That really isn't very clear. And I'm at work so don't have time to make it clearer. Feel free to ignore. Half formed thoughts are nobody's friend.
Eeek. If we make that the standard, I'll never post again. I mean, I know I should engage the brain before speaking, but a lot of times, I have to talk my way through the thinking process.
For me the reason for being upset by a racial/cultural stereotype is because it perpetuates these myths. But if Cindy failed to see the stereotyping, then the myth wasn't perpetuated.
But I'm no gold standard for anything, even sensitivity. Since it seems to have been perpetuated for more people involved in this conversation than not (at least until now), I'm not filled with any confidence that the stereotyping wasn't present-and-unsubverted.
It's as likely that I missed it because I missed it, as that it wasn't there. In fact, I think it's safer to assume I missed it, than that three very different people (whom I haven't pegged as always agreeing on developments in any of our pet series, in general, and whom I always read as more informed on literary themes than I am) all saw something that wasn't there. For ita, Allyson, Kat (and anyone else who cringed), it was certainly perpetuated.
Of course, trying to validate either my initial interpretation, and/or say Allyson's interpretation this sort of too easily summarizes the whole thing, because art evokes. And really, we're very much reading subtext. Trope doesn't equal stereotype, but certain tropes seem to come with the stereotype as sort of a gift with purchase.
When I talked (argued? scrapped?) with Tim about it, he said that it was based on a tribe in which the people had a Holy Woman, and that the skills were passed down woman to woman (which is why Bill couldn't be The Guy...but then, why did they all expect that he would by the Guy?).
Hmmmm. What's that all about, Tim? If that's the backstory (and I don't remember reading that in the script, so if it wasn't said in the episode, is it just backstory), was it also usually passed on within one family? If so, then was Dianne also a grandchild of the deceased seer?
On reflection. Just because not many got it, doesn't mean it wasn't there. So ignore the last post and go about your business. Thank you.
Heh, too much xposting, and I'm too late to ignore, but thank you for posting this.
As much as I love Cindy, I"m not sure I want anyone one person's perception to be the arbiter on what my be a culturally sensitive ish or not.
Oh, feeling Kat love, and nodding mightily, as I'm so not qualified, anyhow.
I have to talk my way through the thinking process.
Yeah, I was pretty much talky talking through my thinking. On reflection I probably should've done more thinky thinking and less talky talking.
Wow, UTTAD, that's an interesting and new twist on being called oversensitive. As much as I love Cindy, I"m not sure I want anyone one person's perception to be the arbiter on what my be a culturally sensitive ish or not.
I don't understand this paragraph.
Just because not many got it
But we don't even have a statistical sample. Cindy may very well be the minority.
One thing that did make me cringe (that's overstated, but it disappointed me a little) while reading, was that it was the female, not the male, who ended up being the mystic
This didn't bother me at all. There was no reason the new seer couldn't have been male -- it was a gender-irrelevant position, and the male was pursued with all sincerity.
UTTAD, I'm thinking the idea that one person (whoever the hell they are) not seeing an issue is a faulty method of determining if that issue exists. And dismissive of those who do see it.
Which -- you cop to later, but I think that's what Kat was reacting to in her post.
But we don't even have a statistical sample. Cindy may very well be the minority.
You missed my memo about too much talking and not enough thinking. :)
Okay, being told that since Cindy didn't see the stereotyping while reading the script that there must not be stereotyping at all seems kinda like bullshit to me. Basically, it's a sly way of saying those of us who saw the episode and took away an issue from it are being oversensitive.
And that, quite frankly, pisses me off, offends my sensibilities and I would have prefered that you not have done it.
Clearer now?
Non sequitar alert: WRT the Snowy Owl.
While scampering around Petroglyph, there was some signage about macaws (there's a petroglyph or two of macaws) and how they were traded between groups from pretty far and wide. It made me think of the snowy owl thing (not that NM has snowy owls either) and giggle.
UTTAD, I'm thinking the idea that one person (whoever the hell they are) not seeing an issue is a faulty method of determining if that issue exists. And dismissive of those who do see it.
As I said: me= too much talk, not enough thought. And I was aware that I was being dismissive, which is why I backed out with no grace and my tail between my legs. Guac all over my face.
Okay, being told that since Cindy didn't see the stereotyping while reading the script that there must not be stereotyping at all seems kinda like bullshit to me. Basically, it's a sly way of saying those of us who saw the episode and took away an issue from it are being oversensitive.
I didn't say there was no stereotyping. And I don't say things in a sly way. If I wanted to say something I would have. I also realised I was was wrong in what I said and I backed down quickly.
No, you didn't say there was no stereotyping. You did say, "What I mean is, if you needed to have these things pointed out to you then they could'nt've come across very strongly in the first place. " Which means what? That there was but it doesn't matter if it has to be pointed out?
I also realised I was was wrong in what I said and I backed down quickly.
Sure, you backed down quickly which I saw after I posted. But since you wanted clarification on what I said, I gave it.
Personally, I am not really concerned enough to continue thrashing about it.
I'm still contemplating macaws in the desert at 7000 feet and snowy owls.
