Answer me that, folks. In particular, if we're going to ban certain classic cartoons because of offensive racial stereotypes (and yes, the Censored 11 stuff is pretty bad).
Yet we're STILL being exposed to the stereotypical 1950s housewife types in the classic Twilight Zone along with Olive Oyl in the Popeye series, various bitchy housewives in the Looney Tunes cartoons that beat up on cats for daring to eat birds (usually it's Sylvester because he dared to eat Tweety, who's a freaking canary). When you get down to it, there's a ton of sexism in the old cartoons.
I was watching some Popeye cartoons earlier & my husband reminded me of a rant I've not done: I absolutely can't stand Olive Oyl. She epitomizes everything stereotypical & insulting about women. Cartoon Olive, at least. Comic strip Olive is less offensive since she actually knows how to take care of herself.
I thought my husband & I were the only people who hated Olive Oyl until we watched a special feature on one of the Popeye DVDs that came out. Fortunately, the entire era of the cartoons that we wanted was put out on DVD & we got to buy them. One of the women speaking on this particular feature said she hated Olive Oyl as well. I was like "YES! Finally, someone else feels like I do."
So, why my hatred? I'll gladly explain:
If you've seen classic Twilight Zone episodes, you should be familiar with the bitchy and helpless housewives. Apparently, Rod Serling was not good at writing women in his stories. He admitted this in the introduction of one episode (I believe it was from Season 1) that we caught on DVD. Spotting these characters is like spotting pornography: you can't define it but you'll know it when you see it.
I personally watch these women in action on a lot of them & there are some I don't feel any sympathy for. It's like if some guy were married to them, you could hardly blame them for wanting to beat the crap out of them. Now I'm not a supporter of domestic violence but I'd want to beat them since they annoy the shit out of me.
Olive Oyl in the Popeye cartoons is like these women & I'm going to give you numerous examples of why she sucks.
1. She is a fickle bitch. In most of the Popeye cartoons, she's dating Popeye then tosses him aside for Bluto because she thinks Bluto is more suave or has a clean shave or whatever other reason. In real life, she'd be knocking boots with this guy. You know what we call women like that in modern society? A slut. Loose. Plenty of other names that you don't want to be called if you're a woman. I wouldn't find "fickle" flattering, either.
2. She is a total tease. Probably wrote the book on it, in fact. She acts like she's interested & then when Bluto makes his move, she goes all helpless & whines for Popeye. Popeye, of course, always saves her in the cartoons.
You know what Popeye would have done in real life, especially in today's time if some chick was doing this Olive Oyl impression? He'd say "Fuck you, bitch! You wanted Bluto so have fun. Don't come crying to me!" I know real life men would say something similar. Even Superman did in one story, according to my husband the comics expert.
3. She's downright shitty to Popeye in plenty of them. Has zero respect or regard for that relationship & then has no regard for Bluto if she's supposed to be with him. She also laughs her ass off at Popeye's expense in many of them. Classless could be an apt description as well.
"So, you still want to save that bitch?" I ask Popeye in my brain. I wouldn't do shit for you if you had dumped me then laughed at my expense when your new significant other was mean to me. Popeye would have moved on in real life.
4. She's totally & completely helpless. You know what would happen if you went all Bluto on a natural redhead & hopefully most modern women? She'd hit you right in a sensitive area & you'd be traumatized from even thinking about sex for a long time. Maybe even years. No, I don't mean the crotch. There are other sensitive areas that work for both genders & any woman who took a self-defense class knows what they are.
Why is it that she can do a token hit but it means nothing? Why is she so damn helpless? I appreciate a guy intervening if some scumbag is bothering me but don't do it because you think I'm helpless! Unlike cartoon Olive Oyl, I'm not helpless.
Most women aren't Olive Oyl. Yes, I'm sure there are Olive Oyl types around encouraging wannabe rapists to hate & attack us but we have our own ways of dealing with them (wannabe rapists & the Olive Oyl types). If I knew any Olive Oyl sorts myself, I'd definitely handle that. No woman in my family fits that one, that's for sure. That includes me, my policy on date paying notwithstanding.
I had respect for men I dated & have respect for my husband. You wouldn't see me ditching him for some guy with more money, a better car, better clothes, whatever. If some woman is doing that, she's not respectable. If she knows about this guy's private parts, you're definitely better off without her.
I also was not a tease. I never led guys on. I was always honest & probably to a fault. That always pissed me off when guys did it so I felt it was uncool to do that to them. Certainly other women agree with me on this. Plus, I have a healthy sex drive (if Manswers is accurate, it's a natural redhead thing but you can't tell me that only the smallest minority on the planet has a healthy sex drive; otherwise, you'd only see natural redheads with kids & all the people in sex therapy would be natural redheads). Most women aren't frigid or asexual. Those are the people who should do their dating on Christian Mingle or create some new dating site for people like themselves since they don't fit the majority of us.
Furthermore, most of us are adults. We don't expect some guy to save us from a situation we created ourselves. Respectable women operate from a place of truth & don't go leading folk on. They aren't assholes or little kids like Olive Oyl. We don't need some pimp to bail us out & I really hope a pimp wouldn't do that.
Nor do they trash someone they supposedly care about with their new beau & later expect them to do shit for them. Nope, if I've insulted you not only have you deserved it but I'd sure not ask for your help later on.
We've already established my lack of helplessness. I'm also not a fan of helpless people. Actually, I really hate helpless people (that is, the ones who can't claim a medically diagnosed condition & have something so bad, they actually need anti-depressants). For one thing, it's a state of mind. Few people are truly helpless & even the people everyone thinks of as being helpless (those who've lost limbs or senses) are usually functioning better than the rest of us.
For another, I believe in being the change you want to see. If you don't like something, you need to get off your butt & do something to change it or shut up for good about it. You don't get the right to bitch about things you took no steps to change.
Finally, if you truly feel helpless & you aren't suffering from a medically diagnosed case of depression (WebMD diagnoses don't count) why are you still doing the same stuff? Take some personal responsibility for YOUR life & YOUR behavior!!!
Maybe that's the crux of why I'm not an Olive Oyl fan: she lacks personal accountability. You never see her making the connection b/t her actions & people's reactions to her. It's like "Are you that dim?" To me, if you're that dim how do you manage to function from day to day? Can you even walk & chew gum at the same time? Maybe we should euthanize you for your own good. Many people ought to be euthanized for their own good but that's never going to fly until laws are changed.
With all this though, you don't see me or some other women's groups sending down a shit storm on broadcasters or anyone else & demanding them to never show some cartoon because of the sexism to women. You don't see networks censoring that stuff but they'll do it for other groups & most recently have done that for Native Americans (yet, you could still see those stereotypes in old cartoons when they aired in the late '80s & early '90s; I know b/c I saw them personally).
