Blog Opinion: “Girls’ Generation’s Tiffany’s Controversial Instagram Post: Does colorism and racism apply?”

“Girls’
Generation’s Tiffany’s Controversial Instagram Post: Does colorism and racism apply?”

Posted on December 24, 2015

Personal
Message:

Admittedly I am somewhat embarrassed
that this title sounds like some official news article and not a plain AtrocityCL
Blog Opinion post
 upset that I am writing this: I desired to finish a
review by today, and more importantly, to begin working on my application for a
certain campus job (it is one where I would be teaching). Even more troubling,
I am also losing time to be overly delusional and obsessive over SPICA’s
leader, Boa
.
(On a serious note, though Boa really has captivated me and I am delusional to
the point of “Boa-can-just-put-a-ring-on-my-finger-already-and-propose-to-me,”
losing time in this aspect is obviously not troubling, nor with the other tasks
that were mentioned.) However, I am very much excited that I am writing this,
and in fact, glad to be writing this over a review and my application—in the
sense that important social topics are being discussed, and not excited over
how Tiffany is currently receiving much negativity.

With that alluded to, Girls’
Generation’s Tiffany has been recently receiving spotlight for her Instagram
picture, though specifically with what she put into the description of said
picture. Though I will cover in detail what occurred, for what has resulted,
many have accused her of being racist and colorist, and conversely, many have
defended her and have attacked accusers for their “over sensitivity” and for
being “social justice warriors.” In terms of what this Blog Opinion is
offering, I believe everyone is at fault: Tiffany, fans accusing, and fans
defending. Even my following words are “at fault”; there is simply no right
answer to these types of situations. Regarding the overarching question of
whether Tiffany’s act was racist and colorist, likewise, there is no definite answer.
Realistically, her act was racist and colorist, but simultaneously, her act was
far from the two; again, there is no unequivocal stance. What matters is not
labeling Tiffany or finding the “right” side of this incident, but rather,
learning from this experience. This is what I wish to emphasize, and
furthermore, for discussions that will take place: for one, once again, the
topic of “racist binaries” will return; secondly, the topic of what racism and
colorism are and whether Tiffany’s post can be deemed the two.

______________

Context:
To preserve time, I will link
sources that describe this incident, and additionally, will even link Tiffany’s
Instagram picture and description: News article and Tiffany’s picture (view on a mobile device to see the avatars’ skin
complexions).

______________

Analysis:
First, understandably, social topics
are incredibly sensitive and difficult to discuss. Whether it is race, gender,
class, sexual orientation, and so forth, all of these topics are uncomfortable.
However, as I encourage readers, the discomfort of these topics is generally a
sign to in fact directly discuss them. Only personal growth and learning occurs
from engaging with these topics, no matter how disturbing. Also, it is not
debating “right” and “wrong” that matters; truthfully, whichever side is
“correct” is entirely irrelevant. What matters most is being able to think
critically, to understand various viewpoints, and to personally challenge and
question one’s own stances. Nevertheless, given the large discomfort that these
subjects bring, it is natural for there to be tension. In the case of Tiffany’s
post, it is entirely understandable for there to be infuriated fans who are
labeling her as “racist,” and for fans to be defending her and labeling
accusers as “social justice warriors” (however, like how aggressively labeling
one as “racist” should be unacceptable, this term is also unacceptable; refer
to my review on Apink’s “Remember” and a Q/A for why “S.J.W” and even others
like “feminazi” are derogatory). What is moreover important is to abandon the
idea of “right” and “wrong,” and instead, to focus on both sides’ view toward
Tiffany’s post.

On this note, before even discussing
the incident, a certain idea must be debunked: the “racist binary.” Miss A’s album review and even, to an extent, iKON’s review and SPICA’s review cover this topic. The “racist
binary” idea is being heavily applied to Tiffany’s case, but doing so veils
over important topics and greatly diminishes moments of learning and growth.
Essentially, with the “racist binary” idea applied, this incident is no better
than an insult war; racism and colorism are, ironically, not even relevant if
the “racist binary” is not removed first. At most, discussions will revolve around:
“Tiffany is a horrible person since she’s racist” and “Tiffany is not being
racist or colorist, you social justice warrior fool.” That should sound
ridiculous and, though racism and colorism are technically involved, limiting a
discussion to that level is pitiful. (And to note, I will also discuss what the
definition of “racism” is as many have also been arguing over that.)

To now explain what the “racist
binary” is, in summary: it is the idea that someone is entirely racist or is
entirely non-racist, and that upon being labeled a racist that person is an
atrocious, evil being, and that upon being labeled a non-racist that person is
wonderfully loving of everyone. This binary idea is false in every degree.
First, as difficult as this may be to accept, everyone is racist—even a person
who is very open and well educated in the topic of race. Likewise, though,
everyone is also arguably non-racist—even a person who utilizes racial slurs at
every possible chance. Racism is not an “is” or “is not” situation; racism is
fluid and open. Therefore, to properly address and discuss it, an open and
fluid mindset must also be equally in place.

Relating Tiffany’s incident, the
“racist binary” has to be disassembled to truly analyze what occurred. Under
the circumstances that her acts are indeed racist (I will later discuss whether
or not it is), her case of being racist does not mean she is a vile human
being. Reiterating the earlier point, everyone to some degree is racist,
admitted or not. Racism is far from an individual level—though the individual
level does greatly matter; racism is on a social scale, hence why it is coined
a “social issue.” Thus, to properly address it, a social lens has to be applied
versus purely an individual lens. Solely calling out Tiffany as “racist” and
“uneducated” and so on is unacceptable. No learning or personal growth is
possible from that, as addressed in my linked review of SPICA’s “Ghost.” At
most, it could be said that Tiffany’s act was racist, but to claim she herself
is racist and to harshly criticize her personally, doing that does not elicit
anything productive. The “racist binary” is what occurs from insulting her, and
as covered, the “racist binary” fails to provide any learning.

And, for an aspect that has yet to
be mentioned but is very much relevant, attacking a person for being racist
(versus their act of racism) contributes to the notion that racism stems from
purely an individual. Social aspects, be it where one has lived throughout
their lives, media depictions of race, and how one was taught of race—or the
lack thereof, and more, all influence a person. Blaming and attacking solely an
individual is to neglect these other factors, of which are crucial sources to
consider. Now, it is not wrong to call out a racist act, and in many ways, it
is essential to do so. However, if only defensiveness and antagonizing occur
because purely an individual scope is taken, then racism is not challenged in
any way. A mixture has to exist: an individual case has to be examined and
acknowledged, but then it has to expand to a social level or else the “racist
binary” becomes applied. Overall, with Tiffany, it cannot be emphasized enough
that she is not personally attacked for potentially being racist. It is
absolutely fine that fans have called out her act as racist, but stretching
that to include her as racist and thus a horrible person is unacceptable. If
her post is to be critically analyzed, this is the first step: to not apply the
“racist binary.”

Assuming readers are now
understanding the prior point, I will now proceed with what many readers may be
curious about: whether Tiffany’s act was actual racism and colorism. Directly
answering: yes and no. Repeating an earlier idea, it is not so much important
to unequivocally decide whether her post is in fact racist and colorist or not;
what moreover matters is understanding the various views of how people have
perceived Tiffany’s post. Unfortunately, many have fallen with the former and
not the latter, and as a result, there is a current argument over, harshly
stated, the least important aspect of this incident.

Before continuing though, I will now
address what “racism” (and colorism) is as many have been arguing over the
meaning. Admittedly however, I will only cover racism in full since I am
unfamiliar with colorism; colorism has been a topic that I have personally yet
to uncover and have only had bits of. Personally, gender is my specialty when
it comes to social topics, but others such as race, religion, sexual
orientation, class, able-body, and so forth are also ones I enjoy engaging
with. When it comes to colorism though, I admit I have not investigated deeply
even though it is a very prevalent topic, and especially one that is rather
rife in K-Pop (and arguably Korean culture in general). Disclaimer aside, to
focus on racism, I will give the “dictionary” definition—the definition that
carries no weight whatsoever and are only important if one desires to be a good
student and not a good human being (in other words, it is better to understand
racism than to know racism): Racism is discrimination on the institutional
level on the basis of race. Obviously this is not a perfect dictionary definition,
but it does encapsulate the main points. Oftentimes racism is assumed as only “discriminating
based on race,” but it does dive deeper: there has to be an institutional level
involved. Hence, this is why “reverse racism,” “reverse sexism,” (refer to a
poor review on Dal Shabet’s “B.B.B”) and more do not exist.

Using an example to explain, I can
openly say all boys are stupid and that all heterosexuals are physically ugly.
However, as absurd as it is, it would be false to label those phrases as sexist
or “heterophobic.” Conversely, should I say that all women are stupid and that
all homosexuals are physically ugly, then it is correct to label the phrases as
sexist and homophobic. Why this is the case links back to the definitions of
oppressions, be it for racism, sexism, classism, and so forth: there has to be
an institutional level of discrimination; there has to be cases that genuinely
do impact a person’s life, and more so than pure emotions (think jobs, access
to education, personal safety, etc.). Now, certainly the earlier phrases
against boys and heterosexuals are discriminatory, but it should be noted that
they are not “oppressive” because there is no connection to an institutional
level. Heterosexuals for example seldom lose their jobs for being heterosexual,
and yet homosexuals are frequently fired because of their sexual orientation.
Relating racism, non-Whites in America are far less likely to attend higher education
than Whites given the wealth disparity among races and other factors. Overall,
when it comes to using oppression terms, such as racism, sexism, and others, it
is important to remember that these terms are not, comically stated, “feeling
words”; oppression terms are to signify the institutional disparities in place
because of a certain social aspect, be it race, gender, and so on.

Continuing and relating Tiffany’s
case, a few may now argue that her case is not racist and colorist as there is
no institutional level involved; after all, it is not like Tiffany’s post has
the power to suddenly prohibit those with darker skin complexions from
attending schools. This idea is false: although oppression does refer to the
larger scale of institutions, if an institutional discrimination does exist,
then micro level incidents are also rendered as oppressive as it contributes to
the larger scale (“micro level” being “microaggressions,” the individual levels
of oppression such as racist jokes or racist portrayals in media). Take a
simple example: racial slurs (and note, I sincerely hope no reader becomes
offended for the following words; I am going to be using racial slurs in a
mature context and am wishing for understanding and learning to be in place).

In America, I could be very
offensive towards Whites and call them “crackers” (though I will share a
friend’s explanation of this “slur” and showcase that it is not as degrading as
it seems). This is not racist, as to be explained. Now, I could also go around
and call Asians “dog-munchers.” This, on the other hand, is racist. To explain
why “dog-munchers” is racist and “crackers” is not, it ties into the definition
of racism: the institutional component—even if racial slurs are on the
individual level. The White person being labeled a “cracker” may very much feel
offended, but that is it. Unlike the Asian person being called a “dog-muncher,”
however, the White person can return to American media where Whites are often
depicted as “normal”; the White person can find safety in that they will never
be mocked for their cultural foods and music; the White person can also find
safety in that they most likely have a wealthier background compared to the
Asian, and that they have a higher chance to attend college and to find a job that
deems them “suitable.” As unveiled, there is no institutional level of
oppression involved: in America, Whites are privileged in race, even if there
are cases where they are discriminated against for being White. Now, as for the
Asian who is called “dog-muncher,” they face that comment in addition to having
to cope with being harassed for their language, foods, being depicted as
“exotic” in media, most likely having fewer funds for college due to a wealth
disparity, and others. Thus, with micro level discriminations—“microaggressions”—existing
for those who are already institutionally disadvantaged, these microaggressions
do coincide with being labeled as “racist,” “sexist,” and so forth. Micro level
discriminations can, and do, contribute to institutional level.

Edit:
To quickly address why “cracker” is not as degrading as it appear, I will
summarize what a friend has explained (and if it matters, he is White). I have
not researched if his explanation is correct, but his points are very valid. In
summary: “cracker” refers to the cracking of a whip, of which alludes to
slavery. Essentially, Whites being called “cracker” is offensive as it is
rendering Whites as slave masters. Critically looking at that, however, though
being compared to a slave master is certainly an atrocious juxtaposition, it is
still a status of power. Compared to, for example, Asians being called “dog-munchers,”
there is no “power” associated with that whatsoever. “Dog-munchers” is simply
highly degrading. In contrast, with Whites being called a “cracker,” though it
is offensive to be deemed as a slave master, it is only degrading in the sense
of how American society now views slavery as ominous. But, whether or not my
friend’s explanation is accurate or not, I will make a point that racial slurs
should not be tolerated—even if towards a dominant/privileged race. I
personally do find it acceptable for privileges to be made fun of  (such as how I always attempt to make fun of
myself in the context of being a male and heterosexual), but through the use of
slurs and derogatory terms is questionable.

Ultimately focusing on Tiffany’s
incident now that sufficient background knowledge has been given, as stated,
her act being labeled as racist and colorist is based upon one’s
interpretation—and all of the interpretations are valid. As a result, as
ubiquitously said, her post is both racist and colorist and non-racist and
non-colorist.

Addressing the perspective that her
post was racist and colorist, it is notable that she does inaccurately
represent the members’ skin complexions. For multiple members, she does “darken”
them almost in an exaggerated sense. For example, though Yuri is known to have
a much darker skin tone than the rest of the members, to claim she is as dark
as the avatar/“emoji” is slightly exaggerated. As for how this seemingly minor
detail could relate to racism and colorism, and thus, offend many fans, looking
beyond this post has to occur. For many who do have darker skin complexions,
Tiffany’s post is far from the only incident that has happened in relation to
falsely depicting skin tones. There are disturbing examples of lightening skin
complexions to indicate beauty, such as by editing a model’s skin to be lighter
when in reality his/her skin is much darker. Additionally, the opposite has
occurred of darkening skin to associate darker skin complexions with negativity.
(The awfully delayed review of GOT7 will address the topic of physical beauty
in relation to “intersectionality”—the combination of how race, gender, class,
and so forth, influence one another and specifically, physical beauty.)

All that said, there is still a prominent
and reasonable disagreement: Tiffany did not include anything negative with the
darker skin depictions of her members. What has to be understood, though, is
that for fans that have darker skin complexions, whether or not negativity was
connoted with darker skin in Tiffany’s post, the fact that there is inaccurate
representation is what is troubling. For those who constantly have to
experience their skin being lightened to be considered beautiful, or that their
skin being dark makes them intimidating to others, Tiffany’s post is another
tack to step on—even if she absolutely had no negative intentions, of which is
most likely the case. Excessively darkening members’ skin tones is upsetting if
one’s own skin is always being modified and never appreciated for what it is,
and with how Tiffany put minor care towards a detail that matters, that can be
taken as offensive. Thus, with this view, there is no “overly sensitive social
justice warriors” involved; there are merely human beings involved who are
justifiably upset for a post that arguably ignores the importance of proper skin
complexion depiction.

Swapping over to the view that her
post is in fact bereft of any racism and colorism, this post can be interpreted
as, shockingly, empowering. Tiffany’s post and the inaccurate representations
in the avatars could be to emphasis that despite the eight members all having
various skin complexions, they are all absolutely charming and loving.
Therefore with this view, Tiffany could have been attempting to deliver an
utterly opposite idea to what many think: she was trying to combat colorism.
The inaccurate representation was to further accentuate the members’
differences, not to cause isolation or mockery. Through slightly darkening a
few members, Tiffany could then truly highlight her point: every skin
complexion is beautiful. But of course, if this was in fact her intention, it
has certainly backfired as it also stands as offensive as well as empowering.

With the two main sides addressed,
there is now a final question: What does this all mean? Should fans be ready to
tearfully burn their entire collection of Girls’ Generation albums and
pictures, or should every fan suddenly return to her Instagram with apologies
that Tiffany was in fact completely innocent? Neither of these should occur—though
apologizing should occur if one was very rude and accusing versus educational—as
to be discussed in the Conclusion category.

______________

Conclusion:
Unfortunately as answers are never
clean, to answer the prior questions: no, fans should not abandon Girls’
Generation; and no, Tiffany’s behavior should not be assumed as entirely
innocent, even if she sincerely wanted her post to be empowering. Speaking
perhaps biasedly, I do hold Tiffany innocent in the sense of intentions; she
most likely did want her post to be a point of finding beauty in every skin
complexion. However, she is not without fault in terms of how she conducted
that good intention. For what should occur on her part, as honesty should be
held as crucial, she should clarify her intentions with that post. Through
explaining her intention (such as the mentioned one of trying to make fans feel
beautiful no matter their skin complexion), but similarly, apologizing for
those who did find it offensive, then everything should be settled.
Nevertheless, this would provide a significant learning experience for her as
both a human being and idol, and for fans of both sides.

Focusing on what this incident does
showcase however, as stated earlier, Tiffany’s post itself and even her are not
as important as what her post disclosed: in addition to the point of how racism
and colorism are still heavily sensitive topics, for what is most significantly
showcased, it is the lack of understanding how to discuss said sensitive
topics. Tiffany’s post became moreover a ground for labeling and insulting,
though the culprit stems back to the “racist binary” idea. If there is anything
to glean from this Blog Opinion post besides Tiffany’s situation, it is that
genuine discussions have to occur with these social topics if learning is to
result. There cannot be antagonizing and hatred, but rather, openness, understanding,
and a critical mindset. The “right” side does not matter as much as thoroughly
unpacking various views. Even with views that are highly disagreeable, such as that
females deserve to be treated inferiorly to males, it matters less on
dehumanizing people with that “wrong” view than to attempt to sincerely see
that view’s side and to understand it, and furthermore, for that side to
attempt to see the other side. Clarifying, this does not mean to be passive and
to accept oppressive standards for example, but rather, that there cannot be
antagonizing if growth is to occur. I hope many do challenge the sexist notion
that females are inferior to males as every gender—female, male, intersex, and
so on—are valuable, but I hope that that sexist notion is challenged through
thoughtful discussions and not simple insults of “go die you sexist trash.”

______________

Concluding the post, besides how I
truly have no life as I spent two days writing this, and that I am absurdly passionate
to discuss topics that should instill discomfort in me (I am excited to one day
be directly teaching these topics in relation to books, movies, shows, songs,
and other similar “literature” mediums), for those who have read this, thank
you for doing so. To compensate for this post consuming review time, I may
release a bonus review, and if I choose to do that, there is a perfect candidate.
On topic though, thank you very much for reading this. My points here are in no
way the “right” view as there is no such thing, as covered in this post, but I
do hope I provide another perspective to Tiffany’s incident as that is how
growth and learning occur.

In addition to the bonus review, to
leak the review I have been working on, Yezi’s famous rap, “Crazy Dog,” is
being reviewed. That review will cover many interesting topics—and more so than
just the rap itself. Stay tuned for it. I will work hard to finish December
with six or seven reviews (though I may take a short break to finish working on
personal tasks).

