Trackbacks & Pings

1. swirlspice linklog on 24 Jan 2007 at 12:17 am

   Should Isaiah Washington be fired?…

   http://www.racialicious.com/2007/01/23/should-isaiah-washington-be-fired-2/……

2. TheThink » Wanda Sykes: “Gay is the New Black” on 27 Jan 2007 at 5:06 am

   [...] Wanda Sykes: “Gay is the New Black” She was of course referring to the recent brouhaha over Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington calling a fellow co-star of the series a “faggot”. [...]

Comments

1. merq wrote:

   Heh. I’ve gotta say, it certainly does feel like each news report comes with a subtle amount of satisfied lip-smacking – “Ahh, now one of them is gonna get it!”

   Still, while I’m fairly disinterested in Washington (not a Grey’s watcher), I’m all for him getting ripped apart like any other bigoted celebrity — especially after I read yesterday that he met with “gay leaders” to begin on “the path toward healing.”

   Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 9:17 am ¶

2. Lyonside wrote:

   >especially after I read yesterday that he met with “gay leaders” to begin on “the path toward healing.”

   No, no, no, the next step is REHAB, usually for something legal like alcohol or prescription drugs – have we learned nothing about the celebrity/politician redemption path of 2006?

   Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 10:04 am ¶

3. bertie wrote:

   Merq–you hit it on the head. They’re is a “gotcha” aspect to the coverage. Does it make any difference that his public indiscrestion was actually a denial of the private indiscretion–that cleary in the context used in public he wasn’t trying to slur his co-star? Probably not, because the fact is he used the word both publically and privately–and any use of the word is bad. But, this doesn’t quite parallel the Kramer situation. But I could care less if he stays or goes–this is one negro not worth fighting for

   Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 11:20 am ¶

4. James wrote:

   I don’t want to see Isaiah Washington fired. I don’t watch Grey’s Anatomy, but I don’t wish an on-set scuffle between actors over tardiness to snowball into the end of Isaiah Washington’s career. Frankly, what truly rankles in this controversy involves the pop culture double standard raised by the news media.

   Rosie O’Donnell emerges as the latest on-air personality to make demeaning ching-chong humor without any social sanction outside of Asian Americana, but has no fear of losing her job. She’s not publicly chastised for anything until Donald Trump decides to up ratings of the new season of The Apprentice.

   Michael Richards, the very definition of out-of-work actor, becomes universally panned for his use of ethnic slurs, but not for his lynching advocacy.

   The point? These examples of public condemnation over oppression defy any real logic, and further cement the “overly sensitive minority” complex in John Q. Public’s mind. I personally heard the racial slur “nigger” on television last night – during the new episode of the excellent Studio 60. Of course, context is everything in these situations, but I can’t believe that the slur ‘faggot’ is out-of-bounds in every circumstance, but ching-chong and nigger are useful modes of expression, depending on the situation.

   We won’t discuss the unceasing minstrel horror of I Love New York.

   On The White Rapper Show last night, young White rappers participated in an odd game show dedicated to Black stereotypes – a wonderful opportunity to expose their personal racism and indict all White rappers everywhere as inauthentic closet hatemongers. The point? Racist anti-Black pop culture increases ratings and ad revenue for television networks, and through incessant repetition becomes permissible, while a behind-the-scenes use of the slur “faggot” must be stamped out at all costs, up to and possibly including Isaiah Washington’s career.

   Americans should stand up against bigotry in all its forms, especially in entertainment. But today’s status quo leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, because on some important level liberal White people pretend that all homosexuals are White, and therefore should be immune from bigotry, especially bigotry that spews from minority lips. (There, I said it.)

   I’m not comfortable sacrificing another talented Black actor because of White America’s lingering Matthew Shepard complex. Homophobia should be stamped out all over this country, but when we prefer to eliminate homophobia and leave everything else in place, it seems like another bizarre example of White privilege.

   Firing Isaiah Washington will not prevent anti-gay or anti-minority hate crimes. I’d rather spend time stopping that, frankly.

   Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 12:05 pm ¶

5. kim wrote:

   Don’t watch ‘Grey,’ but think Isaiah would be a reason to tune in if I didn’t have to see all the other folks and their on-screen drama.

   I am most in agreement with James in this thread, and hold to the belief that we must not condone the assault of others because of some innate aspect of themselves.

   My biggest question has been what does f*gg*t mean to people? How is this word any less the former incarnation of ‘gay’ than is ‘colored’ of Black (or, AA, if you will).

   I am interested to know what the definition and connotation is for various groups, based on the region of the country and social background from which they hail.

   Now, that being said, everything that transpires between two people must take into account the perspective of both parties, and, like someone wrote recently at a blog, the definition and meaning of what is said and understood entails both the writer’s intent and the reader’s (in this case, listener, recipient) relationship to the words and ideas, and how the reader takes in the meaning.

   I’m not interested in sparing a Black actor for Blackness’ sake, or for the right to work, so much as examing the backstory to the story: why Washington felt the need to lash out the first time.

   The actors’ workplace is a very physical one, with a requisite for skin-to-skin proximity and intimated intimacies that would never happen between those same persons outside of that space, or in another work setting. What were the particular stimuli (don’t reach for it, please) that Washington responded to- either those internal, “unexamined” things he refers to, or the unspoken external?

   I don’t know, but would like to.

   Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 1:11 pm ¶

6. Just Wondering wrote:

   James … your search for white privilege is causing you to too easily dismiss the controversy surrounding both Rosie and Kramer.

   Both were publicly censured by the media and by the public — in my opinion, far more than Isaiah Washington has been.

   It will be a long time — if ever — before Michael Richards works again, I would imagine. And you don’t know what will happen to Rosie — she may indeed lose her job in the near future for the controversy she has caused. Wasn’t Barbara Walters ready to can her (speaking of having people ridicule you for your voice, how much abuse has Ba-Wa taken over the years from comedians?)?

   One final thought. Rosie’s “ching chong” remark was insensitive but it was not directed at an individual, nor was she making fun of the way a specific person spoke.

   Isaiah Washington called an individual he works with daily a not-so-nice name. There is a big difference there and it’s one that has to be taken into account when considering these issues.

   Does that mean he should be fired? I personally don’t think so but then I don’t think Rosie should be fired, either.

   Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 4:15 pm ¶

7. FrancesM wrote:

   I see a swirl of issues around this. Mr. Washington using the other F word in his workplace is risky. In this day and age calling co-workers names based on any reason is usually cause for termination or at least some type of consequences. However if a work place tends to be more liberal and folks feel comfortable “joking” about stereotypes then problems can arise from a misfire in the way something is said or heard. I don’t know what type of environment Grey’s is, but I’m guessing if it was more liberal then this could be an opportunity by white-power hungry media to skewer a black man who may have been -granted in poor taste- trying to joke.

   If Grey’s is not more liberal, than his saying that word should require termination.

   Mr. Washington regardless of what will happen to his job has done a positive thing by being very willing to meet with LGBT leaders and talk about this. Mrs. O’donnell was never willing to meet with anyone about her ching-chong tirade and never made any real apology. And her racist “joke” was never really called out by the main-stream media.

   These are just somethings I’m thinking about. As a queer woman of color I find situations where racism and homophobia collide to be great opportunities for dialogue and learning. We’ll see what happens next!
   ~F

   Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 5:47 pm ¶

8. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t really get the sense that people are out to get Washington just because he’s black.

   From what I understand of the situation, Washington used the f-word in a moment of anger and directed it to T.R. Knight, whom he knew was gay. There was no joke being made here. To me that seems pretty unambiguously discriminatory.

   James, I also think it’s dangerous to dismiss homophobia as some kind of made-up phenomenon (”Matthew Shepard complex”??) that white people are using to oppress minorities and maintain their privilege.

   I see what you’re saying – that whites in the GLBT are the ones who are most visible and outspoken. But by downplaying Washington’s use of the slur, are you just giving him a free pass because you feel that race-based oppression trumps sexuality-based oppression?

   Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 6:06 pm ¶

9. Meg wrote:

   Is the network bound by some anti-discrimination/defamation laws that if someone in the mailroom said it they’d be automatically fired? This stance should slide all the way up the food chain but it never does.

   I think the potential race issue is not as straightforward as saying if a white actor had called him a n- the white guy would be gone. Think of if it had been “mcdreamy” calling washington a n– i reckon abc would be trying to rehabilitate his image (& no public use of the word) and have him shaking hands with jesse jackson cos they can’t afford to lose his character and the audience/money he’s brought to the show. It’s all well and good to talk about minding our p’s&q’s but when it’s at the cost of sacrificing a big star i don’t think they follow through unless there’s a bunch of advertisors threatening to pull out. Same with rosie odonnell – if there’d been big companies threatening to leave cos of the ching chong thing then her “apology” may have looked a little more heartfelt but there was not a lot of force behind the controversy.

   And to give a slightly different perspective on how these issues play in the media (where battles are won and lost these days) here in australia the michael richards thing was all over the nightly news when the footage was 1st out and the follow up stories. But the rosie thing and this current controversy haven’t rated a mention – i wouldn’t know about it except for american cable news. I thought the grey’s thing would be mentioned cos it’s a pretty popular show here but even the public use of f– didn’t rate a mention.

   Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 6:19 pm ¶

10. brad wrote:

    Okay, I agree that Washington was wrong to use the word “faggot.” It’s obviously offensive and should not be used in the workplace. He should be disciplined. Write him out of an episode to dock his pay or don’t give him a bonus.

    But I disagree with anyone who says that Rosie O’Donnell received harsher criticism. Please! Was Rosie O’Donnell’s job on the line for her ching-chong comments? No. Look, there does seem to be a feeding frenzy over Washington’s blood.

    After Gibson’s public meltdown what happened? The cop who arrested Gibson is facing harassment from his superiors and ABC/Disney (Washington’s employers) were not only ever so happy to release Gibson’s “Apocalypto” but also happy to create a 90-minute infomercial for Gibson starring Diane Sawyer on Primetime TV. Hell, they even laced Sawyer’s comments about “biblical” analogies through there media blitz for the program to entice Gibson’s Christian followers to tune in.

    So, yeah, there’s a lot of hypocrisy going on here. ABC/Disney fucked up big time by not handling this situation better when it occurred.

    At this point, I don’t see how firing Washington would do anything. He’s already a pariah with the Velvet Mafia that runs Hollywood and is now working GLAAD on a public service announcement.

    Finally, when did “faggot” become the “F-word”? I thought the “f-word” was “fuck.”
    And, aren’t all these celebrity naughty word scandals just a waste of time? There are more newsworthy stories that get pushed aside. What’s going on in New Orleans, AIDS research, healthcare, Iraq, education, poverty, etc.

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 6:27 pm ¶

11. HighJive wrote:

    Not even sure it would be possible to fire him, as the Actor’s Union would have something to say about it.

    As others have already noted, numerous stars have done things that were equal or worse — with no threat of job loss. Even Michael Richards hasn’t been fired from anything, although it would be interesting to attempt to halt all residuals and royalties from Seinfeld. Professional athletes have done worse. What’s next? Fire the rappers? Not in our lifetime.

    People keep asking questions like, “If Washington weren’t Black, would he have been fired?” Well, based on the responses that White celebrities receive when showing prejudice, the answer is a resounding no.

    Can we perhaps argue that Washington is being considered for termination BECAUSE he’s Black? Would there be a petition drive if the same utterances came from Ellen Pompeo or Patrick Dempsey?

    I have no idea. Just throwing it out there.

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 6:42 pm ¶

12. girl stop wrote:

    I’m black and gay and if I overheard a co-worker refer to me in a heated discussion as “your little faggot” (as has been reported) I’d like to believe my employers would terminate him or her or at least not require me to work with or near him or her. In a perfect world. Substitute “nigger” or “dyke” or “darkie” or whatever slur is at hand–the word itself isn’t the issue; context is everything.

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 7:00 pm ¶

13. LM wrote:

    I’m with those who stress the context. Most of the “slurs” mentioned in this thread are in fairly common use across society and across the entertainment media, but in a wide range of contexts, from slur to term of endearment. Getting past the volatility of a particular word, I think the question becomes whether Washington has made the work environment uncomfortable for his co-workers — not only Knight. To the extent “Grey’s” is similar to a sports team, if Washington isn’t fitting in and making the group better (the latter, especially, can be hard to assess), then he’s likely to go. Of course there are racial overtones, too, but he’s done his best, consciously or not, to exacerbate things. Two BTWs: 1) I’ve seen about 75 seconds of “Grey’s”, so I don’t know much about Knight’s and Washington’s characters and their on-screen interaction; 2) does anyone else remember that Washington played a gay man who was unmercifully badgered (to the point where he administered a beatdown) by the Andre Braugher character on “Get On The Bus”? Ironic, eh?

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 7:37 pm ¶

14. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I think Washington’s second use of the word “faggot” was contextual–an awkward attempt to explain his first use. I think his apology for the first use of the word was sufficiently sincere. The biggest offense may be his lie about using the word in the first place–if indeed he did lie. More than the f-word, the lying creates a hostile workplace that may be hard to tolerate.

    In short, if people are getting riled enough to get into fights, that’s a problem that needs to be addressed.

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 8:05 pm ¶

15. James wrote:

    Just Wondering – you’re right, there’s a difference with calling someone a racial slur directly and spouting racial invective around through broadcast media. However (please check me if I’m wrong about this) I thought that Washington first used that slur during the original scuffle aboutthe closeted actor, not to his face.

    At any rate, no one is searching for White privilege here. I’m just saying that because the news media and the American audience deal with bigots and their oppressive language differently, for different reasons, we should be careful that we don’t allow the news media to express patterned selectivity when they condemn people on oppression issues.

    Frankly, Rosie suffered more heat over Trump’s comments than anything else. Think about that – Donald Trump single-handedly did more to combat Rosie O’ Donnell’s mouth than the entire Asian American community combined! What does that say to you?

    “Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t really get the sense that people are out to get Washington just because he’s black.” – Carmen

    I don’t see where that sentiment’s been expressed. I don’t believe that. Isaiah Washington screwed up. Bottom line, any social sanction he receives is well deserved. But should he be fired? I don’t think so; I don’t know workplace harassment law that well, but firing Washington over this incident raises questions of thought policing to me.

    Further Carmen, I have never dismissed homophobia as “some kind of made-up phenomenon (”Matthew Shepard complex”??) that white people are using to oppress minorities and maintain their privilege”. I do not believe that, nor would I support someone who did believe that. The Matthew Shepard complex is, in my opinion, the idea that straight White liberals are unshaken by the horrors of unchecked homophobia in ways they are not by racial hate crimes. It’s my perception that on some public level, homophobia grates on some straight White liberals because they don’t believe bigotry should happen to them.

    The tragic Matthew Shepard murder shocked White America thoroughly, in ways the lynching of James Byrd did not. If you have another explanation for this disparity outside of racialized victim identification, by all means, please share.

    Lastly, I’m not trying to play Oppression Olympics here. No one wins that game. However, I think if we are to examine the oppression issues at hand here, it’s prudent to look at the differences in public treatment racial incidents and homophobic incidents garner.

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 8:19 pm ¶

16. steffon wrote:

    Really, it was FAR from smart for him to say it…he said he was sorry, however, so what can you do?

    Fire him? That’s unfair, particularly when the entire MEDIA CULTURE practices racism in most roles for African Americans and Asians.

    I mean, as a Black man engaged to an Asian woman, I have NO problems with his relationship in the show. However, why not a black COUPLE?

    For that matter, why does the media STILL have a fear of a Black man and a White woman? Or pretty much ignore the fact that there ARE Asian men and White women?

    Why is it that when beautiful Black and Asian women are in a show, they are RARELY paired up with their Black and/or Asian counterparts?

    Or when the ‘typical’ Black woman is shown in the media, she seems to most often be fat, loud, domineering and has a propensity to say ‘UH-HUHH’?

    Why is it that in a city like Chicago (where I live), which is 35% Black, about 24% Hispanic, 6% Asian, most big movies and television shows are STILL centered on White people?

    In the numbers game, there are more Blacks (14%) and Asians (6%) than there are homosexuals (anywhere from 1.5% – 4% of the population). Yet, based on a OVERWHELMINGLY White media, you’d think that Blacks and Asians didn’t exist at all (except, typically, as unattractive friends of the White star), and homosexuals are everywhere.

    All that (sorry) to say this: it was WRONG for him to make a homophobic statement out of the glare of the spotlight…he said ‘Sorry’, so let’s move on from this and show more Blacks and Asians in the media BEYOND their agreed upon places.

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 8:46 pm ¶

17. makethelogobigger wrote:

    I wouldn’t fire him. But how messed up is it that had he been drunk and said the same thing, he’d be on the View talking about how he really loves homosexuals and blaming the booze.

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 9:39 pm ¶

18. FrancesM wrote:

    Steffon wrote:
    “and homosexuals are everywhere.”

    Excuse me? I don’t think Homosexuals are everywhere and if they are shown in the media it’s a similar type of baffonery based on stereotypes that many other minorities get. If homosexuals are everywhere where is the network show with the cast of all or almost all LGBT folks. Will & Grace is off the air and that was the only show on network TV that had predominately queer characters (yes I count Karen!). Yes there are some shows that have the token queer as they have the token POC but rarely is the token person queer AND of color. And lord knows if we do get a character on network TV like that then the person is crazy or slutty.

    Considering your pending legal marriage I’d like you to consider that I don’t have the same right to marry as you. At 32 I see for the 1st time a queer woman of color as the main character on a cable show (The L Word). Do have any idea what a miracle that feels like? I’m not trying to play the queer card here but until WE ALL have the same right to adopt and marry in every state, until I see an entire network- not cable- TV show with an entire cast of queer people I will not believe “homosexuals are everywhere.”

    As far as the “Matthew Shepard Complex” I just have to say that yes some white may have been more sympathetic because it was a young white man. But I’ve never seen one of these sympathetic people say: “Why yes the Matthew Shepard tragedy touched me so deeply I now feel you deserve to be 100% equal. Why don’t I go down to city hall and advocate for your right to marry and adopt in every state in the country.” Sorry James that just hasn’t been the case.

    BTW Brad the term “velvet mafia” sure sounds a bit homophobic. If there is a velvet mafia they sure could do a better job of getting more LGBT folks on TV.

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 10:07 pm ¶

19. Nina wrote:

    “Grey’s Anatomy” was lauded for its multiracial cast and it’s creator, Shonda Rhimes, a black woman. Has she commented on this issue? I agree with Carmen when she discusses how creepy it was that Washingotn blatantly lied in front of the media and his entire cast. I think he actually stepped up to the mike to make his false statement. Kind of Clinton-esque if you aske me (”I did not have sexual relations with that woman”). It just makes you think of all sorts of other incidents and individuals like Clarence Thomas, OJ, and the hundreds/thousands of people who have stated “I could never have said that, I am not a racist.”

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 10:21 pm ¶

20. Adrian wrote:

    “I don’t mean to play oppression olympics here”

    Even though that’s exactly what you’re doing

    I just think there are some very interesting race implications in this story worth exploring.

    AKA “Shit that can be started”

    I thought this site was bigger than this

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 10:58 pm ¶

21. brad wrote:

    “BTW Brad the term “velvet mafia” sure sounds a bit homophobic. If there is a velvet mafia they sure could do a better job of getting more LGBT folks on TV.”

    Frances,
    “Velvet Mafia” isn’t homophobic. Gay folks use it all the time. Bop over to perezhilton.com, a gay gossip site, or towleroad.com or queerty.com, and you’ll see “Velvet Maffia” all the time.

    

    Posted 23 Jan 2007 at 11:29 pm ¶

22. Rachel wrote:

    I still can’t figure out what happened in the first incident other than the heterosexist slur that he used, but I did see the clips of him using the word a second time. What troubled me most about his reaction was his tone. It was very clear that he wasn’t uncomfortable with the word, it rolled off of his tongue like nothing. He came off like he was being sarcastic, and then we later find out it was a boldface lie.

    He doesn’t really seem to regret this, other than the fact that he may lose his job. If he goes, he goes. I won’t be defending him.

    Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 1:06 am ¶

23. merq wrote:

    Okay… here’s the thing. Besides the fact that he was wrong (and stupid) to lie about it, here’s the second reason I feel, as Bertie expertly put it(how’ve you been, brotha?), that Washington is “one negro not worth fighting for .”

    I never really found out the cause of the original scuffle (once again, due to general ambivalence), but I recently read a quote from Washington about how the media only covers the strife, and not the good times.

    While that’s a valid point, I was more than a little disturbed by his choice of words. It went something like: “I kiss Patrick. I love that guy. We sing ‘Ebony and Ivory’ every day, but the media never covers that. We make it a point to sing that every day to see if it gets any coverage, but it never does.”

    I’m sorry, but “Ebony and Ivory”?? What the hairy fuck is that about? If a white guy tried to make me duet with him every day (or hell, ONCE) to prove he isn’t racist, it wouldn’t end well.

    To me, that’s just indicative of some underlying problems in Mr. Washington’s character.

    But yeah, the media’s definitely loving this one.

    Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 2:50 am ¶

24. bertie wrote:

    Merq–I’m good. Hope all is well with you. I see, as usual, you’re holding it down with good comments.

    The more I think about the subject, the extent and content of the coverage seems off. It seems odd that there was no push to fire Isaiah when he first used the slur in an allegedly malicious way. But now, months later, when he used the slur in a clearly non malicious manner, he’s got to go. If say Isaiah goes on Larry King (as part of the 12 step bigotry rehab program) and King asked him, “did you say the word Fa@@ot”, would we demand King be fired even though clearly the context was not malicious against a particular gay person or gays in general?

    It’s not as if Isaiah went on a Mel Gibsonish rant blaming Gays for all the horrible movies like Soul Plane, or claiming 50 years ago they’d all be in top hollywood films as leading men while in the closet –he was denying the the earlier incident. Unlike Kramer/Rosie he wasn’t calling anyone the word or ridiculing anyone.

    I think this is a case of media creating archetypical stories–a couple of years ago it was missing white women, now its racist celebrities–us, the newsertainment consumers know the script, we already accept the story, and there is no need to provide analysis. (ie, whether this really is parallel to the Kramer/Gibson/Rosie episodes). Whether Isaiah has problems with gays or not, the script demands he look inward, go to bigotry rehab, talk to gay leaders, and lay low for month or two–and as he follows this script, the media gets a couple of more clycles out of the story.

    Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 3:32 pm ¶

25. Nadia wrote:

    i don’t have anything to add that hasn’t been said already, but i had to point out the following two comments:

    “I thought this site was bigger than this”

    oh please!

    ““Velvet Mafia” isn’t homophobic. Gay folks use it all the time.”

    not a good enough justification.

    Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 4:49 pm ¶

26. Julia wrote:

    YES he should be fired! Can’t believe they haven’t fired him yet!! Hurtful offensive and narrow minded comments like this about any other lifestyle/religion/race would NOT have been tolerated like this and Mr. Washington would have been collecting unemployment days ago!! Him apologizing doesn’t mean a thing anymore AFTER he lied about saying what he did!! It only means that on top of being a complete narrow minded jerk, he’s also extremely selfish! Denying what he said the first time was just to safe his ass, once he found out that that didn’t help and only backfired, since ‘firing rumors’ appeared, then all of a sudden he decides to appologize and seek counseling…… do whatever the hell you want Mr. Washington, hopefully real soon you’ll have plenty off EXTRA time to “search within your soul”! Seriously, who could ever look at him on that show without wanting to throw up and how could they ever do that to T. R., having to work with someone who has no respect for you or concideration for your feelings!! FIRE the jerk asap!!

    Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 6:48 pm ¶

27. S. A. Bonasi wrote:

    With a couple of blogs that I read, I noticed a disportionately vitriolic condemnation of Washington as opposed to their responses to other instances of homophobia in the past where it was not a Black man being homophobic to a white man. The bloggers in question were – unless I’m mistaken – all straight in addition to being white. So, no, I do think – sadly – that there wouldn’t have been as quick of a response if Washington wasn’t Black.

    Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 6:59 pm ¶

28. kim wrote:

    “If homosexuals are everywhere where is the network show with the cast of all or almost all LGBT folks…”

    Kim: That is the cast. Of course, you meant, ‘where are the characters?’

    What is the evolution of the terminology for homosexuality? Gay has not always been used, neither has lesbian always been used to delineate females from males within the family….so what is the difference between ‘fag,’ (and, really, is that a slur?), and the additional ‘got’ that one could add?

    Was it its use as invective? The way (some) Black folks say ‘White Boy,’ and it is laden with racist overtones? The way (some) people say ‘His/Her Black Ass,’ and mean it in a demeaning, dismissive way?

    I got that it was used dismissively, but what is it about the word that is … hell…what is it?

    Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 8:06 pm ¶

29. merq wrote:

    I tell you, it’s like clockwork!

    http://www.nbc5i.com/whattheel/10835628/detail.html

    and…

    “Hurtful offensive and narrow minded comments like this about any other lifestyle/religion/race would NOT have been tolerated like this and Mr. Washington would have been collecting unemployment days ago!! “

    Julia, sweetheart, you’ve got to be kidding me.

    Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 8:17 pm ¶

30. makethelogobigger wrote:

    Agree with merq who beat me to it, damn. ;-p

    So rehab, huh. What a shock.

    All-purpose flack To Do list perfect for any situation:

    1) Book slot on View and Ellen.

    2) Release photos to US Weekly.

    3) Get client into rehab.

    4) Yell to photogs while running for car “She/he wasn’t racist/drunk/homophobic when they yelled racial slur/hit waiter with SUV/used un-PC like language, they were just tired from working all day. Everything’s fine.”

    4) After rehab, get US Weekly to cover release from program.

    5) Book a follow-up with View and Ellen. (Probably Rosie too as she’ll have her own show again by then, unless she’s booked back on the View to talk about leaving the View.)

    6) Repeat.

    Posted 24 Jan 2007 at 9:07 pm ¶

31. Lyonside wrote:

    Don’t watch the show, so really haven’t joined in, but…

    >so what is the difference between ‘fag,’ (and, really, is that a slur?),

    Kim, it is a slur, even if it’s been embraced by parts of the queer community (much as “nigger” has in parts of the AA community, and for much the same reason.)

    The etymology I’ve read is this: “Fag” in British slang refers to a lit cigarette… short for “faggot,” which is an Old English word for a lit torch… it’s applied to (usually male) homosexuals in references to times when accused homosexuals (usually men, hence the usual usage) were burned at the stake, or otherwise executed (I recall a hot poker being another method).

    So yeah, I’d call it a slur.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 12:03 am ¶

32. Kaywil wrote:

    I don’t have anything of my own. Stumbled across this article that seems to explain very well how this issue has become so big in the media. Another “I got ya!” move by majority America to clear their wrong doing for the “N-Word”, “Ching-Chong” and others.

    “Isaiah Washington Should Keep His Job”
    By Jasmyne A. Cannick
    http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=6024

    “The gay community is not one big happy family. For far too long, gay has been synonymous with white and power.

    The issue of Isaiah Washington is not solely a gay issue, it’s also a Black issue. But you’d never know that looking from the recent media reports calling for Washington to be fired. That’s because the gay mafia has taken it upon themselves to single handedly position themselves as the experts on what Isaiah’s fate should be.”

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 12:16 pm ¶

33. Kaywil wrote:

    And can we stop wasting time catching actors in the height of stupidity. Now, there’s this Rachael Ray thing. For gosh sakes, it’s the old US of A! It was founded on racism. Can we stop focusing on the individual and start focusing on the society! Geeeeez!

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 12:19 pm ¶

34. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    I can’t believe a GLBT paper actually ran that column. I came across it yesterday on her blog, and was appalled by the gratuitous use of the term “gay mafia.” (She never defines the term, by the way. Who are these people in the gay mafia? Where do they work?)

    The lack of diversity in the gay community is an important issue worth exploring. So is the alleged lack of cooperation between “mainstream” GLBT groups with black GLBT groups on this Isaiah Washington situation.

    But I just can’t take anyone seriously if they use terms like “gay mafia.”

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 12:39 pm ¶

35. kim wrote:

    Thanks for that Lyonside.

    My level of … what does this really mean to people is still there, despite the etymology. The etymology is entirely useful, though I’m dubious, due to my own unfamiliarity with the word’s violent aspect, as to precisely HOW others receive this word.

    There will probably be no clear way for me to understand what others understand unless I go into some historical and social commentary -type texts, which I will do.

    Thanks, again. I’ve heard no one state why it was offensive, or how the injury cuts, so I’ve been waiting for … something.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 6:31 pm ¶

36. S. A. Bonasi wrote:

    Kim,

    It’s a little hard to explain exactly “why” it is offensive. It just kinda is. When a straight person calls or refers to a queer person as a “fag” or “faggot”, there’s hatred in the person’s voice. It’s a dismissive “I can use a demeening word to address/refer to you and I don’t care if it hurts you because you are not a person.” It’s dehumanizing, and that’s scary because if one doesn’t see a person as person one doesn’t have to care if they are disenfranchised/harmed/killed.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 7:44 pm ¶

37. kim wrote:

    Right, and I got that , particularly the dehumanizing intent, and the spit it through the teeth with daggers in the mouth intent to dismiss.

    I just really wonder (and I’ll stop saying it, ’cause even I’m tired of being the only one to ask, and sounding whiny) if all the posters up and down the net who have jumped on this thing have seriously ever considered this word (just considered it at all), or if there is the ‘let me follow suit’ behavior that must attach if one wants the offenses that cut close to one’s own heart to gather support.

    I sound so cynical, but not for reasons of seeking to downplay that this is offensive, but for the shallow ring of outrage that I am sensing in comments. It sounds…perfunctory.

    Posted 25 Jan 2007 at 9:24 pm ¶

38. Kaywil wrote:

    I’m a little bit disgusted at how many bloggers seem to be bringing up racial slurs with this incident, as if they are the same. And I know this website doesn’t like to play oppression Olympics, but for goodness sake, there’s a difference between molestation and violent rape. There’s a difference between a broken leg and death. It doesn’t mean that one is better (or not) than the other, but for goodness sake, can we please be appropriate?

    Example: Please, as an experiment, tell a holocaust survivor that you can sympathize because one time, your mom locked you in your room without dinner when you were misbehaving. See how they would react!

    It’s as if these bloggers (not here, btw) are saying “Aha! We gotcha! You guys are bigots too! Now we can stop harping on the Michael Richards thing!” (While systematically lumping all [black] people together). It was as if they were starting to feel ‘guilty’ for having to (apologize for) reprimand Michael Richards.

    Black people are gay too (surprise, surprise) but that has not ONCE come up in the blogosphere. The conversations sound like you’re either black or gay. Not both.

    TR represents the face of gayness. Not a woman, not a minority, not a disabled person. He’s a white, respected, somewhat powerful male. Let’s just talk about that for one millisecond. Please.

    Downplaying the “N-Word” because “they use it on themselves too” was seen as offensive and many bloggers jumped on that. But now, the same is coming up in the new posts of “well, they used the (new) ‘F-Word’ too” and no one is even blinking or getting remotely offended.

    This is not about the N-Word. This is not about the F-Word (which gets tossed around like free candy in this society). This is something much bigger. Let’s talk about that. Iron that out. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this and figure out why gay boys can be beaten to death without it even so much as making headline news on some days (which makes me so very mad), and GBLT press can’t do a thing about it. Or the President can openly try to reverse progress by changing the constitution and the GBLT press can barely get a sound bite. But this….oooohhhh, this is so important, even the ‘heterosexual community’ is in on this one.

    Someone, please shed some light on the things that I may be overlooking. This issue resonates with me and has obviously struck a nerve. I am offended at the use of the F-Word every single time I hear it, but this seems like we’re not even talking about that anymore.

    Posted 26 Jan 2007 at 1:02 pm ¶

39. Kaywil wrote:

    And just to clarify my example/experiment, it could go both ways. Things have to be discussed in context. The context in which the F-Word was used was different than if, for example, TR was being beaten while that word was being used. Context. If IW and TR’s employers thought it was a big issue, they should have dealt with the problem WHEN it occurred. I am, in no way, trying to simplify or dilute hate. So, even if they didn’t do their “employer” duties correctly, it doesn’t take away from the issue. But as I concluded before, this seems to no longer be about the words…

    And yes, I do think that the manner in which Michael Richards used the N-Word was similar to a ‘beating’. He didn’t just say it in anger, he followed up with a lynching/fork reference. That’s a little (or a lot) different than if he had just said something like “shut up Ni@@er!” But yet again, everyone focused on the “word” and not the context.

    Posted 26 Jan 2007 at 1:16 pm ¶

40. kim wrote:

    Kaywil: This is not about the N-Word. This is not about the F-Word (which gets tossed around like free candy in this society). This is something much bigger.

    Kim: so this is about parlaying the (finally arrived) public outcry and visibility into a politically winnable platform and/or initiative(s)?

    What, for you, is this about? It’s not about the Ff word?

    Posted 26 Jan 2007 at 1:52 pm ¶

41. Kaywil wrote:

    That’s what I am trying to sift out. It seems a little bit overplayed. And the comments on other blogs seem to be going in one direction. Have you taken a look? Or is it just me that keeps on reading every single blog I can find, and not only focusing on the post, but the comments as well. This seems to be the only location that has stuck to the topic and not brought up the N-Word along side it.

    Posted 26 Jan 2007 at 2:03 pm ¶

42. Kaywil wrote:

    And when you say “politically winnable platform and/or initiative(s)”, if I take you correctly, you may be hitting the nail on the head (at least for me). Is this being played out because it is “winnable” and if so, why?

    Posted 26 Jan 2007 at 2:06 pm ¶

43. kim wrote:

    Kaywil,

    thank you for at least questioning what is being disputed, and what is at the core of that dispute, and the posts/comments.

    I am so full of questions, and am glad to be able to ask people here about things I am not clear on.

    You read me correctly, and maybe this will help to bring to national consciousness the issue of a still-tenuous safety (and threat of loss of limb) for gays who are not closeted.

    *deep breath* I really don’t know the trajectory of this storm, or where the eye of it is placed, but I am listening, I am watching.

    Posted 26 Jan 2007 at 3:30 pm ¶

44. Kaywil wrote:

    Yes, I to am watching (while biting nails). I’m not too sure what’s going to happen.

    Posted 26 Jan 2007 at 4:34 pm ¶

45. Meg wrote:

    washington has now entered a “residential treatment facility” – anyone have money on that?

    Posted 26 Jan 2007 at 6:23 pm ¶

46. brad wrote:

    Carmen,

    Here’s the point that Jasmyne C. was making:

    “”Now I am not implying that the gay mafia is all of white gay America.

    Nevertheless, the gay mafia is the gay power structure that quite frankly, is the voice and face of the gay community and is the reason why people, including Black America thinks that all gays are white. Similar to politics, where the Speaker of the House, speaks for everyone, even if people disagree, the gay mafia has done a huge disservice to the gay community by putting the message out there that all gays are calling for Isaiah Washington to be fired, when indeed they are not.

    The hypocrisy comes into play with the silence of the gay mafia on one of their own, Charles Knipp’s, whose character Shirley Q. Liquor portrays Black women as being on welfare, living in the projects, illiterate, shoplifting sexually promiscuous mothers who don’t know who their children’s fathers are, alcoholics, and drug addicts, all of which sends a clear message to Black America, including Black gays, that they are all too ok with his use of blackface and stereotypes. Add lest we forget their silence regarding last year’s horrific hate-crime that claimed the life of 29-year-old Michael Sandy in New York, and it’s clear to me that there’s some hypocrisy and media whoring going here.”

    Posted 26 Jan 2007 at 11:53 pm ¶

47. JD wrote:

    In reply to Steffon, post # 16:

    Your reasoning that unfair media representation of racial demographics would make it unfair to fire Washington is a fallacy- Non Sequitur. It is not relevant to the fairness of Washington loosing his job for using a homophobic slur, not to mention committing an act of violence in the workplace. According to it’s website ABC’s policy is, “The Walt Disney Company’s policy prohibits employees from harassing any other employee, guest or other person in the course of the company’s business for any reason prohibited by law, including, but not limited to, race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation….”
    Additionally, No sources are quoted for percentages of racial demographics of the general population you use, nor is the “general population” qualified. Based on the context we can only assume you are referring to the U.S. Furthermore, there are no sources quoted for percentages of racial demographics in Chicago, nor are sources quoted or the population qualified for the statistics on homosexuals.
    Actual percentage of the homosexual population are highly contested in studies conducted in the U.S. Additionally, the studies themselves and the methods and accuracy of collecting data are disputed. Particularly in relying on participants self-disclosing as a homosexual or admittance of same-sex behavior with the social stigma currently associated with homosexual identification and behavior. Researchers have noted that there are several problems with the infamous Kinsey’s research that asserted the number to be 10 percent; most notably Kinsey did not use probability sampling methods to construct his sample of the population, making it fallacious to generalize this to the larger society. In addition, Kinsey’s 10 percent estimate is based solely upon studying white men. An article summarizing the Laumann study (Tamar, 1994) indicates that while only 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual, the numbers of those who reported engaging in same-sex experiences or having same-sex attractions were higher. Invariably differences in culture and gender stigmas would also potentially play a role in the likelihood of non-divulgence of homosexual identification and behavior.
    Based on the interpretation of the data between these studies it is most likely that the actual percentage of LGBT individuals in the U.S. is somewhere between at least 2.8-10 percent. There is however, the possibility that this percentage could be higher than 10 percent, due to participants of the two studies not self- identifying due to social stigmas or psychological struggles with homosexual self-identification. It is unlikely the number is less than 2.8 percent since both studies indicate at least 2.8 percent self-identifying as homosexual.
    You also fail to provide any evidence that “homosexuals are everywhere”.
    I would argue to the contrary. According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), a non profit organization media watchdog for fair accurate and inclusive representation of LGBT people and events in the media, “the actual number of LGBT representations on the major broadcast networks will comprise less than 2% of all characters on the networks’ 2005-06 schedule” (GLAAD, 2006). To fairly represent television viewing habits, both broadcast networks and cable networks are studied when evaluating the representation of LGBT characters. Although research on this subject is limited and no other studies could be found to substantiate these figures, GLAAD’s studies are accepted as credible for the following reasons: GLAAD’s results, and press releases are referenced and reported on by the major news wires including: the Associated Press and the New York Times. Since 2004 GLAAD has worked with Nielsen Media, the world’s leading research provider of television audience measurement and related services (Nielsen, 2006). Additionally, detailed information of the data used by GLAAD to reach its figures are documented and archived on the organization’s website. Finally, anti-gay groups such as, the American Family Association, or the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) have not contested these figures.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 2:38 pm ¶

48. JD wrote:

    In reply to: Julia post # 26

    Although I am not disputing your claim that Washington should be fired, I think your claim could be better made through sound reasoning and evidence that supports your principal claim. Your use of emotive language is unnecessary and only serves to appeal to your audience’s emotion and distract from adequately addressing the issue at hand. I think it would be wise to keep in mind that portions of your audience do not share your perspective, or strong feelings on the issue. And in fact, the use of emotive language, even if your argument is sound, may backfire as critics in your audience will tend to become defensive and reject your reasoning whether or not it is correct.
    Additionally, be careful when making generalized statements. When you say, “comments… would NOT have been tolerated like this and Mr. Washington would have been collecting unemployment days ago!!”, you offer no support to measure quality, quantity, and general opposition to the generalized statement. I am confident that a critic of your argument could offer a number of examples that would prove that there are numerous jobs where comments of this nature are tolerated and go unpunished.
    I think the relevant issue in supporting your claim that Washington should be fired is that the company that employs Washington, according to their website, has the following policy: “The Walt Disney Company’s policy prohibits employees from harassing any other employee, guest or other person in the course of the company’s business for any reason prohibited by law, including, but not limited to, race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 3:10 pm ¶

49. Kaywil wrote:

    Somehow (JD and others) seem to think that actors fall into the same categories as their own employment standards. Sorry but actors have special privileges in society, if you haven’t noticed. Do you have a camera following your every move and highlighting your every word? Do you make your company millions of dollars? Do you make millions of dollars? Hello?

    We see it all the time in society, that actors get special treatment. Go figure! ABC had the opportunity to conduct disciplinary action, but come on, did they? Nope. Those in charge told the actors to keep it quiet. And sorry to say it, but depending on your boss, they may have well just done the same thing in your own 9-5 jobs. It’s discretionary reasoning.

    Does everyone that gets pulled over for speeding get a ticket? Nope! So why is it now, JD, that it’s okay to apply the letter of the law mixed in with a little bit of academic language and philosophical reasoning?

    If any one of the 9-5 employees had said things like that to a co-worker, it would not be plastered on every single blog and on every single entertainment news website and show. Let’s not get carried away and forget that we have several power structures working together here that are outside of the normal ‘average Joe’ workplace.

    Posted 30 Jan 2007 at 11:44 am ¶

50. MMBrown wrote:

    I am black and I completely agree with you. If a white actor called Washington the “n” word, there would have been an incredible uproar. His words are appalling, indefensible and what’s more appalling and indefensible is this virulent bigot being treated with kid gloves because he is black. I was horrified that his producer, Shonda Rhimes, actually laughed when he called T.R. Knight a “f****t” at the Golden Globes. I think Washington’s behavior illustrates the pervasive homophobia that’s obviously acceptable in some corners of the black community and in a lot of America.

    Posted 30 Jan 2007 at 3:00 pm ¶

51. Kaywil wrote:

    Laughing could just be a sign of discomfort, not dismissal.

    Posted 01 Feb 2007 at 9:49 pm ¶