Racism, Sexism & Homophobia ... Sounds like a right wing Solicitors.
Their handling my case ) )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well, at least we got to the third page 8-) Hopefully the starter of the thread got something of value.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
[q
Going deeper down the rabbit hole, which is the more offensive aspect of J.W. Pepper: Pepper's attitude or the stereotype of the "dumb racist Southerner"?
J W Pepper is a fool. The black men should be taken seriously, particularly Adam - but you are laughing at him, not with him..
Well that's my point. If the cab driver in LALD is written as a "jive talkin' brutha" but Pepper is written as a "drawling incompetent southerner with a brother-in-law named Billy-Bob", is the way the cabbie is written offensive but the way Pepper is written acceptable?
In the "Bond goes to Harlem" portion of LALD, it's Bond who looks like an idiot as the whitest man on the planet goes undercover in Harlem with absolutely no backup (that he knows of). The blacks, on the other hand, monitor his every move while Bond remains seemingly oblivious.
This is the way it's usually explained in sociological terms: The very concept of racism is that one racial group has institutional power over others. If in that case the group is white, then the same insults that are hurled at minorities will not have the same effect against them, so it's a false equivalency to argue that a stereotyped white character and a stereotyped black character are equals.
With minorities, a similar issue arises even if the stereotype seems positive on the surface -- that the black characters are cooler, hipper, or whatever than the whites. It's still a stereotype created by whites to oversimplify a group based on white perceptions. This particularly affects Asians in the U.S., who face regular and pernicious bigotry (last week, three events made headlines here, not the least of which was Donald Trump's question to an Asian American if he was from another country), but these problems are generally minimized or ignored because they are perceived as "model minorities," who are all rich, bright, successful, and obedient.
Put another way, if someone is in a class of 10 students, and nine of them pick on that person, then even if that person hurls the same insults back, they don't have the same effect. There is strength in numbers, and the nine students as a group still have power over the one. If the other nine decide later they like the one student and begin to form and communicate among themselves more positive opinions about that one student -- but disregard how he or she feels about those opinions or whether or not he or she even agrees with them -- then they are still disempowering that student.
Back to the original issue, though -- in my opinion, the Bond books are significantly more racist than the films, which also have quite a few moments. Bond's irrational hatred of Koreans, for instance, borders on pathological. In terms of sexism, the films may seem more so, but that may, in part, be because the books do more on the page with the female characters than the films ever do. The books and the films are probably about the same in terms of homophobia, though the books treat homosexual characters more as deviants while the films seem to treat them more like kinky oddities. Fleming was born of a deeply prejudiced culture in a deeply prejudiced time. While I don't agree we can't view the past through the lens of the present -- in particular because people knew prejudice was wrong then, too, but many just didn't care so long as it didn't affect them -- we do need to take into consideration historical context to understand those prejudices. We must also take care, though, to understand that what we interpret as prejudiced today may, in fact, been the opposite in the day. For instance, the TV series Star Trek is often criticized for objectifying women by making them wear miniskirt uniforms, but in the 1960s, the miniskirt was actually a symbol for female empowerment. There is a difference between a reasonable criticism and a complete misunderstanding.
By today's standards, a lot of Bond tropes will appear sexist, for instance. But Bond women are rather remarkable for their time. They are often strong, intelligent, successful, and independent, as well as unapologetic about their beauty, sexuality, or sexual appetites. That was quite significant for the time period, and in fact, take away the issue of beauty being a prerequisite, and they could be heralded as role models today. Somehow, though, when that is added to the mix, things get complicated. Are they empowered because of what they do or what they look like? Does their strength come from who they are or because they are objects of desire by men, which would be a facet of the patriarchy of sexism? Samantha on Sex and the City is viewed as an empowered woman for having the exact same characteristics of many Bond women, but because she appears in a program that centers on four women and, thus, has no Bond character and no patriarchal overtones, she is an ideal while Bond women are viewed with suspicion. Depending on which political or ideological frame is used, one can get a completely different end result.
Back to the original issue, though -- in my opinion, the Bond books are significantly more racist than the films, which also have quite a few moments.
But is a racist character proof of a racist author, or is it just the author drawing the character that way?
A racist character is not proof of a racist author. If the work has a racist tone, that says more about whether the author is racist.
