Thus far I have managed to avoid controversy. This post may result in the creation of a new orifice on my body, but I felt like it was time to mix things up.
In an “Open Letter to the Asian American Community” members of NYC based DRUM (Desis Rising Up Moving) write:
Correction: DRUM is just a listserv which people post to in the NY area. The open letter below was written by the South Asian Sisters
We went to watch Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle because we genuinely wanted to support our Asian American brothers. After all, the media coverage told us that this movie was supposed to break stereotypes and be a positive step for Asian Americans. Asian websites raved about the film, and so we were all excited to rally around this film with the rest of the community. We entered the theater and immediately noticed that the audience was comprised of predominantly Asian Americans. We wondered if a movie based on the same premise featuring white boys would draw a bigger crowd. The movie started, and we sat back, waiting to be empowered.
Well, it’s the next day, and we’re still waiting. Harold and Kumar disappointed us. They represented Asian American men as being homophobic, spineless, sex-crazed misogynists. All Asian American men should be outraged! Asian American women? Well, there was one Asian woman, and she was the stereotypical Asian nerd. Queer Asians? There were none. How would they feel safe to come on screen when Harold and Kumar are making homophobic jokes all the time? Working class Asians? Perhaps there is one- the convenience store owner. He gets beat up by the racist hoodlums, and Harold and Kumar just walk away. Then there are the non-Asians. The African Americans include a crazed fast food employee and a guy in prison reading a book on civil disobedience. There is Maria, perhaps Latina, who strikes Harold’s fancy. She has very little to do other than look pretty. It still bewilders us why she would make out with him in the elevator after he has stank White Castle breath and can’t even carry on a decent conversation. Finally, the white women. They are overly sexualized and throwing themselves all over Harold and Kumar, who are only interested in “fucking” and getting some “pussy”. Harold and Kumar disrespect women in multiple ways throughout the movie. Women are either objectified and horny for them or asexual and undesirable. The most disturbing scene in this movie was when Kumar fantasizes about a giant bag of marijuana. The ganja is personified as a woman who has sex with him, brings him coffee, and becomes the recipient of domestic violence followed by his “loving” apology. Note that we’re discussing Harold and Kumar the characters, not John Cho and Kal Penn the actors. We recognize that actors are put in a compromising situation to succeed in a white-dominated entertainment industry. Therefore we encourage the community to support Asian American artists while putting pressure on the entertainment industry to represent us more fairly and accurately. We also ask the community to view the media critically and not blindly endorse any representation of a particular segment of the Asian community as being positive for all Asian Americans. We wish John Cho and Kal Penn luck in their careers and hope to see them in bigger and better roles. Sincerely, South Asian Sisters
Where to start. First off, I want these South Asian sisters in particular to relax.
Take the following:
They represented Asian American men as being homophobic, spineless, sex-crazed misogynists. All Asian American men should be outraged! Asian American women? Well, there was one Asian woman, and she was the stereotypical Asian nerd.
Even though you think I should be, I am not outraged. Even if the film was homophobic, how can two characters be expected to represent all of Asiankind? There are plenty of homophobic Asian men in the real world and plenty of them are misogynists. Isn’t that the type of stereotyping this movie was trying to fight in the first place? Second, they aren’t spineless. What movie were you watching? Third, I am glad they were sex-crazed. It’s about damn time that Asian men are portrayed as sex-crazed. I’m an Asian man and I am sex crazed (unless my parents are reading this in which case I am not sex-crazed). And finally, my personal favorite is the last point the above paragraph makes. When can you remember the last time that an Asian woman played a stereotypical Asian nerd in a movie? Huh ? Huh? They are usually cast as a bad ass or heroine (e.g. Lucy Lu from Kill Bill, Zhang Ziyi from Crouching Tiger, etc.). Its the Asian man that always plays the nerd (e.g. Office Space, Sixteen Candles, Goonies, etc.)
