THEME BY PISTACHI-O

When The Media Treats White Suspects And Killers Better Than Black Victicms. 

politicalsexkitten:

curvesincolor:

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

via The Huffington Post.

"It has nothing to do with race"

mademoiselleviola:

onionjulius:

troius:

onionjulius:

In addition to that Jaime/Cersei scene, there have been some think piees surfacing of late that are very critical of all the rape and violence on Game of Thrones. I’m curious what your thoughts are on it.

I don’t know. It is what it is. It’s a world of mammoths, giants, and brothers fucking sisters. I think people can enjoy it because it’s not based in reality. If it was based in contemprary times, people would feel guilty thinking, “This is great!” but with this backdrop, you can lose yourself a little bit.

This is from an interview with Lena Headey in The Daily Beast. Please note that I’m not tagging his post anything except with tag warnings because I’m not trying to bash anyone’s favorite actor or whatever. But I do really really hate this line of thought and I really hate that this is the kind of show that Game of Thrones is. Making you ready and willing to ignore atrocity is the worst use of escapism I can imagine.

Well, I’d think it pretty problematic from somebody whose job it was to analyze and review the show, as opposed to somebody who makes their living acting in it.

Idk, what was she supposed to say, “I felt really uncomfortable acting the scene, I think it sends the wrong message, the director and writers were incompetent at best if not simply exploitative”? You very rarely see actors criticizing their own show’s faults, just like nobody working for a company would say “our marketing sucks” or  ”the designers f*cked that one up”.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s far from ideal, but I’m not sure what else Ms. Headey could have said. She had no control over what goes on in the scene.

I don’t expect actors to not tow the line, but I can’t say that I think towing the line is anything automatically admirable either. I didn’t expect her to say anything different, I know this is always how it goes, I’m not exactly new to this, but I think I can still have feelings about it. I don’t think all the business that’s involved in a TV show is more important than the ethics, that’s well within my ambit as part of the consumer public. I don’t have to conform my feelings to market sense, as I see it.

I know that actors don’t usually speak out, I do know that.

I also don’t expect actors to go against the hand that feed them, but with that said, the whole approach to that scene seriously annoy me, and it annoys me even more that ncw and alex graves have been torn apart for it, while lena headey got away with it while saying exactly the same. bullcrap. Maybe that’s just me, but since Cersei was the victim in this and she plays the character, I expected a lot better (natalie dormer said LH was conflicted about it, so she came across a lot better through natalie’s eyes than on her own interviews).

There were other ways to express neutrality to this. What they all said is that they’re surprised the audience “overreacted”. They could all have been more diplomatic and just stick to “it wasn’t meant to come across that way” and let it lie. But nope. So yeah, I do hold the actors responsible for talking crap as well, as they really didn’t have to.

(d&d are a 1000 times worst though, cause it’s their show, they write it and every scene has to be approved by them first, yet they said nothing and when confronted they refused to.)

God I wish someone could make D&D give actual answers to this stuff, instead they always seem to hide behind their cast/crew. Not a fan.

I bet Lena is not voicing her own qualms, if she has them, because she thinks people will get on hr for speaking bad about the show. I don’t know if that’s fans or the producers or what, but if what Nat Dormer said is true, there’s no use going that well any more for answers.

http://onionjulius.tumblr.com/post/89371175314/troius-onionjulius-in-addition-to-that 

troius:

troius:

onionjulius:

In addition to that Jaime/Cersei scene, there have been some think piees surfacing of late that are very critical of all the rape and violence on Game of Thrones. I’m curious what your thoughts are on it.

I don’t know. It is what it is. It’s a world of…

I get that. Reading your post again I can see that it’s really more a matter of the show itself. To which I can’t really disagree…the things I like about it, and the books, are that the characters are very real, and are comprehensible even outside of the context.

So yeah, I’d agree with you about the impact of the larger sentiment that GoT is best enjoyed outside of reality. Sorry for missing the point of your post.

Sorry for being snappish, I have such a bad temper and I know it makes me difficult.  I’m not saying I hate Lena Headey or anything or think we all need to boycot her (whatever that would even mean), I just wish this wasn’t a show about which that could even be said. I do understand that it’s weird to talk against a show that’s gotten you a lot of notoriety and fame and money, though I think some people use their clout to do it anyway, but yeah I understand and I didn’t exactly expect otherwise. But the truth is it’s all still disappointing to me, regardless of who said it, because what was said is probably what’s true for a lot of people.

