Forgiveness and Sex: Homosexuality vs Sexual Assault

The news about the Duggar family, stars of 19 Kids and Counting, reminded me of a draft blog post that I never published about homosexuality and hypocrisy. A friend of the family had been fired from his job after many years of service when he attempted to get a marriage license to his partner. Those that praised the school for standing up for religious values in the same breath cursed TLC for cancelling the show, Duck Dynasty.

Multiple generations of the Duggar Family. Picture retrieved from their family blog.

The hypocrisy for me was the inconsistent use of and illogical interpretation of freedom of speech. When the school fired the homosexual professor, it was their freedom of speech, so good for the school. When the cast of Duck Dynasty professed their faith and insulted homosexuals, it was their freedom of speech, so shame on TLC for cancelling their show. The reasoning behind both of these statements was intensely hypocritical to me, for in both situations a private entity is reacting to an employee's actions. To praise the school and curse TLC was to extend the freedom of speech to only those that agree with you, in this case, the (Christian) faithful. Besides my reservations about the ability for private, religious institutions to discriminate against women and homosexuals, the fact remains that the school had the legal right to fire the faculty member. Because they based their employment contracts on certain moral rules that homosexuality violated, the faculty member was in violation of that contract. Similarly, TLC had every legal right to cancel Duck Dynasty if their actions and statements did not align with the station's values. The backlash against the channel for cancelling the show, which resulted in it being un-cancelled, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech.

Retrieved from this site.

Freedom of speech protects individuals from governmental persecution. People can assemble, protest, and speak their mind without fear of imprisonment or execution or the removal of rights. A private employer, however, is certainly not the government and thus does not have to hire or employee people who violate certain standards or beliefs. There are even legal restrictions on certain types of speech, such as slander, false advertising, child pornography, and certain levels of obscenity.

This long introduction leads me to the topic at hand, the pedophilia and sexual assault by Josh Duggar, member of the Quiverfull family, the Duggars, another TLC show. The entire situation is disgusting and makes me question the teachings of this branch of Christianity in their teachings about sexuality. I've already discussed the potential issues with the purity movement and fear that something similar may be in operation here. Of the entire situation, I am perhaps most infuriated by the people who have come to the defense of Josh, such as potential presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. The same person who has repeatedly insulted and discriminated against the homosexual community has come out to support a child molester. Huckabee has commented on Josh's transformation where he has repented and asked forgiveness for his actions. So...this is now a valid legal defense? Forgiveness, divinely asked for, should not be a substitute for direct, legal action. In the same breath comparing homosexuals to that most hated community, Huckabee comes out in support of one. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. I doubt that he would be so vocal about a child molester who had found forgiveness through Allah. Why do Christians get a free pass on corrupt sexual morality while at the same time questioning the morality of atheists?

Retrieved from this site.

This article does a fantastic job at comparing the hypocrisy of reactions to Josh's child molestation and homosexuality. If Josh had instead come out as gay, he would have received scorn and hatred from the same people now supporting him, simply because of his faith. In a study of religious bias on reactions to crimes, George Tamarin found that people's high approval of the Jericho massacre in the Bible drastically reduced (from 66% to 7%) when the situation was changed to a massacre in China. Richard Dawkins commented on the study in The God Delusion that this study represents the hypocrisy of faith. The same situation is treated much differently, crimes are given moral approval, and child molesters have their records destroyed, all in the name of faith.

Perhaps people would be better able to compare the horrid, disgusting crime of child molestation and sexual assault from a loving, homosexual partnership by learning a thing or two about consent.

Female Comedians aren't Funny: Gender and Sketch Comedy

It's been two years since Kenan Thompson came under fire for blaming a lack of diversity casing in Saturday Night Live on the poor quality of black female comedians. Women often lack representation in the media, especially women of color, and the comedy genre is no exception. Similar to previous posts I've written about tokenism, it seems that the few females that are successful serve as stand-ins for the general inability for women to be funny. If Amy Schumer or Garfunkel and Oates can achieve success, why not every woman? Those who are successful are held up as proof that there is no bias or discrimination, although they still represent a minority of comedic faces. It's clear that prejudice still remains, with men still chairing key positions on popular comedy news shows and women of color remaining relatively absent even as male diversity increases. There are some notable exceptions that I hope will become more frequent. One of my favorite Daily Show segments features Samantha Bee and Jessica Williams tackling race issues. Tell me these women aren't funny.

Daily Show news team. Retrieved from Comedy Central.

The new season of Inside Amy Schumer has also been receiving attention as she tackles important social issues with a comedic slant. Among the very many attempted sketch shows, this one seems likely to succeed with Amy's keen insight for satire. Among her many hilarious and poignant videos, Amy has addressed beauty standards (video below), female representation in the media (long, but completely worth it, especially if you like 12 Angry Men), rape culture, and obsession with the female anatomy. Catchy and hilarious, "Girl, You Don't Need No Makeup" is a satire of boy bands and requirements for female beauty that reinforce unnecessary adornment and pruning. They note, "with a little mascara, you'll look female" linking the wearing of makeup as a female gendered activity; to not wear makeup is to violate the female identity. It is okay for males to comment on and discipline the actions women should take regarding their appearance. At the end of the video, the male singers try on some of the makeup products and their reactions reveal the ridiculousness of the products women are expected to wear.

