Apparently there’s no country for jokes that even vaguely hint at sexual orientation — particularly if your name is Roland Martin. The CNN and TVOne staffer is under fire from The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) for a couple tweets he sent out about an H&M ad spot during the super bowl (source). In the commercial, David Beckham was rocking a pair of tight H&M boxer briefs. I’ve wiped this commercial from memory since I don’t care to see men in their underwear when I’m watching sports. Anyway, Roland tweeted the following:
“Ain’t no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear!” (Source)
Followed by:
“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.”
Honestly, I see this no different than when women start talking about footballers buns when I’m eating chips and drinking Heineken. There’s a place for everything. There’s nothing hot about male butts and cheese dip. But that’s my opinion. There’s no hate. No malice. Just separation of butt and sports.
Part of the issue here is the increasing accountability of media and celebrity personalities. Once your name reaches a certain level, you need to tread lightly even if it means censoring what many would consider harmless.
It’s also important to mention that Roland has made comments in the past that brought him some unwanted attention, which no doubt is helping fuel this fire. Whatever the case, I think he may need to go easy on the keys.
What do you think? Did Roland cross the line with these tweets? Does he just need to go to Twitter Anonymous with Chris Brown? Should he just stay away from social media? Also, do you think GLAAD is reaching on this one? At what point does a joke become an awful PR move? And most importantly, should he be fired?
***Admin Note: We should add that Roland has responded to criticism over his comments, you can find his initial response, here, and his final remark, here.***
-Slim
![[VIDEO] The Majors – Pilot Episode](https://www.singleblackmale.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/The-MAJORS-Logo.jpg){kind=logo}
I don’t see nothing wrong with what he said, cause he speaking what most brothas(at least the straight ones) are thinking. Like the article stated once you get to a certain status everything you say is anayzed. However GLAAD is reaching on this one, why they mad anyway? H&M should be mad, lol. Roland should NOT be fired he just gotta think twicw before he tweets, he’s in the “bigtime” now **shrug**
It looks to be the "agenda" happening here. Days of tounge and cheek comments from all persons are being held accountable. Is what he said not true? Did it contain "hate" or any derogatory terms…Keep the Isaiah Washington puritan party. No foul here. Stay on the keys_
It looks to be the "agenda" happening here. Days of tongue and cheek comments from all persons are being held accountable. Is what he said not true? Did it contain "hate" or any derogatory terms…Keep the Isaiah Washington puritan party. No foul here. Stay on the keys_
No comment. *insert SOPA censorship here*
This is a lame attempt at someone attempting to be offended. There is no reference to $exuality one way or another in those tweets. Has Roland Martin ever said anything derogatory about Fruit of the Loom or other normal underwear ads? That should show it's not about offending the g@y community. I'm not attempting to have a media career, but I know how I would have responded:
Dear Wussies of GLAAD,
You wonder why some people call you pansies and view you as less than a man, and your responses to my tweets is exactly the reason why some people feel that way. You're acting like a woman who twists around the words a man says to the worst possible interpretation, knowing d@mn well that was not the intended meaning. I will not allow you to play victim here. Grow a pair of testicles, no one is talking about you. Any hysteric response to this comment is proof that I am correct and you are merely attempting to play victim to try to bring sympathy to your cause.
Eff you,
Roland Martin
I’ve often wondered WHY men’s underwear commercials featuring half-naked MEN would be pushed during sports shows. I’m pretty sure most men are happy just seeing the package & brand name WITHOUT the male models. They already have to contend with the tight outfits, even if they do understand the need. Just seems like bad marketing to me.
To answer the question, if the right to free speech is still a part of our constitution, they need to leave the man alone. Especially since he didn’t say anything blatanly outta line.
My feelings on this are mixed.
On the one hand, while I am absolutely pro-gay rights, the way that GLAAD approaches changing cultural conceptions is almost militant to the point of being unwelcome. There is something to the fact that attacking someone's sexuality as a joke is mildly insensitive. But calling for someone to be fired for it is a little above and beyond. They should strive to educate, not reprimand.
(I know Roland Martin tried to claim that it wasnt a joke about gay people, but the implication is clearly there in my opinion – and football culture already has magnified levels of heteronormative perceptions that I can go on and on about, but I'll stop myself from writing an essay).
At the end of the day, I think GLAAD has the right to their opinion – just because the offender doesnt think he/she was offensive doesnt mean that person wasn't. But if we call for the heads of everyone that has a misguided statement, opinion, or worldview, then we're going to have a serious problem. Again, educate, not prosecute.
I will add, however, that the attacks on Roland have been compounded with the discovery that his wife's church (she's a minister) has been involved in "gay conversion" of a sort, which he's been previously supportive of. That doesn't really sit well with me, to be honest.
However, at the end of the day, I do NOT think the appropriate response is "grow some balls" or "stop being sensitive wussies" or "pansies" or whatever version of that opinion you chose to adopt. You can disagree with their approach, but they have a right to their opinion if they feel slighted — you discuss, you don't condescend. And this whole dismissing the gay activists as "weak" or whatever is highly insulting. Especially when all underrepresented groups have at least one major organization that goes up in arms whenever the smallest slight is thrown against them – whether it be gays, women, blacks, hispanics, et al. It's combative nature like this from both sides that really hinder any kind of productive discussion.
The issue isn't that he is insensitive of their lifestyle because he never addressed their lifestyle in any way, shape or form. The issue is they are being overly sensitive and seeking to be offended. In what world does:
"If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!”
equal
"I disapprove of the h0m0$exual lifestyle, and encourage g@y bashing!"?
It would be like someone taking M&M commercial with the brown female M&M as objectifying and demeaning black women, then some group calls for the CEO of Mars, Inc. to be fired. It may be someone's opinion and one is entitled to it, but it doesn't mean their opinion isn't stupid. Roland Martin doesn't need to be fired, every member of GLAAD who took offense to his innocuous comments needs counseling.
you're entitled to believe that was "a reach" but I disagree – there are definite gay implications there. I already said that I thought that GLAAD was doing too much. But to act like the only possible offensive gay sentiment is along the lines of "I disapprove of the h0m0$exual lifestyle, and encourage g@y bashing!"? is extreme. The implication of that statement is that you should take issue over a guy being hyped over a guys underwear commercial – don't tell me that doesnt have gay undertones. What would you say if it happened at your superbowl party: "Pause". So this whole "its a reach thing and has nothing to do with homosexuality at all" does not register with me.
Where I WILL agree with you is that calling for his firing is unnecessary. Like I said in my original post, groups need to strive to educate, not attack. Militant nonsense gets no one anywhere. I feel the same way on them as I do with PETA: noble intentions that go to extreme with sensitivity and and vitriol.
And no, it wouldn't be like attaching the M&M commercial. It would be like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson making huge racial issues out of every small thing – which happens. If you want to belittle their sensitivity, so be it, but it comes from a real place, no matter how misguided, and I think its unfair to dismiss that.
Let's put emotion aside and look at the logic of it.
Roland Martin made a comment about an underwear line. GLAAD took offense, because they thought his comment encouraged g@y bashing. Since Martin didn't explicitly mention anything about h0m0$exuality, we must assume there was some implicit insult for them to be offended. So we can conclude they believe at least one of the following:
1. David Beckham is g@y and was attacked.
2. His line of underwear is made for g@y men, and all g@y men were attacked.
3. The commercial was intentionally made with h0m0erotic overtones, and taking offense to the commercial meant an attack on g@y men.
4. Insert your own implicit insult.
1. is false, and I assume 2. is also. So if it's 3., and they are legitimately upset, it sounds to me that they set a trap. They intentionally inserted a h0mo$exually-charged ad in the biggest sporting event of the year, and dared anyone to take offense.
"But to act like the only possible offensive gay sentiment is along the lines of "I disapprove of the h0m0$exual lifestyle, and encourage g@y bashing!"? is extreme."
Hey, that's their words, not mine, directly from the linked article. They are doing too much, and their comments, as you said, is extreme. I also feel Sharpton and Jackson are doing too much.
This commercial did happen at my Superbowl party (well, really I just watched the game at my guy's house, it wasn't a party. I save the party for the NBA All-Star game). There was no "pause". Neither of us mentioned a thing about the commercial (although we were hyped for the Avengers movie, and the Voltron cameo on the Met Life commercial). The underwear commercial meant nothing to me one way or the other.
I didn't say that you would say "Pause" to the commercial – just that if someone reacted that way to the commercial – there would be a "Pause" reaction. As you said, nobody did.
