Oscars

[epilogue]

I didn't realize this backlash was happening. I try to tune it out, honestly.

But I'm guessing next year they'll have to have a woman hosting. I'm sure it won't be Sarah Silverman.

[Jorge]

I consider myself a feminist. And usually I'm one of those hyper sensitive people that finds offense in every little thing. I admit that. But having now read the New Yorker article, I have to say, it reads to me like an agenda piece. It's reactionary at best, petty at worst. It's looking to pick a fight. No different than what the New York Post does daily (did you see their cover the next day with Jennifer Lawrence on her knees covering her face and the caption 'FALLEN STAR!"?)

To me, there are real issues, there are real fights, and distracting from those things while we get upset about this song is counter productive. It was stupid (and yes, funny) song about how stupid (and yes, unfunny) dudes are and the general populations narrow (and yes sexist) view of art and woman in filmmaking. It's the definition of satire. Even if it isn't especially inspired satire.

See, that whole "there are real fights" and "there are bigger issues" thing, I find that to be a cop-out and a half. Someone can agitate for one set of important issues without ignoring another set of important issues. I think the media's attitudes towards women (the media being a hugely influential force on society as a whole, informing young people-- our sons and daughters-- and thereby influencing and exacerbating future cultural norms and behaviors) is a worthy topic to get agitated over. At the very least, it's a worthy conversation to have. You think that New Yorker article is an agenda piece? Whose agenda? The agenda of someone demanding respect? I mean, yeah. You'd probably think the same of the thousands of other articles that echo its sentiments. That's what they are.

The song is one of the problems (a big one, to be sure) that I had with MacFarlane's hosting, but the whole ordeal had a really creepy, sexist and hostile undertone to it. Slapping Future-Kirk on top of it felt like a way to say "hey, we know we're being trashy, but here's this song anyway! Let's laugh at actresses and their breasts!".

[nyquillyn]

Please, for the love of all that is good, don't compare Family Guy to South Park. One is the smartest show on TV, the other is a series of lame jokes joined together by an even lamer storyline. In a perfect world, Seth MacFarlane would be working at Taco Bell or at least wasting away in cubicle hell.

[epilogue]

I consider myself a feminist. And usually I'm one of those hyper sensitive people that finds offense in every little thing. I admit that. But having now read the New Yorker article, I have to say, it reads to me like an agenda piece. It's reactionary at best, petty at worst. It's looking to pick a fight. No different than what the New York Post does daily (did you see their cover the next day with Jennifer Lawrence on her knees covering her face and the caption 'FALLEN STAR!"?)

To me, there are real issues, there are real fights, and distracting from those things while we get upset about this song is counter productive. It was stupid (and yes, funny) song about how stupid (and yes, unfunny) dudes are and the general populations narrow (and yes sexist) view of art and woman in filmmaking. It's the definition of satire. Even if it isn't especially inspired satire.

See, that whole "there are real fights" and "there are bigger issues" thing, I find that to be a cop-out and a half. Someone can agitate for one set of important issues without ignoring another set of important issues. I think the media's attitudes towards women (the media being a hugely influential force on society as a whole, informing young people-- our sons and daughters-- and thereby influencing and exacerbating future cultural norms and behaviors) is a worthy topic to get agitated over. At the very least, it's a worthy conversation to have. You think that New Yorker article is an agenda piece? Whose agenda? The agenda of someone demanding respect? I mean, yeah. You'd probably think the same of the thousands of other articles that echo its sentiments. That's what they are.

The song is one of the problems (a big one, to be sure) that I had with MacFarlane's hosting, but the whole ordeal had a really creepy, sexist and hostile undertone to it. Slapping Future-Kirk on top of it felt like a way to say "hey, we know we're being trashy, but here's this song anyway! Let's laugh at actresses and their breasts!".

So let's talk about why there aren't any female color commentators in professional sports. There's a great example of how women are viewed in the media. I don't disagree that's it's a real issue.

My problem is that by attacking this song (which I think people are being hyper sensitive about, and attacking because it's easy not because it's appropriate or justified) people are acting like they're doing something, but they're only doing some easy and potentially lazy instead of doing something about actual media perceptions. It is an important conversation, but I'm not sure how this fits.

Seth's Mel Gibson joke got zero laughs. Zero. And his response, "oh, you're on his side?" (paraphrased) was brilliant. It's hypocritical. He calls out a genuine misogynist and the crowd freaks out and accuses his song of being sexist? That's weird to me.

I'm not saying the song is brilliant humor. But turning it into an issue is counter productive. It's an easy target. It's a talking point. It's a way to get people all worked up while nothing really changes. The Oscars telecast was entertainment. If people were offended, that's a problem. I'd like to look into why they were offended and talk about that. But crucifying a joke because it was misunderstood (obviously, not a very good joke in that case) is bit like hating cats because you like dogs.

