Showing posts with label huffington post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label huffington post. Show all posts

Friday, September 24, 2010

Someday I'll testify before Congress in character




Maybe we could offer more visas to the immigrants who, let's face it, will probably be doing these jobs anyway. And this improved legal status might allow immigrants recourse if they're abused. And it just stands to reason to me that if your co-worker can't be exploited, then you're less likely to be exploited yourself.

And that itself might improve pay and working conditions on these farms. And eventually Americans may consider taking these jobs again.

Or maybe that's crazy. Maybe the easier answer is just to have scientists develop vegetables that pick themselves. The genetic engineers at Fruit of the Loom have made great strides in human-fruit hybrids.

The point is, we have to do something because I am not going back out there. At this point I break into a cold sweat at the sight of a salad bar.



Stephen Colbert Hearing (VIDEO): Updates From Colbert's Visit To Congress, Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post.





.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Part of the Problem


This week I was having a conversation with one of my new friends, which went something like this:

New friend: "Let's talk about your dating life."

Me: "Let's not. It's terrible."

New friend: "Really?"

Me: "Really. Guys aren't that into me."

New friend: "That's hard to believe. You're great!"

Me: "Yeah, I know. I am great. But . . ."

And then I never know exactly what to say after that, because the friend that I am talking to is rarely another black woman. So the friend does not fully comprehend the background of racism, sexism, colorism, sizeism, and general discrimination and bigotry that is involved when dating, specifically when dating in the United States. It is difficult to explain that, for many male people my age, the person I am on the outside--and sometimes on the inside--is unacceptable. I am not what they had in mind. I am not what they grew up with. Even if my packaging is what they grew up with, the image of me, to them, remains generally inferior; it is not an image which they aspire to have as a partner.

It is hard for me to encapsulate all that pain in one sentence. It would take weeks for my friend to exit their well-constructed comfort zone and learn about gender studies and the history of institutional racism in the US. Then that friend would also have to recognize and accept that those social phenomena continue to negatively affect people like me, despite the few exceptions to the many rules. Watching Killing Us Softly 3 by Jean Kilbourne would be a start. They could also read the posts below:

Tameka Raymond's HuffPo Op-Ed on Colorism Is A Must Read, by ActsofFaithBlog, Acts of Faith In Love and Life.

"She's Pretty for a Dark-Skinned Girl...", by Tameka J. Raymond, The Huffington Post. Emphases mine.


I am a dark-skinned African American woman with features that reflect my ancestry. Debates regarding Light vs. Dark and other biases have plagued our race for years and continues to impact millions of Black women. The deeply rooted intra-racial contempt that lies beneath this inane "compliment" is the reason I've chosen to spark dialogue surrounding the topic of self-hatred in our culture. It saturates every aspect of our lives, dominating the perspectives of our generation as a whole. We culturally are so influential, at times inadvertently, that we affect all with the words we utter and the images we portray. It lends to the theory of systemic racism. I'm authoring this piece because I'm miffed by this reality and would like to share my views on these subjects.

[ . . . ]

Often dark-skinned women are considered mean, domineering and standoffish and it was these very labels that followed Michelle Obama during the campaign for her husband's presidency and which she has had to work tirelessly to combat. I was appalled when I heard a Black woman refer to Michelle Obama as unattractive. The conversation turned into why President Obama picked her as his mate. No one in the witch-hunt made reference to the possibility that Michelle Obama was smart, funny, caring, a good person, highly accomplished or brilliant. Nor did they mention that she previously was President Obama's supervisor. If she were fair skinned, petite with long straight or wavy hair, would the same opinions be linked to her? I seriously doubt it. It is believed that for the dark skinned, dreams are less obtainable.

In fact, I have read similar comments about myself that I am "dark, aggressive, bossy and bitchy." It has been stated that my husband should have been with a "younger, more beautiful" woman. Astoundingly, the majority of the remarks come from African-American women and are mimicked by others. Sadly enough, I don't know nor have I met 99% of those making these assertions. Funny, how we can judge another without having personally seen, interacted with or experienced a person's character.

[ . . . ]

Reading magazines, social media sites, watching our music videos, and television shows feed our appetites for all things 'beauty". Rarely, however do I see depictions of grace and elegance in the form of dark complexioned women.

[ . . . ]

It is my hope that our First Lady and others who share in this effort will continue to be the beacon to shine a light for those who toil on America's beauty totem pole. Now don't get me wrong or take my words out of context. I truly believe that everyone has a right to delineate what they deem is attractive, but we must not confuse perceived "attractiveness" with authentic "beauty."


.

Sunday, July 05, 2009

That's right, Colin Powell!


Powell Whacks Limbaugh And Republicans For Calling Sotomayor Racist, by Sam Stein, The Huffington Post.