"I love this show, but let’s be honest: Matthew Weiner has not engaged with race as enthusiastically as he’s engaged with feminism, anti-Semitism, the changing of the generational guard, and other subjects. I think he’s afraid of it. He’s afraid of doing it wrong. He’s afraid of doing it badly. And this fear has come through in the show."  - “Mad Men Recap: A Shameful, Shameful Day

"But Aren’t They Old?!" Or the Pervasive Problem of Ageist Prejudice in the Media  

ms-obsessive-compulsive:

      “So you want these characters to get together? As in have sex? But aren’t they old?” And with my friend’s words, came my realization that we have, as a society, a massive problem with ageist prejudice.

       My introduction to fandom started at the bright young age of 14 when I joined the “24” forums on the fox website. Entirely consumed with the 2 middle aged couples on the show [even then], I was largely oblivious to the fact that me and the 5 other people I interacted with were a rare bunch. Everyone else was far too concerned with the younger male protagonist’s love life, and pitting his various love interests against each other.

       It wasn’t until I started joining more fandoms and talking to friends outside of forums, that I increasingly felt marginalized. My friends would tease me for caring more for the older characters then the younger, and finding a community of people who preferred the Elsie Hughes and Charles Carsons to Sybil and Tom Bransons became like finding a needle in a haystack. And the problems don’t end there.

       Even in fandom, there has been a dramatic increase lately in ageist behavior from fans who attack older characters and attack others for liking them, despite the lack of screen time that these older characters already get. It’s awful.  And I’ve had enough. 

Read More

Reblogging because while I don’t watch The Walking Dead, I do (er, did) watch Game of Thrones, and with that in mind I quote from the above post:

Game of Thrones probably does the best. And by the best, it has the numbers. GoT garners a wide cast of characters ranging from teens to their 50’s-60’s. However, most of these older actors are male and the show’s treatment of their female characters, particularly Michelle Fairley’s Catelyn Stark, is troublesome at best and reprehensible at worst. The top 2 promoted actors with the most popularity? Emilia Clarke and Kit Harrington. Both in their 20’s.*

TBH I think that while the writers don’t get Catelyn at all (and IMO don’t really like her especially much), her age isn’t a huge problem for them. But it clearly is for the marketing department. This is why I never reblog all those Game of Thrones Vanity Fair shoots. It’s always Emilia and Kit, Lena and Peter. I’m sure 18 year old Sophie Turner will join them soon . But it would never in a million years be Catelyn Stark/Michelle Fairley on the cover, never ever ever. She’s just too old, there’s, according to conventional wisdom, no sex there, so nobody cares.

And that makes me really salty.

this is not to gloss over the fact that they completely & totally dropped the ball re: race representation & conversations besides just kinda giving a nod once a season though!!

Race is where Mad Men fails so hard. I was talking about this with someone at work who was like, “That’s just a product of the setting” but the setting is an intentional choice too, you know? Like, if you restricted the setting to only the office you don’t get Betty and Trudy and so on, but if you include the ad men’s homes, you do. Your inclusion choices are intentional!

The Best Networks Have Terrible Records On Diversity 

This was all so good that I had to have it on my blog. This is exactly the reason why I am so wary of True Detective, and it’s certainly not that I am *snooty nose* so above and beyond liking shows where troubled white dudes are at the center. I enjoyed Breaking Bad and Mad Men is a big love (although I think the profile of Mad Men women is much higher than Breaking Bad women … and from what I can tell, True Detective women …). But I just don’t know if I am in the mood any more.

And the reason for that is that somewhere along the line I have come to really resent HBO for saying that it’s the best shit on TV given that it’ll never be the best shit for someone like me. I resent Showtime and  FX and USA too, and when Elizabeth Moss’ Peggy Olson is no longer around I’ll probably resent the hell out of AMC as well.

fatpinkcast:


With one exception over the course of four decades, HBO has not aired an original one-hour drama series created by a woman.
With one exception over the course of four decades, HBO has not aired an original one-hour drama or dramatic miniseries creatively led at its debut by a person of color. That exception is more than 21 years old (see below for more details).
Just under 8 percent of HBO’s original dramas and miniseries came from women, and 2.6 percent came from people of color. Less than 5 percent of its one-hour dramas — one of the most high-profile entertainment products in the world — were created by women. That’s over the course of nearly 40 years.

Read more at the Huffington Post:  Who Creates Drama At HBO? Very Few Women Or People Of Color

fatpinkcast:

With one exception over the course of four decades, HBO has not aired an original one-hour drama series created by a woman.

With one exception over the course of four decades, HBO has not aired an original one-hour drama or dramatic miniseries creatively led at its debut by a person of color. That exception is more than 21 years old (see below for more details).

Just under 8 percent of HBO’s original dramas and miniseries came from women, and 2.6 percent came from people of color. Less than 5 percent of its one-hour dramas — one of the most high-profile entertainment products in the world — were created by women. That’s over the course of nearly 40 years.

Read more at the Huffington Post:  Who Creates Drama At HBO? Very Few Women Or People Of Color

Eugenie Bouchard would date Justin Bieber, but why do we need to know that right now? by NewsCenterd 

newscenterd:

Eugenie Bouchard would date Justin Bieber, but why do we need to know that right now? http://newscenterd.com/eugenie-bouchard-would-date-justin-bieber-but-why-do-we-need-to-know-that-right-now

Eugenie Bouchard would date Justin Bieber, but why do we need to know that right now?

image

Eugenie Bouchard won the biggest match of her life to get into the semifinals of the Australian Open, then had to talk about her celebrity crush, because …

If you haven’t heard of Eugenie Bouchard, it might be time to know who she is. The 19-year-old Canadian knocked off 14th-seeded Ana Ivanovic Tuesday in the women’s quarterfinals of Australian Open and will next face Li Na in the semifinals, putting her just two wins away from her first major title.

However, it’s a shame that the first way you’ll hear about her is probably via this interview:

Yes, Eugenie Bouchard would date Justin Bieber. Although I am not personally a Belieber, I think that’s a pretty reasonable response from someone who, like Bieber, is a 19-year-old Canadian — although it was met with joking boos from the fans in Melbourne.

I think the real question is, considering this woman has just reached the semifinals of a major event, her biggest achievement ever, why the hell are we asking her who she wants to date? The Australian interviewer makes it seem as if this is a begrudging question somebody else wanted her to ask, which somehow makes this even worse. Bouchard, of course, is embarrassed.

It turns out, you see, that Bouchard is quite pretty. This does not make her unique, in that many talented athletes of both genders are young and good-looking. However, because she’s female, this apparently needs to be the predominant lens through with we see her. That seems kind of unfair to the whole tennis thing, which is why we’re supposedly talking about her in the first place. Sure, there’s a cottage industry in delving into the private lives of male athletes, but it’s a footnote. (With the famous Katherine Webb exception.) We’d never ask a male athlete this same question in this same scenario. We just wouldn’t, and you can’t act like we ever would.

I guess my point is if we’re going to force a woman to talk about her celebrity crush, can’t we wait until slightly after the greatest athletic accomplishment of her life?

I guess my point is: I would like it if sports-players in postgame interviews were allowed to talk about the sports they just played, like this guy tried to.

Read more here: Eugenie Bouchard would date Justin Bieber, but why do we need to know that right now?

19 year old pretty blonde girl = STARS IN SPORTS MEDIA’S EYES. Same with Maria, same with Anna Kournakova, same all the time.

  • Hasbro: Let's make a new MLP cartoon for all the little girls to enjoy!
  • College Age Guys: Hey, this show is pretty cool!
  • Hasbro: Wow, you guys weren't our intended demographic, but that's cool! We'll just throw in some references that will make you feel more included and here, have some cool merchandise we know you'll like!
  • College Age Guys: Wow, thanks!
  •  ~meanwhile~
  • Warner Brothers: Let's make some new DC cartoons for all the little boys to enjoy!
  • College Age Ladies: Hey, these shows are pretty cool!
  • Warner Brothers: WELP. Looks like no one likes these shows, guess we'll just have to cancel them.
  • College Age Ladies: WAIT! We like them! And we'd love merchandise to show our support!
  • Warner Brothers: ....you're not little boys, why should we listen to you?
stfusexists:

frantzfandom:

sourcedumal:

boygeorgemichaelbluth:

lolnaaaahbruh:

But why would you even ask a Black historian to do this, though?

oh thats how they find tokens

WOOOOOW

yo they were really tryna find someone to coon for them huh?

So the next time you turn on the news and there’s a black “expert” saying that some racist thing a white person did wasn’t a big deal, consider the mass email that the network had to send to find that one person to wave away racism. 

stfusexists:

frantzfandom:

sourcedumal:

boygeorgemichaelbluth:

lolnaaaahbruh:

But why would you even ask a Black historian to do this, though?

oh thats how they find tokens

WOOOOOW

yo they were really tryna find someone to coon for them huh?

