This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Now that there is a separate elections thread, thought I'd post something different here:
Did the 2021 Bond film No Time to Die do an unintentional disservice to Black women in the context of sexual culture and politics?
NTTD has a number of actresses filling different roles. In order of billing:
Lea Seydoux as Bond's primary love interest
Lashana Lynch as Bond's in-story replacement 007 agent
Naomie Harris as Bond's ally, former agent, and former possible love interest
Ana de Armas as Bond's American colleague
Despite being billed near the bottom, Armas stole the scene in her 10 minute segment. Here's an incomplete clip; the full movie is on Amazon Prime. She's beautiful and her on-screen chemistry with Bond was fantastic; many reviewers have expressed that they wish she were in more of the movie.
I don't have much to say about Seydoux and Harris--both are conventionally attractive actresses that one would expect from major movie stars and Bond girls.
It seemed that Lynch was written and cast rather differently, however. She seemed like a talented actress like the others, but was written and dressed to be hyper masculine. That perhaps makes sense in-story, given she was the replacement 007, and 007s are supposed to be lethal agents, and killing is masculine. When Bond first met Lynch's character Nomi, there was a hint of chemistry between the two, but that was quickly dispelled by the dialogue:
Besides the clips linked here, I don't remember the full movie very well as it's been a year, but my memory was that Lynch's Nomi was portrayed in a martial manner throughout--unlike Armas, for example, she was dressed in tactical gear instead of a revealing evening gown (yes, Armas's character was undercover attending a ball, but there was clearly fan service involved). When Bond returned to service, the bosses gave him back the 007 designation, and Lynch's Nomi was pouty about it in a way that did not endear her to the viewer (or at least me, if I recall this sequence correctly). All this likely explains why few reviewers are loudly clamoring that they wished to have seen more of her character--indeed, a search on YouTube will quickly show that clips involving Armas or her character Paloma have a ton more clips with many more views than ones with Lynch or her character Nomi.
What does all this have to do with race and sexual culture and politics?
Seydoux and Armas are European white and Cuban/Spanish respectively. Harris and Lynch are Black, with Harris having lighter skin tone and Lynch darker. In the US and probably the UK, Black women tend to be disadvantaged in dating markets. I don't want to go dig up the surveys and whatnot, but whites, Latinas, and Asian women tend to be viewed as more feminine, however that's defined. One particularly ugly meme compares Michelle Obama to a man. Along similar lines, Asian men are disadvantaged, perhaps in part because white and Black men tend to be viewed as more masculine.
Hollywood tends to write and cast roles against stereotypes, especially ones to do with race and sex. But here, it seemed to have stumbled and made a darker-skin Black woman unfeminine and hyper masculine. Now, I think Lynch's character and casting can be explained by the draw of portraying strong women, and separately a Black woman in a powerful/high-status role like 007. Still, it seems like on net, this was ultimately a net loss for representation for Black women.
As a thought experiment, imagine a movie with four male characters cast opposite of a female lead. Three of the four men are portrayed in traditionally masculine and sexually attractive ways. The fourth is made to be hyper feminine, with minimal chemistry with the female lead. Moreover, the three men are white, white/Hispanic, and half-Asian, while the fourth, hyper feminine actor is full-Asian (sorry, I'm struggling to analogize the Black colorism for Asians). How would the public receive this? Would no one find the feminization of the Asian man offensive and racist? The Chinese government officially promotes traditional gender roles, including literally banning "sissy men" from TV. I feel confident therefore that a hypothetical movie with a "sissy" Asian man among masculine white/Black men would not be allowed to be shown in Chinese theaters. Would a prominent male Asian actor even accept such a role without pointing out the obvious cultural problems with it? Would they truly go along with costumes and dialogue that made them look feminine, especially in sharp contrast to the rest of the male cast?
Now, I have a great deal of respect for Lynch--I imagine she had to work harder to achieve her success than Seydoux or Armas, who are born into the traditional feminine mold. Still, I wonder if she should have pushed back against her particular characterization in the movie, assuming she was interested in optimizing Black female representation in film.
I think the explanation is simpler. The chattering classes want a black and/or female Bond. We've had black Bond girls for decades but Bond himself has always been played by a European man.
Of course, the actual fans are ambivalent about Bond being black (the only racial minority, thanks America!) and aren't interested in a female Bond for obvious reasons of the character being a male power fantasy. Lynch's character was a compromise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link