Comedy At Its Worst

By Danielle Roper

I chose to study Political Humour and Social Transformation because I truly believe that it can be a space for marginalized people to speak out and that Humour can be an instrument of change. However, like every profession, the comedy industry is not immune to society’s inequities and comedians often have to buy into prejudices or stereotypes about certain groups of people to be successful. An Argentine cartoonist, Daniel Paz told me that in order for a joke to be funny, it must be based on a common social norm or assumption that everybody shares. So if you want to make a joke about your mother-in-law, you have to use all the stereotypes and associations that the public has about the mother-in-law in order for the joke to be funny. Basically, a joke requires that you use notions about gender, race and sexuality so that people can laugh. He told me that a joke is always a result of a cultural, social, and political context as well as the ideological norms of any given society; And the comedian must know this to make people laugh. Comedians themselves are not immune to having racist, sexist or homophobic views of different groups of people. So when Mr Paz told me this, I knew he was right but when I saw Micheal Richards' (Kramer from Seinfeld) racist outburst at a gig at a local comedy club, I thought, geez, did he really have to be that right about it?
Find video below:



Now the question is not whether or not his outburst was racist, I mean that goes without saying right? Like duh! But what is important to consider is that he felt that he could say it. That outburst probably would not have happened had he been performing in front of an all black audience or if the owners of the club were black. Kramer felt that the comedy club as a public space was a white space that belonged to him and other white people. So the intimidation and attack on the black man is not just a personal feud between two individuals at the comedy club, it is the establishment of his authority and control over a public space that must only be accessible to whites. The ‘interruption’ of the black man at the comedy club is more than a distraction in a comedy routine; The black man’s mere presence is an intrusion upon a white hegemonic public space and a public threat to Kramer’s white authority over that space.
Perhaps the most obvious display of white solidarity and privilege is the fact that the owners of the club allowed him to perform the very next day and have not released the official copy of the video showing his entire performance. Had a member of the audience not videotaped and leaked it out, we probably would not have known about it. The comedy club’s position or their failure to publicly take a position on the issue is important because Kramer as a performer is also representing them. A comedy club is a business which has policies about what can and cannot be said at their show so not taking a stance or remaining silent is to endorse his racist behaviour.
However, let us not forget that there were white people who walked out at the performance and who were also disgusted by his behaviour. So it is not that all white people sat there in support or his racism, there were those who allied themselves with the people of colour in that moment.
Lets take a look at his apology:



There are several problems with the ‘apology’: 1. He has not come out to the media himself and apologized. Why is Seinfeld giving him the opportunity to do so? Is it not Michael Richard who should have come forward and done it himself? 2. The terminology of the apology: Who are Afro-Americans? At any rate, African-Americans are not a ‘community’ they are individuals and ought not to be clumped into one group. Also, given that they are citizens like everybody else, he as a public figure with fans etc, owes the Black man and the public an apology for his actions. 3. The ‘I’m Not even a Racist remark.’... I won’t elaborate on this, I think you all get it.
Additionally, given the laughter from the audience and then the thunderous applause after his apology, it is safe to say that his apology is not being taken seriously and has prompted no real discussion about his racism.

But what about what the African Americans had to say:

African American response:



What I think is of most importance, is that a white woman is defending the African Americans in this scenario. This is important because white women have a long history of functioning as/positioning themselves and being positioned by white men as mediators between people of colour and white people. So if you watch a movie like King Kong, which is really a conversation about civilization and barbarianism where civilization- read white, refined city etc- defeats barbarianism- read gorilla/animal with black cannibal natives from the wilderness- you’ll notice that it is a white woman who is kidnapped by the gorilla and who understands him in the end of the movie. A white woman in that movie as mediator and investigator of the ‘unknown’ or ‘incomprehensible’ becomes the site of negotiation between the powerful and powerless who does not have the legitimacy to speak for himself. In this scenario, two black men with a white female lawyer mirrors King Kong to me because she as mediator is speaking for the black man who has no authority to speak for himself. Don’t get me wrong, it is strategic to have a white woman represent the black man because it shows that white people were impacted too and that white people stand in solidarity with people of colour. However, it also falls into an endless cycle where in order for black people to challenge white authority they cannot do it directly, they must be spoken for or represented by a white person. What is a stake is who has the authority and the legitimacy to directly challenge white privilege and in this scenario, blacks do not possess such authority.