How about some respect for women here? Or better yet, no censorship for anyone? Women, Italians, Irish people, no one else who didn't choose their status in life should get to be fair game while other groups aren't. To even encourage it just furthers racism & causes more problems. Discrimination is discrimination. Why don't you PC cops get that?
If you ask me, the portrayals of women you see to this day just further sexism & ill will toward us. I think it's totally undeserved when it comes to me & probably undeserved for many women. How about the PC police tackle that one instead of setting up barriers to honest discourse & meaningful conversation? Olive Oyl doesn't represent me any more than Mitt Romney represents most of the Republicans I know.
Showing posts with label censored 11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censored 11. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Job Hunting Pet Peeves I Don't Think I Covered, DVD Censorship & Liberal Christians a.k.a.
Man, I have a TON of rants in me to write. I'll have to do another installment of appalling Craig's List ads soon, there's the upcoming trip to Comic Con, starting another year at Monday Night Law and general trying to catch up on things.
There's also been the recent plague of illness in my house & my husband's choosing to spend the day in our living room cloaked in darkness (and it was a sunny day). I can't do that during the day, even if I'm a little sick unless I got no sleep the night before. He had a headache but I can't function like that so I had to sit elsewhere & fire up the laptop.
From time to time, I do occasionally look into paying positions I see posted online that I might be qualified to do & aren't from mega-corporations. Oftentimes, I inquire about the job. I do this for multiple reasons:
A) My career, background & skills aren't typical. My film company work was set up specifically for me & my career ambitions. I also tended to get more work in things as a result of good service in jobs I had. Plus, if you put everything I've ever done or even have done recently in one resume, that resume would be a tome. No one would read it.
B) As a business owner, I'm all about efficiency. Even if I weren't one, I'm still concerned about it as a lawyer and steward of time. If you have a very competitive atmosphere, don't appreciate people's hard work & offer zero advancement or reward opportunities for good work, why do I want to bother dealing with you? If you require weekend work, why do I want to bother? If you engage in needless dog & pony shows and never tell anyone the truth, why would I want to bother?
C) I'm not the typical attorney & the typical legal environment is not for me. I also notice that people who claim not to offer these typical environments & want someone who isn't a typical stereotype are outright liars. Like anyone with a brain, I believe actions speak much louder than words.
I judge people & their businesses based on my interactions with them. You can even read here about businesses I thought did job searching well along with those who royally fuck it up. In fact, I start judging you when I read your ad.
If I see misspellings, you announce irrelevant information about a protected category, put in duties that lawyers don't actually perform or duties the person you're seeking to do can't legally perform them (like law students committing unauthorized practice of law) or you're asking for some very shitty job terms (like full time internships or $40K a year for a lawyer with 5 years experience & a demand to see a law school transcript), I will bypass you & may even ball you out for being a moron, an exploiter or God knows what else that's tarnishing MY name & MY field since you're purporting to represent it.
So when you have questions about an ad, don't you hate it when you ask questions & the person either doesn't bother giving answers or insists that you submit your resume & cover letter without knowing ANYTHING?
That outright pisses me off since I do explain why I'm asking questions.
Personally, I welcome people to ask me questions if they might not quite fit for a job my company posts. If you want to be paid for a non-paying position, I don't want you interviewing me & my CEO to then drop that on us when we're about to give you an offer.
I also don't want to send my materials someplace where they will just go in the garbage b/c the hiring person or HR rep is a small minded asshole who won't bother considering anyone with a legal license to do that particular role, even if they say they are not seeking a career there & don't mind doing it.
Nor am I working for a company that doesn't belong to me & isn't in the entertainment industry as an attorney for $35K a year. That is exploitation and sorry, not interested in being a slave to anyone. I usually ask for a salary range so I can get an idea of what the prospective employer's expectations are & list what I have made in the past to set a foundation for what will or won't be acceptable to me. If you can't meet that, lower your standards or find someone with less experience.
One is going to suffer: take your pick.
Unlike some people, I can take care of myself & don't need to be anyone's slave or victim. I didn't put up with that at my high school retail job so I sure won't do it when I'm about to hit the 5 year mark in admission to 2 states as a lawyer.
I also don't want to deal with yet another person who's going to pull a disappearing act. If you're not serious & can't commit to things, don't waste my time.
The reason I'm asking questions is to avoid wasting OUR time. That includes YOUR time. If you are too dumb to get this concept, then you have no business being an HR person or in any management position in a business. If you can't even say "I'll ask & get back to you," if you don't know the answer then you have shown me that your employer is probably a badly managed business I want nothing to do with.
If you're a CEO or head of the company & you do this, you have insured that I will stay far away from your business & warn people I know not to work with you since you have no concept of efficiency or time management.
Another huge pet peeve (particularly on Craig's List): demands to get MY resume and materials with MY personal information when the ad poster gives you ZERO information about themselves, not even listing a company name.
First off, slick, I have an increasing public profile. I'm on IMDB & last I checked, my LinkedIn profile was the first result when you Googled my name. I'm not a "Jane Smith" or someone with a super common name. There are significant safety & professional reasons for me not to give out my personal information to total strangers who I know NOTHING about.
If you're reading this blog for the first time, you should know that people in the entertainment industry DO get harassed by the general public. Not just actors but people who are higher ups in production companies or work in casting offices & other areas where random people will want to be your buddy b/c of your job. We don't want you asking us to read your script, audition your sister for acting work, meet famous people, or anything else that tends to come up when you work in this industry & random people find out about it.
There's also the more sinister side with stalkers & haters trying to stop people's careers, particularly for actors & anyone working in front of the camera.
You get information about me at MY leisure, not because you Googled me before ever talking to me. You might even find things that are illegal for you to consider in the hiring process.
Second, how is it fair to expect people to give you blood samples when you can't even give your company name in your ad for someone to research? There are scammers out there & lawyers especially have to watch out for them. It's about gotten to the point where I'll need to start asking to see financial reports before I work with an employer due to some of the experiences I've had. Even the appearance of shadiness is bad for a lawyer to work in, regardless of the employer.
I deserve the right to vet you just as you should get to vet me to verify what I say. If you refuse to give an equal exchange of information, I'm not dealing with you. How do I know YOU are legit & not just another scammer?
Some people could totally use a lesson in "treat others as you'd want to be treated." Would these chuckleheads give out their personal life stories to ads with zero information? Would they hand over all their details for some job they might not even find suitable for them due to salary, company fit, hours, unrealistic expectations, etc.? If you own a business & you wouldn't do this, then maybe you should NOT be expecting strangers to do such things.
I also heard that the next season of Tiny Toon Adventures is finally coming out but they've decided to leave off an episode where the characters were drinking to be cool & that was apparently aired only once. Apparently, Warner Bros has ignored the fact that the kids who watched this show are now ADULTS who can make their OWN choices on things & will most likely be buying this set instead of little kids who never saw it, never heard of it and very likely didn't watch it.