What this open letter is about is the author or authors desire to unfairly hold the Asian man up to a higher standard by stereotyping them. Ironically the angelic behavior they are demanding is often times the very reason that Asian women turn away from Asian men. You can’t have it both ways.
hey all, i’ve been reading this thread with some interest. i can see both/ all sides, but after thinking about the contradictions in all arguments,tend to sympathize more with those that think gender in this movie was problematic and worthy of taking a serious look. anna, i connected a lot with what you said in that last comment. i dont identify with any “leftist” or “activist” label either and don’t feel i fit in or want to fit in with that scene, but i still show up and do good things in the community. i give you big props for pointing that out. one thing stuck out to me though- your previous work with smart. i have friends connected with the group, and they worry a lot about media stuff. even i would see some of stuff as nit-picky- http://www.sikhmediawatch.org/mediawatch/media.asp if the question is of causation, then none of those things they’re complaining about on that site cause anti-sikh sentiments either. but the argument goes that these things might “fuel” existing sentiments or make racism look cute or normal. after 9/11 it was a time when sikhs were especially under attack, but the stats say 1 in 4 women are raped, so i guess you could say we’re always under attack. so what i’m saying is, if we wouldnt complain about a media watch for sikhs and defend the things they’re offended by, i dont see why we should get worked up over someone doing a media watch on gender-related issues. -rp
Leena, Maulie, Sunita, Anji, Jasbir: I respect your obviously heartfelt reactions to the movie, but you may be missing some pretty obvious shout-outs.
First, the bit about slapping a bag of weed is intended to make fun of Kumar and is anti-domestic violence. Kumar is in an undershirt in a slummy apartment, chest hair showing, drinking crummy coffee. It’s enlightened society saying that Archie Bunker-like abusers are uncool troglodytes.
I grant that any DV reference could awaken painful memories. But the whole scene is so over the top, so clearly satire (a character with puffy white arms, like a giant M&M), that nobody, but nobody in the mainstream is going to misunderstand the message.
Second, the writers are making fun of homophobia. The Jewish characters, who are stand-ins for the two Jewish screenwriters, dis Harold and Kumar for acting gay. Then, with perfect comic timing, they take fellatio-like drags off a large, phallic bong.
Later in the movie, Harold and Kumar make fun of the extreme sports guys’ ‘gay’ taste in music. But in under a minute, they’re singing along to Wilson Phillips.
Third, the ‘two filthy pussies’ line is intended to show Harold’s crassness. In terms of sexuality, the character is written to be like a frat boy. It’s like Om Puri enduring the wog/Paki taunts in a nightclub in ‘My Son the Fanatic:’ offensive on the face of it, but that’s precisely the point — it’s part of the character development.
The great irony is that your title, ‘Yoni ki Baat,’ relies on the same kind of synecdoche, using a part of something to refer humorously to the entire thing, that Kumar uses. Like calling a car ‘wheels’ or movies ‘Hollywood,’ albeit more offensive. What Bollywood song one’s yoni would sing, standing up for one’s yoni, it’s all appropriating and reclaiming frat boy-speak for one’s own purposes.
I stand by my opinion: it’s a tasteless title. It’s tasteless when Kumar uses it, it’s tasteless in The Vagina Monologues, it’s tasteless in Puppetry of the Penis. But hey, they’re not your Victorian mores, they’re mine.
And Maulie, ‘EDUCATE YOU’?
manish- i think i agree with what you’re saying about the images of weed-beating and other things being shown facetiously. but i’m still wondering if you would go through the same trouble to cap on a letter written by sikh media watch and insist that its not a big deal, seeing as many portrayals of sikhs as terrorists, etc, are also meant to be facetious, maybe even ironic or something that the “enlightened mainstream” would never take seriously. i just want to make sure that if media is important, it’s important across the board. about the vagina monologues- i don’t see that as being used in a “frat boy” sense. i think it’s more a matter of reclaiming, like black people using the “n” word or women making a magazine called “bitch.” i have seen the vagina monologues and eve ensler’s newer play- based on that,definitely wouldnt compare it or the way the word is used to frat boys in any sense. -rp
RP said:
RP, you’re missing the point.
In H&K the director and audience both know that DV is bad. If you look at that sequence, it’s about Kumar doing something that he knows is bad. The movie no more endorses wifebeating than it endorses breaking in to police stations, operating on gunshot patients without any medical experience or riding on cheetahs. In the dream sequence Kumar hits his “spouse” and even the dream sequence Kumar knows it’s the wrong thing. It’s an example of the dream sequence Kumar doing something wrong b/c he’s become an embittered loser.
