Dear "Community"

Note for gendered slur in quotation and the mentions of rape, rape culture, racism, abuse, and apologia:

If we don't treat him like such a dick, well, he'll probably still be one 98% of the time, but the 2% he's tolerable, it might be worth it.  -Jeff Winger, "Community" (episode 4.7, "Economics of Marine Biology")

Dear "Community",

In a recent episode, you had your show's hero espouse two ideas:

1.) Nasty, bigoted people are nasty and bigoted because we expect them to be and treat them poorly.

2.) If someone's tolerable 2% of the time, it makes up for the 98% he's terrible.

The first is ridiculous, and I frankly don't feel like entertaining it.

The second immediately raised my hackles, though, so let's discuss!

The character under discussion was Pierce Hawthorne, a one-man bigot parade who says cruel, hateful things about every marginalized population he can think of, wears blackface, and never met a stereotype he didn't like.  I wouldn't call him a gendered slur, as Jeff does, but I would call him a lot of other things.

The premise, then, is that even if someone is a bigoted oppression machine a majority of the time, if he's marginally tolerable once in a while, it's "worth it."  We should put up with someone's vile, oppressive antics because he's occasionally tolerable.  The joy of someone acting like a decent human being 2% of the time is so significant that we should gloss over and accept the 98% of the time he's a harmful jackass who belittles, mocks, and insults everyone around him.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree.

There are a lot of people who would agree, however.  This is a familiar, beloved concept to them.  They're the ones who say, "Well, sure, he did something absolutely atrocious, but he's a great guy!  You can't hold it against him!"

The ones who say, when a friend makes a video mocking homeless people, trans people, and addicts, "My friends are good people," as if that makes everything okay again, because how can anyone be disgusted by his actions and demand an apology and think that there's anything wrong when he's a friend, a good person, someone we certainly can't accuse of being hurtful and ask to re-examine his behavior.

The ones who say, when someone's accused of rape, "But he's on our side!  It can't really be that serious!  He's one of us!"  Because if you're a whistle-blower, that automatically cancels out any harm you might cause elsewhere.

The ones who say, when someone's accused of rape and molestation and sexual assault, "But he's a role model!  He helps underprivileged kids!  He started a foundation!"  Because if you've ever helped kids, that automatically outweighs any harm you can do to those same kids or any others.

The ones who weigh "rape" against "important cinema" and decide that movies win.

The ones who weigh "felony assault" against "music I can dance to" and decide that music wins.

The ones who weigh "gang rape" against "promising football career" and decides that football wins.

I could go on, but I'd go on forever.  It's everywhere, it's all around us.  Sure, your boss made some inappropriate jokes during the meeting, but he's a great guy, you can't hold it against him.  Sure, your brother-in-law made some insensitive comments at dinner, but he's a good guy, he didn't mean it.  We have to let it go, we have to understand, we have to accept, we have to forgive, because if anyone is funny or inventive or entertaining or meets the bare minimum of human decency once in a lifetime, that good outweighs the harm of sexual assault, of a rape joke, of a history of racist comments.

Whatever the people around you deem good enough to hit that 2% tolerable bar cancels out bad behavior.  Renders it null and void.  They'll tell you that you're wrong to be angry, you're wrong to be disgusted, you're wrong to hold his crimes against him, because he's a good guy the rest of the time!  He contributes important things to the cause!  He makes great art!  He's funny!  He's entertaining!  Don't you know that he gives to charity?!

No.

No, I will not put up with the 98% to bask in the 2%.  No, I will not excuse rape and sexual assault because I love a good football game.  No, I will not excuse nasty, harmful jokes and bigoted comments because the rest of the jokes are hilarious.

We all fuck up in one way or another.  We all say and do hurtful things over the course of time.  It's okay to point out those things.  It's good to hold us responsible.  You're not doing anyone any favors by excusing foul behavior; you're just ensuring that it'll keep happening.  It's when we point this stuff out and examine it and push each other to do better next time that we become better people.  If we make excuses and cover it up and say "it's okay because he means well," what's going to stop him from doing it again?  What's going to stop everyone else from learning that it's okay to make racist jokes if you're generally a friendly person, and it's okay to make rape jokes if you're popular, and it's okay to rape someone if you're good at something people deem valuable?

There's no magical calculator that deducts 15 points for sexual assault, awards 20 points for donating to Greenpeace, and decides that you come out ahead.

When you reward someone for that 2% and say that it makes the 98% "worth it," you're telling everyone who's harmed by the 98% that their lasting pain is meaningless and your fleeting enjoyment is everything.  You're telling them that Pierce Hawthorne is special and important, and the hurt he causes is outweighed by the positive contributions he makes, and the harm he does to them is just the price they have to pay so that the rest of us can enjoy the star in our midst.

It all boils down to: Look, I know that he beats you, but he does a lot of important stuff otherwise, okay?  So shut up and take it, because his genius is worth more than your pain, and if we start holding him responsible for his actions we might not get any more great stuff out of him, and things might get unpleasant.  You're just going to have to take one for the team.

Here's a radical notion.  How about we hold people responsible for their behavior?  How about we put away our magical calculators and admit that the bad things people do cause genuine hurt that isn't washed away by their occasional decency?  How about we admit, as a society, that one individual is capable of both good things and bad things?  "But he's such a good guy" is not a defense.  It only means that he, like everyone else, is a complex human being capable of multiple behaviors.  It only means that he acted like a good guy around you.  It only means that he treated you well, not that he treats everyone well.  It only means that you ignored the evidence and waved away the testimony because it made you uncomfortable, and there's nothing people with privilege hate more than being made to feel uncomfortable.

Jeff Winger: Pierce may be an atrocious douche 98% of the time, but 2% of the time, he makes me feel all sunny and warm inside!
Me: Not to change the subject or anything, but did you hear about the rape-joke dickwolves nonsense?
Jeff Winger: But those guys founded a charity!
Me: Not to change the subject or anything, but did you hear about those college guys who raped that woman?
Jeff Winger: But they were athletes!  Their team was doing so well!  We had a shot at the championship this year!

I don't care about how warm and sunny Jeff Winger feels; I care about the people who feel like crap every time Pierce spews his vile stereotypes.  I don't care about the charity because the charity is not the point under discussion; I care about the perpetuation of rape culture.  I don't care about a team's win-loss record, I care about the woman who's just been raped.

I wish that were the sitcom lesson-of-the-week.

I wish that were everyone's reality.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Gamers

Dear Gamers,

I saw a post today on the World of Warcraft forums from a player who had "outed" herself in real life as a gamer.  I didn't think much about it; the social stigma against gaming, whether or not exists, and how various gamers deal with it, is a topic which comes up fairly often on the forums.

And then the replies rolled in.

Here are my favorite two from the first page:

Careful, this kind of "coming out" may lead to more discrimination than the other one!
LOLS! (true though.) 

There is less stigma to being gay than there is to playing WoW. Gamers are just not normal.

The best part of that is how the poster backs off of the statement with a "lol" and then comes around again with a "true though."

Let's see.  Gamers face more discrimination than gay people, you say?  Let's look at that from the perspective of the USA, where the majority of WOW-US general forumgoers reside.

Can gamers legally marry each other in all 50 states?

Do gamers face discrimination in housing?

Can gamers legally adopt in all 50 states?  Do legal barriers prevent gamers from fostering children?

Can two gamer kids attend school functions together without facing resistance from the administration?  Can gamer kids wear gaming-related T-shirts to school without facing resistance from the administration?

How often are young gamers thrown out of their own homes by their own parents simply for liking videogames?

Do gamers have trouble getting appropriate healthcare?  Do gamers have trouble securing appropriate identification and government documentation?  For how many years were gamers barred from serving in the Armed Forces?

Job discrimination, murder rates, assault rates, legal barriers, institutional discrimination, the list goes on.  You can talk about the social stigma against gamers as much as you like, but please don't play "contrast and compare" and "who has it worse" with the gay community, or people of color, or women, or other marginalized populations.

