In early December, 2012, the media was afire with a civil rights story unlike anything seen before it: three women in California had eaten at a restaurant, and when the bill came it was discovered they had been described as “Fat girls” on it. Stories were written about their honor, the slander, and the overall outrage at something so horrible happening in the 21st Century.
In late February, 2013, Seth MacFarlane was hung out to dry by the media. After hosting the Oscars and delivering an “Ugly, sexist” performance, he was pilloried across the airwaves; it’s several weeks since the event, and I still see articles written and posted by the offended.
On March 17th, 2013, two football jocks in Steubenville Ohio were found guilty of rape, and the media…
…felt bad for two boys whose lives were ruined by the guilty verdict.
Wait, what?
No, you didn’t read that incorrectly. Major media coverage of the trial’s end involved much in the way of empathy for the two boys whose lives would be forever altered by being labeled “Sex Offenders.” This seemed to neglect the concept that they wouldn’t wear such a scarlet letter had they not committed the act of rape in the first place.
(Logic: it’s hard)
In the most widely-circulated example of identifying with the attackers, CNN’s Poppy Harlow went on ad nauseum about how horrible it was the two rapists were going to jail. Other news outlets expressed similar sorrow for the rapists, and several went so far as to publish the victim’s identity. This despite the fact she is a minor.
As I read various reports and watched the CNN video myself, I wondered how the media could cover this story with a moral compass spun so south. And then I remembered the first two stories listed above.
If I may marry Aesop and Chaucer for a moment, I would say society cried “Wolf” once too often, and because of it the chickens came home to roost.
Return to the top of this meandering thought bubble: I watched as moral outrage was flung about with self-righteous fury as three overweight women were described as “fat” by a teenager wearing a paper hat. I saw people calling for his immediate termination, and demands made that he reimburse the poor women for their bill. Multiple streams of thought fired across my synapses, none of which gave me any insight into how this event could possibly be any sort of news story in a moral world. Had nothing whatsoever happened on the planet that day, that three women with hurt feelings made the national news?
My response to it all was fairly even-keeled: Should the kid have to apologize? Sure, why not? But fired? Made to pay for their bill? Oh hell-to-the no.
(*snaps fingers*)
But, as said, I saw people calling for his head on a platter; “You have no idea what it’s like to not want to eat right or exercise!” was shouted in furious indignation.
(Well, I could be paraphrasing there, but that was technically the core of the matter. It seemed to be nothing more than a victim mentality, if you will, where not eating salad and/or going for the occasional walk somehow meant that it was the big wide world’s fault the angry few didn’t look like Victoria’s Secret models.)
Next up: Seth MacFarlane at the Oscars. Seth-Screaming Liberal-MacFarlane. A man who is almost over-the-top pro-gay and pro-woman; a man who donates money to both gay and women’s causes. Because he was hosting, for the first time in years I tuned in to watch millionaires hand millionaires statues and clap one another on the back because of how wonderful they all are. “Why not?” I asked. “I loves me the Family Guy; let’s see what Seth brings to the table.” Turns out, I should have taken his turn hosting Saturday Night Live as an ominous harbinger of what was to come.
As I watched the train wreck unfold, all I could think was, “Wow, how boring.” I had hoped for a bit of the Comedy Central Roast-host Seth; I got vanilla ice cream. Sure, he had a zinger here and there—Rihanna took one on the chin for being an idiot who supports the abuse of women; Mel Gibson was hit for one of his old tirades—but those few moments aside, all was bland.
Imagine my surprise when the next day all I saw were cries of sexism, homophobia, and more sexism. At first I wondered if I had watched the same show as some of the outraged commentators, but then I started reading their articles. Every one of them looked like a Mad Libs version of journalism, where the template had been laid long before the event. “I was outraged when Seth said __________. And when he made the joke about _________, that crossed the line of good taste.”
It made me depressed, because it has been said that if you have to explain a joke, it’s not funny. But what do you do when people are just so fucking stupid (meaning wrapped up in self righteous indignation) that explaining the point they missed is the only approach?
Which brings it all home to Ohio.
In Steubenville, a poor girl was drugged and violated. As if that wasn’t horrific enough, pictures were taken of the event and spread around. As if THAT wasn’t enough, local authorities pooh-poohed everything, declining to investigate the crime and treating the local football jocks guilty of everything in a “Boys will be boys” manner.
(Well, only if they can throw a football, that is. Had the local dirtball been picked up for a minor pot offense, I can only assume he would have been jailed immediately.)
If not for the wonders of the Internet and the talents of Anonymous, things might not have come to light. But Anonymous fought for what was right, and in the end two of the many criminals that night (and I include those who witnessed without participating as criminals) to justice.
And, as said above, the media wept.
No, not for the victim, but for the athletes who had their lives ruined.
Again, I wondered how such a wrong-minded position could be taken, and I remembered what happens when you stretch thin your point.
I shall explain.
In the early 1990s, a group of “concerned families” decided to protest the show Married With Children. They decried it as horrific, and an attack on American Family Values. Personally, I found the show funny, and had the thought, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.”
(Logic: still hard)
What happened next was interesting. I’m not sure if it was the same proponents of the American Family, or if another group tried to piggyback the first, but another villain was pointed out and attacked. This new villain would influence children to speak out against their parents, cause trouble in school, and disrupt the moral fabric of society.
The villain was: Bart Simpson.
Suddenly, anyone attacking TV seemed a lot less serious and a lot more silly. The core message had been watered down, and that’s all it took to end every anti-show movement.
When the Ohio rapists were convicted, many, many people said “They never should have taken those pictures.” Not, “They never should have raped that girl,” but “They never should have taken those pictures.”
When the women in California received their bill, very few voices said, “That kid should have taken ‘Fat girls’ off the receipt before giving it to them,” but many cried, “How dare he have that awful message on there in the first place!”
Notice the difference?
Relating that to what I’m discussing today:
- When outrage is pushed as the agenda du jour…
- When you say that three women who refuse to hit the treadmill are worthy of attention because they were made fun of…
- When you refuse to see the subtext of a joke and glean the meaning behind someone’s train of thought and instead crow about your limited way of viewing the world…
…then you become too one-note and not worth listening to. Unfortunately, if a sane voice then tries to rise up amidst the ocean of nonsense, it won’t be heard.
In this case, the breaking point came at the expense of a young woman in Ohio, someone who deserved better than to hear she ruined the lives of her rapists.
But hey…
Those women in California, they did get that one kid fired from his job.
So… win?
Awesome people buy books.
Click the picture for purchasing options. Word.