Preeeeeeeee-senting: quick reactions to controversies and whatnots that have been plaguing the interwebs as of late that I can’t be bothered to write a full post about. Fun times!
Miley something something
So people seem to still be talking about Miley Cyrus at the VMAs. Did she cross a line? Are people slut-shaming needlessly? Is it important that I care? I suggest that it is not.
This is the only opinion I’ve been able to form about this so-called controversy: I cannot think of the last time I’ve seen someone try that hard to be sexy yet fail in so many ways. That haircut was questionable. The bikini was unflattering. And the tongue? I don’t know what that was supposed to be but it did nothing for me.
Should a pop star be allowed to act sexy if she wants, even if that means showing skin on television? Sure. I want to live in a world where that’s not an issue worth talking about. But man. That whole routine was just… unpleasant. But as long as she’s happy.
While on the subject of the VMAs… I like Blurred Lines a bit. As a song, it’s adequately catchy. I had it stuck in my head for the entirety of a 13 hour meeting on budget for my theatre company and never really minded. But I will admit: I enjoy the video for Blurred Lines for the exact reason my feminist friends dislike it. Emily Ratajkowski is crazy hot and nearly naked in it.
Does that harm women’s issues? I probably shouldn’t even begin to guess. This topic gets me in trouble. Eventually someone says “male gaze” and I ask “What exactly does that mean, and what is the endgame to making an issue out of it?” and I probably say “Straight men enjoy looking an pretty girls and asking that to not be true is irrational” and then I get yelled at a lot.
Although, on the other hand, I think Robin Thicke abandoned his right to claim the song is in any way empowering to lady folk after he added the lyric “You the hottest bitch in this place.” Pretty much sunk that argument.
I’ve probably said too much already. But as long as I’m in trouble…
I finally understood why I didn’t get the controversy over Peter Capaldi being cast as the 12th Doctor instead of someone less white or not male. First off, I’d have been fine with a non-white Doctor or a female Doctor, as long as they could be the Doctor. The qualities I’m looking for, cleverness, the ability to inspire, to thrill, to be a force of nature onto themselves… none of these are connected to skin tone or gender. I’m also 100% fine with the rumours that they may be considering a black guy for the Human Torch in the Fantastic Four movie. As long as the character is being done well, I don’t care if they cast someone who isn’t white.
Where I failed was in understanding why someone else might.
Value comes from scarcity. We based economies on gold instead of granite because gold was harder to come by. If you dress up fancy every once in a while it has more impact than if you do it all the time. And that’s why I didn’t immediately lock onto “women and people of different skin tones would like to see more heroes who look like them, and maybe the Doctor could have been one for a change.” Because 95% of heroes, super or otherwise, are white dudes, and I attach no value to that. I don’t think “Hey, the Doctor is Scottish! I’m half-Scottish!”
But I do get it now. People around the world are becoming ready to see the day saved by people other than the League of Extraordinary White Guys. I’m fine with that. Maybe other people (the ones raising hell over a black Johnny Storm, for example) should learn to be okay with that as well.
As for “But he’s old!” well, that’s ageism pure and simple. And as a reminder, it was only four years ago that people were complaining that Matt Smith was too young, and he sure shut us up. I have faith Peter Capaldi will do the same.
Also, Chiwetel Ejiofor turned the role down, so it’s not like they’ve never tried. He’d have been great, though. Pity.
Agree, disagree, think I should shut up and stick to talking about travel and Batman? All valid choices, man. All valid choices.