(This week we have a guest post from JBisMe.)
Once upon a time there was a brand named Smuckers.
Smuckers didn’t like gay people (or men who act too “feminine”), and so it made up a lie about the importance of “family values” (or something vague and disingenuous and meaningless like that) and used that lie to justify its unkind actions toward a certain incomparably gifted and adorable figure skater. This story will take us from Mississippi to Wyoming to Canada and back, full of details and scandal and unitards(!) and even a moral at the end, I promise.
But before you read the story, you might need to know a little bit about a man named Dan Savage. Dan Savage is a writer, sex-advice columnist, editor, journalist, and occasional media pundit. Several years ago, in response to ridiculously homophobic comments made by then Senator Rick Santorum, Dan decided to exact his revenge by inviting his readers to submit fun, new definitions for the word “santorum.” The winning definition can be found here, although I must warn you not to follow this link if you are the squeamish sort, or are bothered by things poo-related. So anyway, inspired by Dan, I have created a fun, new definition for the word “smuckers.” Read on, and you will learn all of this and more!
Our story began when I learned, in the space of a few short weeks, about three separate instances of anti-gay discrimination that share a common theme. I know this particular brand of anti-gay discrimination isn’t new, but perhaps, as many Americans become more tolerant of non-heterosexuality, this brand of anti-gay discrimination is becoming more common? As a sort of last-ditch effort on the part of the desperate to exert some control over others? Anyway, this brand of discrimination is not overtly aggressive or explicitly insulting. It’s often even accompanied by statements of acceptance (e.g., “I don’t hate homo-sex-uals”), and it is usually masked behind seemingly pro-social statement about the importance of love and family and “this is in everyone’s best interests.” What it always involves is some group or body or organization that has some sort of power (age or money or authority) over specific individuals, and it uses that power in a bullying kind of way to suppress people’s rights to live and behave how they want to, and to date/have sex with/fall in love with who they want to. And the backlash against the specific “offending” (read: gay) individuals then spills over onto other people, so that the powerful group or organization ends up punishing a much larger group of people than simply the specific individual or individuals who first evoked its ire by being so dirty, dirty gay.
Here are the cases that share this theme:
1. 18-year-old high school senior, Constance McMillen, asked officials at Itawamba County Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi if she could bring her girlfriend to the senior prom as her date. Constance’s principal said no, on the basis that it blah blah blah (insert vague, meaningless blather here). When the Mississippi ACLU sent a letter to the school board on Constance’s behalf, the school responded by canceling the senior prom altogether rather than changing their “no same-sex prom dates” policy. (Oddly, the school board also has a “no female persons shall wear tuxedos at prom” policy. Constance has to sue for the right to wear a tuxedo to her prom. Is it just me, or is this downright creepy? I can’t help but wonder if the school board’s policy on prom clothing extends to underwear as well. Do they require all female persons to wear a certain type of underpant? Possibly so. This would explain the “no tuxedos” policy, as the only way to enforce the underpant policy is to make all of the young ladies pull up their skirts and show their underpants. Tuxedo pants would just make it too darn hard to check out the girls’ underpants!) [ed note: In the comments Ravyn points to the story of a principal asking female students at a dance "What kind of underwear do you have on?" Thanks, Ravyn.]
Powerful group: Principal and school board
Dirty, dirty gay count: 2 (Constance and her girlfriend)
Punishment count: All of the students who were planning to attend the senior prom. Most likely more than 2.
2. Until recently, two schools in Wheatland, Wyoming, participated in a program by the Anti-Defamation League called “No Place for Hate.” The goal of the program is “to teach young people about tolerance and respecting differences.” As part of the program, the schools display banners that read “No Place for Hate” and, in smaller print, list the names of three groups that sponsor the program: Qwest, the David and Laura Merage Foundation, and the Gay and Lesbian Fund for Colorado. Balking at the presence of the words “gay” and “lesbian” on the banners, school trustees ultimately voted to remove the banners at Wheatland High and West Elementary on the basis that the banners “push a pro-gay marriage agenda.” The District Superintendant, Stuart Nelson, claimed that although the banners were removed, the No Place for Hate program would still be allowed to continue in the two schools. To which Bruce DeBoskey, the regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, replied “Dude, really? Are you serious? Um…” Okay, he didn’t really say that. What he did say was that the two schools would actually not be allowed to participate in the program unless they were going to honor the ideals of the program to its fullest intent. So now Wheatland High and West Elementary are proud members of the “This Is Most Definitely a Place for Hate” program, which is sponsored, probably, by Smuckers (see case #3 below).
Powerful group: 4 school trustees who voted to remove the banners
Dirty, dirty gay count: Hmm, this one is difficult to count, since the dirty, dirty gay was actually a printed logo. Let’s go with 2, the words “gay” and “lesbian.”
Punishment count: All of the students who valued the “No Place for Hate” program and requested that the banners be replaced (request denied). Also, all of the kids who get bullied in those two schools and who might not have gotten bullied if the “No Place for Hate” program had been retained. Most likely more than 2.
3. In response to a recent online poll asking skating fans “Who would you like to see guest star with ‘Stars on Ice’?,” voters selected figure skater Johnny Weir, the three time National Champion and two time Olympian who has a reputation for being “flashy,” “fun,” and “entertaining” (for instance, Johnny designs his own glittery skating costumes, stars in his own reality TV show, and skates to non-traditional tunes such as Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face”; see picture below). Despite Johnny’s popularity with skating fans, however, sponsors of the “Stars on Ice” show, which include Smuckers and IMG Entertainment, will not invite him to participate because they claim that he is “not family friendly” enough. It is possible that this jab at Johnny’s character is not about homophobia. After all, Johnny himself has made no public declarations of his sexual orientation, claiming that what he does sexually, and with whom he does it, are private details and irrelevant to his athletic career. So Smuckers either assumes that Johnny is gay and dislikes him on the basis of this assumption, or they merely object to the fact that he violates gender roles. And this is odd for the very glaringly obvious reason that all male figure skaters violate gender roles, in that “wearing a spandex unitard and ballet dancing on ice to classical music” are behaviors that are stereotypically feminine, not masculine (trust me on this; I study gender roles for a living). Another odd thing about Smuckers’ “not family friendly” statement is that, from all of the evidence we can glean about Johnny, he is actually quite “friendly” with and to his family. His mother and aunt often travel with him to skating competitions and shows, and he helps support his family financially given that his father is unable to work for medical reasons. So there is no discernible way in which Johnny Weir is “not family friendly,” or at least any less “family friendly” than any other gender role violating male figure skater, and yet these were the words that a representative used to explain Smuckers’ refusal to invite Johnny to skate in their show. Strange, because according to Smuckers’ website, “honesty” is one of their Basic Beliefs and a guiding principle in their organization. So why do I feel like I’m being lied to?
Powerful group: The J.M. Smucker Company
Dirty, dirty gay count: 1 (Johnny, who may or may not be gay, but who will play the role of the dirty, dirty gay in today’s episode of “Go Smuck Yourself”).
Punishment count: There’s Johnny himself, who has said that he would have liked to be in the “Stars on Ice” program, and then there are all of the skating fans who voted for Johnny as their most wanted guest star. I have no idea how many people voted, but I’m assuming it was more than 1.
You see what I mean? It’s no longer fashionable or acceptable to go up to the nearest gay man or lesbian (or bisexual or transgender person) and kick them in the crotch or punch them or pull their hair. And since they can’t use these direct, explicit, in-your-face kind of anti-gay discrimination tactics (which, come on, they’re just itching to do), these groups and authority figures and corporations fall back on the only kind of anti-gay punishment they have at their disposal: They deny something valuable or desirable to the larger group as a way of getting indirectly at the dirty, dirty gay.
And this, my friends, is what it means to get “smuckered.” To get smuckered is to experience an unfortunate or painful outcome – to have something desired taken away, or to be denied an opportunity that you want and deserve – at the hands of some more-powerful-than-yourself institution whose ultimate goal is to reduce the rights of non-heterosexual persons. As I hope I’ve demonstrated, you don’t have to be gay to get smuckered. Constance McMillen got smuckered, but so did all of the non-gay students at her high school who had been looking forward to their senior prom. Lots of kids in Wheatland, Wyoming got smuckered real good by their own school trustees. And Johnny Weir – talented, sweet, family-loving, maybe-or-maybe-not-gay Johnny Weir – got smuckered right up the ol’ salad shooter by America’s favorite makers of jellies, jams, and condiments! He got smuckered by the very masters of the smuck.
