F
orgive me for being late
to the game, but I start-
ed “Entourage” a couple
of weeks ago. It
only took a few
minutes
(and
several hand-
fuls of tortilla
chips)
before
I was sucked
into the world
of Vinny Chase
and Ari Gold.
And I admit,
I’ve loved every
second of it. I
finished
Sea-
son 4 on Tues-
day and am trying to finish as soon
as possible so I can see the movie.
It’s funny. It’s witty. It’s enter-
taining. And because of that, it’s
quickly become one of my all-time
favorite TV shows (next to “The
Wire” and “Breaking Bad”).
That said, there’ve been sev-
eral questions I’ve been wres-
tling with in between my binge
sessions: If this show premiered
today — brand new — would it
be as successful as it has been?
Would people still think Ari’s
harassment of his gay assistant
Lloyd is acceptable and contin-
ue watching week after week?
Would Vince and Co.’s constant
attempts to seduce women be
seen as just “guys being guys”
or rather as perpetuating a
misogynistic culture?
I don’t know for sure, but I’m
willing to bet the show would be
much more heavily criticized. I’m
even questioning if I should be
finding all of this as enjoyable as I
do. Because, even with all the bla-
tant homophobia and misogyny, I
can’t get enough of it. (I watched
six episodes Monday night!)
My feelings toward “Entou-
rage” lend themselves to a con-
versation about the supposed
“politically correct culture” we
live in. Some argue it’s positive
because it’s a good thing to be
conscientious of others’ feelings
and stories. Others argue it’s
negative because we have to live
walking on our tiptoes in fear of
offending someone.
I love comedy — from TV shows
to stand-up, I’m always watching
— but I’ve also written about how
the use of derogatory terms with-
out reason has become too perva-
sive and is just plain wrong.
I don’t know if not wanting
to hear words like “faggot” used
pointlessly makes me a promoter
of P.C. culture or not, but accord-
ing to one of my favorite comedi-
ans, Jerry Seinfeld, P.C. culture
has become a danger to comedy.
On Monday, Seinfeld went
on Colin Cowherd’s ESPN radio
show and was asked by Cow-
herd, “Does the climate worry
you now? … I’ve talked to Chris
Rock and Larry the Cable Guy,
they don’t even want to do college
campuses anymore.”
“I hear that all the time,” Sein-
feld responded. “I don’t play col-
leges, but I hear a lot of people
tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges.
They’re so P.C.’”
Seinfeld continued by giving an
example of his daughter using the
term “sexist” incorrectly before
claiming, “They (the newer gen-
eration, I’m guessing) just want
to use these words. That’s rac-
ist. That’s sexist. That’s preju-
diced. They don’t even know what
they’re talking about.”
Cowherd then asked him if
P.C. culture hurts comedy, to
which he responded, “Yes it does.
Yes it does.”
Another comedian, Chris Rock,
said in a November 2014 inter-
view that he stopped performing
at colleges in part because, “You
can’t even be offensive on your
way to being inoffensive.”
What bothers me about these
comments is that it seems Sein-
feld and Rock have accepted that
P.C. culture is static. It cannot be
changed. It is what it is.
The problem is that’s not how
culture works. Culture evolves.
It is malleable, moldable and
changeable, albeit not without
a fight. If that wasn’t the case,
then how is the increasing sup-
port for gay marriage over the last
decade possible? How did women
eventually gain the right to vote
in the 1920s? That’s right, the
culture changed.
Comedy is a unique place
to effect social and political
change. There is no denying
the effect Jon Stewart, Stephen
Colbert, Bill Maher and George
Carlin, to name a few, have had
on exposing huge problems in
our society. So, why are we see-
ing other prominent comedians
seemingly back away from this
challenge to shape the conversa-
tion about important issues?
Having been on this campus
for three years and seen P.C. cul-
ture in action, there have been
many positive benefits to come
out of it. Yes, you should be aware
of the identities of the people
who you are talking to. Yes, you
should check your privilege
often. And yes, there is a time,
place and way to have serious
discussions about race, sex and
socioeconomic status.
But that doesn’t mean it’s all
perfect. Maybe, at times, we as
college students are too worried
about offending each other, so we
avoid having the important con-
versations that need to be had.
Maybe our obsession with creat-
ing “safe spaces” has actually led
to us being unsafe because we are
blinding ourselves from reality.
And maybe our desire to com-
pletely eradicate bias from our
curriculum is actually hindering
our education because professors
are people, too, with their own
stories and understandings of the
world, for better or worse.
This brings me back to com-
edy. Comedy plays an important
role in developing our culture. It
serves to highlight the flaws and
even the positives. Perhaps that’s
why I enjoy “Entourage” so much.
While I believe the goal of the
show is for nothing more than
entertainment, it succeeds in its
commentary on homophobia and
misogyny. Though not explicitly
doing so, the show is rejecting this
kind of culture, not supporting it.
The guys’ behavior is so absurd
that I’m left with no choice to
view it as such. And that’s why I
find it so funny; it’s so not relat-
able to me that my reaction is to
laugh. And although their actions
can be construed as offensive —
I’m often uncomfortable watch-
ing it — its overall message is not.
My point is that sometimes
you have to see the outrageous
and disgusting to understand and
reject the outrageous and disgust-
ing. To use Chris Rock’s words,
you sometimes have to tolerate
hearing the offensive on your way
to hearing the inoffensive.
This isn’t the time for comedy
to back away. We need it more
than ever to help us learn what
to make of everything that goes
on. It can educate us on what
prejudice really is when the term
is getting thrown around so fre-
quently. Comedy can help mold
our culture for the better.
So, Jerry, I have a different
“P.C.” for you. Please come. Ann
Arbor is nice in the summer.
— Derek Wolfe can be reached
at dewolfe@umich.edu.
5
Thursday, June 11, 2015
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com OPINION
hype to help avoid the oblivion
of cultural irrelevance, the social
media manifesto draws attention
to pervasive issues of subtle sex-
ism in the music industry. The
media — rather than discuss the
music or any other career-related
endeavors — focuses upon a few
sensationalized tenets of a female
musician’s life: her appearance,
her romantic life or feuds with
other artists. Before the release
of 1989 for example, Taylor Swift
was notorious for supposedly
exhibiting a revolving door syn-
drome when it came to boyfriends.
A quote from the musician Beth
Jeans Houghton, also known as
Du Blonde, demonstrates another
perspective on
the
pervasive
nature of the
sexism
female
artists
experi-
ence.
Hough-
ton
expressed
that “the more
annoying stuff
is
the
really
blasé, off-hand
comments you
have to deal with every day and
that you are supposed to ‘get over
because it doesn’t really matter.’”
The sexism may be subtle, but
it extends to female participation
in every realm of society. It’s the
redundant, demeaning narrative
that stubbornly refuses to vacate
the media landscape. Magazine
headlines and web story head-
lines thrive off of scrutinizing and
appraising women’s appearances
as they go about their daily lives.
Women lose autonomy in media
coverage as they become objects
or extensions of their significant
other. Within a space of maybe six
to 10 words, a woman’s past accom-
plishments
are
overshadowed
by the outfit she chose to wear or
whether or not she looks tired.
Stepping outside of the enter-
tainment industry into the world
of public policy where media cov-
erage is supposedly more serious
in nature, emphasis upon a female
politician’s appearance continues to
possess far too much clout. In fact,
a 2013 study conducted by Name It.
Change It. found that discussions of
a female politician’s appearance —
whether they’re favorable in nature
or not — negatively influences voter
perceptions of that candidate. Even
after the ridiculously immense
amount of commentary on the sub-
ject last election season, the noto-
riety of Hillary Clinton’s pant suits
can’t be suppressed as recent arti-
cles discuss the exorbitant price of
the garments.
Considering
the
plethora
of
campaign
platforms and
stances
to
consider
and
weigh against
one
another,
details
about
a
politician’s
appearance are
in no way beneficial to voters.
I realize that in my attempt to
diversify my writing and find a
creative solution, I stumbled on
one of the most redundant narra-
tives in our media landscape. What
I’ve stated isn’t revolutionary.
Rather, it’s a subject that’s yet to be
resolved even though it’s been reit-
erated ad nauseam. One could even
call these media portrayals cliché.
It’s common sense to say the media
needs to stop objectifying women
in order to sell subscriptions or
produce extra content.
However, the thing about cli-
chés is that eventually people
realize that it’s poor taste to keep
using them.
— Melissa Scholke can be
reached at melikaye@umich.edu.
E-mail RachEl at Rdawson@umich.Edu
RACHEL DAWSON
The sexism may be
subtle, but it extends
to female participation
in every realm of
society.
DEREK
WOLFE
On Ari Gold, Seinfeld and P.C. culture