What you seem to be missing is the fact that Men don't get excited about Underwear Commercials, so be him gay or not, any Man that does get excited about an Underwear Commercial definitely does need to be slapped. I have a h0m053xu4l brother & will just as quickly slap the black off him if he gets excited about an Underwear Commercial in my presence, because regardless of his 53xu4l1ty it simply is not the proper reaction of any Man to get in his feelings over underwear.
Did you ever stop & think about that? Maybe the fact that we're supposed to be excited about an Underwear Line could very much be the reason you get slapped, not having anything at all to do with 53xu4l1ty.
"What you seem to be missing is the fact that Men don't get excited about Underwear Commercials, so be him gay or not, any Man that does get excited about an Underwear Commercial definitely does need to be slapped."
No, sir, that is not what he was saying. You are reaching. Women get excited about a scantily clad fine man (in an underwear commercial or elsewhere). So do gay men. Why? Because they like what they see. So for Roland to say that if a man gets excited about THIS (not any underwear) commercial, the implication is that that man must be gay. The statement that followed is that that man should be slapped.
Enter text right here!
Or just maybe there's option #4: that being mad at a man for being into a commercial about another man has explicit gay overtones. that's all. he didn't say, "if anyone" that would include men & women – he specified if "a dude." maybe it was a trap, maybe it wasn't. The Superbowl is known for purposely putting out incendiary advertising – remember last year's Tim Tebow ad?
And don't tell me it has to be explicit for it to be there – if it was, then the republicans are right for us being in arms about comments like "food stamp president".
Let me just clarify that I find Roland entertaining and refreshing, but he regularly engages in buffoonery that was bound to get him backlash at some point. If he doesn't want to curtail his statements, thats fine, but don't talk loud and then wonder why people get all butthurt, no matter how out of order their responses may be.
He should have just immediately done a non-apology apology, stated that he didn't mean to offend, not even retracted his comments and then moved on with his life. Instead he got combative with everyone who called him out on twitter, and made it even worse.
"Or just maybe there's option #4:"
I said there could be.
"that being mad at a man for being into a commercial about another man has explicit gay overtones. that's all. he didn't say, "if anyone" that would include men & women – he specified if "a dude."
I don't get what you are saying here. Why would someone be mad at a commercial about another man? That happens all the time. When Hanes uses Michael Jordan for its underwear ads, no one gets mad. When Nike does a ad for Kobe's new shoes, no one gets mad. When Right Guard uses Terry Crews for its ads, no one gets mad.
"And don't tell me it has to be explicit for it to be there"
I didn't tell you that. I wrote it wasn't explicit and therefore it must be implicit.
He issued the non-apology apology. That was the best tactic for him to save face. I'm just saying I personally wouldn't care what they think if they are that sensitive about a non-issue.
"I don't get what you are saying here. Why would someone be mad at a commercial about another man?"
I think you read what she said too fast. What she's saying is that Roland stated that any man who is "into" (i.e. "feeling" or hyped) about a commercial BECAUSE IT HAS A HALF-NAKED MAN IN IT should be slapped. That statement DOES have explicit gay overtones.
Dr. AJ: "I think you read what she said too fast. What she's saying is that Roland stated that any man who is "into" (i.e. "feeling" or hyped) about a commercial BECAUSE IT HAS A HALF-NAKED MAN IN IT should be slapped. That statement DOES have explicit gay overtones."
I read it fine. My question is why would a half-naked man in a commercial automatically mean it's gay? Fruit of the Loom and Hanes do commercials with men in their draws all the time. Every man I know finds the Old Spice commercials with a shirtless Terry Crews flexing his pecs to be hilarious. No one I know thinks its gay when Gillette or any company that makes razors that sticks a pretty white boy wearing nothing but a white towel in the commercial, then smirking happily at his awesome shave and rubbing his face. So no, there is no EXPLICIT gay overtones by the mere presence of a half-naked man, and any implicit one is derived in the mind of someone with mental insecurities.
"I don't get what you are saying here. Why would someone be mad at a commercial about another man?"
It's not that the commercial is gay, it's that the man squealing over it (or more specifically the half-naked man in it) IS gay, so Roland suggesting that he (the man who's hyped about the commercial) be slapped is a jab at gay people. The implication isn't that the guy is hyped about the underwear, he's hyped about the dude in the commercial. That should be clear.
Dr. AJ: "…it's that the man squealing over it (or more specifically the half-naked man in it) IS gay"
His original statement was: “Ain’t no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear!” That specifically refers to buying underwear, not the man in it. He then followed by saying:
“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.”
