The
reason for this is because comedians and comedies have often been at the receiving end of this complaint culture for some time now.
Newspapers are largely responsible for this outbreak, as it is
usually the likes of The Daily Mail who wind people up into an
Ofcom frenzy. These attacks from the Mail have so far been aimed at
the likes of Jonathan Ross, Russell Brand, Frankie Boyle Ricky
Gervais and other stand ups who are notorious for their politically delicate punchlines.
The
blame culture grew as the years went on, but when Ricky Gervais begun fighting back a few years ago, many started to see the flaws in complaining
about the morality of humour. Gervais said something along the lines of how just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right. He turned
the spotlights on those fighting to get such comedians voted off the air;
portraying them as self-righteous brats who didn't like the fact that
people who said things they disagreed with were making plenty of
money by beaming onto their TV screens.
To
get angry about comedy is stupid right? I mean it's all just for
shits and giggles isn't it? Who cares if politically incorrect things are
said at the expense of humour? Surely it's better to laugh at
ignorance than use it as a pseudo-justification for violence. Well that's not necessarily true and is far more complex than simply turning an offensive idea into a funny one.
While
I don't agree that comedians and other famous individuals should have
their television/film appearances halted because they said something that
might have offended some and while my support of free speech also
stems to entertainment, I still think problems can stem from some
types of offensive and politically incorrect content that is
converted into the genre of humour. Comedies and comedians should
have the right to express daring and often uncomfortable content for
the sake of humour, yet there are two different ways of
doing this. The first is an intelligent approach which exposes a
number of truths about the distressing content being addressed,
whereas the second type is a more troublesome form that can have a
far more negative impact on society at large.
Type
one is the sort of humour that expresses highly offensive material in
a manner that questions and dismantles it before the viewers' very eyes.
In such situations, comedies or comedians will deliver a
scene or line that on the surface looks like something harmful or
intentionally offensive, yet under the surface is either judging the upsetting subject matter or sympathising with the individuals or situation that initially comes across as the victim.
In
a previous post on this blog, I looked at this approach in the light of It's
Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Here was a sitcom which appeared on
the surface to be nothing more than a show which strived to seek
attention by providing some of the most outrageously offensive story lines imaginable. Racism, abortion, Transgender identities and child
abuse were themes that appeared as early as the first season. As the
show went on, more sensitive subject matters were thrown into the mix. It would appear that It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
was just trying to be offensive for the sake of being offensive.
If
you actually watch the
sitcom, however, it becomes apparent from the very get go that we
are not suppose to like or sympathise with the characters who are responsible for the
bigotry played out on screen. The main cast are a bunch of ignorant fools who are never
once perceived in a likeable fashion. Under the hood, It's
Always Sunny in Philadelphia was
actually laughing at the people who are responsible for ignorance and intolerance toward others based on their race, religion, sexuality, gender
identity, disability or sex. Audiences were exposed to the true ugliness of
prejudice by framing the 'protagonists' of this programme in such a
hideous light.
This
isn't the only way that comedies or comedians poke wholes in
ignorance. There are also ways in which a given comedian/show will use a sensitive subject matter for a punchline, whilst simultaneously using the narrative of that joke/story in order to shed
a sympathetic light on the struggles of that specific topic (which we'll explore shortly in relation to South Park).
The
second type of approach is one which is slightly more problematic.
This is when comedy uses a sensitive subject matter for a punchline,
however will do so without giving the topic a moments thought and
resulting in an outcome which can deliver very misleading
information to those few less enlightened audience members.
Take
Roy Chubby Brown as an example of an individual who falls into this
second category. To put it as bluntly as it is, the stand ups of Mr
Brown are nothing more than far right-wing racist drivel. None of
his jokes provide any kind of critique or irony toward the prejudice
sentences escaping from his vocal cords. All the audience can get from such
material is the idea that poking fun at different races and ethnicities is all fine and dandy. If people believe saying these kinds
of things in everyday life is acceptable and that it doesn't affect others who live in the real world, then that's surely going to
have a pretty unpleasant impact toward society at large in the long run.
