DescentBB

http://www.inquisitr.com/247977/jason-a ... ay-people/
Jason Alexander’s Apology For Gay Joke is Like Basically a Primer on Both Apologies and Being Nice to Gay People

As we reported yesterday, Jason Alexander (who we all know best as George from Seinfeld) made a whole series of jokes about cricket being gay on Craig Ferguson’s show.

Jason Alexander’s gaffe was- as far as post-Seinfeld insensitive humor incidents go- not all that bad, though indeed, still offensive to gay people and others on a few levels. And perhaps offensive to cricket.

But what happened next kind of made the whole incident worthwhile, even just as a teachable moment for anyone who has wondered why seemingly benign jokes like Alexander’s are offensive to many.

Jason Alexander managed to turn what could have been a very discriminatory incident into something far, far better- it became a bit of a teachable moment for everyone.

Perhaps it is because of the strides we’ve made even in just the past five or ten years, or perhaps it is just because it’s so nice that a celebrity like Alexander said things so heartfelt instead of the stock “I’m sorry you were offended” line we’re so used to.

It starts out nearly sounding like the latter with assertions from Jason that he’s not a stand-up comedian, he did the jokes before in Australia where cricket is big and they didn’t have a problem with it- but it gets better.

Normally, we would quote a piece like this, but Jason Alexander’s apology really needs to be read in full to absorb the full meaning- so here it is, below, from start to finish. Are you impressed with Jason Alexander’s apologizing skills?

“A message of amends.

Last week, I made an appearance on the Craig Ferguson show – a wonderfully unstructured, truly spontaneous conversation show. No matter what anecdotes I think will be discussed, I have yet to find that Craig and I ever touch those subjects. Rather we head off onto one unplanned, loony topic after another. It’s great fun trying to keep up with him and I enjoy Craig immensely.

During the last appearance, we somehow wandered onto the topic of offbeat sports and he suddenly mentioned something about soccer and cricket. Now, I am not a stand-up comic. Stand up comics have volumes of time-tested material for every and all occasions. I, unfortunately, do not. However, I’ve done a far amount of public speaking and emceeing over the years so I do have a scattered bit, here and there.

Years ago, I was hosting comics in a touring show in Australia and one of the bits I did was talking about their sports versus American sports. I joked about how their rugby football made our football pale by comparison because it is a brutal, no holds barred sport played virtually without any pads, helmets or protection. And then I followed that with a bit about how, by comparison, their other big sport of cricket seemed so delicate and I used the phrase, “ a bit gay”. Well, it was all a laugh in Australia where it was seen as a joke about how little I understood cricket, which in fact is a very, very athletic sport. The routine was received well but, seeing as their isn’t much talk of cricket here in America, it hasn’t come up in years.

Until last week. When Craig mentioned cricket I thought, “oh, goody – I have a comic bit about cricket I can do. Won’t that be entertaining?”. And so I did a chunk of this old routine and again referred to cricket as kind of “gay” – talking about the all white uniforms that never seem to get soiled; the break they take for tea time with a formal tea cart rolled onto the field, etc. I also did an exaggerated demonstration of the rather unusual way they pitch the cricket ball which is very dance-like with a rather unusual and exaggerated arm gesture. Again, the routine seemed to play very well and I thought it had been a good appearance.

Shortly after that however, a few of my Twitter followers made me aware that they were both gay and offended by the joke. And truthfully, I could not understand why. I do know that humor always points to the peccadillos or absurdities or glaring generalities of some kind of group or another – short, fat, bald, blonde, ethnic, smart, dumb, rich, poor, etc. It is hard to tell any kind of joke that couldn’t be seen as offensive to someone. But I truly did not understand why a gay person would be particularly offended by this routine.

However, troubled by the reaction of some, I asked a few of my gay friends about it. And at first, even they couldn’t quite find the offense in the bit. But as we explored it, we began to realize what was implied under the humor. I was basing my use of the word “gay” on the silly generalization that real men don’t do gentile, refined things and that my portrayal of the cricket pitch was pointedly effeminate , thereby suggesting that effeminate and gay were synonymous.

But what we really got down to is quite serious. It is not that we can’t laugh at and with each other. It is not a question of oversensitivity. The problem is that today, as I write this, young men and women whose behaviors, choices or attitudes are not deemed “man enough” or “normal” are being subjected to all kinds of abuse from verbal to physical to societal. They are being demeaned and threatened because they don’t fit the group’s idea of what a “real man” or a “real woman” are supposed to look like, act like and feel like.

For these people, my building a joke upon the premise I did added to the pejorative stereotype that they are forced to deal with everyday. It is at the very heart of this whole ugly world of bullying that has been getting rightful and overdue attention in the media. And with my well-intentioned comedy bit, I played right into those hurtful assumptions and diminishments.

And the worst part is – I should know better. My daily life is filled with gay men and women, both socially and professionally. I am profoundly aware of the challenges these friends of mine face and I have openly advocated on their behalf. Plus, in my own small way, I have lived some of their experience. Growing up in the ‘70’s in a town that revered it’s school sports and athletes, I was quite the outsider listening to my musical theater albums, studying voice and dance and spending all my free time on the stage. Many of the same taunts and jeers and attitudes leveled at young gay men and women were thrown at me and on occasion I too was met with violence or the threat of violence.

