Zoe Saldana Needs A Dictionary & A Clue

by Yesha Callahan
zoe-saldana-cover-shoot-03-edited

the hair is luxurious

First let me state, that I have no problem with Zoe Saldana as an actress. I neither like her or loathe her.  I’ve only seen one film, Colombiana, and it was just “meh”. I wasn’t buying the “emaciated assassin avenges her family’s murder” plot.  But recently,  Saldana has been making the press rounds for her new Star Trek movie and seems to suffer from “foot in mouth” disease.

First there’s this comment about the Nina Simone movie:

“Let me tell you, if Elizabeth Taylor can be Cleopatra, I can be Nina — I’m sorry,” Saldana said, unapologetically, according to Allure. “It doesn’t matter how much backlash I will get for it. I will honor and respect my black community because that’s who I am.”

Being one person who really didn’t care if Saldana was portraying Simone, this analogy is just ridiculous.  Believe me Zoe, if there was social media back in Elizabeth Taylor’s heyday  the complaints would have been heard all over the world. Hell, my grandmother still complains after all of these years. But back then, there wasn’t tons of “ethnic” looking actresses running around Hollywood, like there are tons of talented black actresses today. Not that it made it right for them to cast Elizabeth Taylor as an Egyptian, but it’s Hollywood and supply was limited.  But if I were to jump on the bandwagon of  “there’s so many better people to play Nina Simone because of their looks”, then sorry, I’m not Team Zoe and can’t agree with her this time, even though I was one of the few people to support her quest in becoming Nina.

Then there’s her abuse of the word “androgyny” when she speaks about possibly being able to fall in love with a woman, marry one and raise a family.

In the magazine, Saldana, 34, describes herself as “androgynous.” She says she may “end up with a woman raising my children…that’s how androgynous I am!” When asked to clarify if she was open to the idea of raising a child with another woman as her partner? She said, “Yes, I was raised that open.”

Then she went on the Today Show, talking about androgyny again. Saying she could see herself living with and loving a woman.

That is not androgyny. That is called being bi-sexual, since you’ve also have had long term relationships with men, and say you still like men.

For the record, the meaning of androgyny is:

1: having the characteristics or nature of both male and female
2a : neither specifically feminine nor masculine
 b : suitable to or for either sex <androgynous clothing>
Please someone tell Zoe to stick to talking about Star Trek, because anything else is making her look a little bit odd. Did Bradley Cooper drive her crazy or something?

 

  • Allie

    I’m so over her she’s so disrespectful. I don’t see how anyone can still stan for this chick

  • Orange Starr Happy Hunting

    She sure does, androgynous doe not mean bisexual SMH

  • D

    Damn….pretty thin black chicks just can’t catch a break these days.

  • ….

    Maybe she meant ambiguous…but then again I don’t think that word really makes sense either.

  • Katrina

    Oh boy, or girl….whichever. This comment is totally androgynous because it’s that open.

  • http:tontonmichel.tumblr.com Tonton Michel

    I am no longer amused by this woman’s reasoning.

  • Fredsan

    Im not her biggest fan but, dam u doin a whole lotta hatin for no real particular reason!! I mean, if there is other reasons you dislike her other than what u stated in this article then please point them out because you coming off pretty catty right now lol

  • http://www.clutchmagazine.com Clutch

    Allow me to point you in the direction of my article where I wasn’t “hatin’” on Zoe.

    You’re welcome.

    http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2012/09/is-zoe-saldana-a-victim-of-colorism/

    -Yesha

  • donnadara

    Since she was focusing on dance while she was in high school, maybe she missed some of the academics. Entertainers don’t have to be smart, but she should have “people” to stop her from saying things that don’t make sense. And she should just stop commenting on the Nina Simone issue. Just say you can’t please all of the people and move on. No one’s mind is going to be changed by her justifications. I know it would be rude, but it would be funny if a journalist that interviews her, would correct her on her misuse of the word androgyny.

  • Guest1234

    Word of advice to Ms. Saldana. “Better to remain silent and have others think you a fool than to speak, and prove it. ”

    She’s a damn idiot, isn’t she? We don’t have to support every damn fool just ‘cuz they black, you know. Why is it taboo to acknowledge that, yes, there are some damn shamefully stupid black folks, too? She just needs to shut it! There’s nothing more off-putting than a blithering idiot. Ugh…. when’s the countdown until she just goes away? No more. Please.

  • Zee

    I think her use of the word is not totally out of context. She probably doesn’t feel defined by being a woman and having to live her life as feminine or masculine( if she decides to become a lesbian).

  • Smilez_920

    I actually like Zoe. But lately she’s just been all over the place. I think she’s having a few entitlement issues when it comes to this Nina Simone Role. I guess she thinks her big name and simply being a black (Latino) women should have automatically made her a choice for Nina Simone.

    If she’s study and live Nina Sinone so much I’m sure she would be aware of Nina Simone’s own personal battles with colorism. So statements like “color doesn’t exist” coming from her mouth and then wanting to play the role of a women whose life was almost defined by color is a$$-backwards.

    As far as Elizabeth Taylor comment, it doesn’t take a genius to realize the time frame and era in which that movie was made . Even if the black community didn’t like it, what white producer or writer or caster would really care or worry about they’re opinion effecting their pockets.

    And “androgynous ” , we all make mistakes maybe she meant to use another word.

  • http://www.facebook.com/GeminiLotus Jamica Ashley

    I kept wondering if she actually knew wha androgynous meant and why no one close to her corrected her after the first time she used it wrong. Smh.

  • Advocate

    I think it’s important to recognize that an individual that is attracted to both sexes is not necessarily bisexual. A bisexual individual is someone who identifies with one sex and is attracted to both sexes. If an individual identifies with both sexes (ie is androgynous) and is attracted to both sexes they are not necessarily bisexual.

  • Rose

    finally someone gets it right

  • ANON

    Which dictionary are you using?

  • ThinkPositive!

    People just put up a sign that say You All Hate Zoe. She’s damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. Ya’ll jump on the woman with every move she makes. All I read is HATE in the article/comments. It disgusting, here is black woman in Hollywood proving that we(as black women) can play different roles. There is hardly any black actresses working and ya’ll pulling down the one that’s opening doors. She makes the covers of mags that no other black actresses can say they have been on in their careers. Besides Kerry Washington and Zoe,who else is working? This is just bellow the belt. Sad smh.

  • Elyse

    I’m not a huge Zoe Fan, but I like her. I feel like this article was hating a little for no reason. Celebs say stupid stuff all the time. Let’s call ‘em all out. lol I never even heard of that word before this article. Who cares?

  • ANON

    Hands you a dictionary & thesaurus to help you along the way…

  • paul

    Did Zoe dat Bradley Cooper?

    Kool

    I don’t like white men (or women), but I like that cat for some reason (no homo). Now if you all could score white men like ole Brad you can go with our blessings. LMAO!

    I mean you can go anyway, only trouble is, the types of whitey’s ya usually end up with are so low grade we know you’re coming back. We wanna make sure ya DON’T come back. :-)

    But Brad is the kind of white guy you don’t need to make us “guess who’s coming to dinner”.

    He’s a class act and credentialed enough for us have him in the back row of the family photo, in that – “who’s that white guy at the back? oh that’s just brad, my cousin’s FIANCE – kind of way.

    Alright?

    aaaright! rofl

  • Sylvia

    So, we’re just gonna ignore the fact that Cleopatra was ethnically Macedonian Greek? Elizabeth Taylor was closer in physical appearance to Cleopatra than Zoe Saldana will ever be to Nina Simone. That is a terrible comparison to make.

  • http://www.lillian-mae.com Lillian Mae

    She’s full of it. Of course she has to promote the movie but I don’t buy her BS. She needs better people

  • http://connectmedammit.com Nell

    Are you saying the supply of talented black actresses was limited when Cleopatra was made?

    Your statement makes it seem as if there were not talented black actresses in the early 60′s and I beg to differ.

  • Right

    What are you even talking about?

  • Deidra

    Huh?

  • Camryn

    Actually she said “ethnic”…so I doubt she meant a black actress should have played Cleo

  • Belle

    Exactly!!! I just mentioned that in a previous comment. Fredi Washington, a light-skinned black woman, played the lead as a bi-racial character in 1934. So it sounds as if she’s telling us that by 1963 they couldn’t find any ethnic looking celebs?

  • paul

    Excuse me but how would a monarch of Egypt, in Africa (google maps) in 3000BC, end up being an Elizabeth Taylor of northern European stock, lookalike from Macedonia?

    LMAO!

    I would have said that the most striking thing about Egyptians at that time would have been their BLACK Africanness.

    Furthermore, if you’re of Northern European descent, what the hell has a queen of ancient egypt got to do with YOU anyway?

    Northern Europeans, who lived in land half a world away from Africa. were regarded as barbarians in both the Greek and Roman and Egyptian empires, none of which identified themselves in any way with the northern European TRIBES and did not acknowledge any connection to them except as conqueror and conquered.

    The point being that Northern Europe, ie WHITE Europe was a non-entity non-player on the world stage, which had not produced any historical figures of note at that time.

    So why are you getting so possessive over other people’s queens?

    LOL!

    Now I’m no fan of Cleopatra, just another swurl queen as far I’m concerned, whose swurling example spread throughout the population and lead to the mixed raced populations we see in Egypt and other parts of North Africa today.

    So it’s pfft to you and pfft to Cleopatra and her BLACK fans.

    One more thing – I have no use for so called royalty so it’s pfft to that too.

  • Pseudonym

    Yes! Here we have a Latina actress who proudly proclaims and embraces her blackness and so many black women are beating up on her and being so negative. Get over yourself already!

  • paul

    Well enough people got the diss to vote it down. So
    blah to you.. LOL!

  • Shirl

    I know right..

  • Sylvia

    Actually, sweetie, if you had picked up a book in the last thirty years, you would know that the Egyptian throne was ruled by the Ptolemaic Dynasty since Alexander the Great, the MACEDONIAN KING, conquered the nation. The Ptolemaic Dynasty was begun by one of his trusted generals, Ptolemy, a Macedonian Greek. Please, don’t try to argue this with someone who studied history in college for 4.5 years and received a degree in that field. You’re gonna make yourself look uninformed and like a try hard.

  • paul

    Ok but how does that make Cleopatra an Elizabeth Taylor, whitest of white women, lookalike?

    LMAO!

  • paul

    should be – did Zoe DATE Bradley Cooper? .

  • http://gravatar.com/sapphiresandsisters sapphiresandsisters

    Bottomline is we don’t want you playing Nina, Zoe…. And you will deal!!!
    And who gives a damn if Liz played Cleopatra? That was a screw up on Hollywood’s part and them, as always, trying to whiten up and type cast people from different ethnic backgrounds to seem more appealing. They did it in The West Side Story, The 10 Commandments and the list goes on. It’s not the ’50s, and Blacks want the truth to be portrayed when it comes to all that Nina represented…

  • Ask_ME

    Um, no. The character Fredi played in The Imitation Of Life was BLACK…not biracial. In the book and the film, it is mentioned that the character’s father was a light-skinned black man. So, Fredi was the prefect pick for the role.

    I will also add that Dorothy Dandridge was originally being considered for the role of Cleopatra, but due to racism (and her death) at the time they went with Elizabeth.

  • paul

    Argue with this

  • Ask_ME

    Amen!

  • Yb

    Zoe seems like many Afro Latinos who have a superiority complex toward Black Americans and thinks that we American negros should be greatful that she even took on the role.

  • Blue

    Cleopatra was in a different era of Hollywood movies. Plus I doubt if they told her to get a tan or made her wear makeup a few shades darker than her actual skin tone.

  • Starla

    She’s the one calling herself androgynous and she must know why she is using that word. Maybe she is a herm, what do I know.

    She is an actress so she can accept any role given to her, does that make her the right person for the role, no, but she can take the role if she wants.

  • LemonNLime

    I’m so happy that you mentioned this! Did you study Classical Studies? I feel like not many people know this outside of the field (prime example being this Paul guy).

  • LemonNLime

    I know I feel like I just read something by someone having a stroke. He is SO far off topic, a stroke is the only logical excuse for his craziness.

  • victoria

    @Pseudonym

    One of my closest friends is a black Latina and she has told me on many occassions that being a dark Latina is very difficult. But here we have a Latina who is proud to claim her black skin. And yet, we have others who share her skin color dogging her. Nothing new…

  • Cia

    I agree. Yeah it wasn’t the best word to use but we all have used a less than perfect word in our lives. For some reason Zoe really gets under folks skin.

  • T

    I liked Zoe in Colombiana. I thought this movie was a fit for [her]. But, I was not thrilled to see her cast for the role of Nina Simone. I just thought someone else possibly would be a better fit.

    But In regards to these interviews, (maybe) this is a marketing scheme to appear flexible for various roles. If she was bi-sexual, most actors/actresses will leave their preferences under wraps for a couple of years. As far as using the word androgyny instead of bi-sexual, maybe she really didn’t realize there was a difference between two.

  • http://gravatar.com/cocovabarbie KemaVA

    One definition I found states androgeny as having an ambiguous sexual identity. This is probably what she meant. ;-)

  • PrincessDi

    Daaamn! Rosario Dawson, is that you?!

  • Fredsan

    Well i would agree with you if i had replied in THAT article, but in this thread here was a little different.. Im actually of fan of yours but u just seemed like the stuff you were complaining about was a little petty on this one is all.. Maybe i just saw it like that because I’m a guy lol..

  • http://gravatar.com/jamesfrmphilly jamesfrmphilly

    she slim, she pretty, now she got to have a brain too?

  • Anthony

    Thanks for posting this! When Cleopatra became queen, Egypt had not been ruled by native Egyptians for nearly 300 years, and native Egyptians would not rule Egypt until the the early 1950s.

    The whole all Egyptians were black thing is just something that the facts don’t bear out.
    There are so many indisputably black civilizations in Africa, that I have never seen the need to hold on to Egypt. Clearly, Egypt is part of the Nile Valley, and has always had a black population of varying size, but it is also clear that fair skinned and straight haired people have been in Egypt in large numbers for thousands of years.

  • MommieDearest

    If she were white she’d probably be blonde…

  • MommieDearest

    @Ask_Me

    “I will also add that Dorothy Dandridge was originally being considered for the role of Cleopatra, but due to racism (and her death) at the time they went with Elizabeth.”

    Wow, I didn’t know that. Thanks for the interesting bit of trivia.

  • Chip

    I did. but then I’m an old man.

  • JS

    Cleopatra being Macedonian Greek still would have had a far deeper olive complexion than Elizabeth Taylor who was British making her even further away in appearance than Nina and Zoe. At least Zoe has some color on her.

  • JS

    THANK YOU!!! I was about to post this myself. Androgyny isn’t a sexual preference it is a sexual identifier. You could be Androgynous and not be sexual attracted to any gender at all, one, or both.

  • JS

    @Fredsan,

    I’m a woman and I also thought this whole article came off as petty. Especially since the author needs a clue that Androgyny is NOT a sexual preference, it is a sexual identifier meaning Zoe relates as gender neutral. I’m all for correcting people when they come crazy but lets others self identify and not try to put them in our own boxes of what we think they should be or what we think they are.

  • Ask_ME

    Yes, Cleopatra was in the works for years before it was actually made. If you want to know more check out Donald Bogle’s book on Dorothy Dandridge…

    http://www.amazon.com/Dorothy-Dandridge-Donald-Bogle/dp/1572972920/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1368745613&sr=8-2

  • http://crystalspraggins.blogspot.com/2013/05/countdown-to-season-finale-of-scandal.html Crystal Spraggins

    Lol! My thoughts exactly!

  • posh brown

    i’m not sure what to make of zoe saldana. there was a time when she would list ten different backgrounds for herself that included irish ect and didn’t proclaim her afro latina-ness like she’s doing now (back when she graced the cover of suede). she appeared to be trying to fly her ‘free hippie lifestyle’ back then and it didn’t come off as authentic. it was as if she didn’t do enough research to pull it off. since then, i kind of forgot about that and grew to like her. the whole nina simone thing rubs me the wrong way. and the latest comments, if i thought they were her true feelings would be fine…but i have my doubts.

  • Lynne

    My issue with her role as Nina is that the casting makes little sense. I don’t mean ethnically; I mean in terms of her appearance.

    A tall, slender, actor portrayed Lincoln. It made sense to cast him because he is tall and slender and resembles Lincoln. A short, stocky, white actor would not have made sense in the role.

    I’m certainly NOT accusing the director of being racist, but I think sometimes directors don’t look at their list of actors closely enough. What was that casting meeting like? Who saw Nina and thought of Zoe?

    Oh, and as far as her androgyny or bisexuality is concerned. Well, every female celebrity says that now.

  • naan

    Dang. It seems like Black Latinas get it worst than biracial black women.

  • Dee D

    YES YES & YES!!! I’m so confused as to why so many African-Americans want to claim Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians, just like modern day Egyptians were not and are not black. I think this may stem from the fact that Ancient Egypt is the only dynasty from Africa that is well documented. To add to that Cleopatra was not black or Egyptian, she was Greek and possibly half Macedonian. More people need to read up on the lost kingdoms of Africa. Read up on OUR history people (there is even a BBC dvd series) there is so much to be proud of.

  • Anthony

    Not really.

  • Fredsan

    Yeah, a couple thousand years from now micheal jorden will have been a white man too lol!! In the immortal words of red fox, ni&&a please!!!!

  • Candace

    Her analogy sucks too. Cleopatra was Greek, supposedly. The Ptolemy Dynasty, her peeps, took over Egypt, but are believed to have been Greek. In which case Liz Taylor playing her discombobulated her analogy…ijs

  • http://gravatar.com/karenmm2 karenmm2

    She’s an actress…She’s an actress who WANTS to WORK. It’s a job. It’s an opportunity. It doesn’t mean she’s “disrespectful” because she takes it. And when did not being well-educated become a crime?? So, she doesn’t know what androgynous means.. Is that really a big deal? I swear I looked up one day and really, smart, cool, loving, good women traded all that in for an amazing aesthetic, pettiness, overly-critical meanness, and a lack of compassion toward one another. “Thank you” hip hop and reality shows…We gotta do better.

  • http://gravatar.com/karenmm2 karenmm2

    And reserving our venom for an actress who was GIVEN the job by a studio is ridiculous. If we have a problem with her in the role, why not address the decision-makers? The people who made this call? Why not address colorism, racism, and sexism in the movie industry in order to make sure that someone like Zoe Saldana will not be given a job over a more qualified applicant/someone who more resembles the person being portrayed? This kind of thing continues because we rather eat each other alive than actually address the people who perpetuate narrow ideas about beauty. And it solves nothing.

  • iCandy

    ummm Cleopatra was white.
    And she was Egyptian (an ethnicty not a race. Egyptians arent only black!)
    Cleopatra’s family was Mesopotamian.. they ruled Egypt at the time. Thats modern day Iraq.. so dark haird Elizabeth Tailor was spot on casting!
    #mouthandfootdisease

    Still no bueno on this Nina Simone thing but black girls winning so I cant be too mad. But Zoe isnt black.. have yet to hear her claim it in plain english without confusing everyone with that latina jargon.

  • Wong Chia Chi

    I knew Cleopatra was Macedonian, but Elisabeth Taylor was a bit too pale. I’ve know many SouthEastern Europeans and they are European but very tan usually, especially the ones that neighbor Africa,and at least they come in darker shades.

    Add to that the fact that Cleopatra’s mother was Egyptian so Cleopatra was probably biracial. Oddly enough she probably would have looked like Saldana herself, LOL

  • Anthony

    Do a search of images from Ptolemaic Egypt and also do a search of images from Ancient Greece and you will see a whole lot of white people. Read or watch video of news stories from current Greece, and you will see white people, especially those Neo Nazis who attack black immigrants!

    My point is that Africa is full of black civilizations like Nubia, Axum, Benin, and Ghana. One area that seriously needs more exploration is the region deep in the Sahara. Evidence suggests that this was a melting pot of people and this was the region where iron was first smelted. Egypt ,for that matter, had one dynasty that was indisputably black, the 26th, if I am not mistaken. The idea that North Africa was totally black until the Arabs moved in is not borne out by the facts. Fair skinned populations like the Berbers have an ancient presence in North Africa.

  • SayWhat

    While I thought this article was pointless and stretching to make a point, please tell me a time when both biracial and black Latinas have not been placed ahead of their dark skin counterparts?

  • http://twitter.com/3_Fifs 3Fifs (@3_Fifs)

    Finally!! She misused the word so much, and without correction, that I was beginning to doubt my understanding.

  • StrangerDanger

    Since it seems to be Zoe Saldana week, can we please dissect this quote from the Allure spread?

    “I feel like as a race [racism], that’s a minute problem against the problems we face just as women versus men, in a world that’s more geared and designed to cater towards the male species. That is a situation that, I spend time thinking about, and working towards ending that, I guess we could talk about that.”

    Black/Afro femininity? Binaries?What, what?

    I think Zoe is gorgeous, but this quote almost made me lose it. For all her talk about her love for being Afro-Latina, she really sounded like a white feminist there.

  • http://twitter.com/Cognorati001 Colette Marcheline (@Cognorati001)

    Thank you for your post.

    I do believe that she was the wrong choice for the Nina Simone role and believe colorism/White privilege was at work (in screen adaptation, people in charge, target audience, etc); however, what’s happening to her in the Black press is getting out of control. People truly hate her and I think it’s starting to affect her psychologically. It’s also BAD for Black Latinas to see a role model being trashed publicly and so personally.

    I’m glad this is coming to light as racism and sexism mutate into hatred of those who are Afro-Latin. We need a context to understand what’s going on and to protect ourselves from verbal aggression and discrimination.

    It’s kind of obvious that the most biased against Black Latina are, quite ironically, Black American women.

  • Anthony

    It looks to me that the criticism of Saldana ha really become petty. She misused a word? Big damn deal!

  • http://1stamend-kisa-kisa.blogspot.com/ kisa

    I think you are being too harsh. Although you are entitled to your opinion, it just isn’t really that deep.

  • Anthony

    Red Pill, I actually have a very solid background in history, I teach it for a living at a university. I did my dissertation work in Sudan, along the Blue Nile Valley. I first read Chancellor Williams, Cheikh Anta Diop, Dr. Ben, and others, more than thirty years ago. I have read Herodotus, and Martin Bernal’s Black Athena.

    Populations can and do shift over time. Egypt does currently have an indigenous black minority Nubian population in the South, and Egyptians generally get darker the further one goes into Upper Egypt.

    The evidence I have seen does not point to an ancient Egypt with a population that would have looked like people from Chad or Nigeria.

    I’m also sure that many Egyptians were noticeably darker than a Greek like Herodotus, that is why I don’t think that Elizabeth Taylor playing the ethnically Greek Cleopatra was not a stretch.

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    She was of the Ptolemy line. She was Macedonian Greek not Mesopotamian.

    http://empires.findthedata.org/l/136/Ptolemaic-Dynasty

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    “Androgyny is NOT a sexual preference, it is a sexual identifier meaning Zoe relates as gender neutral.”

    I’m pretty sure the author said that androgyny is NOT a sexual preference. That was her criticism.

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    Have you seen any Macedonians? Elizabeth Taylor is the right complexion and hair color.

