|
Post by Christine on Aug 26, 2018 18:07:59 GMT -5
Long story, short, Christine , you're blaming gender stereotypes on a "free market" No, Don , I did not blame gender stereotypes on a free market. Nice try using my post to string up your strawman and wax philobnoxious about how the free market is the cure for all social ills. I said that the free market follows societal trends - so it exacerbates stereotypes - because that's the way to make money. That's not "blaming" them, it's just noting a fact. Go turn on the television and watch a few ads and tell me the free market doesn't use stereotypes. I'll wait.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 27, 2018 4:39:57 GMT -5
Long story, short, Christine , you're blaming gender stereotypes on a "free market" No, Don , I did not blame gender stereotypes on a free market. Nice try using my post to string up your strawman and wax philobnoxious about how the free market is the cure for all social ills. I said that the free market follows societal trends - so it exacerbates stereotypes - because that's the way to make money. That's not "blaming" them, it's just noting a fact. Go turn on the television and watch a few ads and tell me the free market doesn't use stereotypes. I'll wait.Let's see. that goes with this one: "even without the politics, those who benefit from current social norms are loathe to change. Including the free market, which by following whatever trend makes the most money, continues to promote stereotypes." If the monolithic term t elevision represents a "free market" in your mind, we're starting from radically different places. Go read the story of the first interracial kiss on television, then tell me it's a free market. It was the FCC's government censors and TBTB at NBC who wanted to keep that "horrible idea" out of sight of the american public, and Gene Roddenberry would have never got that shot on television if the actors involved had shown any sign they weren't being forced into it. Broadcast TV was never intended to be a "free market." It has from the get-go been highly regulated, both as to content and as to the players allowed into the arena. Cable TV, OTOH, has been relatively unregulated in both regards, and with the rise of the Internet, all bets are off, bringing us Netflix and Amazon Prime originals, among others. Lumping broadcast, cable and internet forms of video entertainment under the banner of "television" is conflation at its worst... but I'll agree that the stereotypes on broadcast TV advertisements are ridiculous. Those stereotypes began to erode with the rise of alternatives to broadcast TV appearing on cable, where they escaped much of the FCC's scrutiny. These were the first attempts to allow some form of relatively "free" markets for consumers in video entertainment, although still highly regulated in some markets at a more local level, and by the old white men acting as gatekeepers for the cable providers themselves. Much of what passed for daring in the days of HBO and Showtime is now relatively conventional compared to some of the fare you see in the second generation, that of NetFlix and Amazon Prime originals, which have slipped from the control of even the cable providers. They're essentially outside the umbrella of the FCC as far as content, and those are the places you see stereotypes crumble and new relationship types surface and thrive, not in the FCC-controlled broadcast arena. The broadcast networks are forced by the FCC to be your grandparents' networks, and the advertisers on broadcast TV are also restricted to those same stereotypes. What you see there has no relationship to a free market. Stereotypes are being destroyed and new forms of relationships are being celebrated because video entertainment slipped the clutches of the FCC, not because the folks at the FCC suddenly got "woke." Nobody in the broadcast TV power structure is "woke," which is why you see all the cutting-edge stuff elsewhere. I'll note I've seen scant evidence of the "dumb blonde" stereotype on non-broadcast entertainment, but I have noticed Nurse Jackie and Jessica Jones and Grace and Frankie, none of which will ever, ever, ever be shown on broadcast TV. The FCC would have cow first.The free market is relatively lively on NetFlix and Amazon Prime and YouTube, but it's never been a factor in what you see on ABC, CBS, or NBC. The broadcast networks have always been highly regulated by those puritan gatekeepers we've all hated our whole lives, backstopped by a power structure populated largely by old white men, that arose when misogyny was cool, and there's no more fertile breeding ground for stereotypes than a highly-regulated marketplace of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 27, 2018 7:03:46 GMT -5
No, Don , I did not blame gender stereotypes on a free market. Nice try using my post to string up your strawman and wax philobnoxious about how the free market is the cure for all social ills. I said that the free market follows societal trends - so it exacerbates stereotypes - because that's the way to make money. That's not "blaming" them, it's just noting a fact. Go turn on the television and watch a few ads and tell me the free market doesn't use stereotypes. I'll wait.Let's see. that goes with this one: "even without the politics, those who benefit from current social norms are loathe to change. Including the free market, which by following whatever trend makes the most money, continues to promote stereotypes." If the monolithic term t elevision represents a "free market" in your mind, we're starting from radically different places. Read the words I underscored above. Again, you've argued points I haven't made. Discussing this with you feels like when I tell my ultra-religious mom I don't think I believe in God and then have to endure several hours of her explaining how GOD IS GREAT AND SATAN IS EVIL.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 27, 2018 8:28:58 GMT -5
Nice try using my post to string up your strawman and wax philobnoxious about how the free market is the cure for all social ills. I like that neologism but my first thought was "Does that being obnoxious like Dr. Phil?"