Gamers who feel that they're facing prejudice and bigotry can, if need be, put down the controller, step away from the keyboard, or stop rolling the dice.  Trying to change or deny one's sexual orientation and sexual identity aren't comparable.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear White People

Dear White People,

You know that situation where you're talking with a person of color and the topic of tanning comes up and you say something to the effect of, "When I tan, my skin is as dark as yours!"

Stop that.

Please, please stop.

One of my friends (let's call her V) is a black woman.  Her skin is a chocolate brown shade.  White people insist on telling her all about how their skin becomes as dark as hers when they tan.  They say this as if they expect her to bond with them over a shared skin tone, as if she'll merrily reply with, "Oh, that means that we have something tremendously important in common!  Obviously, you understand the black experience so much more than other white people do!  You and I are forever bonded by our dark skin!"

In V's particular case, these white people are lying.  At the very least they're exaggerating.  However, even if she weren't chocolate brown, even if her skin were a light caramel shade, it would still be rude, insensitive, and racist for someone to try to bond with her over some perceived shared experience of color.

If you, for some reason of your own, insist on talking about the various shades of brown your skin changes to when you tan, please stop trying to relate that particular color to the people around you.  Simply determine on your own how you want to describe that color.  Try using color names relating to food and/or trees, like mocha and mahogany and cappuccino or something.  If you can talk about your own skin tones as if they aren't a commentary on someone else's, that would be terrific.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Good Men Project

Dear Good Men Project,

I'd never heard of you before Jill at Feministe mentioned you in a series of blog posts I linked to here.  Reading those posts and hearing other people's experiences with you in comments, I came up with a cloudy but troubling idea of who you are and what you're about.

Suddenly, it became much more clear.

Jill posted a link to a Twitter conversation involving one of your people, Tom Matlack.  She called him your "head honcho," and I see that he's named on Wikipedia as your founder.

Here's what he says in the middle of that Twitter conversation:

@sjjphd my privilege? I grew up with nothing. My parents didn't have enough money. You have no idea what you are talking about.

He's speaking with feminists in a conversation relevant to gender studies, and he doesn't understand what the word "privilege" means in that context.

I don't think that you can get very far in a progressive conversation without examining your privilege.  I don't think that a feminist man who doesn't understand what privilege is can actually be feminist.

If you haven't examined your privilege, if you haven't put forth some effort to cast a critical eye over the patriarchy and notice how you benefit from it, then you don't genuinely understand the deeply entrenched systems of oppression operating in this culture.  If you don't understand how men benefit from sexism, or how white people benefit from racism, etc., you don't understand the patriarchy.  Flailing around in social justice or gender studies circles without understanding the basics of the conversation generally means that you're hindering more than you're helping.

Someone who doesn't understand what "privilege" means in this context can't participate in the conversation in any meaningful, productive way.

He absolutely cannot lead the conversation.

Yet Tom Matlack is your founder.

As far as I can tell, he's male, white, and currently quite wealthy.  I don't know him very well, but let's say for the sake of argument that he grew up cis and straight.  As a man, he benefits from sexism.  As a white person, he benefits from racism.  As a cis person, he benefits from transphobia.  As a straight person, he benefits from homophobia.  And when a feminist in a conversation on gender says the word "privilege," his immediate response is: I grew up poor.  I wasn't wealthy.  As if the advantage of wealth is the only advantage of importance.  As if the economic class we're born into is the only privilege of relevance.

He has no idea, then, how being white has helped him in life.  How being a man has been a benefit.  How being cis and/or being straight is an advantage in a transphobic, homophobic society.  (That's not even to get into TAB privilege, thin privilege, and the rest.)

If you don't understand privilege, you don't understand oppression.  If you don't understand the kyriarchy, you don't understand what progressives are fighting for, or why.  How can you ask what it is to be a good man if you don't understand what being a man means in the patriarchy?  How far can that conversation among men progress if you don't begin with a fundamental understanding of your own shared privilege?

It's a truth that the patriarchy hurts men, too.  Yet a man who doesn't realize that he benefits from the patriarchy by virtue of his very maleness is ignorant and needs to approach gender studies from the very beginning.  A man who doesn't know how he benefits from sexism doesn't know what sexism is.

Your founder isn't at the "What does it mean to be a good man?" portion of the conversation.  He's at the "What does it mean to be a man?" portion.

What sorts of men is the Good Men Project for?  How can you invite all kinds of men to the conversation if you don't understand the dynamics of oppression?  If Tom Matlack doesn't understand his own white privilege, how does he include men of color?  How does he reach out to them to share their experiences and discuss their issues if he doesn't understand racism?

Let's go back to the tweet I quoted above.  During Tom Matlack's conversation with other feminists, he said something which drew Sarah J. Jackson (@sjjphd) into the discussion.  It does not thrill me to notice that while the other ongoing conversations overlap, his conversation with Sarah J. Jackson involves no one else.  I wish that she didn't have to go it alone, that others had spoken up with her as they supported each other.

For context, she's a woman of color who describes herself on Twitter as an "Asst. Prof. Researching & Teaching about Media Narratives of Race, Gender & Political Protest."  Here's the comment she replied to and their ensuing conversation.

@hugoschwyzer do you assume all black people are felons since they commit more crimes on average than white people? http://t.co/nhVHnbfv
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 08:20:33 AM PST 

@TMatlack This analogy is SO spurious. Please don't use it tom argue ur point if u want POC to have any part in what ur doing. @hugoschwyzer
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 09:36:51 AM PST 

@sjjphd @hugoschwyzer groups aren't guilty. Individuals are.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:13:18 AM PST 

@TMatlack men=historically privileged, POC=historically oppressed. Comparing stereotypes 2 make point=inaccurate, unproductive, & ingnorant.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:22:56 AM PST 

@TMatlack It's cool 2 get caught up in a heated debate but using false racial hyperbole in it? Your privilege is showing & I know ur better.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:25:04 AM PST 

@TMatlack And that's with all due respect to the arc of what you're doing at GMP. Sensational & spurious discourse helps nothing.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:26:56 AM PST 

@sjjphd calling all men rapists or all POC criminals equally sexist/racist IMO. I am a white man. Does that make me guilty ?
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:27:36 AM PST 

@TMatlack It is NOT equal because -isms have 2 do w/ the structural power grps historically & contemporarily have over others.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:30:16 AM PST 

@sjjphd my privilege? I grew up with nothing. My parents didn't have enough money. You have no idea what you are talking about.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:32:50 AM PST 

@TMatlack Last time I checked men weren't continuously structurally disenfranchised. You're def guilty of is a lack of racial sensitivity.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:33:13 AM PST 

@TMatlack I was talking about white privilege Tom, it exists and even poor white people can experience it.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:34:17 AM PST 

@sjjphd btw if you actually look at my writing I have been the taking most on GMP about race and sex tracking, the real stuff not judgement
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:35:07 AM PST 

@TMatlack As a POC who wants 2 support what ur doing at GMP I was simply requesting u not use racially insensitive language to make a point.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:36:10 AM PST 

@sjjphd read my work on race, prison etc before you go calling me racist please.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:37:08 AM PST 

@TMatlack I know! Which is why I was suprised u made the comparison u did. I know u know better. Why the defensiveness?
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:37:33 AM PST 

@TMatlack HOLY SHIT I DID NOT CALL YOU A RACIST. I said the racial comparison is spurious, which it is. Your defensiveness is shocking me.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:39:06 AM PST

@TMatlack & it is possible 4 ppl not 2 be racist & still be capable of saying less than accurate/sensitive things re race. #thoughtyoudcare
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:43:44 AM PST 

@sjjphd I was being sensitive to the many black men in prison who feel they were a victim of racism.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:47:52 AM PST 

@TMatlack Um? That's not how it came across. It seemed u were comparing black oppression 2 stereotyping of men. Not the same but #Igiveup
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:50:49 AM PST 

@TMatlack 4 the record I greatly respect what u do. Sad u can't hear from a POC & some1 who studies race that ur comparison was problematic.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:53:58 AM PST 

@sjjphd I don't believe I ever criticized *you*. You tried to educate me on race/gender which I find demeaning since I have my own views.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:58:29 AM PST 

