Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today’s topic–the verbal missiles launched at a couple of political individuals.

Roseanne’s Missile

TV star Roseanne Barr recently tweeted that Valerie Jarrett, a former top advisor to Obama, was the product of a coupling of the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes. Note that Jarrett is an African-American who was born in Iran, a largely Muslim country.

Muslims, blacks, and all those who care about their Muslim and black friends, were outraged. Comparing black people to apes has been a well known tactic of racists for centuries.

Roseanne’s boss, ABC’s Entertainment President Channing Dungey, who, like Jarrett, is black, responded that the offending statement “is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values and we have decided to cancel her show.” Roseanne ended up apologizing for her comment, blaming it on a sleeping medication. Many do not believe her apology because she has been saying things for years that appeared racist to them.

Samantha’s Missile

Samantha Bee, who, on her cable comedy TV show “Full Frontal,” called first daughter Ivanka Trump a “feckless c*nt,”using a vulgar reference to the female anatomy. Samantha tore into Ivanka after the first daughter had posted a beautiful photo depicting her and her child treasuring their mother-child relationship. This post occurred at the same time the press was showing disturbing images of children of illegal immigrants being torn from their mother’s arms and then sent to separate places, perhaps permanently.

Samantha reacted by saying, “Let me just say, one mother to another, do something about your dad’s immigration practices you feckless…,” and it was at this point the vulgar word was said. Although the offensive word was bleeped, many found it easy to tell what she had said by looking at her lip movements. Soon after, through the mass media, what was actually said became widely known. The point that Samantha was trying to make is that Trump’s policy involves taking illegal immigrant parents away from their young children, a practice that Samantha views as heartless, and she feels that Ivanka, as a mother, has the responsibility to fervently oppose what has been going on.

Like Roseanne, Samantha quickly apologized, saying, “I would like to sincerely apologize to Ivanka Trump and to my viewers for using an expletive on my show to describe her last night. It was inappropriate and inexcusable. I crossed a line, and I deeply regret it.”

Unlike Roseanne, Samantha gets to keep her job. Her network, TBS, made the following statement: “Samantha Bee has taken the right action in apologizing for the vile and inappropriate language she used about Ivanka Trump last night. Those words should not have been aired. It was our mistake too.”

The Controversy

Many have expressed anger believing that it’s not fair that Roseanne got fired while Samantha didn’t. These people tend to support this position by saying that both did the same thing, insulting a political figure in a vile manner and using discriminatory language.

Others have said that while calling Ivanka a c*nt is indeed discriminatory, all the evidence available up to the time Samantha threw that comment out to her audience indicates that she is not at all sexist. First, they point out that Samantha is, herself, a woman. Next, her followers say that she has never said anything even remotely suggesting that she is sexist. Finally, throughout her career she has, on numerous occasions, heartily criticized anyone who said anything that came across as sexist. Under this set of circumstances, they argue, it is far easier to accept Samantha’s apology than Roseanne’s, with the latter having been heard repeatedly using the same type of language that she recently used against blacks and Muslims.

So, that’s my summary about what I have heard about this issue from various media outlets. Let’s move on to what I think of all of this.

My Reaction and Views

First of all, I don’t watch a great deal of TV, so I’m not all that familiar with either Roseanne or Samantha’s various performances. Whenever I have had glimpses of Roseanne doing her shtick, I occasionally found it pleasantly humorous.

Upon hearing that she was going to star in an updated version of her old show, many were hopeful because it was going to depict family and friends with different political views interacting. If the discussions on the show were done in a loving thoughtful manner it might prove to be a great opportunity for Americans to positively self reflect. As it sadly turned out, I feel for the many fine people who were engaged in creating the show who themselves had done nothing wrong. They now must face the incredible turmoil that the kind of hateful language that Roseanne used tends to breed.

As for Samantha, there were times I caught her performances on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and found her satire insightful, but she too often came across as just being mean to those whom she was being critical of. My wife, who has been watching her since she has had her own show, tells me that her commentaries are often spot on.

