Lady gaga “speaks out” against bullying
Macklemore “speaks out” against homophobia
Kanye “goes on a rant” about racism.
Kanye “goes on a rant” about George Bush.
Coded language don’t really be coded tho.
Nicki Minaj “goes on a rant” about sexism.
Oop oop oopity oop did someone drop a bunch of truth over here?
Last year Diana Tamayo became one of six people charged in thefts involving more than $3 million in stolen goods from the homes of young Hollywood celebrities like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Orlando Bloom. Tamayo was indicted on one count of first-degree residential burglary, one count of receiving stolen property and one count of conspiracy.
She was part of a group of six young adults that gained national attention for breaking into homes of the rich and famous. The celebrity gossip site TMZ dubbed the group “the burglar bunch” while Vanity Fair referred to them as “the bling ring.” Their capers briefly brought them the same kind of celebrity that they were drawn to target.
The ring was largely made up of young women who attended a continuation high school in Agoura Hills, an unincorporated area just outside Los Angeles that sits next to Malibu. Agoura is an especially affluent area where the median household income is over $108,000, compared to Los Angeles’ $56,266 median.
Tamayo was different from the other girls in the ring. She lived in one of the few apartment buildings in nearby Calabasas with her family. She was elected class president and named “best smile” in the 2007 Indian Hills yearbook. And she’s an undocumented immigrant, according to Vanity Fair, citing reports from police officers.
At her court hearing in October 2012, the Los Angeles Times noted Tamayo “shed tears as a statement was read in court, noting the potential for deportation because of the conviction.” During court proceedings, Tamayo’s lawyer also said police officials threatened her and her family with deportation if she didn’t cooperate.
Director Sofia Coppola’s new film “The Bling Ring” is based on a 2010 Vanity Fair story about Tamayo and her fellow young burglars. But Tamayo’s experience is nowhere to be seen in the film. The film’s lead roles went to two white actresses, an Asian American actress and a white male. That’s the sort of omission that would typically spur an outcry from culture watchers—Colorlines included!—whom have decried Hollywood’s long, frustrating record of whitewashing people of color from history and culture. But there’s been no uproar over Coppola’s Latino-free version of the “Bling Ring.” There’s not been the expected stream of articles and blog posts blasting the director for erasing Tamayo from the story.
Why the muted reaction? In the era of Deferred Action and comprehensive immigration reform, are we more or less interested in seeing the full range of immigrant life portrayed in popular culture? As the political debate turns on defining good immigrants vs. bad immigrants, would seeing characters like Tamayo in films be a good thing? I asked some smart people in film, who also happen to be undocumented, and the answer is, well, it’s complicated.
“With immigration reform talks going on, I believe it’s a bit tricky because you don’t necessarily want to portray anyone bad at this moment. But at the same time not all DREAMers, not all undocumented students are top of the class people,” said Frisly Soberanis, a Tribeca Film Fellowship alumni and college student.
“Not all DREAMers are getting full rides to school and not all DREAMers have a clean record, and that’s something that as a community we have to start emphasizing,” said Soberanis, who’s also an undocumented immigrant. “Not everyone gets the same opportunities as other people.”
But showing the complexity of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. through films and television is easier said than done. Roles for actors of color are already scarce and when the roles make it on the screen they’re not often the fully developed roles that leave positive, lasting impressions on viewers.
A National Hispanic Media Coalition study found that non-Latinos who have positive opinions about Latinos have less favorable opinions when exposed to negative entertainment or news narratives.
The study [PDF] found that after viewing just one minute of media content, people change the way they view Latinos. “When asked about Latinos’ intelligence,” the authors write, “those who consumed negative news and entertainment pieces were much more likely to rate Latinos as unintelligent, while those who consumed positive pieces were much more likely to rate Latinos as intelligent. This is only one example of many from the poll that demonstrate that media content influences peoples’ opinions about Latinos.”
Marco Galaviz, a third-year film student at New York University who was undocumented until recently, says that if we don’t talk about immigrants with criminal backgrounds, they will always be excluded from immigration reform proposals.
“I have friends who got in trouble with the law for a variety of reasons, for driving without a license or for doing something else bad,” Galaviz said. “But that doesn’t mean their rights should be taken away, that doesn’t mean they should be excluded from immigration reform.”
Galaviz believes it’s important to show characters like Tamayo’s because “it is important to show these roles, to be able to show the complexity of undocumented people that are living in the U.S.”
Galaviz says that if we’re only talking about the “hard working immigrant whose only crime was to cross a border” or the immigrant “who loves this country, never commits crimes, goes to school and becomes successful,” then “we’ve essentially eliminated any other narratives specifically for undocumented youth and undocumented older folks who have had run-ins with the law.”
Tamayo is now working on a career in the nutrition and fitness industry, according to the L.A. Times.
and yet men remain the most marketed demographic for just about everything.
I’m pretty sure the only men who spend more time thinking about DC than women on Tumblr are the men who actually work there.
See above LOL. SO true. I mean, I belonged to the Bludhaven Yahoo group (stil do, but don’t participate) and it’s primarily women. From the time it was 500 members and that was a lot to now when it is like 5k members. And you know something? It’s only a handful of men. You can name them all off. And I married the only unattached one. So, y’know. My fandom life is weird. I am involved in all these male oriented fandoms, but only with other women. So when men start saying women can’t be real fans, or they say there’re no women in fandom, I’m always like… exactly where the hell have you been, buddy?
I wish the people who worked for DC spent as much time thinking about it as women on Tumblr do.
You will know much too much about me and some things about the book by the end of this blog entry.
This is your permission to feel at peace with your body.
This is your permission to feel comfortable in your own skin.
This is your permission to be ok with small breasts and big thighs and tummy rolls.
This is your permission to scrub your face clean and let your natural hair colour grow out.
You don’t actually need anyones permission to do or feel any of these things, but in case you feel you do - this is it.
This is me granting you permission to be you.
Casting appreciation gif.
This seriously pisses me off because TWO men of the “correct” ethnicity/race were asked to play the role of Khan. I don’t remember their names because this back when Into Darkness was in casting yo but they BOTH DECLINED.
So there’s a HUGE difference between “well, we asked the best in the business and they both said no, so we should go with another actor of the ‘incorrect’ race who is also very well suited for the role” and doing what the Hunger Games did which is literally only let white girls audition for Katniss.
When actors decline there is fuckall you can do. It’s shitty, no doubt, that Khan ended up being white, but BC did a great job in the role, while knowing he was third choice. I won’t begrudge him for taking it, and I won’t begrudge the casting crew for going with him after their best actors declined.
Because we know there are only two talented actors of color in the entire English-speaking world.
wow they made two whole attempts WOW THAT FIXES EVERYTHING
when exactly did that happen because from what i heard they cast cumberbatch without telling him the full details of the role and then revealed them later/cast him as john harrison and changed the role to khan later on after it was too late to back out (which doesn’t make it ok of course)
I call bullshit on the commentary that they “tried” to cast a POC as Khan.
So two…2 actors of color refused and they go with a pale, pasty, white dude. Shiit, I call BULLSHIT! Someone needs to pull up that post with all of the Indian actors in it, you know all of the Indian actors who could have played Khan…don’t give me your excuses, your results are plain and clear. You didn’t even try, you got your white man as Khan, now go throw yourself into a sun with JJ.
Abrams pretended for how long that Cumberbatch wasn’t playing Khan? Yeah I know as an actor of color signing up for a role where you’re told nothing in advance is totally a good idea. Or you know…not. Mind you, I don’t buy this after market myth that any POC were offered the role in the first place.
Yeah, this is a definite “citation needed” reference.
“i’m concerned about any oppression that may come.”
Okay, so you know how there are double standards when it comes to men and women, and there are even additional double standards stacked upon that when it comes to women and trans*women. My question for any feminists out there is: do you feel that just because a trans*woman/girl isn’t transitioning atm, they shouldn’t be included in feminist discussions?
I want to know what my feminist followers think about this. My opinion is already set, I just want to know what the general opinion is. How would a non-transitioning trans*woman/girl be accepted in feminist circles? If there are any trans*women/girls out there who have any experiences to share, I’d give anything to hear!
i’m just cranky enough from some other transmisogynist shit that i saw on my dash earlier but was too mad to respond, so i’ll maybe say something here.
your question essentially boils down to: should this subset of women, not be allowed in feminist spaces?
i mean, despite even asking this question clearly demonstrating that you have little desire to see a feminism inclusive of all women, i’m not sure how you missed the fundamental flaw of this question. like, the inherent contradiction.
“feminists. let us discuss whether or not we should include these women”
already assuming that the women in question, non-transitioning women, are not feminists (i mean… how could they be?? like, they aren’t even women, amirite? so why would they be feminists. like. absurd). and clearly taking the position that non-transitioning women aren’t actually women, because ‘hey, why shouldn’t you support a pathologising of gender???’. and all of this, somehow didn’t occur to you as being massively transmisogynist… which is kinda impressive, when you think about it.
and then the second commentator, actually thinks that ‘opening the floor’ to trans women to share their experiences is somehow including us in this conversation…
that is already and a priori hostile to our inclusion (based on the standards and biases at work hear, this question is a non-starter, since OP and commentator have already precluded non-transitioning women from actually being women or feminists, so even if this super cabal of feminists decide that ‘yes, we’ll include them!’ they’ve made it clear that our inclusion is via their say-so and their permission, and not because… idk, we are women??? who thus, should we decide to be feminists, must be immediately admitted to the sisterhood? but. nope. transmisogyny dictates that our womanhood is only valid insofar as cis women/feminists decide that it is. awesome. i’m so happy to be having this discussion. like literally the most meaningful i’ve ever had in my entire life. nothing will beat this. i’m wondering though… will my heart be able to take the joy, should these cis feminists decide that i’m allowed to be included in their spaces??? idk. idk. ).
The fact that this is even a fucking question tells me that trans women should stay the fuck away from feminist spaces because those spaces are full of transphobic pieces of shit and are not safe.
This is not okay
This sentiment is not fucking okay
You accept ALL WOMEN PERIOD
None of this qualifier BULLSHIT
ALL WOMEN ARE WOMEN
NO MATTER WHAT THEIR GODDAMN GENITALS ARE
This is why I will NEVER fucking identify as a feminist. EVER. Because y’all are fulla shit.
OH MY GOD WHY IS THIS A QUESTION?
If you identify as a woman, you’re a woman. Period, full stop, end of sentence. And feminism as a movement should be a safe space for all women.
Movies should not be made like this.
This is why I don’t blame Cumberbatch himself for taking the role: by all accounts, at the time he signed the contract, he didn’t know his character’s real identity.
(Actually I try not to blame actors in general for taking parts, unless they’re in a position where they can pick and choose their roles, Johnny Depp. People gotta pay the rent, after all. I save my side eye for when they’re actively stupid, like Jackson Rathbone saying all he needed to play Sokka was a tan.)
That is a thing I did not know! Yaaay I have a reason to be less irritated with Cumberbatch, which is nice, because I’m spending too much time irritated with JJ Abrams-related things lately.
I was disgusted to find this out, to be honest. The whole thing continues to smack of JJ knowing he’d done a bad thing, giving no shits, and actively undercutting the ability of fans/consumers to make an informed decision about their purchase.
Yeah, I don’t have a beef with Cumberbatch on this—it’s Abrams I’m not happy with here.