@TMatlack U find fact men aren't oppressed grp & black ppl are, & my trying 2 alert u in good conscience abt prob w/ comparison demeaning?
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 11:42:43 AM PST 

@TMatlack #Icantanymore but hope ppl read ur friend Steve's & my pieces on having convos abt race: http://t.co/1h7Pxyci http://t.co/Q2q87X5G
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 11:44:27 AM PST

The entire back-and-forth echoes countless conversations playing out all across the sphere of feminism and social justice.  She points out that his language is harmful to a marginalized population.  She takes pains to compliment him, to soften her critique, to make it a point to acknowledge his efforts.  He replies with ignorant statements.  She tries to educate him and explain what she means (all knowledge he should already have).  He doesn't thank her, doesn't agree with her, but instead explains that he's already got all of this stuff down pat and has been doing the real work on these issues all along ("the real stuff not judgement").  He plays the "I'm not racist" game.  He continues to insist that he's done nothing wrong, that he's entirely in the right, and that he can't be educated.  She continues to try to explain while still offering compliments.  He refuses to listen ("I have my own views").  She gets tired.  He stops responding.  She gives up.

She shouldn't have to work this hard to communicate with someone who considers himself a feminist ("@jennpozner I didn't take it personally. I consider myself a feminist. But apparently that word has many meanings.") and a tireless worker on issues of racism.  He should be her ally.  She starts off with "please" and spends the entire conversation offering him cookies.  She points out, for the record, that she's a person of color who studies race.  She explains all of her points in a way that anyone who's written about race should easily grasp.  Yet he doesn't seem to hear a word she says.  He has his "own views," and he clings to them until he exhausts her and she gives up.

He doesn't know what privilege is, and he doesn't seem to care.  When a member of a marginalized population asks him to reconsider his analogies, he defends himself and argues back without seeming to accept anything she says.  Not once does he agree with any of her points.  Instead, he implies that he's doing the real work while she's not ("the real stuff not judgment" in a conversation where he clearly feels judged), he directs her twice to read his work (when she's already praised his project), he calls her comments "demeaning," and he says, literally, "You have no idea what you are talking about."

He doesn't know the basics of gender studies.  He doesn't know the basics of racism.  He doesn't know what "privilege" is (either the word itself or the general concept).  He doesn't respond well to criticism.

How can the Good Men Project progress when the man at the top thinks that he knows it all already and isn't open to learning?

As I said earlier, if you want talk about what it means to be a good man, you need to start by talking about what it means to be a man.  Part of being a man in a patriarchy means benefiting from sexism.  Understanding how you benefit from sexism means understanding privilege.  You have to start somewhere; try these two posts by Liss at Shakesville.

A final tweet from Tom Matlack:

it's the good "mens" project. women are welcome but the point is to inspire men to be good.

Like many others, I would be very happy to have more good men around.  Most of us would be glad to help.  Many of us have been trying to help.  And when we try, bringing our experience and expertise and years of study to the table, we're told things like, "You have no idea what you're talking about."  Is that really what a "good man" would say?

With love,
Frank Lee

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 Ke$ha

US pop star Ke$ha says she wants to be a gay man because they are 'magical people'.
The Tik Tok singer whose latest single Die Young is out now told Britain's Gaydar Radio that she feels a strong bond with gay men.
Asked if she would like to be a gay man, she answered: 'Are you joking? Yes, I do.'
Ke$ha added: 'There's just an energy to a gay man.
'It's not really comparable to any other people. You guys just exude just this happiness.
'Pretty much my whole touring party, as far as, like, the dancers, it's a lot of gay, beautiful, beautiful men. And they're just gorgeous. And their love of life is amazing. They're just, I don't know, just really magical people.'
-GSN, via

Dear Ke$ha,

I believe that when you talk about gay men being magical, beautiful people who love life, you mean to be complimentary.  I believe that you mean well.

But that was a really harmful, bullshit thing to say.

