Via Womanist Musings, we find that ABC decided to use their show, What Would You Do?, to address homophobia in a sports bar in New Jersey, where they tested folks' acceptance of a gay couple being openly affectionate. A straight couple was also used as well as another actor making homophobic remarks to see how patrons would react.
Overwhelmingly, the real patrons showed intolerance for snide remarks like his, even as the gay couple escalated their touching and affection."I would rather have 12 of you than four of him," said one man apologetically to the couple.
"Seriously, this is not your [expletive] bar!" yelled an emotional woman to one harasser, in defense of the gay couple.
Later, a real patron who did harass the couple seemed to retract his views after the hidden cameras were revealed. An expert interviewed by ABC News attributed his transformation to the surprising peer pressure to be tolerant.
"Tolerance has become an American value," she said. "People work hard to give others the impression that they believe similarly, even when they don't."
But things aren't nearly as peachy as ABC seemed to want to make it. As Renee said, how tolerant were these folks actually being when even the ones who defended the couple said they still didn't want to see them being "overly affectionate"? Not to mention Pam poses the question, "If they really want to test American tolerance, how about selecting a interracial or minority gay or lesbian couple to participate in that experiment?"
Pam also pointed out which location this experiment was done - New Jersey has civil unions on the books - which is critical to take into account (although I'll admit I've experienced an overabundance of homophobia and racism in that state). There's no doubt the degrees of tolerance would vary greatly state-to-state - so to call it an "American value" is (sadly) a bit of a stretch, albeit a damn good goal to have.
Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who Woulda Thunk: ABC Show Addresses Homophobia in NJ Bar .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12758
I agree that ABC should've tried another variable, such as interracial gay or lesbian couple. Or a lesbian couple at all-I have a feeling that might have made a difference in the types of comments.
Another thought is that they should have tried this even identical experiment in different areas of the country, because NJ does not have the same overall view as many of the other states. It would be interesting to see the South, where politically it is a very hostile area toward gay rights, but socially it may be surprising (or it could have ended up being a stereotypical reaction to that of a fundamentalist region).
I think if ABC tried to do an interracial couple, it would have been hard to distinguish which aspects of any hostility were based on race and which ones on homophobia. By using a white couple, the other patrons don't have the opportunity to peg them as an "exotic Other" that's not "all-American." The two gay men could have been their sons, brothers, etc.
The lesbian couple angle would have been interesting. It may have garnered less negativity. Many straight men don't feel as "threatened" by lesbians. As we all know, our culture treats lipstick lesbians as a source of straight men's sexual entertainment.
I feel like lesbians might actually be harassed more, just in a different way. Instead of "ew, gross," it would be unwanted cat-calls and sexual comments.
I think there's racism, there's homophobia, and then there's racist homophobia. When it comes to racial/ethnic minority gays and lesbians, they can't separate their sexuality from their race/ethnicity. Neither can the people who deride them. Their attitudes about race and sexuality culminate to form a whole new opinion of LGBTs of color. Just like someone else said (I think the person below me), there would be sexist comments made by people if they saw lesbians making out in a bar. Their views of gender and sexuality come together to form a separate opinion of lesbians from gay men.
Nope, it was the person above me.
Good point from both of you. I guess I was being uber-scientific in trying to parse the racist from the homophobic reactions, but that stuff is all intertwined for the people who express them.
For example, after the passage of Prop. 8 in California, there was this rush by conservatives to gloat about how African-Americans are all against gay rights. And, right-wingers keep repeating Rush Limbaugh's racist AND homophobic claim that Americans have to "grab their ankles and bend over for" Obama just because he's black. It's the old myth of black men as sexual predators with a new layer of homophobia.
As for the "What would you do?" program, the same episode aired a truly disturbing segment on how most shoppers react to an African-American woman being unfairly singled out and accused of shoplifting. It really shows how deeply ingrained these prejudices still are in our country.
I almost agreed with your first post. I almost said that it's sad that society views European Americans as racially neutral and that such a view would make sense in a scientific study.
The point here was to measure anti-gay sentiments, no? If ABC had used an interracial couple, you could not be entirely sure what degree of negative reactions came in response to homophobia or to racism.
Don't bring up that Oppression Olympics BS. There's a real issue of invisibility for queer PoC.
