MyrnaMinkoff
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by MyrnaMinkoff
-
-
This was very poor writing. Which I blame on this episode’s writer. She seems like she may have gotten the job through nepotism - daughter of a respected director (John singleton) - and regrettably that was reflected in this inferior episode after an otherwise excellent season.
-
On 4/15/2021 at 3:07 PM, circumvent said:
Not ok, just pointing out that discrimination within the black population is not about race but about class - although there is also colorism within the black population
Again: true. But it should not be used as an excuse for being discriminatory or grading the discrimination. Kevin is not systemically
discriminated against, to put into context the reason for the conversation going this way
That's all true but the reason why this conversation went from racial bias and racial micro aggressions to discrimination in general shows why we are still miles away from any understanding on racial disparities and systemic racism. It is whataboutism. It is the "but..." that denies the previous statement. It is white people still not willing to stop reacting and stop to analyze. The theme was race, now it is yeah, race but...how about the other people. Well, the other people, the other biases are for another episode? It is fair to discuss them as long as it doesn't function as a form of diminishing the reality of someone n Randall's position. It is hard to see such a theme addressed in a fair way, I guess this was a pretty good episode.
I don't think he expected Kevin to know everything, I think he was indicating to Kevin that simply apologizing without trying to really understanding why the relationship was at that place was pointless, because it would be just a performative thing. As I said way upthread, Kevin recognized that he was wrong, but took the easy route without even considering why Randall was acting like that. Maybe if he said:" I apologize for being a dick but I am having trouble understanding why thing s got so bad between us, andI know you are seeing a therapist, maybe I was a little insensitive, can you help me understand this?" That would have been Kevin doing the job of asking for guidance instead of simply expecting Randall to see he that he loves him, he is a good guy (he is) and they should just let bygones be bygones. It doesn't work that way. Healing requires so much more
That's a ompletely different thing, it is a personal preference, or lack of preference. Although it does inform bias. You are being biased because something in Randall that you don't like. You can still be biased and see the validity of Randall's argument - if you want to
-
50 minutes ago, larapu2000 said:
I think bullying and cruel come across as bullying and cruel. I think confidence comes across as confidence, no matter how misplaced you might think it is. My point was simply that we already have plenty of insecure women on our television screens who get cosmetic procedure after procedure to make themselves feel more beautiful, and there is an empty pit that they are trying to fill and the looks aren't the problem. I think Madison is one of the few women that got cosmetic surgery and was like "yep, I'm a babe now, look out, world!" and it's a nice change of pace, honestly.
I was overweight for a number of years but still had (in my opinion) a beautiful face. I absolutely celebrated that because I felt so uncomfortable in my body. Someone feeling themselves and thinking they're beautiful is far from the worst crime, especially on a show which has featured rapists, drug users, absentee parents, and people with annoying dolphin laughs.
That’s fair. But also you sound like a nice person who didn’t lord your beauty over other people.:) Confidence- good. Vanity making you mean - bad!
-
1
-
-
Yeah I agree confidence is good, but beauty just should not be the basis for it, in any capacity. It’s absolutely unearned and it has no bearing on your character or how hard you’ve worked. I don’t think, respectfully, that people are frightened by a person who is openly proud of their beauty as much as they are more repelled: the last thing people should be celebrated for is the features conferred them by the accident of birth. And certainly people should not celebrate themselves for it - that’s just gross!
(I should add, I enjoy good looking people as much as anyone. Why else am I watching bravo?!)
-
3
-
-
On 1/16/2021 at 12:08 PM, LibertarianSlut said:
I don’t think it’s “whataboutism” to call Leva out on falling short of her own standard. That’s calling out hypocrisy. If Leva wants Kathryn to dance on the head of a pin because of who her ancestors were—something Kathryn can’t control—but Leva, a Caucasian woman, is perpetuating stereotypes about Chiquita Banana, a woman/figurehead who more than likely had the blood of indigenous people of the Americas running through her literal or figurative veins, that’s fair game.
