In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

47 thoughts on More double standards

  1. I’ve read this blog for some time and I’ve ignored the ever-growing stupidity. No more.

    Do you really think she was censored because she’s a woman? Really?

  2. A joke about your own lack of belief, for Pete’s sake. It’s hate speech to portray yourself as idolatrous and godless? Who can we write to about this? It’s a travesty that these coercive tactics are so effective.

  3. I’ve read this blog for some time and I’ve ignored the ever-growing stupidity. No more.

    Do you really think she was censored because she’s a woman? Really?

    Well, let’s talk about ever-growing stupidity. Not to mention unwarranted hostility.

    Darling, there are all kinds of double standards. Do pay attention.

    Cock jokes dealing with het sex= Emmy!

    Joke about Jesus sucking off = Ginned-up outrage from a well-known religious extremist, followed by the censoring of the joke!

    Come on, use your imagination. Do I really have to spell it out for a gal at your illustrious institution of higher larnin’?

  4. I hate how coverage of ‘offensive remarks’ avoids saying what they actually were. From the article linked (“an off-color remark about Christ”) how are we supposed to know what she actually said? Zuzu’s summary — “Joke about Jesus sucking off” — sounds a trifle stronger than I’d imagined, but the article gives me no way of judging for myself. My earlier remarks were based on a flawed guess at the deleted content — what they did quote directly seems well within bounds to me.

    P.S. Depending on how explicit what she said was, I don’t have any problem with them bleeping it — but it is bizarre, as you say, in light of the decision to give an Emmy to that dumb little dirty ditty.

  5. from hollywood reporter, via huffpo she said:
    Griffin drew laughs in her acceptance speech, saying: “Can you believe this shit? Hell has frozen over. Suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now.”

    then from googling at some site called reality blurred she said:
    “Can you believe this shit? I guess hell froze over. … a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. So, all I can say is, ‘suck it, Jesus.’ This award is my god now.”

    and i’m agreed with zuzu, it’s definitely a double standard…

  6. a double standard?

    it is a matter of perspective. As a Christian, I am way more offended by what Kathy Griffin said (whose show I watch, and I actually love) than the Dick in a Box song. I get that she was trying to be funny and shocking, because that is what she does, but it did cross a line for me.

    There is a difference between poor taste (Dick song) and offensive (Griffin’s comment). And the truth is, more people will be offended by her comments than the SNL song.

  8. So, wait, Christians are offended by Kathy Griffin telling Jesus to suck a penis that she doesn’t even have?

    It’s especially funny because with a birth name of Kathleen Mary Griffin, I suspect she has more in common with Bill Donohue than with TQL. (Hint: not too many Protestants are named “Kathleen Mary.”)

  9. Yep, unless I’m completely misremembering, Kathy Griffin was not only raised Catholic, but Irish Catholic.

    I’d try to help Kaethe, but I’m afraid, as a Christian, I don’t find her offensive. I find it a very funny riff on all the people who do thank Jesus for the awards they get for their work, the teams who thank him for their wins, etc. As if Jesus were perched overhead tallying up the piety of all contenders on a little scale. Ever hear the loser start blaming Jesus for the loss? No? Funny that.

  10. I can’t watch the clip (at work). But if I understand correctly, it sounds like the clip being edited is not for the individual words, but for the intended content. Bad move. Bad precedent. Bleep individual words against a consistent standard, but don’t cut content that someone might find offensive.

    If she wants to make a statement, joking or not, on a natioual television show, that could cost her fans or her contract, then she should be free to do so, in my opinion.

    At the same time, this isn’t government censorship or censorship by law, and I think the network has every right to decide what it will and will not air on an entertainment show, and to set standards in advance and enforce them by bleeping or editing if they so choose.

    I didn’t find her comments particularly offensive, but I don’t find them particularly salient to the award, either.

