[Content Note: Sexual abuse; rape culture.]
Another woman has made allegations that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Cosby, making her the 20th woman to come forward.
Twenty women.
Many of whom have been telling their stories for years, only to be disbelieved, until a male comedian raised mentioned the allegations in a show.
In the past couple of weeks, I've seen a lot of arguments made by prominent progressive men (and while women may well have made this argument, too, I haven't personally seen it) that the number of Cosby victims has made it "easier" for them to believe the veracity of their allegations.
There are a lot of problems with this position, not least of which is that it invokes every piece of rape apologia centered around these four words: "He said, she said."
Reduced to its essence, saying that the number of victims makes it "easier" to believe them basically says: "Lucky for those women he raped so many of them, so that men like us can't not believe them."
Of course I know that's not the intent of men who offer some version of this "too many victims to disbelieve" trash. But the problem with the argument is that it effectively, even if unintentionally, suggests that more victims is better for any one victim.
I was raped by a man who I know raped at least one other woman besides me. And I find this argument deeply upsetting, because it turns survivors into numbers in a way that suggests my rape might have been somehow "useful" for her, or hers "useful" for me.
I would rather have been the only person he hurt, than had other women be able to say, "He raped me, too," in order to convince men to believe us.
And, by the way, no one believed us, anyway.
I guess there just weren't enough of us to satisfy men so detached from the realities of rape that it takes a numbers game to convince them.
If that sounds grotesque, well, that's because it is. Believing survivors should not be predicated on the number of victims (who come forward) of any individual rapist. Part of the reason 20 women have now told their stories of being abused by Cosby is because people started believing the first women who came forward.
To disbelieve a victim, because she appears to be the only one, is to discourage other victims from coming forward.
When men play this game in which belief is withheld until their arbitrary threshold has been passed, they're actively participating in a cultural silencing mechanism. They're essentially ensuring that there will never be "enough" victims to convince them, because their disbelief is a disincentive to further disclosures.
We know there are vanishingly few false reports of rape, and we know that most rapists have multiple victims. These are the only numbers that matter; the numbers that should underwrite believing victims, whether they speak alone or as part of a cacophony of survivors of the same abuser.
Yes, you're a fool if you don't believe now that there are 20 women who have come forward. But you were a fool if you didn't believe when there was only one.
[See also: "I hope it's not true."]
Twenty
Of Course
[Content Note: Pregnancy discrimination.]
Today, the US Supreme Court will be looking at the case Young vs. United Parcel Service, which will decide "whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are 'similar in their ability or inability to work.'"
The case arose after UPS employee Peggy Young requested "a temporary assignment to avoid lifting heavy packages after she became pregnant in 2006." She provided a note from her physician "recommending that she not lift packages heavier than 20 pounds." UPS refused to accommodate her request.
This seems like it should be an easy decision: The answer appears to be so clear that "the Obama administration and an unusual array of liberal and conservative interest groups are backing Young." Who would disagree that reasonable accommodations should be made for pregnant people?
The US Chamber of Commerce is among those on UPS's side. The chamber says many of its members do provide additional benefits to pregnant workers, but says policies at thousands of companies would be upended if the court were to rule for Young.Policies at thousands of companies would be upended! Oh the horror!
Only in a country with a corporate culture where virtually always are profits prioritized over people would "companies with discriminatory and/or non-accommodative policies might have to change their policies and this is a terrible thing" be suggested as the reasonable argument, and "it is wrong to continue to risk the health and well-being of thousands of people at thousands of companies, even if fixing that might cause some temporary inconvenience and marginally reduced profits" be received as an unreasonable argument.
Let us hope that SCOTUS does the right thing here, even in spite of their tendency to concede anything corporations want ever.
This Is Class Warfare
[Content Note: Exploitation; classism.]
According to conservatives, "class warfare" is any suggestion that rich people should contribute a little more so that the most vulnerable among us can struggle a little less. "Wealth redistribution," they call it. And they disgorge garbage narratives about takers and moochers who scammers who exploit the system.
