RE: The United States of inclusivity
December 6, 2020 at 8:14 pm
(This post was last modified: December 6, 2020 at 8:16 pm by Apollo.)
There are few key points raised here in various responses:
1- Profit: Yes, Hollywood like any other business runs for profit—but by the same virtue, as business, it does too take risks for greater far reaching delayed profits for innovating stories around themes that catch up eventually or are at the cusp of pop culture awareness. Take homosexuality for example—throughout 70’s and 80’, and later on on shows like seinfeld, will and grace, glee etc, norms and minds had change of heart. Now homosexuality is not as much a taboo as what it used to be.
Entertainment industry plays a big role in informing our cultural sensibilities, not just in US but also globally.
2- Inclusivity: Like i said, inclusivity is great but it can also come at the cost of other marginalized minority within a minority—take Muslim women and hijab for example. How many times have you seen movies/media/political campaigns representing Muslim women without hijab? Every time media needs a token muslim representation, you see a hijabi. Most of the Muslim women in US and in many islamic countries do not wear hijab. It’s more predominant in fascist patriarchal countries like Iran and Saudia etc. Hijab has always been used to push a culture of modesty and submission for women to patriarchy along with being used as slut shaming etc. This poses a great hurdle to women empowerment but yet you’ll see media using this token inclusivity stunt that as consequences normalizes hijab and presents a rosy picture of it.
We live in a society where black facing or confederate flags raise such outrage, rightly so, but we completely overlook the irony or Linda Sarsour organizing women march with hijab on. It’s like going to BLM rally with black-facing.
So while I am all for inclusivity, at the same time I am against token inclusivity at the cost of critical thinking or normalizing ideas you’d otherwise criticize under the banner of objective liberalism.
The majority shouldn’t have to pander to a minority’s anti-liberal or anti-equal/human rights for the sake of acceptance or pluralism.
1- Profit: Yes, Hollywood like any other business runs for profit—but by the same virtue, as business, it does too take risks for greater far reaching delayed profits for innovating stories around themes that catch up eventually or are at the cusp of pop culture awareness. Take homosexuality for example—throughout 70’s and 80’, and later on on shows like seinfeld, will and grace, glee etc, norms and minds had change of heart. Now homosexuality is not as much a taboo as what it used to be.
Entertainment industry plays a big role in informing our cultural sensibilities, not just in US but also globally.
2- Inclusivity: Like i said, inclusivity is great but it can also come at the cost of other marginalized minority within a minority—take Muslim women and hijab for example. How many times have you seen movies/media/political campaigns representing Muslim women without hijab? Every time media needs a token muslim representation, you see a hijabi. Most of the Muslim women in US and in many islamic countries do not wear hijab. It’s more predominant in fascist patriarchal countries like Iran and Saudia etc. Hijab has always been used to push a culture of modesty and submission for women to patriarchy along with being used as slut shaming etc. This poses a great hurdle to women empowerment but yet you’ll see media using this token inclusivity stunt that as consequences normalizes hijab and presents a rosy picture of it.
We live in a society where black facing or confederate flags raise such outrage, rightly so, but we completely overlook the irony or Linda Sarsour organizing women march with hijab on. It’s like going to BLM rally with black-facing.
So while I am all for inclusivity, at the same time I am against token inclusivity at the cost of critical thinking or normalizing ideas you’d otherwise criticize under the banner of objective liberalism.
The majority shouldn’t have to pander to a minority’s anti-liberal or anti-equal/human rights for the sake of acceptance or pluralism.