    Looking at it another way, if someone had accepted an award and said something like “I just thank God that no faggots had anything to do with me winning this award.” (Substitute Jews, Mexicans, or any other group of your choice), I don’t think I’d have a problem with the network chosing to edit that out of their show.

    Does the network really have a responsibility to let actors use their entertainment show as a soapbox?

  11. Oh, maybe the fact that she referred to someone that I believe is sacred in an overtly sexual and disrespectful manner. Call me crazy.

    And just because she was raised Catholic in a spiritual or cultural context doesn’t mean that she still practices her faith. There are a lot of lapsed-recovering “Catholics” running around.

  12. As a Christian, I am way more offended by what Kathy Griffin said (whose show I watch, and I actually love) than the Dick in a Box song.

    Okay, cool. Your prerogative. I am certainly not telling you you shouldn’t be offended.

    But should she be censored?

  13. Oh, maybe the fact that she referred to someone that I believe is sacred in an overtly sexual and disrespectful manner. Call me crazy.

    As other people have pointed out, she’s actually referring to the practice of many people thanking Jesus because they won a football game or won an award. She’s saying that she won the award on her own merit, not because Jesus handed it to her.

    But, hey, if your mind immediately went to thinking about Jesus having sex instead, don’t blame us for your dirty mind.

  14. As a Christian, Bill Donohue (sp?) and Bill O’Reilley both offend me on a regular basis. As an intelligent human being and a US citizen, I would never ask nor want them to be censored.

    Christians need to get a better sense of humor about everything–if you believe in God, then you also believe that God wouldn’t want us to have such a joyless, legalistic existence. Jesus may have even found what Griffin said funny, given that he’s thanked for everything else (much of which, I’m quite sure, he would want NOTHING to do with)! C’mon–grow a funnybone or at least pipe down and let the rest of us enjoy ours!

  15. There’s pretty much zero comparison.

    If JT’s video made some sort of lewd comment about Mary, and then that aired, then you might be on to something.

    But he didn’t, and his video was hilarious as it was.

    Telling Jesus to go suck it is offensive to anyone who reveres Jesus.

    Making this into a sexism issue is nonsensical.

  16. Ugh, such stupid shit. I’m with Richard Dawkins & Chris Hitchens on this, religion is awarded this totally fucked up level of respect.
    If you want to believe someone who lived 2,000 years ago and whose life has been chronicled by people who weren’t even alive when he was alive is holy, then that’s your right. But not all of us believe that and you just have to deal with that.

  17. Making this into a sexism issue is nonsensical.

    And another one who doesn’t get it.

    The problem is that religious sensibilities are protected and privileged above all others. And part of that is that outrage whores like Bill Donahue can rain holy hell down on anyone who steps out of line (see, e.g., Marcotte, Amanda; McEwan, Melissa; and Jesus, Chocolate).

  18. The problem is that religious sensibilities are protected and privileged above all others

    It’s one thing to argue against that, and it’s quite another to say this was sexism.

  20. It’s one thing to argue against that, and it’s quite another to say this was sexism.

    WELL, IT’S A GOOD THING I NEVER SAID IT WAS SEXISM, THEN, ISN’T IT?

    In fact, I didn’t even mention the gender of the person who’s getting censored.

    Read, my dearies. READ.

  21. You’re right. I read Jessica’s post and your response to it, and for some reason I didn’t see that you never actually said anything about sexism.

    Mea culpa.

  22. I agree that this is an example of Christianity (or at least sacred beliefs) being privileged, but I am not quite sure that putting it up against the video constitutes a meaningful example of double standard as such.

    In a way, the secular (sexual) is being privileged over the percieved negative remarks by Griffin, by being aired when the other isn’t. Certainly, there are plenty of people who will be upset over the award given to the video, given the subject matter.

    I’m not sure what you are calling the “other” in the double standard.

    That said, you are definitely right that this is a perfect example of religion being treated far more carefully than anything else would be.

