Stand-up comedian Hannah Gadsby sparked headlines with her recent speech at the Hollywood Reporter Women in Entertainment event. Before I add my two cents, here's her speech in its entirety:
"I want to speak about the very big problem I have with the good men, especially the good men who take it upon themselves to talk about the bad men. I find good men talking about bad men incredibly irritating, and this is something the good men are doing a lot of at the moment. Not this moment, not this minute, because the good men don’t have to wake up early for their opportunity to monologue their hot take on misogyny. They get prime-time TV and the late shows.
I’ll tell you what, I’m sick of turning my television on at the end of the day to find anywhere up to 12 Jimmys giving me their hot take. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with the Jimmys and the Davids and the other Jimmys — good guys, great guys. Some of my best friends are Jimmy. But the last thing I need right now in this moment in history is to have to listen to men monologue about misogyny and how other men should just stop being 'creepy,' as if that’s the problem. 'If only these bad men just knew how not to be creepy!' Is that the problem? Men are not creepy. Do you know what’s creepy? Spiders, because we don’t know how they move. Rejecting the humanity of a woman is not creepiness; it is misogyny. So why can’t men monologue about these issues? Well they can, and they do. My problem is that according to the Jimmys, there’s only two types of bad men. There’s the Weinstein/Bill Cosby types who are so utterly horrible that they might as well be different species to the Jimmys. And then there are the FOJs: the Friends of Jimmy. These are apparently good men who misread the rules — garden-variety consent dyslexics. They have the rule book, but they just skimmed it. 'Oh, that a semicolon? My bad. I thought that meant anal.' Sorry to the vegans in the room.
My issue is that when good men talk about bad men, they always ignore the line in the sand — the line in the sand that is inevitably drawn whenever a good man talks about bad men: 'I am a good man. Here is the line. There are all the bad men.' The Jimmys and the good men won’t talk about this line, but we really need to talk about this line. Let’s call it Kevin. And let’s never call it that again. We need to talk about how men will draw a different line for every different occasion. They have a line for the locker room; a line for when their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters are watching; another line for when they’re drunk and fratting; another line for nondisclosure; a line for friends; and a line for foes. You know why we need to talk about this line between good men and bad men? Because it’s only good men who get to draw that line. And guess what? All men believe they are good. We need to talk about this because guess what happens when only good men get to draw that line? This world — a world full of good men who do very bad things and still believe in their heart of hearts that they are good men because they have not crossed the line, because they move the line for their own good. Women should be in control of that line, no question.
Now take everything I have said up until this point and replace 'man' with 'white person,' and know that if you are a white woman, you have no place drawing lines in the sand between good white people and bad white people. I encourage you to also take the time to replace 'man' with 'straight' or 'cis' or 'able-bodied' or 'neurotypical,' et cetera, et cetera. Everybody believes they are fundamentally good, and we all need to believe we are fundamentally good because believing you are fundamentally good is part of the human condition. But if you have to believe someone else is bad in order to believe you are good, you are drawing a very dangerous line. In many ways, these lines in the sand we all draw are stories we tell to ourselves so we can still believe we are good people."
I've read this speech 5-10 times and continue to find it thought-provoking, yet perplexing, not to mention it rubs me the wrong way.
Some of Ms. Gadsby's points are incredibly valid. Even in 2018, late-night comedy continues to be dominated by males. People do tend to shift boundary lines depending on who the specific target is. Women should have more power in determining said boundary lines. Having said that, though, I find a majority of Ms. Gadsby's speech on sexism ironically sexist and counterproductive.
What Ms. Gadsby was essentially saying was, "All men think they're good guys. Good guys draw the line on what constitutes good from bad. They continually alter this line for friends, family, and loved ones. They talk about bad guys to make themselves sound good." So in other words, according to Hannah Gadsby, there's essentially no such thing as a genuinely good guy who treats women as equals and fights for them to attain equality.
It's true that late-night comedy is dominated by males today, as it has always been. From Johnny Carson to David Letterman to Jay Leno to the current lineup of Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, James Corden, etc., it's a wonder when a woman will finally break the cycle. Given the current setup, however, why is it wrong for said late-night hosts to decry famous men's sexual improprieties? Just because a self-proclaimed "good guy" criticizes a "bad guy" of a misdeed doesn't mean the "good guy" did this for the sole reason of making himself look good. When comedian Michelle Wolf comes after Donald Trump with her comedy, does she do this to make herself look good? No, of course not. She does this to stimulate thought and laughter. So I don't think it does us any good to assume "good guys" are cracking jokes at the expense of "bad guys" just to tell their viewers/listeners, "You see? I'm not as bad as him, therefore I'm good!"
I do find it troubling so many people's line in the sand is more dependent on the person we're talking about than on the behavior itself. I don't think we can single this out to men, however, and I also think we get ourselves into trouble when we go into such debates with a black-and-white mindset. A very large majority of sexual improprieties are committed by men against women. However, we can't dismiss the minority of male victims. I hate to say it, but there are often double-standards in place for male victims of sexual improprieties. If a female high school student engages in intercourse with a male teacher, you'll often hear onlookers calling for the professor's firing and perhaps imprisoning. If a male high school student engages in intercourse with a female teacher, however, you'll often hear these same onlookers saying, "Well, wasn't he the lucky one? I wish I had me a teacher like that when I was growing up! He should be thanking her!" It's about consistency. Yes, while the former situation should be regarded as an abuse of power, a fireable offense, and possibly a crime, the latter situation should be as well. The same mindset should be in place regardless of the target. Whether the alleged perpetrator is a brother, close friend, or complete stranger, equal offenses should receive equal scorn and banishment. This goes for everyone. Ms. Gadsby singled out men, but let's be honest, women have been just as guilty of altering that line in the sand for those close to them as men have. Who ultimately decides this line in the sand? The people involved. Everyone is different. Some are offended by what others deem comical and vice versa. The key here is open communication and understanding. Hannah Gadsby makes it sound like an angry lecture by women will be the winning trick to getting men to finally understand their lines in the sand. I'm sorry, but that's not going to work, and I think this was where Ms. Gadsby ultimately failed in her speech. It's going to take more than just women standing up to garner more rights, control, and power. It's going to take a cooperative effort on both men and women's parts.
This is why I feel as though Ms. Gadsby's speech was counterproductive. How does it serve any good purpose to basically declare all men are bad and/or phony, that women should solely declare the narrative, yet in the end, need men to help further women's cause(s)? I don't care what Hannah Gadsby has to say. She can call me a "bad guy" or a "bad guy pretending to be a good guy," if I see or hear a man mistreating a woman (or anyone else), I'm going to call him out/do something about it. I'm going to continue fighting for equal rights for all Americans, especially women. If that makes me a bad guy or a phony, so be it.
https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/hannah-gadsby-hollywood-reporter-bad-men-sexism-misogyny.html
"I want to speak about the very big problem I have with the good men, especially the good men who take it upon themselves to talk about the bad men. I find good men talking about bad men incredibly irritating, and this is something the good men are doing a lot of at the moment. Not this moment, not this minute, because the good men don’t have to wake up early for their opportunity to monologue their hot take on misogyny. They get prime-time TV and the late shows.
I’ll tell you what, I’m sick of turning my television on at the end of the day to find anywhere up to 12 Jimmys giving me their hot take. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with the Jimmys and the Davids and the other Jimmys — good guys, great guys. Some of my best friends are Jimmy. But the last thing I need right now in this moment in history is to have to listen to men monologue about misogyny and how other men should just stop being 'creepy,' as if that’s the problem. 'If only these bad men just knew how not to be creepy!' Is that the problem? Men are not creepy. Do you know what’s creepy? Spiders, because we don’t know how they move. Rejecting the humanity of a woman is not creepiness; it is misogyny. So why can’t men monologue about these issues? Well they can, and they do. My problem is that according to the Jimmys, there’s only two types of bad men. There’s the Weinstein/Bill Cosby types who are so utterly horrible that they might as well be different species to the Jimmys. And then there are the FOJs: the Friends of Jimmy. These are apparently good men who misread the rules — garden-variety consent dyslexics. They have the rule book, but they just skimmed it. 'Oh, that a semicolon? My bad. I thought that meant anal.' Sorry to the vegans in the room.
My issue is that when good men talk about bad men, they always ignore the line in the sand — the line in the sand that is inevitably drawn whenever a good man talks about bad men: 'I am a good man. Here is the line. There are all the bad men.' The Jimmys and the good men won’t talk about this line, but we really need to talk about this line. Let’s call it Kevin. And let’s never call it that again. We need to talk about how men will draw a different line for every different occasion. They have a line for the locker room; a line for when their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters are watching; another line for when they’re drunk and fratting; another line for nondisclosure; a line for friends; and a line for foes. You know why we need to talk about this line between good men and bad men? Because it’s only good men who get to draw that line. And guess what? All men believe they are good. We need to talk about this because guess what happens when only good men get to draw that line? This world — a world full of good men who do very bad things and still believe in their heart of hearts that they are good men because they have not crossed the line, because they move the line for their own good. Women should be in control of that line, no question.
Now take everything I have said up until this point and replace 'man' with 'white person,' and know that if you are a white woman, you have no place drawing lines in the sand between good white people and bad white people. I encourage you to also take the time to replace 'man' with 'straight' or 'cis' or 'able-bodied' or 'neurotypical,' et cetera, et cetera. Everybody believes they are fundamentally good, and we all need to believe we are fundamentally good because believing you are fundamentally good is part of the human condition. But if you have to believe someone else is bad in order to believe you are good, you are drawing a very dangerous line. In many ways, these lines in the sand we all draw are stories we tell to ourselves so we can still believe we are good people."
I've read this speech 5-10 times and continue to find it thought-provoking, yet perplexing, not to mention it rubs me the wrong way.
Some of Ms. Gadsby's points are incredibly valid. Even in 2018, late-night comedy continues to be dominated by males. People do tend to shift boundary lines depending on who the specific target is. Women should have more power in determining said boundary lines. Having said that, though, I find a majority of Ms. Gadsby's speech on sexism ironically sexist and counterproductive.
What Ms. Gadsby was essentially saying was, "All men think they're good guys. Good guys draw the line on what constitutes good from bad. They continually alter this line for friends, family, and loved ones. They talk about bad guys to make themselves sound good." So in other words, according to Hannah Gadsby, there's essentially no such thing as a genuinely good guy who treats women as equals and fights for them to attain equality.
It's true that late-night comedy is dominated by males today, as it has always been. From Johnny Carson to David Letterman to Jay Leno to the current lineup of Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, James Corden, etc., it's a wonder when a woman will finally break the cycle. Given the current setup, however, why is it wrong for said late-night hosts to decry famous men's sexual improprieties? Just because a self-proclaimed "good guy" criticizes a "bad guy" of a misdeed doesn't mean the "good guy" did this for the sole reason of making himself look good. When comedian Michelle Wolf comes after Donald Trump with her comedy, does she do this to make herself look good? No, of course not. She does this to stimulate thought and laughter. So I don't think it does us any good to assume "good guys" are cracking jokes at the expense of "bad guys" just to tell their viewers/listeners, "You see? I'm not as bad as him, therefore I'm good!"
I do find it troubling so many people's line in the sand is more dependent on the person we're talking about than on the behavior itself. I don't think we can single this out to men, however, and I also think we get ourselves into trouble when we go into such debates with a black-and-white mindset. A very large majority of sexual improprieties are committed by men against women. However, we can't dismiss the minority of male victims. I hate to say it, but there are often double-standards in place for male victims of sexual improprieties. If a female high school student engages in intercourse with a male teacher, you'll often hear onlookers calling for the professor's firing and perhaps imprisoning. If a male high school student engages in intercourse with a female teacher, however, you'll often hear these same onlookers saying, "Well, wasn't he the lucky one? I wish I had me a teacher like that when I was growing up! He should be thanking her!" It's about consistency. Yes, while the former situation should be regarded as an abuse of power, a fireable offense, and possibly a crime, the latter situation should be as well. The same mindset should be in place regardless of the target. Whether the alleged perpetrator is a brother, close friend, or complete stranger, equal offenses should receive equal scorn and banishment. This goes for everyone. Ms. Gadsby singled out men, but let's be honest, women have been just as guilty of altering that line in the sand for those close to them as men have. Who ultimately decides this line in the sand? The people involved. Everyone is different. Some are offended by what others deem comical and vice versa. The key here is open communication and understanding. Hannah Gadsby makes it sound like an angry lecture by women will be the winning trick to getting men to finally understand their lines in the sand. I'm sorry, but that's not going to work, and I think this was where Ms. Gadsby ultimately failed in her speech. It's going to take more than just women standing up to garner more rights, control, and power. It's going to take a cooperative effort on both men and women's parts.
This is why I feel as though Ms. Gadsby's speech was counterproductive. How does it serve any good purpose to basically declare all men are bad and/or phony, that women should solely declare the narrative, yet in the end, need men to help further women's cause(s)? I don't care what Hannah Gadsby has to say. She can call me a "bad guy" or a "bad guy pretending to be a good guy," if I see or hear a man mistreating a woman (or anyone else), I'm going to call him out/do something about it. I'm going to continue fighting for equal rights for all Americans, especially women. If that makes me a bad guy or a phony, so be it.
https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/hannah-gadsby-hollywood-reporter-bad-men-sexism-misogyny.html
Comments
Post a Comment