Morat20, what if the women are talking about something thats typically stereotyped as feminine but not about men like shopping, children, or something like that?
Jaybird, nobody is required to life anybody. What you aren't allowed to do is to exclude people from patronizing your business or keeping them out of a public accomdation on the basis of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
Pierre, I find that opposition to remedial measures for racism are never anything that remotely could be described as good even if they aren't racist. They usually fall under some variety of FYIGM. Even if opposition to bussing wasn't racist, it was at least based partly on wanting your own kids to go to a good school at the expense of other kids. In general, it was about not wanting your kid to go to school with Black kids. I mean they could end up dating in high school or worse, having sex with each other.
For the same reason that African-Americans want to desegregate businesses and public accomdations in pre-Civil Rights Act America. Being excluded from something simply because of your race, gender, sexuality, or religion isn't really that nice of an experience. Its a constant reminder that society is rejecting you and doesn't like you.
I'd argue that even if a business could have a religion, its not really relevant. A lot of racism against African-Americans was justified on religious grounds. Christian fundamentalists thought that black skin was part of the curse of Ham, a son of Noah. Christianity was invoked a lot in the arguments for segregation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act disregarded these measures and was right to. In order to have a civil society, you can't have businesses and places of public accomdation being allowed to discriminate because of the religious views of their owner.
We have a somewhat similar problem in NYC. Ultra-Orthodox Jews are an increasingly powerful political group. There are about 330,000 of them but they mastered the art of bloc voting so have power that exceeds their strength and they turn out for every election possible. At the same time, they have certain practices that run contrary to federal and state law. A lot of Hasidic owend businesses have signs saying that they will not serve women and men that they deemed dressed immodestly, which is practically every one during the summer months. NYC is trying to fight against this on anti-discrimination grounds and are right to. If you have the money, than the business should have to pay for you.
L-2, seems not to be really that right. Its just conventional wisdom. Besides the actual lack of statistics and other data, casual observation would show that L-2 is wrong. If women really did like high-status jerks more than anybody else most heterosexual men would spend their entire life single. If men really liked hot women with big boobs than most woman than most women would be perpetually single as well. There is to much dating, sex, and marriage going on in real life for L-2 to be true.
That isn't saying that it doesn't have a grain of truth in it. If your looking for something casual rather than long-term, regardless of your gender and sexuality, than you are liking going to look for somebody physically appealing but at least somewhat emotionally shallow since chances of that person developing emotional attraction are low. I think that this is where the idea that women did jerks come from. Its not that necessarily true but that for most casual relationships or one night stands, an emotionally shallow person has a better chance.
ND, its comparing apples and organes still. Disney's feature length works nearly always take their inspiration from existing stories. His goal was to show the potential of animation as a medium to tell a story. The members of Termite Terrace wanted to have fun and used animation as medium for that. They were also pretty much acting unsupervised. If the Warner Brothers were less apathetic than you might get something less wild.
ND, I had similar feelings about the entire movement to have the new Doctor Who be played by a woman or a person of color. A lot of the articles advocating for a female Doctor Who or a Doctor Who of color seemed to come across more as a parody of liberalism than actual liberalism. I also thought that in the new Doctor Who, which is much more sexualized than the old Doctor Who, this all could come across as "well meaning but."
They did. Like ND, I have mixed feelings about these sorts of tests. I can understand why some people like them but a lot of really good art wouldn't pass them. A good chunk of Shakespeare would fail the Bechdel test yet somehow I do not think that we should get rid of Shakespeare. Sometimes you have to let art be art and not worry too much about anything else. Otherwise you are stuck with aesthetic Stalinism.
The Warner Brothers themselves were allegedly unaware that they had an animation department or at least were apathetic towards it. That might explain why the members of the Termite Terrace were able to get away with so much.
Jazzy, your right and I really don't think that Disney cares anything about their critics. What I meant is that a large swath of people will always criticize Disney.
I think Disney is in a damned if they do and damned if they don't category when it comes to diversity issues. They are simply such a large and powerful presence that millions will find something to complain about. My understanding is that Aladdin wasn't popular in the Arab world simply because the prominent view is that all the Arabian Night stuff is nothing more than orientalism. If Disney turned to Japanese mythology or folktales and given us Disney' Momotaro, the Japanese would have eaten it up though. I've known people who complained that Disney shouldn't have dumbed down the Greek myths in Hercules even though Greek myths are really not for kids. The Little Mermaid is attacked by feminists because it is all about a woman doing something to get a man.
Hanna-Barbera was a Jew and an Italian I think. Woody Woodpecker was created by an Italian-American.
Whether Walt Disney was an anti-Semite or not is up to debate. Months ago, Tablet Magazine actually had a story trying to determine whether or not this was correct or what were the origins of this accusation. We do know that Walt Disney gave a lot of money to Jewish charities, which is kind of unlikely for an anti-Semite and that he did employ many Jews, also highly unlikely from an anti-Semite and he lived at a time where he could hire and fire for whatever reason he liked. The evidence of Disney's alleged anti-Semitism is thin beyond the cartoon version of the Three Pigs that he made.
I think the Zucker brothers once admitted that they could not get away with many of the jokes that made Airplane funny today. Particularly the coffee scene between the kids.
Disney release Peter Pan in 1953, thats sixty years ago. Peter Pan first appeared in the world in 1904, forty-nine years before the Disney movie. The world of 1953 is much closer to the world of 1904 than the world of 2013 is to 1953. Despite all the economic, social, and technological changes between 1904 and 1953, there were lots of continuities. The colonial empires were still pretty intact in 1953 and would be till the early and mid-1960s. Racism, sexism, and homophobia were rampant and much more accepted in polite society. The Sexual Revolution did not happen and the acceptible norm was still no sex before marriage. As we talked about recently, the dressing your station was much more common and the vestiges of high society still existed in the Western world even though they were dying.
In 2013, there are practically no direct and obvious continuities between the society of 1953 and ours let alone the society of 1904. The imperial empires, at least in a formal sense, are long gone. Racism, sexism, and homophobia while still existing are at least in large chunks of the world seen as bad and not supported in polite society. In 1953, racists in the United States could simply say they don't like African-Americans and get elected to office. Racist politicians have to mannuever around the issue and at least make ritualistic denounciations of racism. High society as understood in 1953 and 1904 has basically disappeared from the West even though its remnants still exist. We are much more open sexually and no sex before marriage is no longer the norm even though some people would deeply love it to be.
So even though Disney's Peter Pan was released within the living memory of many people, the world to which it was released in might as well been more than a century ago. You can find more commonalities between the society of 1953 and 1904 than you can between 2013 and 1953. It was a logn time ago.
I think that any fault's with the Disney movie of Peter Pan are also going to be present in the original play and books by Barry. The original works by Barry may or may not be worse. Its been decades since I saw the Disney version and I never read the Barry's Peter Pan but they came out in the very early part of the 20th century during the height of the British Empire so I can easily see them being worse than the Disney movie.
I really don't have any solution to this problem. A lot of classic stories are going to come across kind of bad because of the beliefs of the time are very different from our own. As you pointed out, things from as recently as the 1980s can come across kind of bad. You could either avoid old books, movies, and TV in their entirely or stick to the things that are more insinct with modern sensibiltiies or at least non-offensive to them. We can also follow the BBC approach and change our cultural past to conform to contemporary social mores and tastes like they did with the Arthur mythos in Merlin or Robin Hood in Robin Hood. The last approach is just to enjoy the classics and shrug away any problematic parts.
1. This is an illegitimate concern. People should be no more free to discriminate on the basis of sexuality than they are on any other basis like race, gender, or religion. They should not be free to discriminate on those grounds either.
2 and 3 are also meaningless. Very few people are arguing for laissez-faire in those matters. Most people are advocating more an expansion to include LBGT people and their families.
4 is nothing more than you trying to have your cake and eat it to. You can not argue that people don't have rights, merely permissions but than argue that LBGT rights violates freedom of association.
Damon, there are over 300 million people in the United States. Despite our legendary suburban sprawl, most of us actually live in rather densely populated metropolitan areas rather than spread evenly about the country. Do you think that your radical personal autonomy would work without producing a blood bath? Nearly every society produces a code of behavior so that the social peace can be maintained and that code has never been everybody for themself.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Rethinking a classic”
Morat20, what if the women are talking about something thats typically stereotyped as feminine but not about men like shopping, children, or something like that?
"
Tolerably written has to be one of the best examples of damning with faint praise possible.
On “The Price Of Citizenship (Updated)”
Actually, I'd be opposed to this to.
"
Jaybird, nobody is required to life anybody. What you aren't allowed to do is to exclude people from patronizing your business or keeping them out of a public accomdation on the basis of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
On “Linky Friday #37”
Pierre, I find that opposition to remedial measures for racism are never anything that remotely could be described as good even if they aren't racist. They usually fall under some variety of FYIGM. Even if opposition to bussing wasn't racist, it was at least based partly on wanting your own kids to go to a good school at the expense of other kids. In general, it was about not wanting your kid to go to school with Black kids. I mean they could end up dating in high school or worse, having sex with each other.
On “The Price Of Citizenship (Updated)”
For the same reason that African-Americans want to desegregate businesses and public accomdations in pre-Civil Rights Act America. Being excluded from something simply because of your race, gender, sexuality, or religion isn't really that nice of an experience. Its a constant reminder that society is rejecting you and doesn't like you.
"
I'd argue that even if a business could have a religion, its not really relevant. A lot of racism against African-Americans was justified on religious grounds. Christian fundamentalists thought that black skin was part of the curse of Ham, a son of Noah. Christianity was invoked a lot in the arguments for segregation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act disregarded these measures and was right to. In order to have a civil society, you can't have businesses and places of public accomdation being allowed to discriminate because of the religious views of their owner.
We have a somewhat similar problem in NYC. Ultra-Orthodox Jews are an increasingly powerful political group. There are about 330,000 of them but they mastered the art of bloc voting so have power that exceeds their strength and they turn out for every election possible. At the same time, they have certain practices that run contrary to federal and state law. A lot of Hasidic owend businesses have signs saying that they will not serve women and men that they deemed dressed immodestly, which is practically every one during the summer months. NYC is trying to fight against this on anti-discrimination grounds and are right to. If you have the money, than the business should have to pay for you.
On “Weekend!”
Friday-Dancing.
Saturday-Chores and nothing. At least one day a week, I make a promise not to venture into Manhattan and stick around the neighborhood.
Sunday-Laundry and a party at night.
On “Linky Friday #37”
L-2, seems not to be really that right. Its just conventional wisdom. Besides the actual lack of statistics and other data, casual observation would show that L-2 is wrong. If women really did like high-status jerks more than anybody else most heterosexual men would spend their entire life single. If men really liked hot women with big boobs than most woman than most women would be perpetually single as well. There is to much dating, sex, and marriage going on in real life for L-2 to be true.
That isn't saying that it doesn't have a grain of truth in it. If your looking for something casual rather than long-term, regardless of your gender and sexuality, than you are liking going to look for somebody physically appealing but at least somewhat emotionally shallow since chances of that person developing emotional attraction are low. I think that this is where the idea that women did jerks come from. Its not that necessarily true but that for most casual relationships or one night stands, an emotionally shallow person has a better chance.
On “Rethinking a classic”
Mike, I have the entire nation of France and a young Bridget Bardot to support me. Well, all I need is a young Bridget Bardot.
"
I care about what French people think. ;).
"
ND, its comparing apples and organes still. Disney's feature length works nearly always take their inspiration from existing stories. His goal was to show the potential of animation as a medium to tell a story. The members of Termite Terrace wanted to have fun and used animation as medium for that. They were also pretty much acting unsupervised. If the Warner Brothers were less apathetic than you might get something less wild.
"
ND, I had similar feelings about the entire movement to have the new Doctor Who be played by a woman or a person of color. A lot of the articles advocating for a female Doctor Who or a Doctor Who of color seemed to come across more as a parody of liberalism than actual liberalism. I also thought that in the new Doctor Who, which is much more sexualized than the old Doctor Who, this all could come across as "well meaning but."
"
They did. Like ND, I have mixed feelings about these sorts of tests. I can understand why some people like them but a lot of really good art wouldn't pass them. A good chunk of Shakespeare would fail the Bechdel test yet somehow I do not think that we should get rid of Shakespeare. Sometimes you have to let art be art and not worry too much about anything else. Otherwise you are stuck with aesthetic Stalinism.
"
But not Papa Doc?
"
The Warner Brothers themselves were allegedly unaware that they had an animation department or at least were apathetic towards it. That might explain why the members of the Termite Terrace were able to get away with so much.
"
Jazzy, your right and I really don't think that Disney cares anything about their critics. What I meant is that a large swath of people will always criticize Disney.
