‘Duck Dynasty’: Phil Robertson Suspended Indefinitely Following Anti-Gay Remarks
 

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynast...003417098.html

only offer an opinion if you're fluent on the subject

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson has been placed on indefinite hiatus from the reality program following his controversial remarks in GQ magazine regarding homosexuality.

A+E Networks, parent company of A&E, has released the following statement to Variety:

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”

As noted in a previous Variety article, Robertson discusses in his GQ interview his religious beliefs and about sin, saying, “start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Then, the GQ writer paraphrases Corinthians saying, “don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Robertson added in the interview, “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

“Duck Dynasty” has been a ratings juggernaut for A&E, recently drawing around 9 million viewers for its Christmas special. Gurney Prods.-produced program can move on without Phil Robertson attached to the series, as the bearded men at the center of the Robertson clan include Jase, Willie and Uncle Si, among others.

I just heard this on the 11pm news.


I had to sit through 2 hours of Duck Dynasty over my nephews house on Thanksgiving.Its just another retarded reality show.

After seen this show anybody with a camcorder can do a reality show and post it on YT and become a hit.

I should film my walks.

I've read comments on my local NBC station's Facebook page about this. (Oh how I hate living in a place where people can't think without mentioning the bible). His first admendment right to freedom of speech was not violated. Hes not in jail. You can't expect to say something controversial and not have some repercussions, especially if you're in the public's eye.

I think that the show is stupid, and I'm tired of seeing their faces in every store I go into.

Yes, I'm pro gay and pro equal rights for everybody

I had to google Duck Dynasty (eesh!) but even with almost no knowledge of the subject, I love this post. Complete failure to understand speech laws in western nations is one of my biggest pet peeves. I hope you posted this on the facebook page. Some people just need it to be broken down very simply. "Nobody called the cops on him! Calm down!"

ETA: His quote of controversy doesn't actually bother me that much, now that I'm reading it again. He condemns same-sex sex as immoral. But then in the same breath condemns heterosexual promiscuity and a host of other things as sins. This doesn't seem like an anti-gay rant in particular. This is just a man operating on a Victorian sense of right and wrong, and seeming to at least be fairly consistent about it. It may be incredibly stupid, and kind of annoying, but it doesn't strike me as hateful. I'm not sure suspension was entirely fair. My guess is he's been pretty openly stupid and annoying since the network picked the show up.

But for the record, in response to his added comment, a man's anus is so insanely awesome. Seriously. He's missing out!

You should do that! I'm sure it would make much more interesting, and high quality viewing, than this reality rubbish....what is the world coming to? :rolleyes: Duck Dynasty?!? :shrug:

Ha. Yes, there are many youtube users who have amassed followings based on similarly mundane things!

I am a fan of some youtubers and reality shows, though, so my claim to intellectual superiority is pretty much nil. Duck Dynasty, however, is honestly of no interest to me. It seems like its appeal is based on people who like watching "rednecks" be... well... rednecky. So the reaction to this particular redneck moment seems a little disingenuous.

I've also found some great youtubers, and some ok reality stuff . But I take Skip's word on this one - Duck Dynasty sounds a bit crap.

I live in a area similar to where the show is filmed. I know several people who could take place of the guy. His kind is the norm here.

I really dislike the show because it gives the world the fuel to say all American southerners are stupid and uneducated. We are actually very smart, both bookwise and common sense wise.

You are the ONLY person I have read commentating on this anywhere on the news or on the internet to actually address what was said, and to respond accordingly. Bravo! Now, let's extend that to GLAAD. Its response was totally inappropriate--as I read it, they basically vilified anal sex as "vile" and "stereotypical." While it is true that not all gay people engage in anal sex (specifically involving men's anuses), it does seem odd to me for GLAAD to characterize appreciation for men's anuses to be "vile" and stereotypical--maybe a generalization, but not stereotypical. And of all groups I would expect GLAAD to respond with some sort of support for sexual attraction to men's anuses, for those who have this attraction. In other words, its GLAAD's Gay Elite Puritanism vs. Duck Dynasty's Moral Victorianism. In this fight, I have to support Duck Dynasty. He makes the better argument. (Though not better than Dex's rejoinder hahaha!)