Absolutely, but there's also the real issue of intersecting matrices of oppression that totally fuck up the scientific principle of testing one variable at a time. Doing this "experiment" (as many people have pointed out, there are too many complicating factors that work together to make it totally unscientific) with a queer couple of color without applying different controls and other scientific procedures would only serve to delegitmize it further because there would be no way to tell what percentage of intolerance was caused by which oppression matrix.
I don't think that's an Oppression Olympics comment. It's more of a statistical control comment. Oppression Olympics would have been more along the lines of, "if they had shown that, then people would be arguing that it was about [x characteristic], because society understands that it's not okay to discriminate based on [x characteristic] but doesn't treat [y characteristic] the same way." Remarking, as an analytical aside, that this would make it more difficult to pinpoint the particular variable inviting bigotry, isn't the same as trying to compare the two.
In fact, just because I guess I'm in a stirring-things-up kind of mood, you COULD take the initial criticism -- that the couples should not have been all-white -- as itself something of an invitation to the Oppression Olympics. (e.g., "you wanna see REAL discrimination, do it this way")
*hides*
But White people don't lack race. Whites aren't racially neutral. Racists make assumptions about all races, including their own. So a White person's attitudes about race still come into play when they witness a gay couple of any race being affectionate towards one another in public.
I don't like the phrase "oppression Olympics". It's used to stifle discussion about traditionally underrepresented groups, where discussion might be useful. I think it's worth it to talk about whether or WHY one group is treated differently than another. It may be difficult to do without pissing someone off, but it CAN be done respectfully.
In any case, I think Rachel was thinking like a scientist in that it's difficult to observe more than one variable at a time in an experiment.
Exactly. Frankly, I'm kind of baffled how my comments could have been construed in any way as promoting "Oppression Olympics."
...how tolerant were these folks actually being when even the ones who defended the couple said they still didn't want to see them being "overly affectionate...
I don't watch the show so I'm wondering if these people were saying they didn't want to see any excessive public displays of affection. I don't want to see any couple canoodling over lunch. Call me a prude but, hetero- or homosexual, I'd just as soon not know that you can get your tongue that far down your girl/boyfriend's throat.
I thought the same thing. I don't like seeing ANYONE be overly affectionate. PDA creeps me out.
I caution against oversimplifications... they tend to mask the real issue at hand.
There was a het couple that was just as affectionate. Anyway, when hets do PDA, people just look away. Gay PDA is offensive and people stare.
This may be your experience, but in this case, people responded that after someone else brought it up. And I agree with Sandra, I am uncomfortable with anybody being too intimate in a public place, regardless of who is in the couple.
Me too. Anything beyond hand holding from ANYBODY, gay, straight, whatever, it just makes me feel really uncomfortable and awkward. Anything beyond a little peck on the lips out in public is a little much... maybe I'm just painfully old fashioned, i dunno...
At the very least, it's good to see tolerance being actively promoted on a nationwide network like ABC.
I'm with Sandra re: PDA. I don't know what the context was when the patrons said they didn't wish to see the couple being overly affectionate, but I don't really wish to see any couple being overly affectionate ever, if I can help it.
It's an imperfect study, being a TV show and all, some more variables (a lesbian couple, a non-white couple, an interracial couple, all of which have already been mentioned) could perhaps have shed more light on homophobic attitudes. Still, not bad for ABC prime time.
What they should have done (and maybe they did, I didn't watch the video) is have a straight couple in the same bar doing the same level of PDA and see if anyone commented on it.
Yeah, they did have a straight couple being, from what I saw, equally affectionate, but the problem was from what I could see they didn't ask anyone how they felt about said straight couple's behavior.
Further complicating the issue, they also had the straight couple make intolerant comments about the gay couple sometimes, as well.
Further complicating the issue, they also had the straight couple make intolerant comments about the gay couple sometimes, as well.
I watch this series whenever I can (sometimes online when I hear a particularly interesting topic), and I find that the experiments are always a little off. The inconsistant use of the straight couple is just one of many disappointing examples.
But, then again, I guess the title of the show is "What Would You Do?" and not "Hidden Camera Experiments that Reveal and Discuss Stereotypes and Morality in America." Unfortunately, I keep tuning in, hoping for the latter.
Even though we'd like to see the latter, I think it's awesome that ABC is doing a show like this. They're shedding light on difficult/controversial issues and *hopefully* helping people take a look at how they really react to/treat people. Many of the issues and how people react to them are psychological in nature (such as one I saw last week on out of people walking by, how many would help someone being beat up-social psych.) and that thrills me as a psych. major.
I watched this when it aired, and although your comments are all totally valid, I have to say that it was really, really heartwarming to watch. I watched it with a friend of mine and we both immediately cringed and said "Oh, no.." when the premise was introduced because we were sure we were about to see some really disturbing homophobia. It was really nice to see the older dudes, who we ourselves were stereotyping as likely homophobes, defending the couple. It really made us question our own prejudgment of people.
The only part that riled me a little was, as you mentioned, when people said they were cool with the guys being there but didn't want to see them get overly affectionate. At the same time, though, I don't want to see a straight couple sloppily making out either, so while it definitely COULD be a homophobic comment, it's not forcibly one.
It was really nice to see the older dudes, who we ourselves were stereotyping as likely homophobes, defending the couple. It really made us question our own prejudgment of people.
I'm glad there were other people who were pleasantly surprised at the demographics of the couple's defenders. I feel the same way.
Really? Everyone in the bar, including the supposedly tolerant older dudes, was laughing along with the homophobe jokester before he got too loud. Yeah they eventually told him to shove it, but like the announcer asked, was that because of the content of his speech or because he was just super annoying?
I can't watch whatever clip is excerpted above because I'm at work, but when I watched the show as a whole on TV the minute they started showing footage of the experiment a number of older "typical" sports bar dudes stuck up for the couple, and I mean right off the bat. This was before the actively homophobic patron was in the bar. I believe it was during the day (they did the experiment during the day and then again that night).
To clarify, I meant the actually homophobic real patron. The idea that the older guys were defending the couple simply because the "homophobic" actor planted by the show was so annoying is certainly a possibility, but they didn't laugh at what he was saying at all and expressed no homophobic or intolerant sentiments whatsoever.
I think there's a big difference between tolerance & acceptance. A lot of people can be socialized to be tolerant, ie, to respect other's choices. Though often unrealized, one this country's most important ideals is tolerance.
Its a lot more difficult to force acceptance. There's no underlying American ideal to appeal to. The idea of free speech, and free expression, is that everyone has the right to express themselves, but I don't have to agree with what they say.
So its important to distinguish between tolerance, and acceptance. And I think tolerance is the best anyone can hope for. Gays can't expect, say, Pat Robertson to accept them, anymore than Pat Robertson can expect gays to accept him. On tolerance most people, eventually, can come together on. (That's one reason civil unions are more supported than gay marriage; the latter feels like forced acceptance by hets)
Why do you participate in a social justice movement if you think tolerance is the goal to hope for? Please, investigate your privilege a little more.
Why do you participate in a social justice movement if you think tolerance is the goal to hope for? Please, investigate your privilege a little more.
I think the experiment could have been a little more stringent. That fact that the straight and gay couples were in the bar at the same time lessened the chances that the straight couple would be commented upon as well. I mean, I know this is not intended to be scientific research, but I felt like the show's producers kept introducing more elements into the mix ("Let's have the heckler start with jokes!" "Let's have the straight couple make comments!") without ever establishing a control.
Although since the point of such a show is clearly to get the most reactions possible and make entertaining TV, it's not feasible to expect that they would: use multiple bars, gauge reaction to the straight couple first, introduce new elements one at a time, etc. I would be interested to see an actual study done in this manner.
I also agree that location makes a huge difference. If this were to happen in many small towns in Midwestern states, the outcomes would be much different.
Wow, I think this is great. Its really affirming. It rejects Eisenhower's statement (made after the Supremes rendered their Brown vs Topeka BOE decision) that, "Laws can't change the hearts of men." Laws are an expression of social approval, and are an explicit manifestation of peer pressure.
There are a boatload of social psychology experiments to support this, but individuals tend to want to go with the flow, and we exert enormous pressure on individuals to conform. As the big guy said to the homo-phobe actor, "You can say what you want but there are consequences." I've seen this happen in reverse when a young mother at Disneyland (very kindly) asked two lesbians to refrain from kissing in front of her young son...and (surprisingly) they agreed.
Social tides are slow in changing but they do change. It was a decades long struggle but most racists don't act openly racist anymore.
I agree that this is encouraging, but you can't say definitively that Eisenhower was wrong. For example, let's look at Brown. Did it work? No. Over 50 years later, schools are often just as segregated as they were before, just through residential segregation, not de facto, and Brown certainly did not achieve its broader goal of equality among races. Or, for a better example look at rape law reform. The sweeping reforms enacted by states over 30 years ago have failed to assuage believes that women are partially responsible for rape, secretly want it, etc.