Blog Opinion: T-ARA vs. One Direction Billboard Popularity Poll

Posted on August 14, 2015

image

Personal Message: Although Wonder Girls’ “I Feel You” was to be nearly finished today, it will be even more slightly delayed. That said, a Blog Opinion will be why a delay exists. Before beginning further on the current situation, I do want to acknowledge and clarify an important message: both T-ARA and One Direction deserve respect, and equally, fans who are attempting to mediate the situation with respecting both groups. In fact, optimistically, I believe there are exponentially more genuine fans who support both, even if one group is unfamiliar, than the current view that every fan from either groups is atrocious and hateful. With such, for a final disclaimer, although this blog is, blatantly, for K-Pop, it would be ignorant and incredibly biased to side with T-ARA’s fans on the current situation. Truthfully, both T-ARA and One Direction fans–or more accurately, “listeners” as, harshly stated, these are not sincere “fans”–are at large fault.  

Elaborating on the current situation, I was notified by a friend who sent me an article link. Upon witnessing the title’s words of T-ARA versus One Direction and voting, I nearly disregarded it; I predicted the article to be of fans arguing with one another over popularity, and more excitedly, music. For a desired outcome, this entire incident should have been of the latter: debates over which group produced better music. Unfortunately, that is not the case, hence my friend’s urgency. Rather than statements of “T-ARA sucks and One Direction is better because ‘So Crazy’ was a bad song,” hateful, heinous comments of “Ching chong, T-ARA whores suck, One Direction is better” were instead used. Also, conversely, the same applies with One Direction being under insult.  

Thus, for why this Blog Opinion is created, it is enraging, disappointing, and simply saddening to witness a battle that, overall, could have been enjoyable to witness as it would have been of musical context, turn into a showcasing of multiple social issues and inequities: sexism, racism, spiritualism (“religionism,” if accurate), homophobia, and transphobia. The lack of basic humane acts is the main issue.

____________

Context: Finally offering context on the situation, Billboard, a music ranking chart, hosted a fun, minor activity: vote for the most popular artist group. The included groups, from my understanding, were global, and eventually, T-ARA and One Direction were pitted against one another in a poll. Whichever group garnered more votes would proceed to the “upper brackets” of voting. Eventually, T-ARA proved victorious as the ladies achieved more votes than the men of One Direction. Expectedly, arguments would break out: T-ARA fans were accused of cheating via usage of voting bots, and in retaliation, One Direction fans were taunted for not being more supportive of their group. Should the bickering have reached solely this point, no harm, overall, would occur. While there would be loathing towards the groups, said loathing would not extend to significant issues.  

Unfortunately, as foreshadowed, the arguments did, sadly, escalate. Instead of shaming a group based on “fans who were not supportive” or how “their songs were bad,” hatred in the form of social aspects became utilized, and that is certainly unacceptable. Listing and summarizing a few messages (“Tweets”): “Ching-chong Chinese s***,” “At least One Direction doesn’t look like transgendered trash like how K-Pop is,” “K-Pop girl groups are sluts and sell their bodies,” “EunB (from Ladies Code) deserves to rot in Hell,” and for insults towards One Direction, “Zayn (former One Direction member, if correct) is a terrorist and should die,” “All of Directioners (fanbase name) should die,” and other horrendous wishings.

____________

Analysis: Although it should be exceptionally obvious on why this current scenario is horrible, I will, nevertheless, critically analyze the insults, and furthermore, explain at the end what this erroneous event impacts in an overarching, long-term scale. Reiterating a prior point, however, the results of the poll are insignificant; no longer do the results matter as much as what emanated from the results.

First, addressing the initially listed insult, “Ching-chong Chinese s***” is instilled with excessive racism. This phrase can be interpreted as an encapsulating racist attack towards every Asian. With the label of “Asian,” generality holds: Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese, and a plethora of other examples are included, but pitifully, often time one represents all, such as in the case of Chinese suddenly representing “Asian,” but clearly, “Chinese” does not represent the other, numerous ethnicities that fall into the category of “Asian.” Therefore, this specific insult minoritizes and veils the diversity within “Asian,” and that is never acceptable.

In terms of the “ching-chong” piece, though seemingly abstract, and for many, “funny,” this phrase connotes many inequities, and very few truly understand it critically. For one, and most significantly, language of Asians are mocked: Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese), for example, is rendered as not a language worthy of respect, but instead, garbled, mutilated sounds of “ching-chong.” Every Asian language follows suit. Korean can be mocked, Japanese can be mocked, Hmong can be mocked, and so forth, on the sole basis of two garbage, grotesque sounds. Especially in comparison to, for example, English, a language that is often time praised as it has been inequitably socialized as the dominant language, “ching-chong” simply perpetuates inferiority of non-English languages, specifically towards Asian ones.

Progressing on to the next common insult, “At least One Direction doesn’t look like transgendered trash like how K-Pop is,” this carries more than racism, but now, transphobia, and also, sexism are involved. If confusion exists, this derogatory remark is based on how K-Pop idols, specifically male idols, use makeup and, according to Western culture, appear moreover as “feminine.” Efficiently saving time, for the discussion of male idols using makeup and how insulting them for such equates to sexism, I will redirect viewers to a review on Infinite’s “The Chaser.” In the review, I discuss why males’ usage of makeup is frowned upon, and sadly, critically engaging the topic, it is more than pure deviation from social norms, but rather, how said deviation is negative as femininity is undervalued to masculinity.

Now, for what has yet to be discussed, I will cover how the mentioned insult also ties into racism and transphobia. First, for transphobia, the insult implies looking like a transgender is bad, and secondly, that K-Pop male idols look as such. Offering some humor, if appearing as a transgender male is to appear as male K-Pop idols, transgender males must be the most beautiful males alive (and luckily, the linked review also discusses homophobia, for those disturbed at me, a heterosexual, complimenting men’s beauty). As unveiled by the insult’s tone, however, that is certainly not the intention, but rather, as stated, to insult transgender (males).

Needless to say, transgenders’ appearances, and specifically here, transgender males’ looks, should not be associated with “bad.” Though in the future a review may dive into the topic of transgender, for what will be stated, never should a transgender be bashed for their appearances. In fact, even the phrase of “passable or not-passable” is incredibly rooted in transphobia. It does not matter on how a transgender appears as or if they look “passable”; a transgender is the gender they are, male or female, regardless of appearance. Thus, with this mentioned insult creating a false perception of transgender males’ appearances and equating the appearances as bad, transphobia becomes elicited, and that is, unequivocally, wrong.

Relating the insult to the racism component, differences in cultures are not understood, but instead, alienated and utilized as fuel for insults. In Korean culture and others, males utilizing makeup is “normal.” In fact, it is considered exceptionally masculine for a male to remain well groomed via skincare, makeup, shaving, and such. However, in Western culture, doing so is not acceptable for males (due to, overall, sexism, as the linked review explains), and thus, the insult derives from insulting a culture with the position of a current culture, and that is never acceptable. Essentially, the insult is claiming Korean culture is “wrong,” as if a culture can ever be wrong. Therefore, racism is in place. Rather than mocking how Korean male idols appear as, understanding of cultural differences should occur. Quite clearly, however, that did not occur, and instead, a racist remark spawned.