All of this is projection. Wealth is being redistributed upwards, not the other way around. Economic warfare is being waged against the lower classes. And it is wealthy people who are found to be, over and over, the laziest, greediest, most opportunistic moochers who exploit the system, with proficiency and profligacy about which poor would-be swindlers can only dream.
Case in point: The Tampa Bay Times has published a scathing investigative report on New Beginnings of Tampa, one of the Florida city's largest programs serving homeless people, which sends participants to work concessions at Tampa Bay Buccaneers home games, among other jobs: "For years, New Beginnings founder and CEO Tom Atchison has sent his unpaid homeless labor crews to Tampa Bay Rays, Lightning and Bucs games, the Daytona 500 and the Florida State Fair. For their shelter, he's had homeless people work in construction, landscaping, telemarketing, moving, painting, even grant-writing."
Atchison calls it "work therapy." Homeless advocates and labor lawyers call it exploitative, and possibly illegal.Oh, well, if their hearts are in the right place, then case closed.
...The Times reviewed thousands of pages of public records about New Beginnings, including police reports, bank statements, grant documents and court proceedings, and interviewed more than 20 current and former New Beginnings residents and employees. Among the findings:
• Employees and residents said Atchison took residents' Social Security checks and food stamps, even if they amounted to more than residents owed in program costs.
• A New Beginnings contractor told the Times he overbilled the state for at least $80,000 of grant money, then gave the money to the program instead of returning it.
• While claiming to provide counseling, New Beginnings employs no one clinically trained to work with addicts or the mentally ill. One minister cited his experience running a motorcycle gang as his top qualification. The Times couldn't verify the doctorate in theology Atchison said he earned from a defunct online school.
..."It needs to stop," said Lee Hoffman, a former New Beginnings resident and minister. "There are a bunch of homeless people who are being exploited."
...New Beginnings charges its residents who can pay $150 a week, or $600 a month, which covers rent and three meals per day. Those without money work to cover their costs. Residents also agree to drug testing, curfews and sober living.
Metropolitan Ministries, the county's largest nonprofit assisting the homeless, has worked for years with New Beginnings.
"Their hearts truly seem to be in the right place," said Tim Marks, Metropolitan Ministries president and CEO.
Except for how their hearts are in a place that considers homeless people their "property."
"When they come in the program — this sounds a bit bad — they become our property to help us help them become new people," said Anthony Raburn, a minister who works with Atchison. "There are expenses that go along with that."No, Mr. Raburn. That doesn't sound a bit bad. It sounds a lot bad.
And this sure doesn't sound any better:
New Beginnings is one of three agencies applying to run Hillsborough County's proposed homeless shelter, a contract potentially worth $1.6 million annually. The competition includes the Salvation Army and DACCO, a facility that treats people with substance abuse problems and mental illness.He deserves a $100,000 annual salary for running a program that makes people indentured servants. Neat.
If New Beginnings gets the shelter contract, and some other grants, Atchison wants to increase his salary.
"I should be making $100,000-plus a year," he said. "And not apologizing for it. I deserve it."
Now, as you know, I believe people deserve to be paid for their work. I'm not saying Atchison should do this work for free. Well, he shouldn't be doing this work at all, because it's grossly exploitative. But even if he were running a solid, decent program, $100,000 annually is more than double the median household income for the area.
And he isn't running a solid, decent program. He's running one in which people aren't being paid for the work that they're doing.
"This is outrageous," said Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel for the National Employment Law Project, a labor advocacy group. "These workers are doing a job. They need to be treated with dignity."Yes.
This Is Happening
[Content Note: War; militarism.]
Seems like something we oughta know about:
The new Army commander in Europe plans to bolster the U.S. armored presence in Poland and the Baltic states and keep rotations of U.S. troops there through next year and possibly beyond to counter Russia.Up until this point, the U.S. has provided only non-lethal aid to Ukraine—about $100 million worth, in the form of night-vision goggles, counter-mortar radars, protective gear, vehicles, blankets, and MREs. And this doesn't appear to change that policy, despite the fact that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko "has been pleading with the U.S. for advanced weaponry to counter the Russian troops and rebels."