  • http://gravatar.com/mbm1ame mbm1ame

    Ok the dislike against this woman, is growing and growing, Since she took the Nina Movie. personally I don’t care how she chooses to identify herself, the rainbow race or neither thats her own personal choice . If she’s as dumb as a board or clever I don’t care either. She just got the part in the movie the person Who I find has been incredibly invisible and unscathed during this entire situation has been Cynthia Mort. Cynthia Mort is the person who hired Zoe and the person who could have done her casting correctly. Zoe is just the face of this entire film and at the end of the day she will get paid and whether we like it or not is gonna be the face of Nina (Prosthetics and all). The growing dislike of her and the campaign against her casting just makes most in the black community look like bullies.
    These are Zoes beliefs and obviously not even playing Nina Simone can change that so if we have a problem and the better target would be Cynthia Mort and her Hollywood Buddies.

  • Rod

    ok…i think the author is being overly critical…and a bit limited in her own understanding of the application of words according to their definition…if Saldana feels ambivalent or unlimited by society’s expectations about her sexuality or her gender role in a relationship then maybe her application of the definition is…i don’t know…accurate…I think the author just flat out doesn’t like her role as Nina Simone or as an actress at all and veils it rather poorly behind very narrow minded excuses or arguments…

  • http://www.facebook.com/Aminon1115 William Roberson

    The biggest divide in society and the most influential factor on how one is treated is decided on whether they have a dick or not. No doubt, race is important. No doubt, that truth will vary from person to person. But, that’s the biggest divide arching and perhaps, it always has been. However, I think it depends on what is meant by “oppression” and how we measure it. You’ll have to tell me if I sound like a white feminist too. That’d be interesting considering I’m a black male.

  • Rod

    I think you should perhaps follow your own advice…your comment was as petty, unnecessary, and limited as this article..

  • StrangerDanger

    Gender is generally the clearest biological divide, I’ll give you that. But that’s ignoring the reality that in America the perception between white women and non-white women, white-men and non-white men, as collectives, are drastically different.

    My biggest issue is with the word “minute”. White feminists tend to ignore or glaze over the race issue in favor of focusing on gender. Race is tricky terrain, better left untouched.

    When you use words like “minute” to describe a facet or humanity (however arbitrarily constructed) that permeates an individual’s interaction with the world, you trivialize it and end up in a debate about whose struggle is the worst.

    Race isn’t minute, Gender isn’t minute, Orientation isn’t minute. They intersect. Depending on the situation, one aspect might mediate your interactions more than others, but it still contributes to the way the world sees you.

    I know Zoe’s an actress not a scholar, but someone needs to introduce her to the work of Patricia Hill Collins.

    And know you don’t sound like a white feminist, but you do sound like you might enjoy Collins’ work as well :)

    End Rant

  • StrangerDanger

    And I realized I made quite a few typos. A lot. It’s been a long day lol.

  • Dee D

    Cleo’s mother was not Egyptian she was said to be Macedonia, her father was Greek. So that would make both sides of her family Caucasian.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kekariley Keka

    She is a donkey!

  • Naan

    The fact that you said “dark skinned counterparts” shows that you don’t know much about Afro-Latinos. Go to the Dominican, Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Brazil and you will see plenty of Afro-Latinos with DARK SKIN. I assume that you are a Black from the USA and you consider Blacks in the USA to be the “dark skinned” counterparts… Lol. Some Blacks sure are in denial over just how LIGHT they are. And really how LIGHT Blacks in the USA are. Just STOP with this crap that Black Latinos are less Black than anyone else and they only come out yellow skinned with freckles and gel curly hair!

  • Pema

    She’s an actress! Did you think she was a member of Mensa? Sometimes you have to take certain people’s opinions with a huge grain of salt.

  • JS

    @Ravi,

    That is not the case as the author is basically saying Zoe can’t love a woman too and be androgynous. Like I said before androgyny is an identifier. I’m not sure of Zoe’s exact statement but she would be correct in saying “I am androgynous, I love women too.” That statement doesn’t mean she is saying androgyny is a sexual preference. Rather it is explaining her sexual preference. Since she is androgynous and can identify with both male and female genders this has made her bi-sexual. This is not across the border for every person who is androgynous as it takes on different forms (some androgynous people are not sexually attracted to anyone). The author was either incorrect in assuming that the two have to be separate or just did not understand what Zoe was saying.

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    But that’s not what the author said at all — basically or otherwise. She never said anything about what Zoe can do and be androgynous. She said she was using it incorrectly in the following statement:

    “end up with a woman raising my children…that’s how androgynous I am!” When asked to clarify if she was open to the idea of raising a child with another woman as her partner? She said, “Yes, I was raised that open.”

    Following that up with saying that is not what androgynous means. Then she posted a definition.

    If Zoe had said she was androgynous AND that she loves women too, then you would have a point. Clearly, that’s not what she said. She said she could end up with a woman raising her children as evidence for how androgynous she is. That doesn’t evidence androgyny. Being androgynous does not have any implications for sexual orientation at all. The two things are not connected. You can be androgynous and be straight, bisexual, gay, asexual, or whatever. Saying that you would be with a woman in no way shows how androgynous you are.

    The author made no incorrect assumptions or assumptions at all for that matter. She just pointed out a legitimately incorrect use of the word androgynous. Given that you weren’t even sure of Zoe’s exact statement, it would seem more reasonable that you are the one that just didn’t understand what she was saying.

  • JS

    @Ravi,

    That’s why I said the author just did not understand what Zoe was saying as she assumed she meant it as a sexual preference. As I explained although androgyny isn’t a sexual preference a person saying they are androgynous could be an explanation for why the do have certain preferences. The word androgyny, given by its many definition’s is a broad term. Androgyny doesn’t HAVE to be connected or an explanation for your sexual preference but it can be. It could just as easily explain why someone was bi-sexual or even gender neutral or not have any connection at all. People are so quick to jump on the Zoe bandwagon of hate that they missed that. It doesn’t matter HOW she said it, unless she specifically said “my sexual orientation is androgyny” then this author doesn’t have a case. Again I say lets not define people by what we think they should be, androgyny is a broad term that can have a few different implications. Jeez.

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    It wasn’t an assumption. It was an understanding of the words that Zoe actually said. There was no assumption made. Androgyny may be a broad term, but that doesn’t mean that it in any way indicates sexual orientation. It’s not that people missed anything, they just don’t agree with your explanation as to the meaning of the word androgynous.

    There are many ways to express that androgyny is connected to sexual orientation other than specifically stating “my sexual orientation is androgyny.” Saying anything like “I like having sex with other women — that’s how androgynous I am” would be another way to state that androgyny is indicative of sexual orientation. Zoe made a comment that directly linked sexual orientation and the word androgyny, which is a use of the word that is divorced from its actual meaning. The author’s criticism was completely valid. I agree that the word androgyny can have a few different implications. It doesn’t logically follow that one of those implications is necessarily sexual orientation. And no one is defining by what they think they should be. That assertion isn’t really relevant to anything that has been said. This is simply a matter of the meaning of the word androgyny and how Zoe incorrectly used it in the quotes above.

  • JS

    I’m not saying that they were black I’m saying that they were OLIVE skinned people. Still white, but darker. Please practice some reading comprehension as no where did I say they were black. Elizabeth Taylor is PALE white because she is British. Its more than a bit hypocritical and actually really sad that we would say it was okay for Taylor to play Cleopatra even thought she is lighter than olive skin but its not okay for Zoe to play Nina even though she is not as dark as Nina.

    I’m of a similar complexion to Zoe and if I sat out in the sun for a while I could get dark like Nina (in fact on my last trip to Hawaii I did) so I know Zoe can too. But my friends who are pale white like Elizabeth Taylor only burn, they don’t tan unless the color comes from a bottle. So that is why Zoe is the closer match than Taylor because Zoe can get darker naturally if needed, Taylor can’t.

  • lottie

    um, Cleopatra was actually Greek, Cleopatra is a Greek name, just sayin’.

  • SayWhat

    I mentioned skin tone because you equaled their ‘plight’ to that of bi-racial women who are usually light.

    Please don’t presume to tell me anything about Afro Latinas, I’ve studied African American history and know full well that Latin American countries, especially some of the ones you mentioned do not honor their African ancestry or treat their darker counterparts as equals. So it’s not about me seeing them as black, so much as they don’t see themselves that way.

  • JS

    It’s not my explanation its basic semantics and understanding of words. Androgyny is a noun, the abstract idea. Androgynous is an adjective, the describer. You CAN attribute your sexual orientation of being gender neutral or bisexual as androgynous, however that doesn’t mean androgyny is your sexual orientation. Bisexual would be the noun here (orientation) and androgynous the adjective to describe/explain why that person identified as such. People not agreeing with that must not agree with the dictionary definition of androgynous meaning “having nature of both male and female.” As this nature can take many forms, having both male and female tendencies could have someone attribute their bi-sexuality to them identifying with both genders and thus yes “that’s how androgynous they are”.

    I think more people are thrown off because they have never heard androgyny used to attribute reasoning to a sexual orientation. However people who lack a sexual orientation, are not attracted to either sex, use them being androgynous, meaning in this case gender neutral, to describe their lack of orientation all the time. I never said androgyny HAS to be linked to an orientation but whoever says that it can’t IS in fact putting people and the term itself (which is rather broad) into a box of what they think it should be. Arguing with that is arguing with the dictionary and semantics.

  • Joshua

    Cleopatra was NOT Greek u idiot!!!

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    “Androgyny is a noun, the abstract idea. Androgynous is an adjective, the describer. You CAN attribute your sexual orientation of being gender neutral or bisexual as androgynous, however that doesn’t mean androgyny is your sexual orientation.”

    The author said this already and I never disagreed with this point. The fact that you have restated this a few times despite no one disagreeing leads me to believe that you aren’t understanding what the author or I are saying.

    Bisexual is an adjective. Sexual orientation is a noun. Androgynous isn’t used and cannot be used to explain why someone is bisexual. That’s not how Zoe was using it anyway. She was using simply stating that she was androgynous. She in no way used her supposed androgyny to explain her bisexuality. That was you and your misreading of her quote.

    “As this nature can take many forms, having both male and female tendencies could have someone attribute their bi-sexuality to them identifying with both genders and thus yes ‘that’s how androgynous they are’.”

    The nature or characteristics can take many forms but they need to be something that characterizes men or women. Having feet, for example, would not be the type of characteristic that characterizes someone as androgynous because it has nothing to do with being male or female. Having a sexual attraction to women similarly doesn’t characterize men or women because both can be and are often attracted to women. Sexual attraction is not the sort of characteristic that is dealt with in the meaning of the word androgyny. The word is broad, but not that broad.

    Androgyny is dealing with possessing traits, characteristics, or behaviors that can be identified with each gender; or lacking characteristics that allow one to be identified as a specific gender. Being bisexual isn’t something that is identified with either gender similarly to having feet. Neither would be indicative of someone’s androgyny.

    Given the fact that Zoe never uses androgyny to attribute reasoning to sexual orientation, that couldn’t be why people are thrown off. It’s because she is using the word in a way divorced from its dictionary definition and from common usage.

    Not being attracted to either gender is called asexual. Androgyny can refer to an individuals own gender neutrality, not the lack of attraction to genders. Not being sexually attracted to either gender doesn’t make you gender neutral. That’s another misuse of words.

    I never said that you did say that, nor did I suggest it. I said that Zoe linked androgyny to sexual orientation, not you. Saying that she can’t do this has nothing to do with putting her in a box. It has to do with understanding the meaning of words and how they can legitimately be used in line with that meaning. Given the dictionary doesn’t say anything about a box in the definition of androgyny, it would appear I’m only arguing with you and your misuse of the word androgyny. Not sure how I would argue against semantics anyway. The argument itself is a semantic argument, but I already said that in my last comment.

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Famous_Macedonians1.JPG

    Liz could play the girl in the lower right. They are about the same complexion. You may know many, but you don’t know enough to generalize to the entire population. There are darker complected Celtics and fair skinned Europeans in southern areas. Just like Black people, white folks come in a variety of shades. My roommate from 2 years ago is a very pale skinned Macedonian; same with his family. I suppose he’s not one of the many you know.

  • Truthurts
  • JS

    @ Ravi,

    If you agree that you can attribute your sexual orientation to androgyny then I don’t understand what you disagree with… because that is what Zoe did.

    Bisexual can be both a noun and an adj. In terms of defining the idea of being bisexual it is a noun. In terms of describing sexual orientation it is an adjective. The dictionary is useful, look it up!!

    “That’s not how Zoe was using it anyway. She was using simply stating that she was androgynous. She in no way used her supposed androgyny to explain her bisexuality. That was you and your misreading of her quote.”

    Okay so now we are arguing over “intended” meaning which is futile. The reason I said this is a semantics argument because I am focusing solely on the words said and what meaning is formed based on the order of those words. There is no way to confirm intention (unless we ask Zoe herself) so what you are doing is speculating her intentions based on your already negative preconceived notions for her or what meaning you want it to have. What can be proved however is the order of her words in what was SAID and what meaning that has. If you agree that orientation is a noun then Zoe saying she “that’s how androgynous I am” could not be her orientation aka a noun because androgynous is an adjective in both use (where it was placed) and function (it is an adj) in that sentence.

    “The nature or characteristics can take many forms but they need to be something that characterizes men or women. Having feet, for example, would not be the type of characteristic that characterizes someone as androgynous because it has nothing to do with being male or female”

    You are incorrect there as you are attributing nature and characteristics as being tangible things. Nature and characteristics also include intangible ideas (nouns) such as generosity, hate (noun in this case, look it up) or even androgyny (also noun). Someone isn’t androgynous just by appearance alone.

    “Androgyny is dealing with possessing traits, characteristics, or behaviors that can be identified with each gender; or lacking characteristics that allow one to be identified as a specific gender.”

    Correct, however what attracts us to another human being is in our nature as we are innately born with those pheromones that attract us to a certain sex. It is in a woman’s nature to have pheromones that attract her to men. Just like it is in men’s to be attracted to women. We are attracted by those scents and there is years of research to back this up as well. Homosexuality and bisexuality comes into play when a person is born with pheromones that are attracted to the opposite or both sexes. So yes you can say attribute the nature of being attracted to both sexes to Androgyny (having natures of both).

    “It’s because she is using the word in a way divorced from its dictionary definition and from common usage.”

    I agree that it’s different from common usage, that is what is throwing people off, but I just explained how and why it is correct and if you don’t believe me look it up in the dictionary as the forms are correct.

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    I never said you can attribute your sexual orientation to androgyny. That was you. I said that sexual orientation has no connection to androgyny. I’m saying that Zoe incorrectly linked sexual orientation to androgyny.

    Bisexual is an adjective in any sense that it describes the sexuality of a person. The only way it could be a noun would be if you were referring to a person as a bisexual. I suppose it could be used like that, but that’s certainly not how it was being used above. When talking about the idea of being bisexual — as in to say Zoe is bisexual — it is an adjective. It is a direct modifier of the noun “Zoe.”

    You haven’t been focusing on the words said. You have been reading way past the words written and making assumptions about what Zoe was saying. I have only gone off of what Zoe actually said from the beginning. You are the only one making assumptions about what she was trying to say. You are the only one speculating.

    “If you agree that orientation is a noun then Zoe saying she “that’s how androgynous I am” could not be her orientation aka a noun because androgynous is an adjective in both use (where it was placed) and function (it is an adj) in that sentence.”

    This doesn’t make sense. Adjectives describe or modify nouns. The adjective “androgynous” was a modifier for herself, describing her sexual orientation. Bisexual would have been the proper adjective to use in this situation, as the author originally stated. The fact that androgynous is an adjective does not aid your argument at all. It’s a complete non issue.

    Nature and characteristics quite often are tangible. I never said that they had to be tangible, I was only giving a single example. I wasn’t creating an exhaustive list of characteristics. I never said it was appearance alone. Your refutation is without logical basis and I’m afraid you were reading too much into my words yet again.

    “Correct, however what attracts us to another human being is in our nature as we are innately born with those pheromones that attract us to a certain sex. It is in a woman’s nature to have pheromones that attract her to men. Just like it is in men’s to be attracted to women. We are attracted by those scents and there is years of research to back this up as well. Homosexuality and bisexuality comes into play when a person is born with pheromones that are attracted to the opposite or both sexes. So yes you can say attribute the nature of being attracted to both sexes to Androgyny (having natures of both).”

    Whether or not the variety of sexual attraction is innate (this is far from uncontested fact and something we do not agree on) is completely moot. It is no less natural for a woman to be bisexual than it is for her to only be attracted to men. The manifestation of sexual orientation is not dependent on pheromones. You are going to have to cite some of your “years of research” as I doubt it exists. Homosexuality and bisexuality don’t result from a person’s pheromones. First off, the pheromones you produce have nothing to do with what you are attracted to. Pheromones are used to attract other to you, not shape the attractions of those that produce them. Second, there is no link between pheromone production and sexual orientation. So no, you can’t attribute the characteristic of being attracted to both genders to androgyny. The two concepts have no logical connection.

    You haven’t explained why people are thrown off; I did. It’s because she, like you, doesn’t really understand the meaning of the word that is written in the dictionary. I have read several dictionary definitions and one was even included in the article itself. I don’t believe you, because I understand the definition as found in any dictionary. Your usage of the word simply doesn’t reconcile with the way it is defined in the dictionary. She should have said “that’s how open I am” or “that’s how bisexual I am”. The way she said it doesn’t make sense given the definition of the word and common usage.

  • JS

    @ Ravi

    Hmmm let’s see who is confused shall we?

    Me: “Androgyny is a noun, the abstract idea. Androgynous is an adjective, the describer. You CAN attribute your sexual orientation of being gender neutral or bisexual as androgynous, however that doesn’t mean androgyny is your sexual orientation.”

    You: “The author said this already and I never disagreed with this point.”

    Me: “If you agree that you can attribute your sexual orientation to androgyny then I don’t understand what you disagree with… because that is what Zoe did.”

    You: “I never said you can attribute your sexual orientation to androgyny. That was you.”

    Apparently you are a bit confused because you were agreeing with my first statement. A statement btw which you quoted yourself so I KNOW I am not misunderstanding. You apparently misstated if your original intention wasn’t to agree however agree you in fact did do. :)

    “Adjectives describe or modify nouns. The adjective “androgynous” was a modifier for herself, describing her sexual orientation. Bisexual would have been the proper adjective to use in this situation, as the author originally stated. The fact that androgynous is an adjective does not aid your argument at all. It’s a complete non issue.”

    This is what we disagree on though, the intended meaning. You say she meant it as a sexual orientation. I’m saying she was using it to describe attribution on why she was a certain sexual orientation. The fact is she didn’t use bisexual she used androgynous and I am simply giving reasons as to why it was still correct as it described why she felt she was bisexual, bisexuality was implied. You don’t think you can attribute bisexuality to androgyny at all, that is the deeper root of the issue (although you apparently agreed earlier).

    “Your refutation is without logical basis and I’m afraid you were reading too much into my words yet again.”

    I’m only going by what you are saying. I am not ASSUMING you meant anything more than was said. You used the comparison of feet which are tangible in appearance. I simply stated nature and characteristics can go beyond that to be intangible. If you didn’t mean to imply tangibility across the board then don’t use a tangible example to refute something that often takes on an intangible form such as androgyny and how someone defines their personhood. That was your error, not mine.

    Pheromones both attract others to you and determine what Pheromones you find attractive. What is debated and not yet definitive is pinpointing the chemical identity of the compound that causes the reaction but through studies it has been proven with positive results that we do in fact send and receive reactions which are the similar to the ones sent and received by animals. While some do say since they cannot pinpoint this compound it isn’t a real occurrence but the responsive effects that the odors we give off have been tested and proven. One of the reasons it has been so hard to pinpoint in humans is because animals have an organ for this and we do not. It is thought that we used to have this organ but it had been phased out of us (or integrated elsewhere) through evolution.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7356.full.pdf+html
    http://www.livescience.com/3233-sexual-pheromones-myth-reality.html

    All in all this conversation is getting old. You obviously don’t understand the dictionary definition as I have explained time and again throughout this conversation. You don’t have to believe me, it’s right there in the dictionary.

  • JS

    @Dee D
    Lmao. Macedonians of today do not look exactly like the Macedonians of yesteryear and that goes for any race. In our multi-ethnic society it would be RARE for a person to say they have a pureblood line of anything. Especially if you consider the fact that we humans are still evolving and have evolved dramatically since Cleopatra’s time. Not to mention the fact the whole Mediterranean race has been greatly mixed and diversified since Cleopatra’s time. So no Elizabeth Taylor does not look similar to a Macedonian woman of Cleopatra’s time, lol sorry.

    P.S. can I just also say the obvious that a woman the complexion of Elizabeth Taylor would have literally fried in the Egyptian heat under that sun. NO WAY people with that little melanin in their skin could have survived. So no Cleopatra may not have been black but she certainly wasn’t pasty white either.

  • http://gravatar.com/afrosaxon1 afrosaxon1

    “I’ve only seen one film, Colombiana, and it was just “meh”. I wasn’t buying the “emaciated assassin avenges her family’s murder” plot.” Was the ‘emaciated’ bit actually part of the plot of the film? ( I haven’t seen it), or is it a little jab at Zoe Saldana’s figure? If so, we need to get rid of this double standard where it’s ok to make snide remarks about girls who we deem too thin, while at the same time celebrating ‘thick’ women.

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    I wouldn’t go as far as to say confused, but I definitely misread the section of your comment I quoted. Not that it was anything pertinent to the actual discussion. For clarification, I and the author are arguing that androgynous is in no way connected to sexual orientation. You are arguing that it can be. I was never agreeing with what you actually said, only with what I mistakenly believed you to be saying.

    “This is what we disagree on though, the intended meaning. You say she meant it as a sexual orientation. I’m saying she was using it to describe attribution on why she was a certain sexual orientation. The fact is she didn’t use bisexual she used androgynous and I am simply giving reasons as to why it was still correct as it described why she felt she was bisexual, bisexuality was implied. You don’t think you can attribute bisexuality to androgyny at all, that is the deeper root of the issue (although you apparently agreed earlier).

    No, I’m saying she confused her words and that the word androgynous doesn’t fit what she was saying. If she were to say “I’m the same color as the ocean, that’s how orange I am,” I would reply that she meant blue, given the ocean isn’t orange. Similarly, she was using the her first clause as a reference to the scope of a quality described in the second clause. The problem is, ending up with a woman or having her raise your children in no way is indicative of being androgynous. Being androgynous does not even remotely suggest that you would be in any sort of relationship with a woman. To assert that she was using androgynous to describe attribution on why she was a certain sexual orientation is not does not reconcile with the words that she used. You are reading far to much into her words and doing the very thing you are accusing me of.

    “I’m only going by what you are saying. I am not ASSUMING you meant anything more than was said. You used the comparison of feet which are tangible in appearance. I simply stated nature and characteristics can go beyond that to be intangible. If you didn’t mean to imply tangibility across the board then don’t use a tangible example to refute something that often takes on an intangible form such as androgyny and how someone defines their personhood. That was your error, not mine.”

    No, this particular error was completely yours. Unless I suggest that I’m giving an exhaustive list of all the things that would constitute a characteristic, then there is no logical basis for your assumption that my single example characterized all other examples that I could possibly give. There is no inherent implication or even an implication that can rationally be found in extending tangibility across the board by my mentioning of a single example. That was simply a bad inference on your part. Did you also infer that I was arguing that all relevant characteristics have to have skin? Feet do have skin. You picked out a single characteristic — tangibility — of feet and erroneously inferred that I was saying all examples of characteristics necessarily would also have this single characteristic, despite the fact I didn’t even hint that was the case.