I feel like we should boycott the set in protest or complain about it someplace. Considering they've had plans for eons to release the Censored 11 (which I've talked about before), the same principles should apply here. Allegedly, people complained about that episode but who are we talking about? Old people who watched it ages ago? Parents who are too damn lazy to skip the episode or, gee, PARENT for a change & say "no" to their kids?
If kids have been exposed to online porn, Prince's '80s catalog, racially offensive cartoons in the '40s and '50s and even a Spike Lee movie or two, then why in the hell is Warner Bros censoring this DVD set that will be bought by adults?!?! You know, the people who have the disposable income to PAY for it. As I recall, I'm sure this set will be at least $30 if not more. That's not exactly easy money for a child to get & again, do these children pay rent or own their own homes? Do they not have PARENTS who would say "No you can't buy that," if they have an issue with this episode being included?
I hate the "we must protect the childrens" argument (misspelled on purpose) just as much as I hate the tradition argument. It's NOT my job or that of any entertainment company, performer or creative to shelter your little babies from real life. That's YOUR job, parents!
You notice the real parents never go around demanding this of creative types. It's time they & everyone else stood up to these breeding bullies & told them to shove it up their collective asses while perhaps getting Social Services involved to take those children out of such an abusive situation. Yes, expecting everyone else to parent for you is emotional abuse against your kids (that is neglect, after all) as well as little Hitler behavior that will probably get you taken out sooner or later when you piss off the wrong person. I think "unfit" is a perfect adjective for that kind of parent.
Lastly, meet some Christians who aren't assholes. Apparently, they are called liberal Christians. They also exist in one of the last places most of you would expect to find them: Oklahoma! Everyone describes that region as a bastion of intolerance, homophobia and right-wing Christian fundies who want to create the Christian Taliban in this country.
Guess those people would be wrong. Rev. Lance Schmitz & Faithful America sound like some good folks to deal with. Bravo, Reverend for calling the owners of Hobby Lobby on their bullshit.
In case you are not aware, Hobby Lobby is a crafts store owned by the Green family. The Green family is a pack of fundie Christians & we all know what fundie Christians are like; in case you don't, they're much like radical Muslims in their adherence to the concept of "my way or the highway." There's no room for moderation or fairness to people who are different with fundies; that's why they are "fundies," after all. Otherwise, they'd be moderates or mainstream Christians.
Hobby Lobby is suing the government over the Affordable Health Care Act, which means employers have to cover contraceptives. Their beef is that "it should not be forced to provide workers with health insurance that covers the morning-after and week-after pills." They claim covering this violates their religious beliefs.
The Green family apparently wishes to tell its employees how to live their personal lives & force any females working there to carry babies they don't want. This Rev. Schmitz said that not only should these assholes not get to use religion to deny women access to birth control but that they need to stay out of women's reproductive decisions since the issue is about contraceptives, not abortion as the fundies claim they are.
Look, fundies & anti-choicers: you lose all credibility with me and any rational thinking person when you dare to ban access to contraceptives while also banning abortion & cutting welfare. You get one or the other. You are NOT going to stop people from having sex & if you think you get to tell ME what to do, then you will be in for a bloody, vicious and no holds barred fight. Just as YOU have the right to wait until you get married to have sex or use it only when you want to have babies, I also have the right to do what I want to in my own life & make my own decisions free from you assholes telling ME what to do.
Do you hear me or anyone else who is pro-choice telling YOU to get an abortion? Are any of us telling YOU to have sex or when to have it? Until you do, you DON'T get to use your religious beliefs to order me around! Beliefs, I might add, that I DO NOT share, support or give any credence to. If I'm not telling you as a grown up what to do, then you don't get to tell me what to do either.
Otherwise, you'd better be ready to go back to the days when women were property, couldn't enter into legally valid contracts (meaning no more student loan obligations from women) & men were liable for anything their women did i.e. wives & daughters. You DO know what they say about there being nothing worse than a scorned woman, don't you?
I think their lawyer is totally lying when he says his clients aren't trying to suppress women or respect the beliefs of people who are different. Classic CYA stuff since they know if they admit to being medieval cretins, people will slam them. If there was one of these stores in my area, I would totally boycott. Heck you could probably also find this family's information & tell them off on this as you want.
How is this different from Chick-Fil-A, you may ask? Well, in the Chick-Fil-A situation the owner wasn't trying to deny insurance coverage or rights to gay employees nor denying them jobs or telling them to harass gay patrons. If they were doing that, as I said before, it would be a different story.
So, see not all Christians are jerks or micromanaging assholes. I told you so! The parishioners of this pastor's church should be proud since he is exemplifying true Christianity & I'll bet would make sure anyone who came to his church, regardless of race, orientation or beliefs, feel welcome. If more Christians were like these folks, we'd have fewer problems in the world. I'm glad more are standing up to the intolerant fundies who make religion look awful.
There's also been the recent plague of illness in my house & my husband's choosing to spend the day in our living room cloaked in darkness (and it was a sunny day). I can't do that during the day, even if I'm a little sick unless I got no sleep the night before. He had a headache but I can't function like that so I had to sit elsewhere & fire up the laptop.
From time to time, I do occasionally look into paying positions I see posted online that I might be qualified to do & aren't from mega-corporations. Oftentimes, I inquire about the job. I do this for multiple reasons:
A) My career, background & skills aren't typical. My film company work was set up specifically for me & my career ambitions. I also tended to get more work in things as a result of good service in jobs I had. Plus, if you put everything I've ever done or even have done recently in one resume, that resume would be a tome. No one would read it.
B) As a business owner, I'm all about efficiency. Even if I weren't one, I'm still concerned about it as a lawyer and steward of time. If you have a very competitive atmosphere, don't appreciate people's hard work & offer zero advancement or reward opportunities for good work, why do I want to bother dealing with you? If you require weekend work, why do I want to bother? If you engage in needless dog & pony shows and never tell anyone the truth, why would I want to bother?
C) I'm not the typical attorney & the typical legal environment is not for me. I also notice that people who claim not to offer these typical environments & want someone who isn't a typical stereotype are outright liars. Like anyone with a brain, I believe actions speak much louder than words.
I judge people & their businesses based on my interactions with them. You can even read here about businesses I thought did job searching well along with those who royally fuck it up. In fact, I start judging you when I read your ad.
If I see misspellings, you announce irrelevant information about a protected category, put in duties that lawyers don't actually perform or duties the person you're seeking to do can't legally perform them (like law students committing unauthorized practice of law) or you're asking for some very shitty job terms (like full time internships or $40K a year for a lawyer with 5 years experience & a demand to see a law school transcript), I will bypass you & may even ball you out for being a moron, an exploiter or God knows what else that's tarnishing MY name & MY field since you're purporting to represent it.
So when you have questions about an ad, don't you hate it when you ask questions & the person either doesn't bother giving answers or insists that you submit your resume & cover letter without knowing ANYTHING?
That outright pisses me off since I do explain why I'm asking questions.
