Dear Fearful Men

Dear Fearful Men,

I understand your concerns.

You only want to have a conversation.  You just want to ask a question.  You simply want to make a point.  Yet you know that, as soon as you do, you'll be attacked, piled on, ganged up on, by those terrible, mean, aggressive, violent, abusive women.

So you preface your comment with something like, "I know that I'm going to get hit for saying this, but."  Or you end your comment with, "*ducks*."

And when you see another man say something you know those violent feminists will be upset with him for, you offer him an airlift out, for his own safety.

It's reasonable.  After all, with those violent bands of women roaming the streets, no man is safe these days.  I can't even tell you how awful it is for men to go out in public anymore, with all of the threats, the cat-calling, the street harassment.  Women are so aggressive, so violent, so likely to attack.  And when you men are assaulted, you get blamed for it!  You're told that you should have behaved differently, that women can't help themselves, that it's in their nature to be so aggressive and it's up to you to soothe their savage instincts.

And when you men do manage to speak up about the issue, when you get together to discuss the prevalence of woman-on-man violence, when you share the story of your assault, there those women are again, butting in aggressively, putting their two cents in and adding, "Now, don't gang up on me for saying this, but..."

What do they even mean by that?  Don't they get it?  Don't they know that, statistically and in your personal experience, you're more in danger from them than they are from you?  That they're more likely to assault you than you are to assault them?  What's the point of making a comment like that in the first place?  It's to put you in your place, isn't it?  To remind you to be nice, to be polite, to be sweet, to placate them.  You don't want to make them angry, after all.  You don't want to rile the beast.  You'd better play nice, and smile, and offer them cookies for showing up to the conversation at all.  After all, it's generous of them to try to join in the discussion, to try to help out, when you're the ones with the problem, you're the ones getting hurt, you're the ones who need help.

It's awful, isn't it?  It's ridiculous, when the victims of violence and rape and assault are treated as if they're violent, they're aggressive, they're abusive.  It's entirely backwards.  It's an insult to reality.

If women really wanted to help, after all, if they really wanted to contribute to the conversation, they'd just do it.  They'd approach the conversation with genuine openness.  They wouldn't assume a hostile audience.  They'd understand why they might face a hostile audience, and they'd watch their step accordingly.  They'd do more listening than demanding.  They would acknowledge that, according to the statistics and to your lived experiences, women are much more likely to assault men than men are to assault women, so even joking comments about ducking after saying something that might be received poorly is in bad taste, especially given the topic of conversation.

I guess they're not interested in respectful, sincere dialogue, though.  It's easier for them to accuse you of creating a hostile environment, of blaming you for their lack of participation, of setting up the situation so that you're at fault if they don't want to continue the conversation.

It's a terrible situation.  I hope that they realize what they're doing, someday, and stop it.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Justin Timberlake (Part 2)

For this letter to make sense, please read the first one here.

Dear Justin Timberlake (again),

Wait.

Wait, I get it now.

I read your apology letter and was disgusted because the apology didn't fit the situation being apologized for.

I failed to take into account that you probably thought that it did.

I did my reading and research to find out what was going on, and what I found warranted a much more serious, thoughtful apology than you delivered.  I was frustrated to find that your open letter seemed more interested in defending than apologizing.

Now it's all clicked, and I realize that you may have come across as defensive because you felt defensive.  You may have written such a weak apology because you didn't feel very apologetic.

You don't understand what our problem is.

You don't understand why we're so disgusted by that video or that it was used as a joke at a celebrity's European wedding festivities.

You don't get it.

Wow.  I'm sorry, I assumed that it would be obvious.  Isn't it obvious?  Or maybe you do get it; maybe you just feel defensive at having to explain yourself.  Maybe you want to enjoy your happy moment of newly wedded bliss without being disturbed by petty complaints about some video some "knucklehead" friend of yours made.  Maybe you're just resentful that word reached the press and the public and ruined your good time.

Maybe you saw the video and understand the complaints, but just don't see it as that big of a deal.  So some homeless people were mocked.  So your friends sat around and had a good laugh at the idea of you voluntarily associating with people down on their luck.  What's the problem?  God, you can't even tell a joke anymore without the PC police making a huge deal of everything.