    MoxieHart, it is a bit more twisted than you give it credit for. The people most likely to object to anti-religious speech (real or perceived) are the ones who claim to be believers. For them, it isn’t about someone who died 2000 years ago – it is about someone who is still alive and present today. And who is effectively omnipotent and able to make His Displeasure known if He so Chose.

    So really, seems to me the response to the offended Christians (scare quotes optional) who objected to Griffin’s comment of “Suck it, Jesus” would most approprately be — “Shut up, she wasn’t talking to you.” Let Jesus answer for himself if he wants to. Given that he forgave the people who stapled him to a tree, chances are he’d be more than happy to overlook this one. Assuming he wasn’t laughing at it all to begin with.

  23. Peter said: “Looking at it another way, if someone had accepted an award and said something like “I just thank God that no faggots had anything to do with me winning this award.” (Substitute Jews, Mexicans, or any other group of your choice), I don’t think I’d have a problem with the network chosing to edit that out of their show.”

    Its true, I probably wouldn’t have the same reaction if the network chose to edit something like that out of the show. But what Kathy Griffin said was completely different from that. She wasn’t saying “Thank God that no Christians had anything to do with me winning this award.” What she said wasn’t a demonstration of hate towards a group of people, and can only be read as such by those people who think that if you don’t go around constantly declaring your belief in Jesus right along with them then you are causing direct and personal harm to them.

  25. No, I don’t think she should be censored. If she wants to make an ass of herself and offend people (which she won an EMMY for!) that’s her business.

    But to say that it is a double standard, as if to assume that she was censored based on sexism is ridiculous.

    Joyless Christians? How about joyless feminists….

  27. But to say that it is a double standard, as if to assume that she was censored based on sexism is ridiculous.

    READ the POST.

  28. Is there a way to add some kind of I.Q. test or reading comprehension test that has to be passed before people’s comments are allowed to go through (like a capcha, only to make sure they’re not idiots instead of to make sure they’re not spammers)?

  29. i would just like to point out the broadcasters are excercising their first ammendment rights, by censoring griffith…just as I’m sure feministe does by moderating comments,.

  30. But what Kathy Griffin said was completely different from that. She wasn’t saying “Thank God that no Christians had anything to do with me winning this award.”

    Quite right. I withdraw that ground to my objection. It really isn’t the same, beyond the tendency of a chunk of the audience to be offended. (The offended will still see it the same way as before – as a personal attack on them, but you are still right.)

    Actually, by saying that Jesus had nothing to do with her award, and then directly speaking to him, she was affirming his present existence! Christians should be thrilled and call it a witness!

    Or maybe not. Anyway, I still see that the network has the right to edit their own program for whatever reasons they want to. If we object enough, we can choose not to watch. (A decision I pretty much made decades ago, with regards the Emmys, at least).

  31. i would just like to point out the broadcasters are excercising their first ammendment rights, by censoring griffith…just as I’m sure feministe does by moderating comments,.

    The First Amendment’s got nothing to do with the moderation of comments here. The First Amendment only protects you against governmental interference with your right to free speech; it does not require private citizens with websites to provide you a forum to say anything you want. If we ban somebody, it does not stop that person from saying what they want somewhere else, and it does not constitute an infringement on that person’s First Amendment rights.

    Good Lord, I am so tired of that misconception.

  32. Is there a way to add some kind of I.Q. test or reading comprehension test that has to be passed before people’s comments are allowed to go through (like a capcha, only to make sure they’re not idiots instead of to make sure they’re not spammers)?
    I second that.

  33. Well, in reading the initial post, you weren’t clear in where the double standard was. So, since this is a feminist blog, I assumed that the basis of the double standard was gender.

    Oops, my bad.

  34. The First Amendment’s got nothing to do with the moderation of comments here. The First Amendment only protects you against governmental interference with your right to free speech; it does not require private citizens with websites to provide you a forum to say anything you want. If we ban somebody, it does not stop that person from saying what they want somewhere else, and it does not constitute an infringement on that person’s First Amendment rights

    er zuzu, that was my point.

  35. Well, in reading the initial post, you weren’t clear in where the double standard was. So, since this is a feminist blog, I assumed that the basis of the double standard was gender.

    Oops, my bad.

    The comment thread clarified this before you arrived, you ignorant fool. You’re expected to read the thread before posting. Pillock.

  36. While I understand this post is not saying it was about sexism, that creep Donohue does seem to have a pattern of going after women who make comments/write blog posts/do anything that offend his delicate Catholic sensibilities much more than he goes after men (the artist of the chocolate Jesus seems to have been an exception). There was a pretty interesting article in Salon about this.

    Why the people running the teevee run scared from that twit, while they’re not worried about offending people with the stupid Dick in a Box thing, I don’t get.

  37. Clearly, I missed the clarification. Excuse me!

    You know, ya’ll really know how to show respect to folks who dare have a differing opinion than you. I made a comment. I was asked to clarify, and I did that.

    And Sarah, I soooo appreciate your use of big, scary words to insult me and question my intelligence! So civil…so kind.

  38. You know, ya’ll really know how to show respect to folks who dare have a differing opinion than you. I made a comment. I was asked to clarify, and I did that.

    It would help if you didn’t repeat the same boneheaded assumption that this was about sexism after it had been brought up and refuted THREE TIMES ALREADY.

    People were perfectly respectful to you about the Jesus stuff, but you showed that you hadn’t bothered to read either the post or the three different comments saying that this was not about sexism.

  41. Pingback: bastard.logic
  42. Pingback: Slacker Friday: Lipstick On A Pig » Comments From Left Field
  43. Pingback: Feministe » Example of Said Double Standards

  44. This thread is likely doornail-dead, but I just had to address this:

    it is a matter of perspective. As a Christian, I am way more offended by what Kathy Griffin said (whose show I watch, and I actually love) than the Dick in a Box song. I get that she was trying to be funny and shocking, because that is what she does, but it did cross a line for me.

    Good fucking God (eek!) get a grip. As an atheist, I am WAY more offended by you and your Christ-fluffing ilk’s self-righteous posturing and how the media bows down to it, as well as the way athletes and entertainers shamelessly use Jesus as a goddamn prop and publicity stunt (IMO, akin to what Roger Ebert dubbed ‘horizontal prayer’). It’s like Eve Libertine said: “He’s the ultimate pornography”.

    Which, one could infer, was likely what Griffin was getting at in her trademark irreverent, outspoken manner. One should ask oneself why what she said was so ‘shocking’. There was a strong current of truth in what she said; too bad no one was allowed to hear it.

    Jesus (and Bill D.) can suck my hairy left one.

  45. You’d be surprised…or maybe not…at the visceral reactions you’d get if you even question God or Jesus’ existence, let alone purportedly mock them. The reaction isn’t so much conscious as it is Pavlovian; it has been instilled in people almost from birth that you don’t question, inspect, deride icons on which you base your faith. To do so is to risk the proverbial…or at least verbal…thunderbolt. To intellectualize on the concept of God, or to diminish his godhood, at least to some, of course, amounts to blasphemy or heresy. Faith in itself asks you to override your intelligence.

    Personally, I don’t find Griffith’s comments funny, but I understand the vehemence behind her detractors. And I suspect so does she as she is a comic who goes there for the shock value.

  46. Well, in reading the initial post, you weren’t clear in where the double standard was. So, since this is a feminist blog, I assumed that the basis of the double standard was gender.

    that’s right. feminists don’t talk about ANYTHING except sexism. it’s in the rule book!!

  47. I gotta disagree with you Zuzu, I think this has a lot to do with sexism. The dick in a box song is about a man telling a woman to suck it. Kathy Griffin is a woman who told not just a man, but Ultra God Man, to suck it. One is funny because women exist to suck it, the other is not funny because Jesus, and by extension men, are supposed to be free from demands that they suck it.

Comments are currently closed.