consider it extremely regrettable that the official account of the American headquarters for the movie ‘Barbie’ reacted to the social media postings of ‘Barbenheimer’ fans. … We take this situation very seriously. We are asking the U.S. headquarters to take appropriate action. We apologize to those who were offended by this series of inconsiderate reactions."

While Barbenheimer as a pop culture phenomenon is undoubtedly unique and worthy of attention, such forms of advertisement are indeed tone-deaf gestures and a distasteful way of capitalizing on a major moment in entertainment history. According to Variety, Warner Bros. responded to the backlash with, "Warner Brothers regrets its recent insensitive social media engagement. The studio offers a sincere apology." Considering that Barbie and Oppenheimer are so stark in contrast, perhaps it was inevitable that a combination of wildly differing sensibilities would eventually miss the forest for the trees, losing sight of the bigger picture that a film like the latter is tapping into both historically and contemporarily.

'Oppenheimer's Exclusion of the Atomic Bombings Has Drawn Criticism

When Oppenheimer was announced as Christopher Nolan's next project, speculation abounded over whether the film would depict the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After all, one may argue a film about the creation of the atomic bomb that doesn't show its devastating power would be akin to Titanic not showing the ship's sinking. But with Nolan opting for an intensely personal prism through which to experience the film's narrative, Oppenheimer leaves such a horrifying spectacle to viewers' imaginations. While the three-hour epic has received widespread acclaim for its performances, screenplay, visuals, and overall ambition, some moviegoers have questioned whether its omission of the bombings is an error on Nolan's part.

People who've voiced opposition to showing the bombings maintain that Oppenheimer's subjective point-of-view takes precedent in telling his story. According to NBC News, Nolan said that "to depart from Oppenheimer’s experience would betray the terms of the storytelling. He learned about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the radio — the same as the rest of the world. Everything is his experience, or my interpretation of his experience. Because as I keep reminding everyone, it’s not a documentary. It is an interpretation. That’s my job." On the other hand, critics of Nolan's decision have cited it as an example of dismissal, and even erasure, of the harrowing experiences of those impacted by the bombings. Brandon Shimoda, a Japanese-Amercian writer who oversees the Hiroshima Library, told NBC News, "Even within the realm of entertainment it's still demoralizing and making, once again, unreal the experience of Asian people. The experience and perspective of Hibakusha (survivors) needs to be centered in whatever way possible."

The decision to feature the bombings or not presents a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't conundrum from a storytelling perspective, and compelling arguments can be made for either side of the debate. While including those horrific events in Oppenheimer would have given representation and a voice to those who were killed, injured, or otherwise suffered long-term impact over generations, such inclusion could have also been perceived as gratuitous, exploitative, and an unintentional way of re-traumatizing survivors. If he'd decided to recreate the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagaski, Nolan would likely have been equally criticized, perhaps even more so, by viewers deeming such a cinematic recreation distasteful and bordering on sensational. In tackling one of the most fraught and divisive moments in global history, Oppenheimer's exclusion of the Japanese bombings was undoubtedly carefully considered on Nolan's part but wasn't intended to minimize or downplay the tremendous suffering and trauma that persists to this day.

The Barbenheimer Phenomenon Shouldn't Distract From History

As expressed in Oppenheimer's tagline, the world forever changed in August 1945. A critical turning point in the history of civilization, the unleashing of such cataclysmic power via weapons of mass destruction can never be undone, and for better or worse, humanity has to reckon with the actions taken by a handful of powerful and determined people. Though the bombing of Japan ended World War II, and such weapons miraculously haven't been used in warfare since, what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the ultimate cautionary tales, deserving of attention and thoughtful consideration for those who were and remain impacted. With more than 200,000 people estimated to have been killed by the end of 1945, many more succumbing to injuries and radiation sickness, and an entire generation (Hibakusha) traumatized, the horrific scale of what happened can't be stressed enough.

As all the hype and sensation surrounding Barbenheimer continues to enamor people around the world, audiences should resist the tendency to overlook or memory-hole the core tragedy at the center of Christopher Nolan's film. Instead, moviegoers should embrace Oppenheimer not just as a crowning cinematic achievement, but also as a jumping-off point to more deeply consider what led to the tragedy, how it affected generations of the Japanese population, and what kinds of troubling consequences have risen as a result. Oppenheimer certainly poses difficult and disturbing questions without supplying any easy explanations, and that's exactly why viewers would do well to keep it in perspective.'

#Christopher Nolan #Oppenheimer #Cillian Murphy #Margot Robbie #Barbie #Barbenheimer

1 note · View note

thinkingaboutmusics · 2 years

Text

A Display of White Privilege and Ignorance in Pop Music

In the midst of a search for something to write about this week, I decided to Google, “culturally insensitive music”. I expected nothing more than articles about older songs that simply aged poorly in today's world of progressivity. I found a number of articles of this nature; “11 Popular Songs You Didn’t Realize Are Actually Racist” or “16 songs that haven’t aged well”. I wasn’t surprised to find these lists contained songs with titles that pretty much wrote the articles in and of themselves (i.e. “Brown Sugar”, by the Rolling Stones or “Island Girl” by Elton John). While these songs deserve the criticism they’re getting in today’s social climate, I was looking for something a little fresher…

The second strain of articles were directed more toward modern pop music. After reading, there is a clear trend of white pop artists whose lyrical commentary pertains to every culture except for their own… Frankly, discussion of the artist's own whiteness might be a difficult topic to discuss because there isn’t much to discuss- or rather- there’s so much to discuss, especially in the context of their vital errors in content creation.

