Why would there be a shit-storm? If you think it’s true, and that it’s okay to have a white and a black network, why not just call it that? Or should we not have white and black networks? If so, back to the original question.
The thing is, ladies night is for men. I shouldn’t have to explain why. 
I don’t think they should call it BET. I was sort of kidding about NBC, but If there *was *a WET, people would complain… at least I would think they would.
I understand Ladies Night is for men, however I’m not sure how I feel about the idea.
Oh, I’m sure they would. I’m just not the type to just let things go without exploring and challenging idea, which is why I spend so much time here.
I do! The more ladies we can draw in, the better.
I take it you’re not an AA fan then.
“Female-only gyms” aren’t a privilege; they’re a protection from the abuse (some) women receive at mixed gyms. BET is a channel aimed at a minority demographic not served by other channels, like many other channels; again, not a privilege so much as a reaction to perceived exclusion from the mainstream. And “LGBTetc centers” on campuses are there both as the aforementioned reaction to exclusion and to facilitate the ending of privilege as you would prefer.
Someday being gay or seeing black characters on television will be no big deal, and we won’t need the campus centers or BET. Until then, this is better than nothing. And until then, there are the blue shells and lightning bolts not because the people in first place are so far ahead but because everyone else started out so far behind through no fault of their own.
Further on BET – there’s no legal barrier to someone starting a WET, as long as they abided by federal laws. But that would probably not be a popular network, and it likely could not compete.
I’m fine with that, but to call it “BET” is stupid, imho. I mean, if I were black, I might even be a little offended. Tyler Perry is not a representation of entertainment for all black people.
Well, no.
That’s fine (though I don’t think that’s the only reason at all, but whatever). But if that’s a concern, why have any mixed gyms at all? Just segregate them, male and female. No females allowed in male gyms, since they might be abused. Right?
I didn’t say I have a problem with BET. I don’t. I agree with you.
But if it’s about exlclusion from the mainstream, shouldn’t the solution be to end that exclusion rather than perpetuate it with a racially segregated TV channel? It’s a bit like forming black schools because blacks aren’t allowed in white schools, isn’t it?
Again, I have no problem with those centers.
But isn’t BET, for instance, actually perpetuating the problem? If you have to go to the black channel to see black characters and you won’t see them on mainstream TV, how does that help get to the point where seeing black characters on TV is no big deal? Instead of creating their own channels, shouldn’t they demand access to the mainstream? Now if a black producer tries to pitch a show to NBC, it could say “you don’t need us, you can go to BET.”
(I recognize that BET is about more than just access, and would have a role even if mainstream TV had its share of blacks. This is just for argument’s sake).
Yes, another example of the principle of not judging people by their race.
Also, calling it BET can alienate your potential audience… a lot of white people like Tyler Perry.
I hate Tyler Perry’s work, FTR.
Yes, why should he be restricted to BET?
I don’t think women have a desire to see men humiliated, per se, and I think the advertisers goal is simply to sell a product. To do that, they show their target market, strong and capable, using the product to solve a problem or fill a need. And if they make that problem look worse than it really is, that’s part of their job. My only point was that this was seen as an issue when it featured unflattering depictions of women (and still is), but not when it’s directed at men. No women are saying “hooray, that guy was humiliated”, there’s just no acknowledgment that this might send any message at all to men and boys.
There was one ad for cough-and-cold syrup, and how the company’s new labeling made it clear which product would treat which symptoms. A man is in the drugstore aisle staring at all the choices; then an orangutan comes in and instantly picks the right syrup. The man was literally stupider than an ape. If I had any children, boys or girls, that is not a message I would want them to take to heart.
I only brought this subject up as an example of the sort of thing I thought the OP was getting at. It’s far from the worst thing in the world, but I don’t think it should be totally dismissed, either.
YES! As a child, these ads made me feel horrible.
Was that an option, though? BET was started by Robert Johnson, a cable-industry lobbyist, with a $15,000 loan and a $500,000 investment. What power did he have to change the content of American television, as an alternative to starting BET? Slim to none.