So one might think that all these years later I might be able to intuit that my little cricket routine could make some person who has already been made to feel alien and outcast feel even worse or add to the conditions that create their alienation. But in this instance, I did not make the connection. I didn’t get it.

So, I would like to say – I now get it. And to the extent that these jokes made anyone feel even more isolated or misunderstood or just plain hurt – please know that was not my intention, at all or ever. I hope we will someday live in a society where we are so accepting of each other that we can all laugh at jokes like these and know that there is no malice or diminishment intended.

But we are not there yet.

So, I can only apologize and I do. In comedy, timing is everything. And when a group of people are still fighting so hard for understanding, acceptance, dignity and essential rights – the time for some kinds of laughs has not yet come. I hope my realization brings some comfort.

Thanks,
Jason [Alexander]“

Isaac wrote:Wasn't one of the other Seinfeld guys in trouble for saying stuff?

Capm wrote:the bottom line here is that people (mainly Americans) are too oversensitive and uptight, and thats all it really is.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Suffice for now to say that there is a necessary place for manliness in males both young and older, and the absence of it isn't any more excusable for the wrongs perpetrated by men who glorify it at the expense of other necessary qualities--holding it over the head of those who lack it, as if it makes them intrinsically better. Further homosexuality in men, for any number of reasons, is not manly. One can resist moral ills perpetrated by people against other people without coddling a social and moral degenerative disease, and it's either convenient, cowardly, or ignorant to make the championing of the two one and the same.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Suffice for now to say that there is a necessary place for manliness in males both young and older, and the absence of it isn't any more excusable for the wrongs perpetrated by men who glorify it at the expense of other necessary qualities--holding it over the head of those who lack it, as if it makes them intrinsically better. Further homosexuality in men, for any number of reasons, is not manly. One can resist moral ills perpetrated by people against other people without coddling a social and moral degenerative disease, and it's either convenient, cowardly, or ignorant to make the championing of the two one and the same.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Suffice for now to say that there is a necessary place for manliness in males both young and older, and the absence of it isn't any more excusable for the wrongs perpetrated by men who glorify it at the expense of other necessary qualities--holding it over the head of those who lack it, as if it makes them intrinsically better. Further homosexuality in men, for any number of reasons, is not manly. One can resist moral ills perpetrated by people against other people without coddling a social and moral degenerative disease, and it's either convenient, cowardly, or ignorant to make the championing of the two one and the same.

Ferno wrote:of course it will alterfox. and what's going to happen is ST, woodchip and probably thunderbunny will foam at the mouth, claiming how homosexuality is wrong, forbidden in the bible etc,

Capm wrote:And before you quote that sometimes this [homosexuality] happens in nature, humans can't spontaneously change sex as a natural part of their physiology, so your argument is invalid. ...

Capm wrote:I won't argue with you, this is my view, and you won't change it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm constantly reminded not to underestimate people's ability to defend the indefensible. Your hatred for my perspective on human sexuality is wielded like a child in that you try to make it into a matter of maturity when in fact it is a matter of some detail, consideration, and experience. You marginalize instead of debate, which is both unwise and immature. Unwise because I am certainly not alone. Now take your own advice and grow the ★■◆● up so I don't have to deal with your tantrums in order to debate on this beautiful summer day.

Capm wrote:Homosexuality is wrong. A male and a male are not physically built to reproduce with each other, therefore it is un-natural. And before you quote that sometimes this happens in nature, humans can't spontaneously change sex as a natural part of their physiology, so your argument is invalid. This boils down to a neurological disorder that eventually medicine should be able to correct. I'm not faulting anyone who thinks they're gay. They're just sick, and they need treated.

CUDA wrote:TG's own words meet the definition of the word bigot
But we all know that only conservatives can be bigots

big·ot
   [big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

He's just passionate when he's calling the kettle black

Heretic wrote:Seems like you are a bigot also but I guess it's ok to use the term drooling rednecks to insult which is no better than calling a homosexual a faggot or dike.

Top Gun wrote:

Heretic wrote:Seems like you are a bigot also but I guess it's ok to use the term drooling rednecks to insult which is no better than calling a homosexual a ****** or dike.

Ahahaha...so calling a spade a spade now qualifies as bigotry. At least the way I've always used it, the term "redneck" refers to someone who willfully closes their mind to basic facts and reasoning, who revels in their own ignorance, who dismisses most concepts of progress out of hand. If some of you really find that term offensive, maybe you'd better take a good long look at yourselves and see if you fall into any of those classifications.

o·pin·ion/əˈpinyən/
Noun:

A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Top Gun wrote:

Heretic wrote:Seems like you are a bigot also but I guess it's ok to use the term drooling rednecks to insult which is no better than calling a homosexual a ****** or dike.

Ahahaha...so calling a spade a spade now qualifies as bigotry. At least the way I've always used it, the term "redneck" refers to someone who willfully closes their mind to basic facts and reasoning, who revels in their own ignorance, who dismisses most concepts of progress out of hand. If some of you really find that term offensive, maybe you'd better take a good long look at yourselves and see if you fall into any of those classifications.