Trackbacks & Pings

1. Trip to “Guyland” « What If on 27 Aug 2008 at 2:01 pm

   […] more on “guys”, Racialicious takes on Judd […]

2. Wildflower » (Waaaay off topic) The Art of White Masculinity on 30 Aug 2008 at 8:54 pm

   […] Judd Apatow and the Art of White Masculinity « Watching the World: The Russian Bear Growls Over Poland Comment on Hooterville hinterland » […]

Comments

1. KXB wrote:

   Sorry - but there is nothing here. Leave aside Apatow. Most leading men are still white - George Clooney, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, Russell Crowe. These men also have the option of venturing from action to drama to romance to comedy. Wil Smith is a bona fide box office star - but in every movie, he is still Wil Smith. Denzel Washington is a fine actor - but he has played exactly 2 villians in his career, in “A Soldier’s Story” and “Training Day”

   Apatow’s focus is not so much on the broad category of white men, but more specifically on Jewish men. Even Jon Stewart joked on the Daily Show that Apatow has made a nice little business showing Jewish adult men behaving like boys, who somehow get lovely women that make them grow up - 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

   And for Jewish male actors, comedy is one area that studios seem OK with them in the lead role. Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler are solid box office in comedies, but when they venture to more serious fare, they have less success, although I did enjoy Punch Drunk Love. Plus, I can’t think of a “serious” romance that had a Jewish actor recently, and they are completely absent from action films.

   Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 9:24 am ¶

2. KXB wrote:

   Ooops - I forgot Washington’s performance in American Gangster - so 3 villians.

   Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

3. Pheagan wrote:

   Interesting… You’re really right on about the fact that the characters in these movies do seem to self-select for whiteness and maleness. I’m really bothered by the fact that his films are almost always set in LA and so rarely show people of color… considering it’s a white minority town. Remember how Knocked Up ends with the jokes about the Bloods and the Crips? I was like, yeah, I guess that’s how black registers with these guys, and by extension Apatow. I do question this, though: “I do think his films rely on homosociality to demonstrate the ways in which white masculinity has been ‘wounded’ by the feminist, gay, and civil rights movements.” I’m not sure I disagree, but I question it. I’ve always got the picture from his movies that the homosociality thing was a positive. I actually kind of liked that that was there; I like men opening themselves up to that sort of thing. And also, considering how many cultures have a perfectly acceptable homosociality (boys holding hands and kissing each other is quite normal in many places), I wonder if Judd Apatow was kind of picking up on this evolving trend in white male culture, where the fear of appearing homosexual was disappearing. And I think it’s a good thing, you know, men expressing their affection for each other openly.

   Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 9:33 am ¶

4. Amanda wrote:

   I do think that many white men share a fear of being “left out” of an evolving power structure and a sense of guilt that they find it hard to admit to because that would require accepting blame. But it’s hard for me to feel sympathy for them because it is wrong that they should have such dominance in the first place.

   I have a hard time fully connecting with white men because I can’t help but think that they can’t possibly understand or “get it”. And then I think of how my attitude towards them is actually dehumanizing and I feel terrible…yet I can’t help but feel this wall between us and I don’t know what can be done about it!

   Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 9:36 am ¶

5. Virginia wrote:

   “I do think his films rely on homosociality to demonstrate the ways in which white masculinity has been ‘wounded’ by the feminist, gay, and civil rights movements.”

   I interpreted it the opposite way - that so many things play the “poor straight white man” card of having lost his place in the world and having to reassert it in the most dominating way possible - whereas these movies (though I haven’t seen them all) say “we’re guys, we’re friends, and we’re cool with that” They’re comfortable bumming around instead of trying to prove something all the time and they show the audience (or the supposedly wounded white male section of it at least) that they don’t have to constantly try to prove themselves by acting like action hero dicks.

   Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 10:07 am ¶

6. Matt wrote:

   Interesting, but I think this would be a lot better recognizing the role of Jewishness in these films.
   

   Apatow’s characters exist in a universe that is almost completely male and almost completely white

   Remember in Knocked Up where they’re at the club talking about the film Munich? Ben Stone (Rogen) says, “If any of us get laid tonight, it’s because of Eric Bana in “Munich.” In the quote you use, Kasdan uses the Yiddish word schlub appropriately. Rather than almost entirely white, many of these films are almost entirely Jewish.

   Assimilated Jewishness is an ambivalent, ambiguous (even postmodern) white/not-white mess. I think that’s what Apatow’s films speak to more than the loss of male privilege.

   Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 10:51 am ¶

7. Chaia wrote:

   Matt, THANK YOU. Apatow’s movies are portrayals of Ashkenazi Jewish men, who have long taken hits on their masculinity and been accused of being soft, impotent, incapable, dominated by ball-bustery Ashkenazi Jewish women, etc. An ambivalent, ambiguous white/not-white mess indeed.

   Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 11:08 am ¶

8. drispe wrote:

   Excellent point about Mad Men. The quality of that show can’t be the only reason why it does so well. It brings back a time when white guys didn’t have to think about their privilege.

   Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 11:22 am ¶

9. Antonio wrote:

   I’ve always thought of these “homosocial” (that’s a new term for me) moments as a way of exploring the insecurities of heterosexual men and the boundaries of what’s “male bonding” and what’s “borderline gay”. It’s another way of “pushing the envelope” now that gay male relationships are less taboo than they once were.

   Here in NC I’ve noticed that the audience mostly squirms in their seats during those parts. Even I, a gay black man, don’t find them particularly funny (I’m thinking of the aforementioned part of Superbad and the full-on makeout in Talladega Nights when I say this).

   Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 11:28 am ¶

10. Phrone wrote:

    From what people here have been saying, it seems like the movies Judd Apatow made with Will Ferrell (Anchorman, Talladega Nights) deal more with ‘anxious masculinity’ or a threat to the old-boys club (with a female news anchor and a more effeminite driver, right?), while in his other movies (at least Knocked Up) also reflect a lot on what it is to be Jewish, or at least, an assimilated Jewish identity.

    But, to be honest, I’ve only seen Anchorman out of the list. The movies have never appealed to me. I saw the poster for Knocked Up and went ‘Wow, it’s going to be another movie in which a ridiculiously attractive woman is inexplicably attracted to a man who is deliberately shown to be unattractive.’ There was a discussion on Jezebel about this from that angle, where a lot of people said ‘Well, it’s not really fair to judge Rogen based on that or hold him to a higher standard — that’s not a desirable kind of equality.’ I do think conventional standards of beauty need to be questioned, broadened, whatever — it just always infuriates me that these standards are always being questioned for men, never for women. (Also, I get the sneaking suspicion that if there was a movie as female-oriented as Apatow’s films are male-oriented, men wouldn’t have to explain why they wouldn’t be interested in seeing it. It’d be assumed.)

    Even if the films are bemoaning the supposed loss of male privelege, they definitely benefit from it at the same time.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 11:33 am ¶

11. Mary wrote:

    Apatow’s focus is not so much on the broad category of white men, but more specifically on Jewish men.

    Not that I disagree, but does this apply to the characters Will Ferrell typically plays in these movies? My first instinct is to say “No,” because Ferrell seems to be set on gleefully puncturing variations of the bombastic, puffed-up, “alpha” white man. Ron Burgundy and Ricky Bobby get their comeuppance from a woman and a gay Frenchman respectively, and both movies seem to indicate that it’s richly-deserved. The Ferrell character’s high self-opinion is usually stemming from a place of extreme delusion. To the degree that anybody has dignity in a Will Ferrell movie, I think Christina Applegate and Sascha Baron Cohen’s characters were accorded that. (I haven’t seen Step Brothers.)

    Not to give Ferrell movies a complete pass or suggest they’re the most amazing progressive steps forward, but I find aspects of them somewhat refreshing.

    Speaking of Will Ferrell and homosociality, surely [i]Blades of Glory[/i] deserves a mention (for better or worse) (and admittedly not an Apatow piece, so perhaps off-topic).

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 11:45 am ¶

12. Broom wrote:

    More comments to come on the White Bro pandemic, but one thing I noticed in Pineapple Express which disrupted the otherwise positive male bonding space (homosocialiaty) was Craig Robinson’s character Matheson. His character was probably gay (he calls James Franco sexy) and offered a less acceptable form of male affection. Obviously he was a bad guy henchman in the film, which excluded him from the male pact of the films protagonists, but his interracial relationship with his heterosexual partner was entirely dysfunctional(Robinsons character kills his partner at the end for going soft). What is the significance then, that one of the few poc in the film who happens to be homosexual does not get to share in the harmonious male bonding experienced by the films white hetero protagonists.

    I also found the sight gag interesting (and pretty funny) when Robinson’s character plunges his hands into the dinner, but I found myself asking if the joke would have worked as well if Kevin Corrigan, the white hit man, would have been penetrating the food. Something about the tightly organized suburban dinner table being ruined by unwanted people of color alarmed me here. I don’t know…

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 11:52 am ¶

13. j wrote:

    I’ve heard several interviews of Apatow and Seth Rogan on NPR and both talk extensively about their Jewish upbringings and - less directly - about Jewish masculinity. I think it would be worthwhile to reassess Apatow’s film in light of white *Jewish* masculinity, as other comments have pointed out. I also wonder if Apatow is questioning the role of Jewish masculinity (via homosociality) in a world where the hypermasculinity of the white boys club (ala Mad Men) is still present but less acceptable.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 11:52 am ¶

14. Brian wrote:

    I thought his films take place in San Diego, not LA, a much whiter city? I could be wrong.

