Ship of Fools: 'Big Brother' racism row redux

Thread: 'Big Brother' racism row redux Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025489

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

A link.

Was this really racism? Or just someone expressing a preference re their 'type', and labelling it racism akin to labelling me homophobic for being married to a woman?

Over to you!

[ 19. June 2013, 16:20: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

It strikes me as an odd way of expressing things, if you weren't intending to make a point about race.

You are married to a woman, (and have identified on the boards as hetero), so if you were talking about who you were likely to date - I think that I would expect you would frame it in terms of something like "I'd go for a woman near my own age, so we'd have more in common" or "I have always really gone for someone with real, full on, flame red hair".

Rather than specifying, "well, I never go for men - not young men or old men or even masculine women". It would sound quite odd.

And as a mode of expression on a heated issue "I don't like black men" is clumsy at best. Following up with effectively - "some of my best friends are black I just don't want to have sex with them" doesn't make it sound better.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Well, yes. Racism is prejudice based on perceived race.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Glad to say I'd never heard of it before. Having read the link, however, I'd say it's all about the speaker's sexual preferences and not racism except where she said "You'd probably not go for a black guy." Even that isn't very problematic.

[ 19. June 2013, 16:38: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I can't speak to this woman's motivation, but as a black person one hears this so many times over a lifetime that it really hurts and offends after a while. So many have said to me "I don't like black guys/girls, just not my type" and you can't remove that from the bigger picture of racism and lack of black expressions of beauty in the media. Or even worse, the back handed compliments from men who said "You're the first black girl I've been attracted to" as if that's something I should be pleased to hear.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Is it perhaps more about the broadcaster running scared because of the whole Shilpa Shetty - Jade Goody row?

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

Channel 5 is owned by a man who gave free newspaper ads to the EDL. Big Brother no longer airs an unedited online stream. If the terms of this 'racism row' seem more tenuous than those of the first one, I suspect that's intentional.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

seekingsister, I am interested in what you are saying. I completely see why that would be hurtful/offensive. I think for me the difference is that I see who one is attracted to as not a choice. Certainly shaped by society, so certainly affected by society's racism, but not something one can decide. So I would blame the woman for saying such things to be broadcast maybe--though that means the whole show, as far as I'm concerned--but I wouldn't blame her for not being attracted to men of a particular racial group. Mind, it might well be a symptom of racism, but I don't know her, so I wouldn't know that. On the other hand, my experience isn't very broadly relevant here, so I am open to correction.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

EDL ads? When / where?

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

EDL promotion in the Daily Star:

Press release-style front-page story.

Thinly-disguised ad.

Editorial warning of statistically unsupported significance.

Leaflet-text style report.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I don't want to divert from this thread, but I'm afraid I can't see how any of those articles (two of which are the same) could be said to be an 'advert' for the EDL (in at least one of them they are branded as 'disgusting' by a voter).

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

Ah, this is the one that I missed out with the accidental repetition: ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE: WE'LL STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR BRITAIN'S BRAVE HEROS.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

When the leader of a organisation speaks for five sentence-paragraphs, the editor is according them a significance not borne out by the numbers, and their opponents get a couple of vox pop soundbites, I think 'advertising' is a fair characterisation. That's without even addressing a ton of loaded word choices/descriptions.

[ 19. June 2013, 17:27: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The reported spat in the Big Brother house between a couple of D-list wannabes has its roots in the basic premise of "getting noticed". That applies to the show and the housemates. I'm amazed the American edition doesn't encourage housemates to carry a gun.

The links to the Daily Star appear to show that the Daily Mail isn't so bad after all. The Mail has a long history of mendacioty, malice and deliberate misreporting, but little outright evil.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Glad to say I'd never heard of it before. Having read the link, however, I'd say it's all about the speaker's sexual preferences and not racism except where she said "You'd probably not go for a black guy." Even that isn't very problematic.

From Wikipedia:*

quote:
Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior.

Bold mine.
Hate is not necessary. You serve not people well when you judge them by that which they cannot control and not by that which they can. How they appear vs. who they are.
Sexual preference is not some magical, uncontrolled beast living within our loins, it is part of our mental makeup. It is informed by our experiences.