We have reached the end of the story. I promised you a moral, didn’t I? Hmm. I’m feeling a tad cynical and sad right now, so happy moral conjuring is difficult. But I suppose, if I have to come up with a moral, it is this: Love yourself. Be good to others. Stand up for your own, and for other people’s, rights. If you have kids, teach them to be themselves and to stand up for their rights (Constance McMillen is a great example of what can result from good parenting. Have you seen this kid defend herself? Holy mother of god, she is awesome).
And most importantly, don’t let the smuckers get you down.
***
Smucker: noun. A powerful entity that uses bullying tactics such as over-punishing (punishing groups instead of individuals) as a means of suppressing the rights of relatively less powerful non-heterosexuals: “Can you believe that smucker canceled our senior prom, all because Constance wanted to attend with her girlfriend?”
Smucker: verb. To use bullying tactics such as over-punishing as a means of suppressing the rights of relatively less powerful non-heterosexuals: “If the Anti-Defamation League insists on pushing their pro-gay-marriage agenda in our schools, we’re just going to have to smucker them!”
Smuckered: verb past perfect. To have been on the receiving end of a smucking: “Well, Johnny, it certainly looks like you have been smuckered!”
(Author’s note: If you like my definitions, please feel free to spread the word!)
Awesome. and I will not buy from Smuckers ever again.
thanks, donald! i’m boycotting smuckers too.
I remember getting smuckered when I was a kid. The teacher couldn’t find the right person to punish and so would punish the whole class. It’s about time we had a word for it!
“C’mon, teach, don’t smucker us just cause you don’t know who was making farting noises.”
For me, this really drives home the idea that benevolence is seldom benign, and acts as a powerful mask for harmful social influence. Smuckers know fully well that direct acts of aggression and anti-gay prejudice represent a failure of power. You nailed it when you said “these groups and authority figures and corporations fall back on the only kind of anti-gay punishment they have at their disposal: They deny something valuable or desirable to the larger group.” A testable hypothesis, indeed.
We need to get answers from Smucker’s and Stars on Ice. Please help by signing this petition:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/include-johnny-weir.html
The money quote from Constance McMillan regarding parenting:
“My daddy told me that I needed to show them that I’m still proud of who I am. The fact that this will help people later on, that’s what’s helping me to go on.”
— Following the cancellation of the prom, Constance was hesitant to return to school but her father encouraged her to face her classmates, teachers and school officials.
Continuing on the Johnny Weir train, there are also the blatantly homophobic comments made by the Quebecois announcers while he was skating his routine (http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=102663&pf=1) because Quebec is nothing if not classy when it comes to political correctness. In a nice double insult, they even compared him to Caster Semenya, claiming that he needed gender testing. This clearly is not being Smuckered. This is just hating.
zoe, yes, i have seen that story. i didn’t include it here because it’s not the same type of homophobia i wrote about here. it’s much more blatant. but i have seen johnny’s replies to those comments – he’s so poised and self-possessed.
marco, thanks for that quote! i’m really in love with stories about families who rally behind their gay, lesbian, and gender role violating children. it’s very heartwarming. constance herself is just quite stunningly grounded and calm about all of this. she’s such a good role model, and it’s so great that she gives credit to her parents like that.
helen, thanks for the link. i’ve already signed the petition, and i hope that others will too.
josh, do i smell a study idea?
Quote from article-”Despite Johnny’s popularity with skating fans, however, sponsors of the “Stars on Ice” show, which include Smuckers and IMG Entertainment, will not invite him to participate because they claim that he is “not family friendly” enough. It is possible that this jab at Johnny’s character is not about homophobia. After all, Johnny himself has made no public declarations of his sexual orientation, claiming that what he does sexually, and with whom he does it, are private details and irrelevant to his athletic career. So Smuckers either assumes that Johnny is gay and dislikes him on the basis of this assumption, or they merely object to the fact that he violates gender roles.”
I think it certainly is possible. I have no idea about Johnny’s sexuality, but I do know just by watching his performance to Lady Gaga that he tries very hard to make his performance sexy. He rubs his body, and incorporates hip thrusts in a very suggestive manner. Now I know that by the screams of what seem to be females in the crowd that he does this for them. But does this qualify as family friendly?