I write in a period and genre where racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia exist, and I subscribe to none of those lines of thought. I feel my goal is to shine some light on the time and characters affected by these things...and ultimately have a resolution were progress is made toward rectifying them, if even on a very small scale---the bad guys get what's coming to them, and good ultimately triumphs.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Hi fellow bond fans, I am an A2 Level student doing a study into racism, sexism and homophobia in the James Bond movies and then comparing them to the novels. I am focussing on Goldfinger, Diamonds are forever & Live and let die (my favourites).
ummm...not sure you can lay sexism, racism and homophobia as they were shot in the seventies/sixties
Different times
I disagree with that - wether it was accepted or common at the time, now it's classed as racist, sexist and homophobic. It's not like it was suddenly decided it was those things - it's just that in the past people were those things and few people saw that it was wrong.
Back to the original issue, though -- in my opinion, the Bond books are significantly more racist than the films, which also have quite a few moments.
But is a racist character proof of a racist author, or is it just the author drawing the character that way?
A racist character is not proof of a racist author. If the work has a racist tone, that says more about whether the author is racist.
It depends on how you look at it.
For instance, what is the purpose? If Bond is held up as the hero, displays casual racist ideas to an audience that shares them, and the author is known to have shared those conceits, then the racist character may very well be a reflection of the author.
If Bond is held up as the villain and does the same thing in a work that does not celebrate the villainy, then one might interpret the author as having the opposite agenda.
Moreover, people who study such things will tell you that a person can be unconsciously racist (or sexist, homophobic, etc.) simply because he or she grew up in a racist society. In other words, they may have adopted beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that reflect the general racism of the dominant culture of which they are apart.
Numerous studies have been done that show this to be true. For instance, resumes that are identical except for the first names of the applicants are sent to companies in the U.S. to gauge whether people truly are "color blind" when reviewing qualifications. They have consistently shown that when a first name sounds more "black," the response rate for interviews is lower -- 50% lower the last time such a study was done. (They get the names off of birth certificates for the past decade in the area, choosing the most common "black' and "white" names.) The studies clarify that people form both conscious and unconscious decisions about the applicant without even having met them. The same goes for issues like gender -- a white male professor is more likely to receive higher evaluations than a woman or minority male. In mainstream U.S. society, many people have subsumed a pecking order for quality based on race and gender.
An author can certainly reflect those attitudes. It used to be quite common for white writers, for instance, to not describe race when characters were white and only do so when they were ethnic minorities. Writers can choose to assign positions of power based on race and gender to characters, too. They may not even be aware they are doing it.
In the case of, say, Asian American characters, "anglo-cizing" the first name may be an indicator of this. Doing so makes the character seem more "American," which reflects a bias that some names are acceptable and others aren't, even if the character in any other way is the same.
But ultimately proving beyond a shadow of a doubt if an author is being racist or not is virtually impossible. Even a signed confession may not be definitive, as authors have been known to revise statements. And imagine if the author isn't even aware of his or her bias. But this is why we have scholars and critics. They exist for the same reasons as juries and clergy. All of these groups try to make sense out of incomplete information and interpretation for the rest of us. Societies evolve, too, so standards can and will change also.
Fleming was not out of step with societies thinking for the times. So it's a
little unfair to blame him. It's what most people thought at the time.
We now think those ideas are wrong, but who knows maybe in 70 years
time, others will look back on some of our ideas and think us, as Racist, sexist
and Homophobic too.
Like I said before, treating other people as equals is an absolute. Say if people of a certain race feel they are being treated and respected equally today (which is still not the case in reality), in 70 years they won't be able to look back and say how racist people were then. In Fleming's day, Fleming's comments that we see as racist now would have been seen as racist then by the people he was offending. White people would have been more okay with his comments at the time, but it all comes down to whether a group of people is being offended or not. It's more than just about how straight, white males feel, which is the perspective you are judging Fleming.
Hi fellow bond fans, I am an A2 Level student doing a study into racism, sexism and homophobia in the James Bond movies and then comparing them to the novels. I am focussing on Goldfinger, Diamonds are forever & Live and let die (my favourites).
Interesting, although very broad- there's probably about six different essays worth in there!
What is the argument of the piece? Are you arguing whether racist, sexist and homophobic attitudes are prevalent or are you starting from the point of view that there is racism, sexism and homophobia present in the films/the novels/both and then arguing whether it affects the enjoyment? Most novels and films of the past are going to have some attitudes and elements that are not deemed to be culturally acceptable now.