    Generally, I am wholly onboard with most of the posts on this site, but I have to disagree with this one. By embracing the homosociality, something that films like this have made more okay for many people, Apatow is taking a step in the right direction. By showing male characters who are not afraid to love each other and do not feel that it is equating it to homosexuality, Apatow is tearing down homophobia. I think it is a stretch to say that these movies are in some way promoting a “woe is me” white agenda. A very interesting, thoughtful analysis, but I think it is trying to find a problem where, in actuality, great progress exists. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but that is my two cents.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 11:54 am ¶

15. Cedar wrote:

    There’s something about the emphasis on “guy”ness that bugs me about Apatow’s movies and the general public persona he has. Look at the poster for Pineapple Express–”From the guys who brought you. . . ” It’s as if he’s insisting, “I’m not a man! Don’t confuse me with those racist, sexist, powerful white men. I’m just a guy!”

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 12:15 pm ¶

16. Fatemeh wrote:

    I agree with Matt and Chaia about the Jewishness, and everyone else about the white male privilege. Great comments! I’m always really iffy about Apatow movies; I liked Anchorman and Blades of Glory (was that him?), but all of the more current ones I’ve found to be over-the-top misogynist and white.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 12:19 pm ¶

17. Jane wrote:

    I was with this article until this part:
    “People of color, women and gays (particularly white gay men) have more visibility, if not power, in contemporary society – the question that Apatow’s character are trying to work out is ‘where does this leave me?’”

    I would argue that they have more perceived visibility than actual visibility/power in contemporary society. I’d definitely say that the numerous articles and news reports that men are supposedly falling behind women, that affirmative action makes it more difficult for the average white kid to get into college, etc. teach young white straight men to have this perpetual sense of being disadvantaged.

    I think a lot of young white men get a (false) message that such and such big social movement has stripped them of their power/masculinity/whatever, and consequently, that there isn’t really a concrete place for them. But honestly, I don’t think anyone can really argue that that’s the case. For example, if you look in any large lecture hall on a big-name University campus, how many people of color are you going to find? Are there going to be as many people of color in that class as there are young white men? If you look at who makes up the bulk of the student body in a traditionally male discipline like engineering, are you really going to find all that many women?

    This is not to say that changes haven’t been made, that people of color don’t go to big name universities, or that women don’t take engineering classes—but it is to say that white men still dominate these and other spaces, and oftentimes their attitudes make these spaces hostile for people of color and women. It’s for this reason that I am inherently skeptical whenever someone says that people of color and women have more “visibility” in today’s society than men.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 12:40 pm ¶

18. thew wrote:

    I agree with the comments that interpret Apatow’s homosociality as less a wounded response to advancing minorities and more like opening up male affection and embracing the homosexual undertones of past male buddy-flicks.

    With every new movie I hope the Apatow team will start celebrating the female everywoman in the same way they celebrate the male schlub.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 1:03 pm ¶

19. Thea Lim wrote:

    I agree with what Virginia said - I think that Apatow’s films imply that advances for women and queer rights has also led to advances for men. I think Apatow is pushing for a world where it’s more acceptable for men to be openly loving towards each other, and criticises a society where men aren’t allowed to hug.

    Like in that scene in Superbad, where Seth and Evan tell each other they love each other, and then ask why they don’t say it all the time.

    At the same time I have to wonder whether or not Apatow is intentionally criticising how patriarchal (or kyriarchal!) society stunts men’s emotional growth. While his films do imply that, they also celebrate a wholly white (Jewish) straight middle class male centric universe.

    It’s the fact that his movies are still really hateful in a lot of ways that makes me think his films come across as more progressive than he actually is. For eg
    - in Superbad (and all his movies) for the most part his male characters do not have to be physically attractive for the audience to buy that they are desirable. His female characters on the other hand have to be Hollywood hotties.
    - The representations of people of colour in Pineapple Express are dismal. There are a few (two I think) black characters who make complete fools of themselves. The movie starts with a shot of gay Latino men, because what’s funnier than flamboyant Latinos?
    - His worst movies (like the 40 year old Virgin - even though I accept that I seem to be one of the few people on the planet who totally hated that movie - & Knocked Up) are grossly, almost self-satisfied-ly misogynist.

    I think what irritates me the most about Apatow’s movies is that he and his fans seem to think that he himself is quite progressive. I do like the portrayal of male friendship in his films. But I feel as if that arguably progressive aspect of his films is used to excuse all the sexism, racism and homophobia. I feel as if you’re not really allowed to criticise Apatow’s poor politics because he has good politics in one area.

    There’s a perception that any diversion from what a MAN is supposed to be, is progressive. So men who cry, or emo music, is supposed to be progressive - it’s making dents in masculine culture.

    But all that Apatow movies, or emo music or Kevin Smith movies (who I hate a gazillion times more than Apatow) do is center (straight, white) men’s feelings and men’s relationships. Everything still revolves around men, even if it is revolving around them loving each other or being un-macho.

    I admit to watching, being fascinated, and sometimes even - choke - liking Apatow’s films. (I actually really enjoyed Pineapple Express…) But in my books he does more to keep the status quo intact than he does to upend it.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 1:41 pm ¶

20. em wrote:

    @jane: i agree that unfortunately, the visibility and power of marginalized peoples is more perceived than actual. but i would also argue that perceptions are what guide us in constructing identity.

    in general with regard to these posts, i think that’s what apatow’s films highlight: picking up the pieces of white maleness and fashioning an identity or way of belonging. the white jewish thing is one that i haven’t thought about as much, and it sounds like it deserves some further prodding. regardless of a history of privilege, i appreciate it when white guys recognize it and then embark on the process of carving out their own sense of self or identity.

    another great media representation of the “bromance” is boston legal. now i know that there is probably more than enough fodder for racialicous commentary on that show, but my favorite part of that show is the bromance between james spader and william shatner.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 2:03 pm ¶

21. gatamala wrote:

    another great discussion on Apatow & Rogen!!

    Think of AMC’s critically acclaimed TV show Mad Men, I think it is no coincidence that a show that literally portrays that “old boys club” has generated so much attention and ratings.

    Mad Men popped into my head as soon as I ended the previous paragraph!

    Matt, you really brought some food for thought. Even though I tend to agree with opinions like Thea’s (as an example), I’ll pay closer attention to the Jewish aspect of his films. I’m very torn on Apatow. Anchorman and Taladega killed me, but I can’t deal with the other films where he gets to hate on the “hot” chick (only one example).

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 2:04 pm ¶

22. Mike wrote:

    [I’m going to say something unusually fluffy. I’ll try to get it out before cynicism and gender identity sets in…]

    Sympathy and empathy are emotional muscles that need exercise to remain fit. I am hopeful that if we can teach men to empathize with other men in their (self-chosen) tribe, then maybe we will be better prepared to sympathize with those outside of our tribe.

    [Did I just say that? I’m such a buster.]

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 2:09 pm ¶

23. em wrote:

    mike, really well said.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶

24. Marisol LeBron wrote:

    Hey all,

    Thank you for bring up the excellent points about Jewish masculinity. Thinking back on Apatow’s films i think you can definitely see a line demarcated between Seth Rogen’s brand of masculinity in Knocked Up and Will Farrells in Talledega Nights and Anchorman. Thanks for bringing those points up, I think that adds a whole level of complexity to his representations of masculinity than what I had given space to in this post.

    I thank you for your comments and making me aware of some of the holes in my post.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 3:02 pm ¶

25. Matt wrote:

    in Superbad (and all his movies) for the most part his male characters do not have to be physically attractive for the audience to buy that they are desirable. His female characters on the other hand have to be Hollywood hotties.

    That’s a common trend in media, going back at least to The Honeymooners. But - not to deny the effect this has on women - people ignore that the schlub and hottie pairing is as determined by class and ethnic issues and stereotypes as by gender issues. The Honeymooners aired long before TVs got cheap enough for any actual bus drivers to watch it, so Ralph Kramden is a very middle class stereotype of a working class guy.

    There’s Something About Mary is a great example. That something is her whiteness. If you replaced Stiller in that film with Brad Pitt, then he wouldn’t be (ambiguously) Jewish. And he wouldn’t resonate at all with the self-image of Jewish men, who have seriously internalized the stereotype that Jews are not masculine. Also, consider the stereotype that Jewish women aren’t attractive at play in the Jew/shiksa pairing. (Watch for hair color. Often, blonde=white, brunette=ethnic.) Jewish women get told that they’re inferior to non-Jewish women, but at the same time Jewish men get the message that we’re not good enough for non-Jewish women.

    (Btw, the Jewish ideal for masculinity isn’t the same as the Hollywood ideal. In fact, I get the impression Jewish women are considerably more likely to find Seth Rogen attractive than non-Jewish women.)

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 3:46 pm ¶

26. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Matt

    I appreciate what you’re saying. Two things:

    1) if you replaced Stiller with Pitt, you’d have a very good looking man in Stiller’s place. What about if you replaced Stiller with an unattractive white Anglo man, like Kevin James of King of Queens fame (another show that pairs a physically unattractive man with an attractive woman)?

    2) I can’t remember There’s Something About Mary but in the Pineapple Express Rogen’s ethnic background is not part of the plot. I don’t remember it ever being mentioned. Ie his Jewishness is not visible. Does the politics of Jewish male identity then still apply?

