leatherpumpkin:

In the entertainment industry when it comes to screen work acting a lot of things come into play when it comes to casting an actor. Between attempting to appeal to a buying audience (what they assume is a white audience) with casting actors an actresses race**, size, cis-gender, and many other things take precedence over the skill of an actor. An actor or actress can very well compliment a character with the characteristics they have at the time but when it comes to long-term careers there is the issue that women drop off.

Actors are allowed to mature and grow with time in their craft, they are allowed to age on screen, and they do not have the level of discrimination that actresses face when their age starts to play a major factor in their role opportunities. This does not change the fact that there were still the mediocre actors that began in this industry and they have not improved by much in spite of the freedom to do so. Actress on the other hand while the same amount is viewed as mediocre, once they begin to age it stops becoming how they can fit into a role because roles are scarce for older women but then who has the talent to fit the mold of the role. For actresses it becomes about the maturity and quality of the craft because as far as the industry is concerned their looks go out the window at 40. Only who the industry believes is the most talented survives and even then race and size and all else*** still is a factor holding back the roles opportunities they could have. The role opportunities for men are booming at all ages while the ones for women became scarce allowing men to strive on being mediocre while actresses do not get that luxury. And then when criticism comes into play of it all, the issue is that medicore actors being at all ages makes it seem like actors are steady with their talent and “worth” in this industry while with actresses, the young actresses of today are next to a level of actresses who have the necessity of being above par to get roles on their shoulders. If comparing the romcom actresses of today with the romcom actresses of the 80s and 90s, who are barely getting roles these days, they are at the same level when it comes to quality. And then you would also be able to see that many of those actors in comparison are still given acting opportunities and how they are still as standard as they were twenty years prior.

Young actors and actresses start with the bar set at the same level when it comes to talent in this industry. The issue is that as they age men get to stay at that level if they please while women have their bar raised higher and higher as time goes on and for many it is impossible for them to push themselves to that level. 

* Mediocrity is subjective, as is talent. However, the industry obviously has their number of older females they as a whole view as talented as well as men who get love at all ages.

** On top of race, skintone is also relevant. If picking someone of a race and trying to portray and image the industry tends to go toward the lighter tones.

*** Men are still scrutinized for these things as well, but somehow many can get roles in spite of it all.

leatherpumpkin:

Mass media focuses on equaling having obsessive-compulsive order by being a neat freak. While there are people with OCD that do compulsively clean that is not even close to being the majority. It is also shown as something people do because they are stressed out or can’t get there way. It needs to be known that OCD is the stress. People are not just coping badly or being overdramatic. It is not a way to get out anger. It is a mental disorder not aggressive knitting. 

Having OCD consists of obsessions, which are the intrusive thoughts that lead to anxiety and distress, and compulsions, the physical and/or mental repetitive behaviors. The media focuses on the compulsions are not known to be able to exist by their own. The fact that so many people are affected by OCD, it is ridiculous that there has become this cartoon version of it shown throughout film and television. On top of having OCD being shown as people who are stressed out neat freaks it also shows people who are not able to function in life. This is the most hurtful of the misconceptions that have formed. For one it has created this extreme of people one level of people not claiming to “be” OCD because they like their bedroom tidy but then the other extreme is people who are clinically considered to have OCD being see as people without any agency. Then if you do have control over your own life (based on what your ideal of what control is) and you are not a person of neatness than people question you own mental disorder. Functioning human beings can have and do have OCD. It is not a way to seek attention. It is not about cleaning or organizing or stress. It is not easily cure or calmed. It is however a mental disorder that too many people are coping with for people to still think that using Purell is the main factor or the issue.

For more info on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

So you have a female character who is thought of as very independent and is always single. She is involved in multiple relationships over time but have never sought marriage and most importantly she has never seemed to desire children. Never has mentioned them. And if she has mentioned them it has been of a serious disdain toward them. Then one day she has a one night stand; or sleeps with her partner; or her best friend; or ex-boyfriend and gets pregnant. Or she sees a baby being pushed past her in a stroller and gets a funny feeling in her gut. Now she wants a baby. She needs a baby. Whatever ill feelings that came before are long forgotten in trade off for the thought of little tiny onesies and diapers and the audience is supposed to believe that all women have that deep maternal instinct that will kick in eventually.

