as a result of my “a feminist film critic defends the Onion’s Quvenzhané Wallis tweet” post:
“white bitch”
“one of many terrible people in history”
all I “rly want is for abuse to be normalized for black girls”
in need of being “school[ed]… on how the internet works & what words mean”
I “think black bodies are a shield for white women”
“contributing to rape culture”
I don’t “think black children are really people who can be hurt”
So, what did you think of Seth MacFarlane’s “I’ve seen your boobs” song?
:)
She obviously hated it, but I suspect you know that already.
Obviously those Tweet authors just read the opening sentence of your paragraph, got mad, and decided not read the remaining 99% of your post.
That might be nice to think, and it’s probably true in more than a few cases, but you don’t know that.
I personally think they were too incensed to actually read and take in what MaryAnn had to say. But calling her a ‘bitch’, ‘racist as fuck’ and ‘snaggle-toothed idiot’ is just as offensive as that Onion tweet she chose to defend. But then, that’s the Internet for you.
I think “just as offensive” is a problematic phrase to use here. Not, for one moment, because I think any of the above abuse is defensible, or anything less than offensive. It’s just that, to give it a bit of context, MaryAnn runs a web site, and has demonstrated herself capable of dealing with abuse. Again, not to suggest that it doesn’t hurt — she wouldn’t be human if it didn’t.
But if those who are arguing that, whatever the intention, and the nuance of its satire, the Onion post will be taken as a straight piece of abuse — if they are right, then is it so unreasonable to say that such abuse directed towards a 9-year old black girl who has not yet demonstrated any such toughness is more offensive? If my son punches me, then it hurts, but I can take it. If he punches a girl a couple of years below him at school, that’s rather worse, isn’t it?
MaryAnn is right to isolate the abuse above, to put it up in such a stark way as to expose the hate that lies behind it. And yes, that’s the Internet for you. But there are gradations. I think it helps to recognize why people are so damn angry about this tweet. In amongst the abuse on the other thread there have been some people making the argument extremely eloquently. They won me over, and I am a passionate believer in the importance of satire, who had initially agreed with MaryAnn’s analysis.
The thing that gets me is that the people who would call the tweet indefensible and would also write “Snaggle toothed idiot” are the same people who make Maryann’s opinion relevant.
I get it, they want to pretend that it really isn’t that bad because at least they would never call a little girl that. So they stand up for this little girl, and take up the cause of “race” (A perceived difference between people) and gender inequality while they’re at it but…
Well you can’t say this:
“MaryAnn is right to isolate the abuse above, to put it up in such a stark way as to expose the hate that lies behind it.”
And think it stands in opposition to this:
“I think it helps to recognize why people are so damn angry about this tweet”
I agree.
That’s why I didn’t do that. The “But” applied to the comment about there being gradations. The two comments above are complementary, not oppositional. Sorry for any confusion caused.
I remember that post having about 35 respectful comments a couple days ago…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI
I’m not sure that should count, it’s by one person and her twitter followers. There’s a greater variation of sources in the comments to the original article. Is anyone else wondering how this would have panned out if Wallis was a nine-year-old boy?
Well, the “Reactions” tab of the page lists over 400 tweets. Most are un-commented retweets. Many are positive, very few negative. So you’ve also been called “thoughful”, “thought – provoking”, a feminist who “gets it right” (which sounds a bit backhanded), and “sane”.
To many POC, your piece is defending the indefensible, which I don’t think is an illegitimate reaction. I also don’t think you do yourself any favors by commenting that it’s not about race. These people are taking the same stance you might take if, in some other controversy that involved a woman, some man tried to claim that it isn’t about sex. These folks aren’t being particularly eloquent about it, to be sure.
Better to demure, and say that the racial aspect of it is something you can’t /don’t care to comment on. You’re not required to write about every aspect of anything, And you’re certainly not required to write about the things other people want you to write about. But if that’s something you don’t want to talk about, then don’t talk about it. They may till say you’re being racist, but at least it would be based on a lack of position, rather than on a stated position.
You’re right when you say “I also don’t think you do yourself any favors by commenting that it’s not about race.”
But not for the reasons you mention.
If you were to demure at every opportunity about “race”, then you would automatically create a gap in language which would favor racism.