This is what bugs me about these shows. They can really send out some bad messages, and stereotyping. Apparently they did one in Wales, choosing particular Welsh stereotypes, which sent out a completely wrong message about Wales as a whole. I didn't see any of it but I think it got some bad press.

Victorian era of right and wrong. Well everybody always says the American south is behind the times. :laugh:

I couldn't agree more. I honestly don't know much of anything about Wales, but I sure wouldn't form my opinion based off of a few people.

Good to see you.

I think what GLAAD was really objecting to was the reduction of gay men simply to practitioners of anal sex, and how problematic that is. But that's not really what they ended up saying, and their words were pretty abysmal, yes. To have my fondness for anal sex labelled "vile and extreme" from an organisation that is supposed to have my back is bizarre indeed.

I like the idea behind GLAAD, and think an organisation like that has its place, but these days they seem to be consistently misguided. I appreciate they have a tricky role to play which requires a certain finesse, but all I see them doing now is providing fuel for right-wing "political correctness gone mad" rants.

When I first read this earlier, I read the last line first and thought what the f*ck is Dex talking about :shocked: Then I read the original post, and it all became clear. :p

:lol:

It's a fair enough default reaction, though. I do spew a lot of crap. ;)

Duck Dynasty is one of the dumbest things on TV. As bad as Honey Boo Boo. I watched one episode earlier this year, and could only shake my head at their childish antics... It's just another series in what I consider a vile line of shows that glorify (or pay homage to - I'm not sure which one) rednecks, hillbillies, swamp folk and other sterotypical Jerry Springer Show guests. These are popular right now along with those other cable programs about slaughtering large sea creatures and wildlife, mowing down virgin forest, pillaging the bowels of the earth for gold and other environmental abuses in the name of glory and profit. I see all of these as a cultural backlash against the liberal TV of the 90's and early millenium new-age environmentalism.

The pendulum will swing back the other direction, and then back again to this one - it's never ending.

That said, I don't care about his opinion on gays, marriage or sex. They are his own, and he's entitled to them. He has a lot of fans, and he's speaking for them, however foolish it might be.

Honey Boo Boo is worse.

Most people, I figure, watch both shows to get a laugh.

Honey Boo Boo!!

We have one over here where they fly celebrities into the Australian rainforest, where they have to fend for themselves and do ridiculous tasks. In the bush tucker trials, the celebrities have to eat strange creatures, some insects are alive. Its a pretty awful use of the rainforest and the poor animals.

but its good crap! Well I enjoy reading it anyway :)

Generally I agree with you, but I think it's important to point out the "everyone is entitled to their opinion" mantra can only go so far. Some opinions are dangerous and hurtful. When someone espouses the opinion that I shouldn't be allowed to live openly, or adopt a kid, or that I should be killed because "ew", then I take issue with that. However, if someone just espouses the opinion that I am not "going to inherit the kingdom of God", or something like that, I really don't care. At all. The latter example applies in this case. This guy has an opinion that frankly doesn't affect my life at all, and he can carry on having it.

Oh God. My in-laws were watching that religiously the last time I visited and I... It was hard. With in-laws I sometimes feel like I ought to "try" and be a part of the family, and in this case it really was a struggle. I just did not get the show at all. Why is it a thing!? I'm by no means a man without any guilty pleasures, but this is not one I understand.

Oh you.

I have been in similar situations myself, but it was the antiques roadshow and masterchef. But having to watch "I'm a celebrity" when you don't like it, that's tough. I caught some of the last episode - I tried to turn over and not watch, but I couldn't help but be drawn in by it. It was just a good reminder of why I try to avoid these things. As to why its so popular I don't know. I guess people like celebrity reality programs, and maybe the added bonus of all the insect goriness.

I'm trying to understand the interpretation of GLAAD's statement as being puritanical and showing a lack of support for those who engage in anal sex. As I read it, the "vile and extreme stereotypes" GLAAD was referencing in Phil Robertson's comments, were his likening of homosexual behavior to bestiality, adultery, and "sin" in general. There was a lot more to his statement than simply displaying his disgust regarding a man's anus, and I believe that's what GLAAD was referring to.