Lt. Gen. Frederick "Ben" Hodges, who replaced Lt. Gen. Donald M. Campbell earlier this month as commander of U.S. Army Europe, said the Army was looking to add about 100 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles to the forces in Eastern Europe.
"We are looking at courses of action for how we could pre-position equipment that we would definitely want to put inside a facility where it would be better maintained, that rotational units could then come and draw on it and use it to train, or for contingency purposes," Hodges said in a briefing from Vilnius, Lithuania.
Hodges visited a training site in Lithuania that could be used to store armor and said he would look at similar sites in Estonia and Poland.
"Certainly, I don't see a need to build infrastructure -- a FOB [Forward Operating Base] if you will -- or anything like that, that would be used for U.S. forces," Hodges said.
Since taking command, Hodges has made clear his concerns about Russia, which annexed Crimea last March and has supported the separatists in eastern Ukraine. U.S. Army Europe, which had 280,000 troops at the height of the Cold War, now has 31,000.
The rotations of U.S. troops on training missions in Eastern Europe would provide "deterrence against Russian aggression," Hodges said.
Per "a senior administration official traveling with Vice President Joe Biden on his trip to Ukraine last week," the administration believes there's no point in arming Ukraine because "no matter how many weapons we provided to Ukraine, they were going to get outgunned by the Russians."
Okay.
Instead, the decision is to bolster our military presence in the region with tanks and armored vehicles, and just sit there making sure Russia knows we'll use 'em if they get too "aggressive."
Welcome to the Cold War 2.0.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker kiwi_a: "What's your favourite pair of shoes (barefoot/socks totes fine as answers)?"
Important Victory for Trans* Veterans
Two New Jersey-based transgender veterans represented by the ACLU of New Jersey, [Jennifer, a Sergeant Major who served in the U.S. Army for 29 years, and Nicolas, a New Jersey National Guardsman who served for nine], have won a victory in a battle to change their names on a key military identification document, with implications for transgender veterans throughout the country. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records sent letters on Nov. 12, which the ACLU-NJ received on Nov. 24, with its decision to change the names of the two veterans on their "DD-214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty" forms, principal documents for any action requiring proof of veteran's status.Congratulations to Jennifer and Nicolas, and to everyone for whom this decision will make life easier and more just.
..."To get this news the week of Thanksgiving feels fitting," said Jennifer. "This is about much more than a change on a piece of paper. This is about the relief of knowing that when I apply for a job, or a home loan, or anything where my veteran status is relevant, I can do it as myself."
..."This small change in a personnel document means a huge change for veterans like me," said Nicolas. "I served to protect American principles, and the principles of justice and equality have been served by this decision."
The DD-214 form determines veterans' eligibility for benefits and legal protections tied to military service. Veterans need this document to engage in a wide range of activities in public life, including securing a home loan, taking the bar exam, or applying for a job with an employer that gives veterans preference in hiring. Transgender veterans not only risk the denial of these many benefits because of inconsistencies on the DD-214, but also face invasive questions every time this document is presented.
..."With this decision, the U.S. Army has recognized the importance of reflecting service members' true identities accurately, and we're grateful that the deputy assistant secretary chose to reexamine the approach the Army Review Boards had taken for too long," said ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director Jeanne LoCicero. "We hope this action signals a new direction for the Army, if not all branches of the military, and indicates a new sensitivity to the barriers faced by transgender veterans."
Of Course
[Content Note: Police brutality; death; racism.]
As you may recall, following the killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, the Northeast Ohio Media Group saw fit to publish a story about how his father had a history of domestic violence.
Now, they have published this trash: "Father of Cleveland cop who shot Tamir Rice says his son had no choice."
So, the father of the victim irrelevantly has his violent history documented, and the father of the killer is given a platform to defend his son. Cool.