    Part of the reason this gets so tedious is delving into completely tangential discussions like this pheromone side convo. Your assertions on pheromones aren’t substantiated in your links. Try to post something that actually supports your view. As it stands, you haven’t found anything to refute my above statements on pheromones. The manifestation of sexual orientation is not dependent on pheromones. The pheromones you produce have nothing to do with what you are attracted to. There is no link between pheromone production and sexual orientation. Find something in your links that says otherwise, or find some other research. Stuff like this doesn’t help your point:

    ***But without any actual chemicals identified as pheromones, scientists can’t test effects on humans, so the jury is out as to whether we communicate via pheromones.

    “As far as releasers, it may be that we simply don’t have them,” Wyatt said. “Certainly courtship and everything else is so complex in humans that it may be that the things that are really important are visual and social signals.”

    Recent research showed that at about the same time our primate ancestors gained color vision, they also lost the genes for so-called vomeronasal organ (VNO) receptors, Wyatt said. Non-human animals use the organ to detect pheromones. (Turns out, mice use both their VNO and main smelling system to detect pheromones, so maybe humans don’t need that specialized organ.)

    “It may be at that point that we moved from running things mostly by pheromones to doing things much more in the visual fashion,” Wyatt said.***

    I obviously do understand the dictionary definition as it is written in the dictionary. Your explanation of the dictionary definition is beyond understanding, outside of your own mind, because it doesn’t make sense to those capable of rational thought. It is right there in the dictionary, unfortunately, you apparently aren’t able to understand what is written there.

  • Dee

    So true. A HUGE grain of salt…especially if they’re promoting a movie.

  • JS

    People always start back tracking once they been caught up!

    “No, I’m saying she confused her words and that the word androgynous doesn’t fit what she was saying. If she were to say “I’m the same color as the ocean, that’s how orange I am,” I would reply that she meant blue, given the ocean isn’t orange.”

    Actually the ocean’s color is defined by the algae that live in it. For the majority of the time that is a deep blue/green color. However there has been phenomena of different algae that turn the water different colors, such as the pink, red and yes in fact orange. LOL I know what point you were trying to make but you are in fact wrong in that example. HOWEVER just like the ocean can attribute it’s color to the algae present in it can a person attribute their sexuality to how they identify themselves as a person. I like how your example actually worked in my favor LOL.

    “Unless I suggest that I’m giving an exhaustive list of all the things that would constitute a characteristic, then there is no logical basis for your assumption that my single example characterized all other examples that I could possibly give.”

    True but like I said you used a tangible example such as feet to argue against something that can take on both tangible and intangible forms. Since you do in fact agree that characteristics can take on intangible forms (or at least you do now, again lol backtracking) then I don’t know why you bothered in the first place giving such a literal example. The only logical conclusion one could come to based on your words and using tangibility to refute something intangible is that you do not agree it can be intangible. Like I said YOUR bad. But now that you backtracked on this, we can move on from this point.

    “Your assertions on pheromones aren’t substantiated in your links. Try to post something that actually supports your view. As it stands, you haven’t found anything to refute my above statements on pheromones. The manifestation of sexual orientation is not dependent on pheromones”

    The links I gave support the claim that a pheromone like reaction does in fact occur in humans but we are unable to identify these pheromones like we can in animals. I never said that was the end all in sexual attraction, only that it was in our nature as men and women. Then I linked that nature to androgyny. You on the other hand do not believe that being homosexual or bisexual is apart of nature at all so we disagree on a more fundamental level that makes everything thus forth, how we understand human nature and androgyny as human nature to be at odds.

    I’m not going to try to convince you, I can only give you facts as stated in science and in the dictionary and hope you have the god given sense to absorb them.

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    There is a difference between back tracking and recognizing when you misread something. Most intelligent people can recognize and admit when they made an error. Unfortunately, this isn’t a skill you have developed. Actually, I didn’t go into why the ocean is the color that it is (it’s a little more complicated than algae http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/living-ocean/ocean-color/). The ocean is quite blue and I never said that water couldn’t be different colors. All water is not the ocean and the ocean is decidedly blue. Do a google image search of any of the worlds oceans and none of them will be orange. Once again a tangential argument, and yet again, another instance of you being wrong. My example doesn’t help your point, your inability to understand the example blinds you to that fact. My example has nothing to do with the cause of the color. No causation is attributed to anything. It’s purely a statement of the magnitude of the speaker’s color. I like how you actually believe you understand my example, when you clearly don’t.

    “True but like I said you used a tangible example such as feet to argue against something that can take on both tangible and intangible forms. Since you do in fact agree that characteristics can take on intangible forms (or at least you do now, again lol backtracking) then I don’t know why you bothered in the first place giving such a literal example. The only logical conclusion one could come to based on your words and using tangibility to refute something intangible is that you do not agree it can be intangible. Like I said YOUR bad. But now that you backtracked on this, we can move on from this point.”

    The tangibility of a foot was never the point of the analogy. Unsurprisingly, you completely missed the point of that particular example. I was giving an example of a characteristic that can’t be referenced to show androgyny, despite the fact that it is a natural characteristic. The characteristics used to show androgyny have to actually be characteristic of gender. A persons desire to be with or raise children with a woman does not characterize men or women — much like feet. The tangibility of feet was an irrelevant detail.

    The only logical conclusion a rational person could come up with is that my statements can’t be extended to anything beyond what I was directly comparing — the fact that sexual orientation nor feet can characterize gender. Men and women have feet; men and women want to be with women. Like I said, this error was completely yours. Too bad you don’t have that aforementioned ability to recognize when you’ve made a mistake.

    ” I never said that was the end all in sexual attraction, only that it was in our nature as men and women.”

    That wasn’t the only thing you said:

    “what attracts us to another human being is in our nature as we are innately born with those pheromones that attract us to a certain sex. It is in a woman’s nature to have pheromones that attract her to men. Just like it is in men’s to be attracted to women.”

    And nothing in your links suggests that this is the case. The study you posted doesn’t address your assertions at all. In fact, the portion of your second link that I quoted suggests quite the opposite of what you are saying. I never said that I don’t believe sexual orientation was a part (or apart) of nature. I believe that it is a combination of nurture and nature, and that it isn’t determined solely by either. I also said this was moot, because my point was not dependent upon whether sexual orientation was innate. Regardless of the cause of sexual orientation, it is a fact that both men and women want to live with and raise children with women. That is a fact that effectively renders your main contention pure nonsense.

    You don’t need to convince me, you just need to be able to comprehend a simple definition for your own edification; and perhaps put together a coherent argument that actually addresses the points of contention, without dwelling so much on moot points. Hopefully you will spend more time in the future trying to understand the “facts” (research doesn’t constitute fact), and use it to intelligently add to the discourse. Focus on your own ability to absorb information and definitions. It would serve you better in the future in making intelligent arguments.

  • JS

    “You don’t need to convince me, you just need to be able to comprehend a simple definition for your own edification; and perhaps put together a coherent argument that actually addresses the points of contention, without dwelling so much on moot points.”

    I think all your down votes and my up votes speak for themselves on who is making the better argument and speaking truths. You are picking apart every little thing I’m saying and going off on tangents that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand of being that you CAN attribute your androgyny to your sexual orientation. PERIOD. It’s cute that you tried, but better luck next time.

  • Ravi

    Even if you had a significant number of net thumbs up, that wouldn’t prove anything more than there are other people that are as bad with their reasoning as you are. If you have to appeal to the number thumbs up as opposed to the strength of your arguments, then that speaks volumes of your inability to reason.

    “You are picking apart every little thing I’m saying and going off on tangents that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand of being that you CAN attribute your androgyny to your sexual orientation. PERIOD. It’s cute that you tried, but better luck next time.”

    Pot… kettle. Much of what you spend your time arguing is completely tangential. I’ve told you as much several times above. You haven’t created a valid or even coherent argument that shows that you can attribute androgyny to sexual orientation. There is nothing within the definition of either term that suggests this. It’s unfortunate that you can’t understand this simple definition, but it is what it is. You can rely on luck, but literacy and logic beats luck every time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jerry.wescott Jerry Wescott

    Cleopatra was Greek. She was not of African descent at all as fart as anyone knows – there may well have been some Egyptian blood in her because the Mediterranean Sea is fairly small, but it would have been from many centuries before Alexander the Great conquered Egypt and the beginning of the Ptolemaic dynasty of which she was the last pharaoh.

