My friend Victoria and I have known each other since we were both sophomores at Trinity Western University. While she is by no means a leftist, she has always advocated a brand of Christ-centered feminism which I have come to greatly appreciate. Still, we have had our fair share of disagreements with regard to gender relations over the years.
Our most recent one had to do with comedian Shane Gillis’s performance on Saturday Night Live last weekend. Gillis made headlines by stating that he hadn’t been to the gym in so long that he “didn’t know women just dress like whores now.”
“Have you seen the shorts?” Gillis asked his live audience.
Actor Dan Levy was less than impressed with the comedian’s comments:
Women wearing short shorts at the gym does not make them whores. It makes the men calling them whores misogynists.
I found Levy’s take ridiculous and assumed Vic would agree. I was wrong. Below is the clip I sent her and the exchange that followed.
Vic: Well, I think it was a misogynistic comment.
Sach: Actual whores 50 years ago dressed more conservatively than your average female gym rat today. I’m a “live and let live” kinda guy but I also believe in calling a spade a spade 😂
Vic: I hear what you’re saying generally, but I don’t believe this is calling a spade a spade. It’s a man using his position of power and admiration to degrade women. What “whore” has meant at various times in history is irrelevant in my opinion.
At present, it is not a compliment (despite secular feminist efforts) or a mere description (it has negative connotations). No average woman wants to be called a whore, that’s crazy.
If he said “Woah, women are scantily dressed,” I’d say he’s accurate. But that’s not what he said. I believe it was intentionally degrading in order to be surprising and appeal to a certain crowd.
He doesn’t really care if women are being objectified, he’s not concerned for their modesty, and he’s not looking at them as people. He’s making fun of them and implying it’s their fault that men view them as whores. That doesn’t sit right with me.
Women’s responsibility for protecting men from lust and modesty in the Christian world is another conversation. Here, he’s just making fun of them.
Sach: What’s the difference between “Woah, women are scantily dressed” and “Woah, women dress like whores?” Genuine question, not a gotcha.
Vic: One is a factual description without antagonizing language. The second is a degrading statement that actually doesn’t provide any context. How a “whore” dresses is actually not descriptive because it’s so subjective.
Sach: Okay, I think you’re right that they’re different. Certainly in a completely serious, non-ironic context they are. But in a comedy setting, the rules are completely different. Then again, we’ve never fully seen eye to eye on comedy so that’s probably a dead end hahaha.
Vic: Yeah, I think we need to watch/tame the tongue. It’s our rudder and though I support free speech, that doesn’t mean we should prioritize humour. I can’t imagine Jesus making that joke and that’s my North Star.
And even in this case, I’d push against the comedy caveat. Comedians say things I don’t like alllll the time lol and we’ve talked about that.
I still think this case is different. It’s not bringing anything new to the table. He’s just being gross.
Sach: Jesus is the King of Kings. Comedians are court jesters. Can a comedian really be expected to handle social and cultural conversations with the tact of a monarch? Is that even their job?
For example, I would never speak like Shane Gillis from the pulpit. But when I go to Rogers Arena to see him live, I’m also not expecting him to talk like my priest.
A comedian can (and perhaps should) go places that a clergyman won’t. Both are called to communicate truth, but in very different ways. The difference between the West and less civilized societies is that we don’t typically restrict people’s freedom to self destruct via strict laws (think hijabs, etc.). But the thing which historically allowed for decorum and virtue in the public square was social shame/stigma which implicitly called people higher. The more that construct implodes, the more decadent behaviour we witness on the daily (from the pothead incel strolling through the grocery store in his pyjamas to, yes, the young woman wearing next to nothing at the gym). Good comedy (which is to say truth-telling comedy) is one of the tools that can potentially bring back that healthy dose of social shame we’ve lost but used to benefit from.
I don’t think DJ is being a misandrist here, for example. I think she’s doing society a service.
Vic: Okay, then Jesus wouldn’t be amused by this court jester’s jokes. I think applying WWJD to every scenario is short sighted and problematic, that’s fair.
I don’t think Shane is communicating truth, though. That’s the big thing for me. He doesn’t provide detail or political commentary. He calls women a nasty name and moves on. He’s not shaming in a way that provides a solution.
I think we should be shaming him and people like him for being crude. That’s what Dan Levy did. I think social shame works (my sister loves to talk about this actually lol) and has its place culturally.
But let’s compare and contrast Dakota and Shane.
Men are inherently always in a position of power over women. Curse of the fall from Genesis 3:16. Women are agreeable and vulnerable in a way a man simply can never be. I’m not saying men don’t need to be protected, but from the start it’s different.