And this shit was published without a trace of irony or decency:
Tim Loehmann attends church, socializes with friends and is doing "pretty well" in the days following the Nov. 22 shooting, his father Fred Loehmann said in an interview Monday from the family's home in Parma.Wow.
"He's living his life," he said.
[H/T to @OHTheMaryD.]
Aphra and Liss Talk About Elonis v. United States
[Content Note: Threats; harassment; violence; silencing. Posted with Aphra_Behn's permission.]
Aphra: Did you see this [New York Times piece on Elonis v. United States, currently before the US Supreme Court]? So, according to the New York Times, intent is magic, and we should definitely prioritize free speech over women's safety. What the everloving fuck. I have a bad feeling about how The Supremes are gong to rule on this, and I have a terrible feeling about what that will mean for women, including women who dare to have a public presence in the world.
Liss: Yeah. I read that this morning, and I am honestly feeling all kinds of ways about writing about it. Like, mainly, that I don't want to, because I can't get past my sheer terror about what this is going to mean for me and you and every other woman who has a life online in the future. I was shaking reading it. How do they not know that EVERY DUDE who makes threats like this knows FULL WELL that "I was just joking" or "I didn't really mean it" or "I was just blowing off steam" absolves them of all accountability? And they're going to help them pull that shit? Terrific.
Aphra: I know. I KNOW. And you know what? I've been reading several opinions about this, and way too many seem to think that it is more newsworthy to note that Justice Roberts quoted Eminem, hardee har har, than to mention that this would be KIND OF A BIG DEAL for domestic violence cases and for online harassment. In other news, I was sort of shocked to find myself rooting for Alito, since he's the only justice who reacted to the arguments by saying adopting the "true intent" standard would make for "a very grave threat of domestic violence." WHUT.
Liss: Alito? ALITO?! WHAT IS EVEN HAPPENING? I find it really disturbing that, yet again, there is precious little concern about how allowing threatening speech under the auspices of free speech actually curtails the free speech of the people at whom threatening speech is directed. If the government says, "People are allowed to threaten you indefinitely and with impunity" to me, that puts me in the position of making difficult choices about what I can and can't safely say publicly. They are actively abetting the curtailing of speech that is likely to result in threats, intimidation, and harassment. Doesn't that matter?
Aphra: YES YES YES omg THAT!!!!! Because the threat itself is enough to make you shut up. The threat itself is a goddamn crime. The Atlantic had a decent piece about this using a bomb threat to a high school as an example—whether "intended" or not, it still results in canceled class (loss of instructional time), lots of work by admins and teachers, lots of work from the police, maybe calling out the bomb squad...those are real losses from the threat. Because you can't afford to be weighing or not how "serious" it is. There should be the exact same logic applied to women receiving threats via social media. How the fuck do I decide if it's "real" or not? And do I just magically decide it's not real and wave away the physical and mental effects? Also: escalation, how does it work?
Liss: I don't even know why on earth anyone would think it is a good idea EVER to define the severity of a crime by the intention of the person who perpetrated it. I mean, I get the point of differentiating between causing someone's death accidentally and deliberately, but even the whole "premeditated murder" vs. "murder of passion" distinction is pretty irrelevant, AFAIC. "Oh, this creep who sent me a threat every day for six months didn't INTEND to make me feel like I don't even want to walk outside to get the mail? Okay, then. By all means, protect his fucking SPEECH."
Aphra: Right! And how on earth does the threat being sent to you via Twitter differ from it being mailed or emailed? Does that mean threats are okay if you post them on a fucking billboard? I hate everything about this. You know, if this case and the pregnancy case end up like the Hobby Lobby ruling, I guess we'll have a pretty good indicator of the Supreme Court majority's ideal women: pregnant, unemployed, and terrified. HOW VERY NEAT.
Liss: Sob.
Daily Dose of Cute
Matilda.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Racism; violence.]
"I have a dream...that one day I'll see as much outrage over professional football players raising their hands against a woman or child in anger as I've seen over football players raising their hands in solidarity with a community demanding justice."—Pamela Merritt, aka SharkFu.
Pam is always brilliant, but holy shit. That took my breath away.
[Shared publicly with permission.]
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
[Content Note: There's a big spidey in this video.]
Milla Jovovich: "Gentleman Who Fell"
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Racism] This is something: "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday he would soon release new guidelines to limit racial profiling by federal law enforcement, a move long awaited by civil rights advocates. ...Civil rights advocates have long called on the federal government to expand the guidelines. It is not known what groups Holder will include. The new guidelines would not pertain to local or state law enforcement, such as the Ferguson Police Department where officer Darren Wilson worked when he shot Brown. But Holder and civil rights advocates have said the federal guidelines will set the example for local agencies." Is the problem with local and state law enforcement lack of good examples, though? I think it's rather more lack of accountability. Still, this is good news.
[CN: Racism; police brutality] The unmitigated cheek: "Less than a week after twelve-year-old Tamir Rice was fatally shot by Cleveland police officers who thought Rice's toy gun was real, nine other members of the Cleveland Police Department filed a lawsuit that accuses the department of discriminating against non-African American officers who used deadly force. ...In the suit, the plantiffs claim that the department treated non-African American officers involved in the 2012 shooting of two African Americans 'substantially harsher' than African American officers involved in the same incidents. ...The officers alleged that the department's practices place 'onerous burdens on non-African American officers, including the plaintiffs, because of their race,' which violates their due process and equal protection under the law." I don't even know.
[CN: Racist apologia] What the actual fuck: "Chief Jon Belmar sent an email to his staff Monday night informing them that a senior Rams executive called to apologize for some players' show of support for protesters in Ferguson, Mo., the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. ...Belmar wrote his staff that Kevin Demoff, the Rams' chief operating officer, called 'to take the opportunity to apologize' to the police department on behalf of the team. ...Demoff didn't dispute that he called Belmar. But he told ESPN.com that he never apologized during the conversation. 'In those conversations, I expressed regret that players' actions were construed negatively against law enforcement,' he told ESPN, adding that the team believes 'it is possible to support both our players' First Amendment rights and the efforts of local law enforcement to make this a better community.'"
[CN: Class warfare] More evidence that the recovery is not a recovery for everyone: "They tell you if you knuckle down and work hard, you'll get ahead in life. But Northwest Indiana residents haven't been making much progress financially—in fact, they've collectively been hit by a big pay cut over the last year. On average, wages in Northwest Indiana declined by $1.25 an hour over the past 12 months, and the average income has fallen by $3,000 as a result of lower wages and fewer work hours, said Micah Pollak, Indiana University Northwest assistant professor of economics. It's a local problem: Wages actually rose by 24 cents an hour statewide over the same period, while workers nationally got an average raise of 33 cents per hour. The average income in the Calumet Region has dropped to $40,000 from $43,000, a 6.6 percent decline, while workers nationally are making the same amount as they did a year ago." BOOTSTRAPS!
Ms. Willie Murphy is a 77-year-old weightlifting champion who could definitely kick my ass.
Sad news for all you Portman-heads out there: Republican Ohio Senator Rob Portman has ruled out a presidential bid. We're all devastated, I'm sure.
Neat! "Astronomers have made the first ever observation of an exoplanet using a ground-based telescope." 55 Cancri e is a "super-earth" orbiting "a star dimly visible to the naked eye called 55 Cancri."
And finally: Nobody puts Baby behind a pet gate! Nobody!
Culture: How the Fuck Does It Work?
"Relax, it's just a movie."
"Settle down, it's just a TV show."
"Don't get hysterical, it's just a pop song."
"Untwist your panties, it's just a book."
"Calm down, it's just a commercial."
"Give it up, it's just a video game."
"Unclench your ass, it's just a joke."
"Who cares, it's just a tweet."
"Cool it, it's just a YouTube video."
"Get over yourself, it's just a common turn of phrase."
