Caught Btween Racial Identity & Female Identity As Relates To A Cartoon

This stuff came up via conversations with some friends, well, vents more accurately put, about G.I.Joe: Renegades. It's an animated show, that combines G.I.Joe themes, with a bit of an A-Team plot and story hook. And after laughing my head off, having caught it randomly on channel and then watching two episodes and being intrigued, I hunted down some on demand sources and started watching from the beginning. And then, then I got hit in the face with some crap; squirm inducing, wincing, upset, wanting to fast forward through, crap. And so far it hasn't really been about race - so far it's all been gender.

In case you hadn't guessed? Here be spoilers....

*

*

*

Scarlett, is an emotional, obsessed woman, who when put in leadership positions manages continually to bring everyone into the utmost trouble or who somehow fails in some other way. When, however, she's in a support position; supporting one of the male character's decisions etc... then, she's right, solid, and good backup. On her own? Obsessed. And so far, the few times she's been right, haven't matched up to all the times she just plain... FAILS.

So here I am, all full of wee at the MALE PoC representation on the show. But feeling kicked in the stomach over how women are shown when Scarlett, Lady Jaye and the Baroness are the models.

The Baroness is obviously the underling of Cobra Commander and is shown quite knowledgeable in knowing her place . When a 'Firm Hand' is used to get her back in line, or reprimanded, it's by Cobra Commander himself, directly by him. She is HIS personal underling. So, a position of authority that is dependent upon a man.

Lady Jaye is initially shown as the military superior of quite a few men, who take her seriously. And that had me all a-squee, until things progressed and her role became a dual supporting role to two men. She's Flint's right hand in chasing down the 'Renegades'. And she's Duke's right hand in undermining Flint as needed. Sure she's sassy and all that, but she went in the space of the first two episodes, from superior officer to helpmate. And it does not help that Flint, who's her superior on the task force, makes comments about Duke being her boyfriend. It sets a certain tone; about who she is, how he sees her; as a woman, and a teammate and what her purpose is supposed to be.

Scarlett... Scarlett is the reason the Renegades are in trouble in the first place. She's so gunho about proving herself right, proving that Cobra is evil, that she plays fast and loose with regulations, orders, and other people's careers. The first episode is Scarlett being a flaming EVE to four ADAMS. And for me, it was painful. And I'm someone who's all reverent about BATMAN, who IS a vigilante! But of course, Batman, doesn't do vigilante things while wearing a military uniform and using military authority for his own ends and he is, as a character, usually shown to be very careful about involving others in his dangerous plans.

So here's Scarlett, a woman obsessed. And things happen, and go to shit. And I can't even admire her being right, or her being unphased about the outcome of things, because her focus is so narrow it comes across as dangerous. Worse, there's this undercurrent about her leadership ALSO being for shit. When she's in charge, THINGS HIT THE FAN. Almost always. When she's supporting another, a male, character's decisions, THEN she's right. And IN THE RIGHT. But on her own? It's wild and dangerous.

The thing is, if Scarlett were Scar, the character would still be dangerous. But it'd have a lot less baggage about women's leadership abilities. Scarlett is all intuition 'I just know!' / 'Trust me!'. And everything else flies out the window. Worse, I end up feeling like the only reason she's even survived as long as she has, is because she has Snake Eyes around to watch her back and clean up her messes for her (and considering, that despite what has been said, I think gaijin could apply as much to someone biracial as purely Caucasian so that's a MoC, running around looking after 'Miss Scarlett' and getting her out of her messes. And that goads. So. damn. much).

The other 'major' female character I've seen so far, has been Kimi/Jinx, Snake Eyes' student and part of his backstory. And she gets treated by one male as a trophy to be won or stolen back to suit his needs. Yes, she's a fighter. But her emotions are played and played and played again. And it could be her youth as much as anything, but with all the rest of the writing for female characters, I end up just shaking my head. Kimi/Jinx for all her spunk, is a damsel in distress. Agency is talked about around her, but she hasn't owned her own, and from what I've read up on, whatever she ends up having in the future is given to her.

