We all know the trope: The person(s) of color (overwhelmingly the black guy) gets killed off first, especially in a horror film. Well here is a brief list of such films, many of which not only feature the person of color dying first, but feature the main white characters ultimately saving the day:

• X-Men: First Class
• King Kong
• Scream 2
• Predator (1 & 2)
• Serenity
• State of Play
• Deep Rising
• Kill Bill: Volume I
• Jaws: The Revenge
• House of Wax
• Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem
• Stargare
• Aliens
• The Shining
• Leviathan
• Terminator (1 & 2)
• Red Dawn
• Jurassic Park
• Gremlins
• Hollow Man
• Hulk
• Predators
• United 93
• Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
• Super 8
• Cursed
• Killjoy
• Queen of the Damned
• Transformers (Not a complete fit in the trope since it’s not human-based. The only autobot to die in the film is Jazz, the jive-talking autobot voiced by a black actor)
• 300
• Resident Evil
• The Mummy (1 & 2)

And believe me, I could probably find many more if I looked a little harder. (Feel free to correct me on any films, as I have not seen a few of these films).

So, what is the point of this list? Well, it’s to illustrate that even if at first glance, a film may show potential of diversity, people of color are still, in many respects, disposable in films. It’s just enough time to introduce the idea that these films are inclusive by introducing some racial diversity, yet allows them not to have to explore the nuances of these characters of color by killing them off, to focus on the true protagonists - the white folks.

Now, let me make it clear: the individual films listed are not necessarily racist because the feature this trope, and the reasoning for killing of the character of color might not be a conscious choice. Rather, the focus is how the overall trope itself is racist, as it is evident in several films that even if there are people of color in films, they are likely to be killed off or rid of early on, further illustrating Hollywood’s penchant for not telling stories of people of color in any meaningful way and only actively engaging a white-centered audience.

Internalized sexism stems from the messages and stereotypes we hear about women and girls all the time: Women are catty, they’re bitches, they’re frivolous, they’re flighty, they have to be passive, they have to gentle, they are overly emotional, etc. Eventually, because these messages are so ingrained in our culture, some women begin to believe that they are undoubtedly true.

There are different forms of internalized sexism, such as passive acceptance of these messages, a mixture of acceptance and rejection of them, or retaliation of these messages. The experiences of each woman who carries internalized misogyny are different, yet they all stem from some form of acceptance of the constant bombardment of mixed messages and stereotypes about being a girl/woman.

One consequence of mass internalized sexism is girl-on-girl hate, something I’m sure most of us are familiar with. Instead of rallying together and talking about how the stereotypes are harmful or how they’re misguided or downright wrong, many women who harbor internalized sexism believe that it’s every other woman but them who perpetuate the stereotypes and fall prey to sexist messages. These women, therefore, are more likely to take what they perceive to be the “male” side of things and devalue the opinions and feelings of women around them in order to separate themselves from all of the negative aspects of womanhood and femininity. And that’s when internalized misogyny becomes a tool that let’s women do sexism’s job for it. Who needs a patriarchy when you can have women devaluing each other and refusing to support each other?

I grew up with a notorious penchant for what I now know was internalized misogyny. Since I was five-years-old, I thought that being a girl meant being weak, mean, and stupid. I don’t know where it came from, but it somehow entered into my mind.

The form of internalized misogyny I held basically went like this: Being a girl meant being weak, mean, and stupid. So to be the opposite of those things, I had to disassociate myself from other girls as much as possible. This idea seemed easy to me since I’ve always been a tomboy. I played Hotwheels instead of Barbies, I played video games and engaged in a mostly-male gaming culture from a very young age, I was usually the only girl in my neighborhood and hung out with all the boys. However, from the middle of elementary school to the middle of high school, I pushed myself to be as much of a boy as I could be. In order to feel like I could be free from being a girl - which as we’ve established, I thought meant being weak, mean, and stupid - tried to be an “equal” to the boys and ignored girls and their opinions entirely.

Looking back, the most upsetting aspect about it was that I thought that by being a “boy” as much as possible I was actually being a “better girl” because I was fighting against the stereotypes of girls that had always bothered me. But really, my self-worth still depended on what boys thought of me, and not what I thought about myself. I judged other girls for being feminine when they were really just being themselves, and they weren’t harming anyone or anything but my distorted ego. All I was really doing was externalizing the hatred I had towards myself and my gender by “proving” how I wasn’t like my gender at all and shaming other girls.