Powell expressed relief that the GOP senators who sit on the Judiciary Committee, "after a few days of this kind of nonsense," decided to drop the Sotomayor-as-racist frame. But he would go on to argue that the Republican Party still had a major problem when it came to reaching out to minority voters. In the process, Powell took what seemed clear to be a jab at radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for some of his more inflammatory rhetoric.

"If you look at the results of the election last fall, and make a judgment on the basis of how the party did with respect to the Hispanic vote and the African-American vote, realizing that President Obama, candidate Obama had a significant advantage with those constituencies, we haven't done well enough," he said. "And when you have non-elected officials, such as we have in our party, who immediately shout racism, or somebody who is quite prominent in the media says that the only basis upon which I could possibly have supported Obama was because he was black and I was black, even though I laid out my judgment on the candidates, then we still have a problem."


Now let's talk about the illegal invasion of Iraq that you got our country into . . .

.

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Dead Parents


HuffPost Review: Away We Go, by Marshall Fine. Emphasis mine.

You're a couple in your mid-30s, expecting a baby, suddenly shorn of the anchor tethering you to a hometown you're not that crazy about. Now what?

That's the conundrum confronting Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph) in Sam Mendes' Away We Go, from a script by Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida. Burt and Verona are only a couple months away from parenthood, when Burt's parents (Jeff Daniels and Catherine O'Hara) announce that they're moving to Europe for two years -- before the baby is born.

Since being close to Burt's parents (Verona's are dead) is the only reason they've stayed in Connecticut, Burt and Verona decide to hit the road, visiting friends, siblings and relatives around the country, auditioning potential new places to relocate.


That's what happened in Flashdance, too: ethnically ambiguous characters in movies often get no family because you would have to admit that they aren't white, as I have mentioned before. The most egregious rendering of this in my recollection was on One Tree Hill when Haley's parents, sister, and son all ended up being white people, even though Haley is clearly not a white person.

In conclusion, I will probably see the movie anyway. Also, John Krasinski: what is up with that beard?

.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

"Say hi to your mother for me, okay?"



Mark Wahlberg Slams "Saturday Night Live", The Huffington Post via Yahoo!.

Someone showed it to me on YouTube. It wasn't like Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin, that's for sure. And "Saturday Night Live" hasn't been funny for a long time. They've asked me to do the show a ton of times. I used to watch it when Eddie Murphy was there and Joe Piscopo and Bill Murray. I don't even know who's on the show now.


Admittedly, SNL has not been funny for a long time. However, I am still laughing at this sketch. Andy does a good Marky Mark. Mr. Wahlberg should be happy that someone thinks he is still relevant enough to mimic. I'd be honored if Andy Samberg wanted to do me. Wait a minute . . .

.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

I remember seeing Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact, and thinking,


"Of course he's the President. He's pretty much the most famous person in the movie. Who else would be in the White House? Bill Pullman? Oh." I also thought he should have been nicer to Téa Leoni. She was just doing her job. How was she supposed to know that E. L. E. was not some top official's mistress named Ellie, but instead an Extinction Level Event?

This late-90s flashback was inspired by the following article:

Fear of a Black President, by Seth Grahame-Smith, The Huffington Post via Stuff White People Do.

. . . I'm a liberal, college-educated white guy. I think gays should be allowed to marry, I think women deserve equal pay for equal work, and I firmly believe that the more ethnically diverse America becomes, the more perfect and lasting our Union will be.


What do you want, a cookie?


But there's something about the idea of a black president that scares the shit out of me.

Until now, the notion of a black chief executive has belonged exclusively to Hollywood. I remember seeing Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact, and thinking what a cool, novel choice it was to cast a black man as the president of the United States. Cool, because it hit my progressive sweet spot. "Yes! That's the way the world should work!" Novel, because the idea seemed impossible. And that was scarcely ten years ago . . .


It didn't strike me as novel at all because it was Morgan Freeman. He drove Miss Daisy and battled both a monkey virus and hard rain. He later went on to play God. Twice.

Mr. Grahame-Smith continues, emphases mine:


. . . But the idea is very real now. A black man may well become the leader of the free world. And even for someone who fancies himself a progressive, that's forced me to take a long, hard look at what that would really mean to my white mind. To identify that tiny, obscure part of me that's suddenly afraid, and find out what its problem is.

Here's what I found.

It's been easy believing in equality, because part of me -- the part that's suddenly afraid -- didn't really think we'd ever achieve it.

For as long as I can remember, I've felt secure as a white person. Secure in the unspoken belief that no matter how much social progress we made in America -- no matter how many blacks and Latinos graduated Magna Cum Laude or how many trophies Tiger won -- that we'd always be the ruling class from sea to shining sea.


What?


That belief was so ingrained in my DNA [In your DNA? Really?] that nothing could shake it loose. Not the first billionaires of color, not the surging growth of the Latino population, not the Congressional Black Caucus...not even Oprah.

For though my better angels usually won the day, and though I was happy with the strides America was making, I was also -- deep down in that DNA -- gratified by the knowledge that mine was still the easiest color in America to be.

But a black president? That's different.

A black president means anything is possible. It means that that last little parcel of earth -- which for 232 years has been solely inhabited by white men -- is now open to people of all colors. That may seem insignificant. After all, there are black CEOs, black movie stars, black Senators...but the "highest office in the land" is just that . . .


Mr. Grahame-Smith was then shocked (shocked!) that people read this and concluded that he was "either an idiot or a racist." Well, dude, it's one thing to believe that being white is the easiest color to be in the United States of America. It's a whole other thing to believe 1) that white supremacy would and should continue forever; 2) that electing Senator Obama as President would end white supremacy; and 3) that the end of white supremacy would be a detrimental event because "a black president somehow takes ... white folks down a notch."

There's more!


. . . Some of these hypothetical people are simply racists. People who've let that fear consume them, and who would never vote for a black candidate no matter what. Others [others?] are like me -- whites who embrace equality, and who've loved people of all colors with all their hearts, but who (somewhere deep down in that DNA) are afraid of what this brave new world will look like. Of what their place in it will -- or won't -- be . . .


Okay, bucko. If you actually embraced equality and "loved people of all colors", you wouldn't be worried that the darkies are taking over and kicking you out of your assumed place. You would see a black President as more representation of more people in our flawed governmental system. Just because you call yourself a "liberal" doesn't mean you are one. If your readers are calling you a racist idiot, I suggest you take some time to figure out whether their claims are valid and why.

Because Voting for Barack Obama + Having black friends I'm not a racist!

.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

An Inconvenient Truth



On Tuesday, I spent a portion of my evening yelling at my mother over the phone, expressing my annoyance at Senator Barack Obama's much ballyhooed speech.

Here is the speech: Obama Race Speech: Read The Full Text, from The Huffington Post.

Here is what caused the speech: Controversial comments made by Rev Jeremiah Wright, by Daniel Nasaw at The Guardian.

Here is the problem with the speech: The Great Conciliator, by manish at Ultrabrown.

Barack Obama’s Great Race Speech yesterday drew plenty of frothy praise and historians’ plaudits. But it was a disappointingly limited speech, projecting a static, black-and-white image of America which has little to do with its real racial makeup today.

Keep in mind that all Obama had to do was walk in, denounce Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views without sounding like an angry black man, and not drool on himself, and the chattering classes would be rapturous. We’re at a time in political history when a politician who speaks like an adult startles us . . .

. . . there’s some truth to the Saturday Night Live portrayal of a press which fawns over Obama. The pundits are primed. The mere appearance of an adult at the table can send them into orbit. What Obama did not address in any detail: Latinos, who outnumber blacks in America. Asians. The multiracial. How multiculti the music industry and sports teams and many big city neighborhoods already are. America is not just black and white and has not been for a long time . . .


America has never been "just black and white", despite what my history text books insisted throughout my middle and upper school years. Racism didn't begin with slavery and end with the Civil Rights movement. There are countless peoples and events that came before, between and after 1492 and 1960.

Let's take Senator Obama's speech paragraph by paragraph, and ignore the passages that don't my points of view. My comments are in the brackets.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men [Yes, men. White, landowning men in specific] gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution ["patriots" who then chose to exact the same tyranny and persecution on the native people already living on this continent] finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery [and by the mass genocide of the Indians], a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law [except for women, nonwhite people, and non-landowning males]; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time. [Or, the founders could have chosen not to demean, enslave, and murder their fellow human beings. Either, or.]

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time. [No, what we needed was for our country not to be founded by successive groups of hypocritical, self-entitled, homicidal maniacs. Who in their right mind thinks to themselves, "you know what would be a great idea? Let's import some people from Africa, not pay them, and then kill off all these other brown folks squatting on our land." Was there no one to tap Thomas Jefferson on the shoulder and say, "How about you take some time away from impregnating your wife's half-sister, whom you own, and get a clue?]


The fun doesn't stop here, people. Keep reading!

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. [Really? No other country on Earth? Not even Canada?]


But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic [It's not endemic; it's institutionalized.], and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.


That last phrase is both inaccurate and inflammatory. I agree that the conflicts in the Middle Ease are not rooted primarily in the actions of the people of Israel. However, the conflicts in the Middle East should not be blamed on "radical Islam" either. That was an irresponsible characterization. I have never heard such phrases as "radical Christianity", "radical Hinduism" or "radical Buddhism" ever uttered in American media. But I can't swing a dead cat without hitting a political pundit shouting the phrase "radical Islam" or "Islamofascist". The situations in the Middle East are very complicated. It is not fair to label Israelis or Palestinians or Jews or Muslims or Arabs or Americans, or any combination of the above as the sole cause of centuries of tension and instability.

Next.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.


These problems do confront us all. However, economic inequality and the chronic health care crisis have disproportionately affected the black and brown communities for years, decades even. Yet now that these issues are affecting more white people, suddenly they are newsworthy problems to be addressed by Presidential candidates?

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.


Why didn't you address this sooner, before it became the major news story of the month? You've only known the man twenty years. One of your aides could have told you, "this guy is going to present a problem."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.


Did you really need to cite "the welfare mom" and "the former gang-banger"? Was that necessary? FYI, welfare moms and gang bangers are prevalent in every other community as well. Don't you watch Law & Order?

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. [I agree.] We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.


A lack of economic opportunity among black men, [but not among black women?] and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.


And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition [Complicity? I didn't do anything wrong!], and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races. [That's right!]

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. [Ha! They are so wrong.] Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. [Yes, "as far as they are concerned".] They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. [I feel that way, and I'm not white.] So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. [Where would Stephen Colbert be without them?]

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. [That's what I'm saying!] And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. [But some white (and nonwhite) Americans' resentments are misguided and racist. Didn't you see the Goobacks episode of South Park?]


For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. [But black people have always dealt with those things, too, often at the same time.] And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, [My father died, and I don't have any children. Therefore, I will continue not to take any responsibility for my own life.] and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.


This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. [Except that many of those homes belonged to blacks and Latinos, including the rich ones.] This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit. [That's right!]


That's all of the nit-picky snarkiness I can muster for now.

.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Things I liked this week


Jokes that objectify women, by Matsu at media girl.

Let She Who Is Without Period Stains Throw The First Tampon, by Margaret Cho at The Huffington Post, via Feministing.

The Slut on Gossip Girl, by Jessica Wakeman at The Huffington Post, via Feministe.

Know Your Limit . . . For Rape?, by Cara at The Curvature, via Feministing.

Montana, nation's least-black state, confronts issues on MLK Day, by Rob Chaney at Billings Gazette, via Racialicious.

How would Chris Matthews sound if he talked to men like he talks to women?, by Hart Seely at Slate, via Feministing.

Also, I am now cross-posting my relevant musings at BlogHer.com, so tell your friends in China!

Happy reading!

Update 1/28/2008 - I forgot this one:

That fragile male ego, by media girl at media girl. including privilege, a poem for men who don't understand what we mean when we say they have it, by D. A. Clarke.

. . . privilege is being
smiled at all day by nice helpful women, it is
the way you pass judgment on their appearance with magisterial authority,
the way you face a judge of your own sex in court and
are over-represented in Congress and are not strip searched for a traffic ticket
or used as a dart board by your friendly mechanic, privilege
is seeing your bearded face reflected through the history texts
not only of your high school days but all your life, not being
relegated to a paragraph
every other chapter, the way you occupy
entire volumes of poetry and more than your share of the couch unchallenged,
it is your mouthing smug, atrocious insults at women
who blink and change the subject -- politely -- privilege
is how seldom the rapist's name appears in the papers
and the way you smirk over your PLAYBOY . . .

.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

I would respect Elisha Cuthbert more...


...if she did actual porn. Oh wait.

I Am Pissed the Fuck Off, Dustin's review of Captivity, on Pajiba. An excerpt:


When [Cuthbert's character Jennifer] rebels — when she tries to escape — she’s put in her place by the “man,” like all women should be, I suppose. She’s drugged. Chased with a bone saw in a heating duct. Drugged again. Buried in sand. Drugged again. Made to choose between blowing a hole in her dog with a shotgun or getting shot in the face with it (she chooses the former, and the dog’s guts explode in her face). And, worst of all, she’s made to ingest a smoothie of blended human parts through a funnel. Just for kicks. Sick motherfucking kicks. And, of course, through it all, there are more damsel-in-despair cries than a goddamn Olive Oyl costume party.


I thought I had been grossed out by the idea of "Rider Strong...fucking a gaping sore in a chick’s upper thigh in Cabin Fever." I thought I had said my peace (piece?) on already famous women accepting unnecessarily degrading roles when Jenna Fischer posed kinda naked for Wired magazine. But this atrocity takes the cake. Other people have also shared their views, so I'll let you all do some reading:

The 'Captivity' Premiere Party: A Delightful Evening of Meticulously Planned Outrageousness, from Defamer.

Because imprisonment is so hot. by Vanessa on Feministing.

Remove the Rating for Captivity, by Jill Soloway on The Huffington Post, which includes a letter by Joss Whedon. Yes, the same Joss Whedon. He's pretty cool. I should watch Serenity/Firefly, and those other shows he did. Then he'd have at least one fan. :)