I wanted to bring this up in class, but there were only, like, three minutes of class left when y'all started roasting him. I am referring, of course, to
 |
| http://www.cc.com/video-clips/eb4met/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-toemageddon-2011---this-little-piggy-went-to-hell |
that we watched in class. Now, this was a hot minute ago, so forgive me if I miss(remember) something you took issue with. If I remember correctly (iirc), there were three main issues you all brought up:
- Something along the lines of "enforcing the gender binary" or possibly more like "trans erasure". That's in the ballpark at least.
- The bit leading up the Rum Tum Tugger joke, and the joke's punchline. So, you know, the whole joke.
- His use of "pussy" as an insult.
*ahem*
The first issue, iirc, stemmed from the lines: "You're all aware that nail polish comes off, right?" and then going into "how did we get from talking about a kid with painted toenails to transgendered children?". There are valid concerns to be had with each of these lines and the context in which they exist. If one places much of their gender identity expression on their painted nails, then that line could be interpreted as "your gender identity can be removed" which could then imply that whatever is underneath is your "real identity". Similarly, the next line could be seen as an attempt to invalidate one's expression of their gender identity. However, I think we can get an idea of how these lines should be interpreted by one that shows up in-between them:
"And we all know transgendered children shouldn't be celebrated! They should be shunned! Shunned I say! . . Exile them."
Now, I know that sarcasm is difficult to translate into writing, so, let me assure you that the delivery of this line has the ability to physically manifest sarcasm. It's not a pretty sight. Anyway, the facetious nature of the previous line suggests that the other two should be taken to mean "the media is making a mountain out of a mole hill" and not as anti trans.
The second issue was about the Rum Tum Tugger joke. The lead up to the joke showed John saying that he did not interpret the picture of the child with painted nails as having anything to do with transgenderism. It ending by comparing painted toenails to a painted face, the former not making someone trans, the latter not making someone a cat or "the Rum Tum Tugger. Not that there's anything wrong with that". Now, because he made it clear that this was his interpretation of the situation, I don't think there's an argument to be made about the build-up being anti trans. He never claimed his interpretation to be the truth. The trouble comes with the last part "not that there's anything wrong with that". This line is indeed a copout. People use it to say "haha I may have said something that paints [whatever they were trying to defend] in a negative light but its only cause that's how most people (including myself) view it haha". Here is the thing about that though; he is making fun of people who say that. By saying that there is nothing wrong with being the Rum Tum Tugger, he is playing off your expectations that someone would say that about being trans. In doing so, he is making fun of those people.
Last issue: using "pussy" as an insult. In the final moment of the Toemageddon segment, John says "I don't want to stir anything up but, [ultimate fighting champion], I think [fox news guy] just called you a pussy." In this part of the segment, John has moved away from "mountain out of a mole hill" stance and has settled into comedic acceptance. In doing so, he lowers himself to the level of Fox News, and shows them, with their own logic, that their arguments don't make a lick of sense.
That's my take on the bit anyway. Perhaps I am just a bit too cis/white/het to consider the full implications of his words, but that segment was damn funny and y'all just shook your heads at the end. And that makes me shake my head here. smh.
Well said, Liam! I thought the bit was funny as well, and I think some of the jokes were beginning to be over-analyzed at the end of our class session. Perhaps this is a lesson in rhetoric, which we have been experiencing all semester. Tone of voice, context of stories, and simply understanding the basis of the joke can help a person look at things a different way. I understand why people may have concerns with the way the bit was talking about people who identify as transgender, but I also think that it was just a funny clip that helped add humor to a very tense subject. This is a great lesson for us all to see how our reflection on something may appear different than others, and how rhetoric can be used to effect that outcome.
ReplyDeleteI think that sometimes, in an effort to contribute anything to an academic discussion, we pinpoint small things that might be a point of interest that end up snowballing into a lengthy conversation that can easily blow it out of proportion. I also remember thinking that some of what was said about John Stewart this class session was "reaching," as were some previous discussions about other texts/videos, but I did find the Rum Tum Tugger joke worthy of criticism. You explain the issue of it well here, but I'm not sure that I agree with you that when he said "not that there's anything wrong with that" he did it to make fun of people who usually say things like that--and if it was, it was an incredibly meta joke that is ripe for being misunderstood. It reminds me of when people make the jokes "you can identify as male, female, attack helicopter, whatever, I don't care!" They seem like they should be supportive, but there is an underlying connotation that presents transgender and nonbinary existences as a joke.
ReplyDeleteBUT! Like I said in the beginning, this is a small point of interest and shouldn't be used to judge the whole video. John Stewart had good intentions, which is more than you could say about any Fox News anchor. Good post!
CW for transphobic remarks below//
ReplyDeleteI think I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I think that when we're on the fence about how to interpret something like this, we should look at what the relevant groups are saying within their own communities, and also look into what the commentator has said historically. I have to admit that Jon Stewart wasn't really on my radar before this, so I can't vouch for or against him based on what I've personally seen, but I quickly found a couple transphobic comments in his past. Responding to Dennis Kucinich's 2004 comment that he would nominate a transgender justice to the Supreme Court, Stewart said, "All rise for the honorable judge Chick with Dick!" Similarly, he stated the following in a segment about Chinese protests about a new universal I.D. system: "But Cow and Chipmunk are not alone! They are joined by Transvestite, who worries that her true gender will be revealed by this new system." Then, with a voiceover imitating a trans woman, says: "I am afraid that when I lumber out of my apartment in a tight dress with my scrotum taped back and my large hands covering my Adam's apple, somewhere, some bureaucrat will know I am a dude."
Granted, neither of these remarks are recent, and I do want to point out that Stewart made a segment in support of Caitlyn Jenner in 2015, though I could not find any outright apologies or other statements about his attitude toward trans people. I also think that his joking comment from the Toemageddon 2011 segment, "And we all know transgender children should be shunned!" might suggest some degree of solidarity. But I think the segment mostly makes fun of reactive conservatives drawing a false equivalency between a young boy having painted nails and transgender children--he is expressing confusion that they are even part of the conversation, not necessarily defending them from hateful remarks. And I just find the Rum Tum Tugger comment offensive, and the following "not that there's anything wrong with that" is a weak save.
I feel like this is getting very long so in summary: I understand what Stewart is saying, and I still find the segment offensive and worthy of criticism. Of course, it's from 2011, so I also don't think criticizing it is particularly productive! But still, I'm sticking to my guns with my criticism of it in class.
CW: sa
DeleteWell said, Brynn. I agree with you. I personally do not believe you can really tear things apart too much, especially in reference to issues such as transphobia. Humor is powerful--it draws upon our assumptions about the world, and can simultaneously help shape them. I think that if we just blindly accept jokes because "it's all for a laugh! Nothing deeper!" we are ignoring valuable lessons about how we perceive others, and we potentially internalize biases used in harmful jokes. It's like jokes about sexual assault; people who make them love to defend their actions by saying "it's just jokes!" What they don't seem to realize is that humor draws upon culture and our opinions to create laughter. If we think sexual assault is funny in any context, we might have really harmful beliefs about consent which inform our behavior in real life. Further, impressionable people (usually young people) can read these harmful jokes and develop their own problematic assumptions because of them. Sure, it's up to the individual to not be a terrible person, but I also think we all carry responsibility in how we use our rhetoric--especially people with huge platforms like Jon Stewart.
You know, I was wondering how long it would take to see some dissent on this post. I can't say I ever knew about his previous tactless jokes regarding trans people. Though admittedly, it doesn't surprise me. I am a little disappointed that the one trans person he "publicly endorsed", so to speak, was the one who got away with vehicular manslaughter, but I digress.
DeleteThe only thing I find confusing about your post is why you're hung up on the Rum Tum Tugger joke. He uses it to draw his false equivalency argument ("painting your face doesn't make you the Rum Tum Tugger"), and then gives it a punchline ("not that there's anything wrong with that"). It's a "weak save" because he isn't trying to save anything.
Any way, thanks for your post. As much as I enjoy the chorus of "I agree"'s that we see on so many posts here, this is the exact kind of response I was hoping to receive.
Sorry for the late reply, but of course! I'm glad the dissent is a good thing!
DeleteI'll attempt to explain my reaction to the Rum Tum Tugger joke as best I can. Stewart reasons that painting a kid's face like a cat = painting their nails, and being Rum Tum Tugger = being a transgender child. He defends the children painting their nails on the basis that they aren't transgender--the reactionary conservative audience is blowing it out of proportion, they're just painting their nails! It doesn't acknowledge the very real possibility that children with "atypical" gender presentations are trans, or the validity of trying to raise a child without teaching them hurtful gender roles (reading Anne Fausto-Sterling's Sexing the Body really changed my life and I recommend it--basically, it argues that gender is taught and not intrinsic, and all gendered differences like boys having more "gray matter" than girls is because of how gendered learning is enforced rather than anything inherent).
Similarly, he reasons that parents let their children paint their nails because parenthood is crazy and they can't catch a break from their crazy children--they relent and let them do it because they just want a minute of respite. While I don't think this is exactly untrue, I think it shows that once again he's not really arguing in favor of trans children or the actual scientific, behavioral basis for raising children without gender (as much as is possible).
Perhaps I could see that it isn't overtly offensive (I still think it's clumsy), but ultimately it's too moderate of a take for me. He's not defending transgender children strongly or clearly enough. It does do well in appealing to a moderate audience--I am just far too radical to be a part of that audience, I think, so it doesn't work on me. I hope that makes sense!