"Release your pearls, it's just a costume."
"No one cares, it's just a radio show."
"Give me a break, it's just a t-shirt."
"Come on, it's just a bumper sticker."
"Take a breath, it's just a comic."
"Are you serious, it's just a political cartoon."
"Stop talking, it's just a column in a college newspaper."
"Give it a rest, it's just a convention."
"Collect yourself, it's just a website."
"Cool down, it's just an editorial."
"Take a chill pill, it's just a speaking panel."
"Get ahold of yourself, it's just political expediency."
"Ease off, it's just a magazine article."
"Don't get your nose out of joint, it's just a word."
"Compose yourself, it's just a sporting event."
"Take it easy, it's just an innocent question."
"Don't worry, it's just one piece of legislation."
"Simmer down, it's just an awards show."
"Knock it off, it's just the way things are done."
"Loosen up, it's just my opinion."
"Remove the stick up your ass, it's just good fun."
"Chill out, it's just a prank."
"Calm yourself, it's just a Supreme Court decision."
"Take your meds, it's just the way things work."
"Why do you even care, it's just someone you don't even know personally."
"Shut up, it's tradition."
An Observation
[Content Note: Rape culture.]
I just read an interview with a guy doing good work on challenging violence against women by talking to other men about it—doesn't matter who, because this isn't specific to him, nor a specific criticism of him—and he used the old "wife, mother, daughter, sister" framing.
Which, as you may recall, I hate.
And, as much as I hate it within the general political framework of appealing to men to care about equal pay or whatever, because they benefit when "their women" succeed, I hate it even more when it's used in an anti-violence context.
"What if it was your wife who was raped? Your mother? What if it was your daughter who was a victim of domestic violence? Your sister?"
I hate it because a woman shouldn't have to be a relative of a man for him to give a shit about her being harmed.
I hate it because it implies that all men definitely care when their female relatives are harmed.
(Which is not true. And frankly every time I hear this rhetorical flourish used in this context, it makes me recall painful familial indifference. I suspect I'm not alone in that.)
I hate it because it implies that husbands, sons, fathers, brothers don't themselves ever harm their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters.
And that is a very dangerous implication.
"Don't you care that other men might hurt your women?"
It elides the prevalence of intrafamily violence. It is a dodge from speaking to men directly about not harming women themselves. It creates a hierarchy of women worth caring about. It is potentially triggering to female survivors, whose male relatives were their victimizers or who caused secondary trauma via disbelief or indifference or shaming.
This is not just an insufficient framework. It's an actively problematic one.
It Continues to Be a Real Mystery Why Republicans Aren't Connecting with a Majority of Female Voters
[Content Note: Misogyny; police brutality; racism; gender essentialism.]
"Think big."
Dr. Ben Carson, who is currently polling second among Republicans in presidential polls, has a terrific theory about why police are killing black people:
During an appearance Tuesday on American Family Radio's "Today's Issues," Carson speculated about the behavior that led to the fatal shooting of black unarmed teenager Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.So much wrong in so few words.
"Certainly in a lot of our inner cities, particularly in the black inner cities, where 73 percent of the young people are born out of wedlock, the majority of them have no father figure in their life," Carson said. "Usually the father figure is where you learn how to respond to authority."
He also addressed comments made by host Lauren Kitchens Steward about respecting authority and the entitlement, which she claimed, "dominates" this generation.
"I think a lot of it really got started in the '60s with the 'Me' generation. 'What's in it for me?'" Carson said. "I hate to say it, but a lot of it had to do with the women's lib movement. You know, 'I've been taking care of my family, I've been doing that, what about me?' You know, it really should be about us."
The assertion that children born to unmarried parents necessarily do not have active relationships with their fathers is flatly wrong.
The failure to acknowledge the roles of the criminalization of need, addiction, and mental illness; institutional racism in our legal system; and for-profit prisons in tearing apart poor black families in the US is flatly wrong.