That said, he's not the first so-called Christian to make such sweeping comparisons and use the Bible as a defense. (Somehow they always manage to miss that pesky "judge not" section, among other things.) At this point, they're just making themselves look worse than they're making us look. The people who already feel as they do, will nod their head firmly in agreement -- while the people who don't, will go about their business and not let such statements change their point of view. So, there really is no use in expending a lot of energy over this.

To me, the most offensive thing he said in the GQ article was that, during the Jim Crow Law era, African-Americans were "happy and singing." Adding, "pre-entitlement, pre-welfare.... no one was singing the blues."

But bestiality, adultery, and "sin" are not stereotypes. They're concepts and practices. The only think Phil Robertson really said about gay people is that they like man butt. That's genuinely all he said. So I can only assume that's what GLAAD was referring to. He groups it in with adultery and heterosexual promiscuity as things that were once socially unacceptable that now are more accepted. And to be honest, condemning homosexual practices on the same level that you condemn many heterosexual practices is frankly something I find refreshing coming from a conservative religious American. It just seems like a much more measured view than one many religiously-driven homophobes take. I still think he's an idiot with a demonstrable lack of independent thought, and I agree with you he isn't going to change any minds, but GLAAD's response almost felt like it was written before actually reading the comment in question.

The looks which keeps the Kardashians on the air.I dont know what keeps these ratty bearded idiots on TV.

But is it not a long-standing stereotype, propagated by homophobes, that gay men will have sex with anything... including children and animals? So him lumping us in with bestialists and fornicators, and sinners in general, seemed -- on the surface, at least -- to be speaking in stereotypes.

I'm not disagreeing with you, though, overall. His comments, in total, certainly presented the views of a man who thinks any sex outside of marriage (and outside of the missionary position?) is sinful. I just don't agree that GLAAD's statement showed prejudice toward gay men who engage in anal sex.

Meanwhile, GLAAD definitely reacts too often in a knee-jerk way (Kevin Smith films, the occasional comedian taking the piss, etc.), and there have been many times when I would have rather they simply remained silent.

Perhaps, but immediately after he mentions (let's face it, male) homosexuals he says "hey, let's have sex with this woman and that woman etc", which to me separates the rest of his laundry list of sins from homosexuality, making them just one of many objectionable things about modern life. That's certainly how I read it. GLAAD may have shared your interpretation, however. I don't think GLAAD was seriously suggesting that gay anal sex is a vile and disgusting stereotype, but that is kind of how it came off to me. I think this just highlights a problem with their utterly vague catch-all statement which could easily have been copy-pasted from a literal file of, as you say, knee-jerk template responses. My response to their statement is mostly amusement.

Good points, Dex. We may be coming at it from slightly different angles, but I think we essentially agree.

Regarding GLAAD making any statement at all... I'm somewhat conflicted. On one hand, I think something needed to be said about his comments (as adults, we're immune to such views -- but there are still plenty of young gay men whose self-esteem can be harmed by being compared to sinners, etc.). While on the other hand, I hate seeing more attention being brought to this rube than necessary.

Folks like Sarah Palin are undoubtedly wetting themselves over the fact that they have a brand new poster-boy for the way their "good Christian values" are stomped on by those evil, godless liberals.

And what of GQ for printing the interview? They are the ones responsible for propogating his alleged hate speech and providing him a platform. GLAAD never takes on MTV or Eminem either.

I agree with Dex mostly. However, I also still think that GLAAD's equation is not spelled out (they don't say that he equates gayness to bestiality--which he does not) and, if so, they don't identify the stereotype (as you do, that gay men will have sex with anything). However, the most compelling argument Duck Dynasty guy makes is about male attraction to two different body parts. I say it's compelling because it's human. Why is it that, as a gay man, I am attracted to male buttholes but am, frankly, scared and grossed out by vaginas? He's got a point that it is illogical. And GLAAD does not counter the argument with an impassioned or reasoned defense of male butthole lovers (as Dex COMPASSIONATELY and CHARITABLY accomplished without grant money!). They raise a lot of money to fight defimation and then they are crushed by the Duck Dynasty guy whose HILARIOUS dangling participle alone should have made his argument easy to dismantle.