Personally, I welcome people to ask me questions if they might not quite fit for a job my company posts. If you want to be paid for a non-paying position, I don't want you interviewing me & my CEO to then drop that on us when we're about to give you an offer.
I also don't want to send my materials someplace where they will just go in the garbage b/c the hiring person or HR rep is a small minded asshole who won't bother considering anyone with a legal license to do that particular role, even if they say they are not seeking a career there & don't mind doing it.
Nor am I working for a company that doesn't belong to me & isn't in the entertainment industry as an attorney for $35K a year. That is exploitation and sorry, not interested in being a slave to anyone. I usually ask for a salary range so I can get an idea of what the prospective employer's expectations are & list what I have made in the past to set a foundation for what will or won't be acceptable to me. If you can't meet that, lower your standards or find someone with less experience.
One is going to suffer: take your pick.
Unlike some people, I can take care of myself & don't need to be anyone's slave or victim. I didn't put up with that at my high school retail job so I sure won't do it when I'm about to hit the 5 year mark in admission to 2 states as a lawyer.
I also don't want to deal with yet another person who's going to pull a disappearing act. If you're not serious & can't commit to things, don't waste my time.
The reason I'm asking questions is to avoid wasting OUR time. That includes YOUR time. If you are too dumb to get this concept, then you have no business being an HR person or in any management position in a business. If you can't even say "I'll ask & get back to you," if you don't know the answer then you have shown me that your employer is probably a badly managed business I want nothing to do with.
If you're a CEO or head of the company & you do this, you have insured that I will stay far away from your business & warn people I know not to work with you since you have no concept of efficiency or time management.
Another huge pet peeve (particularly on Craig's List): demands to get MY resume and materials with MY personal information when the ad poster gives you ZERO information about themselves, not even listing a company name.
First off, slick, I have an increasing public profile. I'm on IMDB & last I checked, my LinkedIn profile was the first result when you Googled my name. I'm not a "Jane Smith" or someone with a super common name. There are significant safety & professional reasons for me not to give out my personal information to total strangers who I know NOTHING about.
If you're reading this blog for the first time, you should know that people in the entertainment industry DO get harassed by the general public. Not just actors but people who are higher ups in production companies or work in casting offices & other areas where random people will want to be your buddy b/c of your job. We don't want you asking us to read your script, audition your sister for acting work, meet famous people, or anything else that tends to come up when you work in this industry & random people find out about it.
There's also the more sinister side with stalkers & haters trying to stop people's careers, particularly for actors & anyone working in front of the camera.
You get information about me at MY leisure, not because you Googled me before ever talking to me. You might even find things that are illegal for you to consider in the hiring process.
Second, how is it fair to expect people to give you blood samples when you can't even give your company name in your ad for someone to research? There are scammers out there & lawyers especially have to watch out for them. It's about gotten to the point where I'll need to start asking to see financial reports before I work with an employer due to some of the experiences I've had. Even the appearance of shadiness is bad for a lawyer to work in, regardless of the employer.
I deserve the right to vet you just as you should get to vet me to verify what I say. If you refuse to give an equal exchange of information, I'm not dealing with you. How do I know YOU are legit & not just another scammer?
Some people could totally use a lesson in "treat others as you'd want to be treated." Would these chuckleheads give out their personal life stories to ads with zero information? Would they hand over all their details for some job they might not even find suitable for them due to salary, company fit, hours, unrealistic expectations, etc.? If you own a business & you wouldn't do this, then maybe you should NOT be expecting strangers to do such things.
I also heard that the next season of Tiny Toon Adventures is finally coming out but they've decided to leave off an episode where the characters were drinking to be cool & that was apparently aired only once. Apparently, Warner Bros has ignored the fact that the kids who watched this show are now ADULTS who can make their OWN choices on things & will most likely be buying this set instead of little kids who never saw it, never heard of it and very likely didn't watch it.
I feel like we should boycott the set in protest or complain about it someplace. Considering they've had plans for eons to release the Censored 11 (which I've talked about before), the same principles should apply here. Allegedly, people complained about that episode but who are we talking about? Old people who watched it ages ago? Parents who are too damn lazy to skip the episode or, gee, PARENT for a change & say "no" to their kids?
If kids have been exposed to online porn, Prince's '80s catalog, racially offensive cartoons in the '40s and '50s and even a Spike Lee movie or two, then why in the hell is Warner Bros censoring this DVD set that will be bought by adults?!?! You know, the people who have the disposable income to PAY for it. As I recall, I'm sure this set will be at least $30 if not more. That's not exactly easy money for a child to get & again, do these children pay rent or own their own homes? Do they not have PARENTS who would say "No you can't buy that," if they have an issue with this episode being included?
I hate the "we must protect the childrens" argument (misspelled on purpose) just as much as I hate the tradition argument. It's NOT my job or that of any entertainment company, performer or creative to shelter your little babies from real life. That's YOUR job, parents!
You notice the real parents never go around demanding this of creative types. It's time they & everyone else stood up to these breeding bullies & told them to shove it up their collective asses while perhaps getting Social Services involved to take those children out of such an abusive situation. Yes, expecting everyone else to parent for you is emotional abuse against your kids (that is neglect, after all) as well as little Hitler behavior that will probably get you taken out sooner or later when you piss off the wrong person. I think "unfit" is a perfect adjective for that kind of parent.
Lastly, meet some Christians who aren't assholes. Apparently, they are called liberal Christians. They also exist in one of the last places most of you would expect to find them: Oklahoma! Everyone describes that region as a bastion of intolerance, homophobia and right-wing Christian fundies who want to create the Christian Taliban in this country.
Guess those people would be wrong. Rev. Lance Schmitz & Faithful America sound like some good folks to deal with. Bravo, Reverend for calling the owners of Hobby Lobby on their bullshit.
In case you are not aware, Hobby Lobby is a crafts store owned by the Green family. The Green family is a pack of fundie Christians & we all know what fundie Christians are like; in case you don't, they're much like radical Muslims in their adherence to the concept of "my way or the highway." There's no room for moderation or fairness to people who are different with fundies; that's why they are "fundies," after all. Otherwise, they'd be moderates or mainstream Christians.
Hobby Lobby is suing the government over the Affordable Health Care Act, which means employers have to cover contraceptives. Their beef is that "it should not be forced to provide workers with health insurance that covers the morning-after and week-after pills." They claim covering this violates their religious beliefs.
The Green family apparently wishes to tell its employees how to live their personal lives & force any females working there to carry babies they don't want. This Rev. Schmitz said that not only should these assholes not get to use religion to deny women access to birth control but that they need to stay out of women's reproductive decisions since the issue is about contraceptives, not abortion as the fundies claim they are.
Look, fundies & anti-choicers: you lose all credibility with me and any rational thinking person when you dare to ban access to contraceptives while also banning abortion & cutting welfare. You get one or the other. You are NOT going to stop people from having sex & if you think you get to tell ME what to do, then you will be in for a bloody, vicious and no holds barred fight. Just as YOU have the right to wait until you get married to have sex or use it only when you want to have babies, I also have the right to do what I want to in my own life & make my own decisions free from you assholes telling ME what to do.
