What did you think about President Obama’s speech at the 2012 White House Correspondents Dinner?
Did any of the jokes cross the line?
Did the President’s self-effacing jokes work?
What joke do you think worked best?
My favorite: “Jimmy [Kimmel] got his start years ago on ‘The Man Show’. In Washington, that’s what we call a ‘Congressional Hearing on Contraception’” 
























I have to say I liked the dog commercial ad. They even got the Sarah McLaughlin music.
My favorite: “Jimmy [Kimmel] got his start years ago on ‘The Man Show’. In Washington, that’s what we call a ‘Congressional Hearing on Contraception’”
I’m all for joking but something crossed my mind but this just rubbed me the wrong way for some reason.
I’d be interested in hearing why Danny.
Fair enough. More than likely this is me not quite cooling off from that Cup Check post.
It felt like this came off as a dig at men not caring about women. And bear in mind that this is coming from a man who when it comes to gender has shown fairly clearly that he holds women in great regard (which is a good thing) but doesn’t show the same for men (which is a bad thing).
It actually ignited a venomous reaction in my mind to the effect of “Oh so it’s fine joke about men but its taboo to actually do something to help us?”. (Again bearing in mind the times he has nodded specifically to helping women, again a good thing, but then seems to only be able to mention men specifically when some us do bad thing, like the Secret Service joke near the end.) I wonder what he thinks of that White House Council on Men and Boys that was proposed a while back since he has time to complain and joke about how bad men are.
Misguided I know, hence why I didn’t just go with that feeling.
I thought it was a specific dig at the all male panel at the congressional hearing which was actually about women’s contraception. I didn’t see it as a global commentary on men in general. It was a “man show” to “man panel” joke not ” all men in congress are bad.” Or at least that’s how I read it. Being as I was offended by the panel, perhaps I’m more sympathetic to the joke, but that’s the thing about humor isn’t it?
I thought it was a specific dig at the all male panel at the congressional hearing which was actually about women’s contraception. I didn’t see it as a global commentary on men in general. It was a “man show” to “man panel” joke not ” all men in congress are bad.” Or at least that’s how I read it. Being as I was offended by the panel, perhaps I’m more sympathetic to the joke, but that’s the thing about humor isn’t it?
It’s more of what is not being said than what is being said. Not so much “all men are bad” but an example of “the only time men should be mentioned is when some of them are doing something bad”. As in we know that panel was all male, we know those Secret Service agents were male, we know that lots of males abandon their responsibility as fathers, we know that lots of males attack women, etc…. It seems that every time men do something bad the first thing that is pointed out is that they are men. But flip that around and we look at men that are helping people and doing the right thing and all of a sudden their gender is last thing people want to talk about.
I was offended by the panel as well (but I am not a woman so the offense was not as close to home).
But again I say I was a bit heated and its not like I’m actually trying to say that this was the case.
Well first, I saw the joke the same way Julie did. But to the larger point, about only mentioning men when they screw up…I think there are a couple of different ways of looking at that. Part of it is what you’re saying, that it implies men don’t do anything good…and I think that’s a totally valid way of viewing that general theme in our social narrative.
That being said, whenever I hear about the good things women do, and their gender is emphasized it yanks my chain. It’s as if the norm is that a man could do that good thing (rescue someone in a flood, start up some company, whatever), but what’s extraordinary when a woman does it is that she’s a woman. Like…oh my goodness, a woman could do this good thing, we would have never expected it! On the other hand, everyone knows men are able to do these exceptional acts and so their gender isn’t the story. In other words, men doing heroic things is normative, whereas women doing heroic things is exceptional. Not the expectation to do them…but the perceived ability to do them, if you get what I’m saying.
Which, as I said, that’s just where my mind goes when I hear about these types of stories you’re talking about. And, as I said, it is true that when the ability to do heroic acts is considered normative for men, then the expectation is perhaps greater for men than women. As with so many things with gender inequalities, it really cuts both ways.
I can agree that it cuts both ways.
On the other hand, everyone knows men are able to do these exceptional acts and so their gender isn’t the story.
Even though this happens in a day and age when people are regularly writing pieces asking, “are men stupid?”, “where have the good men gone?”, “are there any good men left?”, etc… If men doing heroic things really was the norm I don’t think you’d be seeing such material being written.
So on one hand you have people asking where are the men who do exceptional things but when men do exceptional things all of a sudden they don’t want to hear about his gender in the story. Either people want to hear about good men or they don’t? Which is it?
Ah see, I actually see that as part and parcel of the same problem. As I said, it’s the ability to do heroic things that is normative, not the assumption that men will do those things. So the ‘where are the good men’ sentiment, I think, comes from the idea that men are all capable of doing good things…so why don’t they? And, as I said, that does lead to a greater expectation…which then contributes to the ‘where are the good men’ sentiment.
Conversely, with women, I think their gender is often emphasized because often that is the story itself. Who’d have thought a woman would be able to do this thing that was heroic? Like that.
Like, okay, for example…when that Norwegian lesbian couple helped rescue people when that guy in Norway started shooting people, the story wasn’t just – some lovely people helped rescue these kids. It was, lesbians help rescue these kids. Why did people care they were lesbians? Because part of the story was saying – hey these are just people; lesbians can be good people too. It was – oh wow these women (lesbians, specifically) actually have the ability and the character to help. It went against the norm.
Ah see, I actually see that as part and parcel of the same problem. As I said, it’s the ability to do heroic things that is normative, not the assumption that men will do those things. So the ‘where are the good men’ sentiment, I think, comes from the idea that men are all capable of doing good things…so why don’t they? And, as I said, that does lead to a greater expectation…which then contributes to the ‘where are the good men’ sentiment.
I know I’m going pretty far off the deep end but I’m not sure I’m quite feeling you on this.
Maybe I’m just jaded or something but sometimes I’m not sure if the ability of men to do heroic things is the norm. As I said with those “where are the good men” sentiments I think its coming from a place where its thought that the norm for men is to do terrible things and where are the good men to show otherwise.
I think part of what makes this conversation so interesting, and difficult is that we’re really just discussing our own perspectives about other people’s perspectives. So, I just want to emphasize, I’m not trying to tell you I think you’re wrong. I don’t think there is a right or wrong to this, really.
I think it’s interesting how two people can view the same cultural phenomenon in such different ways.
I loved the WINK-WINK after Obama said he was “born in Hawaii.”
Me too.
My favorite: “A pit bull is delicious!”
“Now Hillary can’t stop drunk-texting me from Cartegena…!”