Meghan Trainor is known for her hit song “All About That Bass”, and it’s been promoted as a song promoting body positivity. When you take a closer look at the lyrics, it becomes pretty shaky. The music video encompasses the full spectrum of content-creation error. Jenny Trout wrote a fantastic analysis of Meghan Trainor’s song, highlighting every contradiction between what the song was meant to be and what it is. The article that Trout wrote truly covers every detail that is needed to understand what's wrong with “All About That Bass,” so if you want a more full dissection, I invite you to visit her website. In summary, Trainor perpetuates a female desire to fit the male gaze, her song attempts to shift the body standard from barbie-slim to “all the right junk in all the right places” (thus, eliminating a feeling of all-encompassing body positivity), and perpetuates stereotypes surrounding “thickness” and “booty” placed on black women’s bodies. One of the standout issues, however, is that Trainor is the center of it all when she is “not fat or ‘plus-size’ by any means” (Trout, 2014). The sexualization and objectification around having “booty” isn’t one applied to white women of Trainor’s size, but to black women. ALSO, the sexualization of bodies in general (but specifically the bodies of black women) throughout the song and music video is cringe-worthy to say the least.

Avril Lavigne’s “Hello Kitty” music video is another example of blatant cultural appropriation. Might I add, first that this song is as annoying as any of the appropriation going on in it. She made the trip to Japan to shoot the video and is surrounded by asian backup dancers, though she’s the only white girl shown throughout the video. Her response to the backlash around the video is equally as naive as the video itself. According to Vulture.com, Lavigne tweeted, “RACIST??? LOLOLOL!!! I love Japanese culture and I spend half of my time in Japan” in response to the outrage. This is on-par with the overused defense of racist actions or statements, “Wait- no- but I have black friends!”. I don’t doubt that Lavigne thought she really was paying homage to Japan and its culture- but that means it had to have been ignorance and naivety that drove the creation of the song and its accompanying video… that makes it worse if you ask me.

“Birthday” by Katy Perry is another song (and music video) that sparked uproar as she plays a number of characters who show up to different birthday parties. She creates a spoof “Bar Mitzvah'' scene in which she plays a B-Mitzvah entertainer, dressed in a suit, wig, and facial prosthetics. It’s implied that she's attempting to fulfill the Jewish Man stereotype; thick, black mustache and eyebrows, larger nose, curly black hair, etc. It’s crass to say the least. When I discovered Perry’s devout Christianity, it didn’t require much thinking to determine the problem with the song, video, and source. The songs lyrics, which contain numerous sexual inuendos and references, are increasingly problematic when paired with the mockery of Jewish culture in the video. The song lyrics are essentially a booty call wrapped in cultural mockery found in the video. Yet again, it seems like ignorance was seated in the driver's seat on this one…

Reviewing these videos, I asked myself, “what gave these white, pop icons the license to comment and use cultures, estranged to their own, in their music?”. The trend around the source of the music is “white artists,” which doesn’t surprise me; the root of cultural insensitivity seems to be privilege. Why would one think twice about their song lyrics when they don't know what it feels like for someone to use and profit off of their own culture? Meghan Trainor gained a lot of popularity from “All About That Bass” using black stereotypes and forcing an image onto herself as plus-size. Avril Lavigne’s “Hello Kitty” is simply childish, and crass, using Japanese culture and people as props. Katy Perry, a devout Christian, you’d think would catch her own mistake of religious mockery before dropping “Birthday”. Beyond the horrid musicality of each of the songs lies an age-old, dark theme of cultural appropriation and white-ignorance. While white ignorance can be used to excuse the individual artists that are the face of these songs, it avoids accountability on the part of music production companies. It’s important to consider the larger scene of the music industry and capitalism in the context of these flawed musics. The pop music scene is run, not so much by the artists, but by teams of writers and boardroom-busies whose job is to help write and review these works. It’s not as if it was written, recorded, and released in one solid effort. The review process takes up a huge amount of the overall “creation process” and it’s inexcusable that every part of the song was reviewed and deemed acceptable for public consumption. If we can’t trust the industry to monetize the contents of different musics, it falls in our hands to monetize our own consumption of content (not just music). Let’s just be a little more careful before we let pop-anthems with such harmful themes like these plague our playlists.

4 notes · View notes

christinamac1 · 1 year

Text

'Barbenheimer' highlights U.S. ignorance of nuclear reality

Lack of images depicting the real-life horrors of the atomic bombs left a generation in the dark BY DON CARLETON 4 Aug 23 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2023/08/04/japan/barbie-oppenheimer-nuclear-weapons/ As we approach the 79th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, America is gripped in a confusing and (as some have argued) insensitive cultural moment. The release…

View On WordPress

0 notes

redbullseb · 3 years

Note

If you don’t mind, can I ask what’s problematic about the grid dad thing?

umm okay so i don’t think it’s like “problematic” in the cancel culture sense, but i do take issue with several facets of the term, and i was omw outside and annoyed when i made the original post so. brevity took precedence over nuance. discourse under the cut eeee

we hear it all the time about seb. seb with his grid kids, grid dad this, and grid dad that. on the surface, i suppose there’s nothing insidious about it—after all, the man IS a father, and it’s not a stretch to think he’d feel some paternal-esque emotions about the younger drivers, particularly any he might see himself reflected in, like charles. god knows i feel similarly about my friends who are younger than me at uni. however, it’s when you think about the implications of the term, as well as how it’s been used most frequently, that it starts to rub one the wrong way.

the thing is: sebastian vettel is not the father of anybody on that grid. he is not a chaperone at a birthday party. he is a driver in his own right with his own ambitions. he is more than a one-dimensional father figure in a fictional world. he doesn’t owe any of the younger drivers anything. also—he’s not that old?? daniel is a couple years younger, lewis a couple years older, and nobody is calling them “grid dad” with the same fervour.