Garfunkel and Oates (who frequent one of my favorite LA coffee spots, Bricks & Scones) are a successful comedy duo that also release sketch comedy videos. They've commented on issues such as an emphasis on pregnancy as crucial to the female identity, the gender divide in sports, and chastity (video below). This is a heads up that the video on chastity does show some mimed sex acts and references anal and vaginal sex. The song is a humorous take on the religious restrictions placed on youth to avoid their sexuality and find "loopholes" to stay pure. For me, this video does a great job at highlighting the double standards for purity, where females cannot be pleased sexually but the male can. Overall, the song brings attention to a common side-effect of abstinence-only sex education that promotes female virginity over information and personal choice. It also brings into question why certain sexual acts are treated differently than others and the treatment of sodomy in homosexual vs heterosexual relationships.

Comedy is a persuasive means of communication that often keeps attention and promotes critical thinking (especially in works of satire). The rise of female comedians opens up new areas for this critical eye of importance to women. I don't think these spaces are exclusively for females to occupy, but it is hard to speak for others. Female comedians provide a sense of legitimacy and authenticity to these issues, having lived many of these double standards and social obstacles. The writers and performers of the jokes come from a standpoint that reflects the unique position of a female in contemporary society. I hope that these shows continue to be popular and I encourage people to support them!

Capitalism and Entertainment: Show me the Money

In Communication and Culture, a class I teach at USC, we've been discussing themes of the intersection of capitalism, globalization, and culture. Something that immediately came to mind was the prevalence of capitalist themes within entertainment, particularly on reality television. Reality shows run the gamut from dating, cooking, tattoos, adventure, weight loss, and competition. Some of my favorite shows, and those that I've seen become increasingly popular and varied, are investment shows. These shows perpetuate and valorize the values of the American Dream and bring the token successes to national attention. While I enjoy these shows and generally think they are positive and helpful to participants, I worry about the larger implications of the show outcomes.

Retrieved from this site

My issues with these shows are twofold. First, I worry that they revere money over all other elements. The dollar is still key to any measure of success and is the bottom line for the happiness of the participants, investors, and the way the participants "win." Even good ideas, which are often acknowledged on the shows, are turned aside if they cannot be executed, shown to be scalable, or have reasonable time limits on returns. I also worry that the success and proliferation of these types of shows reinforce that these experiences are commonplace and plentiful. This type of mentality may blind us to the structural and societal barriers that do exist.

Retrieved from ABC

Perhaps the largest and most profitable of the capitalist entertainment shows is "Shark Tank." Based on the British version "Dragon's Den," "Shark Tank" shows a series of sharks, successful entrepreneurs, as they vet potential investment opportunities. Participants on the show pitch their idea, explain their process, and talk profits. Oftentimes, it is only established businesses that have track records of success and profit receive deals. People who come in only with ideas are often dismissed as too new, untested, or risky. On this show, people who have in some sense already "made it" are given investments to become more profitable with the help of investments. Sometimes, the sharks offer mentorship and experience beyond the monetary contribution, but the ultimate goal of the show is to receive their ask at a reasonable valuation. The "About Shark Tank" page has this to say, "The Sharks will once again give people from all walks of life the chance to chase the American dream, and potentially secure business deals that could make them millionaires." Shark Tank is not discriminatory, but then again, it has an intense vetting process which means not everyone can appear on the show. They are also only given a "chance to chase" success because that power is ultimately not in the hands of the everyday American, but by the always already profitable and successful elites.

Restaurant Startup investor Joe Bastianich

A spin-off of "Shark Tank" is "Food Fortunes," a new shop that specifically focuses on food-related innovations. This show adds the element of audience participation, where a live audience tests the food concepts and provides real-time feedback on the product. Also in the food category, "Restaurant Startup" gives people the opportunity to run a pop-up restaurant and get an investment to open a long-standing one. These shows follow the "Shark Tank" model where there are proven elites that have the power over the financial success of the participants. In "Restaurant Startup," the participants have some autonomy over their styling, logo, food, aesthetic, and supplies in creating the restaurant. But, they are still at the whims of the investors to change elements that are not amenable to them in order to open a real restaurant. In the interview above, Bastianich notes that a "business without profit is a hobby," again reinforcing the bottom line of profits over innovation, creativity, and even good quality food.

Retrieved from this site

Dana Cloud argued that token success stories, such as Oprah Winfrey, are harmful to the understanding of how power structures work and the barriers that exist to equality. When people see the success of Winfrey or others the myth of the American Dream, the self-made man, and Horatio Alger come alive. People are presented with proof "of the American Dream, implying the accessibility of this dream to black Americans despite the structural economic and political obstacles to achievement and survival posed in a racist society" (p. 116). This is not just race, however, but that the success of people who have overcome barriers in place are applicable to everyone. If anyone can succeed, everyone can. Winfrey's success is certainly something to be lauded, but it should not be generalized to the larger public. To do so is to blame individual agents for their positions and ignore larger social, cultural, and political issues that are beyond individual control.

Retrieved from this site

Many of my students tell me that it is hard to look at media the same way after taking Communication and Culture. There are many things to be cynical of in the contemporary media landscape. Where it is gender issues in advertising, racial stereotypes in movies, or the proliferation of questionable tropes, how are scholars supposed to genuinely enjoy media? I will say that I do enjoy the shows I have discussed and think there are great lessons to be learned and fun to be had in watching them. I cannot fault the investors on these shows for doing what the show encourages them to do, or even being business-oriented. It's their money, after all. But, I wholeheartedly hope that people become active instead of passive consumers of media. To watch The Bachelor and understand the questionable gender elements is much better than avoiding it completely or to accept its messages passively. Scholars, critics, and everyday people should be immersed in contemporary society and also interested in its workings.