You're Not Interesting Because You're Cruel

[Content Note: Gun violence; terrorism; bullying; sexual abuse; fat hatred.]

It's been just over a year since Louis CK said he was very sorry for the sexual abuse he inflicted on his colleagues. His "inevitable redemption crusade," as Melissa called it at the time, seems to be really taking off, albeit with him revealing himself more fully as an angry, unapologetic sadist.

In a leaked audio clip from a recent gig, he mocks non-binary individuals and the Parkland school shooting survivors. A sample:

"Cause you went to a high school where kids got shot, why does that mean I have to listen to you? Why does that make you interesting? You didn't get shot. You pushed some fat kid in the way and now I gotta listen to you talking?"

Louis CK is disgraceful and seems like a pretty miserable person.

What I can't stop thinking about in that clip, though, are the people guffawing at his commentary, in that sorta-guilty way that people sometimes do when they're laughing at something their deeper conscience tells them they maybe shouldn't be laughing at. I'm reminded of the people at the Trump rallies visibly delighting in Trump's calls to violence, reveling in the cruelty.

While many women in the public sphere are expected to spend their lives apologizing for their very existences, men like Louis CK and Donald Trump traumatize and re-traumatize with wanton, unremorseful abandon.

Toxic masculinity is the reality of endless numbers of men traversing the world with an attitude of, "Hey my dick, am I right?" expecting everyone else to laugh along and/or just fucking deal with whatever violent, rape culture bullshit they put out into the world.

Like gun violence, for instance.

Gun violence is a leading cause of premature death among youth in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The vast majority of mass shootings in the USA are committed by men, with white men in particular committing more mass shootings than any other group, although you'll rarely hear them brag about that one.

That men commit the vast majority of mass shootings, often when they are not given who or what they want or feel is rightfully theirs, is a form of gender-based terrorism that the rest of us live with on a daily basis.

A violent male teen shot and killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. It's hard to find the punchline in that, but Louis CK, the man who masturbated in front of his colleagues, certainly tried.

Because Louis CK is an abuser, let's talk about the unspoken formula to his joke about kids who lived through a school shooting:

The inherent tension in the setup is that we, the audience, know that children endured a profound trauma by living through this mass shooting. Decent people likewise know that it would be cruel to make a joke at these kids' expense. Regarding the punchline, the kids themselves aren't trying to be "interesting," as he claims. That's simply a right-wing talking point Louis CK adopted as a red-herring. The actual punchline is simply that Louis CK is on the stage, as a confessed sexual abuser staging his comeback, joking about something that decent people would never joke about: kids who were traumatized.

That's it. That's the joke.

It's not creative or funny. People are simply laughing at the cruelty and the embedded fat joke. And yet, the real kicker is that because he dares to "go there," other men will continue to deem him a comedic genius. Toxic masculinity means always excusing shitty men's shitty actions as brilliance when they are more aptly explained by dumb cruelty and that its artiste always cares more about being "objectively funny" than about people's stupid, girly feelings.

Comedy about tragedy can actually be done well. But, that's usually when it's done in an intelligent, thoughtful way by its survivors rather than by rape culture's dopey, shock-value court jesters.

Hannah Gadsby's Nanette, for instance, is brilliant. As is Cameron Esposito's Rape Jokes. Both comedians acknowledge the toxic cultural conditions that gave rise to their trauma and they speak with an anger that is controlled, beautiful, and just, going much deeper into their pain than the hackish, sociopathic, "Heh, political correctness these days, am I right?"

Trauma is tragedy and, in the depths of it, many people are just trying to survive, cope with it, and/or transform it into something positive for themselves and others.

Being cruel in art, comedy, or politics doesn't make a person interesting. Cruelty is a refuge of people who have nothing profound to say yet who want more than anything to be viewed as deeply interesting wunderkinds.

Louis CK is not interesting because he's cruel. Louis CK is not interesting because he's an admitted sexual abuser. Louis CK, in fact, is not interesting at all. The main reason people like Louis CK have followings is because they give cruel, bigoted people permission to stay cruel and bigoted and there's always a market for that. 

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

"Inappropriate" Doesn't Begin to Cover It

[Content Note: Misogyny; victim-blaming.]

On Wednesday, I noted that Bernie Sanders' "brain trust," apparently comprised of three men, told some terrific (ahem) jokes about how Hillary Clinton would make a swell vice-president: "Look, she'd make a great vice president. We're willing to give her more credit than Obama did. We're willing to consider her for vice president. We'll give her serious consideration. We'll even interview her."

Immediately and understandably, a number of people criticized these comments as belittling and misogynistic.

Coming on the heels of Sanders' accusing Clinton of "shouting," which he insisted was not the misogynistic dogwhistle that it seemed to be, one might imagine that Sanders, who defended himself by saying, "All that I can say is I am very proud of my record on women's issues," might prove those oft-claimed feminist bona fides by forcefully condemning his team's demeaning "joke" about Clinton.

Instead, all Sanders could muster was: "Every campaign has statements come out which are inappropriate. That was inappropriate. Clearly, I have a lot of respect for Secretary Clinton."

Actually, Senator, that's not very clear at all. Especially when you refuse to name what's happening here as misogyny, substituting instead a lesser, vague categorization of the comments as "inappropriate."

Yes, those comments were inappropriate. But the reason they were inappropriate is because they were sexist.

Jeff Weaver, Sanders' campaign manager and the man who made the shitty comments, wouldn't even acknowledge they were inappropriate. Instead, he offered: "It certainly, I think, could be interpreted as edgy or snarky but nothing more."

Edgy? Really? He went there. The tired defense of the most odious comics, trading in ancient stereotypes and calling it cutting edge humor.

And he didn't stop there. He then victim-blamed Clinton, laying the responsibility for his own misogyny at her feet, and at the feet of feminists who defend her against misogynistic attacks:

"When we are the subject of attacks and innuendo from a super PAC that is openly coordinating with the Clinton campaign, when the opposing campaign is going to level accusations of sexism against the senator, which have been widely criticized in the media and condemned, I think it's important for people to know that we are not just going to take those attacks and be a punching bag for the Clinton campaign," he said. "It's just not what we are going to do. They launched a vicious attack on us, we let them know that we're not going to be a punching bag and now we're ready to resume important issues facing the country."

..."We have controlled the agenda in this campaign, I think it's fair to say the other side has controlled the tone," he said. "We hope that tone returns to the kind of civil discourse on the issues we've been looking for the whole time."

So, because Clinton has "attacked" Sanders for using language ("shouting") that has a long and well-known context of being used to discredit women, and because his team thinks it's mean that she pointed out he had used marginalizing language against her, it's her own fault for being "uncivil," and thus she deserves to be targeted by more misogyny. Which isn't misogyny! Geez! It was just a joke!

This is literally the same dynamic that misogynistic men use in spaces like this one, day after day. Use loaded rhetoric, either as a deliberate dogwhistle or because they don't know or care the first thing about the history of sexist language, to imply that a woman with whom they disagree is a hysteric; then deflect being called out by rejecting feminist analysis of that language and its context, while simultaneously claiming to be a great feminist ally; then project blame for their hostility onto the woman they'd demeaned by accusing her of a lack of civility. All with a heaping helping of "jokes don't matter."

It's straight from the Misogyny 101 Playbook, and the best Sanders, who asserts an unassailable record on women's issues, can do is say it's "inappropriate."

This is a perfect replication of the abuse dynamic used against outspoken women every day of our fucking lives.