Gay men are not more or less energetic, more or less happy, more or less beautiful, gorgeous, or magical than anyone else.  They don't love life more or less than anyone else.  They are, in fact, comparable to other kinds of people.  You've created some separate, special, unique category for them, removing them from the general population of humankind, as if they're magical fairy creatures here to be beautiful and celebrate life and sparkle.

Gay men are just people.  Some gay men are old.  Some gay men are ill-tempered.  Some gay men are racist and/or stupid and/or ugly.  Some gay men are felons.  Some gay men are abusive.  Some gay men don't use their turn signals.  Some gay men have disabilities.

On Shakesville today, Liss posted some photos of some of the new couples getting married in Washington and Maryland now that same-sex marriage is finally legal there.  In comments, lizziepet said:

I shared the Buzzfeed link that had the photos of Jane and Pete-e on Facebook yesterday, and one of my friends was like, "Well, that's not what I was expecting." "What were you expecting?" "Not old people." "Because only the young and hip can be queer? o.0"

Do you understand how this is relevant?

You're separating out gay men from the general population and shoving them into a "magical" box.  You're denying them the fullness of their personhood.  They don't get to be irritable or unkempt or unpleasant, like anyone else does.  They don't get to be fat or old or depressed or ugly.

Let people be people.  We talk a lot in feminism about intersectionality, because anything that hurts people with disabilities hurts women with disabilities, anything that hurts people of color hurts women of color, anything that hurts trans people hurts trans women, and so on.  All women aren't minor variations on the same theme, and all gay men aren't, either.

Gay men are people.  Some people are happy, magical, beautiful, energetic people who love life.  Some people aren't.  Pushing "positive" stereotypes isn't helpful, it's harmful.  If you genuinely want to be an ally, you'll stop.

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 Me

Dear Me,

I want you to remember to be a good ally.

I want you to remember that communication is a complex thing and sometimes you'll express yourself poorly.  Sometimes you'll use the wrong words.  Sometimes you'll imply something you never intended to express.  That's unfortunate, but it happens.  Acknowledge it and strive to do better next time.

You want to be a good, progressive, inclusive feminist.  Sometimes you're going to mess up.  You're going to say something gross.  You're going to bump into your own unexamined privilege.  You're going to say things that you'll cringe over a couple of years from now.  That's unfortunate, but it happens.  Acknowledge it.  Work on it.  Dig that chunk of patriarchal programming out of your brain and examine it from all sides.  Poke at what's left and see what else shakes loose.

You're going to piss people off.  You're going to disgust them and alienate them.  You're going to hurt them.  That's awful.  Remember that it's not about you, it's about them.  It's about trying to improve so that you don't do it again.

Sometimes people will take exception to something you've said or written, and you'll think that they're wrong.  You'll think that they're willfully misunderstanding you.  Maybe they are.  Maybe they're right, and you're really messing up.  Take a deep breath.  Talk it over.  Think it over.  Stop thinking about it from your perspective and think about it from theirs.

You know those people you can't stand who say disgusting, privileged things and sound like complete jackasses and act completely self-righteous about it?  You know those people you can't stand who refuse to examine their mistakes and refuse to acknowledge their problems and deflect all blame and imply that there's something wrong with anyone who takes exception to their oh-so-obviously well-meaning words?  Don't be those people.

It takes a lot of work to be a decent person.  It takes a lot of empathy.  But look at the alternative.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Everyone

For reference.

Dear Everyone,

Pondering the utter foolishness of the marketing for This Is 40, I thought to myself, "Yes, yes, if there is anyone with enough insight and genius to touch on life in such a way as to draw out those strains of the universal human experience, it's certainly Judd Apatow."

But what is the universal human experience?

To experience some sort of midlife crisis, to struggle against maturity, to refuse to grow up, to live with childlike wonder and innocence even into adulthood, to rebel against aging?  No.  Those things happen, and they may even be common, but they're not universal.  There are many people who mature early in life, who don't have the luxury of gazing at the world with irreverence or innocence.  There are many people who hit the milestones of aging without any sort of trepidation or rebellion at all.

To love someone and be loved, in the romantic sense?  No.  Not everyone falls in love.  Not everyone is loved.

To know a mother's love?  No.  Not everyone's mother is loving.  Not every child is wanted or loved.  Some people know their mother only distantly or through negative experiences.  Some people grow up with no mother at all.

To struggle and rise above challenges?  I don't know, some people have it pretty easy.  Some people have it incredibly hard.  Not everyone struggles.  Some people do nothing but struggle and never really win.  We'd have to do a lot of talking about what it means to "triumph" for me to believe in this one.

To wonder about what it all means, what the purpose of life is, what's the nature of God, and so on?  No.  I think that a lot of people go on about their business without ever taking the time to ponder those things.

I could go on, but I'm starting to see a pattern.  The "universal human experiences" I'm familiar with all make interesting novels and inspiring movies, but they're just stories we like to tell ourselves.  They're just narratives.  They may be popular enough to strike a chord with a lot of people, but they're not universal.

It's nice, isn't it, to think that we'll all find romantic love, that we can all overcome challenges, that everyone has a loving mother?  What pleasant little stories we tell ourselves.

But they're not true.  In fact, they may be harmful.  Consider the "loving mother" one.  If the narrative tells us that everyone has a loving mother, then every mother must be loving.  If your mother doesn't love you, is something wrong with you?  Is the fault yours?  Should you have been different from birth?  If you become pregnant and don't immediately, instinctively fall in love with the potential developing inside you, is something wrong with you?  Are you unnatural?  Broken?  What if you don't want to be pregnant?  What if you aren't sure about having a kid?  What if you have a baby and then don't adore it beyond reason?  What if you don't instinctively recognize your baby in a group of infants, or don't instinctively know when something's wrong with your child, or don't instinctively know everything about breastfeeding?  Motherhood is natural!  It's instinctive!  Everyone has a loving mother; what's wrong with you for not providing your child with one?

The narratives discourage people from seeking help.  If I can't overcome every challenge in life through my own determined ingenuity, I'm failing.  If I'm an uncertain mother, I'm unnatural.  Something's wrong with me; the fault is mine.

The narratives also discourage us from offering help.  People with disabilities shouldn't need accommodations, right?  They can overcome any obstacle through their own courage and uniqueness!  Don't you watch movies and Very Special Episodes?  Struggling families don't need help, not really.  A mother's love will fix everything!  Anyone who can't rear three children and keep a clean house and hold down two jobs and earn a degree in her spare time must not really love her kids, I guess.

We don't all get to have a midlife crisis.  Some of us die too soon.  Some of us grow up too early.  Some of us don't have the luxury of acting out immaturely.  If the story in This Is 40 truly is everyone's story, that must be one hell of an inclusive, diverse movie.  Also very long.

To look at your own life, or one kind of life, and assume that everyone else has the same experiences suggests that you lead a very insulated life.  I don't live in a world where everyone around me lives the same way that I do.  We don't have the same experiences or laugh at the same jokes or see the world from the same perspective.  There are people I struggle to identify with at all.

If you think that you can use Pete and Debbie from Knocked Up to tell the universal human experience over the length of a major motion picture, you probably think that "everyone" is just like them/you, which suggests that you move in a very small circle, have a limited imagination, lack empathy, and suffer from a major case of unexamined privilege.  Whereas I'm beginning to think that we should stop pushing the notion of a universal human experience at all, and begin telling a wide variety of people's stories so that we can stop assuming that everyone is just like us and start solving the problems of real human beings instead of cardboard narrative people.

But most of us know that not everyone is just like us, don't we?  The moment you realize that you don't fit tidily into the narrative, the moment you realize that you don't see anyone like you anywhere on TV, the moment you finish one last book without coming across a character reflecting your lived experience, you understand.

Here's to broadening the narrative, to expanding the screen, to including everyone's story.  Thank you to all of you who've shared your experiences and told your tales.  Every time you speak, the people around you learn more about this diverse human experience.  I hope that Judd Apatow learns more, too.  His movies can only be better for it.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Judd Apatow

This is not just their story
This is everyone’s story
-trailer, This Is 40

Dear Judd Apatow,

Everyone's story?  Really, everyone's?

Don’t make me go all Princess Bride on your ass.

With love,
Frank Lee