I’m so excited over the Iris West casting info leak/rumor. Just. Ahhhh. <3
I know it’s totally far-fetched, but I want to see a wee little wally please.
I’m so excited over the Iris West casting info leak/rumor. Just. Ahhhh. <3
I know it’s totally far-fetched, but I want to see a wee little wally please.
And yeah, the changing of race in an already incredibly diverse supporting cast is just dumb. I get that people want representation of minorities in popular media, but everyone would be up in arms if Iris was black and they had her casting call be white or Asian. The double standard on this sort of thing astounds me to no end. Race is very much a part of who a person is, it completely changes a character on fundamental levels. You can’t tell me that by changing her race you’ll be left with the same character, because then all you’re left with is a white-washed black character and you’ll be missed off even more. By changing her race you change everything about who Iris West is.
Obviously, a black Iris West has nothing to offer the world.
Obviously, they should be looking for a white actress or there will be too much diversity on this show.
Obviously, this is a well thought out point of view and in no way racist.
The stereotypes being espoused in this video and the related marketing materials are just reinforcing the same stereotypes that have been used to bar women from STEM fields, that are being used to drive women out of STEM fields, and that are regularly used to marginalize women in STEM fields by pushing them into communication and documentation fields…
*facepalming forever at all the racist comments coming out of the CW Iris West casting news*
There have been times in my life when I considered myself a feminist. I’ve been reading feminist literature since I was 11, and spent a good portion of my early teens and later stretches in my life in activist spaces, and over the years have come to reject just about every form of what is called “feminism”, because feminism was and is built to serve oppressive structures rather than dismantle them. It’s been a while since I’ve posted about it, so I suppose some of my followers are not getting the 100-level critiques of feminism that I’ve attempted to boil down into the following six points.
Appropriates from and erases women of color. For example, it’s common practice to grab a statistic about violence against women that only applies to women of color, paste it into a picture of a white woman, and when women of color protest, use words like “solidarity!” to silence them.
Creates a hierarchy of women according to ability. For example, it’s common to see Feminists sympathizing with caretakers and mothers who murder their disabled charges, even when both are women. Disabled women are erased and ignored by feminism, and it’s not uncommon to see “preventing disability” used as some kind of wedge to support abortion rights. “Racial purity” and Eugenics have been used by white feminists as a way to elicit support for birth control and abortion for centuries. Disabled women fail to meet the criteria of “real” women according to most feminists, and mostly serve as foils to feminist constructions of womanhood, rather than examples of it.
Homogenizes history to normalize a Eurocentric, Imperialist agenda. Liberal Feminism as well as Radical Feminism both ascribe to the tenet that “all women in the world are oppressed by men and always have been.” This is factually inaccurate and not only erases the First Wave feminists’ getting the idea for “feminism” from Iroquois women in the first place, it imposes a universal standard of European patriarchy as a starting point in many cases where it is completely irrelevant and benefits no one except white women. Feminism also has a long and storied history of colonizing behavior such as missionary work, religious conversion, and uplifting white womanhood as a “savior” at the expense of people of color.
Excludes and perpetrates violence against transgender women. Even branches of feminism that do not outright call for the extermination of transgender women exclude them from ‘women only’ spaces, deny them resources like space in shelters, and in many other ways actively participate in their marginalization, abuse, and deaths.
Promotes biological essentialism and polices women’s bodies. I honestly do not see a difference in the debates between feminists on whether or not a woman should shave her legs and the same dang discussion between men. The idea that a small group of privileged women should decide what women are and aren’t allowed to do with their bodies is no more appealing or “liberating” than a small group of privileged men deciding the same. Replicating patriarchy and enforcing kyriarchy by seeking to replace men as the gatekeepers of women’s bodies, sexualities, genders and activities is bullshit and helps no one.
Replaces inherent value of human beings with Capitalism. Feminism is just as guilty of devaluing “women’s work” as any patriarchal government or social structure; engaging in unpaid labor is seen as “unfeminist” and a moral failure on the part of women. The association of inherent worth with economic production is interlaced into the entire structure of feminism, and as a movement, feminism seems incapable of separating the two ideas. Harnessing the power of women as a labor force in order to “prove” their worth is a function of patriarchy and does nothing to undermine its functioning. Feminism is absolutely as guilty of equating “morally right” with “financially successful” as any other institution of our society.
Great post, sums up a lot of my reservations about feminism.
I’d also like to add that feminism, especially sex-positive feminism, does not address the concerns of celibate, asexual, and/or sex-repulsed women very well. Liberated female sexuality is often equated with being sexually active; if you do not like or want sex, then you are told that you are doing it wrong, are repressed by the patriarchy, are oppressed by your religion, or that you are otherwise a victim who needs help in order to realize her full sexuality. Sexual liberation is generally presented as the ability to say “yes” without being shamed; but the equally important ability to say “no” is usually forgotten, or shunted off into a separate discussion about rape culture. And asexual-spectrum women are frequently targeted by acephobia, ableism, and rape culture even from other women who consider themselves feminist.
As an asexual, celibate, sex-repulsed, partly-female person, feminism tells me that my sexuality is incomplete, unhealthy, repressed, or otherwise not good enough because I do not fit the archetype of a woman who wants and enjoys sex.
I still call myself an “intersectional feminist,” for lack of a better phrase when communicating my views to other people, but the movement’s got problems.
I could write a damn thesis on the intersection of sex-positivity and compulsory sexuality.
So I give my sister a list of detailed comic recs…and then she decides to read something else. :|
Barry Allen’s introdution on Arrow
I feel kind of bad but I laugh so hard at this every time.
#’getting strong without being broken first’ is like all i want from anything but especially girl monster stories #stop making women small before you let them be big #i am tired of revenge stories #i am tired of all my heroines hurting
Wait, I’m not the only one who has a problem with the fact that so many “Strong Female Protagonists” are portrayed as Broken Birds??
(someone erased my original captioning, but it read “The Disney Princesses tell it like it is.”)
Great little comic on (lacking) diversity in Disney media
So many conflicting ideas on my head about this.
Against: FUCK OFF! IT’S A CHILDREN’S FILM AND BEFORE REPUNZEL WE HAD TWO DECADES OF POC PRINCESSES! TWO. DECADES. Also, both films are set in places without poc in them anyway :/ sorry. Also, merida is a Pixar Hero(ine) NOT a Disney Princess, and I will argue that point to the grave.
For: yeah, poc should be more represented in all media. Why go back on two decades worth of progress? Regardless of fantasy setting, some historical accuracy could at least be attempted.
What Jonny said. One girl on here was hitting a rage cause there were no poc in Brave. Brave is set in 10th century Scotland. There were no poc there at that time. Relax your balls and enjoy the movie.
going back through Brave stuff posted months or years ago is amazing. Just look at the high quality of commentary people added to pictures that blatantly address their point. Like how do you even manage to do that
(also “two decades”… what. As if white characters weren’t there in huge numbers at the same time? Also, simply having characters throughout a span of time doesn’t mean a group is represented enough… as is obvious via many recent films…)
The pictures aren’t addressing my viewpoint for Brave, though. It is historically accurate to not show PoC in the movie because there weren’t any PoC living there until the UK began slavery with people from India and then eventually Africa, and Pixar got condemned on Tumblr for keeping to that. Surely if you feel adding a PoC character is an obligation and not because they’re a part of the story is just as racist as deliberately leaving them out or making them white when they should be included in the story?
And you can’t compare the historical (in)accuracy with the use of magic (a character being transformed into a bear) seriously, how can anyone think that’s a valid comparison?
it actually did address your point but you are, I guess, so sure that slavery was the only way that PoC could get there besides an extensive historical worldwide trade network originating out of both the continents of Africa and Asia, that you didn’t bother to look up the point indicated in image 3. I honestly find your ignorance intentional because I know damn well that people have replied to your reblog with the blog medieval PoC, which, if you search through, has referenced Brave and Scotland multiple times.
Your complete lack of understanding of the past is exactly the reason that diversity is necessary- you can’t imagine a world where PoC might be present as non-slaves, as people with agency outside of what the British empire dictated, because the media you’ve been exposed to throughout your life has never presented that to you as an option…
I also, no, don’t see how including PoC, even if it’s done as an “obligation” because you can’t wrap your mind around them being a natural part of a story, is as racist as often excluding them or misrepresenting them in media. It is likely that certain people will continue to see their presence as “an obligation” so long as white narratives continue to be seen as an acceptable default…
I’m also not sure why you think chameleons and magical bears are somehow acceptable inclusions when PoC aren’t even though they actually could be there historically but this has been gone over so many times like it’s seriously right there in the images that idk why it was even put as a point.
I went ahead and bolded the parts of these responses that once again show that “historical accuracy” is only important to white people when it comes to casting MODERN MEDIA and excluding people of color from films.
Despite the historical fact that there is documented presence of people of color in Scotland since Classical times, through the Middle Ages, and into modern history.
During the Roman occupation of Scotland, there were over 260 camps of Roman soldiers, the archeological remains of which are visible from the air. The sheer amount of manpower sent into Scotland to try and subdue it grows ever larger as more investigations into these sites is conducted.
In fact, the rather famous disappearance of the IX Hispana Roman Legion is still being investigated, but analysis of primary sources shows that after a bloody defeat, the survivors may have just become part of the population of Scotland. All of this happened around 100 A.D.
Hispania, the origin of the Legion, was under Carthiginian Influence until the Punic Wars almost 100 years later, and on this map you can see the pre-Punic War sphere of Carthaginian influence:
In fact, I recently posted an interactive map that demonstrates just how easy and fast travel was in the days of the Roman Empire.
Going to the Middle Ages, we have Kenneth III, King of Scots from 997 to 1005 , also known as “Kenneth the Brown” whose race is still tiresomely debated in certain circles. There is no conclusive “proof” of his race because the racial categories we have today did not exist then. And of course, the former Romans living and working in Scotland at the time would have no written record of their activities or appearance because no one cared.
Once we get into the High Medieval and “Renaissance” period, written records of many specifically Black people in important royal circles. These records are a part of the UK government’s accessible to the public website:
James was a popular, fun-loving king with many interests. Many Black Moors were present at his court. Some worked as servants or (possibly) slaves, but others seem to have been invited guests or musicians. We know that he courted Margaret with lute and clavichord recitals and took her out hunting and playing sports.
After their marriage, the king’s Lord High Treasurer’s accounts provide numerous entries to show how much he enjoyed lively entertainment, employing foreign minstrels from Italy and elsewhere. King James was generous to all kinds of people, including Black Moors, as the following entries from the Treasurer’s accounts demonstrate:
- To celebrate Shrove Tuesday in 1505, several Africans including a 'taubronar' (drummer) and a choreographer were present in Edinburgh. Twelve dancers (including Italians) performed in specially made black-and-white costumes costing £13 2s 10d. Was this the origin of Morris (Moorish) dancing?
- In 1504-5 the ‘Moryen’ taubronar was paid 28 shillings to allow his taubroun (drum) to be painted.
- James bought a horse at a cost of £4 4s for this drummer, who accompanied him when he toured his northern domains.
Moor women were also mentioned in the Treasurer’s accounts. It is unclear whether or not they were servants, since they were showered with items such as gowns of satin, ribbons, slippers and gloves, paid for by the king.
Entries that refer to Moor women include:
- 'Blak Elene' or 'Elen More' was given five French crowns in 1512.
- A ‘blak madin’ who attended Queen Margaret was given four-and-a-quarter ells (just over five yards) of French russet.
- 'Blak Margaret' was given a gown costing 48s in 1513.
- 'Two blak ladies' staying at the Scottish Court were presented with 10 French crowns as a New Year gift at a cost of £7.
- In 1527, one item simply said ’ to Helenor, the blak moir - 60 shillings’ .
You can see that the primary sources are included:
I think it’s worthwhile to ask ourselves, why is bigscarytiger so very confident in asserting:
It is historically accurate to not show PoC in the movie because there weren’t any PoC living there until the UK began slavery with people from India and then eventually Africa…
This is the effect that the history taught in our classrooms has on real people.
People who feel supremely confident in saying, “you can’t have anyone who looks like you in our movie because you didn’t exist, and when you did it was just as slaves”.
