![]() Certainly I could have chosen my words more carefully or been more sensitive, but my analysis would have remained the same. Not Laverne Cox, not a teenage girl posting belfies on Instagram, not Kim Kardashian. That said, my analysis of the beauty industry, capitalism, porn culture, femininity, and patriarchy is that no woman will be empowered in any true, political/radical sense, by objectification. I do not believe, in any part of my being, that Cox looks “cartoonish.” She looks lovely - I said as much in my piece. ![]() The critique, with regard to Laverne Cox, was a critique I’d made many times before - that is that there is a huge amount of pressure placed on women to conform to a particular ideal, one that is very much shaped by porn culture. What I actually wrote, with regard to Cox. Meghan Murphy May 18, Actually I have used the same words, applied to ww. Johns quite literally talk about prostituted women as "holes to f**k" and…silence /c6aAGLrjmZ Here is what I actually wrote, w/r/t the 'series of holes' accusation, for interested parties /IGvHIqaojF Tweets, screenshots, one-off comments, and individual words are all removed from essays, speeches, sentences, and entire bodies of work (never mind the intention behind the words) and used as ammo to destroy.Īs an example, in recent weeks I was accused both of calling actress, Laverne Cox, “cartoonish,” and describing prostituted women as “a series of holes.” I did neither of these things, as evidenced by the fuller context below. Of course, part of the problem with Twitter is that almost everything is taken out of context, particularly when Twitter is on the attack. So, taken out of context, the joke didn’t fully work. Colbert’s character is saying here that naming a charity “Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation” is just as offensive as naming a charity the “Ching Chong Ding Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.” That’s the joke. The bit only works as a whole it doesn’t work in parts. This is surgical-precision satire, right here, and he pulls it off. ![]() The episode tackled something so incredibly over-the-top - the owner of a billion-dollar NFL team with a racially offensive name defending his staunch insistence on keeping that name because “heritage” by starting a halfassed charity for Native Americans that contains the word “Redskins” - that Colbert’s skewering didn’t have much room to get any bigger or any sillier when it comes to stories like the “Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation,” you can’t get much bigger than truth without veering close to racially offensive territory. He does what he mocks, but bigger and sillier, thus exposing the silliness of the source material. One of the reasons The Colbert Report is so fantastic is that Colbert and its writers have figured out how to skewer the seemingly unskewerable ridiculousness of American conservative media by creating parallels between reality and Colbert’s brand of “truthiness.” Colbert exposes the absurd by acting as a more literate, self-aware mirror to that absurdity. #CancelCobert was criticized, not only by anti-feminists and racists, but by most intelligent people as being yet another example of the kind of speak-before-you-think, attention-seeking behaviour exhibited by Park and for being wholly misguided, based on an extremely superficial and inaccurate reading of Cobert’s joke.Įrin Gloria Ryan summed up the joke at Jezebel, in context, last year: ![]() These arguments - that #CancelColbert had anything to do with the feminist movement and that there is such a thing as racism against white people - are, frankly, stupid. It has been cited as evidence of the censoriousness of “social justice warriors” (a pejorative term that nods to the superficiality of online social activism) as proof, in the words of one that “feminism poisons EVERYTHING” and as substantiation, according to another Twitter malcontent, of Park’s alleged racism against white people (“Count # times says ‘white liberals’ in this video & ask who has an agenda and who is racist”). A quick online search finds that the #CancelColbert hashtag still riles a certain kind of online misanthrope, even today. … The Internet has not forgiven Suey Park. But people aren’t holding a grudge towards its creator, Suey Park, over a hashtag.Īt The New Republic, Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig writes, It was a particularly ridiculous and misguided attempt at hashtag activism. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |