Why Does Anyone Still Think It’s OK To Listen To R. Kelly?
R. Kelly is one of the most successful R&B artists of our time. He’s sold 54 million records…
By celebrating R. Kelly and other men like him, whether it’s because they’re geniuses, family members or “pillars” of our community, we’re implicitly saying to victims of sexual assault that their bodies and stories don’t matter. You can be urinated on, married at an age when you cannot legally give your consent, manipulated and coerced. You can gather the courage to come forward to the police; however, we will honor, protect and revere the man who violated you, rather than honor your courage by ensuring your words aren’t in vain.
R. Kelly’s legacy isn’t that of a tortured genius who had legal woes. R Kelly’s legacy is one that shows me what happens when society is silent. If we look inwardly, we’ll admit that although we weren’t co-conspirators, in our silence we have become complicit. We didn’t shout enough. We didn’t demand more.
We didn’t demand more for Aaliyah, Tiffany, Tracy, Patrice, the young woman on the sex tape and the other girls who never came forward. And why should anyone else come forward? History has demonstrated that even if they do speak, we will reward their testimony not just with silence but with turning the radio up even louder.
We get this one role. So we’d better hope it’s a good one. Because –
They could make 10 shitty Batman movies, and we’ll always see more Batman movies.
But if Wonder Woman isn’t top of the pops for every second she’s on-screen in Snyder’s film, they’ll burn the character down and salt the earth and the topic won’t come up again for another 30 goddamn years. Wonder Woman will be poison on the lips.
And that’s the danger of putting Wonder Woman in Batman Versus Superman."
CSI. That golden standard of shit programing on television. Mostly white, somewhat conventionally attractive 20-40 somethings work doing fancy things in lab for the police. Sometimes, they’re on scene. Sometimes they’re in the lab.
But you can bet that every time the fucking dipshit writers will manage to fuck up the science, fuck up with representation of police powers (US and UK), fuck up how to process a scene, and fuck up with what scientist should be doing what.
That’s fine, isn’t it? I mean, it’s just television. Nobody will ever take it as representative of real life.
I’m not being too privileged in that assumption, right?
…Except, sadly, people do.
And since in the US/UK, you have the right to be tried before a jury of your peers (ignoring all the weighting and icky stuff that comes with this assumption), you are usually dealing with folks who haven’t had the forethought to duck out of jury duty and usually don’t know anything, outside of what CSI and it’s ilk have ‘taught’ them.
Which a very big issue.
Well, let’s put it this way. CSI/Dexter/Bones/SVU/etc. is to forensic science as House/Grey’s Anatomy/ER/Scrubs is to medical science.
While at some point, there was something resembling the truth at the core of the episode, it’s been so fucked over it’s not real any more.
It also, due to it being…well, fiction, makes up methods, speeds up the due process of SCIENCE, and ignores the slight fact that fingermarks and DNA are only ever as good as the databases behind them.
(And this isn’t even going into how they process scenes, which, frankly, would destroy any trace evidence and remove it’s validity in court)
On the due process of SCIENCE!
Most forensic analysis techniques take ‘forever an’ a fuck’ when compared to their fictional counterparts.
- DNA analysis, due to advances in technology, usually can be turned around within 2-10 days, dependent on priority and quality of the sample. It takes even longer to get a match, given that (in the UK at least)
I’ve seen CSI (the show) turn a DNA analysis around in under (a mentioned) 4 hours. This doesn’t happen in reality. Ever.
- A complete skeletal analysis (assuming sampling for histology slides and DNA) can take anywhere from a day to 21 days…depending on what you’re doing to the poor sot, how experienced the person doing the skeletal analysis is, and what else needs to be done for the situation.
- A search of a ‘simple’ closed scene (think a murder in a house) will take you the better part of a day…and any analysis from that can take up to a month to be completed.
- Mass fatality incidences, which usually end up with forensic pathologists, dentists/odentologists, anthropologists, chemists, photographers, and/or engineers being called to the scene, can take YEARS to fully analyze after the initial on scene stuff has been done.
A good example of this is both the Lockerbie bombing and 9/11…Lockerbie’s initial recovery took a month of on scene work, and the better part of 2 years for analysis (and this is pre-DNA being ‘a thing’).
9/11 is still having analysis work done on recovered remains, as there was a promise made by Mayor Guilliani that EVERY single remain found would have DNA analysis done on it. …The initial analysis of recovered remains (mostly anthropological and dentistry related) took over a year to get into.
What I’m saying, in an incredibly profanity ladened rant is: Don’t be that guy.
Great, you know a little about an immensely vast field that’s got a ridiculous amount of subfields in it. That’s fuckin’ wonderful.
But you don’t know squat.
Read, you do NOT know enough to challenge an expert witness on their chosen topic of focus. Most defense lawyers don’t either, but that’s a whole ‘nother issue.
You also are not owed flashy science by the expert witness. A lot of forensics is very dull and dry science…it’s really hard to make “I analyzed the skeleton for signs of carnivore scavenging” any more exciting than it already is.
You are also not owed exact measurements by the expert witnesses. Chemistry, toxicology, and pathology are more exact than fingermark analysis, DNA analysis, and forensic anthropology.
But there is no way in the nine layers of hell ANYONE can tell you down to the amounts that are usually flung about on procedural CSI type shows. (Note this especially applies for aging adult skeletons, where ‘exact’ is usually an age range including anywhere from 5 to 20 years in the brackets)
You, as a potential jury member, and as an author, do have some obligation to make sure you are fully aware of the fact that CSI is one of the worst shows out there for basing your assumption of forensic science off of.
Educate yourself, be aware that you’re NOT going to understand everything out of an expert witness’ mouth (as hard as they may try), and just…be aware that CSI type shows cause horrible bias in the jury.
my favorite part of hamlet is at the beginning when they see the ghost of hamlet sr for the first time
and the guards are like “Horatio, you go talk to it! You went to college!”
and Horatio is like “Yeah! I did go to college! I will go talk to the ghost!”
like. where did horatio go to college. did he go to ghost college
That’s actually a really fascinating illustration of how literary tropes have evolved over time.
Throughout much of Western European history, even exceedingly basic formal education - the sort of thing that you or I would learn in elementary school - was largely restricted to the clergy and the children of the very wealthy. Literacy rates were so low that as much as a third of the population were unable to write their own names. (This is where the trope about signing one’s name with an “X” comes from, incidentally.)
Consequently, being college-educated was a really big deal, and contemporary media reflected this. As late as the 17th Century, Western European theatre and literature would often treat college-educated individuals in much the same way that modern media treats comic book super-scientists: experts at everything, able to master new fields in hours or days, and capable of pulling convenient plot devices out of thin air as the narrative demands.
Thus, narratively speaking, it’s totally reasonable for those guards to expect Horatio to be a ghost expert. He’s a university boy - of course he’s a ghost expert.
My chain hits my chest
when I’m banging on the dashboard
my chain hits my chest
when I’m banging on the radio
suki zuky I’m coming in the Cherokee
gasoline there’s steam on the window screen
take it take it wheels bouncing like a trampoline
when I get to where I’m going
gonna have you trembling
“Suki, suki” means “drive, drive” in Arabic. In the music video Saudi Arabian women are driving and aren’t supposed to, so MIA’s saying “suki, suki”. They’re bad girls.
Further, سوقي (suuqii) is in the imperative singular feminine, in a form I think is Saudi colloquial — more formal would be اسوقي. So, it has an additional subtlety of telling a female to drive.
re: feministing - for women, heart attacks look different
I just realized that Panem allows the brutal horrific murder of children on TV but they still censor the word ‘fuck’….
But isn’t that an accurate representation of our own television culture?
Just got real.
To those who might chalk this off as feather-ruffling, as an unecessary debate about “entertainment media” (as some categorize YA books), consider the bigger implications here: if teen (and younger) boys are taught to dismiss and ignore female driven stories, they will continue to dismiss and ignore females for their entire lives. Like so many movies, television shows, videogames, and products (AXE, anyone?) directed at and marketed for boys, it’s part of the sick cultural message that girls and women are frivolous, are not worth rooting for, cannot be strong (or cannot, at the very least, kick any evil villain ass without tight leather pants and serious cleavage), cannot be complex and complicated, do not have or deserve an equal voice. And this is the problem with accepting that there are simply boy books and girl books, and the problem with accepting that marketing (read: MONEY) can and should drive this trend.
I’m not advocating coverless books, but… imagine? How would the marketing and interpretation of stories change? How would the “target market” change? Would generically covered books attract more readers of different genders?
Some food for thought (midnight snack, for you east coasters)! I have lots of thoughts on this and they’re not all coming out clearly, but I thank everyone who’s participated in the discussion.
See rainey’s post below.I saw this discussion much earlier in the day and wanted to reblog it with some commentary. The discussion is about ‘boy books’ in YA (books with male protagonists) vs. ‘girl books,’ and, in a nutshell, the OP suggests that most YA books are written with female protagonists and boys don’t want to read ‘girl books,’ and that’s one of the reasons why girls read more than boys. They suggest that YA writers need to write more male protagonists in order to encourage more boys to read.
When I studied children’s lit in my master’s program, our mentors discussed this very issue with us. In short, they encouraged us to write male protagonists because the general rule of thumb is that while girls will read books with male or female protagonists, boys are more likely to only be interested in books that center around boys. If a cover of a book prominently features a female, many boys will not even pick it up to find out what it’s about. So, by writing a male protagonist, you will automatically give yourself a wider audience.
The problem isn’t that there’s a dearth of male protagonists in YA. The problem is that young boys are taught to dismiss and ignore female driven stories. They’re taught not to see those stories as human stories, but as ‘girl stories,’ and therefore lesser, uninteresting, an affront to their developing masculinity. Diversity in YA protagonists is important. We need male and female voices. We need PoC voices and LBTG voices. But we also need our young readers to read those diverse voices and not just gravitate toward the ones that sound the most like them. That’s happening with our girls. It’s not happening with our boys. That’s the real problem here.
lol at your ‘diverse casting’ where every single poc winds up dead
Is anyone else sick of the jerk genius?
You know the one. He’s unprofessional, lazy, selfish and rude, and even makes frequent sexist and racist remarks against the people around him, but that’s OK, because he’s a genius. He’s the best doctor/detective/scientist around, so everyone will put up with his jerkitude. Respect for others is the foolish pastime of the less intelligent.
We’re clearly meant to admire these (exclusively male) characters, or at least be amused by their social ineptitude. Their dismissive attitude to others, and especially their sexist jokes to others, are aspirations. They’re geniuses, observant and intelligent. They are just telling it like it is!
Which is one of the reasons I really love Sherlock Holmes in new CBS drama, Elementary. Yes, he’s a genius, and yes, he’s kind of a jerk at times. But he isn’t allowed to get away with it. His rudeness, his laziness… these are clearly character flaws, and his (female!) partner isn’t afraid to call him on his nonsense. And in return, he says things he shouldn’t, but he also respects her, he listens to her, and he even apologizes for things that he does. He isn’t a genius running rampant in the city, above the concerns of all the other silly humans. He’s an intelligent, observant, but flawed human, and he has to follow the same laws of decency as the rest of us."
Okay, so. This is a post about Zayn Malik, and getting to affirm for him how lovely it is for desi/Muslim fans to see someone who looks like them, or is like them, or shares similar backgrounds as them, make it in the mainstream pop industry. Heck, not even just make it—SMASH it.