Do you hear me or anyone else who is pro-choice telling YOU to get an abortion? Are any of us telling YOU to have sex or when to have it? Until you do, you DON'T get to use your religious beliefs to order me around! Beliefs, I might add, that I DO NOT share, support or give any credence to. If I'm not telling you as a grown up what to do, then you don't get to tell me what to do either.
Otherwise, you'd better be ready to go back to the days when women were property, couldn't enter into legally valid contracts (meaning no more student loan obligations from women) & men were liable for anything their women did i.e. wives & daughters. You DO know what they say about there being nothing worse than a scorned woman, don't you?
I think their lawyer is totally lying when he says his clients aren't trying to suppress women or respect the beliefs of people who are different. Classic CYA stuff since they know if they admit to being medieval cretins, people will slam them. If there was one of these stores in my area, I would totally boycott. Heck you could probably also find this family's information & tell them off on this as you want.
How is this different from Chick-Fil-A, you may ask? Well, in the Chick-Fil-A situation the owner wasn't trying to deny insurance coverage or rights to gay employees nor denying them jobs or telling them to harass gay patrons. If they were doing that, as I said before, it would be a different story.
So, see not all Christians are jerks or micromanaging assholes. I told you so! The parishioners of this pastor's church should be proud since he is exemplifying true Christianity & I'll bet would make sure anyone who came to his church, regardless of race, orientation or beliefs, feel welcome. If more Christians were like these folks, we'd have fewer problems in the world. I'm glad more are standing up to the intolerant fundies who make religion look awful.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
More Life Stuff
Well, I saw this & was quite gratified. My road wasn't even plowed until maybe right near the 7 a.m. deadline promised by the Director of Sanitation. I didn't go to bed until 4 & we didn't hear anyone driving down our street. This silence on our block for days on end will never happen again since cars are always driving down.
I'm also glad I didn't vote for Bloomberg & think the mayor of Newark kicks ass for going out into the mess. That guy gives a damn about his city & isn't a classist asshole who's too good to trudge out there. I tell you, if I were the mother of that baby who died in Brooklyn b/c the emergency folk couldn't get to where she was due to lack of snow cleanup I'd be going to see Bloomberg in person and demanding him to justify his elitism. You can break people if you're dedicated & when you bring a tragic situation right to someone's face, you're more likely to succeed. That's why I think kids should see the Censored 11 cartoons if you really want to teach them why racism is bad. It brings the spirit of those times & shows you racism instead of just telling you about it.
Things are much better for me but lately, I've been concerned lately about a close friend of mine. As you know from reading this blog, religion was quite pervasive in my childhood. I even went to a religious private school at one time. This close friend was, like me, from a religious household. Like many others, she also married young and stayed in our hometown.
She was in this tableau of the happy housewife/loving mother until very recently. Now I think she, like anyone else, should have gotten the opportunity to sow wild oates, date around & spend time figuring out her own identity, what "happily ever after" would mean to her, etc. I have to agree with a gentleman I met one night in Buckhead when I was at a club in Atlanta. He was in town on business & if he'd not had an early morning meeting, he said he'd have wanted to do the nasty w/me (not those exact words but you get the idea). Aside from that (and being cute enough for me to seriously consider it but only w/protection), he told me point blank that I shouldn't even consider getting married before turning 25. This is sage advice for anyone, if you ask me. You should spend time figuring out yourself, having experiences to draw upon when you're old, etc.
So, unfortunately my friend's unhappiness has hit the breaking point. She & her estranged hubby have a child together and there's been accusations that she committed adultery.
Remember when I said she was also from a religious family? Her father was livid & actually fired her for no good reason. He's apparently also living up to Christian hypocrisy by acting like anything but, including injecting himself into this private situation.
It gets even more complicated in that a new guy has entered the picture, has similar relationship baggage & that his baby mama (as I'm not sure precisely if she's an ex-fiancee or ex-girlfriend) hates my friend. I heard about a possible new wrinkle to this tale that makes my friend more like a Jerry Springer cliche than the church goer I remember her to be.
I left her a message on Christmas Eve wishing her a good holiday & wanting to talk to her. You do that for friends. Problem is, I've not heard from her & only hear about her through my family. This is someone who's like a sister to me & she should know that she doesn't need to put on some happy show or happy face for me. If I became a celebrity, she's one of the few people I could be myself around & not wonder if she had an angle.
I'm also not a judgmental person & don't consider religion a panacea. Plenty of people do just fine without going to church every Sunday or falling in line w/the preaching hypocrites.
After I heard about the potentially new wrinkle, it occurred to me that her dad is probably disappointed & feels like a failure as a parent. I still don't condone his behavior + think it confirms every non-religious person's hatred of fundies, born agains & their ilk.
Do I approve of all this? Hell no! I feel like my friend is turning into some of my sister's former friends who put men ahead of their kids. If these assholes are the same ones trying to have me breed, they've added the sin of hypocrisy to their misdeeds.
I'm really hoping that new wrinkle is a false alarm or I'm going to have to say something that will probably be taken badly but I strongly believe should be done for all that is good and fair in this world. I also can't condone anyone emotionally abusing a child since I had to go through that myself as a child. I remember lots of hurtful things that were said to me: for instance, an aunt telling me & my sister that she loved my cousins more than us.
I also feel like I'm being snubbed & that this person may not deserve to be a close friend if I can't get that reciprocation. After all, my husband's my closest friend & he wouldn't shut me out from a problem. I prefer to have quality over quantity in any aspect of my life & people are no exception.
Where's the friendship if you don't even bother to talk to a close friend? If it's not wanting to hear the truth from me, too bad. I acknowledge that your life is yours alone to live but I'm not a Yes Woman. I'm not interested in being one either.
Quickest way to avoid becoming a Yes (Wo)man? Become an attorney. Attorneys are supposed to deliver the truth, good or bad. If they don't, they get blamed when things fall apart.
I'm also glad I didn't vote for Bloomberg & think the mayor of Newark kicks ass for going out into the mess. That guy gives a damn about his city & isn't a classist asshole who's too good to trudge out there. I tell you, if I were the mother of that baby who died in Brooklyn b/c the emergency folk couldn't get to where she was due to lack of snow cleanup I'd be going to see Bloomberg in person and demanding him to justify his elitism. You can break people if you're dedicated & when you bring a tragic situation right to someone's face, you're more likely to succeed. That's why I think kids should see the Censored 11 cartoons if you really want to teach them why racism is bad. It brings the spirit of those times & shows you racism instead of just telling you about it.
Things are much better for me but lately, I've been concerned lately about a close friend of mine. As you know from reading this blog, religion was quite pervasive in my childhood. I even went to a religious private school at one time. This close friend was, like me, from a religious household. Like many others, she also married young and stayed in our hometown.