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 27, 2018 8:38:54 GMT -5
Stereotypes are being destroyed and new forms of relationships are being celebrated because video entertainment slipped the clutches of the FCC, not because the folks at the FCC suddenly got "woke." Nobody in the broadcast TV power structure is "woke," which is why you see all the cutting-edge stuff elsewhere. I'll note I've seen scant evidence of the "dumb blonde" stereotype on non-broadcast entertainment, but I have noticed Nurse Jackie and Jessica Jones and Grace and Frankie, none of which will ever, ever, ever be shown on broadcast TV. The FCC would have cow first.The free market is relatively lively on NetFlix and Amazon Prime and YouTube, but it's never been a factor in what you see on ABC, CBS, or NBC. The broadcast networks have always been highly regulated by those puritan gatekeepers we've all hated our whole lives, backstopped by a power structure populated largely by old white men, that arose when misogyny was cool, and there's no more fertile breeding ground for stereotypes than a highly-regulated marketplace of ideas. Yes, Netflix and Amazon are hotbeds of groundbreaking stereotype-defying shows like.... oh, umpteen Marvel comics shows, Insatiable (about a former fat girl turned beauty pageant contestant), Stranger Things (basically an extended paean to 80s nerd culture)... come on, Don. Yay, they show actual gay people! The FCC would never allow that! Don't get me wrong, I like Netflix and Amazon, but they aren't pushing any radical political agendas, challenging the Powers That Be, or trying to defy social stereotypes. They aren't pushing either "wokeness" or awareness. They are catering to the money, and the free market in the sense you're referring to it is just the public id, nothing more, nothing less. They sell racial and gendered stereotypes right along with "woke" shows challenging racial and gendered stereotypes, because they sell whatever sells. The only difference between cable shows and broadcast television is that you can see titties and hear uncensored four-letter words.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 27, 2018 11:11:49 GMT -5
I see the words, Christine. Are you honestly arguing that advertisers on broadcast television operate in a free market? Tell that to the liquor, tobacco and condum industries, please. They'll be excited to hear about that!!!
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 27, 2018 11:23:40 GMT -5
I see the words, Christine . Are you honestly arguing that advertisers on broadcast television operate in a free market? Tell that to the liquor, tobacco and condum industries, please. They'll be excited to hear about that!!! If "free market" means "zero government regulations," then there are no free markets in the U.S., or almost anywhere else. Your slippery slopes make it pointless to even discuss definitions with you sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 27, 2018 11:49:22 GMT -5
Nice try using my post to string up your strawman and wax philobnoxious about how the free market is the cure for all social ills. I like that neologism but my first thought was "Does that being obnoxious like Dr. Phil?"I thought of changing it to philosobnoxious ... but I guess that would be a weeping Dr. Phil.... I see the words, Christine . Are you honestly arguing that advertisers on broadcast television operate in a free market? Tell that to the liquor, tobacco and condum industries, please. They'll be excited to hear about that!!! Are you honestly arguing that absent regulations, advertisers wouldn't use stereotypes? Your strawmen are so. freaking. tiresome. And what Amadan said. If you deem any use of the term "free market" outside of (e.g.) unlicensed backroom pot dealers to be incorrect and a good reason for you to write ten-paragraph screeds that have nothing to do with my factual observation that stereotypes exist even in the free market, I'll pass on further discussion.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 1, 2018 11:33:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 1, 2018 11:38:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 1, 2018 13:17:14 GMT -5
Wow, that video is way worse than the pictures.
If you just look at a picture, you could think "Okay, he put his arm around her and his hand rested a bit awkwardly." But it's pretty clear he kept his hand there, and after she moved he slid it back into place. And it definitely looks like his fingers are doing a bit of groping.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 1, 2018 15:25:06 GMT -5
Ew...that's just...ew. Poor girl. Everything about that video is uncomfortable to watch. I can't even imagine how she felt.
What a damned creeper. And to do that in that kind of a setting makes it seem a bit worse not only because of the solemn occasion, but because it basically allowed him to get away with it (low chance of her causing a scene at Aretha Franklin's funeral). I imagine if that'd happened anywhere else, she might've decked him. It's bad enough to get groped. Worse to have it happen in front of thousand of people. Worse still to be in a position where you feel like you have to stand there and take it without responding.
But why did he feel like he needed - or even had the right - to touch her in the first place?
It's obvious he's trying to be (and totally is) a feel-copping perv. Otherwise, his hand would've been on her shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by gaild on Sept 2, 2018 1:51:18 GMT -5
Ew...that's just...ew. Poor girl. Everything about that video is uncomfortable to watch. I can't even imagine how she felt. What a damned creeper. And to do that in that kind of a setting makes it seem a bit worse not only because of the solemn occasion, but because it basically allowed him to get away with it (low chance of her causing a scene at Aretha Franklin's funeral). I imagine if that'd happened anywhere else, she might've decked him. It's bad enough to get groped. Worse to have it happen in front of thousand of people. Worse still to be in a position where you feel like you have to stand there and take it without responding. But why did he feel like he needed - or even had the right - to touch her in the first place? It's obvious he's trying to be (and totally is) a feel-copping perv. Otherwise, his hand would've been on her shoulder. It really is disgusting! More and more, it seems, putting the collar on back to front creates a sense of entitlement and immunity. But I'm glad this was caught on camera and exposed in the media. He's going to get some well deserved heat for this.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 4, 2018 7:18:01 GMT -5
On the brouhaha over whether or not execs at NBC tried to block the Weinstein story, Farrow has released a short statement:
Man, you gotta love this guy, no?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 26, 2018 10:29:54 GMT -5
Bill Cosby is going to jail for the next three-to-10 YEARS. It was a long and torturous road for Andrea Constand and the other women the celebrated entertainer preyed upon, but it ended with justice being rendered to the 81-year-old serial rapist. Cosby will appeal the verdict, but he'll be doing it from behind bars and must serve three years before he is eligible for parole. I receive no satisfaction from the Fall of Bill Cosby. My social media feed is full of posts alleging Cosby was the real victim here, not the women he deceived, drugged and violated. I have replied to the reasonable ones and ignored the unreasonable ones. It has been no fun being among the vocal few who evolved on whether Cosby did what he was accused of, but the abundance of evidence against him made it impossible not to. It will be some time before I can reconcile with learning Bill Cosby is not who I thought he was. It's like the saying, "The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off." To be deceived and deceived for years is a blow to the psyche as much as a physical blow to the face. I don't feel sorry for Bill Cosby though. He brought it all on himself.
|
|