The only people who could provide a reasonable position on this topic, would be people who would not comment on it.
Saying its not about “race” does not automatically mean it IS about “race”.
PS, I’ve placed “race” in quotes because its a meaningless label even though racism is real. I know I didn’t have to say it for most people but it needs reminding that this topic is a poisoned well where nobody who steps into it can come out of it clean, but really, nobody should either.
I’m not suggesting “every opportunity”. I’m saying that in this case, she had an angle she wanted to address. It is unreasonable to require that every writer address every possible angle of the issues they write about. Especially if they’re concerned that they’re just going to end up showing everyone their ass. No one writer can be expected to fill every language gap.
This assertion flies in the face of reality. There are plenty of people offering reasonable positions on race, and plenty offering unreasonable ones. So I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
No, but if you’re going to claim that any topic isn’t about a particular -ism, you should be sure you are really in a position to make that call. Some people, particularly those with privilege, like to claim that it requires a neutral observer to make the determination, but that’s a fallacy. Deference should be given to those who know what it looks, sounds, and feels like because they’ve experienced it before.
If you don’t have that experience, the last thing you ought to do is tell someone who does that they’re wrong. Better to say nothing. Best to think hard about what that person is experiencing and learn.
I’m glad you got how unreasonable my unreasonable suppositions are. (because they are, they were meant to)
They were also meant to reflect the hypothetical world where people can be sure they are in a position to make “that call”
I get it, we don’t agree on this. But I do have experience with discrimination, and that doesn’t mean I am an expert on it. Some problems are actually helped by outside perspective, and hot button issues like this one, sometimes prevent people from listening to rational discussion.
Because even if you are wrong, you can still be wrong in a civilized manner.
Pardon me while I make a bit of an assumption here, based on your latino last name:
I’m a middle-class white guy. If you tell me that something is discriminatory toward hispanics, and I tell you no it isn’t, are you going to defer to me due to my outside perspective? Don’t you think that, while you may not be an “expert”, you at least know better than I do what discrimination agains hispanics looks like? Don’t you think I ought to be listening first, before telling you you’re wrong?
Isn’t this how power imbalances work: the privileged class has their views heard first and foremost, marginalizing the underprivileged. As a member of the privileged class, this is how I can, in some way, work to rectify that power imbalance: by listening. Maybe by asking questions, but I then have to recognize that I may be asking the other person to engage in some 101 for my benefit.
All that being said, the tweets are ugly, no question.
But aren’t you, in this very comment, telling Damian that he’s wrong? If Damian, as a Hispanic (if that is what he is), is telling you that he finds value in outside perspectives, then, by your own argument, shouldn’t you be listening to him about that? :-)
I’ve read these comments several times and, although DrR seems to agree with you, it looks to me like he’s not telling Damian that it is wrong. All he’s saying is that he (Dr.R) shouldn’t be automatically deferred to as an “outsider” and that he (Dr.R again) ought to listen first at a minimum before telling someone that they are wrong.
Ultimately, to me, it comes down to really listening to each other — which isn’t always easy.
Outsider perspectives can be great, but everyone involved has to trust each other. From my own experience, there’s a huge lack of trust between many black and white women, between many womanists and feminists. Working together is often fraught, to say the least. It doesn’t stop some from pushing through, but it isn’t easy. There’s all the problems that any two or more people can have working together with an extra layer of the legacy of some ugly history and a lack of self examination over the years in left-wing movements.
Just so.
I also kind of took that comment as Bluejay being a bit tongue in cheek there. It was starting to sound like I was saying, “No, no, listen to me, you don’t have to listen to me!”
Which makes me think:
“You are all individuals!”
“We are all individuals!”
“I’m not.”
Yech, my congue ih ing my keeck.
I have returned to this post multiple times today. Yes, all those names are ugly; however, I am very sympathetic to the perspective of those who are angry at any defense of that tweet. There is a powerful intersection of race and gender that starts very young and there is no way to shield a child from it until some ‘better’ time and I agree with them that — even though you wrote that the Onion was wrong — this was an indefensible statement and that intention was irrelevant.
I get why it was a satirical statement. I also see without a doubt that it made use of someone who should not have been made use of. I would be saying this about a white child, too. But, there is extra hideousness in the use of this particular child given the very real history of black women being trampled on by many, many white feminists as well as the sexualization of black children by our culture.