I caution against putting too much faith in the law as primarily because one of the main effects of this is complacency. Again with rape law, after the laws were on the books, the rape law reform movement pretty much died, despite much needed change and prevention of revictimization. Law certainly CAN affect what people view as right and wrong, but not ALWAYS and we must not be complacent just because some laws are on the books.
Sly, I think that quote is supposed to mean that you can't make laws n favor of acceptance and expect people to change their feelings based on law. You're talking about laws as a reflection of people who have already changed. Eisenhower was saying that those laws won't change the people who didn't already agree with the the sentiment to begin with. And this is still true. You can't force or pressure people to not be hateful. You can only convince them to act with tolerance in public.
For example- legalizing prostitution will most likely not change the people who find it immoral. It will only make it easier for people who would have been prostitutes or hired prostitutes illegally. Most people would not suddenly be in favor now that the law is. People are bound by their own sense or morality, not the law. The law is only in place to punish people afterwards, not prevent anything. If the opposite were true, then no one would break the law to begin with. Murder is illegal, but murders still exist.
I wonder where in NJ the experiment took place. I am from North Jersey, Newark specifically, and tolerance is a questionable thing. I do go to school in central NJ and I feel the mood is much more lax. I have only been to South Jersey a few times but in some areas it is just as questionable newark. It is really hard to judge the reaction of an entire state, especially one with such diverse areas ( urban, rural, suburban).
There's nothing enlightening about this unabashed bid for network ratings. What they did was shallow, unethical and demeaning for all participants - and it was framed in a quasi-scientific manner. Sit back a few feet and consider the harm that may have been done, and the ethics of setting up a sort of candid camera of sexuality bias. I was disgusted that it was done at all.
What ethical concerns do you have, exactly? Both sets of couples (straight and gay) were consenting actors, as was the original heckler. And on top of that, the people who were just regular patrons in the bar and happened to get involved, had to sign an agreement for them to be shown on television. Yes, some people did get emotional, but it wasn't an out of the ordinary life situation.
I agree with you though, in that it wasn't at all scientific, and I don't think we should put much if any stock in the "findings", but I do think that it is nice that mainstream, prime time media is paying any attention to homophobia.
Crasshooligan, I think calling it an experiment is very far from accurate. Because of that it (in my own mind) is more of a stunt. Even if people signed releases after the fact, they were given no choice but to participate in the situation - which could have been dangerous given just one blitzed-out jerk. Because this danger could have occurred, I consider that the media performed irresponsibly. In fact they deliberately set up a situation where ordinary people had no knowledge of what was happening.
In 'real' research, this would not happen. There is naturalistic observation, and there is a laboratory environment - this was neither one. Don't get me wrong - I am happy to see public discourse happening. But - fsm - how do I express my feelings in this. The gay couple were put in place and told to express their affection - 'act' gay. The straight couple, ditto. The cameras were set to capture faces and reactions, and people who may have been drinking were given no choice but to be filmed. When, do you know, were those releases obtained? - the next day, perhaps, when all influence of alcohol might be gone? Right then, after the event? There are many problems with this setup.
If it is irresponsible for the media to create a situation like this because it could trigger a "blitzed out jerk", does that mean it's also irresponsible for actual gay couples to perform PDAs?
I want to say of course not, but then what is the ethical difference between these two actors "being themselves" and a TV show paying them to be themselves for a show?
I agree with you that this project is encouraging (or at least their network approved editing job).
I have to say though that I find the same things encouraging that I find troubling though. This program consistently celebrates its representation of 'honorable public sentiment' against 'outdated traditionalism'. But, portraying contemporary public sentiment as a 'a proof' of ethical justness is "contempocentric"- and logically faulty. Slavery WAS broadly popular in the north and south for a long time. So, representing social inequality as the work of 'isolated old-fashionned extremist bigots' is a distracting strategy, to me. Again and again, this program tackles issues and subtly promotes the slight-left edge of "controversial issues" that have a little more popularity among their target-audience of higher educated viewers, white viewers, viewers with lower religiosity, etc. (on average). I do think that even mega-corporately funded media have moments of non-calculated, truly transgressive messages, but I don't think this is one of them.
