(A continuation of my basic principles, inspired by this discussion)
In general, if everyone from group A (women, the poor, immigrants etc) just happens to violate seemingly coincidental and objective value B then:
(a) It really is a coincidence
(b) They're just inferior in general
(c) There's something skeevy going on with the way your values are contructed
(d) You're not applying your values consistently
Now (a) happens sometimes, likeI have an intolerance to milk fat so tend to see french food as "inferior" but it's not that I have any deep seated aversion to the french. And I have no problem with those french dishes I can eat. That was a crappy example. A better one is the way that many societies associate black with the night, and thus scariness and evil, and afaict this has (or had) nothing to do with the racist representation of dark-skinned people as inherently bad, though the two have since become linked.
Most people will deny the possibility of (c) or (d), and once the "evidence" builds up (a) starts to look a bit shaky, and so the subtext ends up being (b). This is the justification for almost all modern intolerance, since it's no longer acceptable to explicitly say (or even think) "Group A is just naturally inferior".
But when you scratch the surface? Most of the time it is (c) or (d).
For an example of (c), classism relied on the marks of "gentility" being valued above all else, and those marks were things you only tended to get if you were upper class: the right accent, knowledge of the classics, proper etiquette, the right clothes etc. Thus, the lower classes were provably inferior! And if you think that doesn't happen now you obviously haven't encountered the idea of "white trash"/chavs etc. There are similar deliberately created reasons for the devaluing of women, non-european cultures etc.
On the other hand (to illustrate (d)), a lot of western christians will talk about how the entire middle east as a region is doomed to irrational violence because of the calls to violence in the Koran, despite the fact that the Bible has an awful lot of similar passages, so by that logic all of western europe/America etc is just as doomed.
But even if it is a coincidence you still have to think about the consequences of your actions: if you take an action against everyone who violates value B, and that adversely effects people in group A, well you have to keep that in mind.
This is why saying "It's not that I'm racist/sexist/ etc, it's just that I value *blah*" is a very weak argument, and you shouldn't make it without thinking very hard about where your values come from and how you're applying them.
Of course, "objective values" are different from subjective taste/opinion, and if you are willing to admit your subjectivity that can help ameliorate the "Everyone in group A just sucks" effect. You still have to think about the reasons for and consequences of your value judgements though, especially if your "personal taste" happens to correspond with a lot of other people's for (c) and (d)-esque reasons. For example, you can't help it if you think women are unattractive, but some straight women/gay men can use this as an excuse to be sexist which is bad.
It's important to note that you can't help having skeevy values if you live in a skeevy society, and you may not be able (or wish) to retrain ourself out of them. But it's important to be aware of where this stuff comes from and the effect it has.
In general, if everyone from group A (women, the poor, immigrants etc) just happens to violate seemingly coincidental and objective value B then:
(a) It really is a coincidence
(b) They're just inferior in general
(c) There's something skeevy going on with the way your values are contructed
(d) You're not applying your values consistently
Now (a) happens sometimes, like
Most people will deny the possibility of (c) or (d), and once the "evidence" builds up (a) starts to look a bit shaky, and so the subtext ends up being (b). This is the justification for almost all modern intolerance, since it's no longer acceptable to explicitly say (or even think) "Group A is just naturally inferior".
But when you scratch the surface? Most of the time it is (c) or (d).
For an example of (c), classism relied on the marks of "gentility" being valued above all else, and those marks were things you only tended to get if you were upper class: the right accent, knowledge of the classics, proper etiquette, the right clothes etc. Thus, the lower classes were provably inferior! And if you think that doesn't happen now you obviously haven't encountered the idea of "white trash"/chavs etc. There are similar deliberately created reasons for the devaluing of women, non-european cultures etc.
On the other hand (to illustrate (d)), a lot of western christians will talk about how the entire middle east as a region is doomed to irrational violence because of the calls to violence in the Koran, despite the fact that the Bible has an awful lot of similar passages, so by that logic all of western europe/America etc is just as doomed.
But even if it is a coincidence you still have to think about the consequences of your actions: if you take an action against everyone who violates value B, and that adversely effects people in group A, well you have to keep that in mind.
This is why saying "It's not that I'm racist/sexist/ etc, it's just that I value *blah*" is a very weak argument, and you shouldn't make it without thinking very hard about where your values come from and how you're applying them.