So the next time you turn on the news and there’s a black “expert” saying that some racist thing a white person did wasn’t a big deal, consider the mass email that the network had to send to find that one person to wave away racism. 

America Does Not Give A Damn When Black Children Are Shot 

letterstomycountry:

Last night, 13 people, including a 3-year old boy and several teenage kids, were shot in a mass shooting in Chicago.  

And nobody cares.

When the Sandy Hook shootings took place, the nation mourned.  The next day, the country came to a standstill.  Every news station was talking about it.  The families of the victims were inundated with gifts and money from around the country.  The outpouring of material support was so overwhelming that Newtown had to decline further gifts because they literally had no place to put them.  They had so many donations that they had to give away much of what was given.

When the Navy Yard shootings occurred recently, again, it was front page news.  National news outlets were immediately analyzing the situation.  Timelines were established.  Profiles of the victims, as they became known, were run.  Profiles of the shooter followed.  The shooting dominated the 24-hour news cycle.

And yet when 13 people get shot in Chicago, the nation barely takes notice.  At best, it is relegated an interesting tidbit placed in the side-bar.

Here is the front page of NBC News:

image

Fox News:

image

The New York Times:

image

The LA Times:

image

CNN, to their credit, appears to be the only national news outlet which felt this story was worth front-page exposure, though I highly doubt it will be there for long:

image

Why is it that when 13 people get mowed down in a Black neighborhood in Chicago, including a 3-year old boy who was shot in the face, it is not a national day of mourning?  Where is the outpouring of support for the families of the victims?  Where are the touching profiles by news anchors about the lives of the people that were shot?  Why is it a national tragedy when 26 people get shot in Newtown Connecticut, or 13+ people get shot in the Navy Yard in D.C., but the nation barely bats an eye when 13 people get shot in Chicago?

Perhaps it’s about expectations.  We expect people in poor Black neighborhoods to get shot, so it doesn’t shock us.  But when people get shot in a cozy white suburb, or in a military installation, it is a big surprise.  These areas are supposed to be safe, unlike low-income minority neighborhoods, riddled with idleness, crime, and violence.

But think about the implications of that statement.  This means that culturally, we value the lives of poor Black people less.  We simply don’t care when poor Black people die because we expect it to happen.  If only they had been lucky enough to be born White, or in a better neighborhood, they might be worth more sympathy.

Some might argue that people living in crime-ridden neighborhoods have only themselves to blame.  But mobility costs money.  Structural racism makes it difficult for many people in poor Black neighborhoods to lift themselves out of poverty.  And it’s not for lack of trying:  83% of children from low-income families have at least one working parent.  So the old “culture of poverty” canard does not explain the plight of people in low-income communities.

What’s really going on here is that America does not give a damn when Black children are shot.  Or about Black bodies in general.  There will be no national outpouring of support for the victims of the Chicago shooting.  The world will not stop turning in America today.  Radio hosts and news anchors have not set aside other news items to focus on the victims, or to ask tough questions about whether policy changes can prevent another tragedy.

Instead, they will keep talking about the Navy Yard shooting while 3-year old Deonta Howard, pictured above in some of the screenshots, sits in critical condition in a Chicago hospital with a hole in his face where his cheek used to be.

Race still matters in America.  If you needed any indication of that, look at the screenshots above, and ask yourself how many Black children would have to be shot for it to qualify as a national tragedy.  The number would probably scare you.  And it should.

"So three Black women in maybe two thousand pages of women’s magazines and all of them biracial or racially ambiguous, so they could be Indian or Puerto Rican or something. Not one of them is dark. Not one of them looks like me, so I can’t get clues for makeup from these magazines. Look, this article tells you to pinch your cheeks for color because all their readers are supposed to have cheeks you can pinch for color. This tells you about different hair products for everyone—and everyone means blondes, brunettes, and redheads. I am none of those. And this tells you about the best conditioners—for straight, wavy and curly. No kinky. See what they mean by curly? My hair could never do that. This tells you about matching your eye color and eye shadow—blue, green, and hazel eyes. But my eyes are black so I can’t know what shadow works for me. This says that this pink lipstick is universal, but they mean universal if you are white because I would look like a golliwog if I tried that shade of pink. Oh look, here is some progress. An advertisement for foundation. There are seven different shades for white skin and one generic chocolate shade, but that is progress. Now let’s talk about what is racially skewed. Do you see why a magazine like Essence exists?"  - An excerpt from Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Americanah (2013)