This is my problem with Leva: I can’t understand why Leva, who is Caucasian by race, but has dark hair and eyes and a darker complexion than some others (not unlike many Italians) gets an audience to speak on behalf of black people. Since society has rejected the idea that someone can refute allegations of racism by saying, “I have black friends,” then Leva doesn’t get to sit in a position of unique authority because “[she] has black family.” I find no internal logic in the idea that non-black people who associate with black people or study black history should refrain from offering an opinion on black issues, but Leva believes it is encouraged for non-black people who have black people in their families to sound off on black issues, and that anyone who doesn’t listen and agree with her is running the risk of being labeled a racist. Huh? Someone needs to articulate a coherent standard, because the rules seem like they were made up by Dr. Seuss. I’ll take a shot—each one of us is empowered to be non-racist. It’s almost crazy enough to work.
I respect your opinion to draw any line with which you feel comfortable. My opinion is that drawing a line between “people of color” and “white” for purposes of arriving at a judgment is just as arbitrary as drawing a line or no line between black Americans and Caucasian people of Iranian descent (ie Leva). Speaking of Leva, I don’t see any evidence that Kathryn’s ancestors were even preoccupied by Leva’s ancestors, let alone had enough ethnic beef with them to alter the course of their society in any fundamental way from thousands of miles and continents away. I would be interested in what Leva’s claims, if any, are how Leva’s ancestors suffered under Kathryn’s.
I also need to unpack this “person of color” thing a little bit, because I’m not sure what it means, but it comes up a lot on this show. Every person who has melanin in their skin is a person of color, so we’re all “people of color” (except some albinos), so clearly this term doesn’t have a genetic basis, it has a cultural one. I haven’t seen evidence that the term “person of color” is anything but a phrase that attempts to lump all non-white people into a group, even when they have nothing in common except for the fact that their skin often (but not always) has a darker—in some cases, very slightly darker—hue to it.
There is no good argument that I’ve heard to advance that a Hungarian in the Steppes, a Japanese girl living in Tokyo and a black American living in Seattle have compelling common interests, priorities or goals that a Belorussian-American and a black American who are both in tech don’t share because the Belorussian is considered by most not to be a “person of color”. It’s my opinion that it’s counterproductive to humankind to group people by immutable characteristics, as opposed to shared values. I mean, isn’t that exactly what Leva is proclaiming to rail against? Does she not see that the notion that one person meeting a certain threshold of natural melanin in their skin, should get “x” treatment from society, but if another person has to sit in the sun for a bunch of hours to get their skin that color, should get “y” treatment from society flies in the face of everything she purports to stand for? That is one of the strangest set of standards I’ve ever heard, especially in a place where I thought the goal was to seek equal treatment, regardless of race.
The Sami people—the aborigines of Scandinavia who are extremely pale with blonde/white hair and blue eyes—have been marginalized and have said to have been the victims of “racism” in Scandinavia, and they generally have as close to no “color” as albinos. If the Sami have been mistreated—and they have—is there no call to action, because they ostensibly have no color? That is how the logic of Leva’s argument flows if I follow it through to its conclusion.
Here’s an elephant in the room: it’s ironic where folks like Leva want to draw the timeline. Two centuries ago, international slave trade was banned in the US. A century and a half ago some white Americans (and some black Americans) held black people in slavery in certain parts of the US. Less than two centuries ago, Iranians were still “importing” white slaves. Slavery wasn’t banned in Iran until 1929! Does Leva wish to speak to this? [edited to add—given there is at least as much evidence that Leva’s ancestors committed violence against Kathryn’s ancestors as there is the reverse, by Leva’s standard—not mine—Leva owes Kathryn a major apology, and Kathryn should feel free to use public and social tyranny against Leva repeatedly and indefinitely until Kathryn is satisfied with Leva’s apology].
I have wracked my brain, but I can’t come up with a good reason why slavery in the Americas is Leva’s cause celebre, when she is silent on the matter that de jure—not de facto, de jure—slavery (of whites and blacks) was occurring in her home country, until the Great Depression, except that one buys her TV time on Bravo, and the other might only get her a segment on PBS. One allows her entree into Charleston high society and publicity for her businesses, and the other doesn’t. If that is not cynicism and hypocrisy of the highest order, I do not know what is.
The thing I find most disappointing is that it took me an entire season—only about half of which I watched—to realize just how absurd Leva’s entire raisin d’etre on this show is. I mean, I’ve taken a stab at it a few times, but now that I’ve really thought about it, I have to question why I didn’t realize any of this earlier. I simply wasn’t paying enough attention to this hoax she was running, and I think I have some thought exercises to do.