Of course, "objective values" are different from subjective taste/opinion, and if you are willing to admit your subjectivity that can help ameliorate the "Everyone in group A just sucks" effect. You still have to think about the reasons for and consequences of your value judgements though, especially if your "personal taste" happens to correspond with a lot of other people's for (c) and (d)-esque reasons. For example, you can't help it if you think women are unattractive, but some straight women/gay men can use this as an excuse to be sexist which is bad.
It's important to note that you can't help having skeevy values if you live in a skeevy society, and you may not be able (or wish) to retrain ourself out of them. But it's important to be aware of where this stuff comes from and the effect it has.
no subject
BUT whenever I've said this to people who've done english degrees etc they get a very pained expression, so I may be missing the point. But that's how I see it, and in this sort of context am doing the first sort of criticism :)
Certainly I don't see analysing subtext as being the be all and end all of anti-racism or what-have-you. It is, as you say, diagnosing a symptom. On the other hand, in my opinion racist messages in the media help perpetuate racism, so by complaining about them we can hopefully cut down the prevalence and change people's attitudes. And hey, the way I got into anti-racism was via a conversation about the racist subtext in "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest", so it has had a positive effect on at least one person :)
Yes, the fact that orcs are light grey does make the whole thing ping as much less racist to me. And I still love the books and movies even if they are a bit racist and rather sexist. Heck, I love plenty of stuff which is quite blatantly sexist/racist etc, doesn't mean I can't criticise it, same way as I complain about bad acting or whatever.
Re: Joint reply
We basically agree on (b), but I guess the clarification that I thought was important was that while women are better at noticing the sexism of others, they are generally terrible at noticing their own (just like everyone else). You would think that forming groups would sort this out, but unfortunately people tend to form groups with those who share and reinforce their views (especially on the internet).
no subject
Interestingly, I think the second method is more relevant to your purpose of removing racist messages in the media. I must admit to a certain postmodern view on this; in that context, I think the author's intention is irrelevant compared to the reader's impression (hence "the author is dead, long live the critic"). A racist message which doesn't reach anyone is less harmful than an innocent message perceived as racial vilification.
Unfortunately, I don't believe in censorship, even if it is framed in terms of "positive action", and beyond that, criticism has no power to change mass-media content.
Obviously, you're more than welcome to criticise, I just don't see that it serves a progressive agenda. If you go and see a movie, for example, and come away thinking "That film was pretty sexist, but on the whole I liked it" and you then buy the film on DVD as a result, the production company doesn't hear "This film was okay, but make the next one less sexist", they just hear "That film sold well, make more exactly the same". Sadly, not buying the film on DVD will cause the producers to mimic the last film that sold well instead, so you can't win that way either. I feel like going into a whole postmodern rant about simulacra, but I won't. :P
no subject
Also I can't think of many if any groups of which every member violates one of my values, without defining that group by their violation of that value.
no subject
no subject
Like I value courtesy, by the standards of manners to which I am accustomed, intelligence as displayed in an educational/interest background compatible with mine, etc.
Which leads to the conclusion that while I'll be polite and all to people who don't really fit with my value set, we're not likely to be friends, particularly.
Which then follows on to cultural barriers. Like, I have friends from different cultural backgrounds, but we have to have enough of a crossover of experience/interests to really be friends. Then again, that's not really racist either, I think; it's difficult to bond with someone with whom you have nothing in common.
So, I'm not sure what my point is, that's all a bit stream of consciousness.
Re: Joint reply
no subject
I think it's good to make the general public aware of sexism in films etc, and it's enjoyable to discuss with likeminded people (especially if you want a forum to vent your frustration with the way your group is portrayed etc)
Does it have any effect on creators? Maybe sometimes. I dunno. Certainly you'd have to not just not buy the dvd, but send a letter of complaint saying why you weren't buying it (though a couple of letters and LOTS of boycotting would be just as good). But I think you and I have different opinions on the general effectiveness of "awareness raising" etc.
Girl wonder goes into why they do what they do in a faq.
(*)I'm not sure I've read much high-brow Criticism of much of anything unless you count highschool Lit, such writing is not really my bag.
no subject
(I'd explore my thoughts, but I'm actually kinda busy, so I'm hoping you'll explore yours and I can argue or agree with you. :) )
no subject
I would go so far as to say that in general, if everyone from group A just happens to violate value B, then value B cannot be coincidental, and must be specifically intended to marginalise group A. The only possible alternative is the application of a double-standard, as in your option (d).
no subject
In my old job, I had a graduate engineer under me, who is indian.