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 3:58 pm ¶

27. em wrote:

    @ matt: i’m not sure what you mean when you say that jewish women are thought to be unattractive. natalie portman, for one, is thought quite attractive, and she’s definitely of semitic heritage. i could understand that comment being valid maybe 30 years ago or so, but not so much now.

    i guess i’m also just unaware that jewish men are thought to not be masculine. i’ll have to look into that some more. maybe i’ve just always based what the norm should be on my own preferences, which are usually for guys who aren’t super masculine.

    and i’m not jewish, neither are a lot of my girlfriends, and we’re all appreciative of seth rogen. so i’m not sure what your “impression” was based on…

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 5:16 pm ¶

28. Joseph wrote:

    I also think Matt makes an excellent point re: the ambivalent whiteness of Jewish men, in Apatow’s movies and in general. At the very least that dynamic complicates the notion of Apatow’s “heroes” being thought of as white guys (Although it true that Will Ferrel is the exception here). Maybe a good parallel would be Harold and Kumar which played with and against emasculating ethnic stereotypes?

    Even though I am down with warm, realistic portrayals of male friendship (Don’t know about any of the other guys on the list but I don’t see myself or any of my friends in the repressed, backslapping, portrayals you usually see) but…if all of this on screen bonding is done at the expense of female characters then how far ahead can we really count ourselves? Apatow might be tweaking stereotypes of Jewish men in an interesting way in his films but the lack of Jewish female characters in his work gives me pause. Don’t these guys know any cool Jewish girls? Where the hell are they?

    Did anyone see Forgetting Sarah Marshall? Apatow didn’t direct it but he may have produced it…anyway I thought the most subversive thing about it was the inversion of that Woody Allen trajectory of “shlubby” Jewish guy escaping the specter of a harping Jewish woman by falling into the arms of an idealized shiksa goddess. In “Sarah” the hero, who has already won the shiksa goddess is dumped by her and recovers his bearings by starting a sweet, gentle romance with a ridiculously adorable Jewish girl (Mila Kunis).

    I’m not arguing that Jewish/”ethnic” men should always be portrayed with Jewish/”ethnic” women or anything silly like that. I’m just pointing out that a) Jewish/”ethnic” women are rarely portrayed at all unless they are nagging shrews and b) if the net effect of “homosocial” male bonding is the disappearance of women from the screen is it really much better than say, bullshit macho action stuff?

    In either case women are relegated to something to be won/rescued/escaped.

    I dunno.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 5:17 pm ¶

29. Winn wrote:

    @ Thea Lim

    Ok, somewhat OT and I am probably about to embarrass myself but…I happen to find Kevin James attractive, and I know I am not the only one. Unlike for women, for which a sexist view renders overweight women unattractive and sexually unappealing, men often have more flexibility to carry a few extra pounds or be out of shape and still be considered attractive. It is both unfair and also incorrect, but nevertheless, someone being overweight does not, in my eyes, make that person unattractive. I don’t think The King of Queens presented James’ character as unattractive either, and got away from that annoying “Look-at-how-lucky-I-am-to-have-such-a-hot-wife” dynamic as the show evolved. I find that as troubling in its own way as the denial of sex appeal and sexuality of overweight women. James character in “Hitch” also tackles this annoying Hollywood trope and the charm of his performance renders it as ridiculous as it should be.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 5:35 pm ¶

30. Colin A. B. wrote:

    Hold on, hold on, hold on. What’s “unattractive” about Kevin James?

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 5:50 pm ¶

31. jvansteppes wrote:

    To be honest I don’t think Apatow really has a coherent sense which masculinity he wants to present and I find that in Will Ferrell films he does nothing but dish out more of the same loud/jackass bullshit.
    His Jewish male characters, most of whom I’m guessing are crafted with Rogen, strike me as being more complex in parts though some of them still exemplify boring macho traits [that dick obsessed guy in Superbad was a bit much] and they are pretty contradictory. In the 40 year old Virgin there’s a scene at a sex ed group meeting where a sex crazed teenager is told by his father that he has a small penis and shouldn’t be sex crazed because he’s Jewish, which fits that whole self-deprecating thing that Jewish men are so often expected to conform to.
    I think there’s some potential in these movies of turning the idea that Jewish men aren’t masculine into a realization that Jewish men don’t need to conform to normative standards to feel confident about themselves as men.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 5:59 pm ¶

32. RainaWeather wrote:

    I agree with Brian and Thew. I don’t see his movies as white men trying to figure out where they stand in the world, but just as white guys saying, “I am where I am and I don’t care.” I know theses guys portrayed in the film, and as far as I can tell, their only concern is getting high.

    From Thea:
    “in Superbad (and all his movies) for the most part his male characters do not have to be physically attractive for the audience to buy that they are desirable. His female characters on the other hand have to be Hollywood hotties.”

    This actually reminds me of a conversation my sister and I had about the two girls in Superbad. Upon first seeing it, neither of us thought the lead girls that attractive and wondered why they were cast in the movie. My sister said, they are attractive, they just aren’t Hollywood attractive(like Katherine Heigel). They’re the kind of people you see in real life and most people aren’t used to seeing that in a movie. That made me feel like a hypocrite because I always complain that I want to see regular looking people.

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 6:01 pm ¶

33. JC wrote:

    As an Asian man, I found myself connecting to other Asians and minorities, man and women with little problem. I’ve also find myself good friend with white women as well. White men, however, I’ve always had problem really establishing any sort of meaningful relationship. Although they are the majority of my professional contacts, I can’t call any of them friends in the truest sense. I’m not sure if its my own innate, hidden racism (I doubt it since I get alone with white women just fine), or perhaps I just fine myself guarding against the perceived biases white males has against, well ,everyone else. I guess deep inside I got so tired of their dominance and self-importance that I’ve never really tried to befriend any of them. Maybe that’s why I watch very little Hollywood movie starring white men; it’s just so boring to me now days. I won’t be watching this movie for the same reason… why can’t we have more movies about anyone BUT white men?

    Posted 22 Aug 2008 at 6:12 pm ¶

34. al wrote:

    Thea Lim: i think his jewishness is as apparent as al pacino’s italianess (or any number of other italian-american actors). unless it was specified otherwise, his jewishness is part of his characters background.

    matt (and others): i think seth rogan is very attractive. i’m not jewish (i am white). i find it much less surprising that he would score with the girl from roswell than that john stamos would marry rebecca romajn, but the latter is the one that actually happened. the problem with media isn’t that men who are considered unattractive (or read that way) get hot girls too often, but that unattractive women are almost nowhere in the hollywood system.

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 12:18 am ¶

35. dnA wrote:

    I don’t think Apatow’s films say anything about sexuality that is specifically homosexual or homophobic, but I do think his films rely on homosociality to demonstrate the ways in which white masculinity has been “wounded” by the feminist, gay, and civil rights movements.

    This is ridiculous. The movies are about how masculine identity prevents men from being able to express friendship and intimacy without compromising their manhood. They’re not about how hard it is to be a white guy in a world of feminist women, people of color and gay people. They’re about how hard it is to be a man when what society says about manhood is total fiction. The films don’t in anyway reinforce notions of white masculinity, in fact they play on the characters inadequacy for laughs and to point out that those standards are bullshit.

    I mean here you literally have films obliterating myths about how men should relate to each other, and you’re criticizing as reactionary because the characters are white. And they’re not even that white! The movies actually have a very specific cultural outlook that instantly recognizable to other Jews.

    If you want to get mad at the lack of diversity in the casts, get mad. But these films aren’t saying “white masculinity ain’t what it used to be” they’re saying “white masculinity never was”.

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 10:57 am ¶

36. Matt wrote:

    Thea,

    If you were to replace Stiller with James, you’d also lose the Jewishness. What about Liev Schreiber? I think there you also lose a lot. Jews are allowed to be Jewish in different ways in different spheres. Comedians are allowed to be “Jewishy.” Liev Schreiber could get the girl, but he couldn’t be remotely Jewish while doing it. Juno is a film where the Jewish guy gets the girl, and I thought it was a giant step backwards that resurrected many of the worst stereotypes.

    But while Stiller can be overtly Jewishy, Jewishness can’t be overtly stated as part of the plot. (There are very occassional films about Orthodox Jews that treat them like you’d expect a film to treat the Amish. And I haven’t seen Sixty Six though I understand it has a rabbi refer to The Torah as “The Old Testament” - ack!)

    When I said Jewishness is about abiguity, that takes place in film and tv as well. Was Elaine from Seinfeld Jewish? Elaine has “shiksappeal”, but that’s no guarantee she’s not Jewish. Rachel from Friends? Monica was Jewish, but she was the least Jewishy character. Rachel came from Long Island, rich father, nose job - she’s a stereotypical JAP - but the only overt reference is that she objects to Phoebe’s song which has her spinning a dreidle.

    It’s about an ambiguous status. It’s dropped in, often very subtly. (No coincidence Robert Smigel did The Ambiguously Gay Duo.) It’s amazing Seth Rogen’s characters are as openly Jewish as they are and he still manages to get the girl.

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 12:44 pm ¶

37. Thea Lim wrote:

    Sorry this comment is long!

    @ Winn and Colin A.B.

    Apologies for not making myself clearer! I hope my comments didn’t come across as fat-phobic.