Yes, Johnny Stew. The (large) jaded side of me can't help but focus on how A&E and the stars of this show can only benefit from this controversy. I certainly know far more about this show than I did 6 hours ago, and I imagine I'm one of many like that. It's mad publicity for them. And the "boycott" isn't going to amount to much as the boycotters were unlikely to have ever watched the show anyway. So it pretty much doesn't count.

I like your "think of the children!" note. I forget about them much of the time, and I shouldn't. As a young gay person comments like this really did have an impact on me, especially given how few counterpoints were visible to me in those days. In that respect, GLAAD is helpful.

I disagree. GLAAD is unhelpful because they leave the young gay person with shame for his sexual desires--which, essentially, is what is at issue here.

Yes to most of this. Although I don't think attraction to anything is particularly logical and we should not really worry about the analysis of it in that way. Straight men like women butts too, after all. Equally illogical (but fun!). And I agree with you about the shortcomings of GLAAD's statement.

Yes. I was speaking of them more as an organisation generally, rather than their comments in this case. However, in terms of offering gay-positive points to counterbalance those like the ones made by Phil, I think it might be fair to say they have been outmoded by much of mainstream western culture at this point.

there's more ... http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-d...173821415.html

Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Also Under Fire for African-American Statements....

Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments aren't the only part of his interview with GQ causing controversy.

The 67-year-old "Duck Dynasty" star was suspended by A&E Wednesday for calling homosexuality sinful — and putting gay people in same category as terrorists. While those quotes quickly went viral, it wasn't his only brow-raising statement in the interview; he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws.

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' — not a word!"

Robertson continued, "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Needless to say, that hasn't gone over well either. A spokesperson for the NAACP shared a copy of the letter that they, along with the Human Rights Campaign, sent to "Duck Dynasty" network A&E. In addition to asking for the network to "denounce and repudiate Robertson's comments," they demanded that Robertson "apologizes for his vitriolic comments."

"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate," the letter stated, in part. "Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street."

Noting that the remarks "go beyond being outlandishly inaccurate and offensive" and are actually "dangerous and revisionist, appealing to those in our society who wish to repeat patterns of discrimination," the letter said Robertson's "words show an unbridled lack of respect for African Americans and LGBT people, and the ongoing challenges members of our communities continue to experience on a daily basis."

"Surely a brand like A&E does not want to be associated with such racist and homophobic remarks," it concluded.

Robertson’s remarks about African Americans could ultimately be more damaging in the longterm than what he said about homosexuals, according to one expert.

"Racial comments are often career killers — as are scandals involving children and animals," David E. Johnson, who is the CEO of public relations and branding agency Strategic Vision, tells Yahoo TV. "Yet, looking at the demographics who are attracted to 'Duck Dynasty,' we see an older, more conservative, and evangelical audience. These people will take the comments with a grain of salt. This is because Phil Robertson and the 'Duck Dynasty' brand is one that is viewed as politically incorrect and says what is on their mind. So, in that light, the comments are unlikely to do damage — unless African Americans begin emerging and demonstrating he has discriminated against [them]."

However, "Barring that, overall, his comments and the controversy has in all likelihood strengthened the brand," adds Johnson.

On Wednesday night, the cable network did denounce the "Duck Dynasty" patriarch. In addition to suspending him indefinitely from filming, they said in a statement, "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series 'Duck Dynasty.' His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

Earlier in the day, Robertson clarified his words — though he didn't come close to apologizing.

"I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior," the TV star said in a statement. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."

Not everyone is offended by Robertson's statements. A petition called IStandWithPhil.com was launched by a group called Faith Driven Consumer and calls for A&E to reinstate Robertson — and apologize to the "Duck Dynasty" watchers who share the TV's star's beliefs.