Well, I got to hand it to Leva for something—if she hadn’t been so deeply offensive, intellectually bankrupt, ambitious to get her name in lights, obtuse and shallow, I may not have quit watching this horror show several episodes back.
This is so brilliant. I’m a woman “of color” and this speaks so much more for me than the solemn, reductive declarations that I am constantly oppressed and - even worse- that everyone is inherently racist and we all have to “do the work” (how tiresome that phrase is!) to overcome it. It’s patronizing and harmful and people like Leva are just capitalizing on it.
-
5
-
-
8 hours ago, wallies said:
Like Danni, I’d find it difficult to be friends with Kathryn, especially with her habitual tardiness and disappearing acts. But that luncheon circle of Bravo-planted, holier-than-thou vultures encouraging weak-minded Danni NOT to reconcile with Kathryn because she's a descendant of John C. Calhoun was sickening to watch. What if everyone was subject to a full genealogy search and judged by the actions of long-dead ancestors we’ve never met? Who would pass such a test? How far back do we go? If you discovered your best friend was related to so-and-so, would it really change your relationship with them? Danni and Kathryn’s problems have nothing to do with Kathryn’s ancestry but rather both their actions within the relationship, which, if you’re going to judge someone, actions are really the only things that are fair game. The lunchtime virtue-signalers need to realize "immutable characteristics" - i.e. things that are beyond one's ability to control - is not just skin color but family.
Ugh that whole discussion made me ill- so sanctimonious and yes, the demands to apologize for ones ancestors were horrifying. I say this as a POC and progressive - this was mean girls masquerading as wokeness.
-
10
-
-
The first scene alone was tired and irritating. Her loyal boyfriend is just sooo lame, poor protagonist. Just dump the guy if you have so much contempt for him! The comedy was so lazy and just devoid of wit - it’s easy to make fun of nerds, but not clever and certainly not funny. And then the trope with her mother’s carrying on about her increasing undesirability as she gets older- good grief. I just wanted them all to shut up and go away.
-
1
-
-
Disappointed. This felt much more like a mockumentary than the first season. A lot of the students’ talking heads felt straight out of Parks n Rec or something- too self-aware, knowing commentary. One of the first gals in particular really grated - “I wore tights that day. I...wish I hadn’t.” Come on.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, yourmomiseasy said:
I know her line isn't called labia, but that's what I'm going to call it because it was my first thought when trying to sound the name out.
Can't stop laughing at this.
I mean maybe it's possible she actually intended to call it labia (Girl Power!) and is just a horrible speller.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, SheTalksShit said:
It’s interesting to me that Kathryn’s so willing to forgive Cameron for being a judgemental bitch to her for no reason, but she wants nothing to do with Landon or Jennifer for the slightest things when they were the 2 that were actually willing to give her a chance. It bugs me, the double-standards she has for people.
She also forgave Craig very easily for the shit he said to and about her the first season AND for the shit he said about her during season 3, when he told Thomas to take a paternity test.
Landon and Jennifer never did anything even close to that and she just iced them out for perceived slights that didn’t actually exist. That literally says EVERYTHING to me about her character, how you treat those who’ve been good and loyal to you in the past. So far, her track record is NOT good and that’s what I dislike most about her, tbh.
I created an account just to "like" this, dorky as that sounds. You nailed it. She forgave the others because they're cool and in the in-crowd, and Jennifer's not. And yet Jennifer stood by her when no else did. If that doesn't reflect Kathryn's character - or lack of it - i don't know what does.
Even more repulsive and frankly terrifying was how she treated Jennifer after Jennifer had her baby. The poor woman was in tears, saying "So are you even going to ask about my baby," and Kathryn just glared at her, ice cold. She's disgusting.
How about Naomi casually commenting, "Oh, I didn't even care that I called her an escort, because" blah blah blah, all airy and dismissive. And then Ashley looks at her in shock, and Naomi just says "What, why are you looking at me like that," like she's something on the bottom of her shoe. Ugh, she's a B.
-
12
-
S06.E13: The Day of the Wedding
in This Is Us
I think Beth at least was probably just overjoyed to not be around Randall. I would be!