Watched Avatar a few days ago and enjoyed the film very much. One of the reasons I wanted to watch it, besides the hype from almost everyone I know who’ve seen it and who’ve gushed about it, is that lately I’ve seen many articles posted on the internet about Avatar that opine about the various -isms that the movie apparently did or did not handle well. For example, people have issues with the movie’s apparent racism, ableism, “liberal white guilt” and a bunch of other -isms.
I, for one, didn’t find any of the above criticisms particularly persuasive, especially the assertion that Avatar is white guilt fantasy. I think this article said it best in how it points out that the protagonist at the start of the movie is a lonely ex-marine who’ve lost the ability to walk and have no money to get his legs back. He is very far from the trope of the dashing white guy who brazenly saunters into a land occupied by indigenous people to teach them the ways of the white, ala John Smith.
But what got me was the comment on the article from a guy who asserts that the article and the movie is ableist (see previous link to article about ableism in Avatar). The comment postulates that people with disabilities shouldn’t be made to feel incomplete just because of their disabilities. The comment and the article implies that the movie is ableist in having the protagonist seem preoccupied and unhappy about being disabled and that he wants to be “fixed”.
I have a lot of issues with that sentiment because of how slippery-slope it is. I agree that there should be more media that portrays people with disabilities as being capable, independent people, and I’d be more than happy if there would be more movies made about people with disabilities who are absolutely comfortable with it. However, I have issue with it being a blanket statement that all people with disabilities should simply accept their disabilities and try to be happy with alternative means of living. Because that means silencing all those people who are unhappy with being disabled because they don’t want to be and telling them they should feel guilty about wanting to be different. Should the protagonist in Avatar be silenced for wanting to walk again, just so that he isn’t ableist?
I think a wider problem is our society’s preoccupation with the notion of “be yourself” and that incongruity what the ideal “yourself” (as molded by societal and media values) is. At face value, it seems like such a nice sentiment, to “be yourself”, in contrast to the evidently bad sentiment of “be what society say you should be”. However, both sentiments impose a command, an order. To compel someone who has a disability who wants to be different from that, so that they can “be themselves” does not seem any better than to compel someone who is comfortable with their disability to want to be “fixed”.
The conflict between the two societal “commands” manifest in more common ways and further hypocrisies become evident. It seems that the following are socially acceptable; dying hair, using coloured contacts, using makeup, dressing in particular ways (e.g. push-up bras), using perfumes and colognes etc. However, plastic surgery such as breast implants and face lifts are not socially acceptable. Outside the arguments that surgery is obviously more intrusive and dangerous, people are quick to jump to the accusations that the latter is “unnatural”, that it’s deceitful i.e. bad (some people in fact get very offended by plastic surgery, see some of the comments to this article). But isn’t cosmetic surgery just part of the self-enhancement spectrum that makeup and hair dying is on? They’re all about making yourself look a certain way, to be more appealing in a way that you want. Why is some of that okay but others not?
IMO, there is nothing wrong with putting on makeup, or getting plastic surgery or wanting to walk again if you’ve lost your legs, if that would truly make one happier, after having eliminated the possibility of peer pressure or any other incidental reason (psychological or otherwise) for such desire. One shouldn’t be guilted into not doing something out of fear of condemnation or shaming because their wants do not fit the “be yourself” mantra. Because “yourself” does not necessarily mean it’s statically who you are currently, but it also encompasses who you want to be. And if “being yourself” means wanting change, then why not?
In a hypothetical perfect world where getting cosmetic surgery have zero surgical risk, is 100% reliable, cheap, painless and quick, would you condemn someone who’ve got a boob job or a face lift? And if you do, do you feel the same way about them having dyed their hair, wears cleverly flattering clothing and makeup?



Recent Comments