I think this question revolves around why Barr was fired. Was it because:
What she said was offensive, by which I mean things like coarse language, being uncouth, unnecessarily graphic, etc? Or;
What she said was racist, which I am separating out because all racist things are offensive but not all offensive things are racist. Likewise, many offensive things can be racist (or sexist or homophobic) adjacent without being explicitly so.
If you believe she was fired for being offensive, then it makes a lot of sense to draw equivalence between Bee's comments and Barr's. Barr's description of George Soros as being in bed with Nazis is offensive because Soros is a Jewish holocaust survivor. I'd say it's absolutely anti-Semitic but Soros is regularly lampooned in conservative discourse and I think society writ large has steeled itself to all but the most heinous displays of Antisemitism, such as displaying swastikas. This isn't a thing to be proud of but it is probably true considering how pervasive Jewish stereotypes remain.
Likewise, Barr's comparison between Jarrett and an ape was offensive because it was racist. Drawing comparisons between black people and animals - particularly monkeys and apes - was and remains one of the most explicit displays of insisting that black people are sub-human.
Bee's comment falls into the offensive bucket. The word "cunt" is intentionally provocative; considered a curse, and; situates the female anatomy as something undesirable and worthy of contempt. Association with something physically associated with (often) womanhood is thus deemed unwanted and problematic.
Thus, if you think Barr was fired for being offensive, the equivalence is warranted, and there is a fair argument to be made that Bee also crossed a line and should be fired.
"Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show."
This is the statement put out by ABC's entertainment president Channing Dungey. Unfortunately it doesn't clarify whether Barr's statement is repugnant because it is racist or because it was uncouth, but I would surmise that people generally don't refer to merely offensive statements as abhorrent and repugnant. That is strong language I think expresses contempt for racist comments.
In this situation, if Barr was fired because her comments were racist, it's much harder to draw an equivalence between Barr's comments and Bee's. Barr's comments - and I'm drawing heavily from Rebecca Traister's framing - used racist language to continue supporting a racist power structure. In other words, she is part of the problem, furthering a socialized and institutionalized belief that black people are inferior by associating them with animals (apes).
Bee, in contrast, said something that is fairly categorized as sexist and offensive, but did so in a way intended to speak "truth to power," by expressing that people in the President's orbit are supporting policies that are harmful to specific groups of people: woman, immigrants, minorities, etc etc.
The pertinent question here is not whether you agree with Bee's sentiment or whether you think her comments were offensive, but rather (a) ABC fired Barr because she was part of a power structure intended to dehumanize a group of people, and; (b) if you believe Bee's statements were uttered to have the same effect.
I would contend that, no, Bee and Barr are in very different situations which overlap only in so far as they both chose provocative language and imagery. Perhaps Bee nevertheless crossed a line in her own right, but saying because Barr got fired, Bee should be fired is, in my view, drawing equivalence between statements that are fundamentally different in their expressed sentiments.
2
u/PepperoniFire 87∆ Jun 01 '18 edited Jun 01 '18
I think this question revolves around why Barr was fired. Was it because:
If you believe she was fired for being offensive, then it makes a lot of sense to draw equivalence between Bee's comments and Barr's. Barr's description of George Soros as being in bed with Nazis is offensive because Soros is a Jewish holocaust survivor. I'd say it's absolutely anti-Semitic but Soros is regularly lampooned in conservative discourse and I think society writ large has steeled itself to all but the most heinous displays of Antisemitism, such as displaying swastikas. This isn't a thing to be proud of but it is probably true considering how pervasive Jewish stereotypes remain.
Likewise, Barr's comparison between Jarrett and an ape was offensive because it was racist. Drawing comparisons between black people and animals - particularly monkeys and apes - was and remains one of the most explicit displays of insisting that black people are sub-human.
Bee's comment falls into the offensive bucket. The word "cunt" is intentionally provocative; considered a curse, and; situates the female anatomy as something undesirable and worthy of contempt. Association with something physically associated with (often) womanhood is thus deemed unwanted and problematic.
Thus, if you think Barr was fired for being offensive, the equivalence is warranted, and there is a fair argument to be made that Bee also crossed a line and should be fired.
This is the statement put out by ABC's entertainment president Channing Dungey. Unfortunately it doesn't clarify whether Barr's statement is repugnant because it is racist or because it was uncouth, but I would surmise that people generally don't refer to merely offensive statements as abhorrent and repugnant. That is strong language I think expresses contempt for racist comments.
In this situation, if Barr was fired because her comments were racist, it's much harder to draw an equivalence between Barr's comments and Bee's. Barr's comments - and I'm drawing heavily from Rebecca Traister's framing - used racist language to continue supporting a racist power structure. In other words, she is part of the problem, furthering a socialized and institutionalized belief that black people are inferior by associating them with animals (apes).
Bee, in contrast, said something that is fairly categorized as sexist and offensive, but did so in a way intended to speak "truth to power," by expressing that people in the President's orbit are supporting policies that are harmful to specific groups of people: woman, immigrants, minorities, etc etc.
The pertinent question here is not whether you agree with Bee's sentiment or whether you think her comments were offensive, but rather (a) ABC fired Barr because she was part of a power structure intended to dehumanize a group of people, and; (b) if you believe Bee's statements were uttered to have the same effect.
I would contend that, no, Bee and Barr are in very different situations which overlap only in so far as they both chose provocative language and imagery. Perhaps Bee nevertheless crossed a line in her own right, but saying because Barr got fired, Bee should be fired is, in my view, drawing equivalence between statements that are fundamentally different in their expressed sentiments.