She was in this tableau of the happy housewife/loving mother until very recently. Now I think she, like anyone else, should have gotten the opportunity to sow wild oates, date around & spend time figuring out her own identity, what "happily ever after" would mean to her, etc. I have to agree with a gentleman I met one night in Buckhead when I was at a club in Atlanta. He was in town on business & if he'd not had an early morning meeting, he said he'd have wanted to do the nasty w/me (not those exact words but you get the idea). Aside from that (and being cute enough for me to seriously consider it but only w/protection), he told me point blank that I shouldn't even consider getting married before turning 25. This is sage advice for anyone, if you ask me. You should spend time figuring out yourself, having experiences to draw upon when you're old, etc.
So, unfortunately my friend's unhappiness has hit the breaking point. She & her estranged hubby have a child together and there's been accusations that she committed adultery.
Remember when I said she was also from a religious family? Her father was livid & actually fired her for no good reason. He's apparently also living up to Christian hypocrisy by acting like anything but, including injecting himself into this private situation.
It gets even more complicated in that a new guy has entered the picture, has similar relationship baggage & that his baby mama (as I'm not sure precisely if she's an ex-fiancee or ex-girlfriend) hates my friend. I heard about a possible new wrinkle to this tale that makes my friend more like a Jerry Springer cliche than the church goer I remember her to be.
I left her a message on Christmas Eve wishing her a good holiday & wanting to talk to her. You do that for friends. Problem is, I've not heard from her & only hear about her through my family. This is someone who's like a sister to me & she should know that she doesn't need to put on some happy show or happy face for me. If I became a celebrity, she's one of the few people I could be myself around & not wonder if she had an angle.
I'm also not a judgmental person & don't consider religion a panacea. Plenty of people do just fine without going to church every Sunday or falling in line w/the preaching hypocrites.
After I heard about the potentially new wrinkle, it occurred to me that her dad is probably disappointed & feels like a failure as a parent. I still don't condone his behavior + think it confirms every non-religious person's hatred of fundies, born agains & their ilk.
Do I approve of all this? Hell no! I feel like my friend is turning into some of my sister's former friends who put men ahead of their kids. If these assholes are the same ones trying to have me breed, they've added the sin of hypocrisy to their misdeeds.
I'm really hoping that new wrinkle is a false alarm or I'm going to have to say something that will probably be taken badly but I strongly believe should be done for all that is good and fair in this world. I also can't condone anyone emotionally abusing a child since I had to go through that myself as a child. I remember lots of hurtful things that were said to me: for instance, an aunt telling me & my sister that she loved my cousins more than us.
I also feel like I'm being snubbed & that this person may not deserve to be a close friend if I can't get that reciprocation. After all, my husband's my closest friend & he wouldn't shut me out from a problem. I prefer to have quality over quantity in any aspect of my life & people are no exception.
Where's the friendship if you don't even bother to talk to a close friend? If it's not wanting to hear the truth from me, too bad. I acknowledge that your life is yours alone to live but I'm not a Yes Woman. I'm not interested in being one either.
Quickest way to avoid becoming a Yes (Wo)man? Become an attorney. Attorneys are supposed to deliver the truth, good or bad. If they don't, they get blamed when things fall apart.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Burn on Demand From Major Studios: An Exercise in Cheap Assery
I've got to rant about this one before I forget to.
According to my husband, who still checks TV Shows on DVD (a site I refuse to give traffic to b/c of the conduct of one Gord Lacey toward me & you can see this post for details). Warner Bros has decided to put out their censored 11 cartoons and other titles on their Warner Archives burn on demand series.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, see this post about the Censored 11.
To sum up, a product that has been sought after for eons from collectors is coming out on the same format that you can get for free if you find it online & download from your own computer. Let me tell you why this is utter crap:
#1 They can afford to put this out on a proper format, silver disc & all.
We're not talking about some small indie company with limited financial resources. Burn on demand is perfectly acceptable for that company & anyone else who can't afford the fancy stuff.
#2 Price. When Viacom decided to do this burn on demand nonsense with their Nicktoons as Amazon exclusives, I noticed that the price for these little homemade do-dads was ungodly & would have been too much per season even if they weren't burn on demand.
#3 Questions of reliability. Countless reviewers buying these burn on demand titles have mentioned that the titles won't play in their players. What good is spending all this money on a burn on demand title put out by a studio worth at least millions when the product doesn't even work in your home? What if you had only 1 DVD player? You're just screwed now, aren't you?
And, it gets even better. The announcement my husband reads says the cartoons "might" be restored. Gee, I can find unrestored copies of these cartoons for free online, burn them on my own purple backed discs, maybe even create my own little logos & spend far less than the $30+ this major studio is probably charging for the product. One of the great things about the Golden Collection was that the cartoons were restored & the product was given what I felt was proper treatment.
Cost effectiveness or moral arguments against bootlegging aside, it's a slap in the face to the fans of a particular show when you have the money to do better & you cheap out on them. You may as well take out billboards proclaiming "We could care less about the fans. You'll take a censored product made on a teen's home PC and love it!"
Oh, and major studio? You've just encouraged those same people to buy bootlegs. People expect shoddiness from bootlegs but it's down right unacceptable from a major studio worth millions of dollars. You'd think some of these people would have a little more pride than to put out something so cruddy.
Lest we also dare to engage in the "it's a business" cheerleading, I have another piece of news for you: we're not talking about widgets! We're not talking about clothes, houses or other such things.
We're talking about art, a creative product. You wouldn't make a dime if people didn't like that creative product and feel an incentive to buy. There's also a societal obligation to preserve art. We wouldn't have many of the works we have today or the inspiration they provided to others if they hadn't been properly safeguarded. I remember being in classes & my teachers talking about literary works permanently lost to time b/c they weren't preserved properly. Do we as a society want that to happen with our movies, television shows and cartoons?
Yes, I know what the law says & so forth. Yes, I work in the industry but I don't support shoddiness or horrid behavior from major studios who apparently forgot about pride in your work & the artistic mission. I don't support obvious attempts to behave like the typical sleazy corporation & I don't buy a shitty product b/c that's what the studio put out & if I don't buy it they won't put out more of the same.
My stance is to take your censored television seasons & shove them where the sun don't shine. Be a dick to me and the public & I'll absolutely do what I can to thwart your ability to make a profit, especially if you make public statements supporting my view that you are an entitled dick that no one would mourn if I ran you over with my car. I despise sheeple who make that argument b/c it's horrid and also encourages bootlegging.
My husband also informed me about some proposed legislation that I am a little shocked major entertainment industry players support. If I remember correctly, it has to do with the blocking of web traffic and brings up interesting censorship issues. I'll elaborate if I remember or you can look it up for me & I'll announce it here since some of you should definitely know about it. * Go here for details. *
I'm disappointed in Warner Bros. since they've put out some really good stuff & should take pride in some of their TV on DVD products (Viacom as well, for that matter). Going to burn on demand just irks me if you can afford proper releases & I think if that trend continues, these studios will end up as the major record companies did when they tried to put copy protections on their product that gave people computer viruses. You're just building ill will & rage among consumers and honestly, I can't be sympathetic to anyone trying stuff like this. That's called "getting what's coming to you."
I'll tell you now I'm definitely no RIAA fan or friend to corporate dick moves. I can also spot a corporate dick move when I see one & have far more pride in what I do than to allow that under my watch. I'm all for turning your nose up & giving the finger to any company that tries to act like they're entitled to your hard earned buck even if they put out something that might as well be constructed from rubber bands & chewing gum. The people keep you in business; ignore them/piss them off/insert bad behavior here & you're just asking for problems.
You don't "ask" for shows to be released; a true consumer demands it!! A company not prostrating itself to consumer demand shouldn't be in business since it's lost the capitalist battle.
According to my husband, who still checks TV Shows on DVD (a site I refuse to give traffic to b/c of the conduct of one Gord Lacey toward me & you can see this post for details). Warner Bros has decided to put out their censored 11 cartoons and other titles on their Warner Archives burn on demand series.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, see this post about the Censored 11.
To sum up, a product that has been sought after for eons from collectors is coming out on the same format that you can get for free if you find it online & download from your own computer. Let me tell you why this is utter crap:
#1 They can afford to put this out on a proper format, silver disc & all.
We're not talking about some small indie company with limited financial resources. Burn on demand is perfectly acceptable for that company & anyone else who can't afford the fancy stuff.
#2 Price. When Viacom decided to do this burn on demand nonsense with their Nicktoons as Amazon exclusives, I noticed that the price for these little homemade do-dads was ungodly & would have been too much per season even if they weren't burn on demand.
#3 Questions of reliability. Countless reviewers buying these burn on demand titles have mentioned that the titles won't play in their players. What good is spending all this money on a burn on demand title put out by a studio worth at least millions when the product doesn't even work in your home? What if you had only 1 DVD player? You're just screwed now, aren't you?
And, it gets even better. The announcement my husband reads says the cartoons "might" be restored. Gee, I can find unrestored copies of these cartoons for free online, burn them on my own purple backed discs, maybe even create my own little logos & spend far less than the $30+ this major studio is probably charging for the product. One of the great things about the Golden Collection was that the cartoons were restored & the product was given what I felt was proper treatment.
Cost effectiveness or moral arguments against bootlegging aside, it's a slap in the face to the fans of a particular show when you have the money to do better & you cheap out on them. You may as well take out billboards proclaiming "We could care less about the fans. You'll take a censored product made on a teen's home PC and love it!"
Oh, and major studio? You've just encouraged those same people to buy bootlegs. People expect shoddiness from bootlegs but it's down right unacceptable from a major studio worth millions of dollars. You'd think some of these people would have a little more pride than to put out something so cruddy.
Lest we also dare to engage in the "it's a business" cheerleading, I have another piece of news for you: we're not talking about widgets! We're not talking about clothes, houses or other such things.
We're talking about art, a creative product. You wouldn't make a dime if people didn't like that creative product and feel an incentive to buy. There's also a societal obligation to preserve art. We wouldn't have many of the works we have today or the inspiration they provided to others if they hadn't been properly safeguarded. I remember being in classes & my teachers talking about literary works permanently lost to time b/c they weren't preserved properly. Do we as a society want that to happen with our movies, television shows and cartoons?
Yes, I know what the law says & so forth. Yes, I work in the industry but I don't support shoddiness or horrid behavior from major studios who apparently forgot about pride in your work & the artistic mission. I don't support obvious attempts to behave like the typical sleazy corporation & I don't buy a shitty product b/c that's what the studio put out & if I don't buy it they won't put out more of the same.
My stance is to take your censored television seasons & shove them where the sun don't shine. Be a dick to me and the public & I'll absolutely do what I can to thwart your ability to make a profit, especially if you make public statements supporting my view that you are an entitled dick that no one would mourn if I ran you over with my car. I despise sheeple who make that argument b/c it's horrid and also encourages bootlegging.
My husband also informed me about some proposed legislation that I am a little shocked major entertainment industry players support. If I remember correctly, it has to do with the blocking of web traffic and brings up interesting censorship issues. I'll elaborate if I remember or you can look it up for me & I'll announce it here since some of you should definitely know about it. * Go here for details. *
I'm disappointed in Warner Bros. since they've put out some really good stuff & should take pride in some of their TV on DVD products (Viacom as well, for that matter). Going to burn on demand just irks me if you can afford proper releases & I think if that trend continues, these studios will end up as the major record companies did when they tried to put copy protections on their product that gave people computer viruses. You're just building ill will & rage among consumers and honestly, I can't be sympathetic to anyone trying stuff like this. That's called "getting what's coming to you."
I'll tell you now I'm definitely no RIAA fan or friend to corporate dick moves. I can also spot a corporate dick move when I see one & have far more pride in what I do than to allow that under my watch. I'm all for turning your nose up & giving the finger to any company that tries to act like they're entitled to your hard earned buck even if they put out something that might as well be constructed from rubber bands & chewing gum. The people keep you in business; ignore them/piss them off/insert bad behavior here & you're just asking for problems.
You don't "ask" for shows to be released; a true consumer demands it!! A company not prostrating itself to consumer demand shouldn't be in business since it's lost the capitalist battle.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Racism & the "Censored 11"
Even though I'm working at a TV production company, I actually don't watch many current shows. The most recent thing I've seen is "United States of Tara," a program on Showtime that I must say is quite innovative not just b/c of the main character but b/c of the civilized treatment it gives to homosexuality as seen in Tara's son, Marshall. I can't wait to see where it goes. A few others I'm looking forward to are "Breaking Bad" and the next season of "The Boondocks."
There are a lot of earlier shows that I like but one of the things I've watched since I was little was cartoons. Particularly Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, etc. from the pre-1948 era. My husband's also a cartoon watcher; we've actually gotten EVERY SINGLE Golden Collection DVD & will probably get the next Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck sets in April.
If you've got a smart remark about my watching cartoons, kiss my ass!!!
If you watch "Family Guy," "The Simpsons," or "South Park" you definitely have NO credibility here. The Looney Tunes shorts were originally for grown ups, NOT kids.
Since these cartoons were made back in the '30s & '40s when racism was a-okay, there are a number of shorts where characters were in blackface or that featured black characters who were caricatures/stereotypes. This should give you a context about the Censored 11.
What is the "censored 11?" Read this.
Allegedly, Warner Bros lives in fear that there will be some massive backlash if they ever released these censored 11 cartoons. People believe that society has gotten WAY to PC for these shorts & others to ever see the light of day.