The gender essentialist claptrap about learning "how to respond to authority" from fathers is flatly wrong.
The embedded implication that black people are killed by police because they are insufficiently deferential to authority is flatly wrong.
The contention that empowerment of women underwrites state violence is flatly wrong.
Basically, Carson is arguing that state violence against black people wouldn't exist if only more children were born "in wedlock" and women didn't have so many opportunities. Like the 1950s.
If only there were books about history that could tell us whether state violence against black people happened back then. Oh well. I guess it's a mystery lost to the sands of time.
Question of the Day
Originally suggested by Spudsy: What's the worst album name of all time?
The one that immediately popped into my head was Van Halen's "OU812."
Fart.
If it's not strictly the worst of all time, it's up there.
White Men Defend Making Movie with White Men
[Content Note: Racism; racist apologia.]
So, Ridley Scott has made a new epic garbage movie about Moses called Exodus: Gods and Kings. As has been well-documented in this space, I am a person who looooooves a good epic garbage movie, and even I think this looks like trash.
Over the past couple of weeks, lots of people have noted that it has a very white cast, for a film about Middle Eastern people. It stars white Welshman Christian Bale as Moses, and white Australian Joel Edgerton (in brownface? maybe? it looks like?) as Ramses.
I bet you'll be positively SHOCKED to hear that the white men who made this movie and star in this movie are not especially receptive to these eminently reasonable criticisms.
While director Ridley Scott helpfully explained he couldn't have gotten funding for his film if he'd cast "Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such," Fox studio magnate Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to declare Egyptians white, and then "Of course Egyptians are Middle Eastern, but far from black," and then, "Okay, there are many shades of color. Nothing racist about that, so calm down!"
CASE CLOSED, YOUR HONOR.
When, over the weekend, Elon James White was discussing the whitewashed film, it reminded me that I'd seen an interview with Christian Bale on Entertainment Tonight the week before, in which his response to criticisms regarding race in Exodus was so amazing I wrote it down.
I later found the clip; the best quote of all the quotes starts at 2:09:
"l don't know that just the fact that I was born in Wales and suffer from this skin that can't deal with the sun should dictate that Ridley should say well in that case he's not the right man for playing the role."
So, you know, basically you're the REAL racist for saying he can't play Moses because of his terrible sun affliction!
Runner-up for best quote comes at 1:03: "I learned about Moses from Charlton Heston." LOLOLOL. Of course you did.
Anyway. None of this is new or surprising, naturally. But I wanted to take the time to point out how both Ridley Scott and Christian Bale are both effectively throwing their hands in the air like they were helpless. Scott asserts he couldn't have gotten funding if he didn't use white actors: "What was I supposed to do?!" Bale asserts he was offered the role and did his best: "What was I supposed to do?!"
Oh, I dunno. Maybe not make the movie then. Maybe don't accept the role.
It's not like either Ridley Scott or Christian Bale need to work to put food on their families. They are exceptionally wealthy men. Who are posturing as though they don't have any options.
They had options. They had a choice to make. They made the wrong one.
And they believe, quite firmly, that pointing that out is a great injustice. That expecting white people to choose not to participate in systems that oppress people of color is an unreasonable expectation. That saying, no matter how gently, hey maybe you could just not, is a form of discrimination, rather than an invitation to expect more of themselves.
The Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by snowflakes.
Recommended reading:
Tressie: [Content Note: Police brutality; racism] Riots and Reason
Prison Culture: [CN: Police brutality; racism] To Damo, with Our Love
Nina: [CN: Misogyny; violence; hostility toward agency] #HelmsHurts: How the U.S. Continues to Deny Critical Health Care to Women in War Zones
stavvers: [CN: Rape; rape apologia] I Believe Shia LaBeouf (and Piers Morgan Is a Rape Apologist Rat Turd)
BYP: [CN: Police brutality; racism] White Cop Kills Off-Duty Black Officer During Chase
Kyler: [video] A Look Back at Some of the Many Films that Have Shined a Light on the AIDS Crisis
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