the closest comparison i can think of is that the term is doing to him what cars 3 did to lightning mcqueen, but if u haven’t watched cars 3, that might not make sense. it’s like, it’s the prescribed cottage core pacifist aesthetic that bugs me and whenever people use it, it’s almost always to fit their characterization that he’s already stepped aside and wants to see others win more than himself. which, if u have seen any of his race weekend interviews, is not true. i’m constantly disappointed over the blatant fanonization, uwu-ificiation, what have you, of this man. from shit like “sebu is SO CUTE” (and can we talk about how that contributes to infantilizing east asian language/culture at large) to this grid dad stuff, it’s like people don’t see him as a grown fucking man who is his own person. it’s dehumanizing: “grid dad” makes him a caricature and a combination of fictional tropes.

the biggest point of contention, i think, is when it comes to mick, charles, or max, but mainly mick, just because of the history there. in general, i dislike pigeonholing him into a fatherly role for the Kids Who Need A Dad. he’s not a stand-in for michael. charles would never dream of replacing his father. we don’t know jack shit about max’s childhood situation except what he’s chosen to disclose. tbh the way people make grief porn out of these three is quite frankly discomfiting. like maybe it’s just me but i don’t think their lives are some toy story 3 tearjerker to poke and prod at insensitively?? i’m getting off track.

seb being touted as mick’s adopted father considering the actual situation with michael is disrespectful at best to both of them imo. mick, because his father is still alive and still his father, and seb, because he’s not some retired driver wanting to pass on his legacy. he’s there and he’s racing and he wants to win. barbi wrote a good post about this specifically that u can find here: https://brawn-gp.tumblr.com/post/664851672503336960/wait-let-me-explain-myself-a-bit-better-because

anyway i hope this clears some things up and adds some nuance to my previous statement! the fact that the f1 channel has actively decided to perpetuate this idea is. offputting, like they’ve also decided he’s washed and are only paying lip service to what they think will get clicks. but that's just an opinion from an obnoxious seb stannie :)

#anon #ask #tw essay #disk horse #long post

61 notes · View notes

barnesbabee · 3 years

Note

My point of was that; 1. People outside of America have every right to see Americans as "obsessed" with race while 2. Americans also have very REAL reasons to be "obsessed" with race. I understand it hurts as a white person to be ostracized by poc who say fucked up things about white people. These people have been hurt by white people to the point that they've closed themselves off to the possibility of having a positive experience with white people. Which is why they say the things they say. You misunderstood my point, I do believe Americans have right to be angry/hurt in the ways that they are. I don't think people outside America see that yet. I'm not criticizing people who say America is obsessed with race, it makes sense why you feel that way if you're not here. I'm pointing out that you're missing a vital perspective; which is the American perspective & their experience with racism.

People outside america understand, and we see it all, from what happened to george floyd, to the hate crimes against asians last year, but when people say 'americans are obsessed with race' no one ever means the actual racism and important issues that happen in real life, people mean the tiktokers bitching about 'THAT CREATOR CANNOT LIPSYNC TO THE SONG 'BLACK BARBIE' BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BLACK!!!! 😭😭😭😭', or because someone painted their face with black paint (actual black, not brown) to do a makeup look that resembled an indian god and people started calling it blackface.

The matter is Americans are turning the very pressing issue of their country into a fucking joke by being mad and offended about things that are innocent and done in good spirits.

The 'obsession with race' comes from americans criticizing every little thing someone does on the internet and somehow connecting it to their race.

Cause instead of Americans understanding that they're the ones in the wrong by looking at something and immediately labeling it as racist, they are just spreading around this stupid concept of 'everything is racist and everything is cultural appropriation' (unless aimed at white people, of course, you are very much free to make your cool tiktoks with greek gods), instead of realizing that maybe they are in the wrong.

But I'll give you another perspective. Imagine your friends live in a household with a brother that keeps pestering him. Your friend is very bothered by this. There is nothing you can do, but when he is bothered you try your best to be understanding and to hear him out. But after a while that's all he talks about, and when you talk about your brother who is nice to you, he gets offended and starts calling you insensitive, and when he goes to your house he is very upset that you didn't kick out your brother.

do you get my point? americans are forcing their hurt onto the rest of the world and inevitably passing on a message to the next generation around the world. And although it is a VERY pressing issue, unfortunately, there are very pressing issues everywhere. You could call anything insensitive, racist, appropriation if you try hard enough.

I'm not trying to discredit the hurt from people who have suffered from racism I'm just trying to explain why it bothers everyone so much that Americans are CONSTANTLY talking about race. But the worst is, not everyone gets to talk about race, or am I wrong?

5 notes · View notes

barbielore · 11 months

Text

I will be very honest that I do not know much about the holiday of Diwali, but I have seen a handful of signs locally for celebrations occurring on November 12. I am given to understand that it is a light festival though this is approximately the limit of my knowledge.

In 2006, as a part of the Festivals of the World series, Mattel released a Barbie to represent Diwali.

The Festivals of the World collection was a bit of a strange one, as there are some tonal differences between different festivals represented in the collection. For example, on the back of the box you can see Diwali being displayed alongside Kwanzaa and Oktoberfest.

This was not the first time that Mattel explored this area. I have found multiple articles referring to Mattel creating a Diwali doll in 1998 as part of an attempt to expand the Barbie line into India; I haven't been able to find this doll specifically, but there are a number of Barbie in India and Expressions of India dolls from around this era.

The articles linked above are critical of Mattel for showcasing a stereotypical and at times inaccurate/disrespectful display of Indian culture, including the claim that the 1998 Diwali Barbie I can't find had blue eyes.

Of course, there's no way to know if Mattel were earnestly trying to showcase diversity and falling short, or if they were just trying to market to a new audience. We can make our assumptions, but we don't necessarily know for sure.

If anyone who has more knowledge and understanding of this area I would really appreciate their input. My apologies if any of the above is controversial or incorrect; please correct me if so.