    I meant Kevin James would be considered CONVENTIONALLY (sorry for yelling I don’t know how to bold!) physically unattractive because he is tubby and rather a plain Jane. Definitely I understand that people will find him attractive nonetheless - b/c what we will often find people who would be conventionally considered unattractive, attractive, and b/c attraction (thank goodness) is about more than looks.

    But that’s part of the issue - a woman who looks the way James does would be much less likely to be considered attractive. James is considered attractive b/c he’s funny and charming. The funny, charmingness of a chubby woman (I argue) would be much more likely to be overlooked.

    It’s the same with Rogen - it’s not just about his physical characteristics, but that in every role I’ve seen him in he wears sloppy clothes and doesn’t shave. He’s still considered to be attractive - moreover by the logic of the film he is considered to be attractive ie the audience is supposed to agree that an 18 year old blonde bombshell would dig him - even though he clearly doesn’t put much work into grooming himself (in the conventional sense!).

    Many women who feel a lot of pressure to constantly have perfect hair, perfect skin, perfect clothes along with just natural conventional good looks to be worthy of love. It is a little infuriating, to see that propagated by the Apatow universe, where men can get by without ostensibly putting effort into their appearances.

    I found this dynamic in Forgetting Sarah Marshall more equitable b/c while the main actor was fairly average looking, he had a good job and was well-groomed.

    NOT that I’m saying I personally would find a man who didn’t gussy up or make lots of cash unattractive. Quite the opposite.

    I’m rather criticising the rule in Apatow’s films that men can be attractive as long as they are funny and charming, and their physical appearances are not as important; woman on the other hand have to be funny, charming, thin, pretty and well-groomed to be considered attractive (By the laws of Apatow’s movies, not by my standards!)

    @ Winn - I’m glad you mentioned Hitch, I really have a soft spot for that movie. With King of Queens the issue I have is that if Kevin James was conventionally good-looking and his wife was kinda homely but funny and kind, audiences would have a much harder time buying their pairing. TV and movies never ask us to believe that regular looking women and hot men would get together. They do always ask us to believe the converse though. This sends the message to women that it is not enough to be average-looking and fun to be around - you also have to be hot stuff in order to be lovable.

    And of course this is all very heteronormative. But this comment is long enough!

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 12:54 pm ¶

38. Matt wrote:

    @em, regarding the attractiveness of Jewish women: Natalie Portman is relatively recent. And Scarlett Johansson. (I swear, there’s a letter in Heeb from a reader dissapointed they put Johansson in their Jewdar because it ruined his shiksa fantasy.) The older stereotype of the Jewess was Oriental, with all the sexual stereotypes you’d expect to go with that. (Jews have often been seen as Asian-ish. We’re not just ambiguously white.) Then came the princess stereotype, and with that came a view of Jewish women as unattractive (and neurotically frigid), especially if they didn’t get a nose job. The stereotype that Jewish women are unattractive is still deeply internalized in many Jewish men and women, and damaging to both.

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 1:01 pm ¶

39. Thea Lim wrote:

    Oh one thing I forgot to add to the comment above is that these are also white beauty ideals that we’re held captive to…ok enough!

    @ Matt

    I appreciate what you’re saying. I have to admit I am not very good at reading Jewishness - I grew up in a country with a very small Jewish community (Singapore) and so am not always very good at recognising or understanding the subtleties (ambiguity as you say!) of Jewish representation. I’m beginning to realise that North America’s relationship with Jewish people and culture is quite complex and am happy when people help me to learn more about it!

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 2:38 pm ¶

40. Michele wrote:

    Joseph

    I don’t remember any Jewish characters in Juno. Are you saying that a Jewish actor playing a charcter makes him Jewish. I saw forgetting Sarah Marshall. I don’t remember any references to anyone being Jewish.

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 5:21 pm ¶

41. withoutscene wrote:

    I think it’s clear from this thread that you can’t lump all Apatow’s movies together, nor do they allow a straightforward analysis. Given that, I think it’s pretty important to point out that Apatow did not write Superbad or Pineapple Express–Rogen and his writing partner did. I very, very much enjoy the homosociality of those films, but they also are also absolutely racist and sexist. I particularly like the point the Broom made.

    Also, sort of OT, but since people are talking about it…I don’t think you can make a simple statement about “overweight” or “unattractive” men on TV/in Film. Yes, they are always paired with “superattractive” women. But “overweight” men are almost always put in comedic roles, which almost always require that they and their bodies are the brunt of endless fat jokes. King of Queens is chock full of fat jokes. Does this negate the whole misogyny of it…hell no, but we can’t oversimplify.

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 5:27 pm ¶

42. Marisol LeBron wrote:

    @DnA

    “They’re not about how hard it is to be a white guy in a world of feminist women, people of color and gay people. They’re about how hard it is to be a man when what society says about manhood is total fiction.”

    Those things can be one and the same depending on who you ask and the context, and I think that is what I was trying to get out with this post. How much has hegemonic masculinity been defined by what it is not? Hegemonic notions of manhood are not raced, queer, or feminine in any way, so how do men think about and relate to that “fiction”? How do they challenge and/or reinforce that “fiction”? Also, term “wounded” in the post refers to the fact that white men have had to look at themselves and their privilege in a way that they didn’t have to before because of these struggles.

    While, I agree with you that masculinity(and gender more broadly) is constructed, I have to point out that just because you drop the “dominant” construct of masculinity (one free of male intimacy) doesn’t mean that you don’t create another kind of masculine performance. While these guys might be widening some aspects of masculinity around intimacy and relationships I think they reify other boundaries around how masculinity relates to women, queerness, and race. I don’t feel that critiquing one aspect of his portrayals of masculinity negates the positive or vice versa, I do, however, think that is important to think critically about his movies as a whole, not just the parts that are “progressive.”

    You can still totally think my argument is bogus, but I just thought I’d throw that out there.

    Posted 23 Aug 2008 at 8:10 pm ¶

43. WestEndGirl wrote:

    As usual Matt, I can only second (and third!) your comment: “The stereotype that Jewish women are unattractive is still deeply internalized in many Jewish men and women, and damaging to both.”

    As a Jewish women, I can tell you the feelings, words that I have based in my mind due to this internalisation of stereotypes and media portrayals are: rapacious, greedy, exotic, whiny, grasping, frizzy, fat, needy, smothering, shameful, overtly-sexual but only secretly desirable. Think Barbra Streisand in The Way We Were for a classic example.

    These are not nice words and thoughts. And it pains me to think how I’ve been affected by media portrayals from James Joyce’s orientalist Jewess via Der Sturmer to the JAPs and self-deprecating (loathing?) comedy of Joan Rivers and Sarah Silverman.

    Having talked to my female Jewish friends and family, these internalisations are hugely prevalent and lead to all sorts of self-harming behaviour from eating disorders to reckless promiscuity, trying to starve, submit and subsume the wilfully Jewish zaftig, body into the white, WASPy culture, whilst bearing rejection from the non-White community as privileged oppressors, when in fact we are neither.

    These underlying thoughts and internalisations are absolutely typified to me in Judd Apatow’s films - they are the absolutely classic telling of Jewish male self-loathing, with redemption found in the safe, white, Blonde arms of the All-American princess.

    The fact that people in Racialicious of all places, can ignore and dismiss these undertones - just seeing ‘white’ skin - and with such disdain in some cases, really makes me wonder what future there actually is for Jews in the United States.

    In fact, having read Racialicious comments on the Jew = white topics, it seems to me that Jewishness is the *only* acceptable minority group here to have its concerns such totally dismissed. In fact, this post to me, erases the Jewish experience into whiteness, diminishes it and dismisses it.

    And I think that is because Jewishness doesn’t fit into the Black/White racial dichotomy in the American reading of race which seems to give people here such comfort and righteousness about their moral place in the world re: privilege/oppression. Which, to me, from my sofa in London, means that America’s reading of race is just wrong. There is black, white and a whole world of shades of grey. And this post just typically fails on that front.

    Posted 24 Aug 2008 at 7:52 am ¶

44. Mary wrote:

    If you were to replace Stiller with James, you’d also lose the Jewishness.

    @ Matt - I think that was the point. If you lost the Jewishness by casting a non-Jewish actor, would the movie be all that different? Was it inherently a Jewish male/non-Jewish woman story, or did it become that when Ben Stiller was cast? I ask sincerely because I’m not sure I’m fully understanding your point regarding this particular movie.

    Posted 24 Aug 2008 at 8:48 am ¶

45. KO wrote:

    Hey, JC, I was thinking about your comment…

    “White men, however, I’ve always had problem really establishing any sort of meaningful relationship. … I’m not sure if its my own innate, hidden racism (I doubt it since I get alone with white women just fine), or perhaps I just fine myself guarding against the perceived biases white males has against, well ,everyone else.”

    Not sure if you saw this movie yet (& apologies to everyone else on this thread as my comment is not along the lines of the masculinity / Jewish discussions)… but there was something really blasé about the way “the Asians” were portrayed in this movie that makes me empathize a bit your sentiments. In this movie, “the Asians” were treated as an unknown group of people who were best identified only as …well, being Asian. The ringleader, “Cheung,” said “Yoboseyo” when answering the phone (which would lead me to think, OK, perhaps they are Korean) — but other parts of dialog from “the Asians” were quite clearly English being delivered with a thickly-poured on accent (while English subtitles were used). To me, it just seemed like such a lazy way of dealing with their identity. I can’t help but feel it’s another way of saying, “you all look alike to me anyway, so, we’ll just identify you generically like this & throw in some fobby-sounding language to prove the point.” Or maybe that’s just part of a joke I’m not getting, I don’t know. But when I see films deal with East Asian folks with such an irresponsible hand, I can understand why you might feel the way you do towards Caucasian men.