"Inappropriate" is insufficient. To put it politely. After all, I wouldn't want to be accused of being uncivil.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Hahahahahahaha

[Content Note: Privilege.]

This is a real Vanity Fair headline in the world: "Why Late-Night Television Is Better than Ever."

And this is the picture that accompanies the article, of the current crop of late night television hosts that are making late night television better than ever:

From left to right: White man Stephen Colbert, white man Conan O'Brien, black man Trevor Noah, white man James Corden, white man Jimmy Kimmel, white man John Oliver, white man Seth Meyers, black man Larry Wilmore, white man Jimmy Fallon, and white man Bill Maher.

BETTER THAN EVER!

Aside from Trevor Noah's new Daily Show, I have watched multiple episodes of each of these shows, and, with the exception of John Oliver, who is better that the rest but by no means is putting on a safe show, they are rife with the same old tired bullshit as always: Fat jokes, rape jokes, oppressive humor of every stripe (often under the guise of "irony").

Less "better than ever" than "same as it ever was."

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Have You Heard Chris Christie Is Fat?

[Content Note: Fat hatred; bullying.]

I have been covering for a very long time the fat hatred that is routinely wielded against Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, despite the fact that, as is probably quite evident, I am not a fan of his politics, to put it politely.

I challenge fat hatred being directed at Christie out of my own self-interest, and on behalf of other fat people, because fat hatred kills, and because subsituting fat hatred for legitimate policy criticisms is bad politics.

One of the biggest repeat offenders is "Nicest Guy in Show Business" Jimmy Fallon, host of The Tonight Show, on whose stage Christie has appeared a number of times. Virtually every time Fallon mentions Christie in his monologue, he makes a fat joke about him. When I was still watching the show, often I would see Fallon make a fat joke and then insist that Christie is a "good sport" about them to his audience.

But Christie has pushed back on Fallon's fat jokes on a number of occasions. During a "Slow Jamming the News" segment, video of which doesn't seem to be available anywhere, Fallon made a fat joke, to which Christie responded: "It hurts. So step off, brother." Fallon replied with yet another fat joke: "Isn't that what your scale says every night?"

Earlier this year, Christie appeared on The Tonight Show, and started out the segment by pushing back on the fat jokes:

Fallon: Thanks for coming on the show!

Christie: Oh sure. [Fallon laughs heartily] I feel like I'm on the show every night. [Christie is referring to the constant monologue jokes; Fallon laughs loudly] I'm tired, man! Oh geez.

Fallon: Thank you so much. No, you're great— You're a good sport.

Christie: Yeah, sure. [rolls his eyes; puts up his hand to create a division between himself and Fallon]

Fallon: And you look great. You look great. You look great.

Christie: Wait a second! If I look great, what the hell with all the jokes every night?!

Fallon: [laughs] What are you talking about?! [crosstalk] No, you do look great. Do you feel good?

Christie: Yeah, sure.

Fallon: I know you're working out.

Christie: Sure.

Fallon: You do?

Christie: Absolutely. [audience laughter; Christie turns to the audience] Stop laughing up there! [huge audience laughter] I got all your names, too! Be careful! [Fallon laughs]

Fallon: I wanna— I gotta thank you for all the material.

Christie: [laughs mirthlessly] As well you should!

The rest of the segment is Fallon introducing Christie to The Tonight Show's new ice cream flavor, and Christie trying it, pretending to refuse to share it with Fallon, and then giving it an over-the-top endorsement as "the greatest ice cream ever," when Fallon accuses him of failing to show sufficient enthusiasm for it.

As much as Christie is a "good sport" about fat jokes being told at his expense every night and being bullied right to his face even as he tries to push back against it, it's because that's the only allowable response from fat people when thin people mock and shame us under the auspices of "jokes." We aren't allowed to be hurt or angry, certainly not on a platform like the stage of The Tonight Show, because then we invite ridicule and hostility for being "too sensitive" and "humorless."

Last night, Fallon again made a fat joke right to Christie's face:


The segment begins with Christie talking about attending the Fourth of July Parade in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and staying, along with his wife MaryPat and Senator Marco Rubio and his wife Jeanette, at Mitt and Ann Romney's holiday home in the area. He starts an anecdote about how Mitt Romney decided everyone should all go on a boat ride after dinner. The entire anecdote is basically that, during the boat ride, Romney suggested they stop for ice cream, but none of the dudes had any money with them, so Ann Romney says, "Don't worry, would-be Presidents: I have it handled."

But the story gets interrupted halfway through (at 1:20 in the above clip), as Christie says: "[Romney] says, 'Okay, let's go for ice cream!' All right. So we get off the boat, and he turns to me and he goes—" Fallon interrupts him: "First of all, you weren't like 'All right.' You were like 'YAHOOOOO!'" Fallon pumps his fist in the air and bounces in his chair. He looks at Christie with a huge grin, but also, recognizable to any fat person who has ever been in this position, a challenging grin.

Christie gives him a blank look for a second, then gets up and pretends to walk offstage. "Goodnight, everybody!" he says, waving to the audience. He walks toward the curtain, waving and bowing, as though he's going to leave. The band begins to play him off. Fallon laughs and shouts at him to come back. Christie returns, and, as he's sitting back down, Fallon says, "It's a good story! I just want to make sure we're both telling the truth."

Christie says: "I gotta tell you something: If I ever leave public life, you're gonna have to hire two writers just to replace the garbage you say about me." Fallon laughs uproariously. "It's unbelievable," says Christie. He is being a "good sport," playing like it's all a gag, but, well, any of us who have been there know it's not.

This, on a day when the big news story about Chris Christie is that he wants to tag immigrants like FedEx packages. If there is something for which Christie deserves mockery, it's that.

His being fat has fuck-all to do with his loathsome politics. But addressing him on policy takes more work—it's harder to craft a joke about policy than roll out another fat joke—and it keeps Fallon and Christie on an equal playing field, where Christie might get the better of the host.

But a thin guy making fat jokes? Well, he'll always win. That is a game from which Christie can never emerge the victor. At best, he can be a "good sport" about being obliged to play a game he cannot win.

I don't want Chris Christie to be president. But I don't want him to lose like this. Not because he's the object of scorn for being fat.

I want him to lose for the right reason: Because his policies are fundamentally indecent.

And I want Fallon (and everyone else) to knock off the fat jokes because they are fundamentally indecent, too.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Today in Rape Culture

[Content Note: Sexual violence; rape jokes; misogyny; Game of Thrones spoilers.]

This past weekend, there were two major incidents of rape in entertainment: Louis CK hosted the season finale of Saturday Night Live, and spent a large portion of the intro doing a "comedy" bit about child rape; and Game of Thrones featured a rape scene of a central female character, which served as a plot point for a male character.

On their face, the two incidents may seem to have very little to do with one another—or may appear to be simply another two typical instances of the pervasive rape culture that turns sexual violence into fodder for eager audiences. But what these two incidents particularly share in common is that they were both content created by straight white men who have previously been criticized for rape-related content, who have now clearly drawn lines about where they stand on sensitivity to survivors—and there is, as always, an aggressive phalanx of fans who have mobilized in their defense.

Louis C.K. on SNL

Louis C.K., like many stand-up comedians who host SNL, used the host's opening to do some straightforward comedy, rather than indulge in the song-and-dance numbers or staged audience question segments favored by other hosts. He started with a bit about how he's a "mild racist," then moved on to a piece about parenting (during which he compared his two daughters to Israel and Palestine and referred to them as "bitches"), then closed on an extended riff about child molestation.

Among the "jokes" featured in this bit was victim-blaming, in the form of suggesting that smart children avoid being raped simply by avoiding sexual predators' homes, as well as the old "rape is a compliment" narrative, in the form of saying that he's a little offended he was never assaulted by a known predator in his neighborhood when he was a kid.

The segment culminated with his commenting about the tenacity of child predators and observing that child rape "must be amazing to risk so much."

If someone said to me, you eat another Mounds Bar and go to jail everyone will hate you...I'd stop doing it. ...There's no worse life available to a human than being a caught child molester ...You could only really surmise that it must be really good...for them to risk so much.

Predictably, people with a modicum of sensitivity and a functional sense of decency criticized Louis C.K.'s onslaught of rape jokes. (And some of his fans expressed surprise that he would "go so far," despite the fact that he has repeatedly defended rape jokes.) And, like clockwork, Louis C.K.'s fans defended the routine as "humor" and "free speech" and hurled tired accusations of oversensitivity and humorlessness at anyone who found it insensitive, inappropriate, and/or a normalization of rape and a perpetuation of the rape culture. Insert Boilerplate 101: The Edgy Comic Response here.

I don't know if there's anything I can say that I haven't already said literally hundreds of times before about rape jokes and rape culture that could convince Louis C.K.'s defenders to reconsider their reprehensible position. But I will observe this: As has been discussed in this space previously, it is an open secret that Louis C.K. sexually assaults female colleagues. His defenders are not merely defending a comedian telling jokes; they are defending an accused sexual predator who tells jokes about sexual predation.

When the allegations about Bill Cosby finally gained traction, after years of being diligently ignored by the public, and dozens of women came forward to share their stories of being assaulted by Cosby, people gasped and wondered how it could happen—but he had joked about drugging and raping women right in his comedy act.

When Dylan Farrow finally told her story, in her own words, about Woody Allen assaulting her, people gasped and wondered how it could be true—but narratives of predation on girls runs through his work.

When charges were brought against Jian Ghomeshi, first by one woman and then more, people gasped and wondered how could he have gotten away with it for so long—but it was known; it was known and people who didn't want it to be true simply ignored it. They defended him.

There are always fans to defend these men, even when they tell us right in their work that they are predators. It's art; it's comedy; it's unfounded rumor.

And the women, we women, we survivors, we Cassandras who dedicate our lives to deconstructing the rape culture and understanding rapists, sound the alarm over and over, and are drowned out by a cacophonous chorus of defenders who marginalize us as crackpots and hysterics.

This is not defending art, or comedy, or free speech. It's aiding and abetting a predator.

The Rape Scene on Game of Thrones

Last night's episode of Game of Thrones ended with Sansa Stark being married to Ramsay Bolton, who established her virginity before raping her and commanding his torture victim Reek (nee Theon Greyjoy) to watch. The scene was filmed so that the rape happens out of view; instead, the camera focuses in on Reek's quivering face, as he watches a young woman, with whom he was raised as a virtual sibling, being raped by a man who has intensely tortured and sexually mutilated him.

Because of the way it's filmed, the entire rape is framed as just another terrible thing Ramsay is doing to Reek. It is his reaction we see. There is no close-up of Sansa's face. We only hear her being raped. (The captions on the scene merely read: "Sansa cries.")

We have already seen Ramsay harm women: We have seen him rape, hunt, and kill women, and we have seen him mercilessly torture Reek. There was no need to establish that he is monstrously cruel. If the entire point of the scene was to prompt Reek to reclaim his identity as Theon, the mere threat of Sansa being raped could have sufficed. The rape scene was, in every conceivable way, gratuitous. Just a vicious sacrifice of a female character without even centering her in the experience.

I am not reflexively averse to sexual violence in movies and TV shows, but, as I have said many times before, rape must be more than a plot point for character development of male characters.

(At The MarySue, Jill Pantozzi explains how "Using rape as the impetus for character motivations is one of the most problematic tropes in fiction," and why this scene was so unfathomably gross from a plotting standpoint.)

In the books on which the show is based, there is another character who is Ramsay's wife, and the showrunners for the television series collapsed that character and her story with Sansa's, to streamline the series. Many people have described the scene in the book as "even worse," because Ramsay forces Reek to participate in the rape, thus sexually victimizing him in the process. But, in that version, Reek draws the line with his torturer and captor at being forced to hurt another human in the way Ramsay does. In that version, he is a simultaneous victim, reacting to his own victimization. Here, he is a "savior" (at best, and only after the fact), and snaps out of his thrall only when he is forced to witness Ramsay raping a female character who "matters."

I am certainly not arguing that I wanted to see another character raped—but the fact that Reek is not raped in the show, despite being raped in the books, fundamentally changes the scene and, quite literally, means that Sansa was raped just so his character could experience growth. And that the writers wanted to make the scene about him without his actually being raped via forced participation is really telling.

Further, Ramsay not only violates Sansa's consent, but, now, care of the show's shitty nightmare writers, has now stolen her agency—because everything that Sansa does now will be seen as being motivated by that rape. Her entire character arc from here forward will be a direct line back to that moment: If she's strong, it's because she's a survivor. If she's weak, it's because she's a victim. If she's powerful, it's because rape magically turns women into superheroes. If she's evil, it's because rape magically turns women into monsters.

One man, a rapist, has now been given the entire responsibility for her character growth.

And what did one of the writers responsible for this fucking mess have to say about it? That the responsibility lies with Sansa:

"This is Game of Thrones," he said soberly. "This isn't a timid little girl walking into a wedding night with Joffrey. This is a hardened woman making a choice and she sees this as the way to get back her homeland. Sansa has a wedding night in the sense she never thought she would with one of the monsters of the show. It's pretty intense and awful and the character will have to deal with it."

This is a hardened woman making a choice. It is deeply problematic, to put it politely, to be using the language of "choice" in an explanation for how a female character came to be raped for the character development of a male character.

Meanwhile, the writer of the books, George R.R. Martin, merely observes that it's okay when the show deviates from the books. Super.

* * *

My position on rape in entertainment has long been clear. I am angry that I have been obliged to write about rape jokes and rape being used as a plot device once again, but I am writing about it because I want to validate the feelings of those who are also angry and provide a space in which there will be a zero tolerance policy on defense of this despicable shit.

Those of us who react to this with anger, horror, contempt, righteous indignation are not oversensitive. The people who create this sort of content, and the people who defend it, are not sensitive enough.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

A Thought

[Content Note: Antisemitism; misogyny; fat hatred; domestic violence; regionalism.]

So, the new host of The Daily Show, Trevor Noah, has a history of tweeting shitty "jokes" about Jewish people, fat women, domestic violence, and people in "flyover" states.

(As an aside, I've watched one of his stand-up specials, much of which was fairly solid, so it's pretty crappy to know he's capable of punching up but is happy to punch down in other spaces.)

And many people have reacted by accusing The Daily Show of failing to properly vet Noah.

Except that sort of ignores the fact that the The Daily Show is pretty much fine with xenophobic, fat-hating, misogynist, regionalist humor.

Imagining this was a vetting problem is contingent on forgiving disablism, fat hatred, mockery of intersex bodies, reproductive policing (with more fat hatred), jokes about how feminists are so scary and violent, etc. That's hardly a complete list. The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart at the helm, did a lot of punching down, when it should have always been punching up.