I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Smuckers made this decision based on homophobic reasons, when it very well could have been because they don’t want him performing to make people swoon over his movements.
kevin, you may have a point there! i don’t watch enough men’s figure skating to know what is considered a “normal” level of suggestive hip thrusting, so i didn’t notice anything inappropriate when i watched johnny’s “poker face” routine. (i also didn’t notice anything overtly sexual, but i may just be kind of dense about these sorts of things.) however, the “poker face” is a recent routine of johnny’s, and i don’t think it’s indicative of his typical skating style (from what i’ve seen of his routines at competitions and exhibitions). and (if i’m getting this right) johnny claims that his agent has been approaching “stars on ice” for years, and they have always denied him on the basis of his “not family friendly style.” since they’ve been rejecting him since long before that particular routine was even choreographed, i’m disinclined to believe that their objections to him are related to his “poker face” hip thrusts.
Well honestly, I don’t watch much either. I just saw Johnny for the first time during the Olympics and noticed how he showed off to the crowd in his routines which were a little more sexual than the other participants.
I really don’t know if Smuckers is doing this because of assumptions about his sexual orientation, or if they think he has crossed some sort of line morally with his interpretation of figure skating, but I’m not going to boycott a fine company because of assumptions in which nothing was said of his sexual orientation.
Kevin the understanding would be that routines in the show and any interview footage would be preapproved. Nothing provocative would be seen that particular show. It is amazing what counts as gyrating or whatever-his competition short program had basically one flirtatious moment.
The truth is Smuckers is a very conservative company and dislikes Weir’s outspoken reputation and general fabulousness AND according to Johnny his agent has been told the family unfriendly smear directly by Stars on Ice itself.
Johnny Weir is clearly a big draw and SOI would be nuts not to want the audience he brings so his status as THE ONLY leading male skater of his generation to be banned is obviously not a
financial move.
Whether Smuckers deserves the blame or is only being scapegoated by SOI, it is abundantly clear that Scott Hamilton has major hatred of Weir and this is clear from his coverage of skating. NBC also was TERRIFIED of him and blatantly banned him from all the up close and personal filler.
Having seen the whole reality show there seems NO reason for this!!! Even on his own show!
Either he is a bad colleague and only CERTAIN SKATERS know this or he is being overpunished for daring to opine on scoring, judging etc.
Or there is some hysterical homophobia going on.
Mckaydelyn, thanks. I figured that SOI would require all routines to be preapproved, so the “not family friendly” comment seems to be based more on Johnny’s reputation than on anything that he would or could actually do on the ice during a skating show. And I’m very curious to know who sponsored the “online poll” that I mentioned – I just read about it from other sources, but could find no information about who actually conducted the poll, and for what specific purpose. It would seem that, if the purpose of the poll was to determine who potential audience members of a SOI show would want to see, and if Johnny won, then doesn’t that mean that the potential audience itself deems him “family friendly” enough for them? Whose “family” are we trying to protect here, anyway?
I have never heard Scott Hamilton say anything about Johnny (I watch zero skating these days, and have only recently been checking out Johnny’s routines on Youtube because of all of this hoopla), but a friend told me that Hamilton is apparently very critical of Weir. And I was like “What?!? But Scott Hamilton WAS the Johnny Weir of his day!” Or at least that’s my memory of him, from when I was a kid and would watch skating. Wasn’t Hamilton known for being a renegade, outside-of-the-box skater? I had to laugh when I heard that he supposedly disapproves of Johnny… I was like “That’s like Elton John saying Adam Lambert is too over-the-top!” Ah, humanity.
LOVE the term!
An additional effect of smuckering is that by denying everyone access to something desirable (b/c of bigotry), the powerful group is fostering ill will towards gays & lesbians. For example, by canceling the prom, not only has the Mississippi principal/school board stopped the “offending” behavior, they have angered those who wanted to go and might now lay blame on lesbians/gays for asking for equal rights. Smuckering stops the immediate “threat” AND subtly encourages anger/frustration toward said group.
Re: Johnny Weir–>whether or not Weir’s performances are suggestive (and, as several have noted, it is not likely that SOI would NOT have final approval on performances), for Smucker’s to omit him against the interests of fans is clearly tied to homophobia/gender roles. First, companies RARELY sacrifice profit opportunites easily, which they are likely doing by omitting him; beyond Weir bending/toying with gender, why deny a profit-builder. Second, even if it is not about Weir’s sexuality, female skaters regularly dress and move suggestively in their performances. It does speak volumes about what Smuckers deems “family friendly”: sexuality from women/girls = family friendly, sexuality from men = gay = scary.