This is something I have a SEVERE problem with. I think the shorts should be released if:
* They are in a package labeled for "adults" or "adult collectors"; basically making clear that stupid parents don't get to whine & moan if their kids see them
* They are COMPLETE & UNEDITED
Now despite the best efforts of the Man, you can find these shorts online for downloading if you know where to look. I have personally seen the "Censored 11" cartoons; they are VERY offensive & completely non-PC.
BUT....if you wanted to teach someone about the conditions black people faced in that time, it's a very stark and hard-hitting way to do it. I think it's far more effective than saying "We were segregated." It's just like a classroom experiment where the blue eyed kids are treated as 2nd class citizens by the brown eyed kids.
Despite the offensiveness of these cartoons, there's two very good reasons why they should be released:
1. Historical: Censoring these shorts & trying to bury them is like denying racism existed. How do you expect to avoid the mistakes of the past by pretending they didn't happen? Not to mention the effectiveness of these shorts as a classroom teaching tool. Those & the Spike Lee movie "Bamboozled" could be the foundation of a wonderful course on how black people are portrayed & the pervading racism of those times and today. I think things are better but racism still exists. Many of us weren't alive to see those shorts or portrayals & denying they happened doesn't allow society to progress.
2. Giving a Pass: To me, censoring this stuff is like giving a pass to the old white guys who created it (maybe women had a role but considering the lack of women bosses at the time & utter sexism of the day, I assume men are to blame). Hiding it is the same as saying "It's okay that you created it. We aren't going to call you out for it." You know what, though? Regardless of the times, you should have to face the fact that you had a hand in promoting racism. I'd hope some of these people would own this fact & regret it today. How would you feel about creating that stuff if you had black friends or family members to answer to? I'm sure the media would LOVE to shirk its role in keeping black people down but if you're committed to equal rights for all, should you join in? I don't think so. I wouldn't let someone get away w/racism in my presence so why would I encourage someone to deny their actions by censoring something despicable that they did?
My mom, who was alive to see this stuff, also says that it's not the cartoons that's the problem. It's the parents & their attitudes about race. I'm fortunate that I never lived in White Land & had parents with close friends who weren't white. People being different was never considered a bad thing at my house since there was never that initial shock; there wasn't an "us vs. them" since we never really knew a world w/out people of color. My own mother is the one who told us never to use the "n-word" & taught us not to be bigots, unlike some of the kids attending the private school we were at. To give you an idea, the man who was principal at the time openly said he wouldn't let black children attend. Oh, and this was a religious school. I was 100% happier in public school.
I was shocked when I went to college in Atlanta & how much of an issue race IS down there. I couldn't conceivably deal w/a racist (and I mean someone who is an ACTUAL racist, NOT a person who is branded that by someone for not letting the person of color break rules or walk all over him/her). I HATE that stuff & won't give blanket $ to my undergrad b/c of their attitude about it. If I wanted to support racists, I'd give my money to the Ku Klux Klan. Don't hold your breath for that contribution.
For all this talk, my main point is that I'm anti-censorship & personal mores should have nothing to do with what the public can see. This goes regardless of how heated the topic is.
There are a lot of earlier shows that I like but one of the things I've watched since I was little was cartoons. Particularly Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, etc. from the pre-1948 era. My husband's also a cartoon watcher; we've actually gotten EVERY SINGLE Golden Collection DVD & will probably get the next Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck sets in April.
If you've got a smart remark about my watching cartoons, kiss my ass!!!
If you watch "Family Guy," "The Simpsons," or "South Park" you definitely have NO credibility here. The Looney Tunes shorts were originally for grown ups, NOT kids.
Since these cartoons were made back in the '30s & '40s when racism was a-okay, there are a number of shorts where characters were in blackface or that featured black characters who were caricatures/stereotypes. This should give you a context about the Censored 11.
What is the "censored 11?" Read this.
Allegedly, Warner Bros lives in fear that there will be some massive backlash if they ever released these censored 11 cartoons. People believe that society has gotten WAY to PC for these shorts & others to ever see the light of day.
This is something I have a SEVERE problem with. I think the shorts should be released if:
* They are in a package labeled for "adults" or "adult collectors"; basically making clear that stupid parents don't get to whine & moan if their kids see them
* They are COMPLETE & UNEDITED
Now despite the best efforts of the Man, you can find these shorts online for downloading if you know where to look. I have personally seen the "Censored 11" cartoons; they are VERY offensive & completely non-PC.
BUT....if you wanted to teach someone about the conditions black people faced in that time, it's a very stark and hard-hitting way to do it. I think it's far more effective than saying "We were segregated." It's just like a classroom experiment where the blue eyed kids are treated as 2nd class citizens by the brown eyed kids.
Despite the offensiveness of these cartoons, there's two very good reasons why they should be released:
1. Historical: Censoring these shorts & trying to bury them is like denying racism existed. How do you expect to avoid the mistakes of the past by pretending they didn't happen? Not to mention the effectiveness of these shorts as a classroom teaching tool. Those & the Spike Lee movie "Bamboozled" could be the foundation of a wonderful course on how black people are portrayed & the pervading racism of those times and today. I think things are better but racism still exists. Many of us weren't alive to see those shorts or portrayals & denying they happened doesn't allow society to progress.
2. Giving a Pass: To me, censoring this stuff is like giving a pass to the old white guys who created it (maybe women had a role but considering the lack of women bosses at the time & utter sexism of the day, I assume men are to blame). Hiding it is the same as saying "It's okay that you created it. We aren't going to call you out for it." You know what, though? Regardless of the times, you should have to face the fact that you had a hand in promoting racism. I'd hope some of these people would own this fact & regret it today. How would you feel about creating that stuff if you had black friends or family members to answer to? I'm sure the media would LOVE to shirk its role in keeping black people down but if you're committed to equal rights for all, should you join in? I don't think so. I wouldn't let someone get away w/racism in my presence so why would I encourage someone to deny their actions by censoring something despicable that they did?
My mom, who was alive to see this stuff, also says that it's not the cartoons that's the problem. It's the parents & their attitudes about race. I'm fortunate that I never lived in White Land & had parents with close friends who weren't white. People being different was never considered a bad thing at my house since there was never that initial shock; there wasn't an "us vs. them" since we never really knew a world w/out people of color. My own mother is the one who told us never to use the "n-word" & taught us not to be bigots, unlike some of the kids attending the private school we were at. To give you an idea, the man who was principal at the time openly said he wouldn't let black children attend. Oh, and this was a religious school. I was 100% happier in public school.
I was shocked when I went to college in Atlanta & how much of an issue race IS down there. I couldn't conceivably deal w/a racist (and I mean someone who is an ACTUAL racist, NOT a person who is branded that by someone for not letting the person of color break rules or walk all over him/her). I HATE that stuff & won't give blanket $ to my undergrad b/c of their attitude about it. If I wanted to support racists, I'd give my money to the Ku Klux Klan. Don't hold your breath for that contribution.
For all this talk, my main point is that I'm anti-censorship & personal mores should have nothing to do with what the public can see. This goes regardless of how heated the topic is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