Maybe this isn't a vetting problem. Maybe this is a decency problem.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

On Larry Wilmore's "Obesity in America" Episode

[Content Note: Fat hatred; body policing; shaming.]

Last night, The Nightly Show, Larry Wilmore's successor to The Colbert Report, which premiered a couple of weeks ago, did an episode on "Obesity in America." When it was announced, I was immediately full of the usual dread, for the usual reasons. I wasn't sure I was going to watch it, but I did. And yikes.

The good news was that Wilmore's four-person panel had two fat people on it: Comedian Lavell Crawford and fat activist Marianne Kirby (@therotund). Marianne did a great job, especially pushing back against the idea that concern trolling fat people has anything to do with our health, but Lavell was there to basically play the "I'm fat because I eat so many cookies!" role, which was disappointing.

Still, it was an improvement on most "obesity" panels, which typically include zero fat people, like the ones on Melissa Harris-Perry's show.

Wilmore promised to ask the "big questions" (see what he did there?) about "obesity in America" last night, and while he did ask his panel whether fat is a civil rights issue, and they did briefly touch on the intersectionality of fat and class, the episode was rife with problems, including a number of vicious stereotypes about fat people that largely went unchallenged—like fat is inherently unhealthy, all fat people are fat because they overeat, fat people abuse disability status because they're lazy.

And the "big question" about whether fat is a civil rights issue was never answered. In one breath, Wilmore detailed that fat people face employment discrimination, then wondered if fat is a civil rights issue.

Which is a familiar discordance to any fat activist who tries to engage progressives on the issue of fat discrimination: Many liberal-minded people are willing to concede that, sure, there's demonstrable, legal discrimination against fat people, but insistently resist seeing fat hatred as a civil rights issue.

Because we're all supposed to be able to bootstraps our way out of being fat. Lots of progressives suddenly love bootstraps when it comes to fat people.

And are suddenly very anti-choice.

All of which tends to be justified on the basis of concern for our health, which is, of course, bullshit. It's about the way we look; it's about the fact that we exist at all.

Wilmore opened the episode with these words: "Tonightly: America's obesity rate creeps up to 27.7%. On the plus side, now it's higher than our math scores. A third of Americans are obese?! Well, that's the most depressing thing I've heard since that kid told me he was dead in that Superbowl commercial."

He's depressed by the mere evidence that fat people exist. He's depressed that there are so many of us.

That is considered an okay, an uncontroversial, thing to say about fat people.

Just casual eliminationism: It's depressing that we are alive, and it would be so much less depressing if we weren't.

(Setting aside the fact that many of the people who are classified as "obese" by bullshit BMI measures would almost certainly not be viewed as "depressingly fat" by Larry Wilmore and lots of other people.)

If the fact that fat hatred kills isn't enough to convince someone that fat is a social justice issue, then maybe letting that shit sink in will be: I had to watch a person say, to laughter and applause, that it's depressing to hear that fat people exist in large numbers.

My appearance, my body, my existence is depressing.

Here's a "big question" about fat that I have for Larry Wilmore to answer: How the fuck do you think that's okay?

This is the reality that fat people face in the US: Even people ostensibly sympathetic to the discrimination we face are more inclined to voice that they are depressed about our existence than they are to voice that they're angry about the vast fat hatred that we face every day.

Even people ostensibly sympathetic to us are more likely to suggest we try to change our very bodies, even though that could mean literally killing ourselves in the process, instead of suggesting that people who despise us change their fucking minds.

It is not the responsibility of marginalized people to change themselves to accommodate bigots.

That fat people are routinely admonished to do so should be what depresses you, Larry Wilmore. It sure as shit depresses me.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Islamophobia; oppression.]

"You go to a nightclub, and they don't let you in. You go to a party, they look at your beard, and say, 'Oh, when are you going to Syria to join the jihad?' Charlie Hebdo is a part of that, too. Those who are stronger than us are mocking us. We have high unemployment, high poverty. Religion is all we have left. This is sacred to us. And yes, we have a hard time laughing about it."—Mohamed Binakdan, a 32-year-old Muslim, who is a transit worker in France, a country in which "unemployment and poverty remain far higher among Muslims than in the nation overall."

The next time you hear someone say that it is stupid for Muslims to be offended by depictions of the prophet, remember Mohamed Binakdan's words, and imagine a ruling class marginalizing you on the basis of one facet of your identity, leaving you with little besides that identity, and then treating it with mockery and contempt.

It is a familiar dynamic: A privileged class regards something valued by marginalized people as important enough to use as justification for harming them, but ridicules those marginalized people for valuing it themselves.

I am not attempting to excuse or condone the attack on Charlie Hebdo. I am exhorting empathy with people being silenced under the cacophonous calls for unity, without any effort to extend solidarity or compassion in their direction.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

This Guy. Jesus Jones.

Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is soooooo tired of hearing about the minimum wage, also had a few other neat things to say during his appearance at the Chamber of Commerce in Washington:

Christie launched a preemptive strike Tuesday against some potential Republican rivals for the White House, saying the "experiment" of promoting a lawmaker to president has failed—and arguing that Republicans must nominate a governor in 2016.

..."To have any chance of electing a Republican president, there's a bunch of things we need to do. But the first is to have a good bench of Republican candidates," Christie [who is chairman of the Republican Governors Association] said. "And I am convinced that the next president of the United States is going to be a governor—and needs to be."

Christie continued: "We have had an experiment of a legislator who has never run anything getting on-the-job training in the White House. It has not been pretty. And so we need to have a big and broad bench of good, experienced Republican governors to select from in 2016."

..."I'm tired of listening to people complain about how we can't get anything done. The fact of the matter is, if you want to get something done, you need to lead," Christie said.

Yes, the problem with President Barack Obama is that he wasn't first a governor and doesn't know how to lead. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Republican House majority and Republican Senate obstructionists who refuse to let him get anything done. Come on, Christie. This is typical Republican mendacity, but Christie's whole shtick is that he speaks the truth, no matter who's "offended." To hear him tell it, he's John McCain's Straight Talk Express on nitrous oxide.

In a brief interview with National Journal after his speech, Christie was unapologetic about his remarks -- and acknowledged they wouldn't be well-received by certain presidential aspirants.

"Listen, I just say what I believe, and whoever is offended is offended," Christie said.

Christie, who already has publicly feuded with [Senator Rand Paul], added with a sly smile: "Everybody's entitled to their opinion."

Well, maybe not everybody.

Christie's remarks about education reform provoked something of a shouting match with an audience member who asked Christie about homeless children getting lost in the education system. When the man attempted to rebut Christie's response, the governor shouted him down, saying: "This is an answer to your question. It's not a debate, OK?"

Christie is just another bully who claims his bullying is having strong opinions and being willing to say them. He's basically a shitty dudebro comedian who tells harmful jokes and then accuses people who don't laugh of being humorless and delicate, or being unable to handle the truth!

Appropriately, Christie used his speech to preview a potential slogan for his 2016 campaign: "It's time to start offending people."

Telling hard truths to the American voter, Christie promised the establishment-friendly crowd, is how he built crossover appeal and won reelection easily in a dark-blue state.

"Pain will be involved. Some people will be unhappy," Christie said, speaking slowly for emphasis. "And if you're in these jobs so that everybody will love you, go home."

He paused, then added: "I don't care if I'm loved. I want to be respected."

How about neither?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Oh My Aching Sides

[Content Note: Misogyny; heterocentrism; cissexism.]

I've mentioned many times before that I am a huge fan of stand-up comedy—and there's almost nothing I like to watch better than a great stand-up comedian who can make me think about something in a new way with a great joke.

Because I love it so, I watch a lot of stand-up comedy—but most of it is garbage. And the reason most of it is garbage is because somewhere close to 99% of it is tired, hackneyed, rehashed rubbish (which wasn't even funny the first time) about "relationships." Men are always horny! Ha ha ha! Women are shopaholic chatterboxes! Ha ha ha! Mars and Venus, baby. Mars. And. Venus.

*thatface*

The most unremarkable, uninspired, unchallenging, and unrevolutionary subject in all of stand-up comedy is relationships. Across the comedy spectrum, that well has been mined totally, utterly dry by hundreds upon hundreds of men and women who obligingly insert into their routines some barely indistinguishable variation on the same old unoriginal (and heterocentrist and misogynist) battle-of-the-sexes shtick—observations regurgitated ad infinitum in insipid sitcoms, interchangeable romcoms, and adverts hawking everything from deodorant to luxury cars.

Anyway.

I have been half-heartedly watching NBC's latest season of Last Comic Standing, and I don't even know why I do it to myself, because it's always an exercise in disappointment and frustration, as I watch virtually all of the comics I like (i.e. the ones who do non-oppressive and original material) cut from the competition before the final round.

So many women, many of them women of color and queer women, pushed aside before the competition even begins in earnest.

This season has been less overwhelmingly depressing than usual in that regard, making it merely enormously depressing. And then last night, it just went completely south, as a straight white male comedian started the show with a set that was entirely about the differences between men and women, wrapped inside the frame of video gaming.

So, jokes like: You can tell men make video games for men because you kill the dragon, rather than having an insufferably long conversation about why the dragon is mad at you. Har har.

One of the actual fucking jokes from this actual piece-of-shit set was: If women made video games, there'd be once a month when you wouldn't even be able to play them.

And the judges (Keenan Ivory Wayans, Roseanne, and Russell Peters) thought this guy was amazing. Keenan Ivory Wayans even complimented him on being able to take that familiar material and make it seem new by doing it though the frame of video gaming.

Oh well. I guess Tim Allen will want to retire someday, and there's got to be someone to inherit the kingdom.

The gross, gross kingdom.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Whooooooops Your "Feminism"

[Content Note: Misogyny; reproductive policing; fat bias; transphobia.]

We all like problematic shows, and we all draw our lines about what is overwhelmingly problematic in different places. So I'm not judging or criticizing anyone who watches The Daily Show. I don't watch it anymore, and haven't watched it regularly for years, because the balance between valuable and objectionable material tipped toward objectionable for me a long time ago.

Anyway. Today, I've seen Jon Stewart getting a lot of credit for a segment in which he called out the double-standard regarding grandparenting in presidential politics. So I watched the segment, and it was a perfect reminder of why I no longer watch The Daily Show.

Here is a transcription of the relevant part of the segment, running from 1:10 to 2:45, and following an introduction that noted Chelsea Clinton has announced she's pregnant with her first child:

Stewart: News media! Set the 2016 presidential speculatron to behbee!

Cut to a news clip of a white female anchor saying: "Everyone is wondering what impact it might have on Hillary Clinton's decision to run for president." Cut to a news clip of a white male anchor saying: "Does the fact that she's going to become a grandmother on top of the other considerations factor in?" Cut to a news clip with video of Chelsea Clinton, over which a female anchor offscreen says: "Could it put a bump in Hillary's 2016 plans? And is it sexist to ask?" Cut back to Stewart in TDS studio.

Stewart: No! No! No, sillybilly, of course it's not sexist. Even though it's a question that has never, ever, been posed to a male candidate ever. For god's sakes, Mitt Romney has like a litter of grandchildren. [an image of Romney with a bunch of his grandkids pops up onscreen, as the audience roars with laughter] Mitt Romney has, for god's sakes, if I'm not mistaken, Mitt Romney has like a grandchild petting zoo! [an image of the Romney family pops up onscreen, to more laughter] The guy added three grandchildren [another picture of Romney with his family] while he was campaigning!

He is the only candidate in history whose electoral college total is less than the number of chairs he has to put out at Thanksgiving. My point is, he, he got crushed in the election by someone with no grandchildren. Yet somehow the grandchild factor never came up in the race between Obama and Romney.

For god's sakes, when William Howard Taft was running in 1908, he was actually pregnant! [an image of Taft, famously the fattest president, comes onscreen, photoshopped so that Taft is holding his belly like a pregnant woman might hold her belly; uproarious laughter] He was pregnant! Nobody said anything! Nobody brought it up!

From there, Stewart goes on to observe some other differences about how women and men are treated in politics.

Okay, here's the thing: I am a firm believer in the simple principle that no type of bigotry, policing, or other kinds of harm are solved by more of the same.

So when Stewart seeks to criticize the policing and politicization of Hillary Clinton's reproduction, and her daughter's reproduction, by policing the reproduction of Romney and his kids, that isn't helping.

Yes, I get that it's a comedy show, and it's supposed to be funnier to say that Mitt Romney has a "litter" and a "petting zoo" of grandchildren, as opposed to just pointing out he's got grandchildren and it was never an issue.

But this is the problem with The Daily Show and Stewart, who constantly want to have it both ways by saying they're not a real news show even as they tackle serious issues: Criticizing the auditing of one family's reproduction is ineffective when you turn around and criticize another family's.

By joking about the quantity of Romeny's grandchildren, he's auditing their reproductive choices. Further, there is a long history of talking about large families with lots of children using animal imagery, especially families of color. To reinforce and legitimize those narratives will not marginalize the Romneys, but it will marginalize the vulnerable families against whom they're routinely used.

And, not for nothing, but Romney didn't give birth to any of those kids. The women in his family did. In taking a swipe at Romney, Stewart is calling his wife and daughters-in-law brood mares. Which is replicating the exact sort of sexism that he's purporting to criticize.

* * *

And then there's the bit about Taft. Jesus Jones. The entire joke, such as it is, rests on the absurdity of a man being pregnant, which disappears the lived experiences of trans men who have been pregnant. And, of course, that old chestnut about how fat men's bellies are pregnancies.

Stewart's fat hatred is nothing new: This is, after all, a man who appeared in a fucking fat suit on the show.

Pregnancy humor at the expense of trans bodies and fat bodies is garbage, in and of itself. But the policing of trans bodies and fat bodies is a crucial feminist issue. To include such rubbish in a segment ostensibly designed to challenge misogyny is not just cruel; it's counterproductive.

* * *

Protip: When your segment on sexism obliges me to defend the Romneys, you are doing something wrong.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Assvertising

[Content Note: Rape jokes; disablist jokes; fat jokes; privilege.]

Shaker Rebekah forwarded me this piece about the series of adverts Ricky Gervais is doing for luxury car brand Audi, which have recently started airing in the US:

To launch its new A3 sedan, Audi of America is turning to Ricky Gervais to drive home the message that consumers should never compromise.

To hammer home the message, it cast Gervais, a comedian who is often blasted by critics for his acidic sense of humor and jokes.

Gervais is featured in an overall branding campaign called "Dues," and a separate shorter spot called "Names," as well as in a series of "Uncompromised Portraits," in which he discusses his process of telling jokes.