Creating this world where women who adamantly do not want children up and decide that kids going to be a very important factor in their life all of a sudden creates a world where it is wrong for a woman to not want children at one point of her life. And then having it seem as if the woman pre-baby wanting was just an immature version of the now baby craving woman shows that all women who do not want kids are just too immature to want to accept such responsibility; no matter how untrue that can be.

Miranda Hobbes from Sex and the City is the first and worst that comes to mind. She did not want children and did not need children. Her main goal in life was to have a successful career… and then she got pregnant by her ex… and she decided that she did not want to keep the child. Of course, once in the abortion clinic she breaks down into hysterics and cries about how she couldn’t do it. Which is great you know, even a woman who has said she doesn’t want a child and is put in the position where they have to make a decision. When you see women repeatedly saying no to kids until they wind up pregnant or start to “feel their clock ticking” it places this belief that not wanting children should only be temporary for a woman and if that is not the case then something is wrong.

This continuously feeds into the concept that a woman is not a woman unless she has a child; that a female cannot be whole if she is not raising another and it is not right. It is shown as though maturity or any amount of growth as a woman only comes with raising a child and while, yes being put in the position of child rearing does require one to “grow up” a bit, every other woman in this world who chose not to take that route or could not take that route is not automatically the poster girl for immaturity. They also should not be treated as constant outsiders for not taking that alleged default path of a female’s life. It has been created and portrayed that a woman is only as good as her uterus, her want and need for children, and her acceptance that it has to be a role in her life. Having these women that are portrayed as strong and independent basically succumb to motherhood, something that have claimed that they did not want, is throwing shade at women don’t want that life and telling society that they are truly in denial because even if they are saying no that maternal instinct will click in when the time is right. It is enabling the belief that a child makes a woman whole which, as time has told us, is never the case.

neverthehurricane:

An incomplete list of why that argument is flawed: 

1. Art can be racist. We wouldn’t have a western canon, or any art canon for that matter, if we hadn’t already acknowledged that years ago. Racism doesn’t negate something from being art and art doesn’t negate something from being racist. This is not a platform worth arguing on. 
2. Art has the power and scope to affect society in a way that nothing else does. Nothing is ever ‘just a book’ or ‘just a music video’ or ‘just a song.’ If it’s not important enough to think about, then it wasn’t important enough to be made. 
3. Art is a decent enough gauge of what some members of society were thinking at any given time. We study art to study culture and history. Visual art in particular is not simply a presentation of one’s inner-most feelings and beliefs but a reproduction of the culture the artist lived in and, often, a reproduction of that culture’s historical viewpoints; shorthand that the artist may not have even realize they internalized. 

Also, a bonus tip! This one’s on symbolism but tune in next week for the next dumb racist thing fandom does for the next installment: 

Having darkness represent evil is lazy and trite, but generally acceptable. Having a dark person represent evil is lazy and trite but also racist. Having a non-black person dress up in blackface to represent evil is not only lazy, trite, and racist but also a direct continuation of the same destructive shorthand that cost people their lives and livelihood. The time in-between has not allowed for it to be less offensive or more ironic.

In fact, let’s take this opportunity to segue into a preemptive offense of my least favorite literary device: Irony. In order for irony to work, there must be two layers involved: the implied, often traditional, meaning and the literal one. 

Society at the time of blackface was casually and institutionally racist. The white population had unparalleled privilege over everyone else and were the ones who found any entertainment value in blackface. Society at the time of Florence + the Machine’s video is casually and institutionally racist. The white population has unparalleled privilege over everyone else and she, as a member of that population, is the one who sees any entertainment value in blackface. The only thing that is ironic about this scenario is attempting to use irony in the first place.

As for edginess, using blackface, an old racist visual tradition, in a music video in 2011 is about as edgy as pulling out the clothes that were worn during blackface’s heyday and wearing them in a music video. 

You want to get into a discussion about how edgy or culturally appropriate something is? Try Annie Leibovitz’s 1998 photos of African American comedian Chris Rock in whiteface. Using the shorthand of blackface, which exploited blackness as a source of comedy for white people, and flipping it so a black comedian was put in whiteface as a commentary on modern day comedy actually is edgy and interesting. Or, if you prefer discussions and debates about symbolism, how about Annie Leibovitz’s 1984 shot of African American comedian Whoopi Goldberg simultaneously submerged and emerging from a tub of milk (which Leibovitz specifically stated was meant to symbolize her coming out from all the whiteness in comedy)? Here, the racial overtones of color are being used intentionally and smartly. In 1984! 

Annie Leibovitz is, for anyone who might not be aware, white. 

…But oh, wait, those examples actually give the visual power to the POCs! They legitimately challenge, or document the challenging of, the status quo! I guess something is only considered edgy if it’s someone doing, or defending their right to do, the exact same thing as their ancestors! 

(via monkeyknifefight)

leatherpumpkin:

I have a serious issue when people, usually straight white males, scream foul whenever someone says that they are privileged.

I am a black female. I spent my entire high school career having my straight, white male friend tell me that I would have a better chance at getting into college than him because of my race and gender. I have worked with a white male congress member who called be out of my name always (“dollface” and “pumpkin” seem to be the favorites) and informed me on a regular basis how shocking it was that I was actually intelligent. As a black female actress, with the state of the industry at the moment, I will not get the roles I deserve. I have been consistently called a bitch since I was twelve to the point where I said, “You know what? I’m gonna fucking own this word,” because I happen to be outspoken and assertive. I am told that I do not act my race consistently. I get phone calls on a regular basis from caring family members telling me what to wear and to make sure that I am with friends at all times when I am out. I have been sexually assaulted and it has been overlooked because of rape culture tendencies. I have been sexually harassed too many fucking times to count. Anything great I am given in life I question if it was because of my race or gender. If you are a straight, white male you don’t have to deal with these things on a daily basis. You just do not.

And then the privileges that you scream than a person of any marginalized group contain were not given to them because that is the way the world just works. No, they are results of structures set up by straight white men. For example, my straight, white male friend tends to bring up two arguments quite a bit about how men suffer, too. The first one being that in family court cases the child almost always goes to the mother despite the fact that she may not be the better candidate for such and the second is that if the boat sinks the women and kids get to live while the men die. Well, with the custody situation it first off was not always like that. There was a long fucking period of time where if you got divorced from your husband your child, and everything else went to him. The family unit was treated as property and it was the man of the household’s property. “Mother knows best,” is not a female made concept. And chivalry is not something a lady told any man to do. Men decided that they needed to be kind to the fine ladies of the world because they were more delicate and needed security. They were childlike. And men are stern creatures so of course the ladies have to get in the boat with the children. You can go around saying that you are being harmed in this world by the societal structures but just know that you built them. The oppressed people are not the ones that created the barriers where you are “set to fail” because they were too busy you know, being oppressed. 

If you cannot understand this. I will happily point you to some lists that you kindly fit into.

I would just like to say that this applies to anyone in a privileged position. While yes, there are real life struggles and burdens that a privileged person can have it must be kept in mind that you honestly cannot compare your struggles to one of a person of a marginalized group. It is actually highly offensive for comparisons to be made. Especially seeing that society has barriers set within them that make a life of any minority a struggle from birth.  

White-washing is a thing. And it is a thing that is quite obvious at times because there will be a character that was one race in a book and somehow managed to be white on screen but other times it is not quite so obvious. Most well structured characters available out there are given to white actors and actresses. However, most well structured characters out there could be played by a POC just as well as it could be any white actor or actress. This is still white-washing. It is a more subtle version of it but it is actually the type of white-washing that happens most often and has been happening for quite some time. 

To put it simply, if a show or a film is not period and not specifically culture based then yes, the characters’ races are technically interchangeable. There is no excuse for majority of the characters (especially characters with actual depth to them) being portrayed by non-POC people. This is made obvious time and time again when a white person takes over a role that a POC is intended to play. If you can transition a POC character into a white character so easily then you should be able to quite as easily be able to do the same with a character that you intended to be white, because what else do you know, and make it into a POC character*.

POC actors and actresses are set up with this disadvantage because for some reason non-POC casting directors, directors, and writers seem to think that they are from a different species. Like, they don’t seem to believe that POC go through the same issues as white people. That somehow all POC do is sit around talking about the history of their culture and nothing else ever. And people within this modern western world are told because one race is so different from another that it would be hard to transition the script to make it appropriate and adaptable to more than one race. And they eat this shit up because it is easier than admitting that we live in this internalized racist environment that really and truly does not understand that just because a person is black, Asian, Hispanic, etc doesn’t mean that they have all of these stereotyped problems that are placed upon them; and that they are allowed to just wipe their hands of it because they couldn’t possibly understand. POC are just as three-dimensional and complex in real life as non-POC people are so why are they getting treated as if that is anything but the case when it comes to the screen. 

People pick up what they see on television. People pick up what they see on film. Yes, many are able to separate fiction from reality but the fact of the matter is what we see there bleeds into what we believe about the world, culture, and ourselves. Not having an appropriate representation of POC in film and television shapes the view point of how a non-POC will view them. Not having an appropriate representation of POC in film and television actually shapes how POC view themselves and their races in comparison to a non-POC. And honestly, it is rarely a kind interpretation that anyone can take from seeing a screen full of white people actually being complex and intellectual and a POC character being a sideshow. Nothing good will ever come from that. 

* And yes, it has happened before but on so few occasions that I can count them on one hand so let’s not.

leatherpumpkin:

I don’t want the word “slut.” I do not want to take it back. I do not want it to be a ‘thing.’ I cannot find one positive connotation within that word because really and truly there isn’t one. It wasn’t made for that and it is not used in that way now. It was made as an insult and to be degrading. There isn’t a need to claim the word slut especially if we are spending our time trying to be sex-positive. Why would there be a slut in a sex-positive environment in we are being ever so accepting? You can’t create positivity when there isn’t any there. It isn’t a word used to describe women who are strong and powerful generally, and if it is used in their favor it is with the intention to knock them down ten pegs. The word is misogynistic there is no way around that and should really just go away tbh.

We are a part of a sex-positive environment, right?

We are being told that women are embracing their sexuality, which very well may be true, but there is really only representation of one type of woman doing this in the media. When the majority of the portrayal of embodying sexuality is of one type— one shape— what does that say for every other woman out there that isn’t of that size? That they are to shape shift to be considered sexually liberated by the public eye or even to themselves. That society only accepts the open sexuality of one kind of girl and for everyone else it is completely laughable. 

On top of that much of the sexualization happens within things aimed toward men. Other than magazines and those ladies that look like they are going to fall over at any given moment on Spike, the sexualization of females comes up a bit on television, movies, and books aimed toward men. It isn’t even the sexualization alone; it is the fact that other than being a sexual object there is nothing else there. Most female characters in shows aimed towards men are shells. They have what is perceived as a great body, maybe a witty line here of there, almost always some fucked up back story*, but never an actual personality. How is a character empowering herself and being magnificent and ‘I don’t care if I am fighting crime in a leather bikini I am in charge of my body,’ if the actual character is barely existent. She’s a model with a gun. So on top of showing both males and females that a woman is to embrace her sexuality when she looks like one of these ladies but also that it is all she needs because actual personalities are overrated. And when she is not obviously a shell she is completely obsessed with sex… because you know, a woman couldn’t just like sex and be accepting of that fact. No, she has to obsess over it and force herself on men to the point where even a man is sickened by it because who wants a crazy nymphomaniac like that, right? Even then her personality is just sex there isn’t any depth there. 

Then with television aimed at women that has empowerment often shown through sexuality and gives off the message that it is the only way a female can empower herself. Not only that but they often have female characters that are so sexually charged and being very domineering about it. That in relation to being shown these same women over and over as the women who are to be sexually liberated. It is constantly shown that a woman that presents herself in a “certain way” or that is accepting of her sexuality could never actually be doing it for herself. That is the way that it is constantly given to us through the media so how could it not be true? If an independent woman in a place of power is also embracing of her sexuality she obviously used one to get the other. Again and again we have been given the story of the overpowering, sexual dominatrix woman who slept her way to the top. So much so that on The Good Wife this season, the character Celeste Serrano was a successful lawyer who happened to mention her casual sex life… quite a bit was slutshamed by much of the fandom who believed she used her “womanly wiles” to get ahead in life which was never even implied once during her three episode arc. And a lot of the times characters aren’t even slutshamed just by the fandoms but also the shows that they are a part of themselves. These tiny-waisted, full-breasted women who are allowed to trot around in little to nothing but are never doing it for themselves and this is how they are being empowered and this means that they are sluts. That is what we are being told and that is what we are accepting and the beliefs that we are implanting into society time and time again.

