ADVERTISEMENT

Hot Takes I Read Today, Ranked

THE TAKES! THEY'RE TOO HOT
February 17, 2015

I'll be honest, you guys: There was A LOT of good stuff on the Internet today. So much good stuff, in fact, that I was overwhelmed by it all. I felt bad keeping all this goodness to myself, so I give it back to you ... the people.

1. Boyhood is worse than Birth of a Nation, racism-wise

Here's Grisel Y. Acosta:

I propose to you that a film with the subtle racism of "Boyhood" is worse than a film with the overt racism of, say, "Birth of a Nation," for example.  When we see "Birth of a Nation," after returning from the bathroom because of becoming sick to our stomachs, we know without a doubt what the problem is and we can easily criticize the film - despite its merits in editing - for its horrendous content.

A film like "Boyhood," on the other hand, has been praised universally for its "life-like" dialogue and visual realism, largely due to the fact that it was shot over the course of 12 years.  Much like "Birth of a Nation," it is being praised for its innovative technique and will likely be shown in many a film school, just like "Birth of a Nation" often is.  However, unlike "Birth of a Nation," the racism depicted in "Boyhood, " I suspect, will not be seen as clearly as the racism in the former film.

At first, I thought Birth of a Nation must have taken 12 years to make. But no. Acosta's argument, such as it is, is that because Boyhood takes place in Texas and features very few Hispanic characters, it is racist. By omission, you see. Coming in for special criticism is the "white savior" trope, played out when Patricia Arquette's Mom ("which I think is a bit reductive," Acosta scolds) suggests to a Hispanic worker replacing a pipe at her house that he should get his education. Which he does! Later in the film, he shows up as the manager of a restaurant at which Mom and Company are eating and thanks her for turning his life around.

Now. I actually found this subplot a bit annoying myself. Not because it's "trafficking in white savior tropes" (which, as we know, merits at least two problematics on its own). But because it's trafficking in movie cliche. The whole point of Boyhood was to eschew such cliches. To look at life as it happens, to show people growing in an organic, natural way. That scene snaps you out of the whole illusion; it's a violation of the world that Linklater has created. It's too neat and tidy—too cinematic—for a naturalistic film such as this.

2. One Graduate of a Women's College Thinks Trans Activists Should Leave Women's Colleges Alone

lol
lol

"This might seem like a tiny, fussy battle waged only by overly politically correct liberals on a few college campuses and in other feminist spaces, the kind of intra-left fight where progressives eat their own tail," wrote Monica Potts. "But it’s bigger than that, and has serious implications for the ongoing, uphill fight for women's rights—a fight that should be waged alongside, rather than eclipsed by, the one for LGBT rights." Potts, basically, wants trans activists to focus on the real enemy: WHITE CIS MEN.

Why aren’t transactivists targeting those institutions men still dominate rather than fighting over use of the word "sisterhood" at campuses with a few thousand students? Largely because they can. When transactivists complain that use of gendered language makes them feel excluded, they aren’t doing it in explicitly male spaces: It’s only women who would respond "So sorry!" and retreat to the sidelines. Women aren’t supposed to talk about themselves, to champion their cause without reservation, to put their own needs above others'. We’re so uncomfortable with female power that we fight it on the smallest scales.

Needless to say, this piece was not well received by Angry Activist Twitter. On the plus side, the new New Republic has doubled down on its efforts to prove Julia Ioffe's skepticism correct.

3. Star Wars Episode VII: The Pyramid of Grievances

AP
Wow, white enough for you George Lucas ... or should I say HITLER?

I can't quite tell if the website Everyday Feminism is an actual satire site or an unintentional parody site. It's legitimately hard to say. For instance, this piece on "adultism": intentional satire or unintentional parody? I have no idea.

For now, I'll consider it "genuine." Which makes this piece on all the ways in which the Star Wars canon has failed at intersectionality pure genius. I mean, here's the headline:

Screen Shot 2015-02-17 at 5.44.33 PM

"Oppressive Mistakes"! Obviously there's the lack of minority characters. But also a lack of LGBT*Q characters! And a rank objectification of women. Terrible. Just terrible. #smdh (And if it turns out to be parody? Well, Poe's Law, etc.)