If you can show me a situation where the director/writer/author knows the difference between Sikhs and A-Q terrorists, the audience does as well, and the point of the reference to Sikhs as terrorists is to make fun of racist idiots as lamebrains, I could agree with you. But none of the examples that SMART protested are anything of the sort. Instead, they were the types of media behavior that might have generated confusion, at a time when several Sikhs had been shot at in acts of racist violence.
I’m trying really hard to be civil here, but I don’t know if I can get my point across. Here’s what I suggest — go to a small town in Idaho, show a movie there that refers to Sikhs as Bin Ladens, then tie a turban, grow a beard and drive around and see what happens.
anna, the thing about your comments that i find quite offensive is that you take everything very personally. i appreciate your help post 9/11. i sympathize with your experiences of violence. but is there really a need to be so attacking when you write? it’s funny to me that others on this list who have written much more mildly have been viciously attacked, while you have made your points in very personal attacking ways and nobody calls you out on how you put your points across! you demand respect for your experiences but you give very little to others, or take everything that is said too personally, and i was offended reading the posts that you have contributed. (props to leena for not writing back viciosly and personally when she was criticized in a personal manner!) it is also pretty sad to see you attack other women and also make fun of the ‘south asian sisters’ concept in a hostile manner. just because you don’t identify with that label doesn’t mean you have the right to ridicule or judge others who do. sorry to single you out girl, but i just kinda flipped reading your last post! i also wanna add that i think our community hasnt progressed much not because of a lack of dialogue. i think it’s more because of people not talking to each other in respectful wayz.
manish, i respectfully don’t think you understand what others are trying to say. first off, many abusers are NOT the type of ‘losers’ that kumar is supposedly portrayed as being. they are not always these dudes in wife beaters sitting alone in their apartments. the fact that people associate wife beaters with that sterotype is the reason many wife beaters are not suspected or even properly punished–because they are the upstanding citizen, the doctor in te community, etc. obviously that’s not ALWAYS the truth, but it is the truth more often than is assumed. so yes, i see what you’re saying about it being obvious that kumar is a loser,etc, but i think that’s a double edged and potentially dangerous assumption. this kind of “loserhood” takes many forms! 🙂 secondly, i have to repeat, yet again, that i was NOT drawing a line between wife beating and H/K. i was not trying to argue that watching kumar beat up a bag of weed is goign to make an audience member beat his partner. i was trying to explain why i reacted to that scene in the way i did, and why that reaction was based in a very sad reality in our community. i think you, along with many others, have read theses into my comments that i have simply NOT written. a distinction must be made between putting forth a argument like ‘the kumar scene will influence an audience member’ and a statement like ‘i feel this way about the movie because of experience X and Y.’ my initial comment (made on nobody else’s behalf but my own) consisted solely of the latter. best, sunita
the “ethnic leftists” weren’t the only ones who helped you. some of us conservative/libertarian/independent humans did too.
It should be needless to say, but this was GW:
Point: “ethnic leftists” were not the only ones talking about not killing Muslims. That was the MAINSTREAM RIGHTIST LINE as well. However, I will note that most ethnic leftists were against retaliating against bin Laden. Personally, that makes them moral zeros in my book. It means they’re more loyal to some bizarre brown racialist fiction than to the fellow citizens of their own nation.
I should also note that the # of actual hate crimes post 9/11 was far less frequent than one in a million – and that too if you bundle all incidents together, from “verbal harassment” to arson (go to Appendix A).
obviously that’s not ALWAYS the truth, but it is the truth more often than is assumed.
Do you have any stats for this claim, any citations whatsoever of abuse frequency vs. social status? Or are you just making this up?
it is also pretty sad to see you attack other women and also make fun of the ‘south asian sisters’ concept in a hostile manner. just because you don’t identify with that label doesn’t mean you have the right to ridicule or judge others who do
Of course she does. The South Asian Leftist Sistaz spend their days judging and ridiculing, looking down their nose at anyone who spends their days working for a living rather than pursuing counterproductive angry leftist ethnic activism. They have been brainwashed to believe that they will get more with vinegar than with sugar, that commercial success is wrong, and that 60’s style protest is the highest good. They have a bizarre inverted moral hierarchy where zero-sum, racially tinged demands of the public are good , but commercially successful aracial ventures are bad because they’re selling out.