Meanwhile, out of the PoC Males, there's a laid back, rock near heavy metal listening big, broad black dude, a Chinese-American Brooklynite, (Lady Jaye also looks Asian American to me btw, mentioned here before I forget), and a nickname giving somewhat daredevil black dude. And I like their portrayals. I so really, really do. If Snake Eyes is 'Hapa' (I think that's the applicable term) then he might be less 'white ninja' and that'll soothe and all that'll irk me is his lack of knowing any kind of sign language after how many years w/o a voice. It's a little upsetting to have a white woman interpreting what he says (on top of anyone else interpreting what someone with a disability really means or really needs).

But here I am, stuck, because wow, those male characters. And then damn on the women. At one point, in what I've watched so far, Scarlett can't find success and access she wants while pretending to be a lawyer or pretending to be a federal agent (I was left to ponder her opinion of small town people). But, playing a particular type of woman? Somewhat Jerry Springeresque? In short shorts and loose blouse and bra strap showing and pregnant - there she finds some success. And I winced. I just winced. Savvy disguise? Maybe. But of the three, the one that worked? It's the one that relied on 'feelings' / hers and the people she's trying to get past, vs any other sort of preparation; It's the one that relies on her presenting as female, presenting as female in a very biological way? Wince wince wince.

Other representations of women? Well, while I'm here, I am aware of the trope of, meek male, needs his 'woman' to be in true distress and then he'll 'man up' and do what needs done, and win the girl? The episode revolving around that, was also painful, not just because of the damsel in distress theme. But because that one act, to my mind, could not dissolve or undo the destruction caused by months/years of meekness. Finding his courage, fine. But did he have to get a prize for it? And that prize be a woman? A woman who, I'd hope in a more real life circumstance would consider the fact that her being in danger in the first place, imminently and then more broadly before the crisis point, had all been due to him NOT finding that courage? The message there, was that for one singular act that may or may not stick in his character he needed to be rewarded with herself? That's a message for kids? That's sick.

And speaking of acceptable feelings, rewards, prizes and gender bias - Scarlett haring off on her own intuition? BIG ARSE DUST UP. Duke on the other hand? Going it alone? His concern getting the better of him? He turns out to be right. He turns out to end up in the right place at the right time. He and the other males of the group, also turn out to feel more than Scarlett in general, about innocents that is. She's 'big picture' focused, obsessed. They want to stop and help the little guys.

Again I'm struck by if Scarlett were Scar; the character would be just as dangerous, just as obsessed, just as driven and focused, single minded, determined and having been right about Cobra's true face. But the baggage, of them not caring about others etc, would be very, very, different. Am I shocked at a female character who doesn't want to help general innocents? Or 'nurse', for various values of nurse (and that word is used deliberately) communities back to health? Maybe. Maybe I am. I'm influenced by the world as much as anyone. But the thing I pinpoint on, is that if Scarlett hates Cobra for taking advantage of people, for working at cross purposes to peace, unity and a peaceful Usian way - then, shouldn't she hate all manipulative bullies? Or at least consider the possibility that putting these bullies away means less possible future employees for Cobra?

Then again, I haven't watched enough to have seen if there's a specific reason she has it in for Cobra - though, maybe even then I'd expect some measure of empathy.--

-- And - Oh heaven. Oh crap. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, let Scarlett's lack of empathy not be some sort of underhanded lesson about what happens to a woman without a 'woman's natural empathies' to direct her. Please let this obsession with Cobra and all her risky behavior not be meant as a quiet understatement about what happens to women in leadership roles and all that associated bullshit. Let the writers just be clueless, privileged assholes. That's MUCH more preferable than a deliberate message to the younger generation.

And I know, know someone's going to wish they could comment to tell me that DUKE WAS ALWAYS THE LEADER. And uhm, I have watched a couple of G.I.Joe cartoons in my youth, ok? I felt a cold shiver down my spine when I heard about this century's live action movie (which I did not watch). I too thought Scarlett in the live action movieverse promos looked like nothing but cheesecake. And growing up? The bulk of the people I knew who liked G.I Joe? WERE GIRLS. G.I Joe slumber party. G.I.Joe birthday parties or just birthday cake, with Scarlett or Lady Jaye on the cover (and their action figures too). Running around the school yard playing G.I. Joe? Thinking up names and themes for themselves? Girls. I remember waiting with excitement for the G.I Joe movie (VHS) FOR that slumber party.

When the first episode of Renegades came on and I heard COBRA say "And knowing is half the battle" my heart leapt up in my chest and I thought 'OMG, that's TWISTED AWESOME!'.