I've seen the "Names" spot several times, in which a little girl reads shitty tweets about Gervais, and he says they mean he's doing something right. The other two, I've only seen online, and this "Uncompromised Portrait" ad is hilariously awful:

The ad, filmed in black and white because OF COURSE IT IS, opens with piano music and text onscreen reading: "Audi A3 Presents: An uncompromised portrait. Ricky Gervais, writer, comedian, actor, etc..."

Gervais, sitting facing the camera, says: "I cherish the gasps as much as the laughs and the cheers and the rounds of applause." He makes a gasping noise. "I like that. I didn't turn up to any audience and go, 'What do you like? What shall I do? I do requests.' You know? The reaction after the Golden Globes was weird." This monologue is intercut with images of an empty theater, a man walking in the snow, a train, and other random shit because ART. "You usually have to be a mass murderer for that sort of column inches. But then, you know, by the end, they sort of got it. They went, 'Oh, okay then. He's just telling jokes.' I don't really want to do safe, homogenized stuff that everyone likes a bit, you know? I sort of like doing it my way, 'cause that's the fun. Every day should be filled with doing what you love. That's more important. It's more important than anything." Gervais grins.

Text onscreen: "Whatever you do, stay uncompromised." Audi logo.

Good fucking grief.

First of all: LOL FOREVER at the contention that people who criticized Gervais' garbage routine at the Golden Globes were somehow confused about the fact that he was telling jokes.

Secondly: LOL FOREVER at the assertion that Gervais isn't doing "safe, homogenized stuff" when he's a teller and defender of rape jokes, disablist jokes, and fat jokes (for a start), as if making fun of rape, disabled people, and fat people isn't so old it's got brontosaurus shit in the treads of its sensible shoes.

It is the height of irony that humorists who do bigoted humor are regarded as provocateurs.

I mean, sure, he's a "provocateur" if provocateur is broadly defined enough to encompass a playground antagonist who pokes other children with a stick. If anything designed to provoke any response can make one a provocateur, then give Ricky Gervais his trophy for Provocateur of the Year or whatever.

But "provocateur" really should mean something loftier—not a person who engages in the tiresome bigotry of misogyny and ableism, of racism and xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia, who tells and defends rape jokes, just to elicit an entirely predictable (and legitimate) negative reaction from people getting poked with the stick, who are then immediately dismissed with charges of "humorlessness" or a lack of sophistication required to get the nuances of a joke to which the punchline is, at its essence, you are less than me.

A provocateur, if the word is have real meaning, is someone who challenges existent paradigms and marginalizing narratives, who presents a radical thought that makes people sit rather uncomfortably in their privilege and urges them to wander off the well-worn path of their socialization. It's someone who changes minds.

It isn't someone who calls people "mongs" and pretends that it's brave.

That shit's about as edgy as an abacus.

Finally: All the mirthless laughter in the multiverse at another highly privileged person sagely dispensing the advice that "every day should be filled with doing what you love" because "it's more important than anything." EVEN EATING! OR SHELTER! So go ahead and quit your job at the factory and spend your days DOING WHAT YOU LOVE, because no matter what it is that you love, you can definitely get rich doing it, if only you work hard enough!

Jesus Jones. Everything about this advert is the worst. Except for the fact that it's probably a pretty great choice for selling a luxury car to privileged dipshits who think Gervais is a hero for bravely upholding kyriarchal norms and calling it radical.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

CNN Is a Disgrace

[Content Note: Racism; othering.]

What in the everloving shit is this, CNN?

Over video of Price William, Duchess Kate, and Prince George deplaning, Jeanne Moos, a middle-aged white female CNN contributor says in voiceover: "These days, it's usually the photo of little Prince George that gets all the attention, but even the new royal baby, arriving on his first official trip abroad, couldn't compete with what we're calling—" cut to still image of Duchess Kate shaking hands with a Māori man who is sporting a tatua (which is essentially a woven belt generally attached to a thong) to reveal traditional tattoos down his buttocks and thighs, accompanied by a disembodied shriek "—the royal bummer!"

As a cropped version of the image zooms in for a close-up, Moos continues: "Though, technically, the only one bumming was the warrior with his decorated buns exposed. Is that any way to welcome a future king and queen?!"

Cut to video of a group of Māori people welcoming Prince William and Duchess Kate with a haka (dance accompanied by chanting). Moos continues: "You betcha! It was a traditional New Zealand welcome by Māori dancers."

Cut to Moos in a studio, speaking directly to the camera and leaning way in so her nose is practically pressed against the lens: "Forget merely rubbing shoulders with the royals!"

Cut to video of Prince William and Duchess Kate greeting dignitaries with a traditional Māori hongi, which is pressing one's nose and forehead against another person's nose and forehead. Moos continues: "First the Prince, and then the Duchess, rubbed noses—" insert audio of a disembodied chant "—in a traditional greeting—" insert cropped image of Duchess Kate touching noses with an older man "—with Māori elders."

More audio of shouts and chants accompanied by no images of the people making the sounds; instead, video of Prince William and Duchess Kate walking on a grassy field with the elders.

Cut to video of Prince William bending over to pick up a dart, while maintaining eye contact with a warrior in a tatua also picking up a spear; the shot is angled for maximum view of the bending warrior's exposed backside. Moos continues: "At one point, Prince William had to meet a challenge by picking up a dart while maintaining eye contact to prove that he was friend, not foe."

Cut to more video of the haka greeting line.

Cut to video of former First Lady Laura Bush being greeted by a Māori soldier in Afghanistan, followed by his unit welcoming her with a haka. "Reminds us of the time Laura Bush was greeted by a soldier in short-shorts—part of a New Zealand contingent in Afghanistan, slapping and thrusting." Cut to Laura Bush smiling and putting on her sunglasses. "It was a welcome we described at the time as a cross between a Chippendales lap dance and—" cut to image of a Māori soldier leaping with a spear, then split-screened with a large bird doing a mating dance "—the mating dance of the emu."

Cut to video of various video clips of former President George W. Bush making an ass out of himself with tribal dancers, including his infamous jackassery on Malaria Awareness Day with Senegalese performers from the West African Dance Company. "We tend to love when leaders go native—" Cut to video of Hillary Clinton dancing with a group of people, most of whom are black women. "—or at least let their hair down."

Cut to video of Prince William and Duchess Kate shaking hands with Māori men and women in a receiving line. "For once, the Duchess' designer red coat by Catherine Walker wasn't the only outfit attracting attention."

Cut to video of the warrior who performed the ceremonial challenge with Prince William standing up and spinning. "What does a Prince do after meeting a guy in a thong?" Cut to video of Prince William adjusting his necktie. "He straightens his tie!" [Note: Prince William was just literally brushing some detritus off his tie. He was not embarrassedly adjusting his tie at all.]

Cut back to Moos in the studio, speaking directly to the camera. "Britain's Daily Mail had the perfect caption for the 'Duchess meets nearly naked warrior' moment." Cut back to still shot of Duchess Kate smiling while meeting the tattooed Māori man. "EYES FRONT, KATE! In response to that cheeky behind!" One more disembodied shout as the camera zooms in on his ass. "Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York."

I don't even have words for this racist, dehumanizing, othering, reprehensible mess.

A petition was set up asking Moos to apologize, which quickly gathered 25,000 signatures. Moos responded to the petition with this "apology":

"Duly noted," she said. "I do humour and satire, and I am truly sorry if the tone of my story offended anyone."