Next for analysis, sexism appears: “K-Pop girl groups are sluts and sell their bodies.” As I have relentless discussed the topic of “slut-shaming,” I will redirect readers to a few reviews: Fiestar’s “You’re Pitiful,” Dal Shabet’s “Joker,” BESTie’s “Excuse Me,” and even AOA’s “Heart Attack.” For the purpose of time, I will not elaborate here. Nonetheless, in short, females are criticized for being sexually attractive, and nothing is wrong with a female desiring to appear as such. What is wrong, however, is when that freedom is transformed into hatred, and furthermore, reasons for sexual assaults even though it is always the perpetrator’s fault.

With the prior insult covered through reviews, for the following insult, rather than it being akin to a social topic, basic decency is what lacks. “EunB (from Ladies Code) deserves to rot in Hell.” Offering a more personal voice, as I type this, I do struggle with what to say. For those mentioning EunB’s and RiSe’s death as a lighthearted, fun topic, I will, immaturely, say that those “keyboard warriors” (instead of mocking “social justice warriors,” why not mock the worthless, lifeless “keyboard warriors”) are simply attempting to provoke people. Ladies’ Code’s deceased members should not have been included in this situation. Equally, for those wishing One Direction’s fans should also die, the same can be stated, and additionally, that those “keyboard warriors” are also worthless. Returning to a more neutral, mature perspective, wishing death upon others and harassing those already deceased are acts that should never be conducted. Decency should be in place. Nothing more has to be said.

Finally, for the remaining common remark, “Zayn (former One Direction member, if correct) is a terrorist and should die.” Stated earlier, spiritualism arrives in that, due to Zayn being a Muslim (from my understanding), people have begun to wish for his death and to associate him with terrorism. There is much to discuss for this topic. Beginning, repeating the prior paragraph, wishing the death of someone is never warranted.

In terms of the latter, labeling Zayn a terrorist is far from acceptable. Doing so is perpetuating current, rife issues Muslims face. On the sole basis of being a Muslim, One Direction’s former (from what I have heard, he did leave the group a while back) member is associated with terrorism, and that is extremely pathetic to claim. Equating Muslims to terrorism serves to marginalize the religion of Islam; with spreading the idea that Muslims are terrorists, their religion is dehumanized and degraded. Rarely is a variating stance taken: Christianity, a dominant religion in America, for example, is never equated to terrorism even despite, for one incident, the Ku Klux Klan (the K.K.K was certainly a terrorist group).  Muslims face momentus, inequitable treatment as their religion is constantly minoritized, and with this incident of T-ARA versus One Direction, stating that Zayn is a terrorist is merely supporting an ongoing, serious issue that many experience.  

____________

Conclusion: While all of the minor, yet important, details are covered, an overarching analysis will be done. In an open, general scale, this incident, unfortunately, is more than T-ARA and One Direction listeners tearing down one another. Music has the ability to bring understanding of differences, as will be explained in, coincidentally, the upcoming review of Wonder Girls’ “I Feel You,” but as disclosed in the current situation, the opposite has occurred: differences in music created disputes that ranged beyond music; rather than the differences creating debates on which group is more musically talented and popular, racism, sexism, transphobia, and spiritualism, for a few, came up instead, and overall, the lack of understanding and respect for different cultures.

This raises a vital question: can music ever be globally accepted? Granting examples, will K-Pop ever be respected by other cultures, and vice-versa with asking if A-Pop (American) will ever be respected by other cultures. According to the current situation, pessimistically, the answer is no. With hate of different cultures, races, and other characteristics being generated through a simplistic popularity poll of an American artist group versus a Korean artist group, it showcases that music should be restricted to the place and culture of which it originated from. However, this is a cynical attitude, and certainly, is not what will redress issues.

If anything, this emphasizes the importance of diversity of music. Even if rough, as proven by this happening, exposure to different music genres, languages, and cultures, are crucial. Only then will, one day, there be interest and respect towards songs in a foreign language and culture, not the current reactions of laughter, mockery, and blunt hatred. And on a more general layer, if all music is taught to be treated with utmost respect, translating the same respect for other differences, such as race, gender, religion, and more, would also be possible and existing. Concluding, while this Billboard voting incident is a huge blunder for music in a social context, if mistakes must occur for progress and learning to take place, then hopefully, this situation provides such. Similar, future incidents should not occur, and I yearn that this will be the last.

All in all, both One Direction and T-ARA listeners are at fault. What now matters is not finding blame or even the results, but instead, the acceptance of both groups. The language and cultures behind each of the groups deserve to be acknowledged and respected. At most, if arguments are to be kept, residing in the realm of music should occur, not the perpetuating of real, major social inequities and issues. Including Billboard into this incident, for an effective message, shutting down the poll should be a considered option. An explanation of how the poll sparked derogatory, inhumane comments, and thus, will be removed, would greatly alert many of how the current behaviors are unacceptable.

___________

Ending the Blog Opinion, thank you for reading. Whether opinions are agreed with or not is irrelevant; it  is moreover important for this Blog Opinion to instill deeper thinking than to force opinions. Also to note, I do apologize for a more aggressive tone if such occurred. Personally, this incident is exceptionally bothersome: the racism towards Asian languages and cultures offends on a personal level, but also, even with attacks towards traits that are not akin to me, such as religions and gender, the overall, hostile atmosphere and lack of social progress towards equity is disturbing. Also, the harassing of deceased idols and wishing of death upon others are also unfavorable moments.

Although I did not wish to revive the blog through a solemn post, it would be terrible to avoid a necessary discussion. Wonder Girls’ review would have potentially finished if not for this post, but as anticipated, this post is worth the delay. With that, the review will be out in one or two more days. I apologize to readers for not actively writing, but as explained in the upcoming review, I will return to a hastier rate soon enough. Stay tuned for the review of “I Feel You” where, in contrast to this Blog Opinion, a more optimistic view towards music, in a cultural lens, is taken.

Blog Opinion: Girl’s Day’s “Rude” Behavior On “Koon TV”

Posted on July 16, 2015

Personal Message: Although I did intend to review Girl’s Day’s latest song of “Ring My Bell,” considering the group’s current controversy would have been nearly irrelevant by the time the review was posted, I have decided to create a Blog Opinion instead. Furthermore, with this topic also being unrelated to “Ring My Bell” directly, creating a separate post so that the controversy is of main focus will also provide more clarity. However, for those who were curious on my rating of the ladies’ latest comeback, it is to a lower tier, and if calculated correctly, it does reside around the “slightly below average” range (that is excluding the Line Distribution category). Most likely, the song will not be covered as I am now prioritizing groups that have yet to be ever reviewed. Teen Top’s “Ah Ah” is scheduled to be the next song for review.

Ignoring the song, shifting attention to the larger controversy Girl’s Day has been under, the group is being scrutinized for their supposed rude behavior during the live internet broadcast of “Koon TV.” There have been multiple stances regarding this topic, ranging from defending the group’s innocence to proving their guilt, but furthermore, other aspects have also been included, such as the argument of whether their gender influences current chastisement, if their acts were justified, and so forth. With this Blog Opinion, I will, as the title, offer my own interpretation and opinion, but as familiar readers may predict, I will also dive into the more critical layers of the controversy, such as the ongoing debate of whether Girl’s Day being a female group has influence on the current reactions. Also, should the controversy already be rendered as old versus trending, I still strongly believe in the importance of discussing it; even if this incident is now disregarded, there are many topics to discuss, and most certainly, similar cases may arise in the future, and thus, even if the occurred event is now discarded, the following discussions will, hopefully, continue to be germane.

_____________________

Context: For the purpose of background, before analyzing the situation, a summary of what took place will be given. As mentioned, Girl’s Day attended an internet broadcast show called “Koon TV,” and while it began as an interview, as time progressed, the group’s behavior seemingly downgraded. With the arrival of food, significant changes unfolded: Girl’s Day allocated much of their attention to eating versus the host, and with the given food, questionable manners were unveiled.

To hastily grant specific insight on what has spawned the controversy, Sojin’s act with the show’s dumplings is in spotlight. Once a few dumplings arrived, the host placed them upon the table, but peculiarly, Sojin placed them back down. After the two, jocularly, relentlessly cycled between placing the dumplings on and off the table, Sojin did, once the host questioned her action, clarify her acts via claiming that the members did not eat those types of dumplings. Nevertheless, the two still continued their sillier dumpling exchange for a few more seconds before, finally, the host stated he paid for the dumplings, and therefore, that the ladies should enjoy them, and at the least, that he would personally eat them. Eventually, Sojin does allow the dumplings on the table, though she did leave a remark of how the dumplings were, against the host’s words, free of charges, and that he did not personally pay. Afterwards, Sojin did remove the wrapping to feed the host one dumpling, but shortly after, showed signs of disgust, and laughter, since the host’s lips touched her chopsticks (new chopsticks were used afterwards).

Progressing further, after the initial feasting dwindled, the host attempts to elicit a discussion regarding their latest album, and in reply, Hyeri asks why they would discuss it. In another trial at beginning a conversation, the host then speaks of how the group went through many hardships. He then asks who the group is thankful towards, and once more, the ladies reject the discussion: utter silence, excluding the sounds of eating. At this, the host asks if he should remain quiet as they eat, but in response, Girl’s Day states that they feel the abrupt switch to a more solemn mood is strange, and furthermore, that they would not like to ruin the meal with a depressing atmosphere. Continuing, at one point the host then says he will do a police imitation, but, as evidenced by the camera’s shot on the ladies, once again, the group focused moreover on eating than interacting with the host.

_____________________

Analysis: As always, multiple layers exist, and rather than focusing on two endpoints, such as with “innocent” or “guilty,” being able to perceive in depth matters. But, to answer the current, pressing question of whether the group was rude or not, unfortunately, I will state the ladies were, indeed, rude. Even if their acts were justified (which will be explained later), it can be concluded that, with high confidence, their behaviors were not proper.

Addressing the initial bickering, Sojin did place the dumplings down without any explanations, and thus, already, the lack of courtesy takes place. Especially with being served food, respect towards the given foods, even if personally disliked, should exist. If Sojin initially placed the dumplings down while simultaneously claiming the members did not eat those, then respect would be showcased, but with only explaining so after being directly questioned, implicitly, it can be interpreted as her being rude and not honoring the gift of being served food. In many ways, Sojin acted as if she possessed authority over the meal (like if she was the server), when that, blatantly, is not the case as the host is the one serving. Furthermore, even the accusation of claiming the meal was free and not personally paid by the host remains akin to Sojin’s arrogant demeanor; since Girl’s Day is being served a meal, the server (host), even if true that he did not pay, should not be questioned for his delivery of a meal as, simply stated, the given foods are under his ownership, regardless of personally paying or not.

Lastly, for acts that hold as both friendly and impolite, Sojin did feed the host a dumpling, which is certainly a kind gesture, but seconds after, her reaction was not: Sojin displayed disgust at his lips touching her chopsticks. Although she did laugh, and therefore, assumingly meant her claim was moreover a joke than insult, it still does retain tints of rudeness. With feeding, it is meant to be done in an accepting manner; it should be assumed a person’s lips will touch the feeding utensil. Thus, though there may be rebuttals of Sojin being hygienic, her revulsion can be linked to hesitation of feeding the host, and from such, the lack of genuinely desiring to conduct a friendly act emanates. Also, as I have just realized, for clarification, this is in the lens of Korean culture. For example, in American culture, it may be highly insignificant for a person to mutely shove away food they personally dislike, and for feeding, to desire cleanliness and not have lips touching utensils, but in terms of Korean culture (and many other cultures), doing so is highly rude and disrespectful to the people serving the meal, and for the latter, showcasing that feeding a person is a hassle when, respectfully, feeding someone should carry no negative connotations (and similarly, for another example, picking up food with a used eating utensil and giving said food to a person).

On that note, however, for the following incident, rather than it being directly tied to Korean culture, humorously stated, it falls with “idol standards,” as to be explained. Upon being questioned about their comeback and album, and additionally, their hardships, although the mood would have certainly changed to a more solemn one, Girl’s Day were on broadcast and accompanied by a host, and therefore, sincere responses are to be expected, regardless of desire to not speak. By refusing to speak, clearly, it is ignoring the host and rude in that regard, but more significantly, with their roles as idols, in the viewpoint of audiences, denying responses to the host’s questions can be correlated with not caring for their work or reputation, both of which are understandingly rude to viewers.

Now, as mentioned, even if it is unequivocal that Girl’s Day’s actions were rude, it is justified; justified not in the sense of accepting their actions as utterly fine, but rather, that their acts are not without reasons. Perhaps the members were incredibly hungry and tired, as would be anticipated if they had performances on the same day, and of course, realistically, they might have not been in the best of moods. They are humans, after all. But, even under the circumstances of genuinely wishing to not participate in the show, with their jobs being that of idols, in truth, Girl’s Day should have presented a facade at the very least. For example, though a poorer one, a police officer grants a parallel comparison (except on an exponentially more serious scale): a police officer must constantly conduct themselves properly, even under conditions of a horrendous day. If someone decides to swear them out on their worst day, regardless of their inner emotional and mental state, it is imperative for them to remain calm and to not misbehave, such as in the form of police brutality and such.

Reflecting on Girl’s Day, while it is certainly not a matter of life and death, the same, exceptionally high standards are in place, though rather than public safety it is the form of public entertainment. As incredibly unrealistic as it may be, whether for a police officer (though it unequivocally needs to be to an unrealistic standard for police), or for another example, a teacher, holding up to the high standards are expected, and for Girl’s Day, the same is applied. Unfortunately, however, as observed with the current controversy, they did fail to maintain a proper broadcast image.

_____________________

Conclusion: Overall, in summary: Girl’s Day, based on my interpretation, were rude, however, their manners are understandable and, most likely, do not derive from hatred towards the show or host. Nevertheless, there are many aspects to still consider. In the end, Girl’s Day are humans, and while they should certainly acknowledge their mistakes, which they have done so through revisiting the show for a more proper interview and formal apology, in terms of viewers and fans, equally following suit via forgiving should occur. This one event, while their acts may have been atrocious to many, definitely does not define the ladies; the members are still the usual talented, humorous, intelligent and caring idols that they have been, and one blunder should never offset their entire credentials. Despite upsetting viewers with the visit to “Koon TV,” for the opposite times, such as providing viewers with laughs and smiles, and expectedly, decent songs and choreographies, those moments should also not be forgotten.

That said, for an overarching point, while it is disheartening to watch the group’s rude behaviors, their mistakes is understandable and worth forgiving. What is most disturbing of the controversy is not the group’s behavior, but instead, how many have reacted, and that is the main discussion I would desire most to focus on as, sadly, it will be a topic that remains relevant for many years, but optimistically, I hope for that statement to be completely revoked.

In honesty, if it were not for this component of the controversy, I would not have been driven to begin this Blog Opinion, but with it taking place, directly discussing this is the necessary route, not evasion. Ending speculations, for what remains pressing of this controversy: sexism. Very blunt, derogatory sexism. Reactions to the controversy are, ironically, vastly more rude than Girl’s Day was, and in many ways, will ever be; the inhumane gender degrading and objectification that has occurred in response to the group is, overall, indescribable. This, very much obviously, is never fine. Even if Girl’s Day outrightly swore at the host and attacked him, to respond in a manner that not only is at an immature, worthless level, but also, one that builds upon an exceptionally large social issue, is simply dumbfounding.

Claiming Girl’s Day were (and as a language warning, though I will censor the stated comments, I believe showcasing the insults in a mature, critical mindset allows for further understanding) “fake b****es all along” or that, based on performances of “Ring My Bell, “they’re all slutty, anyways,” are not acceptable remarks, no matter the situation, whether for Girl’s Day or other females under negative attention. Both examples, while many other stated comments exist, promote sexism. Slut-shaming, as discussed in multiple reviews (off memory, Dal Shabet’s “Joker” may have discussed it), is a large issue affecting females, and the scale of which ranges from sexual assaults to daily, agitating remarks. Relating the group’s current comeback, the outfits are not “slutty” as they should be able to wear whatever they please without any degrading. As for the other statement, the term of “b****” already is demeaning, but complemented with “fake” in front, the momentous gender issue of policing females is unveiled (“fake b****” reinforces and justifies policing of females; females are constantly monitored to determine if they are “fake”).

While insults should be refrained in general, should they be forced to exist due to lack of maturity, at most, Girl’s Day should receive claims of “their outfits looked horrible, anyways” (which would hopefully not be rooted with the idea of judging females’ appearances) or “fake idols,” but not comments that are heavily rooted in hate towards women. Society, in an overarching scope, can be seen as the catalyst for these comments; the related, inhumane comments are merely a representation of current ongoing inequities, one that places females as inferior to males. Answering the initial question of if gender has influenced Girl’s Day’s controversy, in terms of rudeness, no correlation exists, but in terms of public response, most certainly the group being of females has generated vast more hate than if they were, for example, males.

Therefore, for a final message, ignoring the controversy as, bluntly put, it itself is meaningless to ponder over, focusing on what is important, the erupted sexism, that is where I hope readers focus their attention towards. Pop culture news, directly, may be moreover for entertainment, but indirectly, many social layers can arise, and thus, with that, pop culture news is very much worth caring for. Summarizing the post once more, while Girl’s Day’s acts were rude, forgiving should occur, and most importantly, not contributing to sexism. Females should not all suddenly be antagonized for a situation that does not even relate to gender in any form.  

_____________________

As always, thank you very much for reading. Whether it is for actual reviews or for side posts as this, I very much appreciate all of the given time reading. For this post specifically, many will, most likely, disagree, and that is perfectly acceptable, and hopefully, what does occur. However, as mentioned, rather than focusing on purely the controversy, gauging responses and involved social layers is what remains more significant. Nonetheless, I am always open for various interpretations of any aspect of the controversy.

Leaving other notes, this post did take three days to write. Though I intended for solely one day, it has been dragged to three (though technically two days as it is an hour past midnight on the second day, and thus, now three). Although this does prove hindering to my review schedule, this situation is worth the time discussing. Also, I do apologize if the writing progressively deteriorates; as explained, I am sacrificing sleep to finish this, and expectedly, my writing may begin languishing (but the general writing could have been significantly stronger).

Upcoming reviews are still undecided, but Teen Top’s “Ah Ah” is in schedule to be reviewed next. I will continually update my review schedule accordingly. With this being the end, though Girl’s Day fails to “ring my bell” with their latest song, they have most definitely did so through their controversy and the need to discuss it, and readers are also doing so as I will work towards quickly finishing the upcoming review. Stay tuned for it, and thank you once more for reading.

Blog Opinion: Red Velvet’s Wendy’s Racist Imitations

Video Clip of Wendy’s Racist Impersonation (13:45 – 15:10)

Posted on November 4, 2014

image

Firstly, I will throw a disclaimer: yes, I am going to dive straight into the pit of fire. This is a sensitive topic, but as a result, this is why this needs to be discussed. If I do end up receiving Red Velvet fans’ hate, I understand. Nevertheless, I am not here to necessarily attack Wendy; I am here to attack, to challenge, the notion of racism and the idea of remaining silent. Personally, knowing that I have the ability to voice my opinion to an audience, it obliges me to do so. This is a prime opportunity to discuss a real-life issue that remains too prevalent. Once again, I am not trying to put down Wendy. In fact, if I have the ability to point at who is to be guilty, I challenge you to take a look at your own life; who is the “Wendy” in your life? This incident is not the only one that we have seen. Sadly, with the average daily life, many of us will probably encounter a similar scenario where a person is humiliating a culture or race or such.

I have no knowledge of Red Velvet nor of this radio show, so I do confess my ignorance in those regards. However, despite not knowing much, to find this racist moment close to humorous or entertaining is atrocious; setting forth stereotypes, on the radio, and as a person of high status/fame, is completely wrong. The current defense on Wendy’s part is, “But she was joking, it’s all for a laugh and to be entertaining” does not excuse a single trace of this incident. To laugh at this is to merely accept the idea that racism and making fun of another person’s culture, identity, and more is fine.

________________________________________

Anyhow, before I lose readers, a quick translating summary of the clip above (13:45 to 15:10):

Wendy was asked to show off an individual talent. In reply, she said one talent she had was she could imitate foreigners. In specific, she said White people and Black people were the ones she could imitate. Following up, she decides to impersonate a white female; she claims that their voices were somewhat high-pitched. Her imitation then involved a stereotyped “Oh, my, gosh”. After that, she decided to imitate a Black female. This time, she threw in some hand snaps and motions while saying, “Girl, you ain’t talking to me”. Lastly, she decided to imitate Black males. For this part, she added that they are like gangsters, and thus, went on with “What up, you wanna go, man, you wanna go?”

________________________________________

So now that readers have an idea of what’s happening, I will explain my huge frustration. I also highly recommend that if you made it this far in the reading, that you continue on. This is a sensitive subject, and in fact, I’m expecting responses of “What is a K-Pop reviewer like you doing in this business?” To actually answer that right now, that is perhaps why; being a reviewer of music, people might come to think I only care for the musical aspect of K-Pop, but of course, that is completely false. Doing so would be secluding and deluding myself of reality. Luckily or unluckily (depending on your take), I do not believe in a perfect fantasy world where everything is fine. If society wishes to embark on the journey to genuinely get to the “perfect fantasy world”, addressing problems head-on is the way. Hiding or simply side-stepping issues do absolutely nothing but allow an issue to pervade.

Back on topic, why is this incident of Wendy doing the imitations completely disrespectful and wrong? Wendy is not the only one to point fingers at; the entirety of the radio crew is at large fault. This event is wrong due to how everyone found it funny. As stated earlier, by accepting these “jokes” as such, it gives an implied meaning of acceptance and even beyond. Racist jokes will be seen as entertaining and jocular; consequences are unseen. To have a culture, race, gender, or any other personal attribute to be seen as a fault is erroneous; no one should ever feel ashamed of their own identity. These jokes enforce the idea of having fault in an identity. Any type of mockery that sets an identity component as the joke is inhumane. No one should ever need to feel pain, both emotionally and physically, due to another person’s ignorance.

Besides discussing how racist jokes and such are horrible, the audience in the radio show is equally distasteful. The encouragement, the clapping, the laughter, the reenactments, all of those actions were equivalent to the imitations themselves. Although Wendy was the person to actually say those racist remarks and to act out on the grotesque imitations, everyone had technically said the same. The act of laughing along and clapping showcases how they found the racist comments enlightening; they were in support.

Considering Red Velvet is a sprouting newbie group, this incident will tarnish their reputation. Knowing that they are idols, they should have had the decency to think twice on what was being said and done. Alas, sometimes us, humans, are simply the result of our society. Something to be critical is asking yourself: is Wendy the one to blame, or is society at a whole the one to blame? Truthfully, I do not possess an answer; both may be responsible and connected.

With all this said, I am utterly shocked at this. By simply being idols, they hold the responsibility of representing K-Pop, and in this scenario, they have utterly failed to hold an upright image. As I said multiple times, I am not here to bash on Wendy. What needs to be aimed at is the problem itself: racism and the acceptance of racist jokes and whatnot. Laughing and encouraging a racist, sexist, or such remark, joke, or impersonation is on par with doing the said racist action. In fact, even remaining silent is still acceptance. Holding a tongue against these racist remarks is simply remaining neutral/default, and unfortunately, the “default” is indeed the unjust action. I questioned whether I should make this post. Worst-case scenario, I gain the opposing side’s hatred and potentially lose readers. If being disliked is what it takes for people to start realizing how this incident is wrong, then by all means, I accept the trade.

____________________________________________

In the end, blaming not Wendy, but rather, the issue revolving around racism and the social acceptance of such is where people should focus their anger. Being aware is what society and the world needs. Always ask why. And while Wendy is an idol, and as a result, is receiving huge attention for this, bringing it back to reality should be in mind; “Wendy” exists in your life. It is your choice on whether you laugh along like her group members and radio hosts, remain defaulted on the acceptance of social issues, or, to do a simple saying to your friend of, “Hey, that isn’t funny, that’s pretty messed up”

_________________________

As a personal side note, forgive me if I ended up losing my argument’s point throughout this post. I did my best to remain as respectable and mature as possible. Personally, this incident did induce an emotional reaction; I was quite outraged that an idol, who should be well aware of the influence she has, would commit such actions.

If any Red Velvet/Wendy fans are upset at this, once again, realize she is not the primary target, and secondly, accept the faults of your idol. To share my own take, as readers may know, T-ARA is a group I admire very much (in specific, Soyeon who I heavily look up to as a role model). Nevertheless, for their bullying incident, I did not live in denial. I do reside in the fact that they bullied out an ex-member. It is shameful and your own pride feels hurt as well, but this is where you are able to learn from another person’s mistake, even if they are your role model/someone you hold highly. Idols are still humans governed by society’s ways. They are not perfect.

Lastly, thank you if you do read this. I am not thanking you for solely reading, as I do in practically all of my other posts, but thank you for (hopefully) taking this post to heart, and in fact, reflecting in your own life and actions. Perhaps you were “Wendy” before, or perhaps, you were her members that were laughing along. If such is the case, it doesn’t matter on what has been done, but instead, what will be done.

To slightly make the mood lighter, I am in the middle of reviewing Girls’ Generation’s “I Got A Boy”. I would have been done, but this incident prompted me to create this post. Anyhow, stay tuned for it, and of course, stay aware and do your own part for society.