In your comments, there was much evidence that you cannot see how racism would have prevented many from understanding it as satire, and this completely separate from the problem of sexism and misogyny preventing that understanding as well (frequently among the same people, I’m sure).
There is the problem, OUR problem, that while, for
example, I might be a feminist, I am also a product of my class
(complicated), my race (white), and my country (the USA). Racism is a
system of social control, a long-ago imposed economic management system that has metamorphosed and gotten under everyone’s skin. I am white in a racist society, it is the soup I swim in. It is also a creation (yes,
yes, from long ago, and I didn’t choose to have this here) of white
people. We have now inherited it and, if we recognize it as the tragedy that it is, we need to be the ones to stop perpetuating it. I am sure you agree with that and I have no idea where you are in your journey internally, but, from here, I think you owe an apology to the readers of all colors.
There’s a place, where your comments are coming from, an indignant and hurt place where what you are saying is true, but there is also a “reading too much into” MAryAnn’s opinion, for example “…there was much evidence that you cannot see how racism would have prevented many from understanding it as satire”
I’ll quote the last psychiatrist here to try to make my point:
“If you think I support domestic abuse– if you think my not explicitly writing, ad nauseum, “NO TOLERANCE” or “IT’S NOT THE VICTIM’S FAULT” is evidence that I think that “sometimes the bitch deserves it,” then I can tell you without error that 2012 is going to be way too complicated a year for you to endure, and you are seeing a psychiatrist, and it isn’t helping. Stop being you. The world does not have to validate your prejudices. Take a minute, you may learn from people you disagree with.”
Clearly on another (related) topic and not meant specifically for you. But I thinks its pretty clear, blunt, but clear (I hope).
Meaning, you can disagree with it being defensible, but can you refute the analysis of what the tweet was supposed to mean? or barring good intent, does our understanding of what is wrong with this have to stop at the child mentioned here? or must the discussion of the horrible state of oppresion towards women be framed around grown women even if that is not what happens in real life?
What the Onion wrote is awful, understanding the full extent of its awfulness is not.
Apologies for the delay in replying, Damian. My answer to the question
was already in that thread at http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2013/02/a_feminist_film_critic_defends.html#comment-812932822 .
I doubt that if the title of the post had the word Explains rather than Defends there would have been the same gut response by so many. In fact, I do think that in ‘this’ — meaning on that post and in the comments to that post — location the discussion around the understanding of oppression of women was completely stopped because of who the Onion chose as their target. In my post above, I wrote “there is extra hideousness in the use of this particular child given the very real history of black women being trampled on by many, many white feminists as well as the sexualization of black children by our culture.” In this comment http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2013/02/a_feminist_film_critic_defends.html#comment-812925920 on the other thread I wrote “the reason that the other satirical comments are fine … is that … these relate to things that they [Bigelow, et al.] do…presumably with some agency … the tweet about Quvenzhane is using her as a placeholder …and is …not in a position of agency.”
I offer you the same condolences you handed out, “It’s satire”. Maybe you’re just not “getting the joke”?
Or are you sitting there feeling sorry for yourself b/c you’re being called names…after defending someone else doing what they’re doing to you. Sorry, I feel no sympathy for you. Just b/c you declare it “not about race” =/= the actual answer. It’s your opinion as you did not write the tweet & cannot know the person who *did*. You just know it’s from “The Onion” & that you didn’t really see the reason for them to apologize.
The reason is clear: they had a point but it’s never a joke to call a woman a “c*nt” much as you object to women being called “b*tches” I’m sure. Freedom of speech/comedy doesn’t make people free from consequence. They made their choice & it fell flat b/c clearly the person also didn’t care to think about how the reality that surrounds this country & its treatment of women/girls of colour has mostly been ignored or brushed off as “being oversensitive”. Maybe that’s why you feel it’s defensible; you don’t seem to be able to step outside of your privilege & think it’s silly for the rest of us to point out what’s been missed.
You can slap the “feminist” label on yourself but I think you should perhaps remember that it encompasses more than just “women like you”.
I’d be deleted to hear you explain the satire in the tweets I linked to here.
ETA: Delighted! Not deleted. Though clearly some folks would be happy at the moment if I were deleted.