    In “Cleopatra: the life of an Egyptian queen” By Gary Jeffrey and Anita Ganeri, you can find, ”Throughout their dynasty, the Ptolemies held onto their Greek culture and continued to speak Greek as their main language.”

    Here’s a good source: http://www.biography.com/people/cleopatra-vii-9250984?page=1

  • http://www.facebook.com/foster.garvin Foster C. Garvin

    ” I will honor and respect my black community because that’s who I am.”
    Umm, contradiction? Now “Black’ is who she is? Please shut the fuxx up, young woman, and go away and act. The less she says the better.

  • ME

    LOL @ “emaciated assassin avenges her family’s murder”

    I agree with the last poster. The less Zoe says the better. She is beginning to
    talk like Tyrese with the foot in mouth disease.

  • Kara

    @Dee D, from your response, you’ve clearly never visited Egypt or any or the Nilothic countries. Also, it seems that you’ve never visited the British Museum or any museum in France or Germany (or even in the US) where you can clearly see that 1) There are still dark-skinned, “nappy-haired” Egyptians aka African Egyptians in Egypt. 2) There are several artifacts in Egypt and in the museums of the countries I mentioned that show ancient Egyptians were in fact “black,” despite having pale invaders come to the land. 3) Have never met anyone from the area 4) It seems that you’ve never read any books on the matter where “white” European historians have throughout history (Herodotus, anyone?) have identified ancient Egyptians by their “nappy-hair” and dark brown skin.

    There are black Egyptians who live outside of the urban areas, like Cairo, in small villages. Clans go back generations. And what is called modern-day Sudan is part of that ancient area. Instead of accepting everything presented to you on TV or even in books, do some research for yourself.

  • Kara

    @Ask_Me, that is very true, black actress Dorothy Dandridge was being considered for the role of Cleopatra that eventually went to Liz Taylor.

  • Kara

    There are MORE black people in Brazil — Brazil, ALONE — than in the USA! So imagine the rest of Latin America outside of that one country! Black Americans, please, read and comprehend!

  • TG4

    I think she meant “Who I am” as in a person taught to honor and respect. Not that she identified with black people. She obviously doesn’t if she feels she should be “allowed” to play nina because of her make up.

  • Aaron

    You are incorrect. Yes, Cleopatra was a Ptolemaic (illegitimate) queen. However, it was determined her mitochondrial DNA is in fact African.

  • http://gravatar.com/ravsmith78 Ravi

    She has said repeatedly that she is a black woman.

    “When I go to the D.R., the press in Santo Domingo always asks, “¿Qué te consideras, dominicana o americana?” (What do you consider yourself, Dominican or American?) I don’t understand it, and it’s the same people asking the same question. So I say, time and time again, “Yo soy una mujer negra.” (“I am a black woman.”) [They go,] “Oh, no, tú eres trigueñita.” (“Oh no, you are ‘dark skinned’”) I’m like, “No! Let’s get it straight, yo soy una mujer negra.” (“I am a black woman).”

  • talaktochoba

    what can you possibly expect from Hollywood’s latest tragic mullata, who’s clearly bedded so many white men she believes their lies about her not being “coloured”?

    really, is she any different than the tragic mullato playing golf these days, who claims he’s from some world called “Cabalenasia” no one, with or without his money, has ever been able to prove existed?

    wonder what they’d say when they found out that the arayan race they so identify with/glorify patheticly glom onto with all their nouveau riche might is actually a mutant offshoot of originally African peoples who wandered off during the Pangea and ended up stranded for millenia in half-frozen Europe?

  • Mona

    For the record, the meaning of androgyny is: (Definition) Androgyny means….
    1: having the characteristics or nature of both male and female
    2a : neither specifically feminine nor masculine
    b : suitable to or for either sex
    Zoe Saldana is an awesome actress and played her character in the film Colombiana extremely well.
    Maybe Zoe is attaching herself to definition two because she may represent the nature of a male in some aspects of her life that people may or may not see. Remember, a perspective is subjective and is the true experience and reality of the individual, and qualitative research supports this theory. She may also consider herself neither feminine nor masculine and suitable for definition ‘b” because she may be able to wear androgynous attire during her down time. I think Zoe should continue to be who she is as long as she is not harming others or bringing an injustice to society that impacts the productive living of others in a negative manner.
    If we all could all access and utilize that compartment in the brain that allows one to feel the heart of another human being and know what is in the heart of a man or woman, we would not have certain politicians, senators, governors, mayors, policy makers, television executives, elected officials, and other people in high positions who make selfish decisions and crooked policies that impact negatively the lives of the middle class, minorities, poor, and people that are vulnerable. Why do many people with positions, wealth, power, and titles try to manipulate the public by diverting the attention away from the real issues that hurt people and impact our society? Zoe is not the phenomenon that is causing America to deteriorate and suffer. I believe that Zoe and many citizens who live in America want to live to see America stand on the principles that ‘all men/women are created equally and should be afforded the same inalienable rights in order to obtain –though hard work– the American dream—education, good paying jobs, affordable housing, justice in our legal system, affordable healthcare, equality, and liberty in order to live in peace and harmony.
    I think also, that Zoe can be Nina and perform that role with merit; after all, who you are in life is what you choose to be. We all make mistakes, and casting a stone is not something that 100% of Americans can do as well as all people on planet Earth.

    Kind Regards,
    Mona

  • Shar

    Its sad when people don’t know their real history. Cleopatra has been proven to have been African! Biography.com nor wikipedia are official resources. I have an anthropology background and this is elementary information that is fact. These websites you listed lie about history everyday, especially black and african history. The Moors ran the Mediterranean if you want to go there. People in that area as well as south asia (pakistan, iran ect…) are full of people that are african descent (moors which is another word for BLACK)! Greeks are a prime example of african ancestry, and during that time they were heavily directly mixed. The mediterranean is far from pure white and lets not even touch on the migrating from Africa science.

  • Salah Ananse

    Europeans are well know for altering history to suit their needs. Unfortunately the winner of the war gets to write the history. Look at America’s History. Cleopatra was African.

  • talaktochoba

    no, it’s pathetic when someone achieves a level of influence and proceeds to reject their past in favour of one they covet but have not an iota of hope to attain;

    well, at least we have a ready replacement when they wear out the current Bush Bessie on the “Sally Hemmings Show”…

  • http://gravatar.com/arlette81 arlette81

    she doesn’t seem too bright.

  • talaktochoba

    as one of the young misses i work with put it, “young, dumb and with a mouth full of white boy cum”; no, these young ladies i work with pull no punches–they’d stop an NFL linebacker in his tracks with one finger, drop him with two, and none of them have martial arts training or are even 18;

  • Playwitit

    Zoe is black, ya’ll. I know a lot of you don’t want to hear it and I really don’t care for her acting and all that but shes black. You do the community a disservice when you try to claim otherwise. I say this to the commenters, not the author.

  • talaktochoba

    listen to what Zoe said, child, and you will know Zoe is merely coloured, not black–the classic case of self-degradation to the degree we fantasise about being something we’re not and can never be–just ask Diana Ross, Eldrick Woods and O.J. Simpson;

Latest Stories

Cheers! 30 Not-As-Obvious Occasions That Call For Champagne

by

Maker of Infamous ‘Sizzurp’ Takes it Off the Market

by

How To Rock: Black Women In Orange Lipstick

by

Newsflash: Most People Aren’t Down With the ‘Swirl’

by
More in Zoe Saldana
zoe-allure
Allure Magazine Lists Zoe Saldana’s Weight On The Cover

Zoe Saldana Covers
Zoe Saldana Talks Race, Beauty and Nina Simone in “InStyle” and “Latina”

Close