So there, my itty bitty 'creds' as not a completely clueless female. WTFever. Cause 'creds' don't fucking matter, really, when it comes to what's going on in the here and now. Just like there's a generation who'll look at you one day and go 'Nick Fury was White??!!'. There's a generation now, that will know that Scarlett was introduced and often mentions the fact that she's Duke's superior officer. And yes, yes yes, she doesn't have his field experience. It's been mentioned. But field experience does not equal common sense (or rather her lack of it, or rather her complete obsession excluding all else including it).

So here I am. I want to know more about Tunnel Rat and Roadblock in this iteration. Hell Wikipedia says Nicky Lee is meant to be TRINIDADIAN CHINESE (or was). You think I don't want to be all up in that? And that it doesn't make me ponder hunting down the comic books? But how am I supposed to balance that squee, with the kick in the chest on how the female characters are treated? The same way I often end up walking away from things that have fine white female characters and PoC? WoC? Who's them? And until I know for sure about Lady Jaye, Renegades doesn't seem to HAVE, WoC, which earns serious cut eye.

I wrote out my thoughts to try and figure out things, to put my frustration down on 'paper', because it's been eating and eating away at me. And when I vent this much to people who care about me, they do tend to ask me why I'm still watching. Especially since they know I will walk away from media and people to spare myself/my life grief. This choice, however, or rather the phrasing of this choice (woman, or poc) is new. I haven't had to make this variation of the choice before / had to walk away from this variation of the choice before.

And it's really, really hard. Cause it'd be so easy, so easy to say 'Meh, Scarlett's just a stupid white woman'.

Me, My Strange Brain & I

I just happened to catch "Perchance To Dream"; an episode from Batman: The Animated Adventures, that surrounds a situation where Batman is given a chance to have 'the perfect life' via The Mad Hatter - via a dream. And I found myself thinking, after I finished watching, how much that show meant to me as a child/youngster/teenager, even if I couldn't then articulate it.

Unlike the Catholic Church that I had so far interacted with, it didn't say that I was somehow blessed due to the dysfunction in my family, or that it was a test or trial of spirit - it said simply that my pain was part of who I was. It made me me. I hadn't asked for it. I didn't necessarily want it, but it helped form me, it was a part of my foundation. Without it, I wouldn't be me, I wouldn't be who I had become and was becoming.

It said that being me was OK. Being me, was truth.

I joke a lot of the time that I belong to The Church Of Batman. And thinking about that episode, writing about it now, the joke seems less 'ha ha, tease' and more philosophical actuality. Sometimes it feels like everything I learned about surviving in life and how to be a good person, was pretty damn much directed by Batman*.

He will always be my hero for taking his pain and loss and directing it towards protection. For being an example who knew loss would define him, but chose how. Who reached out to others feeling similar pain and isolation and offered direction and guidance, or just a sense of purpose, and who created his own family. Batman didn't give up on having family, closeness, nearness, it's just in a perhaps unexpected, untraditional paradigm.

Someone showed me a page the other day; Wonder Woman shooting guns. I think they said Guns of Eros, or some such. And after I had my moment of eyerolling, I did end up wondering what story that told; story as in aesop's fable, moral folktale, ethical framework. Do people even realize that? Even though they themselves may often call the Christian Bible - The Greatest Story Ever Told?

Stories to live your life by. Stories to guide your perspective in the world; how you treat others; how you treat yourself.

The current crop of comics writers and execs and artists; are they story-tellers? Is there a story they want to continue with the characters? Something that builds on what drew them into that world?

Recently I caught up to Written World, by Ragnell and caught her late 2011 early 2012 OMGWTF over Captain America implicitly condoning torture and was reminded of Box in The Box, oddly enough. He has a theory that the current crop of writers detest heroes; Don't believe in them and thus do not create or perpetuate them.

And now I wonder, what goes through the minds of those who joke to themselves that they belong to 'The Church of Captain America'. How do they deal with someone like Cap walking out to let others torture for information? Is it like losing one's faith in a more traditional religion? Is there a sense of emptiness and loss, and crushing betrayal and despair? Do the writers of that tale; were they ever members of that Church? Or are these actions some odd kind of Cold War, an anti-evangelism? Or are they the types who think it's worth nothing but mockery to speak of these things in terms of religion, spirituality, ethics, personal templates?

