...Because the RaceFail09 discusssion is for everyone

[slashpine]

OK, breaking a long LJ silence, the reasons for which I won't go into. I'll blame credit bethbethbeth for making me think about those reasons. Not that she asked, or should care. *g* It was just something that came up in the course of another conversation - the reasons I prefer to be on IJ, when I'm online these days at all. Such a pesky nuisance, RL

Comments

[cathexys]

omg, yes! i never watch tv on tv and just caught this accidentally and sat there mouth open...

[slashpine]

Yeah, I almost never watch tv even on the internet, so it rather makes me wonder what direction ads are going lately.

OTOH, as fandom has been pointing out, avoiding racism (and sexism) take conscious *work*. Visual media, perhaps more so than other modes, tends to allow more carelessness I think, for various reasons, several of which I noticed in the Youtube defenses of the ad. Acting is not "serious." Something as short as 30 seconds "doesn't count." You can't "read" an advertisement like a book, so if you find racism in it, you must have "put it there." O to make every high school student read Barthes!

[egretplume]

Thank you for this post. The ad is horrifying.

[slashpine]

Yes, it's rather obvious, isn't it? I'm amazed no one at The Gap or Old Navy would point out that it's bound to raise protest. Or that they think being called out on racism and sexism is going to do their flagging sales any good. Maybe that's the reason for it - with finances tight, they hired cheap ad people. And cheap is all too often "stupid"; or too slap-dash fast to take a moment to reflect on what PoC and allies, not to mention feminists of all genders, might say about taking *Michelle's* clothes off in public and laughing at her.

[ellid]

That's dreadful. And what is up with "Michelle"? Can't they stand the thought that we have a beautiful, intelligent, accomplished fashionista in the White House with that name?

Even worse: did you see the finale of Battlestar Galactica? Talk about cultural/racial/species appropriation....

[slashpine]

Calling her Michelle is kind of amazing fail, isn't it? Reminds me of that company that made the horribly unappealing Sasha and Malia dolls then claimed it was not about the Obamas... and then pulled them from the market. I don't think it can have raised their sales, so it was dumb all around.

BSG - I'm looking forward to reading about this. So far, fans don't seem very impressed with the ending on the whole, much less its final word on cultural/racial/species issues. I will confess to a bit of schadenfreude: I was at my favorite regional pop culture conference last month and very much looking forward to a good mix of fandom papers. Instead it was like nonstop uber-pretentious BSG analysis. (Well, along with the uber-pretentious Buffy analysis. Which seems eternal.)

I did read with interest today's New York Times article on its conclusion: "Show About the Universe Raises Questions on Earth". The writer seemed to me to be struggling to comprehend - much less explain - the myriad readings on and reactions to the series. But

[ellid]

In a nutshell, this is what pissed me off about the way BSG ended

[ellid]

Correction: I almost forgot that the original Boomer was a black man. My bad.

[pir8fancier]

I've missed you. And ad my horror to the above. You saw the brouhaha because she actually had the temerity to appear in photographs with bare arms (and someone on LJ posted pictures of OTHER first ladies also had the temerity to show their arms--one of them was Eleanor Roosevelt). I call this stealth racism.

[ellid]

No shit. Mrs. Obama is dignified, intelligent, poised, and has a killer body and fashion sense. Why are people so afraid of her?

[slashpine]

Because she's dignified, intelligent, poised, and has a killer body and fashion sense? Not to mention a wonderfully loving marriage, a great relationship with her husband, children, and mom, and a sense of humor too?

And because she cares enough about family and community health to plant an organic garden on the White House lawn - YAYYYY. The first to do that since Eleanor - and that will draw fire.

Because she's a great woman. And OMG black or white, we can't have that. Our "heroes" can only be whitemen. Aaarrghhhhh.

[ellid]

Because she's a great woman. And OMG black or white, we can't have that. Our "heroes" can only be whitemen. Aaarrghhhhh.

Y'know, I've been rereading Susan Faludi's Backlash. It's just as horrifying as it was the first time I read it, and just as true.

[p_zeitgeist]

Thanks for linking this. Since I avoid television except during football season, I would never have been aware of it if you hadn't.

It strikes me that beyond the obvious outrageousness of this ad, there might be a useful lesson here about how fundamental and pervasive racism still is, and the degree to which it poisons our discourse without anyone being fully aware of it. There's a poster over in the comments at Media Assassin who's clearly full of fail, going on about how we PC Police would complain if it were a black mannequin grabbing the dress off a white mannequin too -- and while he's wrong in the specific point he's making, there's a way in which he's right: there is no acceptable way to make this commercialIt *would* be offensive for a black male to be grabbing the dress off a white female, for all the horrible and obvious reasons. It would be offensive for the black male to strip the dress off the black female, because that would -- duh -- play into creepy racist stereotypes about violence and primitive peoples. It would

[slashpine]

AH! You lay that out so beautifully! YES. There is *no* acceptable way to make this commercial.

Did you meaning that both ways? There's also no acceptable way to make this *commercial*. It fails, whether taken as video art/performance, or as a money-making act of advertising.

I wish you would post that at Media Assassin. I think Allen would love it!

And yes - it's a *wonderful* (academically speaking) case study. I zamzar'd a copy for future use, because as you note, there are both race and gender issues here, the whole commodification trope, and the possibility of exploring family, and children's involvement, as well!

It has perfect awfulness.