Which isn't the same as saying, "If a dude at your party thinks David Beckham is looking delicious in them draws, smack the ish out of him!"
And even for the sake of argument, if one concedes that his statement was about Beckham's irresistable $exuality, for them to take the next step and think Martin is seriously encouraging "gay bashing" is just stupid. When someone says, "this macaroni is so good, it makes me want to slap my mama!", do they think that encourages domestic abuse? It's reaching.
"Which isn't the same as saying, "If a dude at your party thinks David Beckham is looking delicious in them draws, smack the ish out of him!""
Yes it is. That is exactly what that statement implies. And there are many instances where people say "If a man does X, smack the ish out of him." And in these instances, "X" is something perceived as gay or feminine (i.e., wear skinny jeans, sit with his leg folded under him, holds his hand like his wrist is broken, sucks his teeth, smacks his lips, etc, etc.). Phrases like these are thrown around all the time, and I don't necessarily believe that all (or even most of) the people saying them are homophobic. They're just speaking of the social mores or norms for straight men.
I agree that it was a figure of speech, he didn't mean to literally smack that dude (more likely that the dude should expect to be checked if he was in a room full of straight men), he wasn't encouraging gay bashing, and he most certainly shouldn't have been suspended.
At the end of the day, the price of fame is having to watch the things you say. When I say the commercial, I was speechless. I was thinking, boy there are a lot of homoerotic tones. I think Roland was trying to be funny. A little misguided and might warrant some sensitivity training/counseling but firing the guy for making a joke which was implicitly offensive sounds like over kill to me. Send him to some sort of counseling
I didn’t “read into” the comment and therefore didn’t see anything anti-gay about it. What I DID see however was a comment (I’m sure one of many) from a gay Caucasian male calling Roland a “n*99er”. That is unacceptable. Its so funny how some gays can complain about getting discriminated against (and rightfully so might I add) but then go ahead and discriminate against someone else. That “n*99er” comment truly disgusted me and if I wasn’t for Roland before I read it, I’m damn sure for him now. And yes, I only saw that one comment but I dont care. GLAAD and anyone else who got offended by Roland’s tweets because they thought he was attemtping to offend gays are REACHING. U read 140 characters and dissect them and now claim to know what was in the man’s head?! GTFOH man. That’s wack.
I thought I was the only one that saw the irony of that. The gay white guy took Roland's one statement and took it to another level. He even capitalized the "n" word to show emphasis, and yes it was disgusting.
I don't have a problem with anyone that's gay, but I don't like how SOME of the g&l community go around trying to wipe out the existence of every person that says something they don't agree with. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you get to cry about any and everything that ppl say or do. Bullying is one thing but this type of trivial ish is ridiculous. It's a cruel world out here sometimes and if u want to continue to live in it you've got to grow up and but your big girl/boy underwear on. THIS INCIDENT IS NOT A REAL ISSUE!
Really. Everybody is not gonna like you or what you do…including your lifestyle. Period. And trying to force people to be ok with it is EQUALLY annoying. Just live your life.
If we could fire everyone for saying offensive things, half the GOP would be out of work and the Tea Party would be disbanded.
As a Christian black woman with a gay best friend, I say to GLAAD and whoever else, "Grow some thick skin and stand down. You're doing too much." And yes, I have the same issue with other minority leaders…they do too much.
Well it really happened. Amazing is it not. Besides message boards will there be a voice to say this action was a bad call no. Will anyone discuss it on "their" t.v. show or radio show tomorrow. Will we organize and demand GLADD and PETA educate more so than be in EMO mode and call for firings? Nall , so what can we really do ? I guess confirm right? Clearly the line of racial and speaking against homosexuality (not homo phobic) is blurred to their being no definitive line. In removing opinion are you slowing riding of the "individual" concept?
Well CNN suspended him for his comments. I am not really sure how I feel about it. I think that his comments weren't exactly anti-gay, but they did imply that something was wrong if a man was as excited/aroused by the commercial as (some) women were, which isn't exactly cool. Like I tried to explain to my coworkers who often tell me that stuff white people say and do isnt intended to be racist… If it rubs me the wrong way.. then that's an issue and if you respect me when you will respect that. You can't blame the person who is offended for feeling so. And when you are in the spotlight, we are all watching… be careful. And I'm sure a bunch of men had some stirrings after that commercial cause it was HAWT!
http://www.thisisyourconscience.com/2012/02/09/im…
^^^^^pretty much says what I'm feeling…but in a way more colorful way, lol.