Though if they did, would they still roll their eyes at concepts like diversity, intersectionality and social justice; cause those fit the mission of a spiritual philosophy very well.

All I know is for myself, and that suddenly it makes sense why I was both so happy to rediscover comics several years ago, and why I ended up walking away. I lost them because of being in an unfamiliar land and not knowing quite how to get back into them. It was like not knowing how to get to church, realizing you had no idea the name of your faith to even ask about the building. And then I found them again many several years later and had to face what they'd become... and were still becoming.

Heh, corruption in the church, I suppose.

But it does make sense to me, why I'd walk away and hold on to my memories, and the lessons I'd originally learned and not try to fit what was being displayed into the framework that helped make me part of who I am. Maybe some people can. I can't. I may not honor Hera or Thor or Pele or Kali Ma and my fondness for Mary may be vestigial. But I realize, I do honor Diana the Wonder Woman, Batman, and on occasion Superman. Funny, how so many call them 'The Trinity' and yet....

Maybe one day someone will explain to me how and why others hold on and pay money while hoping. Or perhaps why they believe DC and Marvel and the like hold exclusive rights to interpretations; can hold their honored figures hostage.


PS: It probably also explains why, for me, my personal iconography; Superman or rather Clark Kent remains a seeming Asian American adopted by two well meaning white folk in Kansas; why Bruce Wayne was a white mask for black Batman, and why I always wonder why Diana isn't brown and Greek enough on the paper.

* For the record Dad, you've always been my Batman, or rather Batman's always been my fictional Dad. You both had 'protecting the innocent' in common.

Happy Gregorian New Year

Happy 2012 & Best Wishes Folks

Hmm

I need to rewrite this post on Erasure, Dehumanization & Oppression. It was slippery when I wrote it, and it feels slippery still. Just started re-reading it, and I know there's a better way I can put it. I'm just not sure what that better way is yet.

But there has to be one, that doesn't make me feel as if the pieces start getting slippery one two paragraphs in.

Wonder Woman's New Origin

Via OddityCollector

Excuse me while I laugh.

I mean, the 'solution' to Wonder Woman, is NOT to have a writer with an understanding of mythology, is not to possibly be having her fighting the paranormal, (couldn't ever be as much as I would dislike it personally, to tap into the HUGE Paranormal Romance and Twilight crowd with a truly kick arse heroine), it's NOT to have writer and artist capable of mixing in a little 'Percy Jackson & The Olympians' or 'Harry Potter' - the whole child of legend and secret hidden worlds and battles the rest of mankind never knows about.

No.

It's apparently to make WONDER WOMAN into Kevin Sorbo's Hercules: The Legendary Journey's.

I laugh.

There's speculation all the time that they (TPTB) have got no market research going on, no clue whatsoever about readership etc... But this? I mean, on the road from Jody Picult to THIS right here? It just screams 'IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DICK WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH YOU!' It's so perfectly obvious that they're doing the fannish stories that have lived in THEIR heads about the characters THEY liked as young boys and when it comes to female characters, outside the range of bed interest, they don't know wtf to do.

Even as I try to avoid it all, the news comes up and there in my face is yet another arsewipe move.

Really? The only way Wonder Woman can be written about, is if you (DC) focus it through the lens of a man? If you're obliquely telling a man's story about his daughter?

These are your bright ideas? Wonder Woman via Zeus (ZEUS) OF ALL DAMN Grecian Deities - I can smell the built in fail in any future intimate relationships Diana could attempt with male characters from here) and Supergirl via the lens of how she's not Superman? How different she is?

Wonder Woman, child of clay, gifted with life and talent from a host of goddesses (and more recently, Hermes) - that's the myth, you ignorants. That's the lore.

Capturing A Thought I Had - And Where It Started Leading

Erasure is part of dehumanization. Part of the key issues of oppression is dehumanization. Erasure -> (leads) to Dehumanization. Dehumanization + Other Issues -> (leads) to Oppression. If those other issues are missing, then it doesn't lead to Oppression. But there is still Dehumanization. There is still an assumption of what fits parameters for normal human. There are still actions taken against people who've been dehumanized. Punishments. So called 'cures' and 'encouragements'. It's easier, after all to try and fix people who aren't yet fully human, or who need guidance to be fully human or who need to know their place will be to never be fully human.