At first, I really didn't like him. He was rude, stubborn, nakedly ambitious, rushed his work, refused to admit error and avoided design responsibility and a sense of ownership like the plague. In short, he violated a lot of my values.
As we worked together, I came to understand that most of these violations (to use your terminology) were culturally based. It was about pride, a determination to make something of himself and leadership, and some of it was about being young, and in a foreign country. That didn't make me any more comfortable with the issues, but it did let me see though them to to the principled and soft-hearted man underneath.
Of course, I still think that his values are inferior to my own. They wouldn't be my values if I didn't hold them as valuable.
no subject
no subject
Overall I think it's important to figure out what you really value and not put too much faith in superficial markers. Like, my mum had trouble fitting in at my working class primary school, she made some friends but part of her wished for more people who liked Opera etc. At my posh highschool she met LOTS of opera fans..who were still shallow, cliquey idiots just like the mums at my old school, and she made roughly the same number of friends (in both cases they tended to be intelligent, sensible and unconventional women with good taste and judgement. Some of whom liked Opera :))
I think it's fairly natural to tend to make friends with people from the same cultural background, but I think it can end up being limiting if taken too far or if you let superficial differences stop you from connecting with people you are otherwise well suited to (which I don't think you would do, I'm just saying)
no subject
I think that unless you define group A as "everyone who disagrees with me" then chances are it doesn't divide up as neatly as that. I guess I didn't talk about when group A is a subset of a much larger and fuzzy-edged group who clash with value B (as with the death penalty), I think I need to ponder that some more, though I went into somewhat in the post on cultural intolerance.
And, you know, maybe it is a coincidence. But if it is you still have to consider the way in which the fact these people are in group A interacts with the fact that you disagree with them on principle B.
no subject
An example I thought of after posting: blackness is often associated with evil and badness, due to night being black. Dark skinned people are a group who suffer a lot of racism. As far as I can tell, this is a complete but very unfortunate coincidence (and racists have been quite happy to blur the line between them so that they're no longer so separate) But such coincidences are VERY rare, and even in this sort of case you can't ignore the consequences of the situation (ie making "dark elves" evil is skeevy even if you genuinely just mean "dark like night")
no subject
if everyone from group A (women, the poor, immigrants etc) just happens to violate seemingly coincidental and objective value B
Classism does not fulfill that initial condition, because its values are neither coincidental nor objective.
You could change your statement to be:
In general, if everyone from group A violates personal value B, then:
(a) Value B is intended to specifically marginalise group A
(b) You're not applying your values consistently
I don't agree with your darkness = scary therefore dark people = bad people example. Anyone who actually used that argument to justify racism would really be clutching at straws.
no subject
"I am not attracted to women" is not a value.
"Women who are attracted to women are bad" is a value, intended to marginalise lesbians.
Importantly, all values must be constructed in such a way as to categorise everyone as "good" or "bad"; they are judgement criteria.
no subject
Interestingly, all the indians I've known/worked with have been nothing like that guy (apart from generally being very motivated) so some of it may have just been him :D
(*)Not that some weren't just as laid back as the australian students! And I think the attitude difference is partly just because they're international students, so the cost of failure is much higher. But I guess that in and of itself is a different context, albeit not a cultural one.
no subject
What I was thinking about was slash writers: wanting to write romances/porn where the main characters are male (and young etc) is perfectly reasonable if that's what you find attractive. But using that as an excuse to marginalise/demonise etc all the female characters (and some do) is sexist, and since female characters tend to get marginalised/demonised in regular fiction too it doesn't leave many spaces for them to be treated well.
no subject
So someone might say "We can all agree that good grammar is an objective measure of good sense. Well, as it happens the lower classes tend to have bad grammar. So clearly they are inferior." I agree that your formulation of my statement is more precise and elegant, but I think mine does a better job of highlighting hypocrisy :)
People don't say "Africans have dark skin therefore they're evil" (Well, I'm sure SOMEONE believes that, but not many people)
But for example, look at "Lord of the Rings". The beings of pure evil (Goblins, orcs, Sauron in human form) tend be associated with darkness and black, have dark hair(*) (if they're not bald), many of them having dark skin, and the extra-scary Urak-Hai are black skinned(**).