I also want to comment on the fact that one of the black guys in his interview on the Today Show referred to Latinos as Mexicans. When are we going to get with the program and realize that all Latinos are NOT from Mexico and should NOT be referred to as Mexicans? They are LATINOS! While it is true that they (the African-Americans)have internalized stereotypes about Latinos, their own prejudices do not have the same systemic impact that white prejudice has because they live in a white dominated society. This doesn’t mean that clumping Latinos is okay, it just means that it does not have the same impact.
Similarly, calling Kramer a ‘cracker’ at the show is not okay either but given the fact that racism as a system that historically and presently privileges white people and oppresses people of colour, black prejudices do not have the same consequences for whites. In other words, blacks also have their own prejudice against white people but do NOT possess the power to enforce that prejudice in a systematic way.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this horrific display of anti-black racism is that no one sees it as the display of a larger problem: systemic and systematic racism. Micheal Richards/Kramer has internalized prejudices against black people but we only acknowledge that racism exists when hate speech occurs. Even though statistically, people of colour do not have equal economic, social and political access we only think America has racism when white people use racial slurs or epithets. So the conversation switches to why all comedians should stop saying 'nigger' and 'bitch' without thinking about how a whole system is set up that privileges whites and disadvantages people of colour. The discussion on hate speech is not about dismantling white privilege in a systematic way, it is about making that privilege less visible. So we end up thinking when hate speech stops then racism no longer exists instead of thinking how can we dismantle the myth of the meritocracy.
©Danielle Roper

All videos coutesy of www.youtube.com

Point of interest:
Check out the latest article about the killing of an unarmed black man by police officers before his wedding: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/189611.php

You can read more of Danielle's articles on her own blog, The Long-Legged-Short-Torso Diaries. Danielle currently lives in Argentina.

Moving Forward and Giving Back (A More Convenient Truth)

By Ilana Panich-Linsman

I spent May to August adjusting and readjusting my bum on my bicycle seat. My friend Colin and I went on a grueling cross-country journey from the Atlantic to the Pacific, on bicycle, raising money for Hurricane Katrina victims.

My decision to make the trip evolved gradually. At first, I was part of a crew, not biking, but documenting through photography what was sure to be an adventure of a lifetime. Then I realized that I could probably do it.

In the months leading up to our departure, all of my energy, time, and money was spent preparing for the trip. There was the fundraising. There was the promotion. I had to find the right bike(s) at the right price. We had to get all the right camping equipment. My local REI
practically knew my name when I walked in the door. We made countless lists: things we had to do/buy/plan/map. And, after my daily hours were logged planning, I had to go to the gym and train. My daily life was consumed with preparation. I felt exhausted but excited.

The trip began and we hurt and we whined and we rubbed cream on our butts and took ibuprofen by the bottle. I kept thinking (because there's not much else to do when you're on a bike for 8-12 hours a day) about my reasons for biking all these miles. I wanted to make a
difference in the lives of people who lost homes, dignity, and families during Hurricane Katrina. I wanted to accomplish something for myself. I wanted to document just how wonderful/interesting/beautiful/unique/sad this country and this trip were.

In Missoula, Montana we took two days off to cool our heels, eat sushi and see a movie.

"I heard this was good," Colin, my partner in crime said, pointing to the movie theater marquee. I had never heard of “An Inconvenient Truth.” Actually, I was surprised Colin had heard of it — considering we had been limited to only each other's company for weeks.

We sat in the theater, enjoying our respite from the heat and our few moments without the responsibility of our bikes and our belongings. (bikes were locked outside the theater and our belongings awaiting us at our campsite) We watched intently as Al Gore clearly and plainly explained not only global warming, but also, inadvertently, the purpose of our trip.

You see, never before Missoula had I considered why the trip seemed the right thing to do. I knew about global warming (well, I knew it was happening — somewhere out there). I knew about Katrina and I knew that by making myself extremely uncomfortable for an entire
summer I was somehow doing something good for the world and myself. But I hadn’t put the pieces together.

Al Gore pulled all the aspects of our trip together into one neat package. Our trip was symbolic. It was a symbol of the solidarity we felt with our fellow Americans who were victims not just of a natural disaster, but also of our government. The trip was a symbol of our personal futures, and the future of our nation. After all, as Mr. Gore explains, if not for global warming caused by the world's pollution, Hurricane Katrina may not have been quite so devastating.

We traveled East to West, just as our forefathers and foremothers did hundreds of years ago. We literally saw what western expansion looked like. We saw the land of this truly beautiful country rich with history. We saw that this same land, once home to Native Americans, was now paved over and clogged with thousands of RVs. These were the RVs that nearly ran us off roads, and the very same RVs that contribute to global warming.

We were taking a stand against global warming and for the first time I knew why that was important. And when people asked Why Bikes, instead of saying Why Not? I could tell them how biking positively changes the world. Even if just a tiny bit.

It was a sad trip in many ways. We saw how the country's lack of protection for its land and its people have caused overdevelopment, the worst excesses of corporate America, poverty, and sadness. But we also saw a land rich with people who encouraged us on our journey and
literally picked us up if we were down.

We learned that each of us determines our future relationship with the earth. It is up to us to inform ourselves, and others, about the human footprint on this earth.

With our bikes beneath us, and our bums only slightly more comfortable, we pedaled to the future: a place where we might save our mother earth by joining the crew that will lead to sustainable energy. Moved by the generous humanity I saw on this trip, I am inspired to help others when they’re down.

EC: It Isn't Just For Women Anymore (Exactly)

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

When I was an undergrad interested in women’s health care, my end-of-semester project for biology class was to study sperm. My friend (and lab partner) and I had solid reasoningsa for this: the kind of revolutionaries we wanted to be in the women’s health field were ones who created a viable male contraceptive (besides condoms, which we knew from experience males did not particularly like). This project, by the way, dates me because it was just at the early cusp of the AIDS epidemic back when sexually transmitted diseases basically meant gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes. Anyway, the point was that almost all research was going into new contraceptives for women (the sponge, for example), and some of it felt invasive or scary to us, personally. Certain IUD’s were facing recall. Depo-Provera and other long-acting drug fixes weren’t necessarily safe, but were being pushed and the pill had undergone some serious refining from its early days when the hormonal doses were way too high and had caused many problems. We noticed that female contraceptives had a way of being pushed before they were well tested, but that male contraceptives didn’t seem to reach the widespread testing phase. Obviously, we understood that like with condoms, compliance was an issue that worried those in public health; men, given their inability to get pregnant, perhaps would be less responsible than women about using contraceptives.

These days, condoms are, at least in theory, critical for both males and females.

Interestingly, now that Emergency Contraceptives (EC or Plan B, or the Morning After Pill) are going to become available over the counter in pharmacies (including, after a lawsuit, Wal-Mart), both women and men can buy them. The barrier now isn’t gender but age: you have to be eighteen to purchase EC (see this article in Women's ENews). Having said that, boyfriends, sisters, brothers or mothers can now obtain EC for women under eighteen (as long as they have picture ID). The other barriers may be cost (Medicaid won’t cover over-the-counter drugs), and ensuring that all pharmacists provide it (although now chains will, what about individual pharmacists at independent pharmacies?).

While more types of female contraceptives are widely available, no significant gains have been made in creating or marketing male contraceptives. And the rate for unintended pregnancy rate in the US remains high: forty-nine percent in 2001.

Woman Empowered (as consumers and comodities)

By E. Bestpitch

“The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.”*
Ellen Browning Scripps

The mission of Scripps College is to educate women to develop their intellects and talents through active participation in a community of scholars, so that as graduates they may contribute to society through public and private lives of leadership, service, integrity, and creativity.

The smells, sounds and sights of my alma mater are not yet unfamiliar to me. Only six months ago I was preparing for my departure from Scripps College, and a short two years before that I lived in this very dorm, Kimberly.

The Resident Advisors’ rooms are in still in the same spot, the familiar television room houses the same hotel lobby-looking furniture, and students’ doors are still plastered with pictures, stickers, and notes from friends. Nothing seems to have changed much at all since I left, with the exception of the wall decorations that the peer mentors** put up every year.

The year I lived in Kimbo, laserjet print-outs of classic Peanuts characters were plastered on the walls. We each got one character on our door, next to our name. My last year in school I lived in an ocean-themed dorm—construction paper cutouts of sand castles, beach balls, sea horses and fish lined our halls. Other themes which were considerably less tolerable included fairytale fantasies, replete with princesses flouting long hair, flowing dresses, and the signature helplessness that compels an inevitable heterosexual storybook coupling of a schlub-turned-dragon-slayer and a helpless heiress to unfathomable fortune.

Since I chose not to take part in the peer mentor program, I had no say in the decorating and thus did not complain. But as I recently traversed the halls of the school that granted me my Bachelor’s degree in Sociology, I could not help but fume over the colorful cutouts decorating my much-loved Kimbo. The images in the halls shocked and bewildered me for a moment, then angered me. Upon approaching the front hallway in this Vegas-themed dorm, I noticed cutouts of Prada and Gucci purses, shopping bags, a Visa Black credit card, novelty-sized diamond rings, and ornate high-heeled shoes.

Women are consistently depicted in commercial advertising as consumers, unrelenting in their attachment to products (the slogan “diamonds are forever” comes to mind), and also as the consumed—often as the reward for a (heterosexual) male using or purchasing a specific product. (Think of Axe body product commercials, wherein Axe users are depicted as literal magnets for females.)

Females are seen as both primary consumers as mothers and keepers of the house, as well as commodities in and of themselves. While these roles may seem contradictory, the fact remains: advertisers target females in their ads, playing upon traditional gender roles of women as caretakers while simultaneously attracting males to consumerism by depicting women as commodities to be possessed. Walking through Kimbo and seeing reproductions of advertisements that encourage a life of consumerism for the sake of being a commodity did not sit well with me. It bothered me not only from the perspective of gender but also of class.

It would be one thing to post construction-paper cutouts of the Target logo, Payless shoes, and cubic zirconium rings. But Prada and Gucci represent a consumer market that is limited to an upper-middle class status to which many students do not belong, and to which many do not aspire, myself included. For a school that boasts diversity, the dorm decorations chosen by peer mentors certainly alienate students who cannot and/or do not relate to upper-class consumerism. And as a school that extols the importance of female empowerment I have to wonder at the implicitly sexist quasi-advertising of high heels, Prada, Gucci, and diamonds—things that females consume in order to become more valuable commodities.

The mission of Scripps College is to breed a sense of integrity, creativity, compassion and thoughtfulness in our lives. Kimbo’s Vegas-themed decorations--staring students in the face every day—encourage an unequal and thoughtless brand of capitalism and promote a sense of materialism that lacks any creativity or compassion. While some students may recognize that this display is an undeserved lauding of vacuous consumerism, I undoubtedly believe that this re-creation of media-touted models of consumer and class practices comes from the subconscious consumer voice that commercials, billboards, and Hollywood have worked so hard to fuel within us. That scares me.

Funny how walking down a hallway that flaunted such richesse could make me feel so cheap.

*Scripps College mission statement, as laid out in their college catalogue.
** peer mentors are students who assume middle-management positions between other students and the resident advisors. Ostensibly their duties include resolving dorm conflict, counseling first year students as needed, and planning dorm-wide or school-wide events.

References
Female as consumer/commodity advertising images: http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/consume.htm

A video depicting the female consumer:
http://ia300120.us.archive.org/1/items/Consumin1967/Consumin1967.mpg

A discussion of women as consumers and their consumer role in the economy:
http://www.unpac.ca/economy/consumers.html

For more information:
Leading author and lecturer on advertising and its effect on women as consumers and commodities
http://www.jeankilbourne.com/index.html

An article on female empowerment, consumerism, and the “metrosexual” phenomenon
http://hedonisticpleasureseeker.wordpress.com/2006/11/05/in-which-the-hedonistic-pleasureseeker-muses-on-female-empowerment-metrosexuals-and-consumer-culture/

Take Action: This Man Doesn't Believe in Birth Control

As mentioned in the NYT article previosly posted,

Eric Keroack was the medical director of five so-called "crisis
pregnancy centers" that oppose contraception and do not
distribute information promoting birth control. In Keroack's new
role, he will oversee hundreds of millions of dollars in federal
funding meant to provide access to contraception and
reproductive health information. This politically motivated
appointment is not in the health interest of women and families.

Please sign this petition to Secretary Leavitt and make your voice heard.

Dear Secretary Leavitt,

As an advocate for women's health and access to birth control and medically accurate sex education, I am outraged by the appointment of Eric Keroack to the position of deputy assistant secretary for population affairs (DASPA). Eric Keroack's role as the medical director of six so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that oppose contraception and family planning calls into question his ability to administer the nation's family planning program. Keroack also has testified in favor of biased counseling provisions in the Massachusetts legislature and has produced numerous writings that promote politics over sound science and medicine.

As the new DASPA, Keroack will oversee Title X and have authority over hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding meant to provide access to contraception and reproductive health information. Title X has been crucial in helping millions of American women prevent unintended pregnancies and obtain reproductive health care for three decades.

The appointment of anti-birth control, anti-sex education advocate Eric Keroack to oversee the nation's family planning program is not in the health interest of women and families. Three weeks ago, Americans overwhelmingly rejected an extremist agenda, and sent a clear message that women's health care is a priority. I am asking you to do the same.

It's time to move forward with policies that can help prevent unintended pregnancies, including support for broader access to contraceptives and comprehensive, fact-based sex education. Because I care about commonsense solutions that protect women's health, like an affirmative Prevention First agenda that includes full funding for birth control, I urge you to replace Eric Keroack with a Title X administrator who is committed to protecting women's health.

Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]