(I originally wrote the part in strike out, but in re-reading before I even post it, I caught myself. The never be fully human + knowing one's place; That's slavery. That's part of the Other Issues that joins to Depersonalization to create Oppression. I fell into the trap of forgetting Erasure is only PART of dehumanization. When dehumanization has all parts, all necessary components, when it is fully accomplished, there's no attempt to save an individual, or cure them or teach them better. They're not misguided or lost. THEY ARE NOT HUMAN. And are no longer treated as such. Which is why it no longer matters what happens to them, from starvation and imprisonment to body parts cut off and being burned alive).

I keep coming across clashes between some parts of the Asexual Community, and various parts of the PoC community about whether or not sexual privilege exists and whether or not Asexuals are oppressed. And frankly, right now, I think the hiccup is confusion over what happens AFTER Dehumanization has been successfully accomplished. I think parts of the asexual community are hearing 'You are not oppressed! You have not been dehumanized!", but hearing it as. "You are not facing lack of recognition as a normal human being". The latter is true, I do not believe the former is.

But it's so EASY to forget erasure is only ONE PART of dehumanization. And that dehumanization is the FIRST STEP to Oppression. It's so easy to think of it as Erasure = Oppression. And thus, the PoC and SJ communities are hearing something that sounds very, very much, like ___ = 'the new black'. Or more appropriately. Asexuals Are The New N-------s.

That shit will get a body popped in the mouth, virtually or otherwise.

There are checkpoints to oppression. And thus oppressions can intersect. A person can, ultimately, be dehumanized for multiple triggers; being female, being PoC, being gender transgressive, being non binary. But there's more involved in dehumanization than erasure. There's hate, fear, desire to possess, desire for power, loads of things I can't properly think of off the top of my head. But it's ERASURE +. There's more.

It's what's possibly being explained over and over again in all these posts I see; what oppression is, all the weights that shift the dial to that place; to the bedrocks of an institutional, generational, foot on the neck.

Erasure is a start. But it's not the horrible, horrible, end game. It's not even the first volley on a war against a self. It's the prep work. It's the first step of stage one; Dehumanization. Dehumanization is the first step of stage two; Abuse & Exploitation. And right now, things are not so bad, societally speaking, that erasure of asexuals is likely to lead to oppression; oppression = dehumanization + abuse & exploitation + other issues I've likely forgotten.

Is the possibility there? Yes. The possibility is always there, when there's an institutional, generational set up decreeing who is normal, and how they should be rewarded for it; medals for towing the line. But right now asexuals are far more likely to come under danger of dehumanization via something else, some overlap they have relating to how society views women (which affects women and gay men and young boys who don't act masculine enough - for cultural values of masculine) or how society views 'darkies' be they African Descended (in the US or elsewhere) or West Asian, or South or East Asian, or of Islamic Faith. Or how society views the disabled. Or any others I've missed.

Is Erasure powerful, by the way? Yes it is. It does harm and hurt. If you can't see any reflections in the world of who you are, then maybe you don't exist, maybe you can never be or do... anything. Which is something often discussed about PoC in Media, specifically visual media; the importance of PoC as heroes, not sidekicks etc. But for asexuals, I would imagine erasure is very powerful. Until recently there hasn't been much vocabulary to try and break down attraction, not much easy non scholarly conversations about sexual arousal vs sexual attraction vs emotional arousal - not to mention a whole host of stereotypes about who feels what and why, usually bound up into perceived gender stereotypes. It's highly possible to not feel the way everyone else seems to be feeling (based on how they act) and leapt to the thing you HAVE heard about. Who's going to tell such a person they don't just have to try harder to feel content, or find the right person or... or or or - that there's a term for who they are, and it's not in a medical book under 'affliction'.

If no one says, for example, 'It's ok to be Takei' then you end up a fifty year old coming to terms with not wanting to die feeling so crap and/or unfulfilled or lonely or who knows what. So yes, erasure is a big deal and it's part of the control mechanisms of the kyriarchy. But it's a place with breathing space. And there's lots going on, online at least, making noise and raising visibility against that erasure of asexuals.

Which means when you claim Erasure = Oppression, you're devaluing a whole host of oppressed peoples and their struggles and their voices.

It's not oppression to tell someone who isn't actually oppressed, that they're not oppressed. The best example of people who claim that, are white folks screaming reverse racism. It's not very good company.