"
I think Disney is in a damned if they do and damned if they don't category when it comes to diversity issues. They are simply such a large and powerful presence that millions will find something to complain about. My understanding is that Aladdin wasn't popular in the Arab world simply because the prominent view is that all the Arabian Night stuff is nothing more than orientalism. If Disney turned to Japanese mythology or folktales and given us Disney' Momotaro, the Japanese would have eaten it up though. I've known people who complained that Disney shouldn't have dumbed down the Greek myths in Hercules even though Greek myths are really not for kids. The Little Mermaid is attacked by feminists because it is all about a woman doing something to get a man.
Disney simply can't win, ever.
"
Hanna-Barbera was a Jew and an Italian I think. Woody Woodpecker was created by an Italian-American.
Whether Walt Disney was an anti-Semite or not is up to debate. Months ago, Tablet Magazine actually had a story trying to determine whether or not this was correct or what were the origins of this accusation. We do know that Walt Disney gave a lot of money to Jewish charities, which is kind of unlikely for an anti-Semite and that he did employ many Jews, also highly unlikely from an anti-Semite and he lived at a time where he could hire and fire for whatever reason he liked. The evidence of Disney's alleged anti-Semitism is thin beyond the cartoon version of the Three Pigs that he made.
"
I think the Zucker brothers once admitted that they could not get away with many of the jokes that made Airplane funny today. Particularly the coffee scene between the kids.
"
Disney release Peter Pan in 1953, thats sixty years ago. Peter Pan first appeared in the world in 1904, forty-nine years before the Disney movie. The world of 1953 is much closer to the world of 1904 than the world of 2013 is to 1953. Despite all the economic, social, and technological changes between 1904 and 1953, there were lots of continuities. The colonial empires were still pretty intact in 1953 and would be till the early and mid-1960s. Racism, sexism, and homophobia were rampant and much more accepted in polite society. The Sexual Revolution did not happen and the acceptible norm was still no sex before marriage. As we talked about recently, the dressing your station was much more common and the vestiges of high society still existed in the Western world even though they were dying.
In 2013, there are practically no direct and obvious continuities between the society of 1953 and ours let alone the society of 1904. The imperial empires, at least in a formal sense, are long gone. Racism, sexism, and homophobia while still existing are at least in large chunks of the world seen as bad and not supported in polite society. In 1953, racists in the United States could simply say they don't like African-Americans and get elected to office. Racist politicians have to mannuever around the issue and at least make ritualistic denounciations of racism. High society as understood in 1953 and 1904 has basically disappeared from the West even though its remnants still exist. We are much more open sexually and no sex before marriage is no longer the norm even though some people would deeply love it to be.
So even though Disney's Peter Pan was released within the living memory of many people, the world to which it was released in might as well been more than a century ago. You can find more commonalities between the society of 1953 and 1904 than you can between 2013 and 1953. It was a logn time ago.
"
I think that any fault's with the Disney movie of Peter Pan are also going to be present in the original play and books by Barry. The original works by Barry may or may not be worse. Its been decades since I saw the Disney version and I never read the Barry's Peter Pan but they came out in the very early part of the 20th century during the height of the British Empire so I can easily see them being worse than the Disney movie.
I really don't have any solution to this problem. A lot of classic stories are going to come across kind of bad because of the beliefs of the time are very different from our own. As you pointed out, things from as recently as the 1980s can come across kind of bad. You could either avoid old books, movies, and TV in their entirely or stick to the things that are more insinct with modern sensibiltiies or at least non-offensive to them. We can also follow the BBC approach and change our cultural past to conform to contemporary social mores and tastes like they did with the Arthur mythos in Merlin or Robin Hood in Robin Hood. The last approach is just to enjoy the classics and shrug away any problematic parts.
On “Quick question for movement conservatives”
Art Deco,
1. This is an illegitimate concern. People should be no more free to discriminate on the basis of sexuality than they are on any other basis like race, gender, or religion. They should not be free to discriminate on those grounds either.
2 and 3 are also meaningless. Very few people are arguing for laissez-faire in those matters. Most people are advocating more an expansion to include LBGT people and their families.
4 is nothing more than you trying to have your cake and eat it to. You can not argue that people don't have rights, merely permissions but than argue that LBGT rights violates freedom of association.
On “Small Town Populism in Song”
They would have taken away our lunch money to.
On “Quick question for movement conservatives”
Damon, there are over 300 million people in the United States. Despite our legendary suburban sprawl, most of us actually live in rather densely populated metropolitan areas rather than spread evenly about the country. Do you think that your radical personal autonomy would work without producing a blood bath? Nearly every society produces a code of behavior so that the social peace can be maintained and that code has never been everybody for themself.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.