 by Michael Jensen
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 54 members and 1836 guests online.
|
Is ESPN's latest NBA ad homophobic? Does a basketball bounce?
It wouldn't feel like Super Bowl Sunday without some sort of homophobic sports ad controversy popping up and, sure enough, one has. Ironically, however, it has nothing to do with Super Bowl 43 (nothing too bad there so far). Rather this controversy has to do with the following ad which recently ran on ESPN starring Shaquille O'Neal Great, another ad playing on the idea that men being affectionate with each other is something objectionable. So objectionable that it provokes Shaq to call it "weird" and "disgusting" and causes him to move away. What were you thinking ESPN? That being said, keep in mind, that ESPN has a pretty good record on gay issues and that Shaq himself helped chase down some gay-bashers a couple of years ago and has stated he'd protect a gay teammate. Curious for another take, I got in touch via email with retired NBA player John Amaechi, the only out player in the NBA's history, for his take on the ad. (I have also reached out to ESPN for a comment, but not received a response as of yet. ) AfterElton.com: What is your reaction to it? AE: Did you find Shaq's reaction — the use of the words "disgusting" and "weird" and his moving away from Breen — to be homophobic? AE: Some are finding the ad to send a message that same-sex affection is to be denigrated and possibly influencing young people to be intolerant. Perhaps as a retired NBA player you have a different take? I think there are far more insidious and important ways parts of the media teaches children to be intolerant. Whilst I am massively in favour of the idea that celebrities and sports people are and should be role models (with no personal choice in the matter) and that this ad is a mistake, let's focus our ire on the FOX news channels constant offenders, the Family Research Council, Rick Warren and the pro-prop 8 lobby, etc. instead. Submitted by on Sun, 2009-02-01 20:46. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
John Amaechi - class act
oh yeah...
Certain Words And Actions Have Meanings...
Definition?
OK, I guess I need a definition of the word "homophobia". I had always thought it meant fear or hatred of gay people, but I don't see any gay people in this ad. Or are you assuming the white guy is gay because he uses the word "fist kiss"? If you are assuming that, the assumption would bother me, for multiple reasons. If you're not assuming that, then where is the fear of gay people?
Or are you assuming that Shaq's reaction reflects fear of the THOUGHT of gays, even if there are no gays in the room? And even when there is no indication that he's thinking of gays? You don't have to be very aware of staight male culture to realize most straight males are uncomfortable with intimacy, with expressing feelings, with seeming sensitive, and with basically anything outside of a long-standing masculine ideal. In fact, I've read some stuff lately indicating that a lot of women lose respect for their men if they show vulnerability or sensitivity. A large number of women WANT the masculine ideal.
So there's sort of a code with guys of how they can act and be members in good standing of the "straight guy club". That does NOT mean they're necessarily homophobic (though of course many of them are). With my own straight friends I can get away with expressing things that straight guys couldn't get away with. Since I'm gay I don't have to play by the super masculine straight guy rules, and I can be totally accepted on the basis of that. They accept that the rules are different for me, and they're totally cool with that.
So in this case, Shaq could be totally cool with the gay people in his life, and be a big gay rights supporter, and still be weirded out if a straight friend wants to do a fist kiss or something else that violates the straight guy rules. So I guess the bottom line is that I'm really uncomfortable referring to something as homophobic when there are no gay people in the picture, and the only issue is straight guys being uncomfortable with straight guys who violate the straight male code.
Straight Club
Many of these attributes that supposedly go into making a so called "Man" or "Member of the Boys Club" are deeply homophobic. The fact that you need to place "straight" into your "guy club" excludes all gay men from that club. The mere existence of a club like that is homophobic. (where do we get the notion that a "guys club" has to be straight only?) And we are all too aware of that club. In that club, any affection between men is questioned because it is associated with icky, icky gay. Two grown men who are comfortable in their sexuality should have no problem fist bumping, what ever it's called. And if they do have a problem, the mature man, the real man, would own up to it, rather then play that sickness off as some kind of badge of honor. Like Howie Mandel, who is notorious for admitting he has a mental illness that prevents him from shaking hands.
If this were a busty Penthouse model, I have no doubt that O'Neal would be quick to hump fists with her and show what ever type of affection she wanted. The Straight Boys Club only forbids male affection. If it proscribes all affection, that would be a terrible message to send to boys of any orientation. But we know the rule, and that isn't it. Straight boys in the club are allowed to kiss and flatter and be coy with girls in order to get some. They're even allowed to enjoy it, God bless 'em.
Unfortunately, your factual
Unfortunately, your factual understanding of the "boy's club" is simply incorrect. The whole thing developed in a way that had nothing to do with homosexuality. It goes way back to the origins of mankind. The man was larger and stronger, and therefore became the protector, home builder, food killer, etc. The woman was the child bearer and child rearer, and being smaller and less strong, did the home based stuff. Related to that, male attractiveness for mating was equated by women to strength, fighting ability, etc. All the things that would maximize the chance for survival. It's obvious how the "macho ideal" developed, and as part of that was the development of an innate sexual attractiveness of that ideal for women. There was no homosexual component to this process at all.
Today there is not nearly the need for the masculine ideal as before, but centuries of human evolution can't be washed away instantly. The inherent competive nature of man (originally, competition for women, for territory, for possessions, etc.) has also carried over. The outlet eventually became sports, business, etc., rather than tribal warfare and hunting for livelihood. But that inherent sense of competition remains. And huge numbers of women still find that ideal a requirement for them to be attracted to a man. Newsweek recently printed a story about how Barack Obama represents to some degree a new masculine ideal, where sensitivity and compassion partially replace the old ideal. But the author relayed that she had recently attended a conference, and in talking to women there discovered that many lost respect for spouses or boyfriends who showed sensitivity or any sort of weakness. So the "need" for the masculine ideal in a mating/evolutionary sense still exists.
Let's pretend for a moment that we live in a world where homosexuality doesn't exist. The "boys club" would exist in exactly the same way as it does today. There would still be a masculine ideal that glorified strength and the lack of any sort of weakness. Men would compete in the same way in business, sports and the mating arena. Guys wouldn't think they could cry, or admit weaknesses, or not be strong, stoic and "manly". All that homosexuality adds to the equation is one additional thing to avoid.
That's a black and white analysis, of course. In reality it's a mixture of things for men. Some have no problem crying. Others can be sensitive and playful. And others can find homosexuality non-threatening and be friends with gay people. I have a lot of personal experience with this since I work with a lot of traditional males and are exposed to lots more through sports. And I assure you, guys can be members in good standing of the boy's club and not be at all homophobic. To claim otherwise is silly.
I'm no psychologist, but it always strikes me that there's a good bit of narcissism in gay people who see homophobia in everything. "Hey, it's all about the gays, and therefore it's all about me!"
Projection?
Yes, you can have a Boys Club that excludes homosexuals. You can have a Boys Club that excludes any type of man you don't like but that would start to look very fascist. That is if you were trying to pass this "Boys Club" off as the human norm, as you seem to be doing. Because to be the standard it must represent the full range of human expression. Again, I ask, why does the idea of a male conscientiousness have to exclude gay men? Last time I looked, I was a man. I am a part of the male conscientiousness, albeit a queer part, but part of the parcel non the less.
To find "homosexuality threatening" is an essential definition of homophobia. You seem to be arguing that men, because of their gender, are homophobic. I disagree because that is false. Men are taught homophobia, just like we are taught any kind of bigotry. We are not born with bigotry in our hearts.
You believe this issue is all about gay narcissism? Well slap and double slap. Listen, I never thought you were narcissistic because you are gay. But being gay maybe draws attention to it, huh?
fist kiss... fist love... fist hump...
I think it's Shaq's addition of 'fist hump' that crosses the line for me -- the line between stupid and homophobic.
The white guy saying 'fist kiss' and then 'fist love' (which sounds non-sexual and abstract to me) seems more or less like a stupid guy who doesn't know quite what he's saying. But Shaq's addition of 'fist hump' to the mix feels more sexual and homo-specific. And in the process, the whole fist kiss/love/hump ideal suddenly becomes dismissive, derrogatory and (eventually disgusting).
THoughts?
Clueless people
I think we're all going to regret this new "fist bump" affection existing before it becomes common enough for people to talk about it without making fools of themselves. Do we have to go any further than Fox having their "Love Doctor" talking about the affection that the Obama's show to each other - she was being earnest and actually kind, but her totally misunderstanding the term led to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neCIg0BiXbE
Speaking of Ads
I came and had a look round the site on Saturday and found the lead banner ad on the hompage - the one that goes across the top so it's the first one you see (I'm sure someone will correct me if I've used the wrong term) was some promo about happiness - and finding the true definition of the word through the church of Latter Day Saints. Seriously.
Now I'm sure this is down to the fact that I'm looking at your site from outside the US and local ads get patched in, because as soon as I stopped projectile vomitting over my lap top screen in shock and disbelief, I thought, 'there's no way they'd take money off these *****, they wouldn't do that to us'. So I know it's not something you orchestrated - but it is something I'm sure you'd like to be made aware of, and look into. Isn't it?
Alas, we have no control
tolerance is only skin deep
The way the commercial is shot plays on the insidious nature of homophobia. It is much worse than the snickers ad, because it isn't two clowns hamming it up. It's played dead pan; shot inside an RV from a fixed camera that simulates a reality program. For all I know, this is reality. And as much as Shaquille O'Neal (or ESPN for that matter) have said and done to fight homophobia, this one commercial seems to show how they really feel. While they say one thing in public, when ladies are present, what is really on their mind is shared in private, in the locker room, on the club bus and between friends. We are being given a rare glimpse of their world and what to expect if we are to be just like them. It is homophobic, juvenile and unbecoming a grown man.
I have to believe what they are presenting: that this is the true Shaquille O'Neal and the true ESPN. It's an ugly and pitiful thing to look at. The fact that neither ESPN nor O'Neal find this objectionable tells us even more. It's like a vampire who can't see his own reflection.