That kind of attitude needs to be identified and stigmatized.
As the original poster let me jump in here. This site was in part created to engender a discussion such as this. I am glad to see the endless stream of comments and have learned much reading them, about people’s viewpoints. I understand that SAS’s main concern and point (I hope I deciphered this correctly) was that Mahoot Media encouraged them to watch this film to uplift and support South Asians, yet they saw nothing personally uplifting in the movie. It was a bait and switch to them. Fine. I don’t think any of us can argue against that, if that was the core motivation behind their letter. It was a personal reaction for them. As for most of the other points they make, I disagree with them, but I am glad they have engaged everyone in a discussion. I hope the South Asian Sisters see other stuff on this website that they might agree with, if not this one post. When creating this site I think some of us had in mind that it would be a way to uplift South Asians by creating a dialog and raising awareness of many issues.
Forums such as this are unfortunately a great place for “last wordism.” I have now read several comments that seem to serve no pupose except to get in the last word, or show the “other side” who is smarter, at the expense of really saying anything new. How did we go from talking about Harold and Kumar to some of the latest comments, I have no idea? I hope this won’t be a place to take your misplaced anger out on “ethnic leftists” or to illogically rage against “whitey.” Thats what people in the rest of our society do, and why politics in our country is so bitterly divided. Given the political leanings of the six contributing writers to this site, readers are probably going to see a diversity of opinions. I am best pigenholed as an “angry ethnic leftist.” Others are more moderate, and some I would consider conservative. I think this is great because it will keep us all on our toes.
If all goes as envisioned, there will be plenty of great discussions on this website. I urge you to please resist the temptation of “last-wordism.” You can’t change an entrenched mind. You can however learn from them to save an open mind. And that’s my last word. 🙂
Gc, your post is full of Ignorance. SA Sisters work for their livings too. And who’s looking down his/her nose when writing the following post? Obviously, gc is.
gc wrote:
The South Asian Leftist Sistaz spend their days judging and ridiculing, looking down their nose at anyone who spends their days working for a living rather than pursuing counterproductive angry leftist ethnic activism. They have been brainwashed to believe that they will get more with vinegar than with sugar, that commercial success is wrong, and that 60’s style protest is the highest good. They have a bizarre inverted moral hierarchy where zero-sum, racially tinged demands of the public are good , but commercially successful aracial ventures are bad because they’re selling out.
That kind of attitude needs to be identified and stigmatized.
To the South Asian Sisters:
I want to thank you for your open letter calling on people to “encourage the community to support Asian American artists while putting pressure on the entertainment industry to represent more of us accurately”. Your letter has sparked much-needed discussion on the images of Asian Americans in the media, as well as marginalization within the community. I’d like to address a few points in your letter that will hopefully clarify specific parts of “Harold and Kumar go to White Castle” and discuss the state of affairs for Asian Americans in Hollywood.
While “Harold and Kumar” may not represent every part of the diverse API community, the film is groundbreaking in terms of smashing down the well-ingrained Hollywood stereotypes of Asian American men being one-dimensional buffoons who are the object of ridicule, scorn, and hatred (“Sixteen Candles”, “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”, “Short Circuit” to name just a few). Whether we see Harold and Kumar as assimilated heterosexist pigs, or as liberating sexualized men of color, the fact remains that we have seen no multidimensional Asian American characters on screen, in title roles in a studio film before this. In that sense, the film is empowering.
In my preparation to play “Kumar”, I did not set out to represent all South Asian American men. I only intended to represent the character I was playing. Indeed, I approached the role as I would any other – grounded in the basis of reality for who that character is. This is not to say I am oblivious to the fact that there is a void of Asian Americans on screen (on the contrary, I am proud to depict Kumar in an industry that too often systematically excludes people of color). I understand that it is precisely because we are so rarely depicted positively on screen that many people have arbitrarily attached ethnicity to Kumar’s independent character traits. ‘Why does Kumar behave the way he does? Is it because he is Indian?’ The simple answer is, “no”.