From what I’ve seen and heard, I’ve become convinced that both Roseanne and Samantha have considerable talent. And I hasten to point out that both are, by profession, comedians. That field powerfully incentivizes performers to be more outrageous than the numerous others seeking recognition and employment. Under that set of circumstances, the persona that we, the public, gets to see is often very different from who the performer is at heart. So, what I’m about to say is best viewed under the soft glow of this light.

The Reaction from President Trump and His Supporters

Shortly after Samantha launched her verbal missile at Ivanka, I heard President Trump indicate that, like many others, he didn’t feel it was fair that Roseanne was fired and not Samantha. As a parent myself, I found myself imagining how he might have felt upon hearing someone use such language against his daughter. But then it came to my attention that from his lips not a single word was uttered opposing what Roseanne had said that denigrated so many. Where was his outrage over how their parents felt upon hearing Roseanne’s hateful comments? It occurred to me that Roseanne is a high profile person who supports him.

Then I thought about the president bragging about grabbing women by one of their private parts. Over a dozen women testified that he didn’t just brag about this, he actually did it. His use of the word “pussy” to describe the private part that he said he grabbed seems to be pretty close in meaning to the one Samantha had used.

When Megan Kelly, during one of the last presidential debates, had asked Trump some challenging questions, he attacked her, saying she must have had blood coming out of…wherever. This struck me and many others as obviously sexist. Trump apparently had no sympathy for Megan or her father.

With all of this in mind, in the end, my sympathy for how the president might have felt upon hearing what was said about his daughter waned. This is not to say that I in any way support how Samantha expressed her anger at Ivanka.

As I thought more about this, it seemed to me that most of the people who felt Samantha should have been fired are supporters of Trump. These are the same people that had heard how he had bragged about grabbing women, heard women testifying that he had done so, and heard his comment about Megan Kelly. They, nevertheless, have not been calling for his firing, and instead, they went out and voted for him, thereby recommending that rather than be fired, he be hired to serve as the president of the United States. So, their arguments for why Samantha should be fired ended up ringing off key to my ears.

The Reaction From Those Who Are Not President Trump Supporters

Soon after hearing from some Trump supporters, a very intelligent friend of mine who is not a Trump supporter also emphatically took the position that both Roseanne and Samantha should have been fired. From this, I surmised that there were other intelligent folks who are not Trump supporters who also feel as he, so I tried to better understand his position.

As I questioned him, it became clear that in his opinion both of the performers’ comments were equally bad because they were very insulting. Moreover, both were discriminatory–Roseanne’s comment being discriminatory in it being racist and anti-muslim; Samantha’s comment being sexist.

I immediately agreed with him that both were very insulting, but at first I didn’t see how Samantha’s comment was sexist. To me, the “c-word” was the feminine version of calling a man who did something despised, a “prick.” The word “prick” is not directed at all men, just the man who is the target of this insult. Unless a woman said something like, “You are a prick just like all men,” the word wouldn’t come across to me as sexist. In that very same way, I didn’t see the use of the “c-word” as used by Samantha sexist. However, my friend’s position led me to speak to others, and the majority did feel that the “c-word” does come across as sexist.

So, I am now willing to accept this argument that both performers’ comments were the same because they were both insulting and discriminatory. If that is as far as someone wants to go in thinking about this, then it does make sense to me why they conclude the firing decision was unfair. However, for those of us who choose to go a little beyond those two reasons, a different conclusion is more tenable.

The Differences

Even accepting the notion that Roseanne and Samantha’s insults were both discriminatory, there are still different types of discriminatory insults. Roseanne, who is white, made a racist comment against black folks, and insulted a whole religious group. In doing so, she did not make it clear why in the world she was insulting Jarrett. She had done this type of thing before, and her comment directly insulted her black boss–never a good thing to do for people wanting to keep their job.

In contrast, Samantha, who is a woman, made a sexist comment that offends women. She had not done anything similar in the past. Moreover, she made it clear that she was seeking to insult just one person and for something specifically not being done by that person. Unlike what Roseanne had done, Samantha’s comment did not directly insult her boss; in fact, her boss very likely agreed with the point Samantha had tried to make. These are very clear differences to me.

As far as whether or not both should have been fired, without reading their contracts, something I obviously haven’t done, I find it difficult to draw any definite conclusions. However, when you say something that so directly insults your boss, as Roseanne had done, continuing to work for her typically becomes less than ideal.

Meanwhile, Samantha’s bosses well knew what they were getting when they decided to give her a show of her own after several years appearing on the Daily Show. At the point that they chose to hire her, it was clear that at times she was going to do pretty much what President Trump does. Like him, she throws hateful speech at those with whom she disagrees. Of course, the president tends to aim his hateful speech toward Democrats, and she tends to aim her’s toward Republicans.

Personally, I would be delighted if both Samantha and President Trump no longer appeared on TV. Like Roseanne, both are, to my mind, responsible for spreading the type of hate that is bitterly dividing our country.

This is not to say that there isn’t a very helpful place for providing criticism to those with whom we disagree. But to me there are destructive and constructive ways to go about this.

In an earlier post, to better explain what I mean by destructive and constructive approaches, I provided five levels of maturity for providing helpful criticism. In concluding today’s post, I shall present once again those five levels and invite you to look them over and then decide what level Roseanne and Samantha’s comments would properly be rated. And then, if you will, try to utilize the levels 4 and 5 descriptions to transform the criticism that both performers had made to something more helpful.

The 5 Levels of Maturity for Providing Helpful Criticism

Below you will find preliminary descriptions of how people at five developmental levels of maturity provide criticism, that is, criticism that points out what we don’t like about someone’s actions, beliefs, or appearance.  Level one is the most immature and uses observations of babies as its starting point.  Each successive level is more mature:

1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

• Cries without stating what the crying is about
• Physically attacks the person being criticized
• Damages property
  

 

 

 

 

 

Although these three descriptors may not sound like providing criticism, in some situations we can see that it is the very beginning of the development of this skill.  Let’s say Jill takes baby Bob’s crayon away believing he is done with it.  Bob begins to cry and takes a swipe at Jill.  She manages, by moving away, to avoid Bob’s swipe. Bob now looks even angrier and crumbles up a piece of paper and flings it on the floor.  An observer to this may conclude that Bob, in a sense, is criticizing Jill for taking the crayon.   

    2.  This level requires displaying one or both of the following:

• The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (For example, someone might be making too much noise and the criticizer might turn to the noise maker and glare, or cry out, “Jerk!”)
• Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said.

     

 3.  The criticizer clearly states the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couples it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.   The criticizer states the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance.  If the person receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, the criticizer empathizes without returning glares, insults, threats, or shouts.

        

       

 

5.  When the criticizer provides criticism, he or she does so in a manner very similar to a level four response, but beforehand, the criticizer considers the person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in.  As a result of such considerations, the criticizer may decide to alter the criticism.

• Person variables that are considered:  From observing how the person to be criticized handled criticism in the past, he or she determines which of the five levels of responding to criticism is most characteristic of the individual. (For example, if someone tends to physically attack the criticizer when criticized and is big enough to cause real bodily harm, then a decision is made either to not provide the criticism or to provide it only when there is sufficient security, or else someone else is employed to provide the criticism who is capable of dealing safely with the attack prone person.)  Other person variables considered are how sensitive the person is when criticized, is the person to be criticized currently in an angry or sad mood, is the criticism likely to be perceived as particularly difficult to bear, versus something likely to be viewed as a relatively minor matter, and if the criticizer’s relationship with the person to be criticized is less than ideal.  Depending on such variables, consideration is given to waiting until the person is in a pleasant mood and enlisting someone else to provide the criticism such as a more neutral person, a friend, or someone who is admired by the person who will be criticized.  When the person to be criticized is particularly sensitive about an issue, a fictionalized story with a character who displays the offending behavior may be presented, and then the character’s behavior is discussed.

Situation characteristics that are considered:  Are there other people around that will lead to face saving behavior coming into play?  Is there enough time set aside to process the criticism?  Has the person who is to provide the criticism been providing too much negative criticism in too short a period of time? (In this case, consideration is given to waiting until some time goes by in which some positive things are said over the course of several days before hitting the person to be criticized over the head yet again!)

 

 

 

 

———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

IvankaRating InsultsRoseanne BarrSamantha Bee