Whitewashing history affects the present and the future.
How about we just sit back and enjoy the FICTIONAL MOVIES created for Entertainment, not History Class. These are both good movies that took a lot of time and skill, so instead of arguing about all this stuff and degrading the creators, appreciate the hard work put in this.
The lack of representation of people of color in popular media leads to a lack of empathy for people of color that directly impacts our lives:
Silverstein reviews research that shows that the racial empathy gap has real world consequences: undertreatment of pain (even in children) and, yes, harsher sentences for African Americans convicted of crimes.
how quickly the white people went from “it’s historically inaccurate to have poc” to “who cares about HISTORY it’s FICTION” with like no self-awareness
haven’t seen it, don’t plan to
it’s Disney so ofc lots of people are going to love it and it’s going to be a huge commercial success and get nominated for a bunch of awards and make a lot of money and have merch out the ass regardless of what the movie itself deserves
but I think it looks really bland and I’m tired of Disney movies about thin straight white girls and their young cishet true love and I think it’s fucking bullshit that Disney took such a female-character-heavy story and trimmed almost all the women out and filled the holes left behind with dudes and a shitty snowman Scrappy and this movie is adding not one but two additional thin pretty white princesses to the Disney Princess lineup that already had like seven white princesses out of eleven total
like…. by paying to see this movie all I’d be doing is telling Disney with my dollars that they don’t have to change anything about the same model they’ve been using for decades, that they can keep shunning anybody who isn’t cishet or white and they can keep writing characters who all heavily adhere to the gender binary and it’s not going to change anything in the slightest because the money and accolades will keep pouring in and liiiiike, nah, not here for it, the story and characters seem bland enough that it’s just not worth it
I’d also be telling them their design for the snowman is appealing and the character is humorous and sweet and totally deserves a three-minute musical bit about how much he loves the summer and that their inexplicable decision to make this shitty fucking thing the primary focus of all their merch and advertising was a good idea and lmao wouldn’t that be a fucking disaster because it’s one of the most atrocious character designs I have ever had the misfortune to lay eyes on and if it melts at any point in the movie I’ll probably just watch that clip on YouTube over and over while laughing maniacally
and I’m still bitter about the fact that this was originally intended to be a classically-animated 2D film
So I’m seeing all these adorable Barry Allen gifsets on my dash (gee thanks, guys) and I really want to watch the episode. I’ve never seen ‘Arrow’ before though. I don’t think I’ll be completely lost as I’ve some passing familiarity with Oliver and Roy from the comics, but I’m not sure.
Basically, how important is it to know ‘Arrow’ before watching ‘The Scientist’?
I think you could get by with Wikipedia for the characters and basic plot of Arrow. You might find the island flashbacks confusing, but I usually skip them anyways and they’re not that crucial to ‘The Scientist.’
I don’t actually think prior knowledge of Oliver/Roy from the comics will help, because Arrow drastically veers from the comics somewhat frequently. But I felt that ‘The Scientist’ was a fairly self-contained episode, as long as you have a general idea of who the main characters are.
SCREAM WHAT OH MY GOD YES
IRIS - 22-28 - African-American - As smart as she is beautiful, Iris is in grad school studying psychology. She’s also Barry’s mile a minute, fast-talking, quick-witted best friend. Her father, Detective West, took in Barry when his mother was murdered, and his father was wrongly accused and imprisoned for her murder. In a tough childhood for Barry, she was the one “not tough” thing. She’s unaware of Barry’s strong feelings for her.
DETECTIVE WEST - Late 40s to Early 50s - African American -Detective West is an honest, blue-collar cop who’s seen it all. A soulful, funny caring father to Iris, and a surrogate father to Barry, West came up through the foster system himself. He took in Barry after his mother’s murder and his father’s imprisonment. He believes in Barry and supports Barry’s efforts to prove his father’s innocence.
IDK HOW TRUSTWORTHY THIS IS SINCE IT’S NOT FROM A OFFICIAL SOURCE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL
BUT OH MY GOD I’M YELLING YES
Please be true please be true please be true…
(Arrow 2x08 SPOILERS)