Anyone can ask for anything, but the decisions of a for-profit industry are always going to be made by the ownership, based on what they think will make them money.
NBC isn’t going to turn down a pitch they think would be profitable*, nor are they going to accept a pitch on the basis that minority representation is the right thing to do. “You don’t need us” isn’t ever going to be part of the process.
He didn’t have to do it alone. We managed to get civil rights for blacks in the South, I bet we could get Tyler Perry on NBC.
But whatever - now that we could get blacks on mainstream television, should we do that and abandon BET?
Sure, but that was true of whites-only restaurants in the Jim Crow South but we didn’t accept that argument then.
But what if NBC thinks it’s more profitable to totally exclude blacks from the screen (except perhaps in insulting stereotypical roles)? Because whites wouldn’t want to see them? Which is basically what happened until the late 1950s or so. Does that make it right?
Or what if, you know, an NBC exec is a racist and is quite willing to forego a little potential profit to keep blacks off his network? Which is also what happened for a long time.
And then, if someone complained, he could say “you’ve got BET, go ask them.”
There are black people on mainstream television, though perhaps not enough. But why would we abandon BET? As a network, it doesn’t exclude anyone.
NBC is not banning anyone from participating, unless you have any new information.
No, but that was a symptom of a larger problem. Getting a handle on the larger problem (Civil Rights) lessened the TV problem.
Then hopefully he would get fired, or if he was violating the law, then hopefully he would be prosecuted.
That would be a stupid answer from a stupid man (your hypothetical racist TV exec – not you).
You don’t see a station named specifically after a race as an exclusion problem? So you wouldn’t care if we had a WET either, as long as it didn’t exclude blacks?
I didn’t say they are. I’m asking what you’d say if they did.
And we did that by abandoning black schools (and white schools). Not by creating them.
So if a BET exec excludes a white show because it’s not black enough, would the same apply?
Sure, but the point is that we didn’t just say “you’re stupid” when confronted with racists in the South who excluded blacks from their businesses. We protested and passed laws forcing them to stop.
I would think it’s obnoxious, due to our history. Anti-black racism has been very, very different in our history from anti-white racism. But as long as they didn’t violate the law, I don’t think the government should shut down a hypothetical network because it’s called White Entertainment Network.
If they’re violating the law, prosecute. If they’re not violating the law, but they’re still finding loopholes to exclude black people, then boycott and/or fix the laws.
Huh? Civil Rights was not about abandoning schools.
Does he refuse to hire someone because they’re white? Then he’s violated the law. If he doesn’t want to pick up a new show, because he thinks a show that appeals to black people will make more money (or just fit the networks goals better), then I don’t think he’s violating the law. And not only would such a law be pointless (IMO) there would be no practical way to enforce any potential law that prevents networks from refusing a show because of the audience appeal that they want to reach.
Right. And your hypothetical executive is violating some of those laws. If he’s not, but he’s still finding ways to exclude black people, then boycott and/or fix the laws.
Sure, you can pass a law to force a certain amount of minority content on television (if it passes Constitutional muster)…but should you? No.
[QUOTE=lance strongarm]
But whatever - now that we could get blacks on mainstream television, should we do that and abandon BET?
[/quote]
No. BET and other specialty networks do more than simply features actors and characters of a certain group, they are able to speak directly to issues affecting their group that mainstream networks are not, as well as exploring aspects of group culture that won’t make it into mainstream-network content, precisely because they need to appeal to a broad base.
This isn’t unique to race, either…do we really need ESPN? The Big Four shows sports already, after all. While that’s true, they don’t show rodeo, or cheerleading, or Ohio Valley Conference basketball. The networks show only the highest levels of the most popular sports.
We very much accept that argument, which is why the Civil Rights Act was passed.
We cross that bridge when we come to it. As that is not the world we’re currently living in, it’s no strike against BET existing.
The crux is this: advocating against minority-specific content like BET or Logo is (unintentionally, generally) asking that all content be aimed at white, straight, middle class people, because that’s what the mainstream audience in the U.S. is going to be for the forseeable future.