    Posted 24 Aug 2008 at 1:57 pm ¶

46. Bman278 wrote:

    This Judd Apatows guys movies remind me of the show Sienfield, where every 200th episode or so they’ll finally show some random minority, usually a black guy acting annoying and stupid. Pineapple Express, pretty much everybody who wasn’t white or jewish in that movie looked really REALLY bad.

    and what’s with Seth Rogan with a high school girl? most unrealistic thing EVER and it’s also really pedo-ish, if it was brown or asian guy, no matter what race the girl was, they’d never get away with a movie like that. Imagine that character being a 25 year old asian guy hitting on some 18 year old asian high school girl , never be allowed.

    Posted 24 Aug 2008 at 3:28 pm ¶

47. uu wrote:

    I thought the movie was quite funny and maybe its my yaoi fangirl past talking but I found the homosocial moments in the film– especially james fraco’s character gazing into seth rogen’s character’s eyes while they were in the tree, in a manner that can only be described as “lovingly,”– as endearing.

    As for Mad Men, it is a guilty pleasure for me as an aware black female, because the only way for that show to work considering the the time frame it is set in and the business that the character’s are in (up and coming invasive advertising), is that there has to be only white males as leads, the women have to be treated below subpar and minorities of any kind have to be near absent or a second thought.

    Posted 24 Aug 2008 at 6:08 pm ¶

48. withoutscene wrote:

    @Marisol LeBron

    Right on! Well said! Nothing more to add…

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 2:29 am ¶

49. WestEndGirl wrote:

    Michele wrote:
    “Joseph

    I don’t remember any Jewish characters in Juno. Are you saying that a Jewish actor playing a charcter makes him Jewish. I saw forgetting Sarah Marshall. I don’t remember any references to anyone being Jewish.”

    >> I think, for me, this sums up perfectly what I’m talking about how Jewishness is subsumed into ‘whiteness’ by many of the posters here in a way that would not be acceptable with any other minority. Just because *you* might not personally see it, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. That’s just the basics of anti-Racism.

    For example, with Soledad O’Brien, from my side of the pond, when looking at her pictures/vids from the link, I saw someone who could have been anything from Italian to Greek to Middle Eastern etc and not someone who was mixed race/Black or Latina.

    However, that would be *my* issue, as she identifies as Black and even if I don’t personally perceive her that way, she does, as do many other people. It is not *my* right to define who she is and if I get it wrong, then it is my fault if I get called up on it for being dismissive and careless. If no-one explicitly references her background, that doesn’t change a thing one whit. She is who she is. My problem.

    So likewise, when I see many of the people in Judd Apatow’s movies I see Jews and not whites. Most of them, self-identify as Jews and not ‘whites’ (from various interviews etc) and in large part they use character names, terminology and phrases that, to me and others, make them absolutely explicitly Jewish.

    The fact that some of you don’t see what to me is so very clear, and just see whiteness, is *your* issue and a failure to recognise racial, ethnic and cultural complexity. The Jewish men are who they are. Your problem.

    Worst still, even when it is pointed to out (as Matt and Joseph have done) there is still dismissiveness, effectively: “well I see Jews as whites, so there, lump it!”

    And for me that is just not good enough. Just not good enough for an anti-Racist site like Racialicious, which is supposed to look underneath stereotypes and *listen* about people self-identify and experience the world.

    On this level, the OP and many of the responders fall down. Jewishness is not whiteness. Continuing to assert otherwise is dismissive and, to me, therefore necessarily offensive.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 6:00 am ¶

50. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @WestEndGirl -

    Slow your roll.

    We discuss two facets of religious identity on Racialicious with relative frequency. We discuss what it means to be Jewish and what it means to be Muslim.

    We do this because those two religions are racialized - though a religion is a belief system and can have any kind of practitioner, Jews are generally assumed to be white (with appearance stereotypes ascribed to them) and Muslims are generally assumed to be some sort of Arab (with appearance stereotypes ascribed to them.)

    So while we have discussed nonwhite Jewish identity on the site before,
    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/05/14/we-contain-multitudes-ashkenazi-spaces-and-multiethnic-identity/

    it is interesting to me to see the path of this conversation.

    Jewish identity is both wrapped in whiteness and not, some Jews benefit from white privilege and some do not, some “pass” for white in this society and can obtain all of those privileges and some cannot.

    Jewishness is not just whiteness, but there is a lot of overlap. So Marisol’s post is still correct - she provided her interpretation of Apatow’s movies, which is based on the American conflation of Jewishness and whiteness. And while Apatow does refer to Jewish identity in many of his movies, the film is not referred to as a Jewish flick, was made with Hollywood money and not relegated into the specialty niche and marketing that most movies from minority communities have to contend with.

    Now, with that being said, Matt is absolutely correct wondering about reassessing the films through the lens of Jewish masculinity. There are notes and elements in Apatow’s/Rogen’s work which do speak directly to a Jewish experience here in America. But, again, they are two perspectives that overlap because of the conflation of Jewishness and whiteness - one does not cancel out the other.

    As a final note, I would suggest you get familiar with this essay:

    http://girlarmy.org/reader/Three%20Pillars.pdf

    It explains why much of racial conversation in the US exists upon a black and white binary.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 7:10 am ¶

51. Matt wrote:

    “I don’t remember any Jewish characters in Juno.” “Was [There’s Something About Mary] inherently a Jewish male/non-Jewish woman story..?”

    Yeah. People don’t notice Jews. We’re often invisible except through stereotypes. That’s why I embraced the identity politics of “coming out” even though identity politics are largely over.

    In Juno, the guy who gets her pregnant is Jewish. There’s even a poster in his room of the Hebrew alphabet. Given the stereotype that Jewish men have already been emasculated by our mothers so we make docile partners, no wonder he’s such a perfect guy. Juno calls him the funniest guy she knows, yet he doesn’t have a single joke in the entire film. Hell, he hardly has a single line.

    Losing the Jewishness of There’s Something About Mary would have killed the film. As I said, that something is her whiteness. All of the male character are ethnic whites. Woganowski (Polish Catholic), even Healy (Irish). The guy who pretends to be an architect affects anglo-ness to do it by faking a British accent. As for Stiller’s character, named Stroehmann, there are all sorts of reasons to expect him to be Jewish (though of course none are definitive). And, btw, the travelling minstrel — Jonathan Richman. It’s a film about assimilation.

    I don’t mind being considered white, since I’ve obviously benefited from white privilege in my life. But I’m going to push the queer angle a little more explicitly here. Jewishness can be thought of as a type of queerness. We queer racial, national, ethnic categories. You wouldn’t reduce a gay white person to their whiteness, so please don’t reduce Jewish whites in that way.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 7:38 am ¶

52. Matt wrote:

    “We discuss two facets of religious identity on Racialicious with relative frequency. We discuss what it means to be Jewish and what it means to be Muslim.”

    A quick note: Jewishness is not a religious identity. It’s often been reduced to religion as a way of de-emphasizing the ways in which Jews are different from Christians, but it’s not right. Religion is just one part of the Venn diagram.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 7:59 am ¶

53. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Matt -

    I mean religious identity as a whole. We have given a lot more airtime to Muslims and Jews on this site than we have to any other religion or belief system. Judaism *isn’t* just a religious identity but there is still a lot of pushback as to why we cover these issues at all.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 8:09 am ¶

54. Joseph wrote:

    @Michele &Westendgirl

    Uh, I never said anything about Juno…I never even saw it. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

    I cosigned Matt’s original premise about Jewishness complicating whiteness, which is an excellent point. So I wasn’t arguing that “Jewishness is subsumed into whiteness,” but just the opposite. Also, I am the one who raised the point about representations of Jewish women in the first place…So I’m not sure where your hostility is coming from and why it is focused on me. Can you explain?

    As far as the question of visible/invisible Jewish representations are concerned I thought Matt answered this at #51. The only thing I’d add is that in US American popular culture there are a history of crypto-Jewish characters–that is, those that are imagined to be normative Christian but who display characteristics that a discerning audience recognizes as (culturally, not religiously) Jewish. These representations may not be apparent to non US audiences (or even within the US among populations unfamiliar with Jewish expressive culture). But they exist.

    The Dick Van Dyke Show is a famous example of a show that is generally thought of as being about a Jewish family in gentile drag. Spiderman is also often thought of as a crypto-Jewish character. There are contemporary examples as well–as in Matt’s point about “Friends.” Usually when we talk about the dog-whistle on the site we understand it to be pitched to a racist ear but this is an example of how it can be used to perform inclusiveness in a way that circumvents the dominant culture. Anybody see the Celluloid Closet? That documentary makes the same point about ambiguous/queer representations in US films.

    Having said all that I don’t think Apatow’s movies use this trope at all: his movies take place in a clearly marked (to my eye) Jewish Guy-verse. Which makes the almost total absence of Jewish female characters notable, at least to me.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 9:22 am ¶

55. Joseph wrote:

    @ Latoya
    “Jewish identity is both wrapped in whiteness and not, some Jews benefit from white privilege and some do not, some “pass” for white in this society and can obtain all of those privileges and some cannot.”