Your letter took 12 paragraphs to say "I'm sorry" and even then wasn't very convincing, given all of the ways you found to explain that it wasn't that bad to begin with.  We got quotations from your grandfather and some "everyone's equal" down-home Tennessee wisdom, but your harshest words against the video were, "I agree with the overall consensus."  Scathing!

About that Tennesse wisdom:

As a matter of fact, growing up in Tennessee, I was always taught that we as people, no matter what your race, sex, or stature may be, are equal.

You can't honestly believe that Tennessee is some egalitarian wonderland where everyone's treated equally.  There's no racism in Tennessee?  There's no sexism in Tennessee?  (Hey, good news, Aunt B.!)

Maybe you do honestly believe that everyone in Tennessee is treated exactly the same.  That everyone there has all of the same experiences and opportunities in life as you.

And maybe you really do believe that such a cruel, disgusting video was an innocent joke, unfortunately misunderstood.

That says a lot about you.

The world has been kind to you, Justin.

Please learn to be kind in return.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Justin Timberlake

This post contains discussion of classism, transphobia, mockery of homeless people, mockery of people who appear to be mentally ill and/or intoxicated and/or addicted, and gross amounts of thoughtless privilege on display.  It also contains references to rape culture.

Dear Justin Timberlake,

Congratulations on your marriage.  I hope for your happiness.

I'm about a month late on this topic, because I've been debating with myself over whether or not to speak up.  Back in October, Liss pointed readers to an article about this:

The blind was all about the “wedding gift” some friends made for a recently married couple. The “gift” was a “funny” video in which homeless people talked on camera about how they were super-sad to miss the celebrity couple’s big, fancy wedding. Because the “joke” is that homeless people are SO funny, what with their homelessness and not knowing where their next meal will come from, and the joke is that of course the celebrity couple would invite some homeless people to their wedding.

Terrible.  That is cruel and mean-spirited and absolutely disgusting.

As word of the video spread, you responded in an open letter on your website.

Let's take a read.

As it pertains to this silly, unsavory video that was made as a joke and not in any way in mockery:

Not a mockery?  I don't understand what it was, then.  How does the video work as a joke if it isn't mocking the people onscreen?  What's the joke?

My friends are good people.

Good people make fun of those in need?

Your friends may be more complex than you realize.  Perhaps this gets to the nature of what "goodness" is and how we exhibit it.  If you only ever see Bob act like a decent guy, you think of Bob as a decent guy.  Then you find out that Bob has done some shitty, cruel things.  You can either go with the response of, "Wow, there are aspects of Bob's personality and character that I never knew!  Let me reevaluate how well I know this guy!"  Or you can go with the response of, "But the Bob I know donates money to AIDS research!  He's a wonderful person!  Donating money is a good thing, so Bob is a good person, and I allow for no complexities in my fellow human beings!"

You'll see this sort of response a lot when someone's being accused of being a rapist or murderer.  "Not Bob!  Impossible!  Bob pets dogs!"  "Bob?!  No way!  Bob's always nice to me!"  This is how a lot of sexual predators get by in life.  They do good things in public and horrible things in private, and when the horrible stuff comes to light, everyone says, "But he's always been so great to my kids!" or "But he volunteers for the church!" and he continues on his merry, awful way and his victims are called liars.  That's why the blanket statement of "he's a good person" really, really needs to be discarded as a defense.

Your friends may be funny, helpful, dog-petters around you.  That does not make them good people.  That makes them friendly around Justin Timberlake.  They're also (at least one of them) completely shitty and cruel around homeless people.  In my book, that's incompatible with the label "good people."

This was clearly a lapse in judgment which I'm sure no one who is reading this is exempt from.

Yes, we're all given to lapses in judgment from time to time.  I often regret doing or saying (or not doing, not saying) something.  We fuck up, we make mistakes, we're human.  But coming up with the video idea, getting a camera and going out to interview the people featured, conducting the interviews, editing the video and adding a soundtrack, and then sharing the video, involves a lot of time and effort.  It involves a certain amount of time in consideration of the video and its various aspects.  Deciding that I can speed up and get through a traffic light in time, only to cause an accident, is a lapse in judgment.  What's under discussion here is much more serious.

I don't believe it was made to be insensitive.

No?  How so?  What do you think that it was, then?  The point was to mock homeless people in need of help.  It's a joke, but not mockery and not insensitive?  Was it sensitive, then?  Sensitive to their needs?  Sensitive to their plight?  Sensitive to their need to be treated with dignity and respect?

More so, I think it was made as a joke on me not having that many friends attending my own wedding (which IS kind of funny if you think about it).

Up until this point, I find it difficult to understand precisely what you think is going on.  Here is where communication breaks down entirely and I wonder if you think that we don't know who you are.

Hi.  You're Justin Timberlake.

People love you wherever you go.  People collaborate with you on a song or work with you on a set and immediately cannot get over how awesome you are.  You seem to have some ridiculous amount of personal charm which turns other Hollywood professionals into starry-eyed fans.  It happens in every corner of the entertainment industry you brush up against.  It has happened throughout your career.

You have no trouble making friends.

With that said, maybe you don't consider those people to be "friends."  Maybe you appreciate the interest and intentions of all of those other people, but when you think of true friendship, you think of someone who's been there for you, someone you can open up to, someone you've really been through something with.

The other members of *NSYNC, perhaps?  No, not them; you didn't invite any of them to your wedding.

All right, maybe your definition of friendship is something more intense, something more personal.  Your true friends are the people you've really connected with, really bonded with, people who know you inside and out.  The only people you'd consider inviting to your wedding are members of an elite inner circle, people who know you as no one else ever can.

Those people know you very, very well, then, I'd imagine.

They'd know what you like.  They'd know your sense of humor.  They'd know what makes you laugh and what crosses the line.

And they made this video for your special day.

I think we can all agree that it was distasteful, even though that was not its intention.

Its intention was to make you laugh.  Its intention was to be funny.  Its intention was to entertain with some good-times humor.  The intention was to mock poor people, homeless people, people who need help.  Because homeless people, people with addictions, people with mental illnesses, and trans people are funny.  At least, it's hilarious to think of them being so deluded as to consider themselves welcome in your sphere.  Hilarious to think of them being welcome at your wedding or associated with you.  Hilarious to think of them even knowing you!  So, so funny.  As if you would ever know someone like that!  As if, wait.  As I recall, Chris Kirkpatrick lived out of his car for a while.  Wait, that can't be right!  That would make it seem as if homeless people are actual people, like anyone else.  Almost like you!  With things in common with you!  Aw, now the joke's ruined.

Once again, in the world that we live in where everyone thinks that they know everything, I want to be very clear... I am NOT defending the video. I agree with the overall consensus.

For someone who's being "very clear," you're not being entirely clear.  You agree with the overall consensus?  Would you care to explain what you believe the overall consensus to be?  So far, you've described the video as:

something that has even shed any kind of dark light on what was and will always be one of the most special weeks of my life.

this silly, unsavory video that was made as a joke and not in any way in mockery 

a lapse in judgment 

I don't believe it was made to be insensitive. More so, I think it was made as a joke on me 

I think we can all agree that it was distasteful, even though that was not its intention.

It's a silly, unsavory joke.  In poor taste, accidentally.  Unintentionally insensitive.  Not a mockery.

A well-intentioned joke that accidentally turned out to be in poor taste.  If it mocks anyone, it mocks you, really.  Poor, friendless Justin Timberlake, the real victim in all of this.  How cruel of us to misunderstand.

I want to say that, on behalf of my friends, family, and associative knuckleheads

Aw, those knuckleheads.  Always goofing around, mocking homeless trans people!

I am deeply sorry to anyone who was offended by the video.

There we go!  "I am deeply sorry."  It only took you 12 paragraphs to get there!

Sorry to anyone who was offended, you say?  What about an apology to the people in the video?  To the specific people taken advantage of for your crowds' amusement?  To the general kinds of people mocked?  Any apologies for them?  Anything to say to the trans community?  To people in poverty, people in need, people on the streets?

Again, it was something that I was not made aware of.