Gassy Man's post is really excellent and would offer a great starting point. I would like to add that films is a visual medium and images are powerful things. Novels allow the writer to add some context; sometimes things don't really translate to the big screen and therefore a subtle novel can come across as crude and simplistic in a film adaptation.
When I saw the title of the thread the 3 films you are choosing came to mind pretty quickly.
Man With The Golden Gun is probably the most sexist though.
Hey! "Chew Me" is racist and sexist!
I think that's kind of a double standard to say Chew Me is sexist though, cause if Chew Me were a goodlooking and sexually attractive Asian man, no one would complain of sexism. People only complain cause it's a woman who has that name.
When I saw the title of the thread the 3 films you are choosing came to mind pretty quickly.
Man With The Golden Gun is probably the most sexist though.
Hey! "Chew Me" is racist and sexist!
I think that's kind of a double standard to say Chew Me is sexist though, cause if Chew Me were a goodlooking and sexually attractive Asian man, no one would complain of sexism. People only complain cause it's a woman who has that name.
Yeah but that's not the joke being made with the name. If he was gay it would be homophobic and racist etc.
It's not a double standard really - and your point backs up mine that it is sexist because the female is the submissive party in the gender role...
Well what I mean is, is that audiences are usually offended by a sexually suggestive name if it's applied to a female character, but if a male character has one, they don't care near as much.
I think there is perhaps more racism in the books of Ian Fleming than any of the films, but they were written at a time when attitudes were different. The only films I have seen which perhaps could be seen as racist in some way today are Live And Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun. Sheriff Pepper and the Chinese names. Personally I don't take offence at Pepper and his brother in laws attitude. I personally don't like James Bonds attitude to women in parts of The Spy Who Loved Me, but again I suppose that was many years ago. To judge these things by the standards of today is never wise. I think that we talk about such things shows that we as people in general have moved forward with our attitudes.
I am listening to the Ian Fleming audio books at this time.
Comments
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In the "Bond goes to Harlem" portion of LALD, it's Bond who looks like an idiot as the whitest man on the planet goes undercover in Harlem with absolutely no backup (that he knows of). The blacks, on the other hand, monitor his every move while Bond remains seemingly oblivious.
With minorities, a similar issue arises even if the stereotype seems positive on the surface -- that the black characters are cooler, hipper, or whatever than the whites. It's still a stereotype created by whites to oversimplify a group based on white perceptions. This particularly affects Asians in the U.S., who face regular and pernicious bigotry (last week, three events made headlines here, not the least of which was Donald Trump's question to an Asian American if he was from another country), but these problems are generally minimized or ignored because they are perceived as "model minorities," who are all rich, bright, successful, and obedient.
Put another way, if someone is in a class of 10 students, and nine of them pick on that person, then even if that person hurls the same insults back, they don't have the same effect. There is strength in numbers, and the nine students as a group still have power over the one. If the other nine decide later they like the one student and begin to form and communicate among themselves more positive opinions about that one student -- but disregard how he or she feels about those opinions or whether or not he or she even agrees with them -- then they are still disempowering that student.
Back to the original issue, though -- in my opinion, the Bond books are significantly more racist than the films, which also have quite a few moments. Bond's irrational hatred of Koreans, for instance, borders on pathological. In terms of sexism, the films may seem more so, but that may, in part, be because the books do more on the page with the female characters than the films ever do. The books and the films are probably about the same in terms of homophobia, though the books treat homosexual characters more as deviants while the films seem to treat them more like kinky oddities. Fleming was born of a deeply prejudiced culture in a deeply prejudiced time. While I don't agree we can't view the past through the lens of the present -- in particular because people knew prejudice was wrong then, too, but many just didn't care so long as it didn't affect them -- we do need to take into consideration historical context to understand those prejudices. We must also take care, though, to understand that what we interpret as prejudiced today may, in fact, been the opposite in the day. For instance, the TV series Star Trek is often criticized for objectifying women by making them wear miniskirt uniforms, but in the 1960s, the miniskirt was actually a symbol for female empowerment. There is a difference between a reasonable criticism and a complete misunderstanding.
