video
Thư viện
Tài trợ
Ái không chịu được
25 Sep, 2021
Trung Quốc thanh tẩy giới giải trí, những "đam mỹ" ẻo lả có hại cho đất nước...
-----
The Chinese government has ordered a boycott of “sissy pants” celebrities (đam mỹ) as it escalates (leo thang) a
fight against what it sees as a cultural import (nhập khẩu văn hóa; văn hóa du nhập) that threatens China’s national strength (sức mạnh quốc gia).
fight against what it sees as a cultural import (nhập khẩu văn hóa; văn hóa du nhập) that threatens China’s national strength (sức mạnh quốc gia).
In a directive issued on Thursday, China’s TV watchdog (người kiểm tra, người giám hộ) said entertainment programs should firmly reject the “deformed aesthetics” of niangpao, a derogatory (xúc phạm uy tín) term that refers to effeminate (như đàn bà) men.
The order came as Beijing tightens control over the country’s entertainment industry (ngành giải trí), taking aim at an explosion (bùng nổ) of TV and streaming shows that hold increasing sway over pop culture and the youth.
Young, delicate-looking men who display gentle personalities and act in boys’ love dramas have amassed large fan bases mostly comprising women. Many of them, like Xiao Zhan and Wang Yibo, are China’s top-earning celebrities.
They came in sharp contrast (đối lập tương phản) with the older generation of male stars, who were expected to sing revolutionary songs (bài hát cách mạng) and play intrepid, aggressive soldiers defending the country from foreign enemies (kẻ thù nước ngoài).
But the more gender-neutral aesthetics (mỹ học, thẩm mỹ) have come under criticism (hứng chịu chỉ trích) from conservative (truyền thống, bảo thủ) voices in society. Some officials and parents fear the less macho men on TV would cause young men to lose their masculinity and therefore threaten the country’s development.
Tags: china
In those prior eras they often valued a leisurely class who, though tall and well nourished, never did anything so brutal as lift or fight. In an era where survival depended on agrarian peasants, Chinese valued not so much the ruddy peasant but the pale scholar indoors with his books.
Progressives deeply misunderstand the past and so draw homilies that do reflect social trends, and so fundamentally misunderstand the arc of history. It's why they always lose and are always disappointed in their expectations ("Why do the conservatives always win?!?!", they ask).
It's well within my lifetime that people who could do hard, manual labour well had reasonably high value. Men who could bash rivets into ships all day earned good money. We also valued police and soldiers higher in society. To be able to catch bankrobbers or to march for miles on end made you more valuable.
Then you start getting various changes and all of that stops being so valuable. The banks think up various security measures and bank robbery almost disappears. The end of the cold war and war in general leads to less demand for soldiering. People invent various power tools and robots and manual labour becomes less valuable.
Afghanistan is somewhere where being a physical worker, or a soldier are still of high value.
And the thing to always remember about all conservatives is that they are mostly living in their past. That doesn't always mean they're wrong, but they generally fail to understand and see the benefits of the way the world is changing.
We should probably recognise this story in itself as a bad thing, but that it shows a bright future. The people are industrialising. The conservatives might be able to hold them for a while, but conservatives generally have a bad track record of winning.