THIS!

So much THIS.

CHRONICLES OF MANSPLAINING: Processor Feminism and the Deleted Comments of Doom

After you read that, I would like for some of you, perhaps the thoughtful ones who have half a half a micron of a clue, to imagine the moment of intersectionality, that happens in incidences of mansplaining, when the woman in question is a woman of colour, particularly in America, a black woman.

I'm not asking you to hunt and peck substitute in white privilege for male privilege in that essay. I'm asking you to take the WHOLE of that essay and add just a little extra weight; what it might be like to have all of that going on AND the added weight that the man in question thinks you're worth even less than an ordinary woman, because an ordinary woman is white.

Because in such a context as was explained, a woman could be hurt, but for YEARS in the US and in countries colonized by whites, indigenous women, including black women, could not be hurt; because they had the shape of women, the body parts of women, but were less than women.

Back in the day you couldn't rape a black woman. Because no such laws existed. It had to be clearly stated as a hypothetical that a black woman had autonomy over her own body. As a fricking LAW. And well, jaywalking is on the books too, isn't it.

And if man = smart goodness and woman = not so smart then black woman =... ?

And just think about what that might mean when white men, and white woman can contribute to that assumption that your time, space, life is up for theirs to grab and use however and whenever they want.

And when the explanation over there, describes how this can happen in an online medium, think about what you've seen online against female bloggers of colour. The same steps. The same process. With that little added weight.

Just think about it.

You might even be able to put two and two together when it comes to all the blog posts about the book and movie 'The Help' and how it was a case of a white woman 'splaining - but that might be a bit too advanced. So just stick to the first lesson for now.


ETA: 301 Class - Intersectionality node of being a woman and disabled, or being a woman and an immigrant or being a woman of a certain age, or being a woman with children. 302 Class- Multiple intersectionalities; being a disabled woman with children who is also a PoC. This isn't about oppression olympics, remember, it's about how much more power in society a white male has, how much more entitlement he thinks he has to anything to do with that woman, how little she matters as a person with ideas, opinions, deserving of respect, even a hierarchy of needs, in the societal equation that's been drilled into his head.

And This Is Why I've Been Posting Less

Someone pointed me to Extra Credits finally doing an actual "Race Episode". It's all about how it defines the white character in LA Noire. And how people aren't defined by 'skin colour'. They mention racial baggage conscious and subconscious but don't go into talking about what that is and how it informs anything.

So the same watered down, navel gazing, oblivious BS as I noted last time with additional, you can swap sexuality and gender for race in their prior spots on those topics.

For The Record

Just a little head's up to the various people blah-blahing about me. I an not an African American. I am, however, African Descended. That is, I am black. Not all black people in the world are African American. There is no such thing as a British African American. Or a Swedesh African American.

It is fascinating to me, however, that attached to some mealy mouthed edict of the fact that I (and others) am/are black, there is always some following statement of "You can't talk to that one, because she's an angry 'African American' and is convinced this incident is racist and is thus now highly irrational. You know how it is.".

And yet, when many, many PoC point out "Damn, so and so is being a defensive white person. AGAIN. Not listening to reason, etc... you know how it is." It's suddenly all about hate or something something, and OMG THEY WANT TO TURN SLAVERY AROUND! WHITE OPPRESSION! THEY WANT ME TO TAKE ABUSE!

I mean, it's not confusing. Hardly. But it is fascinating. How privilege and expectations of white supremacy warp pov is very very fascinating.

Someone should do a study.

Ruminating On FilmCritic Hulk; Thoughts On Criticism

HULK ESSAY YOUR ASS: TANGIBLE DETAILS AND THE NATURE OF CRITICISM.

Some people will not like the written style of the essay, some may not enjoy reading it, due to said style. I've done my best to c/p the parts I find most relevant to the dynamic I see often between readers, authors and book critics, especially the divide between readers and 'professional' book critics. And most especially between authors, professional book critics and readers with a particular perspective and the language to express it aka social justice readers.

I am aware of the words just before I start c/ping that discuss bias involved in opinions. I believe having a bias towards social justice and non invisibility of minorities is NOT actually a bad thing and counters the bias against paying attention to these matters as all, as if the world were a contextless, historyless rainbow farting magic bunny land.

Bold and italics (strong and emphasis) as originally posted. Things in colour are my emphasis.

YET HULK DESPERATE KNOW WHY PEOPLE RESPOND TO MOVIES WAY THEY DO. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HOW THEY THEN PROCESS AND EXPLAIN THOSE RESPONSES. THE ANSWER NOT JUST RELATE MOVIE CRITICISM, BUT UNIVERSAL CRITICISM. HULK BELIEVE CENTER AROUND ONE THING:

TANGIBLE DETAILS....

OK. HULK KNOW YOU THINKING “TANGIBLE DETAILS? DUH, OF COURSE! WHAT YOU IDIOT? OF COURSE THE FREAKIN’ DETAILS MATTER!”...

OUR ABILITY PROCESS THINGS INHERENTLY LINKED TO AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WE UNDERSTAND...

IT OKAY IF NOT KNOW LOT ABOUT CERTAIN SUBJECT. THERE ACTUALLY SUBCONSCIOUS WAY IN WHICH MOST OF US ABLE PROCESS SIMPLE GOOD OR BADNESS OF JUST ABOUT ANYTHING: MOVIES WORK ON LARGELY VISCERAL LEVEL. FOOD CAN TASTE GOOD OR NO TASTE GOOD. SPORTS TEAMS HAVE WINS AND LOSSES. PRODUCTS CAN SIMPLY WORK OR NO WORK. THERE WAY WE UNDERSTAND SOME FORM RELATIVE VALUE OF ALL THESE THINGS.

BUT WHEN COME TIME ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THEM, NOT EVERYONE HAVE LANGUAGE/VERNACULAR TO BEST EXPRESS WHAT AT PLAY. SO ONLY WAY CAN EXPLAIN ANYTHING BY PRESENTING EVIDENCE. AND EVIDENCE 100% DEPENDENT ON THINGS WE NOTICE. AND THOSE THE TANGIBLE DETAILS.

… and FOR MOST PEOPLE, IT NOT ALWAYS THE RIGHT DETAILS PER SAY, BUT INSTEAD THE ONES THAT SIMPLY STICK OUT MOST....

BEING “EXPERT” JUST MEAN YOU ABLE MAKE THE LESS TANGIBLE DETAILS, WELL, TANGIBLE...

THIS MEAN FILM CRITICISM MORE DEPENDENT ON WHAT OTHER FILMS SEEN AND PROCESSED BEFORE IT AND HOW FAMILIAR CRITIC WITH FILMMAKERS. WHICH JUST MEAN ANY INTANGIBLE DETAILS IN MOVIE SEEM EVEN MORE IRRELEVANT TO CASUAL OUTSIDER. BUT OF COURSE SEEING TONS MOVIES = CRITICAL. IT ALLOW CONSTRUCT PERSPECTIVE. A SENSE OF FILMIC TRENDS. NARRATIVE. UNDERSTANDING. ALL THAT GOOD STUFF...

BUT EVEN IF THE “EXPERTS” = THE QUALIFIED ONES, EVERYONE STILL HAVE RIGHT THEIR OPINION ON MOVIES. IT ULTIMATELY JUST A CONVERSATION AFTER ALL....

IT HARD LEARN HOW DIGEST WHAT OFTEN EMOTIONAL REACTIONS.

BUT EVERY YEAR HULK GET SHARPER IN ABILITY TO EXPLAIN IDEAS, THE VISCERAL REACTIONS, AND THE SUBCONSCIOUS FEELINGS THAT MOVIES ALWAYS ELICIT. THE EDUCATION NEVER STOP.

Do note, I will laugh at anyone who comes away from this thinking I'm describing activist reactions to exclusion as purely emotional, and thus untrained and in need of processing. Emotions aren't separated from the insult of invisibility, no. But people capable of having an actual conversation (however highly peppered with cussing) have long since processed all that they can bear, and then some.

I will also laugh at anyone walking away from this thinking the only reason these things are seen, is because people are looking for them, with some kind of 'Playing The Race Card Super Cool Spectacles'. You don't look for invisibility, invisibility slaps you in the face - which oddly enough makes me think of that so and so who was all 'Straight White Male Gamers Are Being Oppressed' at the Bioware Dragon Age 2 people. Not being specifically catered to - nay, exclusively catered to, felt like invisibility to him, and thus like a slap in the face.