John Cleese, Dolly Parton and transphobia
My last blog was about the desire of some folks to silence some other folks because they didn't appreciate/like/support what the other was saying. Now while we can appreciate how having your feelings hurt can be pretty unpleasant, indeed I have plenty of examples over my life of people hurting my feelings over issues that quite probably meant more to me than they did to them, but with the benefit of hindsight (some more recent than others) I can accept that their intention is probably what matters.
An example I have often given friends was in my first year of High School. A friend had a party for which he was allowed to invite four of his friends. He had five good friends, one of which was me, and I was not invited. His reasoning to me was, he knew I'd understand. At the time that hurt me a lot and seemingly continued to do so for many years, but when I looked at the situation without stressing about my feelings, it was clear he was right. I did understand. Was it a cop out? Were the other four more likely to have a tantrum about it all? Maybe and maybe, but the reality is, I understood the predicament he was placed into by a parent who clearly only wanted to deal with a certain number of feral children. The lesson was learnt. You have to find a balance between how YOU feel about an issue and where the other person is coming from. Again, nobody is perfect and in that imperfection, some toes will be stepped on and it is rarely the intention of the toe-stepper.
Over this weekend I noticed that John Cleese had been copping a fair bit of flack for his tweets against people's tendency to criticise and condemn anyone who says anything that isn't a 100% support for minorities in society. "Woke jokes" was the theme of it all and included Dolly Parton jokes, support of JK Rowling and a general dismissing of the anger directed towards him.
The responses have included a lot of what I would say are "I'm hurt by your words, so I'm going to try and hurt you back" tweets.
- You've never been funny.
- You stopped being funny in the 1970s.
- You are old and not funny.
- You are (insert suitable term)phobic.
- Dolly Parton wrote all her stuff alone, you needed a partner.
Pretty shitty responses in both accuracy and effectiveness for hurt value.
We have become a petty, vindictive and thin-skinned society. John Cleese says something you don't like and suddenly his career is to be rejected. He is dismissed because he is old, because he is "punching down", because he has an opinion on one topic that doesn't align with your own, 100%.
We're not talking Rolf Harris here. This isn't the discovery of a lifetime of abuse. That is the sort of person who should be rejected and condemned.
It used to be that people had some levels of grey with their outrage, but now we are black and white. There's no margin for seeing something from another's perspective, unless of course it perfectly aligns with our own perspective, because after all, we're perfect. Or something.
I have friends who vote differently from me. I have friends who don't support the same causes, have the same passions and prioritise things in their lives in a way I find strange. People don't need to be mirror images of yourself to still be acceptable. None of that changes my own feelings about the things I believe or support. I'm still vocal online and in person. I am a member of my selected political party. I advocate for those who have trouble advocating for themself.
John Cleese made a joke about Dolly Parton's chest.
Was Dolly Parton offended by this? Who knows! She has a long history of talking about her chest, making jokes about them, their origins, her look and how it was based on a hooker, etc. I think Dolly is capable of looking after herself. But, there's a lot of people who were taking offence on her behalf. Why is that? Especially if no offence appears to have been taken by the woman herself? Is this a control thing? Dolly can control it if she's telling the story, but not if someone else is?
Now sure, back in the day we all remember the "your mumma/momma" jokes and how it was okay for someone to make a joke about their own mother, but she was off-limits to anyone else making a joke about her. Why was that again?
Was John Cleese's joke a bit ordinary? In my opinion, sure, not every joke can be gold. Nobody is perfect, remember? But it was topical (Dolly is in the news for helping fund a COVID-19 vaccine candidate), she's also very busy (releasing a new album, as well as xmas series and appearing in a film, plus all her other charities and work) and she has large breasts.
The tweet acknowledges how awesome Dolly is, as well as clearly giving the nod to her financial assistance to the vaccine (life-enhancing) with a breast pun at the end.
I suspect those criticising are more about wanting to exact some online anger at Mr Cleese over his support of JK Rowling and his comments about transgender folks.
And this is actually what this post is about.
Let me preface this post by saying that I have a couple of transgender friends. That should really be irrelevant to the story as it doesn't make my position any more or less informed as I am not transgender, don't live with anyone who is transgender and in my interactions with those friends who are, all I have had to do to help them, is to use the correct pronoun and treat them as I treated them before I knew they were transgender.
If I didn't personally know any transgender people, my attitude towards them would be exactly the same, because I value and respect all people and support them irrespective of anything. If they need my assistance, I give it, if they don't, that's fine. All that was asked of me was to use the correct pronouns. I support them. People should be able to live their lives without being persecuted for who they are...simple.
John Cleese tweeted "I'm afraid I'm not that interested in trans folks. I just hope they're happy and that people treat them kindly."
And my initial response is...what's wrong with this?
Not every celebrity is going to come out and say this. Not every one of the 7+ billion people on this planet are going to say it either. In fact, a large portion of these 7+ billion probably don't care enough to comment at all. This doesn't mean they are against transgender folks, it just means that they have other things to focus on in their life.
What actually do people want from John Cleese?
They seemingly are offended that he has shown support for Rowling.
Is she to be shunned by everyone and cast into the bin? Is JK Rowling cancelled? Is John Cleese to be cancelled because he suggested that cancelling JK Rowling was ridiculous and that people need to ease off a bit?
You can show your support for someone without accepting their views 100%. You can show your support for someone on the other side of your political/social/whatever position, without that meaning that you support their views.
Nobody is perfect and you shouldn't be treating them like they should be. You are not the arbiter of what is offensive or not offensive for everyone. If you don't agree with something you read or hear, it doesn't make that person your enemy. If we silence every opinion we don't like, it reduces the range of opinions we hear, but as I said in my last blog, the bell curve remains.
You are entitled to dislike what John Cleese has said. You are entitled to decide he needs to go in the bin. But when you start to say he's never been funny or stopped being funny in the 1970s, you start to sound like those reactionary types I mentioned earlier. You are trying to hurt back.
John Cleese says he doesn't really care about trans folks, but he wishes them well and hopes others do to.
Perhaps those of you hating on John Cleese could simply wish him well, hope others do too and move on to something that doesn't involve him.
llama
@SirWonderLlama
Comments
Post a Comment