#barbie #barbie history #barbie collectibles #dolls of the world collection #dolls of the world #festivals of the world #diwali #diwali barbie #stereotypes #racist barbie #i don't know if racist is the right word but that's my existing tag for culturally insensitive barbies #cw cultural insensitivity

22 notes · View notes

britnxyspears · 3 years

Text

So many people tell me I'm their 'pretty friend who likes pretty stuff' almost always with 'but you're nice!' and I feel like sometimes people 'typecast' others still who are girly or like certain things... or we think they like them in a narrow way. I like sanrio in a 'pure' way so people say I'm okay and my hello kitty addiction isnt a red flag for being 'edgy' and that makes me frown a lot... kind of remind me of how before liking barbie movies a lot became sort of a positive meme people knew I liked barbie and said things like 'you dont like barbie in an eating disorder way so it's okay and cute'

I think a lot of people still have 'not like other girls' mindset about all the same stuff just it switched from 'I think you're just shallow for like this/look like this' to 'I think you're wrong kind of mentally ill/lgbt group to like this the right way'

... if someone with bpd or childhood trauma like sanrio, you see that as red flag with no other information or even attempt to understand a reason why those things linked... dont you feel like maybe that means you have a certain bias and you need to extend some understanding more often? And what that bias even protects you from? People with trauma expressed differently than yours?

If someone with eating disorders obsessed with barbie, and you immediately link those things, dont you think it sounds kind of rash and kind of insensitive to make that judgement? Think people only like barbie bc thin and not because pretty, nice, nostalgia, entertaining, anything else? Would you think that for people who like barbie and dont have eating disorder?

Think someone mean and shallow or self obsessed because they fit a narrow boxes of conventionally pretty? Especially obvious on this one, but what does that say about person and not about you ?

Too much micro-culture within subcultures are making and forcing boxes with little red flags attached at rapid speeds, I think the biggest sign of 'chronically online' is not argue over dumb things... forcing people into these weird categories based on this stuff is... there different between 'fans of XYZ are just like that... sometimes is just true.' But everyone takes it so far and it becomes incomprehensible...

Same with 'positive version' of boxes that inevitably become 'cringe' like "all bisexuals love song sweater weather" maybe true a lot, but you cant lump people like that. Similar to 'we get it, you bottom' for someone listening to a certain band... it doesnt make sense to judge people for thing like this or lump boxes... stop categorizing people like this.

Maybe is just my bisexual and trans opinion that hyper categorized to people is just wrong, reductive, and bad, making a binary of 'good' and 'wrong' of everything is backwards and wrong and reductive... and I have ocd, I automatically categorize things to feel safe, I still think its bad. I just think we need to move away from doing this...

#okay to rb

6 notes · View notes

thedoodlingdino · 5 years

Link

Warning: The Above article is written rather insensitively towards gender-nonconforming individuals, and may be triggering for some. What follows are my thoughts on a few of the remarks, as posted in response to some friends who innocently reblogged the article. ———  Good on you, Field Museum! Sue’s sex may not be known, and it is much more difficult to determine her internal sense of gender without both a time machine and a way to read her mind, but this is an important and positive thing. Fossils get nicknames all the time - notable examples among dinosaurs including Big Al, Scotty, Dakota, Willow, Leonardo - and are referred to as “he” or “she” without any knowledge of the animal’s sex or gender. It’s no less a stretch to refer to a dinosaur by non-binary pronouns. Not only that, it’s important. A couple of thoughts on the article text: “In the grand scheme, one gender-neutral dinosaur probably isn’t going to make much difference in how sex and gender are viewed by modern society, and the museum argues that the imaginary Sue the Dinosaur is entirely separate from the massive skeleton that serves as an example of T-Rex in the museum’s gallery.” Au contraire 😉 One symbol doesn’t change an entire social structure by itself. But the presence of positive symbols representative of marginalized groups displayed in a public way does make a difference. It says to people outside of the LGBT community “these people are good and acceptable and ok to associate our image with” and even more importantly says to a visiting nonbinary child “you are good and acceptable and worth having around.” I know this from experience. As a trans woman, silly as it sounds, the raptors transitioning in Jurassic Park has been meaningful to me. Sure they were villains, but it was representation in the mythology of our culture from which people like me have so long been erased. Not to mention they were totally rad, 😉 Seriously, at this point the JP raptors are probably still the only transgender characters represented in a mass produced toyline (I guess there’s also Marlin from finding Nemo, as all male clown fish start out as females. Just saying 😉). Growing up, trans kids might not have Barbie or a GI Joe like other kids, a character that shares their gender experience. I can say from experience that if all you have is a dinosaur, then that dinosaur is important. One other thought on the text: “…it is a little weird that it would matter — or that a reputable scientific establishment would dabble in trendy, unscientific gender theory.” Why it matters has already been addressed. As for the science - a stunning diversity of sexes and gender experiences have been empirically documented in both humans and the rest of the natural world. Are there social trends around gender? Sure. But nonbinary genders are not some social figment. Being trans is not a bandwagon. We’re born this way, and though the science is young, massive evidence is mounting to show that we are exactly who we’ve felt we’ve been all along despite the “trendy cultural fads” of the last 2,000 years that have tried to deny our existence. Genetics, brain morphology, embryological development research, twin studies, etc etc etc … In short, we’re a real thing yo. I hope it doesn’t feel like I’m projecting prejudice on anyone who hasn’t spoken, merely correcting some misconceptions in the article. Love to you all! ❤️🏳️‍🌈 And Field Museum, rock on!

#dinosaurs #nonbinary #transgender #field museum #sue #tyrannosaurus rex

42 notes · View notes

hollowfellforest · 7 years

Photo

The spooky mansion I live down the street from is having an estate sale. I picked up a friend and took pictures of some culturally insensitive barbie dolls.