*But this is similar to the first definition listed in the other references I checked.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Is this the third 'you can't choose who you're attracted to' discussion we had in, what... two months? I remember lilBuddha bringing up this Wikipedia definition before. I think the word 'desirable' should be specified more in it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I bring it up because it is the definition. Whether a "benign" racism is as bad as hateful racism is another issue.
Control is a loaded word here, methinks. I think we can modify our behaviour. Whether we should is also another issue.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I don't think it is worth getting involved with any discussion of things that happen on a puerile programme such as Big Brother.I reckon the object of the show is to shock and embarrass and it looks like they have achieved their aim.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Is this the third 'you can't choose who you're attracted to' discussion we had in, what... two months?

Yes, I'm having trouble responding without bringing up dead horse topics as that would usually be my answer...

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I can't give a link sadly enough because, all my searches are giving me irrelevant stuff like scientific definition of pedophilia--because of the age component of the search--but I have read scientific articles saying that who one is sexually attracted to is in large part based on what kind of people one saw while one was 3-8 or something like that. That's one reason kids often pick people a bit like their parents--they saw a lot of their parents while young. So no, she may well not be able to say who she is attracted to.

[ 20. June 2013, 01:52: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Couldn't a flying you know what about Jemima Slade offending Gina Rio.

But, omfg!!11!!!. What about that rack on Katie Price?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Gwai,

I would love to read the study you are speaking of. The design parameters alone would be very interesting. I do not buy the premise without proof as I think it very difficult to do such a study. And it seems to contradict some research I have read.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

So what is the qualitative difference between someone having a thing for blondes and someone having thing for Asians?

Or someone only being attracted to men and someone only being attracted to black people?

I'm trying to grok why being primarily or even solely attracted to one sex isn't sexism but being attracted to one race is racism?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Sexism is not about sexual attraction.
Colour is not an intrinsic sexual characteristic.

Any preference for a characteristic in isolation is, by definition, prejudice. Pre Judge.
Whether this is good, bad or indifferent needs more context.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Colour is not an intrinsic sexual characteristic.

What are intrinsic sexual characteristics, and who gets to decide?

For me prejudice implies a conscious decision - a judgement is a choice. Do you think we have a choice as to the type of people we find sexually attractive?

A prejudice to me would be "I'm never going to find any white people attractive". Same as "I'm never going to find any man attractive". Coupled with denial if and when you do after all. Or some kind of judgement that someone's suitability as a partner has anything to do with their skin colour (or whichever other attribute you arbitrarily choose).

However, saying "I tend to find darker/lighter skin more attractive" seems to be just a recognition of taste, like "I am attracted to taller women", or men with freckles, or women older than me, or any other physical attribute.

I'm very happy for you to show me that I'm missing something somwhere, but it just seems strange that there is one rule for skin colour and a different rule for absolutely every other physical attribute.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Same here; I read it as no different from, say, saying I don't find redheads or women with curly hair attractive.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
seekingsister, I am interested in what you are saying. I completely see why that would be hurtful/offensive. I think for me the difference is that I see who one is attracted to as not a choice. Certainly shaped by society, so certainly affected by society's racism, but not something one can decide. So I would blame the woman for saying such things to be broadcast maybe--though that means the whole show, as far as I'm concerned--but I wouldn't blame her for not being attracted to men of a particular racial group. Mind, it might well be a symptom of racism, but I don't know her, so I wouldn't know that. On the other hand, my experience isn't very broadly relevant here, so I am open to correction.

What is black though? Does Beyoncé look anything like Michelle Obama? Does Mo Farah look like Will Smith? There is a huge range of black appearance - skin tone, hair texture, facial features, body type.

I don't think people can overcome the racist conditioning they have grown up with without significant effort. What people should know is that saying something like that to a black person is rude at the bare minimum. And like I said, because of the experiences any black adult will have had, being told we are ugly or less appealing for our entire lives, it is very offensive and hurtful.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What people should know is that saying something like that to a black person is rude at the bare minimum. And like I said, because of the experiences any black adult will have had, being told we are ugly or less appealing for our entire lives, it is very offensive and hurtful.

Well of course. But that goes for anyone. I can't imagine I'd ever go up to someone and tell them I don't find them physically attractive and give them a reason why. That seems bizarre. At the very most, if someone made an advance and I didn't fancy them (for whatever reason), I'd politely decline, perhaps with a non-specific general reason (though there's a plot line in Extras where that approach gets Maggie in hot water).

The context of sitting around discussing what different people find attractive is a bit different, but again, usual standards of decency and sensitivity should apply - and that's probably where the woman from Big Brother overstepped the mark. But yeah, that's just rudeness, not racism. Same as if there was a red-haired person there and she was brazenly stating that she found gingers really unattractive, making that person feel uncomfortable. And she should have been aware that it wasn't just the people in the Big Brother house, but thousands (tens? who actually watches BB nowadays?) of viewers that she was being rude to.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Couldn't give a flying you know what about Jemima Slade offending Gina Rio.

But, omfg!!11!!!. What about that rack on Katie Price?

I suppose that was too arch for this earnest thread.

What I meant to say was, How ironic that a thread discussing the objectification of women based on perceived racial differences should be spurred by a web site at least partially dedicated to the objectification of women using photographs of cleavage rivaling the Marianas Trench.

Again, I gotta say, OMG! Look at the tits on Katie Price! And, Imogen, too!

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gwai,

I would love to read the study you are speaking of. The design parameters alone would be very interesting. I do not buy the premise without proof as I think it very difficult to do such a study. And it seems to contradict some research I have read.

I will try to figure out how to search. I stopped pretty promptly last night when I started getting stuff about pedophilia, you can imagine!

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
seekingsister, I am interested in what you are saying. I completely see why that would be hurtful/offensive. I think for me the difference is that I see who one is attracted to as not a choice. Certainly shaped by society, so certainly affected by society's racism, but not something one can decide. So I would blame the woman for saying such things to be broadcast maybe--though that means the whole show, as far as I'm concerned--but I wouldn't blame her for not being attracted to men of a particular racial group. Mind, it might well be a symptom of racism, but I don't know her, so I wouldn't know that. On the other hand, my experience isn't very broadly relevant here, so I am open to correction.
What is black though? Does Beyoncé look anything like Michelle Obama? Does Mo Farah look like Will Smith? There is a huge range of black appearance - skin tone, hair texture, facial features, body type.

Very fair point. I'm not saying people are inclined though to merely like whatever color they saw most though. I mean in the details. As in, if everyone who was around you when you were young walked like a military person (say because you lived on a military base) you'd be a bit more likely to marry a person in the military than the rest of us. I sincerely doubt there's a gene for military, of course, but if one associates that sort of walk etc. with interesting appealing and manly (I will presume a person attracted to men since both the women mentioned in the OP seem to be straight.) If it's racist to say one isn't particularly attracted to people of one color or another* is it equally offensive that many women are only attracted to men taller than they or that some women definitely go for military men? Militarism is chosen, but height is no more a choice than race.

*And this does not actually describe my feelings, so I cannot simply be described as trying to excuse my own racism. But I went through those years in New York, New York where I would have seen all sorts of people looking every way possible.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
A prejudice to me would be "I'm never going to find any white people attractive". Same as "I'm never going to find any man attractive". Coupled with denial if and when you do after all. Or some kind of judgement that someone's suitability as a partner has anything to do with their skin colour (or whichever other attribute you arbitrarily choose).

I would rather say that prejudice is when someone says that they would think less of anyone who finds white/black/left-handed people attractive. When it ceases to be solely a judgement of personal taste and becomes a judgement about other people's taste.
(Goperryrevs makes a good point about rudeness.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Colour is not an intrinsic sexual characteristic.
What are intrinsic sexual characteristics, and who gets to decide?

"Intrinsic - belonging to a thing by its very nature"
The core of what defines someone's gender is what is intrinsic to sexuality.
There are many things which can serve to attract one person to another, but they are not part of the essential sexual attraction. If I prefer left-handed, Transylvanian stamp collectors who sing opera seria in Klingon it might be learned, it might be innate; but it isn't intrinsic.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

For me prejudice implies a conscious decision - a judgement is a choice.

This is how it should work. However, practically speaking, a significant fraction of humanity does not seem to examine their motivations. Actually, pre judging is kind of suspending decision.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

Do you think we have a choice as to the type of people we find sexually attractive?

I do not see this as an either/or issue. There may be innate attractors for people and/or, as Gwai suggests, early learned ones. But I have observed the changeability of what attracts, as well. I've a friend who is attracted to typical members of whatever sub-culture she currently is involved with. As she changes interests, so to do her attractions. She is but one example.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
A prejudice to me would be "I'm never going to find any white people attractive".

Pretty much what she said. But about black people.

Here is a sticking point for some, I think. I am not making a value judgement for every form of preference.
It is not inherently good or bad to have an attraction preference towards, or against, red-heads. It is making a judgement beforehand.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Not really IME: either you physically like something/ someone or you don't. If the 'chemistry' ain't there, you're not going to be physically attracted to someone. End of. There's no 'judgement' involved, it just is. It doesn't mean you can't like them in all other respects, just that you don't want to snog or shag them.

[ 20. June 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I bring it up because it is the definition.

No, it is a definition. If one reads the very same Wikipedia article further than you quote, one finds the following comment: "Some definitions would have it that any assumption that a person's behavior would be influenced by their racial categorization is racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative. Other definitions only include consciously malignant forms of discrimination." In my opinion, only the latter kind of definitions are useful, given that the word "racism" has very strong negative connotations in everyday use. And if one reads still the same article further, one happens upon the following definition from the UN:

quote:
The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Getting shagged by Jemima Slade is not a fundamental freedom of public life. Hence no racial discrimination occurred here. What did occur is that Ms Slade decided what sort of people she wants to shag. And that is very much entirely up to her, even if she feels regrettably compelled to tell us about it.

[ 20. June 2013, 15:26: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I would say it is the definition from which various interpretations derive.
Racist/not racist isn't a two-position switch, but rather a variable ratio. The UN definition is irrelevant, a rule making body will have practical enforcement guidelines rather than absolute definitions.
Don't care who Ms. Slade prefers to shag, just addressing the type of comment she made. And IMO, without any other context, it is.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

In what way is it morally different though from her saying she could never shag a redhead?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Didn't say it was.
There is historical baggage that accompanies black vs. redhead, but both are still prejudice.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

But what's wrong with finding certain physical 'types' attractive and others not? We all do it if we're honest...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Once again, I am making no blanket moral judgement on attraction.
It seems to be a position that we are equipped with magic trouser monkeys which randomly choose what to fixate on.
I think there are definite mechanisms, controlled and/or not, which determine this. Trying to understand them is not inherently judging them.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
In what way is it morally different though from her saying she could never shag a redhead?

It is exactly the same.

Now, black people have historically faced, and still face, much more discrimination than gingers, so there's a lot more sensitivity about comments about black people than there is about comments about redheads.

And yes, if I don't find the facial features that usually come with an African genetic heritage attractive, I am by construction discriminating on racial grounds, but that's not what we usually mean when we say "racist".

It is no more "racist" to not be attracted to black people, white people, Japanese people or whatever than it is homophobic to not be attracted to people of the same sex.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Exactly my point

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Once again, I am making no blanket moral judgement on attraction.

You are if you start calling it racist.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No.
blanket adj. 1. Applying to or covering all conditions or instances

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Are you, or are you not, saying that someone who (as LC put it) happens not to find the facial features that usually come with an African genetic heritage attractive is a racist?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
A prejudice to me would be "I'm never going to find any white people attractive".
Pretty much what she said. But about black people.

Well, no. She said "I wouldn’t generally go for a black guy." She repeatedly used the word "generally". Generally is very different to always/never. She was stating her general preferences, which also included "I’d generally go out with someone in their 30s".

The thing that she said that I found offensive was when challenged by Gina saying "You probably wouldn't go for a white guy." Making assumptions about someone else's tastes is totally wrong.

Buy as for her initial comments, for me there was nothing too them. She was stating a general preference, and never said anything about that being a rule for all time.

Can you not see the difference between "I generally prefer blondes" and "I will never be attracted to someone who isn't blonde"?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are you, or are you not, saying that someone who (as LC put it) happens not to find the facial features that usually come with an African genetic heritage attractive is a racist?

What facial characteristics are you speaking of, these or these?

We will group by those things we think are similar, this seems to be part if our makeup. It is one reason why cities like London and New York are not homogenous. Colour is an obvious cue.

I am not saying one should be attracted to everyone. Or that it is bad to have preferences.

[ 21. June 2013, 14:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

seekingsister:

quote:
What is black though? Does Beyoncé look anything like Michelle Obama? Does Mo Farah look like Will Smith? There is a huge range of black appearance - skin tone, hair texture, facial features, body type.

I think this is why saying 'I don't find black people attractive' is problematic. Someone who makes a statement like this could just be expressing an aesthetic preference (in the same way as someone might say 'I don't find brunettes attractive'); but they could also be expressing prejudice against Nasty Foreigners. Saying that to someone who is black is rude; saying it to someone who is also British is outrageously rude. Even if you can't help feeling that way, you CAN avoid hurting other people's feelings by keeping your opinions to yourself.

I think having a shopping list of what you want a potential mate to look like is pretty offensive anyway. But what do I know; if I have a preference it's for intelligent men with a sense of humour, so I'm not that bothered about what they look like...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not saying one should be attracted to everyone. Or that it is bad to have preferences.

Even if one of those preferences happens to be for (or against) a specific skin tone?

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not saying one should be attracted to everyone. Or that it is bad to have preferences.
Even if one of those preferences happens to be for (or against) a specific skin tone?

At the end of the day skin tone is a feature, and since we can define our preferences in terms of other features, then why not this one? ie. "I generally don't go for women taller than me" (sizist?), "I generally don't go for women older than me" (ageist?), "I generally don't go for skinny women" (body fascist?)

I'm glad we can put everyone into boxes and diagnose their particular version of the human condition.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not saying one should be attracted to everyone. Or that it is bad to have preferences.
Even if one of those preferences happens to be for (or against) a specific skin tone?

Not in and of itself.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

As I understand it, people are to some extent programmed to some extent to be attracted to people who look like the people they grew up around (but who are not the people they grow up around - so you don't fancy your brother). This holds when people grow up in a country where their ethnicity is underrepresented - they'll tend to fancy the people who are in the majority. So to some extent you might be saying "I'm primed to fancy white people because they are the majority in the country where I grew up."

But in reality there's a whole shitstorm of weirdness when it comes to race and sexuality, and that's what makes it such a fraught subject. Ethnicities get fetishised or devalued or people get pressurised to look more white than they naturally do. There's the perception of social value in a mate - how will your peers judge you on the basis of the person you're dating? Is s/he young enough, thin enough, rich enough, light skinned enough? And how much of those preferences are impacted by the cultural whammy of what is seen as desirable? Do people think that white people are inherently more sexually attractive than black people? I certainly don't think so, and yet when you look at (for instance) movie stars, there are few black women among them, and the ones who do succeed in Hollywood tend to be light skinned, with relaxed hair and typically caucasian features. They often look more like tanned white women than a they do like typical black women. Why is this?

So yes, at the individual level, people like what they like and the human libido responds to what it wants to respond to, and we don't have a lot of control over it so there isn't much point in feeling guilty. But I'm loathe to say that that's all there is to it. It's a tangled mess of societal prejudice, of a grim history in which white men often considered brown women to be acceptable as a mistress but not a wife, where PoC have been simultaneously called ugly and hypersexualised. It's all then jumbled up and filtered into the basest instincts of people trying to figure out who they want to bone. So a simple "I don't fancy black people" only scratches the surface, and if it makes people uncomfortable I don't blame them for feeling that way.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0