By today's standards, a lot of Bond tropes will appear sexist, for instance. But Bond women are rather remarkable for their time. They are often strong, intelligent, successful, and independent, as well as unapologetic about their beauty, sexuality, or sexual appetites. That was quite significant for the time period, and in fact, take away the issue of beauty being a prerequisite, and they could be heralded as role models today. Somehow, though, when that is added to the mix, things get complicated. Are they empowered because of what they do or what they look like? Does their strength come from who they are or because they are objects of desire by men, which would be a facet of the patriarchy of sexism? Samantha on Sex and the City is viewed as an empowered woman for having the exact same characteristics of many Bond women, but because she appears in a program that centers on four women and, thus, has no Bond character and no patriarchal overtones, she is an ideal while Bond women are viewed with suspicion. Depending on which political or ideological frame is used, one can get a completely different end result.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
But is a racist character proof of a racist author, or is it just the author drawing the character that way?
A racist character is not proof of a racist author. If the work has a racist tone, that says more about whether the author is racist.
I write in a period and genre where racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia exist, and I subscribe to none of those lines of thought. I feel my goal is to shine some light on the time and characters affected by these things...and ultimately have a resolution were progress is made toward rectifying them, if even on a very small scale---the bad guys get what's coming to them, and good ultimately triumphs.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I disagree with that - wether it was accepted or common at the time, now it's classed as racist, sexist and homophobic. It's not like it was suddenly decided it was those things - it's just that in the past people were those things and few people saw that it was wrong.
For instance, what is the purpose? If Bond is held up as the hero, displays casual racist ideas to an audience that shares them, and the author is known to have shared those conceits, then the racist character may very well be a reflection of the author.
If Bond is held up as the villain and does the same thing in a work that does not celebrate the villainy, then one might interpret the author as having the opposite agenda.
Moreover, people who study such things will tell you that a person can be unconsciously racist (or sexist, homophobic, etc.) simply because he or she grew up in a racist society. In other words, they may have adopted beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that reflect the general racism of the dominant culture of which they are apart.
Numerous studies have been done that show this to be true. For instance, resumes that are identical except for the first names of the applicants are sent to companies in the U.S. to gauge whether people truly are "color blind" when reviewing qualifications. They have consistently shown that when a first name sounds more "black," the response rate for interviews is lower -- 50% lower the last time such a study was done. (They get the names off of birth certificates for the past decade in the area, choosing the most common "black' and "white" names.) The studies clarify that people form both conscious and unconscious decisions about the applicant without even having met them. The same goes for issues like gender -- a white male professor is more likely to receive higher evaluations than a woman or minority male. In mainstream U.S. society, many people have subsumed a pecking order for quality based on race and gender.
An author can certainly reflect those attitudes. It used to be quite common for white writers, for instance, to not describe race when characters were white and only do so when they were ethnic minorities. Writers can choose to assign positions of power based on race and gender to characters, too. They may not even be aware they are doing it.
In the case of, say, Asian American characters, "anglo-cizing" the first name may be an indicator of this. Doing so makes the character seem more "American," which reflects a bias that some names are acceptable and others aren't, even if the character in any other way is the same.
But ultimately proving beyond a shadow of a doubt if an author is being racist or not is virtually impossible. Even a signed confession may not be definitive, as authors have been known to revise statements. And imagine if the author isn't even aware of his or her bias. But this is why we have scholars and critics. They exist for the same reasons as juries and clergy. All of these groups try to make sense out of incomplete information and interpretation for the rest of us. Societies evolve, too, so standards can and will change also.
I agree with you 100%.
Interesting, although very broad- there's probably about six different essays worth in there!
What is the argument of the piece? Are you arguing whether racist, sexist and homophobic attitudes are prevalent or are you starting from the point of view that there is racism, sexism and homophobia present in the films/the novels/both and then arguing whether it affects the enjoyment? Most novels and films of the past are going to have some attitudes and elements that are not deemed to be culturally acceptable now.
Gassy Man's post is really excellent and would offer a great starting point. I would like to add that films is a visual medium and images are powerful things. Novels allow the writer to add some context; sometimes things don't really translate to the big screen and therefore a subtle novel can come across as crude and simplistic in a film adaptation.
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier
I can live without the racism & homophobia.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I fancy meself being in touch with many feminine sides, but not TP's...
I think that's kind of a double standard to say Chew Me is sexist though, cause if Chew Me were a goodlooking and sexually attractive Asian man, no one would complain of sexism. People only complain cause it's a woman who has that name.
Yeah but that's not the joke being made with the name. If he was gay it would be homophobic and racist etc.
It's not a double standard really - and your point backs up mine that it is sexist because the female is the submissive party in the gender role...
"Better make that two."
I am listening to the Ian Fleming audio books at this time.