RECENT  POSTS:  » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


A fair question about Lisa Lampanelli's theoretical awards show gig

by Jeremy Hooper

In light of recent events, I have to wonder: If Lisa Lampanelli was tapped to host the Academy Awards, would this cost her her job?

Because just this summer, GLAAD was feting Lisa at an event. Yet now, this same organization is instrumental in yanking Ratner from his Academy Awards gig primarily because of one "f word" bomb. I think it's fair to ask: Where is the line, exactly?

Is it because Lisa is a professional comedian that she gets the pass? Is it because she admirably shows up for LGBT rights in other ways? Is it because she purports to be addressing the LGBT community directly, in an "in on the joke" way? It is because she's an across the board offender? And perhaps the biggest question: Are any of these exceptions consistent, if "words matter" is the stated belief?


*Note: None of this is to say that Lampanelli should be reeled back or that Ratner shouldn't have been -- I'm just wondering where the lines are drawn, why, and whether we are being intellectually consistent.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails