“I refuse to be a supporting Character”

Posted on by AdamSaleh1987 and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


Recently, a rising Hollywood superstar saved a young woman’s life from an oncoming cab in New York City. Most women would swoon over a guy like this coming into contact with her let alone him being a hero (a real human being) to her. Instead, she revealed a very telling thing about her nature; as opposed to thanking him and writing a short description of what happened she used her 15 minutes to prove how much she “cares” about the Middle East. In addition, she talks about how Americans are “very strange” although we know that only Americans can be inconsiderate when visiting other countries.

“But as a feminist, a writer, and a gentlewoman of fortune, I refuse to be cast in any sort of boring supporting female role, even though I have occasional trouble crossing the road, and even though I did swoon the teeniest tiniest bit when I realized it was him. I think that’s lazy storytelling, and I’m sure Ryan Gosling would agree with me.”

OOOOoooohh… well now it makes sense.

Related posts:

  1. Black Women are Less Attractive (If Your Idea of Black Women Comes from TV)
  2. Predictive Review For A Film I Will Never Watch

16 Responses to “I refuse to be a supporting Character”

  1. donk says:

    [i]Americans are very strange. They can and do hyperventilate about the most everyday happenings as if they are the most important thing in the world, and then they act completely normal when public conversations are had about war on Iran[/i] etc etc etc

    It’s very supportive of OP’s point that she brings this up at all, considering it’s hardly unique in the first world to aggrandize the trivial and trivialize the grand. Note that Laurie Penny is from England of all places (“a Londoner,” one of a slurry of self-categorizations she carefully applies on her website bio)–where the tabloid culture is equally superficial, more ingrained, and much more insular.

    Good post. What an interesting case, in that the the only way for Penny to un-trivialize her role in the narrative was to trivialize the narrative itself.

    • AdamSaleh1987 says:

      I would say it is rather typical for first world feminists to “aggrandize the trivial” as long as it suits their agenda.

      • donk says:

        Yes, though not what I was driving at, and true of every ideology regardless of affluence.

        The main thing to notice here are the categories she’s selecting for broadcast: feminist, writer, gentlewoman of fortune, Londoner, NOT American, NOT a ditzy damsel, NOT supporting cast.

        This is individuality in the Matrix: take the Consensus Personal Attribute List and run it through itunes Genius, resulting in a roughly correlated You.

        • DGS says:

          Oh, I figured she was simply gentlewomanning her fortune across the street, daring life to hit her with an new adventure. (physical objects need not apply)

  2. IsaacB says:

    If you can’t cross the street without repeatedly being rescued from passers-by, then you are, by definition, a ditzy damsel in distress. And no amount of caring for the Middle East or writing about women’s reproductive rights is going to change that.

    I know, I know… Ego over reality. Got it.

    • JonnyVelocity says:

      Could it be that, at that moment, she wasn’t thinking about the trivial taxi speeding towards her but she was enthralled in thoughts of those poor Middle Eastern people?

      It’s not ditziness if what you’re thinking about is ‘important’ according to your perceived ‘group’.

  3. xylokopos says:

    Gratitude is one of the most endearing human qualities, actually even other species exhibit it with regularity and unwillingness to express it properly makes one a huge cunt ( note: I use the word as a Londoner would, that is as a non gender specific insult).

  4. Comus says:

    Well, she did start it all by tweeting she was saved by Ryan Gosling. Maybe because she was under the illusion that saveable princesses [or whatever gender-free objet petit a / mcguffins] were the main characters, and not the one who does the saving. The parallax shifts to Gosling because he has larger celebritatory mass. This of course is unacceptable and thus it becomes a feminist-issue.

    I’m not a saved damsel, I’m X and Y. I was opting for a boost by association, which, come to think of it, I am using to my full extent by first tweeting and then keeping the issue in the air with the Gawker article.

    So my proposal is that Ryan Gosling should save Darfur.

  5. Elisabeth says:

    The bit that made me laugh was this:

    “I think that’s lazy storytelling, and I’m sure Ryan Gosling would agree with me.”

    She’s not in the boring supporting role, but she has to bring up the strong male presence to make her point. Riiiiiight.

    • JonnyVelocity says:

      Well, she’s writing this story, so of course she knows what the *ahem* bit part of her story would think. He’s only characterless muscle he doesn’t get to think.

  6. pkieffer says:

    I got the impression, from her playful telling of the event and self-deprecating description of herself, that the actual event may not have been quite as life-threatening as the gossip-hungry public wanted it to be, and as such I have a bit of sympathy for her situation. She is a journalist after all, and every writer I know cares a great deal about making a name for themself on their own terms and in their own words. And yeah, I heard people saying that she “started it” with a tweet, but her harmless offering of a curious anecdote was turned into viral gossip, which also means it needed to be simplified into the most familiar and desirable version of the story possible. I imagine she recognized then that she could go on to win a Pulitzer (or whatever prize in journalism the Brits really admire) and the headline would read, “Girl Saved by Ryan Gosling Wins Award”. So I respect that she wanted to tell her own version of the story, and given how the story was originally framed, I’m not sure how she could have avoided coming off as unappreciative toward him or hyperbolic regarding the bigger issues she mentions, which by the way, she seemed to offer in the same playful tone with which she colored the rest of her article. It may not have landed, but I’m pretty sure the headline is a joke. Isn’t it possible that those who are criticizing her for being overly serious in her response are being overly serious about her response? Read it again; if you listen for them, I think you’ll hear the facetious undertones.

    • Old Mike says:

      Agreed. To clarify, Ryan Gosling did not jump into the street and heroically snatch her out of harm’s way. She, being used to cars driving on the left, was walking somewhere she shouldn’t have. Gosling suggested she not do that. She went home and mentioned it on Twitter. Apparently that happens to her all the time and she only brought it up because it was Gosling and she is legitimately bemused at how much fuss is being made.

  7. eclewis says:

    As a feminist, a writer, and as a gentleman who enjoys quality lulz, I think I will begin doing my very best to work the phrase “as a feminist…” into as much of my written correspondence and day-to-day interactions as humanly possible. e.g. “As a feminist, a writer, and a human being I must insist that you omit the mayonnaise from my BLT sandwich…and I would think that YOU, as a feminist and a cashier at Jimmy Johns, would respect my request that you care about the fact that I am a feminist…”

  8. rmonihan says:

    Every nation has people who are very strange. To say we, as Americans are somehow ‘different’ or ‘stranger’ than other nations is to say nothing at all, but simply “I am superior than all Americans because I recognize we are different and the rest of you are sheeple.”

    Great. So now we know we’re different. Big freaking deal. We’re not necessarily better (though I can argue we are for a variety of very good reasons), and we’re not necessarily worse (though I can argue we are for a variety of very good reasons). We’re just freaking different.

    Remember, we grew up in a nation which achieved greatness by focusing on something NO OTHER NATION EVER FOCUSED ON – individuality and the primacy of human rights. Sure, we’ve got flaws – everyone does – but we moved up the ladder of greatness very quickly because we focused on things which are important.

    We can fall down that ladder quickly, too. How? By believing we’re not great, for one thing. I’m not talking about being humble. It’s good to be humble when humility is required. But if we don’t believe the things that made us a great nation are not truly great and good, then we are nowhere.

    Every time I see a ‘star’ talk about this or that and how bad America is (Johnny Depp, you’re an example, I love your acting despise your politics), I like to remind myself that our great nation made that person who or what they are. This alone is a testament to why America is ‘good’. The fact they can say what they say, as stupid as most of it is (Tim Robbins, I’m looking at you, love your acting despise your stupidity) is a testament to things that make our country great. I’d like to see them be who they are in China, Russia, Namibia, Pakistan, South Africa or Venezuela. I’m sorry, it ain’t happening. If, by chance, they became who they are out of sheer blind luck (it can happen), they sure as hell won’t be saying the stupid things they say without either leaving or being jailed (interesting how, after bad-mouthing Americans, Americans cease to realize that they aren’t in jail 20 minutes later).

    Can we be a ‘better’ nation? Sure. I’m not discussing that, though. What will make us ‘better’ varies depending on who you speak to. For example, I believe we’d be better if we focused more on individual rights and initiatives and stopped feeding an overbearing and dysfunctional government which represents us poorly 90% of the time. Shrink it, diminish it, and raise up the individual.

    On the other hand, I’m not in jail after saying that, so I’m happy small parts of what make us great still exist….and will continue to keep America on the top of the world.

    • Old Mike says:

      First off, the lady who said Americans are strange is English. She also said that we are strange for a very specific reason; that we make a lot of fuss over trivial things and are nonchalant about important things.

      What’s more interesting is the thing you did in the next couple of paragraphs. “We’re not better. We’re not worse. We’re different and we achieved greatness” to paraphrase. You disavow subjective labels (better and worse) and then slap on an inarguable objective label (different) then talk about something subjective (attaining greatness) as though it were objective. Then you talked about greatness and how we need to keep believing we’re great.

      Then you mentioned individuality and the primacy of human rights. Do you really think America is where it is because of them? America is “great” thanks to having a lot of resources, a high population, generally homogeneous culture and making out like a bandit after World War 2. Besides, plenty of civilizations have focused on individuality. America is unusual in that it is a Christian nation that talks about it.

      Then you start on Hollywood lefties. Do you really think that Russia, South Africa, China and Venezuela don’t have celebrities? Yes, censorship exists but not jailing people for talking about politics isn’t the special wonderful uniquely American thing you seem to think it is. Most countries with indoor plumbing don’t jail you for doing that. Surprise, surprise.

      But anyway, I have to ask, why did you read an article about a girl who didn’t get hit by a car and give us eight paragraphs of halfhearted jingoism?