"Mr. Robertson’s comments in GQ magazine are simply reflective of a Biblical view of sexuality, marriage, and family — a view that has stood the test of time for thousands of years and continues to be held by the majority of Americans and today’s world as a whole," it says on the site. "While the LGBT community may be offended by his opposing viewpoint, your rash, discriminatory, and unfair treatment toward Mr. Robertson — a recognized symbol of the faith community — is a slap in the face to Faith Driven Consumers and everyday Americans alike."

Needless to say, this controversy won't be dying down anytime soon.

Generally I agree with you, as well. But...I'm an American, and one of the things that we learn early in our lives is that we all have the right to pretty much say whatever we think. Some people are more polite and considerate than others, and some live to offend. As much as I might not like the opinion this guy has, or that of the KKK, or the Chick-Fil-A guy, or Sarah-I'm-an-idiot-Palin, or whoever is saying whatever with the intention to offend and hurt, I'll usually stand by their right to speak their mind. It's sort of a reflexive reaction - I defend his right to speak his opinion so that he in turn will defend my right to speak mine. Most Americans believe very strongly in the right to express yourself verbally - an MSN poll today shows that 83% of respondants support his right to say whatever he thinks.

I know in some European nations, hate-speech is a punishable offense, but here in the U.S. you have to act on your opinions for them to be considered potentially criminal. Of course, that won't stop people from shunning you for what you said, all the while defending your right to say it, as we've seen with Phil's suspension by the network.

In another land where propagating hate-speech is a crime, perhaps they bear some responsibility. From my perspective, their right to publish his comments is just that - a right protected by law.

I'm a fan of Eminem, oddly, and have never found his gay-bashing offensive.

I think this will really end up being the sum of it, sad though that may be.

Well, no -- he didn't equate gayness directly to bestiality, but he lumped them together. So I don't think it's a leap to say that he associates the two in his mind, at least to some degree. Of course, as has been rightfully pointed out, he also associated both to adultery and promiscuity in general. His was a rather sweeping statement of seemingly everything he deems to be a sin, although he also implied that homosexuality is at the top of the list.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there."

I suppose he has a point. But to counter that -- why is it any more illogical to be attracted to the male anus than to the female anus or vagina? I don't question my attraction to the male anatomy any more than I question the attraction of heterosexual men to the female anatomy. In the simplest of terms, "we like what we like." No logic is required.

At least he didn't question why we all like penises! Even the straightest of men should be able to understand the appeal of those. ;)

But his right to free speech isn't what's in question here. As another poster said, he wasn't arrested. No rights were violated. *shrugs* I'm more interested in the actual content of his statements, the implications thereof, and what the appropriate response really is. These are not things I've really decided on fully, yet. But I'm enjoying the discourse.


Yes, I have a hard time blaming GQ for doing what society has long established is their job. I don't think these views shouldn't be given a platform whatseover, I think they should be discussed and (easily) debunked accordingly.

In the UK, many straight men have taken to texting pictures of their dicks to each other, and loving it. Is that a thing, where you guys live? It is definitely a thing here. And to me, a very mysterious thing. Personally I've always been much more of an ass-man. Dicks and vaginas both strike me as very functional, but not especially pretty.

I'm kind of moved to start a "what do you like?" thread now, but that risks becoming a bit too TMI, perhaps.

Sad to say...
 

this situation has showed me that their are hypocrites on both sides in regards to stereotyping...seen plenty of posts on FB from those who oppose his statement, but yet call Mr.Robertson and/or the Robertson clan "redneck", "hillybillies", "hicks", etc.

As for me, I am for free-speech, (Thanks to former Mrs. Al Gore and the Washington Wives/PMRC) and don't have to agree with it but I do not think someone should be punished for their opinion.

As for "anuses", "vaginas"...who cares? I thought LOVE was what REALLY mattered? Maybe I am wrong...But I would like to believe in this world that LOVE still matters...

Hey, let's not go crazy here! I like to think cocks and bums (and vaginas) matter, too. :laugh: ;)

I agree with your sentiment. I think love is what matters, and the fact that Phil Robertson and other religiously-driven homophobes cannot get past the mechanics of the act of gay sex means that they miss the point entirely. And they're missing out on a lot of beauty. Any love in this crazy world is a beautiful thing.