Oh, I see. I didn't realize that this was supposed to funny. Well. That changes everything NOTHING.

[H/T to my friend Ben, who got it from Kerry-anne.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Funny Women (Again)

[Content Note: Misogyny; privilege; rape culture.]

My friend Ben passed on this article—which, though published on April 1, does not appear to be an April Fools' joke—about the new "feminist" comedy shows on Comedy Central, Inside Amy Schumer and Broad City.

I've watched a couple of episodes of each of these shows, and they're of the "ironic misogyny equals feminism" variety. Your mileage may vary, but I personally don't find ironic misogyny to be particularly effective feminism. An example of one of the sketches from Inside Amy Schumer:

Another new sketch shows Schumer playing a Call of Duty-like video game in which her female avatar is raped by a superior officer and then pressured into not reporting her sexual assault by prompts in the game: "You were just assaulted by a fellow soldier. Do you wish to report?" "Yes." "Are you sure? Did you know he has a family? Does that change your mind about reporting?"

Of course I get that the joke, such as it is, is intending to send up rape culture (not uphold rape), but I don't find a whole lot at which to laugh when it's not actually a send up as much as it is just a pretty solid example of what rape culture looks like. Ha ha?

The article is all about how these female comedies are attracting male viewers, despite the allegedly feminist content, and I think the answer to that question is in the problem inherent to all ironic comedy: There are lots of guys laughing for the "wrong" reasons.

So do we have to disguise feminism in our TV shows in order to market shows starring feminists to male audiences?

Is it even "disguised feminism" if it can just be read as straight-up misogyny by misogynists?

Naturally, the exploration of these particular shows does not include any reference at all to the fact that they're made by and feature young, traditionally attractive, white women in an urban media center. That privilege gives them a particular ability to do ironic misogynist humor that women who don't share their privilege don't have.

Which also raises the question: Even if ironic misogynist humor constitutes feminism for privileged women, does it constitute something altogether different for non-privileged women?

(Spoiler Alert: Yes. Yes it does.)

Lest you be left with any doubt about the privilege intrinsic to the success of these shows, I will quickly note that this is the amazing lede:

We've finally settled the ridiculous question "are women funny?" Bridesmaids and Tina Fey ended that conversation years ago.

LOL. Sure. I love the implication that what "settled" that question is when young, white, straight, cis, thin, able-bodied women-centered comedy finally made tons of money in a traditional, male-centered venue.

I'm pretty sure for people who aren't misogynists, that questioned was "settled" at the dawn of humankind's capacity for humor by the very existence of funny women.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

[Content Note: Racism; emotional policing; harassment.] In case you haven't been following the #CancelColbert story, here is some basic background. I've been tweeting about it, but I haven't written about it here, because I'd basically be rewriting this post. My position remains the same: Satire that looks indistinguishable from actual bigotry directed at marginalized people on a daily basis often isn't funny to them/us. It's not a matter of getting or not getting a joke. It's a matter of: Why the fuck should I find your ability to replicate bigotry funny? Naturally, there has been SO MUCH whitesplaining at Asian people (and their allies) who objected to the joke, and SO MANY threats against Suey Park, who started the hashtag. But, in a twist of typical awesomeness, Suey Park and other feminists on Twitter have shown they know exactly how effective satire works.

[CN: Violence] Of course: A demonstration in Albuquerque descended into a chaotic, violent confrontation between police and protestors, who were protesting the high number of police killings in the city—23 fatal incidents since 2012. Welp.

[CN: Environmental disaster] The IPCC has issued a new report detailing how climate change is already well underway and warning "the worst was yet to come. Climate change posed a threat to global food stocks, and to human security, the blockbuster report said. ...Monday's report was the most sobering so far from the UN climate panel and, scientists said, the most definitive. The report—a three-year joint effort by more than 300 scientists—grew to 2,600 pages and 32 volumes. The volume of scientific literature on the effects of climate change has doubled since the last report, and the findings make an increasingly detailed picture of how climate change—in tandem with existing fault lines such as poverty and inequality—poses a much more direct threat to life and livelihood. This was reflected in the language. The summary mentioned the word 'risk' more than 230 times, compared to just over 40 mentions seven years ago." And the debate, such as it is, that we're having in the US is about how regulation will kill jobs. So instead I guess we'll just do nothing and eventually kill everybody. Cool.

[CN: Human rights violations] "U.N. Holds U.S. Accountable for Human Rights Violations at Home and Abroad." At least, they called it out. Which is as about as accountable as it's going to get at the moment. Still: "Within one year, the U.S. government is required to submit a follow-up implementation report on four key recommendations: gun violence (including Stand Your Ground laws), lack of accountability for the Bush administration's violations of human rights, closing Guantánamo, and NSA surveillance."

[CN: Death; natural disaster] The search for survivors of the massive landslide, and/or to recover bodies, continues with difficulty. There are least 21 confirmed deaths. In better news, the number of missing has gone down dramatically, as people potentially in the affected area have turned up. There are, however, still around 30 people unaccounted for.

[CN: War on agency] Ohio is making its play for becoming the worst state in the nation on reproductive healthcare. Rage. Seethe. Boil. I'm sorry, Buckeyes.

And finally: A rescued German Shepherd dragged his 80-year-old owner out of bed and down the hall after he'd lost consciousness due to a gas leak. Says his grateful owner: "I'd be dead. He saved my life." Good dog!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Insert Grunting Noises Here

[Content Note: Misogyny; patriarchy.]

Last night, Kenny Blogginz was telling me that he had watched some of Tim Allen's sitcom Last Man Standing (see also), and that it was even worse than his old show, Home Improvement.

Iain came to the States a few years after Home Improvement had left the airwaves, and has never seen Last Man Standing, so we were trying to explain Tim Allen's career to him. Care of YouTube, I showed him a piece of Tim Allen's famous stand-up special titled Men Are Pigs, and then we watched this amazing 14-minute supercut of every grunt from Home Improvement.

Iain just looked so confused, lol. I mean, how to explain that there is a very popular celebrity whose entire career is based on the idea that men are grunting animals? That he had a show which ran for eight seasons in which he just grunted and waa-barked and squealed, and people thought it was hilarious? And that now he has a show which is even worse?

The thing is, Tim Allen would be the first person to say that feminists are man-haters. But I can think of exactly zero feminists who have become multimillionaires on the premise that men are literally grunting animals who need to be tamed.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

You Are Humorless and Oversensitive

[Content Note: Cissexism; transmisogyny.]

Yesterday, Joss Whedon, he of the urge to rebrand feminism for us, was asked for advice on writing strong female leads in a comic. To which he replied:

Some people quite understandably rejected his cissexist definition of womanhood as lacking "peeny/balls." Eastsidekate has an amazing response here: "An Open Venn Diagram to Joss Whedon." And Aoife has an excellent response here: "Comic Book Anatomies: A Brief Response to Whedon on Real Women."

Whedon's response?


I'm not sure, exactly, what we're meant to take from that. That if a cis person uses a silly euphemism for genitals, then they can't possibly be engaging in cissexism? Because: Nope.

If Whedon really meant just to imply that a strong female character has to be female, he could have said that. Just like he said in the same tweet that a strong female character has to be strong. But he did not say that. He said that she should not have a penis and testicles. That is not the same thing as saying she should be a woman.

And instead of just acknowledging that, he went on the offensive by telling anyone who takes that shit seriously to unfollow him. "No really I insist."