There’s no satire in the tweet about Quvenzhane Wallis, though. Many people do consider black girls to be cunts. Black girls are people for whom many whites have expressed difficulty in feeling empathy, judging from the reaction to the character in The Hunger Games being black. Little black girls have been screamed at by white women, white mothers, for going to school. Little black baby boys have been slapped by drunk white men on planes. Black teenaged boys have been shot going home from the store because their very existence is viewed as so horribly scary that people justify armed adult men stalking and following them home. Was their childhood protection from such abuse? No.
Your premise is incorrect. It’s not true that the Wallis tweet is recognizable as clearly outrageous. It is a part of our culture that little girls like Wallis would be denigrated in that way.
Please tell me, knowing the context of how little black children are viewed in this culture, how that tweet could be ironic or satirical?
Honestly, im over this whole controversy. My position from the beginning was that it was a attempt at satire that went horribly,horribly wrong…and that hasn’t really changed much.
There’s no such thing as… bad publicity?
OH WHAT A NICE KITTEN! up there in your ad. Is that a random picture from the internet or your cat?
I don’t have a cat.
Ah, a variation on the “white woman crying” meme in the form of a blog post. How unsurprising.
What’s surprising is that the very same people who admit no possible context for the satirical use of bad language suddenly found a context they were okay with.
Please note that I disagreed with your post but did not attack you for it. Your subsequent comments, on the other hand, have troubled me immensely.
@MaryAnn
I think you should focus on those who say nice things about you rather than focus on the negative. I realize it makes better material for a post, but your posters here like you, amirite?
I personally think you are one of the most erudite, level-headed, film critics I know (and a bit foxy to boot).
So, let me get this straight, people are angry about you
a) Not being offended
b) For discussing why this is both offensive and satire
c) Reasons.
Its like they think you’re The Onion. (They don’t , they just think you’re agreeing with anybody who thinks like this, they think YOU are calling them a “insert random bad word here”)
But that’s why people attack the messenger, because they don’t want to deal with the message.
I think I’m more disturbed by the very real impression that you are trolling the onion controversy for page views. That was not a tweet begging for a defense. Certainly the Onion is in no way endangered by ‘random internet commenters’ who are as a group (and I include myself) probably about as irrelevant as it gets in terms of real world impact.
What would page views do except increase my bandwidth? Do you see ads here?
Twitter: where everyone can have their own mindless attack squad. At least it’s taken over from LiveJournal, and is easier to ignore.
Oh god, one of those tweets is from madgastonomer. She’s… not well, and loves nothing more than burning her allies. I’ve seen her get run off of three different boards, all very friendly to very diverse commenters, because she can’t help herself from strolling out her more-progressive-than-thou street cred and impressive knowledge of scatology to make everyone uncomfortable.
I’ve found this whole tweet debate exhausting and depressing to read and participate in. A few thoughts, briefly:
1) I have a problem with the idea that we’re all condemned to view the world solely through the lenses shaped by our circumstances: that the privileged can only view the world through their privilege, etc. Several white commenters in this debate (both in the Wallis thread and elsewhere on the Web) have shown that they can and do agree with minority commenters who believe that the Onion’s action was wrong. We may all be in different circumstances, but we all have the human capacity for imagination and empathy. That’s how we build bridges and forge alliances. That’s how we fought for civil rights, and that’s how we stick up for each other’s rights today. It may be hard to see beyond the personal circumstances that constrict our perspectives. But it’s far from impossible.
2) Everyone has the right to have and express their opinion about everything. We shouldn’t be trying to shut people down. We should be engaging arguments on their merits.
3) I really, really like what Jay Smooth has to say about race conversations, here and here. I think there are insights here worth taking to heart — both for people accused of racism, and for their accusers.
Hadn’t encountered Jay Smooth before. Good vid. However, even he says late in the TEDx talk that plenty of times there is no way through a discussion if the person keeps hearing only the “what you are” rather than what the speaker is saying is a “what you said/did” statement. His last plea is, indeed, for those accused to consider statements of “what you said” as gifts, as you wrote, for people accused of racism.
Agreed, and no “however” necessary. My point (which may not have been clear) was that his advice is intended for ALL participants in a race conversation, both those pointing out racist comments AND those receiving criticism.
I see what you did there…
Fair enough.