The
problem with type two, is that it often takes a subject which some in society are ignorant about and does nothing more
than laugh at it. The definition of ignorance is the crux of
the problem here. Ignorance stems from not knowing enough about a
particular group of people. When individuals don't understand those who
they think are different to them, they often become
frightened, confused or insensitive toward their existence. It
becomes an us versus them
mentality, where large portions of society reject and subject a
group of people to cruelties they'd never be happy enduring
themselves. Oppression and prejudice grow from ignorance, causing
problems for those who are ostracised from mainstream society based
on their race, sex, gender identity, sexuality, disability, et. Those
within mainstream society who've never been subjected to such
prejudices take for granted their own privileges. Empathy is often
hard to reach and the ignorant won't even listen when it comes to respecting
the rights of individuals who are perceived as living on the fringes
of society.
When
type two blasts onto the screen and cackles at the minorities it's
digging its claws into, it does nothing more than celebrate the
existence of bigotry. It claps its hands and tells everyone it's ok
to ridicule those who are different or ostracised for unjustifiable reasons. It never points
out the cruelty or stupidity within these jokes; not caring what
harmful forms of misinformation it might be pouring into those less civilized audiences members' minds.
People
on the whole aren't stupid however. Most of mainstream society are
smart enough to decode the information as cruel humour. I should have
probably mentioned this earlier, as I'm only referring to some
within mainstream society, not everyone. Most are kind hearted and would never want to bring harm to a
stranger, regardless of who they are or what they stand for. Sadly, there are a small
handful who will say what they think and act out as they please without once considering the
feelings of others. These are the individuals who harass, assault and
even kill others who they perceive as dangerous or different.
Such
people are poisonous, and it is these people who hold absolutely no
knowledge about equality and tolerance toward those they fail to understand. It's not that they have evil thoughts built into their heads, instead they just have a knowledge vacuum which has
been replaced by ignorant beliefs. When comedies execute unintelligent jokes
and two dimensional stereotypes, they assure the uninformed members of society that there is nothing wrong when it comes ridiculing
minorities. They enforce the belief that those of a different race,
sexuality, gender, disability, religion, et. are a member of the other who do not deserve the same rights as anyone who fits into the the 'normality' bracket.
Friends Season 7
Episode 22 The One with Chandler's Dad
There
was a time when Friends was one of the biggest
sitcoms on the planet. Seinfeld may have been slightly more popular in its heyday and shows such as Mash may prove that the history books provided even
bigger hits in this genre, however Friends was – for a time –
an absolute cultural explosion. The show lasted for ten years and grew more successful as each year passed. If most of the cast hadn't wanted to move on in 2004, the series could quite easily have gone on for as long as it
wanted. Pretty much everyone had seen it and its viewing success
didn't end after the show wrapped up. Digital channels across the
globe spurted out repeats daily. A couple of years ago, there was
allegedly enough countries airing enough episode of Friends each day resulting in the show being on air 24/7.
And
to be honest, it's quite easy to see why. When the show started back in
1994, the one common feature which helped it stand out among the rest
was just how sharp the jokes were. The punchlines were on fire and
it's hard to forget 20 years later just how brilliant the writers
were when it came to dishing out quality humour. Furthermore, the
chemistry between the six cast members really did work a charm. The
fact that they got on so well in real life really helped flesh these
protagonists out in a way which made us believe they really were six
young friends living in 1990s Manhattan.
Unfortunately,
around the midpoint of Friends, the show reached its peak and then begun to
crumble under its own success. By the time season six aired, the show
was struggling to keep itself fresh and funny. The show started to feel old. It had so many episodes under its belt by now that the writers
didn't seem to know where else to take the series. They tried throwing in a few
arcs about Rachel moving in with Joey, Chandler moving in with
Monica, Chandler getting engaged to Monica, Chandler getting married
to Monica and so on and so forth. Among the never ending tirade of
pointless arcs, the writers tried to jazz things up by turning up the
volume up on the 'humour' factor. Suddenly one-liners became a part of every other
sentence, the minor traits of each character turned into the sole
definitions which held together their now-two-dimensional existences (Joey the dumb womaniser, Phoebe the quirky hippie, Chandler the sarcastic buddy, Monica the control freak, Rachel the lovable fool and Ross the marriage-failing dork) and story lines morphed into zany pantomimes that relied on far too heavily on past references.
The
show was a loud mess with no new ideas to bring to the table. They tried
everything to jazz up the jokes and by the time it came round to
the season seven episode 22, they decided to spice things up by
bringing Chandler's Dad into the mix.
Friends
have dealt with some touchy issues in the past, yet back in the old
days it seemed to do so by starting out in a manner that portrayed
the protagonists in the right, only to then go on and expose them for
being the ones at fault. Take the episode where Phoebe finds out her
younger brother is in love with an older woman. Phoebe spends the
entire episode trying to tear them apart. At first, the script
doesn't paint her in the wrong at all. Near that episode's end, however, Phoebe
tries to manipulate her brother's girlfriend into breaking up with
him, yet love takes a hold and the two of them embrace in one another's arms. After a
few moments of protest, Phoebe realises she can't chose who her
younger brother falls in love with and leaves them be. She sulks out of the room, tying up the episode by keeping her brother happy despite his sister's displeasure.
The
same can be said for Ross and his ex-wife. Even though the early half of the show constantly references lesbian relationships as though their very existence is
somehow hilarious, the overall arc takes on a more sympathetic approach. Ross goes from sulking about his ex-wife to giving her away at her and her new bride Susan's wedding.
Sadly,
as the show started running out of creative steam, the jokes grew louder and that ironic tongue in cheek attitude faded away. Instead, it was
replaced with loud, offensive portrayals which could quite easily be
misinterpreted in the eyes of the ignorant.
Before
moving on to speak about the episode at hand, I just want to start by
adding that the character of Chandler's Dad is
clearly not his Dad at all. I get the initial point of the joke. The
writers are basically saying that Chandler has a father who looks and
dresses like a woman. Throughout the entire show, Chandler has often
spoken of his father as a very promiscuous homosexual who seemed to
have performed some rather explicit acts in front of his own child.
The twist in this episode was that the father Chandler was talking
about all that time was not just a gay man, but a gay man who looks
and dresses like a woman (there's also a problem here of labelling homosexuality and Transgender identity as one of the same thing, which is hugely problematic in a number of ways, however I think that's a problem which I'll have to expand upon in a future post, as I haven't the space to flesh it out here). Yet despite the initial intentions of the episode's punchline, the fact that
they cast a woman to play this character clearly presents on-screen that of a
transsexual woman. This character lives full time as a woman, has
breasts and speaks in a female voice. The writers may have wanted a
'man in a dress', instead they ended out with someone who visually
reflected someone who had obviously been on hormone replacement therapy and was now a living full as a woman. Therefore, for the sake of decency when it comes to this
character, I'm going to refer to her in both female pronouns and as Chandler's second mum.
The
episodes containing Chandler's second mum weren't necessarily written
as a cold hearted attack on the Transgender community. Instead, the
main problem here is that the writers seemed to pen the three
episodes she appeared without realising what they were writing. They didn't consciously attack those who don't conform to their birth assigned
gender, instead it was more of a case that they had absolutely no sense of
awareness toward Transgender individuals (or, at the very least, they
didn't realise they were writing a bunch of episodes which could have quite a negative impact on such a community).
As mentioned above,
from the way each episode was presented, it would seem that the
writers initially penned Chandler's second mum as a self-identified man who just so happened to look and dress like
a woman. Yet what was presented on screen indicated quite clearly to viewers that this individual was almost certainly a Transgender
woman living full-time as her true identity.
However the visual
representation did not match the joke been played out, which
largely centred around laughing at punchlines consisting of the protagonists misgendering Chandler's second mum and even at one point having Phoebe make reference to her genitals. Never once do the writers critique
those who refer to her in male pronouns and instead audiences are
invited to laugh at all the callous comments made.
Furthermore, the
episode fails to portray the hurt and problems such comments have
toward those who don't conform to their birth assigned gender.
Chandler's second mum never once calls a character out or appears to
be in discomfort at what is said to her. I'm not suggesting the
episode would have been better if she flinched or argued every time Chandler
threw the Dad word at her (many Trans people do go through everyday life trying to ignore such comments), but the fact she looked as though
she couldn't give shit implied to audiences that these sorts of attitudes don't affect the Trans community in any shape or form.
The truth of the matter
is that misgendering is an incredibly hurtful and problematic truth
which the Transgender community have to bear every day. There are
some cisgender individuals out there who either don't know that
referring to a Trans person's birth assigned gender is offensive, or
just don't care. In a world where sex and gender are almost always
taught as being one of the same, most either believe that sex defines
gender or use it as a justification for identifying others in a
manner which causes great distress.
Misgendering is a
subtle way of saying to a Trans person they're not allowed to be who they are. It's a sneaky way of saying you ain't fooling no one mate! Cisgender people never know what it's like to grow up living in
a gender that doesn't reflect who they are internally. It's difficult
to empathise that there are those who don't conform to the gender
circle they were thrown into as a baby. Trans men and women go through many difficult years when it
comes to transition and coming to terms with who they are. They take risks by losing the rights that
cisgender people often take for granted, venture out into the wide
world where they are often the victims of bigotry and often endure incredibly complicated medical procedures in order to combat their dysphoria. Not only do many Trans men and
women make a number of physical risks, but they also have to battle
through an ocean of psychological ones too. It can take decades for
Transgender individuals to accept their internal identity and begin
to express it externally. Coming to terms with and comprehending such truths help the
individuals in question ascend from an identity which has caused them
years of internal agony, into one that chimes with their inner self. To be referred
to in pronouns and names that reflect the gender they've spent years
moving away from forces them into a position where they are told they
can't be who they are. For a person to tell someone who's gone through years of
internal and external struggles that they can't be identified in their rightful gender can be an act which has dangerous
consequences. Not only is misgendering hurtful, but it can also lead to suicide in some cases.
So let's look at
Friends by pretending we are ignorant for one moment. Imagine you
are a person who's never met a Transgender individual before. Sure,
you've heard of them, but you don't really know what the whole thing is really about. You may have seen a woman on Jerry Springer banging on
about how she use to be a man, or you may have heard about a Big
Brother contestant who's a transsexual, but that's about as far
as it goes. Then here we have Friends, where a character comes
on screen who looks and lives as a woman. All the characters around
her are calling her dad or
sir and the audience
are whaling with laughter. The writers may be intending to write a
story about how one of the character's fathers dresses in women's
clothes, yet how are we going know the difference between this character and those from Jerry
Springer and Big
Brother?
So from
this ignorant perspective, what can we possibly learn from these
episodes with Chandler's second mum? It would teach us that it's perfectly
ok to talk about Trans women's genital's openly and address them in male pronouns, that's what. It trivialises and makes fun of attitudes that
cause great harm to many.
Friends
was watched by millions upon millions of people, meaning those who knew very little
about the Transgender community - yet enough to associate Chandler's
second mum as being Trans - would receive harmful misinformation which may
help strengthen the belief that misgendering is acceptable and in no way harmful.
Some (but of course not
all) will walk away from this episode thinking that all Trans women
are self-identified-gay-men-in-dresses that are more than happy to be
referred to in pronouns relating to their birth assigned gender. Which, of course, is far from the truth.
South Park Season 18
Episode 3 The Cissy
Although some took offence to the recently released The
Cissy from South Park's 18th season, it can be
argued that the episode's subject matter of Transgender people and
the prejudices they receive when it comes to using public toilets was
presented in a manner which fits firmly within this approach.
From pretty much the start of the episode, Matt Stone and Trey Parker
establish that they have a clear understanding toward the nature of
the subject matter they are dabbling in. They even go into detail by
explaining what the term Transgender means (Cartman: I'm not
comfortable with the sex I was assigned at birth, so I'm exercising
my right to identify with the gender of my choice), the meaning
of the world cisgender (Mr Garrison: It's the politically correct
name for people who aren't transgender. If you identify with the sex
you were born with, then you're cis) and the negative affects the term
normal has on those who don't conform to
society's beliefs regarding gender-and-sex-being-one-of-the-same-thing (Mr Garrison: Saying
"normal" is extremely offensive to people who aren't in
that [cisgender] group). Not only is there a clear awareness toward Transgender identities, but the early scenes of the episode even take
time out to explain these facts to its audience. Already, we are in a
completely different territory to that of Friends.
It's quite easy to see why people took this episode the wrong way.
Even members of the Trans community found The Cissy to be unacceptable. This is most likely because on the surface, it would
appear that the episode is suggesting Trans people have it quite easy
when it comes to using the preferred bathroom of their choice.
Considering that using public bathrooms is a huge problem for many Trans
people in modern society – where they are often attacked or refused
access due to some believing they should use
bathrooms based on their biological sex – it is very easy to misread the episode as nothing more than an attention-seeking cartoon that is
stirring up an incredibly sensitive and delicate debate.
The episode opens with Cartman expressing his anger at having to use
the boys' toilets. He's sick of having to wait in line while all the
other guys use the toilet before him, so he decides to declare himself
Transgender and insists on using the girls' toilets as a result.
At first sight, it would appear that the episode is implying Trans
people use their gender identity as a means of exploiting the system in some way.
Not a very safe message to give off at a time when the debate on
Transgender rights surrounding public restrooms is a hot topic.
However the nature of Cartman is he's a moral vacuum that everyone
watching knows is an ignorant monster who will only ever claim to be
a minority in order to advance his own selfish needs. Via the use of
Wendy and the exposition delivered by Cartman and Mr Garrison on
Transgender matters, audiences are clued in on the basics of the subject, plus
their awareness of Cartman's anti-moral stance within the show
immediately makes them aware that what he's doing has nothing to do
with the reasons behind why Trans people use the bathrooms which reflect
their identity.
Several scenes later we find out that Randy Marsh is also doing
the same thing at his place of work. In this secondary plot,
however, it also transpires that Randy is secretly the 17-year-old
pop star Lorde, who produces most of her music in the bathroom at
work and sends them off to her record label. Again, the plot starts
off with an idiotic character (who again audiences identify as
someone who comes up with extremely poor and careless ideas)
exploiting what they assume is a fool-proof loophole toward a more convenient toilet break.
As the episode moves on, Cartman (now identifying as Erica) is
offered the chance to have her own special bathroom which keeps her
separated from the other less comfortable students. Although this initially comes
across as offensive at first, the story goes on to reveal the
complexities of gender identity and shows Stan trying to figure out
what it all really means to be a boy or girl. He starts to see that
the man-woman binaries are not as clear cut as he's been brought up to believe and even though the episode doesn't explore this in great detail, it
does open up the idea to audiences.
It is during Erica's plot line that Matt and Trey also decide to subvert
the prejudices that Trans people often receive when it comes to using
the bathrooms matching their identities. Even though the
subversion is initially triggered by Cartman – the notorious moral vacuum of
the show – it still manages to flip the oppression on its head;
making the perpetrators of such acts the victims for once. This a common trope
in South Park which
has popped up in numerous past episodes (see With
Apologies to Jesse Jackson for another example).
This acts as a sort of how
do you like it? trick where the bullies become the victim. What better way of
getting the ignorant folks to empathise with the pains they cause.
