Tuesday, April 22, 2008

More insecurity from Nora Ephron

Nora Ephron, who I am trying desperately to remember is a good screenwriter, rants again at HuffPost, apparently intent on reminding the world that Hollywood liberals can be flaky and narrowminded. Unlike her last post, which I at least enjoyed as somewhat amusing, this one is just ridiculous. Most Democrats are thrilled that this election presents a historic choice; the only downside is that we have too much historic choice. But Ephron sees the glass as not just half-empty, but probably filled with something poisonous:
This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks
more than they hate women.
And Obama got slammed for being an elitist? But of course, there are many women and blacks in Pennsylvania, so who is going to decide this?

And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men. . . To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them
At least she is completely upfront about her biases. She can't complain about white men being the only candidates, so she gives them credit for undue influence, just so she can complain about that influence. Just in case it's not clear how she feels about white guys and their voting patterns, here's a clue:

the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of [white men] vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them.
I was under the impression that the purpose of feminism was to move beyond gender stereotyping. Maybe the purpose was to move beyond stereotyping of women, but it's still perfectly acceptable to define men in terms of broad, negative generalizations. Want another example? How about this:

A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what's more, they think it's normal.
And this is from the woman who directed that well-known font of white male bitterness and rage, Tom Hanks, in two romantic comedies.

It is not entirely Ephron's fault that she's throwing around these stereotypes. As a Hillary supporter, she's had to watch her heroine/candidate/walking Rorschach test try to build a case against the first African American candidate to have a reasonable chance at becoming president, and she has, I am sure, experienced a lot of the same frustrations. And so now she is giving in to the same temptations:

Hillary's case is not an attractive one, because what she'll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.
So it's not Hillary's fault that she has been walking on thin ice regarding race in this country - it's what she has had to do keep hope alive. It's just politics, you know?

Which, unfortunately for both Hillary and Ephron, is exactly Obama's point - that's the politics of division that has kept us from making progress in this country on so many issues.

"When Harry Met Sally," "Sleepless In Seattle," and "You've Got Mail" are about basically decent white guys who get the girl. Didn't Nora Ephron learn anything from her own movies?

No comments: