I find the Oscars tedious, and only watched a few minutes last night — I bailed shortly after Captain Kirk made his appearance — but apparently I should have stuck around, if only to watch the insufferable Seth MacFarlane’s award-winning performance as Unfunny Misogynist Asshole Host.
What, you say, he didn’t actually win an award for that? Well, yes he did: Having read a number of accounts of the whole sorry spectacle, I’m awarding MacFarlane the non-coveted Man Boobz Boob of the Day Award (Oscar Edition). In the wake of MacFarlane’s performance at the Oscars, in which he devoted a whole song to actresses’ breasts, I should note that I am using the word “boob” to mean “nincompoop.” Which, to be honest, is an undeservedly mild epithet for a guy who punctuated his comments with repeated jokes about rape.
A few of the highlights of MacFarlane’s night:
That song-and-dance number about how great it is to see so many boobs in films – including, specifically, in The Accused, and Monster, and Boys Don’t Cry. You know, during the rape scenes in those quie serious films.
MacFarlane’s animatronic teddy bear (from his movie Ted) joking about attending an orgy at Jack Nicholson’s house – you know, the place where Roman Polanski raped a 13-year old girl.
Oh, and then there was MacFarlane joking about how 9-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis would be too old to date George Clooney in about 16 years. (What, is Heartiste writing MacFarlane’s jokes?) And his bizarre domestic violence joke about Chris Brown and Rihanna. And on and on. (See here for many more examples.)
Getting into the spirit of the evening, whoever was doing The Onion’s twitter account decided it would be hilarious to refer to the aforementioned 9-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis as a “cunt.” The Onion later deleted the tweet and offered an apology for it.
Somehow I doubt we’re going to get an apology from MacFarlane.
Here are a couple more takes on the whole unfortunate evening.
Why Seth MacFarlane’s Misogyny Matters (Vulture)
Seth MacFarlane and the Oscars’ Hostile, Ugly, Sexist Night (The New Yorker)
Oscar Watch: Was That Awful or What? (NY Post)
EDITED TO ADD: Oh, joy! The Men’s Rights subreddit weighs in on the issue, in a thread sort-of-responding to that New Yorker piece.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: Actually, r/mensrights has two threads on the subject; here’s the other one.
Hey Cassandra, I’m back. Made tacos. Pretty good. Should we talk about something more interesting than Brandon, like ear wax or mold?
So it is impossible for 2 people to have the same opinion on 2 separate topics? Crap that makes me every other person in the world.
But just for the sake of amusement (because I doubt it will change your mind). What would it take for you to think I wasn’t Brandon?
@ hellkell
It’s a good thing that he didn’t choose acting as a career, huh?
@ cloudiah
Sure! I’m going to make a stir fry with chicken and kabocha once I catch up on my email. Also could use some advice on hair color if anyone else has hair that’s as delicate and easily damaged as mine. I found this new type of dye called INOA, trying to figure out if it’s worth doing. Normally I to to a place that uses very high end organic dyes, but I need to get my hair dyed ASAP for an event.
Argenti, genital “normalizing” surgery? What a horrible concept. What’s normal?
And I see that circumcision has taken over the comments… Not that it isn’t an important discussion, but they don’t have to make EVERY discussion about that. Like, go start your own discussion already.
I can’t help you on the hair dye front, since as we’ve established I trust my hair to Supercuts. (Le Supercuts, I call them.) 😉
Also, has anyone ever had an ombre effect done on their hair? I’m curious about how it looks during the grow-out period and if it fades nicely or not.
Cassandra: yeah, acting’s not his forte. Neither is understanding the difference between “opinion” and “style.” Jesus.
Dunno what to tell you about the dye, my hair can take a ridiculous amount of dye abuse before I have to cut it all off.
I did have ombre, and it faded quite nicely, since it already kind of looks like it’s growing out.
My issue with dye is that I can’t use bleach at all, so only the really good dyes can take it a few shades lighter, and I need a pro to do it for me. I guess I could just dye it black, but I’m thinking that’s not very summery.
Speaking of acting (good segue, eh?), a friend of mine totally photobombed Emmanuelle Riva at the Oscars. XD
Did you have bright colors like purple, red, etc, or more traditional colors? I’m thinking that since I have to dye my hair to cover the silver now anyway I may start to do more punky colors again soon.
Ombre hair sounds supercool.
I did ombre with red and browns. I’m thinking of going back to pink or nuclear red streaks because of the silver invasion. I miss my blonde hair.
I’m thinking that depending on the work situation a few months from now I may go back to the wine color that I used to have, or black with wine highlights.
I skipped the comments, I’ll go read them now. As for “normal” it’s a supposedly polite way of saying that intersex genitalia are not normal and need to be surgically turned into something “normal” — whether than means male or female is, afaik, done on a case by case basis.
And I’m leaning towards “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” but not torture. I’m also really miffed that the article brings up how calling it such might backfire and entrench the opinions of doctors and parents who feel it necessary (to preform surgery on the genitals of an infant for no reason other than “you aren’t normal dear”)
Just to make this more “interesting” — those surgeries tend to put appearance over sexual functioning. Can’t orgasm? Oh well, at least your dangly bits fit into one of the two “normal” boxes.
“These surgeries that she’s naming are minor and in my personal view don’t even qualify as abuse”
*hulk smash* when half~ the related surgeries have “loss of sensation” as a risk, that isn’t fucking minor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_surgery
Yeah, “torture” seems a bit much, and I wouldn’t want to weaken the definition of torture by broadening it overly. But unethical and degrading treatment, certainly.
The idea that loss of sensation isn’t a big issue seems to be fairly common among surgeons, which has always irked me. You see it a lot in discussions about breast implants too.
Since I’m of the no kids thanks tribe I tend to see “able to produce pleasant sensations” as what genitals are for, so the idea that sensation is less important than appearance baffles me.
What I said in the tweet (since not everyone here follows my twitter) Abuse? Yes. Morally repugnant? Yes. Torture? No.
I have a pretty broad, but specific definition of torture, and part of that is that it’s a crime of intent. That this is horrific in its effects, and that those effects can be painful, for life, doesn’t change that the purpose isn’t to inflict pain, for the benefit of the person inflicting the pain.
So, for all I think them misguided, wrong and all the rest, it’s not torture.
OMG: Misandry Emergency
I’m with Cassandra, pleasant feelings are all my genitals are for (that and the occasional “remind me why I have you?” complaints). And even appearance, that’s not exactly relevant until puberty, and the kid is able to express an opinion, if not consent, by then. Which just leaves surgeries to correct actual functional issues (eg urinary tract issues) — and those aren’t really “normalizing” any more than correcting, say, an imperforate vagina would be.
Pecunium — maybe I’m just reading you wrong, but I’m wary of limiting torture to cases where the intent’s to inflict pain for the pleasure of the torturer, ie sadism. I must be reading you wrong though, since I can’t imagine you excluding torture that’s ostensibly justified by a “need for information” (eg the ticking time bomb and I saw that string of tweets cross your timeline and ARGH)
Misandry emergency! That made my day, don’t know why I didn’t think to link it here, thanks for doing that!
End tags, they help >.<
Re: definitions — I’m about halfway through the actual UN report, but this stands out as relevant “Medical care that causes severe suffering for no justifiable reason can be considered cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and if there is State involvement and specific intent, it is torture.”
Also, I want the recent posts widget back, where did it go?!
Argenti: Benefit, not pleasure. The “ticking bomb” is the classic case of the, “I don’t enjoy this, but it has to be done” rationale to, “justify” torture. I’ve spent a lot of the past 10 years talking about torture, and what’s wrong with it (on the moral, and the practical levels). It was an invitation to speak on the subject which has me staying as long in The Bay as I am (though motorcycling to Santa Cruz/Monterey is a strong temptation, and I am glad of the excuse to visit).
I care enough about it that this time I am forgoing the usual remuneration (I usually ask for at least my travel costs covered, and the fedora I’m most fond of wearing was a thank you). But this is the third, or fourth, cross country trip I’ve made to take part in a discussion/seminar/teach in, on the subject.
With the local events (ignoring the invitations to guest blog), it’s probably been about a dozen events I’ve spoken at (on this subject).
I wonder what the, “specific intent” clause covers. I suspect it’s a term of art.