The episode even ends by having everyone use whatever bathroom makes them most comfortable, whilst ostracising the transphobes (known here as Cissies; a play on both the word cisgender and the trans-misogynistic jibe sissy) to their own segregated toilet (Principal Victoria: Anyone who has a problem sharing a bathroom with people who might be transgender will have to use the special designated bathroom designed to keep them away from the normal people who don't care). The message? If you're intolerant, then you should be the one's pushed into the corner. Not only is this a humorous flip on the head, but it is also a strangely satisfying answer when it comes to addressing the problems some have regarding such a situation*.
The episode even ends by having everyone use whatever bathroom makes them most comfortable, whilst ostracising the transphobes (known here as Cissies; a play on both the word cisgender and the trans-misogynistic jibe sissy) to their own segregated toilet (Principal Victoria: Anyone who has a problem sharing a bathroom with people who might be transgender will have to use the special designated bathroom designed to keep them away from the normal people who don't care). The message? If you're intolerant, then you should be the one's pushed into the corner. Not only is this a humorous flip on the head, but it is also a strangely satisfying answer when it comes to addressing the problems some have regarding such a situation*.
The
secondary plot where Randy becomes Lorde is where the episode's heart
lies however. Again, the episode starts with a fool of a character
trying to get away with using the women's toilets, but soon turns
into something completely different. The scene where Lorde is told
she will receive her own bathroom so that the cisgender women will no longer have to share a toilet with her is absolutely heartbreaking. The
entire scene sides wholeheartedly with Lorde and frames the woman
complaining as the one in the wrong. The hurt in Lorde's eyes when she's told
people don't want to share a bathroom with someone like her exposes
the pains and suffering that dehumanising individuals in such a way
causes.
After
a distraught Lorde is told the news, she returns home and begins
presenting as Randy again. It is known for Trans people who receive
such forms of prejudice (which again empathises their birth assigned
gender) to sometimes respond in such ways. Misgendering, as I've
mentioned, is a subtle way of transphobes telling Trans men and women
to stop being who they want to be because it doesn't match their own ideas of sex and gender being intertwined. To show Lorde reverting back to her male
identity exploits one of the ways in which misgendering can affect
Trans people.
But
fear not, as Sharon – Lorde's wife – steps in to deliver a
monologue which is one of the most heartfelt speeches in the show's
history:
SHARON
All right. Do you know why young people like Lorde
so much? It's because she's something different. Kids
have had pop music artists flash tits and crotch in their
face, and most kids are actually smart enough to be sick
of it. Lorde represents something in all of us, the truth that
wants to be heard. If I could talk to Lorde right now, you
know what I'd tell her? I'd tell her not to let people change
who she is. I'd tell her that if people are making fun of her,
it's probably because they lost touch with being human.
I'd tell her to keep on doing what she does, because when
someone's not allowed to express who they are inside, then
we all lose. That's... what I would say to Lorde.
It's hard not to look at this monologue as anything other than a
speech on how being yourself is all that matters in this world, no
matter what obstacles the ignorant members of this planet place in
your way. If that's not a celebration of non-conforming gender
identities, then I don't know what is.
While Friends
told a story without possessing any knowledge, understanding or sympathy toward
the subject matter they were laughing at (a subject that they
probably didn't even realise they were addressing), South Park
told one by both expressing a great deal of awareness toward the
topic and shedding light on the injustices that are brought on by
oppressing people who don't conform to gender/sex exceptions. South Park explores Trans issues regarding public
restrooms in a highly sympathetic and thought-provoking matter,
whereas Friends just cackles at someone who clearly doesn't
identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. If you were
someone who knew nothing about Transgender individuals and the real
world problems which cause them such distress, which of these two shows
would be the most enlightening?
While some forms of
humour poke fun in a heartless manner, others provide insightful and
alternative perspectives that can help people think about an issue
they may never have initially given a moments thought toward.
*Of course, the best solution would just be to get rid of gender assigned toilets full stop and have one restroom for all, but that's just a matter of opinion of course.
*Of course, the best solution would just be to get rid of gender assigned toilets full stop and have one restroom for all, but that's just a matter of opinion of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment