Im sorry but im going to rant now, if i didn't hate Facebook so much id get on there and make a group called "Fat bitches that are ruining the world with there whinging bullshit"
Race row erupts over 'Hobbit' casting
how the hell does this sort of shit happen, i mean the add was politically correct and specified that they "should have light skin tones", and yet this woman turned up, knowing full well that she was of darker skin.. now im not racist and im all for equal rights for male/female/black/brow/yellow/white... non of that matters, if your not what they are looking for to fill a specific task how is that racist?
really if a casting agent is looking for something specific why the fuck should he be penalized cos some fat cow wants her 15 minutes of fame.
what the hell has happened to the world in the last 5 years alone, hell im only 27 and i can remember a time when this woman would have been told have a teaspoon of concrete.
i know i will more than likely cop a few omg racist/sexist remarks from people but FFS the world needs to harden the fuck up.
I think the problem lies in the media and how they tell the story. The write in a way as to garner a reaction such as displayed above. It's textbook sensationalist journalism.
The media drives the change in our perceptions. It is not based on reality.
Having said that, things are getting a little weird...
i understand media sensationalism and yeh the fact that they made her out to be a victim and a hero for standing up to intolerance, but im more pissed at the fact that the casting dude got the sack for doing his job and the woman expecting to get a job she is obviously not suited for.
Especially in the University type mainstream where they quite often will advertise "position only available to current employees of X university or Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders" If thats not discrimination then what is? I understand that there is a push to get members of the "seen to be less fortunate" socio aspect employed and ready to join mainstream society, but fair suck of the sav, thats just plain colourism to me (we are all one race, human)
If memory serves there are a few exemptions for the discrimination act, aboriginal/torres strait islanders being one of them, men/women in a health role is another (so you don't get guys being female body inspectors... ohhhh yeah......) and the other one is for the food and beverage industry, for example, if you are running an Irish pub, you can discriminate on employee hiring because they aren't Irish... :P
Quote from chad;392351: If you're talking about it then the people working in media have done their jobs and you've just given them free publicity, congratulations idiot.
Dude. Seriously. Fuck. How do you come up with this shit? This discussion has turned to focusing on why the media is so ridiculous. We're not all sitting here going. "Yes. Yes. I can't believe those people did that to that poor lady. How racist!!" Then you'd be right. But we're not. So shhhhh.
Quote from Milenko;392344: Unless you're advertising for Indigenous only positions. Then it's ok.
That is disgusting and does no favours for the aboriginal people. Not only does it create even more problems by babying aboriginal people, but it also creates animosity from the majority. Unfounded animosity mind you.
lol I had the same reaction as Ratty when I read it. Another stupid example would be a friend of my sister had her add removed from a nanny hiring agency for stating she would prefer a malaysian nanny. If I go to the shop looking for white sugar I expect white sugar, if all they have is brown sugar then I dont take it not because I am racist but because it's not what I'm fucking looking for!
Oh yeah and +1 to GI for the no favors comment. Equality is about keeping things equal.
LOL - and then you edit your post saying "equality is about keeping things equal" - yet you have no problems with someone hiring based on race instead of qualifications or skill set.
What the **** are you guys talking about? I was making reference that the media wouldn't make a noise about crap like that if people 'you' the reader wouldn't buy news papers and link to stupid articles like the one you just posted about. The media outlets KNOW news storys like that SELL (same as sex) so they just release news story's about it. I would rather read NEWS about current political and financial situation of Australia housing market than some girl whining that she lost out with her time in the spotlight because the shade of her skin.
Quote from rec: LOL - and then you edit your post saying "equality is about keeping things equal" - yet you have no problems with someone hiring based on race instead of qualifications or skill set. I think it's funny that a sugar analogy post included a reference to equal. Maybe I'm the one that's fucked up.
yes chad in 1 aspect you are right, news articles like that only sell to the people that are the reason for the article in the first place, people who believe that its racist to request that someone fit a set of rules needed to fill a position.
when you hire someone to do a job do you not hire the person better suited to the role or do you hire the black dude as not to be seen as racist?
yes the media make a big deal about things like this, but its the people that the stories start with that i blame, yes the media feeds to people what they wanna see, but its the morons that want this sort of news that need to be shot. (which was the point to my original rant)
the world is going to shit because of morons like her, im tolerant and i understand peoples sensitivities to race/religion and if the casting bloke had said "fuck off bitch your too black" then yeh i can understand the uproar..
but all he said was that 'unfortunately she did not match the requirements, her skin tones are to dark for what they need', now if a white chick had gone to that interview and they said sorry we are looking for darker skin tones, would she had done the same thing?? we'll never know but from the total lack of stories in the news that read "IM WHITE AND ITS RACIST THAT THEY WANT A AFRICAN MODEL"... the results speak for themselves.
its the reason i dont watch the news or read the paper anymore (the link was emailed to me) the world is full of soft cock's and whingers just after a few minutes in the limelight.
Rec crawl back into your hole please. As an Analogy it works perfectly. As a metaphor it may have failed slightly but the general idea would still be retained. It's about freedom of choice without fear of being labled and I think your reference to the fact that "wanting white sugar doesn't make me a white supremecist" would guess that you were quite aware of the point I was trying to make.
So do you think that the employer in this case "refering to the hiring of hobits" was in the wrong? In your opinion were they just being choosy or were they discriminating against people with darker skin? I would also like to point out that my sisters friend was not stating that she would only hire a malaysian person it was just her preference.
What was her reason for preferring a Malaysian nanny? I'm talking about this being discriminatory, not the casting agent from the first post in this thread.
A legitimate example is that you cannot be a pilot if you are over a certain height, or over a certain weight. This is due to the logistics of operating and running certain types of fighter jets. An illegitimate example is then saying you also need to be black.
Another legitimate example is, as per the first first post, for specific castings in entertainment mediums such as film. So to answer your question, no, they weren't in the wrong.
So now you care about the reasons? Isn't it just easier to label people based on the limited information you are given? Her reasons are her own and for whatever reason she would prefer a Malaysian nanny. The agency sells a product, A nanny is not just a person who cleans your house. They are sometimes heavily involved in many aspects of your life and I for one would be quite particular if I were choosing one. However I feel this is off topic yet again and I was merely using it as an example of over sensitivity, which you have quite greatly demonstrated.
By this logic it makes sense to cast Morgan Freeman as the lead in American History X. Sorry, but in some story telling certain physical attributes are needed. Get the fuck over it.
I'll say once again. The mistake was in naming the pigment constraints in the advertising of the said position/positions.
If you want to hire a Malaysian nanny (weird btw...) then advertise for a nanny (just a nanny) and hire a Malaysian one! Nobody gets offended and you get what you want. It's quite a simple concept that has worked for a long time.
It's easy not to cause a shitstorm if things are just handled subtly. It's obvious that certain positions are not suitable for certain ethnicities/age groups, etc. but you never say that in an advertisement. Seeing that pretty much all businesses hold public relations pretty high, it's in their best interests not to advertise anything that may be construed as prejudiced. I believe I already posted this anyway...
Edit: This news story is quite obviously a beat up and a ridiculous example to be using anyway...
In the case of cinema it is perfectly reasonable to indicate race. You would not for instance have a white guy play nelson mandela in a biopic or a black guy play george washington. The hobbits in the book are described as having light skin tones so its perfectly appropriate for the movie to stick to that. Racial sensitivity in this day and age means the job advertisement needed to specify the reasons to avoid implied offence.
And had you googled ignorance like I suggested in the last thread you would see that it applies to you in this situation. Once again this is where I end my argument as it can only be fun for so long.
You refused to give me reason, and suggested she should just be labelled based on limited information, so I did.
If you asked practically anyone else "would you think someone is racist if they put out an advertisement for a nanny of specific race" the answer would be yes.
And in almost every instance, they would be - as there's extremely few reasons why a nanny would have to have to be any particular race.
Few reasons to have to be but a malaysian family would likely prefer a malaysian nanny if that language is often spoken at home. Again for PC purposes they should have put preferably can SPEAK malaysian rather than the ethnicity itself
another thing you need to realize is that even if they have requested "preferably Malaysian" in the add, and they have legitimate reasons for it,
1. i don't see why people need to justify themselves to strangers 2. if the family was Malaysian they woulndn't see that as being racist, that may just their understanding of the English language and 3. there may not have been enough add space to specify that "this comment is not meant to be perceived as racist we would like a Malaysian nanny as we speak that language at home".
isn't that what interviews are for?
rec your comments are further proving what is wrong with the world, you automatically see the non existent racism in a comment that very well may be 100% harmless and have legitimate reasoning, without having all the info to make the correct assessment.
That's mean but then stereotyping happens everyday...thing is people should realize that we all are alike no matter what color, race or religion we belong. Sad thing is in todays world everybody saying this is generally considered to be on the major part a nut case. Hmm sad but true..