The good guys are all white, having paler skins than all the "bad" human races. The hero is quite pale indeed, and the most refined, good, pure races and people almost all have pale white or golden hair and blue eyes. I'll admit there is a bit of a "good people who are overcome by evil become sickly pale" thing.
Is this racism? Or tying into fantasy ideas about good=white bad=black? Or both at the same time? What about Willow's hair going black when she's evil in Buffy?
(*)I said "almost all" but I can't think of any exceptions who aren't just really old (Saruman, the wraiths-as-ghosts etc)
(**)Something I didn't notice until it was pointed out to me by a very annoyed black person
no subject
What the slash writers are expressing is their value judgement that women are bad and men are good, which I agree is obviously sexism. Their choice to write about male characters in those cases (I would hypothesise) is motivated primarily by that prejudice; their attraction to gay men is a side-effect.
I think it's strange that you're speaking as if slash fiction (and mainstream fiction) was required to marginalise female characters. Every fictional "space" is open for female characters to be treated well... you can't say that there "aren't many left". The problem is that most authors have sexist views, because most of society has sexist views. Female characters don't need their own "space" in which they are well-treated, they just need more authors (male and female) who lack that deep-seated hatred of women.
no subject
I'm generally annoyed by the reading of race constructs into fantasy or science fiction. As Zoe keeps forcibly pointing out to me, "new" racism is focused on culture, and (in your example), the orcs are culturally more similar to Nazi Germany. Saying that they have dark skin and therefore Tolkien must have hated black people is a pretty pointless criticism - it ignores all the themes that actually make the orcs scary.
In the end, I don't think that sort of reading adds anything to the reading experience; in some cases (C. S. Lewis, for example) it ruins the enjoyment of the work totally. Far better to find and promote authors whose values the critic does agree with.
no subject
Yes. But when I use it, I'm not talking about values: I'm saying even when you're talking about matters of taste you still have to think a bit about what you're doing. Ah, I see, but I used the word "value" when I meant "property", that was an unfortunate wordchoice.
Hmm, no, I think enjoying slash isn't necessarily a product of misogyny, I mean I wouldn't say that liking lesbian porn is a sign of misandry :)
Sorry, I made my argument very badly there. What I meant was: slash (and fan fiction in general) is a genre (primarily) written by and for women, which in no way is directly controlled or dictated to by mainstream patriarchal ideas about what makes a good story. So if fanfic writers can't manage not to be misogynistic we're in all sorts of trouble.
no subject
I'll agree that Lord of the Rings is quite ambiguous, that's why I chose it to illustrate the blurry boundary between "black=evil" as a racist and non-racist idea. My argument wasn't that it's horribly racist, just to point out that the line between the two sorts of association isn't always easy to draw.
But CS Lewis offended me as an eight year old, and thinking about this sort of analysis has just allowed me to put that discomfort into words.
The "Red heads are awesome, brunettes are evil" subtext to "Prince Caspian" might not have bothered you but it bothered me :P (Though actually I was more bothered by the blatant "Muslims are evil devil worshippers" metaphor in "The Horse and his boy") Similarly, while you and I can dismiss the fact that every single dark skinned character in the LOTR movies(*) is evil it's probably not very nice for all the dark-skinned people watching, especially when taken in conjunction with the same being true of a great deal of fantasy.
If you don't poke at the subtext of things and think about what's really going on you end up supporting the status quo, and the status quo sucks. (This is one of the basic principles I was brought up on, mind you, which might explain my childhood reaction to books being a bit atypical)
(*)I can't remember if the Uruk-Hai are black in the books
no subject
As far as slash, I was only talking about the writers you were discussing, just my own interpretation of the cause-and-effect relationship. I realise there are other reasons why people might write or read it!
Ah, I see what you mean. You're speaking as though it's men that are mysogynistic, though, rather than society. Sexist social expectations are reinforced just as much by women.
(That's one of the reasons why I really dislike the use of 'the patriarchy' as some sort of shadowy male force in feminist discourse. It distorts the debate: the problem is not that 'the patriarchy' needs to be rooted out and destroyed, it's that society as a whole needs to change its views of women.)