Case #1 regarding proper female prom attire and the tongue-in-cheek concerns about panty checks are not so far-fetched…do you recall that actually happened a number of years ago:
Case #1 regarding proper female prom attire and the tongue-in-cheek concerns about panty checks are not so far-fetched…do you recall that actually happened a number of years ago:
“Principal Accused of Pre-Dance Thong Check”
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126132&page=1
allison: yes and yes! excellent point about how smuckering accomplishes two goals, the second of which is to encourage resentment toward non-heterosexuals! it’s most obvious in the case of constance mcmillen, because some of her own classmates now resent her for “ruining their senior year.” as a result of the smuckering, others get the impression that constance is asking for “special” treatment when really all she wants is to get the same treatment as her classmates (i.e., permission to bring her chosen date to the prom). so she is perceived as having entitlement issues and is therefore resented.
your johnny weir comment reminds me of adam lambert’s replies to the “outrage” he caused by kissing a dude during a live performance on tv. he very smartly pointed out the double standard with regard to expressions of sexuality in performance, i.e., that it’s okay and sexy and fun when women behave in a sexually suggestive manner, but not okay when men do the same. it’s my hope that, in having people like adam make these points during interviews in the mainstream media, people’s recognition of the double standard will increase.
ravyn: wow. i had no idea. that is astonishing. i’m gonna put your link into my post. i hope that principal was arrested for sexual harassment.
I’VE BEEN SIGNING THE JOHNNY WEIR PETITION AND READING THROUGH TONS OF SITES POPPING UP ALL OVER AND, ‘YA JUST GOTTA SAY, “OMG…GO JOHHNY, GO!!!!!” WHO WANTS TO GO FIND OUT HOW AND WHO THESE MENTAL TITANS (WHO PURPORT TO KNOW WHAT MAKES SOMETHING FAMILY-FRIENDLY TO ALL US REGULA’ PEOPLE) ARE DOING IN THEIR SPARE TIME (EEOOWWW, GROSS.) LET THEM BE “SMUCKERED” BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND LET THEM KNOW THE TRUTH IS, “WHEN WE A-S-S-U-M-E, WE MAKE AN ASS OUT OF U AND ME.” SORRY, SMUCK ME…IT’S BEEN A ROUGH COUPLA DAYS.
P. S. I GUESS I SHOULDN’T JOKE, BUT IT IS SO SERIOUS. I JUST HOPE THAT JOHNNY IS ENJOYING SOME OF THE LIGHTER VIEWS AND REPLIES I HAVE COME ACROSS WITH THAT IMP GRIN OF HIS. ACTUALLY, JOHNNY IS/WAS IN SUBURBAN CHICAGO (OAK LAWN, IL) ALL WEEKEND AND OF ALL THINGS HE COULD HAVE BEEN OUT DOING, GUESS WHAT? HE DID AN EXHIBI-TION FOR SOME KIDS THIS AFTERNOON AND WILL BE IN BENSENVILLE, IL ON APRIL 1ST (NO JOKE!!)
ALSO, I HAVE BEEN WATCHING PROFESSIONAL MEN’S AND WOMEN’S FIGURE SKATING SINCE I WAS A KID. ACCORDING TO MOST MEN I KNOW, THE MEN’S FIELD IS GAY; WOMEN DON’T SEEM TO AGREE OR CARE. IT’S JUST AS OTHER COMMENTERS MENTIONED; SEQUENES, TIGHT OUTFITS, THE MUSIC, AND FLAMBOYANT DANCES. MOST PEOPLE USED TO LEAVE THEM ALONE, BUT NOW ALOT OF SKATERS ARE DATING/MARRIED AND I THINK WITH CELLPHONES AND CAM-CORDERS, SINGLE PEOPLE MAY BE SCRUTINIZED MORE…PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING. MY FAVORITE SKATER HAPPENS TO BE SWISS CHAMPION STEPHANE LAMBIEL. FRILLY COSTUMING, BEAUTIFUL MUSIC AND OMG GORGEOUS, BUT HE IS NOT HAVING PROBLEMS…HE IS SO ROMANTIC THAT MAKES “LADYBUGS” SCREAM WITH DELIGHT; THEY CAN’T WAIT TO FOLLOW HIM AROUND THE WORLD AS HE SKATES IN EXHIBITION NOW! I CAN’T GO SEE HIM IN THE STATES EITHER. JOHNNY, I WANT TO GO PLAY WITH YOU; I KNOW IT WOULD BE SO MUCH FUN!!!!
MUCH LOVE (SL) & PEACE OUT!!!