In sophomore year of high school, I began to realize what I was doing and that I was not some kind of trailblazer for my gender at all: Internalized sexism made me a tool of my own oppression by devaluing my female peers and women in general, just as it does to other women everywhere. After that realization, I declared myself a feminist almost overnight, and strove to undo the damage I had done to myself and my peers.

Overcoming internalized sexism is not easy and certainly hasn’t been easy for me; it’s a complicated process of challenging and critiquing without attacking other women, questioning sexist stereotypes before trying to remove myself from them, placing more value on my relationships with other women, unlearning that is femininity bad. It’s all hard to unlearn, but it’s necessary in order to rise above the messages.

Some people’s experience with internalized misogyny are similar and some are different. However, the staple of internalized misogyny remains the same: No matter what you do, when you start to believe the sexist messages and stereotypes that are thrown at you, you do sexism’s work for itself.

Yes, this will indeed be a Degrassi post:

Owen is the most douchiest douche of all the douches in Degrassi and I can’t believe Anya would forgive him for all the terrible things he’s said and done. I was so happy whenever Anya called him out on his harassment, sexism, and homophobia in public because it showed how strong she is and how men can’t get away with being complete oppressive jerks. But now suddenly, even after all the things he’s done and the people he’s treated poorly, even after he has done absolutely nothing but be a total creeper and a bully who has continuously done invasive things to get with Anya, she’s totally into him because she realizes that he “genuinely likes her”?

And this is such a TV/film trope! Oh, look, a really douchey guy is a total jerk to a girl and all her friends and proves it over and over again. But wait! Inside all of that douchiness, there is an entire drop of sincerity! And of course, that ALWAYS outweighs any actual amount of how sexist, heterosexist, and all around oppressive someone is, cause really, all he needs is the right girl to bring the nice guy out of him.

Jeez, seriously Degrassi writers? I really hope this storyline is not what I think it will be, because it’s ridiculous.

Because:

1. I don’t know who in the room has been raped and will be triggered or think that because I laughed, I’m okay with rape
2. I don’t know who in the room has raped someone and think that because I laughed, I’m condoning their actions
3. You don’t know those things either ^
4. Oh yeah, RAPE JOKES ARE NOT FUNNY

Okay, so I am getting very uncomfortable with people using “ghetto” as an adjective for something they perceive as trashy or considered to be very “urban” or stereotypically “black.”

I mean, do you actually know what a ghetto is?

In 1500s Venice and subsequently other areas in Europe, they were designated areas where the authorities forced Jews to live.

The most famous ghettos were the city districts where Jews had to stay in during World War II and subjected to miserable living conditions, and many inhabitants of ghettos were systematically killed by Nazis during the Holocaust.

And now ghetto described an overcrowded area in a city, usually populated by a minority ethnic or racial group. These areas are impoverished, have disproportionally high crime rates. These ghettos were formed over hundreds of years of institutional oppression by ensuring that poor people and people of color have fewer resources and fewer options on where they can live.

“Ghetto” shouldn’t be relegated to something you disparage people for because they look or act urban. Ghetto is a tool of systematic oppression and marginalization. So you don’t need to be comparing something that you think looks messy or poor or what you perceive to be very much in-line with urban African American culture in a negative way to be “ghetto.” You want to call something ghetto? Say that gentrification is “ghetto,” say that the unbalanced school systems are “ghetto,” say that the disparities between the rich and poor are ghetto. Cause those are actual analogies to what ghettos have done and the systematically oppressive accomplishments they’ve sought to complete.

Well firstly, I think the word “mansplainer” is just very hokey and childish and I can’t help but roll my eyes when I read it. This goes with whitesplainer, cissplainer, etc.

I also think that the people who accuse someone of mansplaining are often far more condescending than the ones they say are mansplaining. Too many conversations are revolved around trying to put down the accused x-splainer, rather than trying to create a a dialogue on what x-plaining is and how it perpetuates oppression, often without the knowledge of the said ‘splainer. Now of course, many people who are true ‘splainers will probably not engage in respectful dialogue, but I find respect to be a better option anyway.

And this is just personal for me, but I can never really tell who is ‘splaining and who is just trying to speak honestly from their experience, since most just don’t understand that they’ve been trained to “x-plain” and therefore deserve some amnesty. I think shouting “x-splainer” is not conducive to an understanding environment because it makes a conversation into a “what you are because of what you did” rather than a “what you are doing and what it means because of what you did.”

Translation: “I’m getting intimidated by your knowledge on this subject which I wrongfully tried to debate you in, because it is clear to me that I seem foolish and uneducated in comparison to your well-thought-out point of view and your passionate demeanor, so I’m going to back away by saying that people have opinions in hopes that I can keep my dignity.”

Certainly not true for all cases, but definitely what I usually feel people are really saying.

A White Savior Film (WSF) is a movie that features a white person coming into the lives of a person or people of color (POCs) who are often low-income, troubled, and/or severely oppressed. The troubled times that the people of color are in can be a product of oppression from other white folks, or their own doing. Either way, the White Savior comes in, quickly sympathizes with the problems of the people of color, learning what needs to happen to solve their problems, and in doing so, wins their favor and becomes their hero. Here is a list of some of these films:

• Gran Torino
• Avatar (Jake Sully literally becomes the Messiah of the Na’vi)
• The Blind Side*
• Hardball
• The Ghosts of Mississippi*
• Glory Road*
• Dances With Wolves
• Finding Forrester
• The Principal*
• Music of the Heart*
• To Kill a Mockingbird (slightly on the fence with this one because the savior Atticus Finch does not save Tom Robinson from being convicted)
• Radio*
• Cool Runnings*
• Dangerous Minds* (This film was based on the true story of a Latina teacher, yet Michelle Pfiffer played the teacher, thereby turning this into a WSF)
• The Last Samurai
• Wildcats
• Freedom Writers*
• Amistad*
• Black Rain
• Sunset Park
• District 9 (Also slightly on the fence with this one since the white protagonist mainly follows the plan of the oppressed alien that stands for a POC, and he is more of an anti-hero)
• Mississippi Burning*
• The Last Airbender (the TV series composed of all Asian characters, but the film’s three main heroes were cast as white people, while everyone else was of color)
• Dune
• Glory*
• The Ron Clark Story*
• The Help
• Atlantis: The Lost Empire
• The Road to El Dorado

There are a few different kinds of WSF. The most popular kinds include the white teacher/administrator that helps the students of color realize their true potential and help them overcome their own prejudices (The Principal, Freedom Writers, Dangerous Minds, etc.), and the white sports coach leading his or her team filled with usually poor and troubled people of color to victory (Glory Road, Cool Runnings, Wildcats, Sunset Park, Hardball, etc).

The more epic, and true “savior” WSF that many sci-fi films also fit into feature a white person who is often an oppressor happening upon a culture of people of color or aliens that are POC stand-ins. The white hero eventually assimilates into their culture, and he even proves to be more skillful than them as learns the culture. He becomes their leader and savior in the battle against their enemies (Avatar, The Last Samurai, Dances With Wolves, Dune, District 9, etc.) Particularly for the “epic” WSF, the saviors are male, heterosexual, and very masculine.

So what are the problems with these films? Well, they portray people of color as too desolate, too hopeless, too overcome by their own prejudices and circumstances to help themselves, so they need someone to help them. But not just anyone, no, this helper must be a White Savior. This Savior inspires the people of color, teaches them how to be a better them, and makes their lives better when the people of color couldn’t do it themselves. These films ignore the stories of people of color helping their own communities and helping themselves.

Hollywood, and many white people, eat these WSF up because white audiences can identify wanting to be the “savior” in POC’s lives, to be the one who rescues the poor POCs from their circumstances, to be the hero in their lives. They help alleviate feelings of white guilt by projecting white people not as the oppressors, but as the heroes who can save people of color from their circumstances, and often, the oppression that whites in the past have caused. Essentially, these films capitalize on the stories of people of color, yet instead of telling the film through their eyes, they are presented as stories of the white people who help them. The people of color in these films function as catalysts for the White Savior to learn his or her lessons and reach the end of his or her own journey.

* You’ve probably noticed that many of these films are inspired by true stories. People who defend WSF often bring up the fact that several of these are “based on a true story,” however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all WSF are valid as a group. Rather, it shows that Hollywood has a greater interest in the stories of heroic white people saving people of color than stories of people of color helping their own communities or people of color helping white people out of bad situations. WSF stories are being used to support the status quo.

Is it racist to enjoy these films? No, it’s not. You can still watch these films and like them, but they are part of a trend that chooses to ignore the perspective of people of color, and feed into the White Savior Complex that really shows what Hollywood, and unfortunately, many white people have, so choose your films well and watch them carefully.

Because society values masculinity more, no matter who is practicing it.

Even though women are admonished for acting outside of gender roles, they often have more freedom to be masculine than men do to be feminine. People are more likely to see a woman adopting masculine traits as being strong, tenacious, and dominant because we prize masculinity or femininity.

People have a bigger problem with men being more “feminine” because we view femininity as too emotional, weak, and submissive. And who are meant to be too emotional, weak, and submissive? Women, not men.