2 days late but um
1. No, he shouldn't be fired based solely on those tweets.
2. Yes, he crossed a line.
3. GLAAD is not reaching in calling his remarks homophobic and contributing to our homophobic culture, but calling for his firing is probably reaching.
4. A joke becomes an awful PR move when it offends people AND you're not a comedian.
His soccer excuse is some bull. He insults our collective intelligence with that mess.
Clearly, he was making a joke and wasn't calling for anyone to catch a serious beatdown. However, the joke was homophobic. Why does a dude who is hyped about a DB underwear ad need be smacked? Well, why would a dude be hyped about a DB underwear ad, especially this one? Because he finds DB sexually attractive. Anyone who says it's because he's a soccer fan or because the underwear are superbly designed needs to have a seat.
Okay so that makes dude something other than heterosexual. Implication of this non-hetero dude needing to be smacked: being something other than hetero is a problem. I don't share this belief. The need to smack dude (even figuratively) tips a personal belief that being something other than hetero is a problem into homophobia.
It's super problematic to say this in public where 1. everyone in your audience don't understand your vernacular (some took him literally on the smack part, I think) and 2. we have a problem in this society with people who actually do believe it's okay to physically assault someone because they are not heterosexual–even to the point of taking their life. For too many people, getting beat down because of their sexuality is not a joke. It's not far-fetched at all. They have a right to call out anyone and anything vaguely contributing to normalizing/justifying homophobic violence.
CNN caved into the pressure. The backlash of them suspending Martin was easier than the backlash of doing nothing. GLAAD is a powerful organization, and weak stunts like this will continue to give them more fuel to run around killing off everyone that's not married to their cause.
Gay rights is one thing but world speech domination is another. SMH
I had been wondering if your web hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and can damage your high quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Take Thomas Sabo Bracelets As The Gift For The Wedding http://www.cdcyd.net/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=38089
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but great topic.
I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more.
Thanks for excellent info I was looking for this info for my mission.
What’s Taking place i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this
I have found It positively helpful and it has helped me out loads.
I am hoping to contribute & aid different customers like its
helped me. Great job.
Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your content seem to be running off the screen in Safari.
I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know.
The style and design look great though! Hope you get the
problem solved soon. Many thanks
全店送料無料
I like what you guys are up too. This kind of clever work and coverage!
Keep up the good works guys I’ve included you guys to my
personal blogroll.
Woah! I’m really digging the template/theme of this blog.
It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s tough to get
that “perfect balance” between superb usability and visual appearance.
I must say you’ve done a amazing job with this.
In addition, the blog loads super quick for me on Chrome.
Excellent Blog!
hello there and thank you for your info – I have definitely picked up something new from right here.
I did however expertise some technical points using this site, since
I experienced to reload the website many times previous to
I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your
web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will often affect
your placement in google and could damage your quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords.
Anyway I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much
more of your respective fascinating content. Make sure you update this again very
soon.
Hello there, There’s no doubt that your website could possibly be
having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your
site in Safari, it looks fine however when opening in IE, it has some
overlapping issues. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!
Besides that, fantastic site!
Hi there, I log on to your new stuff regularly. Your story-telling style is awesome, keep it
up!
I’ll right away clutch your rss feed as I can not to find your email subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service.
Do you have any? Please permit me understand in order that I may subscribe.
Thanks.
Good day! I just would like to offer you a huge thumbs up for
the excellent information you’ve got right here on this post.
I will be coming back to your website for more soon.
It’s the best time to make a few plans for the long run and it’s
time to be happy. I have learn this publish and if I could I want to recommend you
some attention-grabbing things or tips. Perhaps you can
write next articles regarding this article. I desire to learn more
things approximately it!
Wonderful work! That is the type of info that are meant to be shared around
the net. Disgrace on Google for no longer positioning this
submit higher! Come on over and discuss with my website .
Thank you =)
Unarguably the most demanding of customers, women simply would not step out or even appear before their own homes unless and until they are one hundred per cent satisfied that they have the right pair of footwear on. These include fancy formal and informal footwear, to more ethnic juttis and sandals and of course, how can we ignore fashion footwear and footwear. It is actually a seemingly endless world of choices in terms of material used, colour, design, etc..