It would have been a poor artistic decision (and one that would have made the film boring to watch) if either myself or the writers had allowed race or ethnicity to define Kumar’s personality. For example, Kumar smokes ganja because he likes to, not because he is Indian. He chases women because he is a 22 year old heterosexual male, not because he is Indian. And he talks about “pussy” and “fucking” because he is interested in strictly carnal, noncommittal consensual sexual relationships with women – not because he is Indian. Kumar is flawed, as all human beings are. He does not treat women with the kind of respect we hope most men would. Kumar is, thankfully, not the model minority. Our intention was not to represent “Asian American men as being homophobic, spineless, sex-crazed misogynists”. Our intention was to represent Harold and Kumar as real, flawed human beings – something I personally find to be a lot more refreshing than most of the one-dimensional roles out there.
With that said, it is because he is Indian that Kumar is treated like a third-class citizen by a police officer. Because he is Indian, he is harassed by skateboard punks who use racial stereotypes to dehumanize. Kumar actually fears physical violence by this gang of 5 racist punks who, in post-9/11 America, physically threaten him in a convenience store. Against better judgment, he leaves behind the South Asian store clerk and escapes. Once again we see that Kumar is flawed. He is human. He is not the model minority. [Later in the film, he and Harold get back at the “skate punks” by turning the racial slur “Thank You Come Again” against their oppressors.]
When Harold and Kumar are in the jail, they meet an African American college professor (who has two, positively depicted gay fathers) and was arrested simply for being black. We learn that the same cop who degraded Kumar’s ethnicity earlier, also violently attacked this man. The scene purposely uses race to comment on the complexities of racial profiling. It seems that some people may have missed that, so I wanted to make mention of the use of satire at this (among many other) points in the film. [Another example of race/gender being subverted is the “Cindy Kim” scene. Cindy may first seem to be ‘nerdy’ and subdued, but that image is flipped on it’s head when we learn that she has both helped plan one of the most raging parties on campus, and refused to remain quiet in her drive to woo Harold.]
With regard to the relationship between Harold and Maria – aside from the obvious conclusion (that Harold is inherently a young, privileged, realistically flawed heterosexual male character who happens to be Asian American), my interpretation is as follows: Maria is attracted to Harold for the very same reason Harold is attracted to Maria – they find each other physically attractive, and enjoy each other’s unspoken and awkward company in the elevator each evening after work. Neither has the courage to talk to the other. For Asian American men who are almost always asexual or hypersexual in Hollywood cinema, this type of equal interchange is oddly groundbreaking. Maria’s ethnicity (both the character and actress are Latina) also shakes up the Asian-White paradigm in which most Asian-American male characters in Hollywood are based. The film is from the protagonist’s perspective (in this scene Harold), so we see it through his eyes, not Maria’s.
A final scene I’d like to clarify is the “Bag of Weed Dream Sequence”, in which Kumar fantasizes about, falls in love with, and marries a giant bag of weed. In a bout of post-marital financial hardship and depression, Kumar slaps the weed, calls her a “bitch”, and then apologizes. I can understand how this scene may seem “most disturbing” to those not familiar with film in general. Let me explain: there were 2 things that went into the preparation of this scene. First, everyone should know that the scene is a parody of ( and shot almost exactly like) a very famous scene in the Robert DeNiro film, “Raging Bull”. Both the writers and director have inserted several throwbacks to films and television shows for various purposes and at differing levels throughout “Harold and Kumar” (ranging from “Better Luck Tomorrow” to “The Simpsons” and “Karate Kid”). This is one such parody. Second, my preparation as an actor was as follows: To me, the scene discussed and symbolized a critical problem surrounding Kumar’s future: drug dependence. In the dream sequence, Kumar goes from being a loving boyfriend in a monogamous relationship, to a husband who has been engulfed in drug addiction, financial crisis, and domestic violence. At the end of the sequence, the “real” Kumar reaches for the weed despite acknowledging the potential problems it could cause him in the future (the problems introduced in the dream).
I could continue to explain all of the subversive and subtle representations in the film for pages, but I’m going to stop here because it’s not going to change anything. Those who have loved the film will continue to love it, and those who have decided to hate it, will continue to hate it. Please understand that every time you see a film or television program with no people of color – it’s not because of a shortage of talented performers of color to fill those roles. Sadly, no amount of discussion – however passionate – will change the face of Hollywood without action. If we do not extend financial support (through ticket and record sales) to Asian American artists, if we do not write scripts, direct films, or produce theater, we should not expect things to change. I implore you to please write a script that is commercially viable enough for a major studio to buy, finance, shoot, and distribute – despite the content or race, gender, sexuality, ability/disability, or economic status of its characters.
The writers of “Harold and Kumar” have tried to subversively include grounded characters and topics that deviate from social norms to create a commercially-viable, socially-relevant, funny film. My ultimate hope is that these conversations about “Harold and Kumar” will prompt more people to write. That’s really the only way we’ll go from being ‘buffoons’ and ‘model minorities’, to Superheros, romantic comedy leads, and three-dimensional, flawed, real human beings.
Kal Penn (Kalpen Modi)
I stayed quiet while watching “Bhaji on the Beach” where two Indian men were portrayed as wife abusers, while the third was a wimp. I stayed quiet in Mississippi Masala, where the young Indian men were portrayed as socially awkward and cartoonishly accented – undesirable to all the female characters. In Fire – we had the young adulterous Indian husband, the old sexually distant Indian husband, and the masturbation-happy male Indian housekeeper. But the female directors of those movies had a certain vision for their characters, one which I disagreed with, but it was not my movie. I do not think it would encourage Indian women to hate Indian men. They don’t need encouragement 😉
I saw Harold and Kumar opening weekend, and laughed my skinny ass off, as did the whole audience (mostly white). Kumar was like my id – someone I would never let out. But no one would Animal House encourages white men to objectify women and behave like buffoons. Why should there be double standards?
A question for Kal – is it true there is a rough-draft script called “Harold and Kumar Go to Amesterdam”? Hopefully the DVD sales will make up for the somewhat lower than expected screen grosses.
KXB, what’s your point? Don’t all director’s/writer’s have a vision for their stories/movies? Are you angry because indian men were protrayed badly? Or that they are caricatures? Isn’t that like every bollywood movie ever made? And “stayed quiet” how? Maybe I’m getting you wrong on this…
PS: Thanks to Kal Penn for the reply.
Sluggo,
The three movies I listed were not Bollywood movies – they were English-language films for the festival cicruit, with no dance numbers. The point is that even though I may disagree with the portrayal of Indian men in these films, it would not be fruitful to demand that the directors and producers be more sensitive. I did not put up the money and invest the time in the project. All I can do is like or dislike the movie, and share my opinions about them. To urge some sort of collective action against the filmmakers is a bit much, as the “sisters” seem to be suggesting in their post.
As an asian doctor, i too am in the position of seeing and dealing with the plight of domestic violence, and several studies have shown an unsurprising relationship to socio-economic status, education etc. However, as expected, DV extends beyond these stereotypes across all borders or religion/socio-economic status/etc. and of course race. I would just like to point out that this is a universal problem and not just one that should be targeted to asian men and equally might I add women (yes, men are victims to domestic violence too, now there’s a thought to the sistas!) Although, no can dispute the point that any media will have some effect on the psyche and beahviour of certain individuals, it is naive to assume this is a major contributing factor. If anything, this film has successfully raised these issues and opened them to debate and should be applauded for that alone. Also the film about `Harold and Kumar’ is just that… a film about two individuals and thus clearly not striving to be representative of an entire race etc.
I would just like to say that I like the way how Kal Penn is out there in the movie industry trying to open doors out there for other Asian-Americans and Native Americans. By what he’s doing I would consider him a inspirational figure. He’s an equal man with many talents. I would also like to say that I support anything he plans to do in the near future, whether it be another career or an another movie role. And since I am going to become an actor in the near future, I hope I get the chance to do a movie or two with him. I also hppe that when Kal gets some free time, I ask that he would read this article and respond back. That’s because Kal is my favorite actor. Thank You!