Welp. I'd be happy to, if I were following him in the first place.

Whedon evidently believes that it should be obvious to anyone that he was not being serious, that it was a joke, but where's the punchline? Specifically: Where is the punchline for trans*, intersex, and other women with "peeny/balls"? What's the humor for them in the suggestion that they are not women? What's the humor for men who don't have "peeny/balls"? This is a joke, such as it is, for people who are transphobic.

Perhaps Whedon imagines that it should have been apparent he was being sarcastic—but a cis man engaging in that sort of sarcasm can look indistinguishable from actual bigotry to someone targeted by it.

And, you know, even when a marginalized person does recognize an ostensible ally is engaging in that sort of sarcasm/satire, sometimes it's just not funny when you're routinely targeted by shit that sounds/looks exactly like it. There are lots of times I know a dude is being "ironic" about misogyny, but why is it supposed to be funny or interesting or trenchant to me? It just looks to me like he doesn't understand that I hear/see that shit for real every day of my life.

Why does Whedon think that people who are marginalized by this kind of rhetoric should be obliged to indulge his right to be flippant at their expense?

Perhaps he should consider if it's not that his critics are being too sensitive, but that he has failed to be sensitive enough.

And then maybe he can offer a meaningful apology, instead of resorting to the rankest of silencing tropes by implying that people who are harmed by this kind of language are just humorless and oversensitive.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Whut.

[Content Note: Violent crime.]

I've never read Leif G.W. Persson's Backstrom books, so I have no idea what the tone of the books is, but the description of this television show based on the series is raising all the red flags:

The series centers on Detective Everett Backstrom (The Office's Rainn Wilson), an offensive, irascible detective, as he tries, and fails, to change his self-destructive behavior. Throughout the series, Backstrom leads his team, the Serious Crimes Unit, as they navigate Portland's most sensitive cases.

At this point, I wonder: Has comedic actor Rainn Wilson been cast in a serious drama, or is this basically Law & Order: SVU reimagined as a comedy? And apparently it's the latter.

"[Bones creator/exec producer] Hart Hanson and Rainn Wilson are the perfect combination of creative vision and on-screen talent to bring this one-of-a-kind character and story like Backstrom to Fox," said Fox chairman Kevin Reilly. "I've been in business with Hart for a long time, and not only does he have a rare gift for infusing darker themes with relatable humor, he's one of the best showrunners out there today." Added 20th TV chairmen Dana Walden and Gary Newman, "There are so few creators out there with the genuine ability to mix great procedural storytelling with humor, and Hart Hanson is one of those guys. Getting another show on the air with him has been a top priority of this company."

Backstrom reunites Wilson with his Office co-star Mindy Kaling, who toplines Fox's The Mindy Project, and Reilly. "Fox is the perfect home for this fun and disturbed piece of entertainment," Wilson said.

A "fun and disturbed piece of entertainment" about "the Serious Crimes Unit" and "Portland's most sensitive cases." Sure. It's about time we had an entire series that was one giant rape joke.

[Related Reading: Oh, Crap.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Here He Is!

[Content Note: Oppressive humor.]

As you may recall, in May it was announced that NBC's current late night host, Jimmy Fallon, would be wrestling The Tonight Show away from Jay Leno's evil clutches come February, and current Saturday Night Live head writer and Weekend Update anchor Seth Meyers would be taking over for Fallon.

At the time, NBC entertainment chairman Bob Greenblatt assured us that they definitely for sure totally had to hire Meyers, another straight white dude, for their late night line-up because "We think Seth is one of the brightest, most insightful comedy writers and performers of his generation." Sure.

I'll agree when I see a single episode of SNL that doesn't rely on fat jokes, rape jokes, transphobic humor, and the usual assortment of ancient bigotries being paraded as "cutting edge" jokes.

The bar is set pretty low for "bright" and "insightful" these days.

Anyway. Here's the first art for Meyers' show, which will debut on February 24, via Entertainment Weekly.

"What do you think of our new handsome white dude? Pretty terrific, right?!"—NBC.
The thing about Meyers is that, given his specific cohort of thin, young, handsome, white, straight, male comedians, he generally relies less on bigoted humor than average, and generally appears to actually consider women human beings. But that doesn't make him bright and insightful by a long shot. It just makes him slightly closer to (but still short of!) what, in a kinder and fairer world, would be the bare minimum of decency for a multimillion dollar job hosting a variety show on a national network intended for a broad audience.

And this is a systemic problem: Saturday Night Live has become a launching pad for a late night career for white male stars. Conan O'Brien and Jimmy Fallon came to NBC's late night slot by way of SNL, too.

But SNL isn't fair in its hiring practices. The just hired six new cast members, all of whom are white (and only one of whom is a woman). The show hasn't had "a cast member to portray Michelle Obama for her husband's entire presidency"—a cavernous failing that is defended by current cast members saying shit like there aren't enough funny black women who are well-prepared for auditions.

Which is garbage. It's garbage even on its face, but when SNL now serves as the conduit to one of the most visible and lucrative jobs in television, to keep hiring more white dudes is bigger than just SNL. This isn't just a Seth Meyers problem. It's a who-comes-after-him problem, too.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Onion Fails Again, Or Why Sexual Abuse Is Not a Joke

by Shaker Mary, who can be found fighting the good fight on Twitter: @OHTheMaryD.

[Content Note: Rape jokes; misogynist slur; discussion of sexual violence statistics.]

On Tuesday, August 20th, The Onion ran a piece titled, "Adolescent Girl Reaching Age Where She Starts Exploring Stepfather's Body." Yes, it is as horrible as you think it is. I refuse to link to the original article, but here's the gist:

"It can be awkward and even a little scary for an adolescent girl when she experiences all these strange new feelings and starts to notice the sexual desires of her mother's husband…"

[…]

"But it's all part of growing up, and she should know that she is taking a very important step in life. It won't be long before her childhood is gone forever." Denton added that if the eighth-grader is confused or troubled by such experiences, she should try talking to friends her age who are going through the exact same thing.

In trying to use satire to critique the way the media covers sex abuse cases, The Onion focused on a fictional victim, sexualized young girls, and missed the mark completely. This can be added to the list of failures from a publication that thought it was the height of satire to call a 9-year-old Black girl a "cunt".

A 13-year-old in a sexual relationship with an adult is nothing to joke about. Incest is a very real and hellish experience that far too many people either have or are currently living through and to satirize that is not only offensive, it's disgusting and dangerous.

The rape and sexual abuse of children is not a joke.

It's not a joke when, according to the Administration for Children and Families, 18.5% of 9- to 11-year-olds, 26.3% of 12- to 14-year-olds, and 21.8% of 15- to 17-year-olds are sexually abused (these are conservative estimates, since sexual abuse is one of the most underreported crimes).

It's not a joke when, according to the American Psychological Association, 30% of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members and the presence of a stepfather in the home doubles the risk of sexual victimization for girls.

It's not a joke when children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times more vulnerable to sexual abuse then non-disabled children.

We live in a society where news reporters go on national TV and lament the lost "promising futures" of convicted rapists and say very little about the teenage girl who was brutalized by them. Where, in a small town in Indiana, a pregnant 14-year-old is called a "slut" and a "whore" by her neighbors just because she's a rape victim.

We, as a society, already fail to treat rape and sexual assault/abuse claims with the gravity they deserve, continually shifting the blame off the perpetrators and blaming the victim. We have no business satirizing something that is already not taken seriously.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!