    Hm. I am hesitating to wander into the middle of this argument…but, at the risk of derailing, I wanted to say that I’m not sure about your “all” here. I am not convinced that Jews ever obtain ALL of the privileges attached to whiteness because the threat of ethnic cleansing is ever-present in a way that it isn’t for, say, WASPS. Anti-Jewish/orientalist sentiments, which at the root are the same, are so ingrained in western cultures that it is naive to think that even thoroughly assimilated Jews (for example) who appear to have a great deal of cultural power are “safe” in their whiteness. The Jewish Holocaust was predicated on the idea of “oriental” otherness-as-cultural infection. So while German Jews were thoroughly assimilated “white” Eurpoeans this status did not protect them, it made them vulnerable. A more recent example is the genocide of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, who were also completely assimilated within their culture…up until the pogroms started.

    I understand your basic point, and I am not exactly disagreeing with you–I’m just trying to mine the subtleties suggested by the discussion of the OP. Some of us “orientals” may be rocking the fair skin of the dominant culture but, make no mistake, we are never entirely welcome there. And historically, those of us that thought we were have paid a terrible price for that assumption.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 11:03 am ¶

56. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Joseph -

    Yes, there are subtle variations in how people can benefit from certain systems, especially when those systems are such when no one ultimately benefits. I was thinking more along the lines of friends who fit the image of WASP, and may not necessarily reveal their Jewish roots (particularly if they don’t practice/don’t feel connected to the culture or that side of the family), vs. someone who conforms more the the stereotypical ideal of what a Jew looks like, and sits in that strange borderland.

    But you are correct, there are lots of layers to these kinds of conversation and a lot of how people understand and interpret these cues depends on their understanding.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 11:14 am ¶

57. Cameron wrote:

    @ West End Girl

    I interpreted Michelle’s comment not as resisting the suggestion that these characters were anything other than white, but merely requesting clarification.

    I myself had the exact same reaction. Matt explained the case of Michael Cera’s character in Juno, but no one has said why they read both Mila Kunis and Jason Segel as Jewish in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I’m not clinging desperately to the hope that they’re not, I’m just curious as to which devices the filmmakers used to establish this.

    I think Joseph hit the nail on the head when he talked about a discerning audience. I didn’t have any Jewish friends until college which was just a function of where I grew up. (I didn’t even know that some last names tended to be Jewish until I was quite old - it’s not something that you’re explicitly taught)

    Geographical and census surveys of residential segregation by “ethnic group” (how this is defined varies between census gathering bodies) consistently show that (those who identify themselves as) Jews are highly segregated and concentrated. Which is what leads me to believe that I’m not alone in failing to recognize these clues because many, many people will just not have this on their radar at all.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 11:20 am ¶

58. WestEndGirl wrote:

    @Joseph, I wasn’t referring to any of your posts, I believe we are in strong agreement. I was referring to Michelle’s post apparently
    in response to yours. I have absolutely no hostility to you whatsoever.

    @Latoya

    I’m going to have to violently disagree with most of your post to me, I’m afraid.

    As a Jewess (although one who is of mixed background) for me, my Jewishness is a mix of the religious, ethnic, cultural and racial.

    To me, from my lived experience as a minority who is both physically and culturally different to the mainstream both in the US and UK, it is unacceptable to me to dismiss this experience and say that because there is conflation of Jewishness with whiteness in the US (which actually is not as clear as the Brodkin book, for example, would make out) that it is just fine for the OP to ignore one facet completely. If she doesn’t see it, does that mean it’s not there?

    I’ll bow out at this point, but I will say one thing. In a world where, just 60 years ago in Western Europe, many of my relatives were herded into the gas chambers and killing fields based on a ‘one grandparent’ racial policy, I’m afraid that I’m going to remain slightly sceptical about critical race theorists who assure me that I’m racially indistinct from ‘whiteness’. Not to mention the various white racists who maintain that Jews can never be white (I will spare you linking to the vileness of all that!).

    I’m just going to have to go with gut and my lived experience and know that Jews are different. And really, whether that difference fits into the black/white binary or prevailing race thery, is actually besides the point.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 11:57 am ¶

59. WestEndGirl wrote:

    p.s. Matt - love the blog. We have many blogs in common, read Norman Geras for unbelievable wisdom and Harry’s Place for political shenanigans from the UK!

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 12:00 pm ¶

60. Joseph wrote:

    @Latoya
    “I was thinking more along the lines of friends who fit the image of WASP, and may not necessarily reveal their Jewish roots (particularly if they don’t practice/don’t feel connected to the culture or that side of the family), vs. someone who conforms more the the stereotypical ideal of what a Jew looks like, and sits in that strange borderland.”

    Maybe this is a conversation for a different thread…If so, I apologize for the derail…but I just want to make the distinction between what I am saying and how you responded: I am arguing that ALL Jews, regardless of their “look” and/or relationship to Judaism sit in that “strange borderland.” I feel comfortable saying so, despite not being Jewish myself, because this vulnerability to being targeted and slaughtered is a well-documented phenomenon in the history of the West. It wasn’t only German Jews that “looked Jewish” or maintained Jewish religious practices that were annihilated in the Jewish Holocaust–it was (damn near) all of them. That includes the ones you’d pass on the street and not notice as marked “other.” The ones who thought of themselves without hesitation as simply “German” i.e. “white.” So not having a readily marked image of “Jewishness” and/or having a personal identity shaped by a profound distance from Jewish religion and culture did not insulate European Jews from the Jewish Holocaust. As I said, this dynamic was frighteningly similar in the former Yugoslavia where many secular, assimilated Muslims who had lived side by side with their Christian counterparts for decades were nevertheless slaughtered despite the fact that their “difference” wasn’t clearly marked in the way you’ve described.

    We don’t have to keep going back and forth about this if we don’t agree–especially on a thread that is rich in and of itself–but I wanted to be clear about what I am saying: Even when Jews (and by extension Arabs/Muslims) seem to be seamlessly, invisibly part of the dominant western culture (in a way that say, an African American person could never be) they/we aren’t. History bears this out.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶

61. s.willz wrote:

    I do think his films rely on homosociality to demonstrate the ways in which white masculinity has been “wounded” by the feminist, gay, and civil rights movements

    thats a really strong statement, and im not sure your post really digs into proving this well enough. I have met more groups of caucasian males that are the complete opposite as those shown in the mentioned movie than vis versa.

    im not sure if you truly comprehend what it is you are saying. The opposite angle on black males may have been more tangent. Why is it black males so readily label things as “gay” and are so adamant about letting the world now that they think that. Years of oppression maybe, i dunno…but thats way more tangent than you supposed “broken” white demographic theory.

    that one sentence did get me intrigued though. I like you blog.

    swillz

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 12:53 pm ¶

62. Matt wrote:

    @Cameron: I haven’t seen Sarah Marshall, though now I might have to. From just the casting and name of the film, there’s a Jewishiness to it. Btw, there were probably some Jews around where you were. There are places with more and fewer Jews, and there aren’t that many of us total, but we still manage to show up in all sorts of places. And that’s without counting those descended from conversos who might not even realize they’re Jewish until someone points out to them that their Friday afternoon candles are for the Sabbath.

    @Joseph:
    

    I am arguing that ALL Jews, regardless of their “look” and/or relationship to Judaism sit in that “strange borderland.”

    I’ll vouch for not only feeling that way myself, but also for coming across it time and again among assimilated Jews. Less among secular but not so thoroughly assimilated Jews.

    “What do I have in common with the Jews? I don’t have anything in common with myself, and would be content to stand quietly alone in a corner, satisfied that I can breathe” -Kafka.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 3:56 pm ¶

63. Matt wrote:

    Oh, a post I put up a while ago on Danny Elfman is relevant to what makes artwork Jewish.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 4:10 pm ¶

64. Pop Feminist wrote:

    Not to be all self-promotion-y but I recently wrote about the place of “embarrassment” in girls’ media, which might interest you:
    http://popfeminist.blogspot.com/2008/08/embarassment-as-empowerment.html

    Oh, and also? I defend Appatow to the death. He’s brilliant, and his films are masterpieces.

    Posted 25 Aug 2008 at 7:32 pm ¶

65. Tasha wrote:

    @ #37 - Thea Lim
    I completely agree with this assessment.
    I’ve only seen 40 year old and knocked up and i had enough of the ’sorry average dude and hot chick theme’

    his films are subpar to average and really don’t deserve as much light as they’ve been getting, was porky’s desected to this degree?

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 9:51 am ¶

66. Steph wrote:

    I think the fact that this thread transformed into an extensive discussion about Jewishness in relation to whiteness shows how much ambiguity there actually is for Jews in the US.

    @ Westendgirl and Joseph: Your comments taught me that your feelings of marginalization and lack of privilege as Jews are very present and valid. They are feelings that I can understand. Thank you.

    For the sake of frankness and opening up dialogue, I do have to say that as a PoC who didn’t know more than one Jew (or many white people) ’til college that I do, for the most part, see Jews as white people. And there are PoC around me who would say the same. Aside from any discussion of physical appearance, I am often frustrated with Jews in the same ways I am frustrated with white people–issues of people trying to school me about my ethnicity/race (Asian-American) or experience using their textbook learning/liberal education, fetishization of my ethnicity/experience, unacknowledged privilege, and intellectual elitism.

    These frustrations might be similar to those sometimes expressed by Black folks about other minority groups: that these groups, although not white, are still way more privileged (as detailed in a childhood anecdote in Assata Shakur’s autobiography in which her mother gains privileges for her family by speaking Spanish and pretending they weren’t African-American). I know this is a complicated subject in itself that (for me) goes beyond simple agreement or disagreement, but it might be a good way to help me understand Westendgirl. I feel discriminated against and marginalized as an Asian-American woman, but I have to take into account these sentiments from some Black folks as well (especially as part of a minority that so often gets patted on the head by whites).

    I really appreciate this dialogue and I hope that we can all gain better understanding of each other through it.

    @s.willz: I also hoped that this post would develop into a dialogue about MoC having to establish their masculinity and appearing to be more homophobic than saintly ever-progresstive white men.

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 12:59 pm ¶

67. Joseph wrote:

    @Steph
    Thanks, but I’m not Jewish. I’m an Arab/American. I appreciate your thoughtful response though. As I said in my exchange with Latoya I don’t disagree–at all–that there is such a thing as “white-skin privilege” and that I, and other “ethnic” fair-skinned people receive the passive benefit of those genetics. My point when it comes to Semitic/ “Oriental” peoples (that’s both Arabs and Jews) is that we are only able to penetrate western cultures so far before we are rejected violently, as history has shown again and again. So for us a “white” identity is always conditional. But, just to be clear, I am not dismissive of the powerful affect of the black/white binary on US culture–I’m just making the point that not all of us fit so neatly inside it.

    To return to the OP, I think this tangent really does put the original discussion of masculinity into a new context. If we think about the black guys in the theater and the Jewish guys onscreen as both having a mediated relationship with normative, heterosexual “white” masculinity then we can see how insidious those constructions are. As I said, I could believe that Apatow’s movies were more transgressive if he had at least some female characters. In their absence it just feels like more of the same, at least to me.

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 1:34 pm ¶

68. Whitney wrote:

    The thing is though, I know a LOT of white guys. And none of them act or talk or express their feelings like the characters in Judd Apatow movies. it’s the same across the board…. men in general are afraid to express their feelings for their guy friends, whether they are white, black, brown, etc. I really don’t know what Apatow’s experiences is with that, and maybe his movies are some indication. The thing is, I heard the same comments you did in the theater, but they were from white guys.

    I kind of find it problematic that because Judd Apatow expresses it in his movies, then it’s relevant for white guys… you know? He doesn’t speak for all white guys. I think he speaks for the nerdy white guys who are weak or were left out, never played sports and had overly-doting mothers, but he certainly doesn’t speak for the men raised by men and the men who are serving in the military, and the men who had to raise themselves basically…. but maybe that’s my worldview. But to say that either one is representative of all white males is just not true.

    The thing is, i learned that a lot of men my age (early 20s-late 20s) were raised my homophobic fathers, so they learned that friendly expressions of love between them and their friends is unacceptable. I know some guys who refuse to hug their male friends, who won’t be friends with gay men.

    So I think there is a split almost, of men like in Apatow’s world, and the complete opposite. And there is pressure to be masculine with every single race or ethnicity.

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 1:52 pm ¶

69. Matt wrote:

    nerdy white guys who are weak or were left out, never played sports and had overly-doting mothers

    Ack. That’s one of the most concise descriptions of the way Jewish men are stereotyped.

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 2:30 pm ¶

70. Steph wrote:

    @Joseph:
    Sorry I assumed your ethnicity. But it’s beautiful and refreshing to see that you’ve put so much thought and effort toward understanding Jews and their experiences in a historical context and whatnot that I even went so far as to assume you were Jewish. I strive to learn about histories and perspectives other than my own (and should be more adamant about it), so it’s nice to see someone else be so good at it here.

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 2:35 pm ¶

71. Janine deManda wrote:

    WestEndGirl {#43, 49, 58, 59} & Joseph {#54, 55, 60} said everything I wanted to say and with more restraint than I would likely have managed, so I just wanted to say THANK YOU!

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 2:36 pm ¶

72. Whitney wrote:

    @ Matt– But the thing is, I never mentioned that those kind of guys are Jewish. Or that being Jewish has anything to do with it. I don’t think this kind of masculinity (or lack thereof) has anything to do with any one culture or religion, really. It’s like you said, that’s the perceived stereotype. And I think it’s really unfortunate that that has become the stereotype for Jewish men. I mean, my grandpa was Jewish and a total badass. And now the stereotype is completely the opposite.

    And I’ve read your comments and I appreciate what you’re saying. And the thing is though, Jewish men have so much power in the entertainment industry (whether it be as actors or producers… Weinstein brothers, anyone?). They portray it quite accurately in Entourage. In that show, Ari Gold, an agent, is a total ball-buster and basically an unapologetic asshole. He doesn’t take shit from anyone. His character isn’t at all like the Jewish characters in Apatow’s movies. And I think that there are basically two kinds of Jewish actors out there: the kind like the Jeremy Pivens and Adam Sandlers and then the Seth Rogans. And I think that’s representative in every group. And my opinion of the Apatow characters is that I think it’s simply his worldview. And I don’t think that it should be representative of the overall Jewish male experience.

    Tyler Durden said it quite eloquently in Fight Club: “We’re a generation of men raised by women.” And I think that’s kind of what Judd Apatow is suggesting by what these “homosocial” (great term, btw) characters are portraying. One the one hand, we have the Narrator in Fight Club who becomes the uber-masculine man by beating the shit out of other guys (and feeling “alive” in the process) (and getting the shit beat out of him). And on the flipside, we have guys like in Apatow movies who openly express their love for one another.

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 5:02 pm ¶

73. Joseph wrote:

    @Whitney
    “…there is pressure to be masculine with every single race or ethnicity.”

    Yeah, but how “masculine” is defined changes a great deal from culture to culture. Like I said, I’m an Arab and in my family, you know, we hug each other. One of my fondest memories of my dear late uncle Amile was his incredulity when I offered him my 12 year old hand to shake and he said “what are doing? You shake hands with strangers, me, you hug!” And then he gave me a giant bear hug. I was embarrassed half to death but I learned from that–and countless other examples–that showing affection for my male relatives (and by extension friends) was a perfectly normal and acceptable way to be “masculine.”

    If Jewish men are stereotyped as wimps then Arabs are stereotyped in the other direction: as aggressive, violent, macho, woman-hating assholes. Both stereotypes use “masculinity” to marginalize us away from “normal.”

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 5:05 pm ¶

74. al wrote:

    whitney: the idea that ‘being raised by women’ is somehow changing masculinity is problematic. men have been raised by women throughout history, in large numbers. specifically in fight club, it was clearly capitalism and not ‘being raised by women’ that created the psychic wound that split that man’s personality in two, despite that quote. i don’t think that homosocial behavior is particularly prevalent among men raised by women or that it is particularly absent amongst men with strong father figures. i also know a lot of white men, and they -do- act like the men in apatow movies so far as homosocial behavior without being particularly mom oriented. (and for the record, most of them aren’t jewish). so while it does speak maybe specifically to an american jewish masculinity, i think a lot of men are really just struggling with the conflicting stories they are being told. i understand your grandpa was a badass, but couldn’t he be a badass and still tell his best friend he loves them? i’d say yes. i think that homosocial behavior as portrayed in these movies (and i’ve only seen a couple) is a sign of struggling to enlightenment. the role of women in the stories is unfortunately a sign of lack of enlightenment.

    Posted 26 Aug 2008 at 11:51 pm ¶

75. Whitney wrote:

    @ Joseph: That’s definitely true, but I don’t know enough to really comment on it. and I also think it has to do with different time periods. 30 years ago, it’s seen as unacceptable for men to cry or show emotion (at least with white guys). But now, it seems a little more acceptable to show emotion, but it’s still seen as, well, “gay” by a lot of white guys (at least the ones I know). My boyfriend was never hugged by his dad. Never told “I love you” never told anything like that. And his dad wasn’t hugged by his dad, and so on. So he always thought it was weird for his guy friends to even give him the “one armed hug” or a pat on the back.

    I think that’s really cool that the men in your family aren’t afraid to hug or show affection. But I am really interested to learn how this idea of “masculinity” differs from culture to culture, what the stereotypes are and how they differ from reality.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 3:30 am ¶

76. barbara wrote:

    Mad Men is good drama. Of Apatow’s films I have only seen 40 year old virgin. His other movies don’t appeal to me and seem to be nothing more than crude comedy, based on previews. Its rather amazing to see how deeply many of the posters have analyzed those movies. What needs to be realized is that there is a market for those films, and he is not the only one who has the heavyset unattractive white male with the beauty queen girlfriend/wife. Check out “According to Jim” or “Still Standing”. Hmmmmm

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 2:35 pm ¶

77. Ed wrote:

    As a white father of children of color, I spend a lot of time exposing myself to increasingly challenging views where my whiteness is concerned.

    And once I get past anything that might offend me or make me feel defensive, I sometimes find that the line of thought I was trying to understand doesn’t really have anything to do with reality as I know it.

    This is one of those times.

    The way I see it, what we are seeing in movies such as this reflects the view of the people that made it. I don’t see anything in it that has anything to do with my life, or how I perceive my role in our society.