My point I think is that this program would not confront a stereotype like "Queers convert people into erotically desiring people of the same gender" and conclude "Well, so what?" If wanting to be with people of the same gender was equally legitimate, it wouldn't matter "what side people are on" or "what team they're playing for". So, I don't know whey liberals even care.
I agree with you that this project is encouraging (or at least their network approved editing job).
I have to say though that I find the same things encouraging that I find troubling though. This program consistently celebrates its representation of 'honorable public sentiment' against 'outdated traditionalism'. But, portraying contemporary public sentiment as a 'a proof' of ethical justness is "contempocentric"- and logically faulty. Slavery WAS broadly popular in the north and south for a long time. So, representing social inequality as the work of 'isolated old-fashionned extremist bigots' is a distracting strategy, to me. Again and again, this program tackles issues and subtly promotes the slight-left edge of "controversial issues" that have a little more popularity among their target-audience of higher educated viewers, white viewers, viewers with lower religiosity, etc. (on average). I do think that even mega-corporately funded media have moments of non-calculated, truly transgressive messages, but I don't think this is one of them.
My point I think is that this program would not confront a stereotype like "Queers convert people into erotically desiring people of the same gender" and conclude "Well, so what?" If wanting to be with people of the same gender was equally legitimate, it wouldn't matter "what side people are on" or "what team they're playing for". So, I don't know whey liberals even care.
This set up was very interesting. One thing I kept thinking of was the man who stated that he had no problem with homosexuals, when he had earlier stated that it was disgusting. I think people like him are part of the reason why tolerance of homosexuals is sometimes unattainable in society. If you went around and asked random people if they were okay with homosexual couples, I think many would say that it is okay. But place them in a situation where they feel comfortable and can let loose, I think they would say something quite different. It's harder to change society's comfort level with homosexuals when people are going around saying one thing, but thinking another. It gives an innacurate view of how many people are actually comfortable with homosexuals, which makes changing the situation very difficult.
I don't mean to detract from the gorgeous arguments we're having in this video, nor do I want to paint character sketches, but I LOVE NICOLE.
In addition to several of the above critiques, I am also extremely wary of the term "tolerance." I think that tolerance and the discourses surrounding it encourage an attitude of stifled disgust/disapproval where one must simply "put up with" certain behaviors and ideas. While some may argue that this policing of behavior works to create safe spaces where others have the freedom to express themselves however they so desire, I want to truly question that defense. Can a space truly be safe if racism/sexism/etc. are still present? I feel that the discourses around tolerance merely suppress the expression of racist/sexist/classist/etc. beliefs while in certain public settings. It does nothing to correct, change, or discourage those views. Thus under tolerance, you can hate homosexuality as long as you keep that hate to yourself. Or you have a right to perpetuate racist ideologies as long as you do so in the privacy of your home.While many have rights that ensure the protection of certain freedoms (ie. freedom of speech), when working to create a society that is not plagued by various ideologies of oppression and domination why not support a movement that actually combats these power structures, not one that merely suppresses them, making them even more difficult to eradicate. Thus, while this TV segment illuminates the ways in which queer bodies are regulated and policed by societal norms and systems of domination, it simultaneously illustrates how discourses that appear to combat oppression (ie. tolerance)often only redirect it in actuality (in this case to the private sphere).
Whether or not the people who didn't comment actually have a problem with gay people is sort of irrelevant in a discussion of tolerance. If they don't like queers and didn't do anything about this couple, then that's all tolerance is. They tolerated a situation even though it made them uncomfortable. So while it's not great, it's fine.
The great people are the ones who actually stood up for them. My favorite was the tough-seeming guy during lunch who said "You didn't do anything wrong." You might not expect that to come from him, which is what makes it great. He also challenged our preconceptions of what a homophobe looks like!
And while some people wouldn't want them to be "overly affectionate" - the experiment could have tried that with a straight couple slobbering all over each other and see how that went over. I personally wouldn't want to see any kind of couple looking like they're about to dry hump on the bar. What's considered "over" affection is relative, but I do understand the clear distinction between affection and sex. It's hard to say if that's what they meant.
Well, even though they still didn't cover as much as we would have liked they still tryed to raise awareness. isn't that a good thing?
I like the concept of the idea, but I see many flaws. For example, when the camera was revealed the guy who was doing the harnessing retracts his statements not because he believed what he was telling, but because he showed his true character at a time when he thought he would be safe to do so. It's not everyday that a camera is hidden for a person to "fake" their personality to it. Also, I think that the situation could have gone differently if it was in a different location.