#synchros not ok

1 note · View note

justcasualasianracism · 5 years

Text

This comment section is a goldmine

There’s a video from the Empressive Channel about Nicki Minaj being accused of cultural appropriation when she performed Chun Li on SNL. The general consensus is:

I don’t know any Asians who care!/I’m Asian (from Asia) and I don’t care!

It’s a video game character she’s dressing up as! Not a race!

It’s not appropriation! It’s appreciation!

Nicki can’t appropriate her own culture! She’s Japanese!

But one thing I kept finding was:

But Asians are always appropriating/disrespecting black culture!

There’s a lot to unload there, but let’s focus on this gem which is a lot more specific:

I don’t want to pit POC against each other because that’s counter-productive to any sort of progress. I will however, acknowledge that blackface is still being used in overseas Asian media but I want to give some more context to that because I feel that there’s certain things that are often overlooked and need to be addressed before people jump to conclusions that we’re all anti-black. But first, I wanna point out is that the user who made this comment in this screenshot specifically points at East Asia however, as a SEA, I know it also sadly exists in other regions of Asia too. And hell, blackface isn’t exclusively an Asian phenomenon (have you seen Black Pete during Christmastime in the Netherlands?) but I can’t speak for the rest of the globe. Some of what I’m about to say might apply to other non-Asian societies that practice blackface as a form of entertainment though.

There’s no denying that America has a very terrible history of unjust treatment towards the black community from slavery and segregation all the way to racist characterizations in the media and it doesn’t even stop there. Asia does not share the same past as America simply from the fact that our contact with black people has historically been very minimal, if not, non-existent. Even today, we have very homogeneous Asian societies and consequently, we don’t have exposure to different perspectives, experiences and identities, namely that of an African-American. Additionally, it’s unreasonable to expect each foreign country to have an extensive understanding of American history which blackface is rooted in because the world doesn’t revolve around the US. Hell, it’s not like the US public school system really gives you an in-depth look of other cultures or their histories either. As such, the prominence of blackface all across Asia stems from a lack of awareness and education about the plight of African-Americans. I’m not excusing this practice because it’s undoubtedly insensitive and toxic, but again, I’m just giving you context that is more often than not, glossed over. And that is not to say ALL Asians are ignorant of the connotations of blackface. As an Asian-American who grew up *ding ding ding* America and as a result, have been taught in academia about its historical context, I find blackface extremely offensive. This isn’t just the “exception to the rule” type of thing, there’s many other Asians (some from overseas but many are Asian-American) who think blackface is extremely racist too but I find that people choose to not recognize this about is and instead, are quick to call us the enemy like the user who made this very awful comment about invalidating the Asian-American experience. Why can’t we just work together and be allies though? We need to educate one another and listen to what needs to be said instead of automatically turning against each other within the snap of a finger. This attempt to paint an entire race as anti-black is a very harmful generalization. I’m not here for anti-black sentiments and I’m not here for anti-Asian bs either, but this need to invalidate the Asian-American experience because you’ve seen Asians do something disrespectful to your own culture and therefore we’re all bad is well, extremely detrimental. We shouldn’t be fighting against each other, but we should fight against the injustices of POC together instead.

Now back to "Chun Li:” this came out long ago, but it’s still one of the most recent and biggest forms of casual Asian racism in American pop culture that I can think of. What’s more is that in this age of social media, I’ve seen non-Asians trying to speak on my behalf saying that it’s not appropriation. If not that, it’s other Asians being accepting of it as if they are the sole representative of my race. None of you speak for me. For us who find fault in “Chun Li” as well as other parts of Nicki’s career, we’ve pretty much been silenced because people made the decision to not hear what we have to say. It’s just your everyday, typical reaction to anything that deals with Asian-American issues, that is, it doesn’t matter. Nicki, as talented and as iconic as she is, does not care about us beyond the chopsticks in our hair (what the fuck) and using bastardized forms of different East Asian cultures to look the part of a “Harajuku Barbie” (what the fuck pt 2). That’s not appreciation; it’s a shallow perpetuation of our “otherness.” We’ll touch on that some other time though because that’s going to be a long read.

#necki #blackface #chun li

0 notes

harrisonkitteridge-blog · 8 years

Text

Sherlock Season 4 – TL;DR: The Fanfiction is Better

SPOILERS AND PALATE-CLEANSING FIC RECS FOLLOW

Season 4 of Sherlock was always going to be a tough sell for me, because the moment they revealed “she’s a secret assassin!” I stopped buying the Mary Watson character. It’s what film critic, Mark Kermode, calls the “Meg Ryan is a helicopter pilot/Keanu Reeves is an architect” problem. Amanda Abbington was just not believable to me as a spec ops assassin, and she wasn’t equipped to perform the action convincingly. And all that was before the problems with the story were even revealed. After Mary shot Sherlock, every time she turned up on the screen, my stomach clenched, because, as presented, she was capable of anything – demonstrating profoundly antisocial tendencies: lying, manipulation, self-serving extreme violence, and disregard for human life. Her total rehabilitation was simply not plausible to me and probably wouldn’t have been even if its foundation hadn’t been the unbelievably ludicrous, glib assertion: “That was surgery.” (Not how guns and bullets work!) Watching her subsequent chumminess with Sherlock, whom she shot in the chest and killed (he flatlined), made me feel like I was being gaslighted. In my mind, it wasn’t good enough for her to say, “I only hurt Sherlock because I love John so much I can’t lose him!” Go down to any battered women’s shelter and you’ll hear similar stories of abusers’ rationalisations for beating up the person their property dared to smile at in the grocery store parking lot. Watching Mary joke and laugh with the people she’d victimised so horribly while continuing to marginalise John made much of The Six Thatchers almost unwatchable for me.

I understand that the undercurrent of intimate partner abuse in the Watson family was wholly unintentional, and it reminds me of the criticisms of 50 Shades of Gray. In both cases, two-dimensional characters (“Action Barbie” and “Sexy Troubled Billionaire”) there solely to serve the plot – not function as decision-making protagonists in their own lives – were the problem. (Yes, I just compared Sherlock to 50 Shades of Gray. At least 50 Shades of Gray had the excuse of a novice writer wrangling with the knottiness of a BDSM relationship as an excuse. Moftiss should know better.) Nevertheless, as much as I disliked the Mary Watson character, as much side eye as I gave her and John’s frankly dubious “love story”, I was appalled by Moftiss icing her so Sherlock could figure out he needs to check his ego. She was just there to sacrifice herself for Sherlock after his douchery got a bullet fired at him and to give John something to shake and sob about. The entire storyline of their “strong female character” was essentially a morality play aimed at teaching Sherlock about the dangers of hubris and a fulcrum to lever up the man-tear quotient. Then they turned their BAMF assassin into the benevolent spirit providing emotional instruction via DVD from beyond the veil. *vomiting emoji*

The Lying Detective at least provided relief from all the incoherent punching and shooting and rappelling of The Six Thatchers, even if it brought with it the lazy construct of the hallucinated spouse as an expression of grief (for real, though, the handling of the Mary Watson character and storyline is a masterclass in what not to do – so incredibly misjudged). One of the major issues I have with Moftiss’s writing is their careless, insensitive handling of serious mental health issues. Using auditory and visual hallucinations as shortcuts to say “I’m devastated by the loss of my wife” really rubbed me the wrong way. John wasn’t just talking to Mary in his head or forgetting she was dead, which happens to many people who lose a loved one suddenly. He was seeing her, hearing her – he couldn’t separate her spectre from reality. Those are not manifestations of grief; they are signs of profound psychological disturbance and distress that require urgent medical intervention, maybe even hospitalisation. They could have tied John’s extreme symptoms to sleep-deprivation from having to deal with Rosie at all hours of the night. The sleep-deprivation could have been exacerbated by insomnia brought on by feelings of guilt. But, no. They did it because real grief, presented the way a well-adjusted, middle-aged adult would experience it just wasn’t sexy enough.

I never found the “high-functioning sociopath” line funny, but thought they might take it to an interesting place. What is sociopathy? How does it manifest itself? How would it manifest itself in Sherlock Holmes? Why does Sherlock label himself this way? Was he misdiagnosed (he’s obviously not a sociopath)? Was he self-diagnosed? I don’t think Moftiss ever genuinely considered how having a personality disorder would affect a character’s behaviour outside of giving him funny quirks and making him a bit rude. “High-functioning sociopath” was just there as a clapback to Anderson then as something gangster to say before Sherlock shot Magnusson in the face. They never thought it all the way through. By way of comparison, Arthur Conan Doyle described Sherlock Holmes as a law unto himself, as the final arbiter. He was also called “masterful” – able to impose his will on others. When he chose, he had “an ingratiating quality” and could easily earn people’s trust. He was also an accomplished actor and master of disguise, who was able to fool even his dear Watson. There is a grandiose, manipulative psychology at work there that is knitted together with a deep sense of fair play and commitment to justice. While sometimes churlish and short-tempered, he could be profoundly empathetic. He also had nervous breakdowns, what we call major depressive episodes today, and used hard drugs to self-medicate. Sherlock Holmes’s psychology is full of fascinating contradictions. Everything Moftiss needed was in the original text, but they never got beneath the surface. So, while they’ve hit on some of these traits, they’ve never been fully integrated into a complete character because I just don’t think they’ve made the effort to understand mental illness and related drug abuse. There’s actually an interview of Steven Moffat describing Sherlock as “clinically insane”. The fundamental misunderstanding of what that means is why The Final Problem ultimately failed.

The appearance of the evil, secret sister telegraphed that we were heading into telenovela territory, and I wasn’t surprised by the contrivance of the Maze of Moral Abyss, all those macabre labours for Sherlock, John and Mycroft to perform – a steroidal re-hash of The Great Game. It was like something out of a 90s action film – The Rock meets Die Hard With a Vengeance, and I watched it as such. I half expected Bruce Willis or some other 90s throwback to come bounding in, armed to the teeth, start flinging grenades and just command them to shoot their way out. Even so, The Final Problem was the best of the three episodes this season – at least them spending nearly the entire episode at Sherrinford meant that it was cohesive tonally. I still don’t quite know what to make of them choosing to ground the entire plot – all those games, all those deaths – in Eurus’s cry for help. It is possible to humanise a psychopath within the constraints of their diagnosis. They have inner lives that aren’t limited to the monstrous, but they’re not like us – the emo play is always a loser – you can only out-manipulate them. They have an internally consistent view of the world, and once you understand the rules they follow, you can predict their behaviour and outflank them (it’s the basis of criminal profiling), but you have to empathise with them. Do you see how understanding all that not only helps with characterisation but buttresses the plotting and would have avoided the anti-climax of the ending? Answering the question: “What does Eurus really want?” then having Sherlock, John and Mycroft connive a way to give it to her would have been much more interesting.

The obvious pop cultural point of connection with The Final Problem is The Silence of the Lambs. We all were drawn to Hannibal Lecter – we couldn’t help liking him and felt conflicted about it. At the end of the film when Clarice says she knows he won’t come after her because he would consider it “rude” – now that’s interesting. What is Eurus’s “That would be rude”? My inability to answer that question gets to the heart of my problem with Sherlock – I don’t feel like I understand any of the characters or what is motivating them. Superimposing the tropes of storytelling onto the episodes and trying to read between the lines is the only way to make sense of them. They’ve been building to this Eurus confrontation for literally half a decade, and it still fell flat. They gave her whole backstory, and I still don’t understand her. By way of comparison, The Silence of the Lambs is 2 hours and 18 minutes long, and Anthony Hopkins appears on screen for only fifteen minutes, yet we all understood exactly who Hannibal Lecter was, what he was capable of, what he wanted and why. I’ll grant that The Silence of the Lambs is an unfairly high bar, but it provided a clear blueprint for the complex, charismatic, psychopathic serial killer pulling the strings. At the end of The Final Problem, Moftiss asks us to believe that the answer to Eurus’s “problem” was the love of her family. She obviously coveted Sherlock’s attention enough to murder poor Victor Trevor and set her elaborate stage, but anyone who understands even the basic contours of her psychology knows her shaking and crying in a burnt out house and needing a hug from her brother isn’t how that story ends.

I seriously wonder how much better Sherlock would have turned out if at some point in the last 5 years Moftiss had just googled Cluster B Personality Disorders and spent a few days boning up. They wouldn’t have made such a hash of Mary, and Eurus wouldn’t have been “Female Moriarty Who Lost Her Bottle in the End” – utterly anticlimactic. Or did they do the research, but they just couldn’t give a woman the minerals to be a proper villain?

To be clear: I wouldn’t have many of the complaints I’ve laid out if I hadn’t constantly been told Sherlock is the cleverest show on television. It’s not. It never was. The plotting of the first two seasons got it pretty close to being included in that conversation, but it’s no The Sopranos, no The Wire, no Mad Men. At this point, I’d say any workmanlike police procedural has it beat, hands down. Remember all those arguments about which was the better show, Elementary or Sherlock? Well, Elementary won. And that unsexy police procedural structure is why. The show has an identity, a solid foundation – it’s consistent. Moftiss can’t seem to decide what Sherlock is about, and that’s why so much of Season 4 felt like lurching in and out of a Jason Statham film, a Masterpiece Theatre offering and a Lifetime movie. At least The Final Problem managed to break that pattern. It was essentially the Sherlock Holmes origin story, and it took us back to the ancestral home, back to the first tragedy. Even just visually, we were clearly in Skyfall, which shows that Ralph Jones picked up exactly what Moftiss were putting down when he called them out on the “James Bonding” of Sherlock. (The literary beef that ensued was entertaining, and Jones bodied Gatiss with “The Second Letter” – the cipher in the cipher was the mortal wound.)

The argument about the Bonding of the franchise was really about a lack of depth – the flash of fight sequences over the substance of watching a precise but troubled mind at work – and Jones clearly made a valid point. Gatiss shooting back that Sherlock being a BAMF is canon didn’t address the heart of the criticism. I think the Daniel Craig Bond films are much better than anything on offer in post-Season 2 Sherlock. Even with all the camp, sneering baddies and always slightly ridiculous plots, they never got anywhere near anything as radioactively, intergalactically idiotic as “That was surgery.” In a Bond film, when someone is shot in the chest at close range, it’s TO SHOOT THEM IN THE CHEST SO THEY STOP EXISTING. If they manage to survive, it’s a bit of a turn-up. Guns and bullets don’t magically become surgical implements. Yet Sherlock used this physics-defying rebuke of basic human anatomy to convince intelligent, educated people to go along with the rehabilitation of Mary Watson (why they chose to make her silly storyline so important is baffling). They then doubled down on that narrative in The Six Thatchers, piling on a barrage of action that was essentially extraneous to the story. All to get us to the moment in the aquarium where Mary dives in front of a bullet to save Sherlock, who for some unfathomable reason decided to talk over any attempts to pacify Norbury and all but commanded her to shoot him. Then Mary was kind of a ghost but not really. Then they introduced a long-lost evil sister and an island prison. Do all that if you want; just don’t insult my intelligence by smugly telling me it’s clever then hide behind Arthur Conan Doyle’s skirts when you get called out on it. If from the beginning Moftiss had just owned up to having wanted to write a glossy, slightly absurd, mainstream actioner with soliloquizing villains, I would have gladly gone along with it. But I’ve continuously been told I’m watching The Usual Suspects or some other complex thriller with a sense of humour when it’s clear I’m watching Bad Boys 2 with British accents. Again: that’s fine in the name of pure entertainment; just know that insisting it’s clever feels like a straight-up troll. At some point all the cognitive dissonance had to become too much to bear.

So what’s the result of all this?

The fanfiction is better.

Even relatively inexperienced fanfic writers with a limited set of tools at least attempted to flesh out the characters and give them backstories and lives, fully formed personalities. It didn’t always work, but the effort was appreciated. The superstars of the genre used the hiatus to write stories that surpassed anything Moftiss gave us in Season 4, particularly in terms of character development. When characters’ motivations drive the plot, the story is not only more cohesive narratively, it’s more engaging and lasting because all the shocks and gasps are earned and move beyond cheap manipulation for the sake of entertainment. At the heart of the narrative success of the top-tier fanfiction is empathy. The writers got inside the characters’ heads and asked, “Who are these people? Where are they from? What experiences shaped them? What do they want? What are they afraid of? Whom do they love?” Moftiss seemed to reverse engineer everyone’s behaviour and emotional reactions by working backwards from the plot – everyone is just there to be manipulated, to be made to speak or act because the plot demands it, so those questions can’t really be answered. That labyrinth Eurus runs Sherlock, John and Mycroft through is a microcosm of the entire franchise. If I didn’t read fanfiction, maybe I could have gone along for the ride with Moftiss, but I knew there were fully realised characters out there whose hurt wasn’t manufactured, whose choices mattered beyond setting up a gag or a plot twist, who were protagonists in their own lives no matter how small their roles were.

Not even Sherlock escapes this poor treatment.

Here’s what exactly none of the plot-driven, post-Season 3 Sherlock fanfiction I’ve read failed to consider: Sherlock dealing with the fallout of having been captured and tortured in Serbia then being shot by Mary. Do you know why they all went there? Because being the victim of that kind of brutal violence tends to affect people psychologically, and those effects ripple into the lives of their friends and family. But in Moftiss Land, Sherlock being chained and beaten at the opening of the third season was just there so we could watch Mycroft crack wise while wearing a fur hat. Mary shooting him was meant to “Red Wedding” us, nothing more. There were no lingering physical or psychological effects from Sherlock having been tortured. It’s never come up again, not even as an aside. Really think about that and what it means about the quality of the writing, about the depth of the characterisation, about the empathy being deployed towards the eponymous hero. Sherlock is obviously the character Moftiss hold in the highest esteem, but Season 3 proved Sherlock is just a prop to them – their most beloved prop but still just a thing, a toy. The only real narrative through lines in Sherlock are the twists, and they’re the only elements that aren’t played right on the surface. Everything else is meant to be taken at face value. There is no subtlety, no subtext. There are Easter eggs and other markers laid down mostly for plot payoffs – a puzzle to solve – but no emotional depth, no narrative consistency. Sherlock is and always has been elementary – there were just too few episodes for most of us to suss it out sooner.

A few people saw through all the flash of Sherlock from the very beginning, and I tip my hat to them for being far more perceptive than I. (If they’re running around being insufferable and shouting, “I told you so!” they’ve more than earned the right.) The first two seasons were a fresh, shiny new take on the somewhat musty image of the great detective, and we all got to watch Benedict Cumberbatch take command and come into his own. But the real reason those early episodes were of such a higher quality was the low budgets: they handcuffed Moftiss. They couldn’t get all the helicopters, Aston Martins and rappelling super soldiers on their juvenile wish list, so the plot twists actually had to be interesting not just turned up to eleven. We all mistakenly assumed that character development that would match the level of the plotting would come later. What those early critics of Sherlock understood (and what has come to pass) was that the reverse would happen: the plotting would sink to meet the level of the poor characterisation. What most of us took for slight faux pas we could overlook, they realised were portents of the slide in quality we’ve all witnessed. They knew Moftiss weren’t to be trusted to dock the ship, and they were absolutely right. Once Moftiss were truly given free rein, the true heart of Sherlock was revealed, and it’s just confused but lacks the self-awareness to realise or do anything about it.

Being “the smart kids” is part of the hardcore Sherlock fandom’s identity, and I don’t see many of them being able to admit that Moftiss bamboozled them. (We all got took, guys.) The capricious characterisation, careening plot and disjointed editing have thus far been interpreted as intentional, as Moftiss hiding the ball, as further evidence of their diabolical cleverness – all the incoherence taken as a collection of hidden clues to be thoroughly investigated. Even though Season 3 made it clear the story was spinning out of control and Season 4 has seen it hurl itself off a cliff (but only just miss smashing its head on the rocks), much of the earnest analysis will likely continue. Many of the casuals are in it for the slick deductions and probably embraced all the high-octane thrills. (There will be an inevitable backlash, though – you can’t fool all the people all the time.) The excellent ratings of Season 4 mean the bean counters will want a Season 5, or at the very least more Christmas Specials. Enough of the audience is probably still on board to justify it financially. I can only hope Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman have enough sense to withhold their participation. The Final Problem wasn’t the unmitigated disaster I was expecting, but everything from Season 3 onwards has made it clear the show can’t live up to its early potential and that the problems with the storytelling are baked in. So, it’s best this latest Sherlock Holmes incarnation just come to a close before it becomes a career-devouring black hole.

Thank goodness the fanfiction provides someplace the characters can live on.

Fics to Cleanse the Palate

TRUTH MAY VARY by @amalnahurriyeh

Seven years after Sherlock's death, John's life is normal.

And then it isn't.

I don’t usually rec incomplete work, but this is close enough to being done to be satisfying. If Season 3 onward had shown even a fraction of the emotional maturity of this story, we would be in a very different place.

Read on AO3.

STRAIGHT BOY PAIN by @glenmoresparks

Sherlock is in pain. Billy Kinkaid, the Camden garrotter and best man Sherlock knows, diagnoses it. Ademar Silver, a male prostitute in south London, attempts to treat it. Lestrade, kindly Detective Inspector of New Scotland Yard, doesn’t notice it. Eventually, John Watson, healer and registered medical doctor, cures it.

And a beautician called Penny paints Sherlock’s toenails.

Read on AO3.

FAN MAIL by @scullyseviltwin

“WatsonChick143 has been rather maniacal in her commenting as of late... she’s left comments on everything you’ve posted John, something so obvious can’t have escaped even your attention."

A fan of John’s blog graduates into stalking.

Read on AO3.

THE YELLOW POPPIES by @silentauroriamthereal

Sherlock is threatened and assaulted in the hospital immediately after having been shot in the heart, first by Mary, then by Magnussen. As he recovers at Baker Street with John and plans the attack on Appledore with Mycroft, he fights to work through the trauma caused by these two visits. Set during His Last Vow.

Read on AO3.

And in an act of shameless self-promotion:

BEFORE HOLMES MET WATSON by Meeeeeeeeeeeeee!

What does it mean to be a detective with no cases to solve? Sherlock Holmes tries not to ponder this question as he distracts himself from his professional failings with bare-knuckle boxing at an underground fight club and vials of cocaine and morphine. John Watson spends his days in an operating theatre on an Army base in Afghanistan, doing his best to patch up the wounded and failing more often than he'd like. The dark, violent worlds in which both men choose to live complicate their romantic lives and cause them terrible suffering but set them on paths that are destined to cross.

Read on Wattpad or Tablo OR download the Ebook on my website.

I’m always looking for recs, so PLEASE ADD A FIC YOU THINK ISN’T GETTING ENOUGH LOVE.

#sherlock #s4 #the final problem

25 notes · View notes