I like the way how Kal Penn is out there in the movie industry trying to open doors out there for other Asian-Americans and Native Americans
!!!
no, i haven’t seen the movie, so forgive me if what i am about to say is inappropriate, but…methinks you have the wrong continent, mr. columbus. red dot, not feather and whatnot.
dr. roy-
If anything, this film has successfully raised these issues and opened them to debate and should be applauded for that alone.
did anyone notice ‘these issues’ and think to remark on them other than sas, whose concerns most people are just blowing off anyway? just curious.
Both guys who played in Harrold and Kumar were HOT. Sure the movie was silly, but so are other movies like “Half Baked”. Its a comedy and not meant to be taken seriously. Sure they had the guys running to trashy white whores, because in the medias eyes they feel asian men and all other men would run if they had the chance to bag some white girl (trashy girl or classy one)…which is stupid to assume and all but this is how dumb and ignorant the media is. This movie was for entertainment purposes only. Honestly, if this movie were such a reality then why are there so many intelligent, handsome and productive Asian men out there in this world? Who cares what the media portrays…they have been making fun of people for years there is nothing that can be really done about it. Just don’t take it seriously. Everyone knows Asian men are the husbands, boyfriend and hottest Lovers wink wink
interesting- i don’t think you would really want these ladies to participate in any action you take against the shock jock. just focus on the race angle, cuz bringing up gender issues gets you… this. you’ve given people shit for not having a sense of humor, so be prepared to get the same. my 2 cents.
oh, i was waiting for someone to try this very original “angle”.
the power99 situation IS different from HK in my opinion. it wasn’t a comedy-film involving voluntary actors. it was a prominent, influential, attention-getting, controversial, hypocritical DJ who attacked someone without provocation. That’s a hell of a lot different from Kal Penn and his documented support of NARIKA.
this post/comment riot was about reading into things that some of us felt weren’t there. Star calling an innocent woman and abusing her? we ALL know it was there.
Power99 is virulent hate. there’s a difference between that and satire. this post is about defining satire. degrading a “rat-eating bitch” is not.
when total conservatives are sickened by the same thing that progressives are, that’s a clue that it’s not just…”humor”.
when total conservatives are sickened by the same thing that progressives are, that’s a clue that it’s not just…”humor”.
that’s one way to look at it. another is that these conservatives are hypocrites. maybe they don’t personally feel the sting of (arguably) sexist humor and therefore only care about racist humor that triggers their own experiences. you either support free speech and expression of offensive humor absolutely, or you encourage real discussion of it and refrain from one-sided attacks. not ALL conservatives would be sickened, btw.
just because the actor supported narika doesn’t mean the movie couldnt have had serious implications- the critique wasn’t of the actor, as was clarified about a dozen times.
what i see most of you saying in this thread is that the movie h&k NEEDED to offend some women in order to be funny. humor at the expense of females was inherent to this genre. and apparently women who do take offense and speak up about it deserve to be ganged up by men and other women from their own community. the audiences of these complaints are different- this h&k thing was written TO the desi community as an internal critique. moreover, if you notice, it did not ask people to boycott the movie, write letters, or anything of the sort. if anything, people would WANT to see the movie more after reading this. all it says is be critical. but even saying that is suggestion is not allowable, apparently.
shock jocks ARE offensive. racism (and sexism) are inherent to their jokes. yes, there was a real life incident here, but you still cannot draw a straight line between that and racial hate that takes place otherwise. your letter could have been directed solely at the particular incident of harassment, saying that it’s fucked up to threaten someone. but instead your letter was about far wider implications, as if someone listening to this would go out and imitate what they heard. one could argue that this shock jock thing is satire in that people KNOW that shock jocks are totally disgusting, non-pc people. people know their humor is not something to emulate- JUST something to laugh at and brush off as crude, the same way the audience knows that harold and kumar are crude (i don’t know about the latter anyway- the whole reason people were excited is because they were shown as “normal,” not “crude”). something feels slightly disingenuous here.
btw, funny that in another thread people said howard stern was not as bad as this guy. that’s not what i get from this. then again, this is about gender, and as a desi community it’s not the type of battle we would pick. 🙂
interesting and confusing thread. i didn’t think the movie was so terribly problematic as to warrant a letter, but i also don’t think this letter is so terribly demanding as to warrant this type of response. why not let minorities within minorities express their views?
interesting. very interesting.