[Mecca]

Please, for the love of all that is good, don't compare Family Guy to South Park. One is the smartest show on TV, the other is a series of lame jokes joined together by an even lamer storyline. In a perfect world, Seth MacFarlane would be working at Taco Bell or at least wasting away in cubicle hell.

I know someone that loathes Family Guy would never do so, but American Dad actually is a lot smarter than Family Guy. I think it does satire well and it is mostly political/moral commentary. Sure, there are cheap jokes thrown in as with FG, but MacFarlane has a talent for creating characters that are equally hyperbole and relateable.

That being said, the thing that South Park does so well is that the writers are good at seeing through bullshit and making a show about 4 boys that swear a lot that can make you think about something differently.

[epilogue]

Please, for the love of all that is good, don't compare Family Guy to South Park. One is the smartest show on TV, the other is a series of lame jokes joined together by an even lamer storyline. In a perfect world, Seth MacFarlane would be working at Taco Bell or at least wasting away in cubicle hell.

I'll respectfully disagree. They're the same exact thing. Each chooses a different exaggeration. And it's fine to prefer one to the other, but if Family Guy is offensive and gross, so is South Park.

To me, one is not smarter than the other. One is just a different style than the other. And one is mean.

[Birds in Hell]

And one is mean.

I think we'll disagree on which one that is; Macfarlane's comedy is (to me) mean-spirited, humourless and flat out dumb.

[nyquillyn]

South Park actually has a ton of heart.

[Mecca]

South Park actually has a ton of heart.

Agreed, but to say FG is completely void of it is wrong.

[epilogue]

And one is mean.

I think we'll disagree on which one that is

You might be surprised.

[epilogue]

South Park actually has a ton of heart.

Agreed, but to say FG is completely void of it is wrong.

Yep.

[Jorge]

So let's talk about why there aren't any female color commentators in professional sports. There's a great example of how women are viewed in the media.

I don't know anything about sports, so I'm ill-prepared to discuss this.

My problem is that by attacking this song

To reiterate: I'm not just attacking the song, though you keep reducing it to that. I'm attacking his continued sexist jokes and overall hackery.

(which I think people are being hyper sensitive about, and attacking because it's easy not because it's appropriate or justified)

Well, we clearly disagree on this one.

people are acting like they're doing something, but they're only doing some easy and potentially lazy instead of doing something about actual media perceptions.

A few things:
1- In the age of social media, criticism is a step towards bettering these attitudes. The blowback on this is huge and the Academy will probably take a different direction next year-- that itself is progress, albeit small.
2- Slacktivism. Real problem among indignant flag-wavers on the internet because it doesn't lead to anything. In my case, though I will agree I am incredibly lazy, I'm only commenting because you asked me to elaborate. The day of the telecast I said my piece on Twitter and moved on. I'm not championing some cause, I am commenting on it as a spectator.

I'm not saying the song is brilliant humor. But turning it into an issue is counter productive. It's an easy target. It's a talking point. It's a way to get people all worked up while nothing really changes. The Oscars telecast was entertainment. If people were offended, that's a problem. I'd like to look into why they were offended and talk about that. But crucifying a joke because it was misunderstood (obviously, not a very good joke in that case) is bit like hating cats because you like dogs.

Again, the problem isn't the song, it's way bigger than that. I'd like to see us move towards a society where entertainment can come without being at the expense of an entire gender, without continuously ugly and humorless jabs at women or any group that has been historically marginalized. Why were they offended? Because this is what women deal with every day, they've been the butt of these jokes forever-- in schools, in bars, in their offices, in social circles. How ugly to have to be subjected to that in the comfort of your own home, when you just want to be entertained by an Oscar telecast.
That's why they were offended. Not because they didn't get it.

[epilogue]

Thing is, neither of those shows are one thing. I've probably seen less South Park than most South Park fans because the episodes I've seen have been less than endearing to me, and at times juvenile and/or offensive to my sensibility.

Some of you guys are probably in the same boat, you just replace the words "South" "Park" in my statement with the words "Family" "Guy."

And, yeah, I think Family Guy can be meaner than South Park. And I think Family Guy has lost a lot recently because they default to excessive violence and that's not my thing at all.

But South Park has similar flaws.

[E.H. Ruddock]

I've heard more women say the song was funny and more guys say the song was offensive. Awkward.

[Jorge]

I've heard more women say the song was funny and more guys say the song was offensive. Awkward.

Look outside your social circle. The opposite is true. 90% of the people defending Seth MacFarlane are dudes.

[epilogue]

So let's talk about why there aren't any female color commentators in professional sports. There's a great example of how women are viewed in the media.

I don't know anything about sports, so I'm ill-prepared to discuss this.

My problem is that by attacking this song

To reiterate: I'm not just attacking the song, though you keep reducing it to that. I'm attacking his continued sexist jokes and overall hackery.

(which I think people are being hyper sensitive about, and attacking because it's easy not because it's appropriate or justified)

Well, we clearly disagree on this one.

people are acting like they're doing something, but they're only doing some easy and potentially lazy instead of doing something about actual media perceptions.

A few things:
1- In the age of social media, criticism is a step towards bettering these attitudes. The blowback on this is huge and the Academy will probably take a different direction next year-- that itself is progress, albeit small.
2- Slacktivism. Real problem among indignant flag-wavers on the internet because it doesn't lead to anything. In my case, though I will agree I am incredibly lazy, I'm only commenting because you asked me to elaborate. The day of the telecast I said my piece on Twitter and moved on. I'm not championing some cause, I am commenting on it as a spectator.

I'm not saying the song is brilliant humor. But turning it into an issue is counter productive. It's an easy target. It's a talking point. It's a way to get people all worked up while nothing really changes. The Oscars telecast was entertainment. If people were offended, that's a problem. I'd like to look into why they were offended and talk about that. But crucifying a joke because it was misunderstood (obviously, not a very good joke in that case) is bit like hating cats because you like dogs.

Again, the problem isn't the song, it's way bigger than that. I'd like to see us move towards a society where entertainment can come without being at the expense of an entire gender, without continuously ugly and humorless jabs at women or any group that has been historically marginalized. Why were they offended? Because this is what women deal with every day, they've been the butt of these jokes forever-- in schools, in bars, in their offices, in social circles. How ugly to have to be subjected to that in the comfort of your own home, when you just want to be entertained by an Oscar telecast.
That's why they were offended. Not because they didn't get it.

I'm sorry if I keep going back to the song. It's just the only part of the initial argument that I thought wasn't properly defended.

It's offensive and narrow minded to sweep it under the rug as "you obviously didn't get it." I apologize for that. Not my intention, though that is clearly implied in what I wrote. I take that back. It's rude.

People see things differently. And I don't see Seth's jokes as misogynistic or sexist.

I think it's great to champion causes. I wish we were on the same side of this one. I respect you and respect women. I could probably make an argument at how offensive some of the flack I've taken (even on RM) regarding my love for things like Girls, Sex and the City, Alanis Morissette, the Dixie Chicks, etc could be construed as offensive and/or sexist. But, I know it's not meant that way.

While I think there is a real problem in this society regarding woman and how they are viewed/treated, I personally don't see how the Oscar telecast fits into that discussion. I'm sorry people were offended. It just seems hyper sensitive to me.

It reminds me of how people were outraged and spoke out against "An Education" as a hateful, offensive antisemitic film. I disagree with that assessment.

[verb_to_trust]

There was a female color for the Knicks and Warriors game on ESPN tonight. Jut sayin...

[nyquillyn]

Thing is, neither of those shows are one thing. I've probably seen less South Park than most South Park fans because the episodes I've seen have been less than endearing to me, and at times juvenile and/or offensive to my sensibility.

Some of you guys are probably in the same boat, you just replace the words "South" "Park" in my statement with the words "Family" "Guy."

And, yeah, I think Family Guy can be meaner than South Park. And I think Family Guy has lost a lot recently because they default to excessive violence and that's not my thing at all.

But South Park has similar flaws.

South Park is consistently clever and the comedy is always in context of the story. The storylines are always relevant and timely. They attack all sides of the issue and point out the ridiculousness of a subject regardless of sensitivities. They "get away with it" because it's well done and usually in context of a moral.

South Park is satire. FG is gutter humor for the sake of gutter humor.

I feel rewarded at the end of a South Park episode. My senses are assault, but then the cleverness reveals itself. FG is just all assault without the reward.

[epilogue]

There was a female color for the Knicks and Warriors game on ESPN tonight. Jut sayin...

That's great! I've seriously never seen/heard that before. I think that's awesome. What was her name?

[epilogue]

Thing is, neither of those shows are one thing. I've probably seen less South Park than most South Park fans because the episodes I've seen have been less than endearing to me, and at times juvenile and/or offensive to my sensibility.

Some of you guys are probably in the same boat, you just replace the words "South" "Park" in my statement with the words "Family" "Guy."

And, yeah, I think Family Guy can be meaner than South Park. And I think Family Guy has lost a lot recently because they default to excessive violence and that's not my thing at all.

But South Park has similar flaws.

South Park is consistently clever and the comedy is always in context of the story. The storylines are always relevant and timely. They attack all sides of the issue and point out the ridiculousness of a subject regardless of sensitivities. They "get away with it" because it's well done and usually in context of a moral.

South Park is satire. FG is gutter humor for the sake of gutter humor.

I feel rewarded at the end of a South Park episode. My senses are assault, but then the cleverness reveals itself. FG is just all assault without the reward.

But, again, how much Family Guy do you watch? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. But Family Guy is all of those things as well. There are countless examples of attacking all sides, of being relevant and timely.

It seems to me (and this is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt) people who say FG is just gutter humor aren't watching a lot of Family Guy.