The Nanny

And here we go again...

I've randomly chosen one article about the "racial controversy" that exploded after the "Kids interrupt father live on BBC" video; the articles are all so alike, they're pretty much interchangeable. It's almost as if someone had presented these remarkable authors with a set of bullet points and they had elaborated from there.

Let's go, then...

So, to those who assumed that Kim was the nanny, it’s worth thinking about what kind of woman you might have expected Kelly to be married to.

This was my first assumption as well (a few seconds later, I had another assumption, but we'll deal with that later). When I assumed she was an employee (the word "nanny" didn't really register), I didn't have any thought about who might be his wife, and especially not about what "kind of woman" (what the author actually means is "race of woman") he might be married to (that came by in my later assumption).

Did people assume that the Asian woman in his home was the nanny because she seems to behave in a subservient way?

Actually, I assumed she was the employee because of her over-the-top panic when she entered the room and took the children out.

She seems scared, flustered, her posture is low to the ground and she doesn’t make eye contact or speak.

Scared? Flustered? That woman acted as if she was terrified. The scenario that first played through my mind was something like "Boss tells employee he'll be having a Very Important Video Call(TM) and she'll regret it for the rest of her life if he's interrupted by anything, «especially those pesky children»".

Or is it that she can’t possibly be the heroine because Asian women are routinely depicted as secondary figures in the media, if they are visible at all.

Oh, yes, the first thing that absolutely came to mind when I saw that video was "Hum... I wonder who the hero/heroine is...?"

After I read this remarkable example of white-guilt-inducing BS, I actually considered who could be the hero/heroine here. I'd say it's the children. Why? They are clearly the center of the "plot" (yes, I know, but I'm just going along with the BS).

The article then goes on to present examples of how the media typecasts Asian people (but especially women), presenting them (especially women) as discardable supporting props (did I mention it was especially women?) It gives us such current examples as "Madame Butterfly" (19th century), "Miss Saigon" (1989, based on "Madame Butterfly"), and "You Only Live Twice" (1960s novel/movie). Other examples seem to refer to more current work and may be more relevant, but after reading these, I didn't bother to check out the rest - the onus lies with the author to convince me she's arguing in good faith, and the outdated examples she presented first have failed to convince me.

So, recapping:

My first assumption was that the woman was an employee and that the man was an extremely nasty boss, and not much of a good father. I based that on the apparent terror the woman displayed, and on his distant demeanor through the whole thing, not even acknowledging his children were there.

And my second assumption?

It went along similar lines, but I assumed the woman could be his wife, instead of his employee. Yes, boys and girls, the world can be more than just black and white. Some people can have a "systemic/unconscious racist thought" and then, just within a few seconds, they can have an "inclusive thought". Who could've predicted that, hey?

Why do I say it went along similar lines? It was something like this:

My second assumption was that the woman was the children's mother and that the man was an extremely nasty husband, and not much of a good father. I based that on the apparent terror the woman displayed, and on his distant demeanor through the whole thing, not even acknowledging his children were there.

Ah, but now my second assumption also has a "systemic/unconscious racist" component, namely the submission of the Asian woman to her Master husband. Well, you can't win them all. Although I can point out that while I didn't think about who was the hero/heroine, the White Man surely looked kinda villan-ey to me. That's gotta count for something, right?

Now, for another question - what would I consider "normal" behavior in this situation? Let's have a go at it:

• Man is on video call, live, probably for a large part of the world.
• Children enter.
• Man carries on with his contribution to the news, but may hold his child, put an arm around him/her as he keeps talking.

I believe this would reassure the child everything is fine, and defuse any sort of more disruptive reaction from the children (although, they're children, and delightfully unpredictable). I also believe this would signal the man's confidence that someone (his wife or a nanny) would eventually come and take the children out of the room orderly.

• Wife/nanny comes into the room and takes the children out of the room without looking like she's part of some kind of martial arts horror flick.
• Life can now resume, and the internet can have its sh*tstorm when someone comments "My, how calm and composed that nanny was. This white man must really be an excellent boss! #AsianEmpoweringWhiteMan".

OK, the last point is not what I would consider "normal", just "usual" or "expected".

The author of the Guardian article has a point - there are racial stereotypes. However, there are also other kinds of stereotypes, and the opinion articles from the Guardian, Vox, Slate, Washington Post, or Huffington Post are as much stereotyped as are the opinion articles from Breitbart, Zero Hedge, Red State, or Fox News.

And that, boys and girls, is why 1) we have bubbles; and 2) if you're getting your news exclusively from social media, you don't really have much reason to complain, you've chosen to be bubble-wrapped and misinformed.

In other words - Facebook and Twitter are not the Internet.