Slytherin Syndrome: 1. The process of overtly villfying a group of people without explicitly saying they're all evil; we just know they are because there is no evidence to the contrary. 2. Claiming the moral high ground on arbitrary personality characteristics while villifying others.
This is not a jab at Harry Potter. Disney is also to blame. All the hyenas are evil, after all.
But first let's look at Harry Potter. Slytherins are evil. All of them. Name me one good one. Snape. Okay, name me two. In any case, we spend the first six books thinking he is evil, and his revelation does not really call into question previous assumptions about other Slytherins.
But what is a Slytherin? That is easier to answer than what is a Hufflepuff. Slytherins are ambitious. Ergo, they are all cowardly cruel bullies. Because that's what ambition means, right?
What an impressionable child understands of this dynamic is that being brave is good, and being ambitious is bad. Being intelligent or diligent (I think that's what Hufflepuff is; we're just going to go with that) is not bad, but it is not particularly good either. Nothing to be proud of.
Let's look at ambition first. Ambition to take over the world and make all Muggles your slaves, bad. Ambition to find a magical cure for cancer, good. Ambition to invent a flying machine/win the Olympics/bring peace to a war-torn nation: you get put on a motivational poster.
So really, there is nothing wrong with being ambitious. There is nothing wrong with aspiring to greatness. And they wonder why kids these days aren't performing up to par academically, why they don't aspire the way they used to, what happened to the enterpreneurial spirit of America, why they're all so damn apathetic. Well, who wants to be ambitious? Be brave (and reckless), be smart (and arrogant), or be diligent (and humorless). Just don't be ambitious.
It's not just a Harry Potter problem. In children's books or shitty fantasy with a teenage protagonist, the hero always whines about "Why do I get stuck with the magic powers? Why do I have to be king? Why can't I just live on the farm and have people tell me what to do?" Not that the hero isn't constantly being told what to do by helpful wizards and deities that all secretly wish the Chosen One wasn't such a whiny bitch. Frodo did not whine. Frodo volunteered. Did we forget that after Eddings? I think we did.
In contrast, the villain is the one who is trying to get magic powers or become king. In fact, the villain is the only one that shows any gumption. See, it's more morally right to have life give you power than to seek it, which is why we have a democracy where people run for office instead of a monarchy where they are born into it. The reason villains are always more interesting is because villains have plans and goals, and don't just go where the plot takes them. Which makes them bad people.
They have ambition.
Look at Disney. Scar saw what he wanted and took action to get it. Simba dodges responsibility until he gives into peer pressure. Ursula was a shrewd businesswoman. Ariel was just...Ariel. Why shouldn't Jafar be sultan? Jasmine's father is kind of a dope - and is that really who you want leading the nation? Didn't we try that in America? How did that go?
Harry just wants to goof off with his buddies. BORING! Voldemort wants to change the world.
What really set me off on this, though, was realizing that I am a lot more interested in analyzing literature than writing it. I'm a critic. The bitchcritic. Which, if you have seen Ratatouille, makes me the bad guy. But really, is not the highest honor a rat could receive the approval of the bitchcritic? It's not that he hates everything, he just has high standards, and doesn't it make you proud to know that you are awesome enough to meet those standards?
You know, this only happens because all our creative writers and filmmakers see themselves as intrepid inventors that the world cannot do without, and anyone who criticizes them as evil.
So I'm evil. Fine. Actually, no not fine. I'm not okay with being evil. They tell the hero that they can be whatever they want, be it chef, warrior, prince, princess, human, king. But no one tells that to the villain.
Because we're ambitious.
I am the bitchcritic and proud. And to everyone out there who has an ambition (and just how different is that from a dream, Ms. Disney Princess?) - go for it. As long as you have the intelligence to come up with a plan, the diligence to follow through, and the courage to risk it.
Showing posts with label Rhetoric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rhetoric. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Race, Gender, Sexuality, Violence, and the Media
There are posters from this anti-rape campaign all over campus. It's a great idea, but as often happens, they got so wrapped up in one cause that they damage another. Observe: every single couple is color-coordinated - even the white people are divided into the blond couple and the brunette couple - except the gays.
They are also the only pair where one isn't looking at the other or resting her head trustingly on his shoulder. Maybe it is because in all the heterosexual posters, it is the girl (victim) looking at the boy, and they did not want to say which gay was being (not) raped. Still, they could gaze adoringly at each other? Or at least smile, or put their arms around each other? Instead of standing awkwardly with their shoulders squished together, glaring at the camera. Maybe they're holding hands? I can't tell. It may or may not have been intentional, but the way the background looks, there seems to be a line running between them, separating them. Most of the other couples are entwined in some way, making such a view impossible. While I appreciate the homosexual inclusion, I feel it could have been a bit more inclusive.
So what are these posters really saying? 1. People can't date outside of their color scheme. 2. Gays can't date within their color scheme because then you can't tell if they're gay, they might be brothers or just friends or something. Oh, and 3. Women don't rape. Granted, I can see where there might be difficulties, but it is certainly not impossible for a woman to rape a man or a woman. After all, it isn't always a brutal holding down by force - hence the poster campaign. There's date rape, coercion, drugs, alcohol, etc.
Obviously, chicks dig guys who don't rape. You can tell by the way she is gazing adoringly up at you. Guy, you want this hot chick to be clinging to you like this? Don't rape her, and don't look at her. The women are trophialized.
Except in one of the African-American couples towards the bottom, where she is staring at the camera with a little smile as if to say "Yeah. My boyrfriend's awesome. He asks. Girls, you don't have to put up with a guy who doesn't ask."
I get that the posters are trying to pander to the lowest common denominator, hence the "Guys who don't rape get chicks hanging off them." This, however, promotes trophialization, a word I just made up. For a definition, watch a chick flick. Then watch a dude flick. There's a romantic subplot in the dude flick too, isn't there? But she doesn't really do anything except have sex with the guy once he saves the day. In the chick flick, even if it is about something else, the relationship with the guy is a larger subplot. I just saw the film "Morning Glory" which was not too bad overall but the plot could have been interpreted as "A girl has to choose between her career and her boyfriend." Guys don't have to choose. They just get women as prizes.
Going back to race, I can admit there would be problems with an interracial straight couple as well. Of course the woman is the darker-skinned minority dating a white guy! Or: Of course it is the darker-skinned minority preying on the white female. Or: Of course the minorities date each other. So with the gays, it's on equal footing and they are not sexualizing a minority by showing it as the female (that seems like another unfortunate implication right there). Solution? Avoid tokenism. There are three African-Americans, two caucasions, one latino (and considering the posters are also available in Spanish, you'd think there would be more), one gay/interracial, and one Asian (and personally, I think she has the most sickeing facial expression; it's like she's sniffing him).
I also get that there is a target audience of racial minorities, but what about interracial minorities? Gays? Especially gays, because they are much less likely to report it - you would have to out yourself twice shamefully, once as homosexual and once as a victim (not saying straight guys can't get raped, but it's more likely to be date rape for anyone). However, by including an interracial gay couple, they get two minorities for the price of one!
You may think I am missing the point of this entire campaign, and the truth is that I think it is awesome rhetoric to tell guys that sticking their dick in something doesn't make them cooler and that being a gentlemen is manly and sexy. But like I said at the beginning, they got so focused on their cause they ignored unfortunate implications - and racism is no longer built of laws and institutions, but implications. Tread carefully, my friends.
They are also the only pair where one isn't looking at the other or resting her head trustingly on his shoulder. Maybe it is because in all the heterosexual posters, it is the girl (victim) looking at the boy, and they did not want to say which gay was being (not) raped. Still, they could gaze adoringly at each other? Or at least smile, or put their arms around each other? Instead of standing awkwardly with their shoulders squished together, glaring at the camera. Maybe they're holding hands? I can't tell. It may or may not have been intentional, but the way the background looks, there seems to be a line running between them, separating them. Most of the other couples are entwined in some way, making such a view impossible. While I appreciate the homosexual inclusion, I feel it could have been a bit more inclusive.
So what are these posters really saying? 1. People can't date outside of their color scheme. 2. Gays can't date within their color scheme because then you can't tell if they're gay, they might be brothers or just friends or something. Oh, and 3. Women don't rape. Granted, I can see where there might be difficulties, but it is certainly not impossible for a woman to rape a man or a woman. After all, it isn't always a brutal holding down by force - hence the poster campaign. There's date rape, coercion, drugs, alcohol, etc.
Obviously, chicks dig guys who don't rape. You can tell by the way she is gazing adoringly up at you. Guy, you want this hot chick to be clinging to you like this? Don't rape her, and don't look at her. The women are trophialized.
Except in one of the African-American couples towards the bottom, where she is staring at the camera with a little smile as if to say "Yeah. My boyrfriend's awesome. He asks. Girls, you don't have to put up with a guy who doesn't ask."
I get that the posters are trying to pander to the lowest common denominator, hence the "Guys who don't rape get chicks hanging off them." This, however, promotes trophialization, a word I just made up. For a definition, watch a chick flick. Then watch a dude flick. There's a romantic subplot in the dude flick too, isn't there? But she doesn't really do anything except have sex with the guy once he saves the day. In the chick flick, even if it is about something else, the relationship with the guy is a larger subplot. I just saw the film "Morning Glory" which was not too bad overall but the plot could have been interpreted as "A girl has to choose between her career and her boyfriend." Guys don't have to choose. They just get women as prizes.
Going back to race, I can admit there would be problems with an interracial straight couple as well. Of course the woman is the darker-skinned minority dating a white guy! Or: Of course it is the darker-skinned minority preying on the white female. Or: Of course the minorities date each other. So with the gays, it's on equal footing and they are not sexualizing a minority by showing it as the female (that seems like another unfortunate implication right there). Solution? Avoid tokenism. There are three African-Americans, two caucasions, one latino (and considering the posters are also available in Spanish, you'd think there would be more), one gay/interracial, and one Asian (and personally, I think she has the most sickeing facial expression; it's like she's sniffing him).
I also get that there is a target audience of racial minorities, but what about interracial minorities? Gays? Especially gays, because they are much less likely to report it - you would have to out yourself twice shamefully, once as homosexual and once as a victim (not saying straight guys can't get raped, but it's more likely to be date rape for anyone). However, by including an interracial gay couple, they get two minorities for the price of one!
You may think I am missing the point of this entire campaign, and the truth is that I think it is awesome rhetoric to tell guys that sticking their dick in something doesn't make them cooler and that being a gentlemen is manly and sexy. But like I said at the beginning, they got so focused on their cause they ignored unfortunate implications - and racism is no longer built of laws and institutions, but implications. Tread carefully, my friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)