Liberating yourself sexually is more than just showing off your body which I think is something that is not talked about quite enough. Discovering who you are sexually, if you are someone who has sexual desires in the first place, and where your sexuality comes into play with that. Instead of this mixed messages are sent. To be sexy you have to be this one type and also brainless but if you become too sexy you will be written off as trash by society… but you are supposed to be sexy or at least sex-positive… but don’t get too crazy with your liberation or you will be a whore.

* Why why why must there be some fucked up back story for a female character all of the time. Now, I don’t necessarily have a problem with a good ol’ vengeance story but why do men get to seek vengeance on the unlawful death of their parents or girlfriend and women get back stories like being raped repeatedly and have all of her actions as a result to that? Is that a question for another day? Okay then.

(Source: shityourtvtellsyou)

I wish that this was not a post that had to be made. Like, I wish that explaining why “Men Who Don’t Have to Ask” lists are a things that just should not exist was not something that had to be done but they keep happening so here I am.

No man, no matter how attractive their face is, has the right to “not have to ask.” No human being has that right, actually. If there isn’t a mutual agreement in any form of sexual activity then that is a sexual assault. No matter how physically attracted you are to that person it is still a sexual assault. Even if you are sexually attracted to that person it is a sexual assault. Telling someone basically that they are hot enough to rape you is enabling rape apologism to a whole new disgusting degree. 

Even if the person is fictional it is not okay. Season 2, Episode 3 of Mad Men, “The Benefactor”, featured a scene* with Don Draper and Bobbie Barrett where he shoved his hand up her dress and says to her, “Do what I say. I will ruin him.” His hand… was up… her skirt… as a power play. The number of people that still say that this scene was “hot” and “sexy” is ridiculous. Moreso, the number of women that say that they would have loved to be in Bobbie’s place during this scene is disturbing because his hand was up her skirt as a way to show that he is in control of the situation. Like, why would you want to be in that position? I get that Jon Hamm looks like Prince Eric and that for some reason makes too much of what Don Draper does as a character acceptable to the public eye** but does that really make it okay for him to grab your vagina without your permission? The answer is: No. Not ever. It is not something that is okay to joke about either*** because you know what, at lot of people out there will use the excuse of your kidding ways to rape others.

And I get that this is the internet and people feel that things should not be taken seriously but the thing is that they really and truly are. The outstanding number of females that accept, approve of, and participate in any sort of “Men Who Don’t Have to Ask” lists are giving off the impression that men don’t have to ask if their face is nice enough. You may think that you are speaking in some hypothetical situation that will never become real because these are celebrities so that won’t be a thing that happens in real life guyzz but creating this goes deeper than a hypothetical situation with a celebrity to be honest. There are guys out there that need that excuse that rape doesn’t really count when the person they are raping is sexually attracted to them. There are guys out there than need the excuse that you said certain men don’t have to ask. Creating that mentality that it is okay for some people in this world to involve themselves with you sexually without your permission goes beyond silly play on the internet— it feeds into rape culture.

* Will forever be the most disgusting thing that I have ever witnessed on television, by the way.

** That is a conversation for another day.

*** This works both ways. Horrible Bosses was mostly disgusting because of the number of people who thought (and still think) that Jennifer Aniston’s character was funny because she was forcing her employee to have sex with her (because you know rape is funny when a woman does it. Especially if that woman is thought of as attractive. Ha haha ha ammirite?). I wasn’t aware that the terms “maneater” and “rapist” were interchangeable but it sure did teach me new things with all of the rape jokes!!!! Like, how disgusting whoever wrote that shit is!!!!!!!