Dakota’s saying that flip-flops aren’t a good look and that it suggests poor hygiene. Shane is saying that women are dressed like whores. It is much more of an attack on character and identity than Dakota’s comment.
At the core of each joke: Men can be smelly (not earth-shattering to identity); women are sluts (speaks to the character of a woman and her most intimate and special asset). In theory, yeah, both groups can just change their outfit. Even so, Dakota’s kind of saying, “Hey, men, in case you didn’t know, it’s gross!” Shane is saying, “Wow, you must be a whore. I know because of your outfit.” I get that I’m doing a little bit of eisegesis there, but I’m using context and perceived intent.
To kick it back to Philosophy 105, I think what you’re saying is:
If P (Shane’s comedy successfully shames people into positive change), then Q (society will benefit). P, so Q.
But I’m like bro, P isn’t proven. I don’t think Shane successfully shames people into change. Comedy as a whole and specific comedians sure. But not this instance.
Sach: I agree with you that Dakota speaks less crudely than Shane. However, I still support both of their rhetoric. A world where Dakota’s views are normalized gives us more gentlemen. And a world where Shane’s perspective is more or less ubiquitous creates more ladies. He may be “gross” and “crude” in his speech, but not nearly as gross and crude as many women are in their dress. Perhaps a level of crudeness is required to shine a light on moral decadence.
And even if not, the likes of Levy fixating on the crudeness of Shane’s comments while giving a free pass to the behaviour Shane is calling out are the biggest jokes as far as I’m concerned.
Vic: Sorry, but I fully disagree. Going back to Genesis 3. I think, like you’ve said, we just don’t see eye to eye on this.
Sach: Aye, two people can’t agree on everything.
Vic: I don’t think women are dressed crudely; I think they’re misguided. Encouraging them in their inherent value is going to promote change. Shame won’t. It’s just deeper and more nuanced. Same reason pre-teen girls wear crop tops and low-rise jeans, and women in their 20s don’t.
Sach: They dress inappropriately precisely because they are misguided. A world where Christians tell them of their value while comedians make decadence less comfortable might be the best recipe for their flourishing.
Vic: With all due respect (and I mean that very sincerely), I don’t think it’s possible for you, at present, to grasp the psyche of women and the consequences of Shane’s words (and similar jokes). It is that deep, it is rooted in misogyny, and I believe it does have more adverse effects than positive ones.
I don’t want that to be taken condescendingly. You think very critically about the world and I admire how you grapple with things. But I think it’s just soooo the tip of the iceberg. Women’s expressions of sexuality and modesty, need for protection, vulnerability, and all that is just not something that can be understood easily by men (If at all. Maybe fathers get it).
Being shamed for dressing inappropriately is just not going to be successful. I guarantee it.
Sach: I always appreciated how respectful you are (so no need to qualify your “with all due respect” haha), and I hope the feeling is mutual. This is fascinating partly because it rhymes with something my second sister told me last summer. Something about the vulnerability of a woman and how difficult it is for a man to fully grasp it. Maybe this is where fiction can do things nonfiction never can. Surely there is a way to understand the whole picture without having to become a father first lol.
Vic: I feel respected, don’t worry, I’m just an agreeable woman at the end of the day and fear offending people ahaha. Yeah, maybe start reading lots of Jane Austen.
Sach: Maybe I’ll watch the films 😂
Vic: Also, Marcello Hernandez is a great example of getting women and empathizing with women. Just be a fly on the wall and be around women as a quiet observer. We don’t need to fully understand to be fully understanding if you know what I mean.
Sach: I like Marcello. Doesn’t strike me as a pick-me à la Dan Levy.
Vic: Accurate ahah. Also, I’m sure there are millions of things I’ll never understand about men. C’est la vie.
Sach: Hahahah. Probably. Do you have specifics in mind?
Vic: I’ve never once fantasized about rescuing people from a burning building for one.
Sach: Have you fantasized about being rescued from one though?
Vic: No, I just never think about burning buildings ahaha.
Neither of those people are Shane or Dakota so I’m calling false advertising! ;)
I agree with both of you. Comedians push boundaries, and the degree of subtlety varies. That word has so much baggage and moral connotations. On one hand, women cannot make a spectacle of their bodies (you really can complete an intense workout in more clothes without issue - in other words, the argument for mobility is really weak) and not expect eyes. However, making moral judgments based on looks alone should be frowned upon as they are in other scenarios.