You seem to be aware of it now.  When were you made aware of it?  I guess that you were too busy to join in the wedding festivities, so when it was shown to everyone else, you weren't around?  I mean, according to the linked article, "Mr. Huchel made [the] video to be used and exhibited privately at Justin Timberlake’s wedding as a private joke without Mr. Timberlake’s knowledge," but I can't tell if the "without Mr. Timberlake's knowledge" pertains to the "made" or the "used and exhibited."  Either way, it seems odd that he'd go to that much work to make the video without ever showing it to you.  It's like a wedding gift for everyone at the wedding but the actual couple.  It makes me wonder what sort of dynamic is at play here, that a friend of yours would make a video for your wedding that he thought your wedding party would find hilarious but wasn't worth showing to you.  Odd.

But, I do understand the reaction and, by association, I am holding myself accountable.

How?  In what way?  What does this mean?  What's happening here?  You're going to give yourself a stern talking-to?  You're going to take time out for somber reflection on your choice of friends?  You're going to donate to homeless shelters?  You're going to educate yourself on poverty and addiction?  You're going to say to yourself, "Justin Timberlake, I hold you responsible for this silly, well-intentioned joke which accidentally turned out to be in poor taste!" and then go golfing?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts.

It's your website.  You have the opportunity to post anything you want to post on it.

It really is a blessing to be able to speak directly to my true fans so that you can know exactly where I stand.

True fans?  You and I have a long, long talk coming about how you treat your fans, and I probably shouldn't get into that here, but calling on your "true fans" only serves as a "prove it to me" statement.  You're seeking to differentiate "true fans" from the other fans, as if your true fans will be loyal and stand by your side and accept whatever you say without question, while anyone who dares to read your "apology" and call bullshit can't possibly be a true fan.  That is a lousy thing to do to your fans.  They're allowed to love and support you and still think that this is a shitty moment and a terrible apology.

You can bet your ass that I'm having my friend do at least 100 hours of community service... Boom.

Wait, I thought that you were holding yourself accountable.  Should I expect to see you out there doing 100 hours of community service, too?

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Airline Industry and TSA

Dear Airline Industry and TSA,

I remember when fear of flying was the most prevalent concern air travelers had.  Remember those days?  I was never afraid to fly, myself, so the biggest concern I had was whether or not my ears would pop correctly during the final descent.  I'd heard stories of people spending their vacations having trouble hearing anything, so I'd pack gum and yawn to make sure that everything was okay.

Now, I wish that were my main concern.  Now I worry about my privacy being violated.  I worry about being touched in places I don't want a stranger's hands on me.  I worry about being charged hundreds of dollars for another seat or kicked off of a flight for being considered too fat.

The worst part of it is that most of what I listed above comes from arbitrary and unnecessary policies.  My ears popping is a matter of biology and physics.  Your security theater has been displayed as a sham by people more informed than I am.  Your anti-fat measures are applied at the whim of whoever happens to be working that day and are used at the airline's convenience to solve issues you cause to begin with.  Flight overbooked?  Just search the plane for someone who looks fat, threaten to charge for a second seat, and hope that they'll be unable to pay so you can shove two more people onto the plane.

The next time I fly, will I be molested?  Will images of my body be displayed?  Will I be harassed and threatened and overcharged?  Will I be ejected from the plane?  I'm not worried about the plane crashing; I'm worried about what you'll do to me on the way to the plane.

I miss the days when chewing some gum would solve my problems.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear ABC

Homophobia and racism to follow.

Dear ABC,

I enjoy lighthearted physical challenge shows.  When a friend and I were looking for amusement, we came across "Wipeout" and gave it a shot.

I've only seen one episode and a part of another, but I came away with no desire to watch any of it ever again.  What I saw raised a lot of questions and put me on edge.

A twenty-year-old contestant on a "blind date" episode introduced himself by saying, "I became a man when I was thirteen when I had my bar mitzvah."  Your hosts almost immediately began to call him a man-child and continued to make "man-child" comments throughout the show.

A contestant on another episode introduced himself as a karate instructor.  Your hosts suggested that he had a "rainbow belt" from the "Bob Fosse dojo."

I understand that you have a lot of contestants and a casual audience, so you want to create narratives around the contestants to make them easily memorable so that watchers will follow along more readily.  A woman says that she's descended from samurai and a man says that he wants to be a ninja, so you create a narrative about them being a samurai-ninja couple.  However, since the friend I was watching with missed that couple's introduction, when you spent the entire episode referring to the Asian couple with stereotypically Asian terms, she thought that you were being racist.  You were feeding right into a racist narrative.

Do you really need to refer to Zachary Botterman as "Man-child" throughout the episode as if that's his name?  Do you think that we'll pay better attention or care more that way?  To be entirely frank, your commentary came across as anti-Semitic because it played right into anti-Semitic narratives.  It was also gender-policing and body-policing.

The main hosts in the booth are two white men with nearly identical body types named John Something-son.  Vanessa Lachey is in the "on the field" role, interacting directly with the contestants.  On one hand, it's great that of your three hosts, one is a woman of color.  On the other hand, the entire show is based around two white men standing to one side spouting running commentary on women and people of color and other contestants at their expense.  It's like an unending series of micro-aggressions.  As I watched, I kept wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt.  After all, if she says that she's descended from samurai and he says that he wants to be a ninja, how accountable should I hold you for playing into a racist narrative?  They brought it up themselves, right?  If the woman portrayed as sex-hungry and desperate for a hot guy just happens to be the thickest of the women there, that's just a coincidence, right?  You're not making her say those things.

But you're the one editing.  You're the one deciding what to air.  You put together the commentary.  You decide which narrative to push.  You know which stereotypes you're perpetuating.  So I end up watching a show with two white guys observing the action and telling me all about the Asian samurai-ninja couple, the man-hungry woman who just so happens to be not very skinny, the Jewish man-child, and so on.  When I tried another episode and got to the gay "joke" mentioned above, I had to stop watching.

In the future, try to come up with narratives that don't reinforce racist stereotypes or other nasty themes.  Or don't come up with narratives at all.  Let your contestants simply be contestants with their own names.  Use team colors or team names to identify them.  Maybe find more interesting, witty hosts, as well.  There are very funny people in this world who would love the job.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Pranksters

Dear Pranksters,

Let's talk about pranks.

Here's an easy one.  Let's say that Jane is sensitive to cold and Lisa is sensitive to heat.  They sit together at a table on a hot day in August.  Lisa gets up to add ice to her drink.  Knowing that Jane is unsuspecting, she waits until her hand is chilly from the ice, then plants her hand on the back of Jane's neck.

Jane, surprised, gasps and jerks away in distress.

Lisa laughs.

This is a prank.

Pranksters consider themselves to be funny people out for a laugh.

Who's laughing in this situation?  Lisa.

What is she laughing at?  Jane's distress.  Her own cleverness in taking advantage of Jane.  "Ha ha, I really got you!"

Maybe Beth was at the table, watching.  Maybe she laughs, too.  This makes it even funnier for Lisa, who has a witness to her antics.  This also means that Beth saw Lisa sneaking up on Jane and, instead of warning Jane of Lisa's intentions or warning Lisa away, sat in silent complicity or egged Lisa on.

Maybe Jane is a close friend and loves pranks.  Maybe Jane is a common target, someone Lisa and Beth have been bullying for months.  Maybe Jane enjoyed the prank and laughed along.  Maybe Jane laughed because she was startled, because she was nervous, because she's been socialized to play along and not ruin everyone else's fun.

If you take advantage of me and prey upon me and then laugh, you're not being funny, you're being an asshole.  Pranks are designed to startle people, to scare them, to upset them, to hurt them.  "Ha ha, you're in pain!"  That's not hilarious, that's sadistic.

If you're genuinely a funny person, you'll be able to find other ways to enjoy a good laugh without pranking someone.

If you have fun with pranks, give careful thought to who your victims are and what sorts of pranks you enjoy.  There is a line between shared jokes and bullying.  Please don't cross it.  A lot of people laugh along with pranks because we're socialized to do so whether we genuinely enjoy the "joke" or not.

With love,
Frank Lee