    I am quite happy to be stereotyped. I find it amusing. But real change cannot come from more of the same silliness that causes injustice in the first place. The same white male dominated and structured thing we all seem to think is the problem is also the same thing that tolerates and includes an increasing amount of diversity. Maybe it is bigger than some imagined model of a dominant person.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 3:08 pm ¶

78. Whitney wrote:

    @ Al: I mean, with absent fathers or fathers who aren’t role models, fathers who are working too much, emotionally detached, etc. Or they were in the war. That’s what I meant by men being raised by women. My boyfriend’s dad is completely emotionally detached. So these men aren’t given any real positive male role models because their fathers weren’t given that. With my grandfather, I never met him, but I was told all sorts of stories from my mom. Usually this whole uber-masculinity is passed down, father to son. His father wasn’t affectionate towards him (being the second born son in a Jewish family, he wasn’t treated that well by his father), but according to my mom, he grew past it once he came to the US.

    It’s a cycle that perpetuates because a lot of men don’t learn to be affectionate with other men or learn to say “i love you” to their fathers or sons. So I think it’s kind of up to the men in our generation to decide to change that.

    So maybe it’s not a specific male Jewish thing of being “homosocial” but perhaps just the generation or how these men were raised. I also don’t think that it’s specific to any one culture or race. I just think it’s really dependent on how that person was raised and who their parents were. I think sometimes it depends on the culture but others it doesn’t.

    @ Barbara: The “dorky” guy who is overweight or unattractive is a mainstay in sticoms.

    I don’t think there’s anything weird about it, I know a lot of attractive women who love a goofy guy.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 8:54 pm ¶

79. al wrote:

    whitney: i guess i’m confused. are you saying that men raised by women would be the ones engaging in homosocial behavior? because i am saying that men have been raised by women for many many generations without widespread homosociality.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 12:20 pm ¶

80. Whitney wrote:

    @Al:

    lol i don’t really know what I’m saying. But I guess is that I feel that men without a strong male role model and his influence is affected, whether it being overly affectionate, or not having any kind of ability to show emotion. It might be mostly arbitrary. But i still want to say that for the purposes of this movie (and just this movie), that the homosocial behavior is attributed to their drug use. but that’s the skeptic in me.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 3:34 pm ¶

81. JC wrote:

    Point 1: I think Jewish women are among the most beautiful women out there. I don’t get or understand the Jewish women are unattractive thing.

    Point2: Why are Jewish men portrayed so badly sometimes when most of the studio heads and the creative talents in Hollywood are Jewish? This lead me to believe that perhaps Hollywood itself is not racist, but simply reflecting the racist ideals of the WASP male dominated society in order to make a buck? I guess this would make me feel a wee bit better about the next anonymous nerdy Asian guy or the swearing black gangsta I see in a Hollywood flick - perhaps they didn’t have a choice?

    Point 3: I think there is a very negative stereotype that while male carries with them - being by default racist. Many POC around me basically would assume a white male is racist unless they’ve shown otherwise. It’s highly unfair and discriminator, but people like myself do it for self-preservation purposes. We do this so that that the next time our friendly co-worker all the sudden burst out a totally racist comment, we can rationalize it in our head “oh well, he’s just a White Male being himself.”

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 4:31 pm ¶

82. L. wrote:

    We were discussing ethnicity today in one of my classes. Our professor asked if anyone was from New York, and a guy raised his hand. The professor asked him if Mayor Bloomberg was ethnic since he’s Jewish. The guy said “Yeah he’s Jewish, but he’s still white.” That reminded me of this thread.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 6:39 pm ¶

83. WestEndGirl wrote:

    @JC

    “Point 1: I think Jewish women are among the most beautiful women out there. I don’t get or understand the Jewish women are unattractive thing.”

    >> I’m a Jewish woman and I find this comment very belittling. It’s just a form of exotification/objectification. The fact is that Jewish women are individuals, who vary from downright unattractive to stunningly beautiful. If you wouldn’t dream of saying black men are good at sport, Asian women are docile etc etc, then you might want to consider why you would say that. It’s not a compliment. Fundamentally we are talking about media/cultural portrayals of Jewish women (and men) as well explained by Matt and Joseph above. That can’t be explained away by you saying: well I think Jewesses are hot, so what’s the problem?

    “Point2: Why are Jewish men portrayed so badly sometimes when most of the studio heads and the creative talents in Hollywood are Jewish? This lead me to believe that perhaps Hollywood itself is not racist, but simply reflecting the racist ideals of the WASP male dominated society in order to make a buck?”

    >> Your comment could be interpreted as saying that Jewish Hollywood types basically peddle racism and sell out POC just to make money. Which is a reworking of a classic anti-Semitic trope…

    Now I don’t believe that is your intent, but what’s sad to me, is that there are so many people here who are understandably quick to jump on and parse anything which could even be minimally interpreted as privileged or racist, but just not in the case of Jews obviously!

    Really, to summarise, I’m really saddened with Racialicious due to this post and previous on the issue of Jews/whiteness.

    I’m Jewish, I’m mixed, so depending on the time of the year, I am POC or I’m not, as my skin is paler in winter but then at the merest hint of sun tans dramatically. But even then, throughout the year I’m Jewish and my experience of the world, my heritage, my group memory, at least to me, has meaning.

    So I don’t appreciate the belittling and dismissal of this experience here at Racialicious as exemplified by the OP and other commenters. Racism and predjudice is allowed to be defined by the subject for all other groups, except Jews it seems. If we are telling you that we have a problem with a characterisation or dismissal of our group as ‘white’, then why aren’t you listening?

    Fine, I get it, Jews don’t fit easily into the US black-white binary. But don’t tell me that I don’t have a right to object when our experience is erased or mischaracterised or that you - supposedly anti-racist people - don’t at least have the duty to listen and consider whether we have a point before citing that bl**dy Brodkin book as ‘proof’ that we’re just making it up or a fuss about nothing.

    Posted 29 Aug 2008 at 8:16 am ¶

84. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @WestEndGirl -

    I will tell you the same thing I told Matt, the same thing I tell Muslims who don’t like how they are being represented, the same thing I tell Latino/as who feel like they are being misrepresented, the same thing I tell blacks who have issues with what I write -

    If you disagree, write something.

    That’s how we got Matt’s post on the Pintele Yid. He was pissed about Sarah J’s post and I told him, in no uncertain terms, he could be pissed. That’s *her* story. She can write it as she chooses. If he has a different take, he can write it up and submit it, just like she did.

    Marisol’s take might not have parsed out the unique issues of Jewishness to your liking, but her analysis still stands. It is not something that occurs to her (or many nonwhite folks) because Jews have that white privilege/non-privilege thing going on. If you have a different view on Judd Apatow’s movies, WRITE SOMETHING.

    I am not going to stop posting things from Muslimah Media Watch because some Muslims feel like it doesn’t represent Islam. They are free to write a rebuttal or an alternate piece. I am not going to stop writing about issues and reflections on blackness because some blacks feel like it’s an inadequate representation of the black experience. I am not going to stop cross posting from Guanabee because some Latino/as hate the website.

    You can object to whatever you want, but all it does is annoy me, especially when you keep saying crap like this:

    Racism and predjudice is allowed to be defined by the subject for all other groups, except Jews it seems.

    Probably not noticing all the *other* controversy that goes down on this site because it doesn’t have anything to do with your ethnic group. People seem to be fine watching other groups duke it out, but oh lord, not MY group!

    Like I said, complain all you freaking want. But if you don’t like the perspectives featured on this site, it’s on you to write something. I get submissions or requests to volunteer to help with the site mission every single day, so I have zero patience for people who show up and complain without even trying to take action.

    Posted 29 Aug 2008 at 8:51 am ¶

85. WestEndGirl wrote:

    @Latoya

    Saying: “Probably not noticing all the *other* controversy that goes down on this site because it doesn’t have anything to do with your ethnic group. People seem to be fine watching other groups duke it out, but oh lord, not MY group!”

    >> is not fair at all to me. I notice plenty. Including all the debates between people and their concepts of mixed race, blackness, Asian model minority-ness etc etc and etc.

    The difference is, I will only really comment on debates when I have something to add that is relevant and that isn’t me speaking out of my a*se with an ill-informed opinion! Who am I, from the UK, to wade into a heated debate about colorism in the black community in the US?! But I do understand the Jewish experience and so I comment. Especially when someone asserts that Jews in Hollywood do racist things to make a buck for goodness’ sake!

    And so your comment:
    “Marisol’s take might not have parsed out the unique issues of Jewishness to your liking, but her analysis still stands. It is not something that occurs to her (or many nonwhite folks) because Jews have that white privilege/non-privilege thing going on.”

    >> to me sums up exactly what I’m talking about with this whole issue re: dismissal/erasure.

    I’m non-white AND I’m a Jew. How does your explanation work then? You have just precisely elucidated why the black/white binary does not work in this context. Sorry it doesn’t, and I think that Joseph explained it far more elegantly than I ever could.

    Basically, to me, it still boggles the mind that someone can comment on Judd Apatow’s movies and totally fail to notice something which is a totally integral part of those movies and - more importantly - *is referenced throughout them*. And even then, because as a group, Jews have an ambiguous status in the US at this current point in time, the poster just goes, oh well, white-looking skin = white men?! I mean, the OP is called ‘the art of white masculinity’, it doesn’t figure anyway, not just parsed right.

    To be honest, I didn’t think that contributions had to be OPs and that comments are fine. But I now appreciate that you want specific contributions rather than comments. I’ll start working on something at the weekend (although I’m moving house) so may be some time.

    I’ll write something about what it’s like to be considered to be ‘other’, ‘different’ and ‘ethnic’ by whites, while simultaneously being told by POC that you are in fact white….and people then wondering why Jews are neurotic!

    Posted 29 Aug 2008 at 10:32 am ¶