View from 16:00 to 20:00
Comedy Central’s hit sketch series Inside Amy Schumer, features sarcastic social commentaries that often revolve around sexuality and gender roles. In this particular clip from the premier of season 3, Schumer (mock) interviews Bailey Jay, a trans porn actress. Through the piece, Schumer draws attention to all the ways in which trans people are subjected to both rude and invasive questions that often objectify or dehumanize their status as actual people. In turn, Jay answers every question as though they are completely acceptable, laughing with Schumer about the bluntness of the questions, rather than correcting them.
Almost immediately, Schumer exclaims “You have a cock!” which sets the tone for the piece. As many trans people can confirm, the general (cisgender) society has an obsession with trans genitals. Further, Schumer brings up how it must have been difficult for Jay’s husband, a straight man, to have a relationship with a trans woman: “What was it like for you to sort of watch your husband enter this situation . . . I’m assuming he was just straight before.” This question reflects on the straight male fear of trans women, that trans women are trying to “trick” them, and the belief that a trans status conflicts with heterosexuality. However, something the piece does not address is Jay’s career as a porn star. Contrasting many segments where an interviewer will introduce their subject to the audience, Schumer very selectively omits Jay’s profession, her awards, etc. This omission further refines the aforementioned statement of fact, driving it away from any even remotely possible scenario in which talking about genitals is close to polite.
Schumer continues the interview with almost sarcastically asking Jay to answer every question that she hates answering. Jay responds with a lack of emotion, “I pee sitting down. I don’t use the men’s room.” Continuing with her purposefully ignorant interview, Schumer remarks on how gorgeous Jay is, giving nod to her ‘overcoming her trans status.’ But at the climax of the piece, we’re given the most awfully blunt question that could be asked: “Did you ever think about… snipping… off… your… [Jay laughs] penis?” Before she is given time to respond though, Schumer interrupts her and draws attention to herself, demonstrating how trans genitals exist as part of a public discourse rather than as a private matter.
This piece is complicated. On the one hand, it could be seen as a satire to the way that trans people, especially trans women, are usually addressed in interviews. It can be argued that the piece is satire because Jay was obviously prepared for all these questions and willing to bluntly answer them. In other interviews with trans women, such as Laverne Cox, Janet Mock, and Carmen Carrera, the interviewer has asked direct questions about genitalia but the women refused to answer and explained why such questions were problematic and offensive. In this way, the piece could also be considered somewhat educational as cis people can finally hear what they obviously want to hear. Additionally, Jay says that her life is not the sad trans life that often depicted in films, thus promoting a much needed positive trans experience.
On the other hand, the fact that the interview are very intrusive could be seen as an extension of the status quo. In some ways it supports the belief that the personal lives of transgender people should be open to the public. Talk of genitals and attractiveness furthers the sensationalization of trans women’s lives in ways that may not be productive.
According to Alexander Doty, queer is “a militant sense of difference that views the erotically ‘marginal’ as both . . . a consciously chosen ‘site of resistance’ and a ‘location of radical openness and possibility’” (There’s Something Queer Here, 430). He also describes a queer gender as “not fully subscribing to the straight ideological imperatives that define gender” (432). With this definition the interview can be read as queer in three different ways. First, to interview someone about being trans is to openly resist heteronormative narratives. To be trans is to break the prescribed path of sex = gender. Further, to be a trans porn star is to publicly embrace one’s erotic marginalization. In another sense, it is even queering the trans interview style, which usually is done in a very serious manner that depicts the hardships of being trans. However, it could also be argued that the piece is not queer at all in that it continues to publicize and sensationalize trans lives.
Questions:
1. Is the interview queer or is it promoting the status quo? What aspect of the interview contributes to its queerness or lack thereof? Whose definition of queer would you draw on?
2. Is the interview satirical, educational, offensive, or some combination? How do the lack of questions about Bailey Jay's porn career but rather questions about her lifestyle contribute to your opinion? How might the audience's opinion on the interview differ upon a queer or non-queer viewing?
3. Do you think cis society would benefit from more interviews done in this style or is a more serious style better?
What differences are possibly present between various interviewers' styles that limit what an audience can learn about a trans* individual? Can you think of any related interviews with a separate interview style? 
With no background knowledge of Amy Shumer's satirical style for her show, I ended watching this clip with a big, "What the fuck!". I knew it had to be a joke or something because it was just awful! Then reading about how her style is intentionally satirical like that, I cooled down. But does her style make it more appropriate and justifiably okay? Im not sure. I think I am pretty torn between whether or not this way or a serious approach is more appropriate or beneficial to educate people who are ignorant about trans individuals. Honestly, I think its more beneficial to be more serious about it, but I think, depending on the person, a comedy skit like this would slap more sense into them than something that's serious.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. Personally, I think being serious is the better way to go but when people are as ignorant about trans issues as they are (or any issue for that matter) satirical sketches often help people realize how ridiculous they're being.
DeleteI agree with both of you as well. I was in shock when I heard what and how Amy Shumer was asking questions about Baily Jay's genitals, husband's sexuality, and about other personal details concerning Jay's life. I was also very unfamiliar with how Shumer presents her sense of humor in her sketches. I had no idea she was even using satire. I think there is a fine line between satire and coming off as actually meaning what you are saying. If you cannot convey satire clearly (Shumer failed to for me), then come at the topic from a different angle-- or even an obvious disclaimer. When it comes to promoting healthy and respectful conversations about transgender individuals, a serious approach may be better for cisgender audiences. Cisgender individuals need to learn was is appropriate first and then after they learn, bring on the satire.
DeleteI too had never seen an sketches with Amy Schumer and was in shock with how blunt the interview was. After reading the blog and learning more about Schumer and her sense of humor and I can see where she is coming from. I think she was using satire, but I am not sure if she was successful in pulling it off. I understand that sometimes you have to be very blunt for people to understand how ignorant and disrespectful they are being when they ask similar questions, but having an interview like this could still be taken the wrong way. As some other students have mentioned it might be a case by case basis in how these interviews are held, and if the interviewee is okay with it than go for it. Like Samantha suggested, having a disclaimer at the beginning of the interview would be a good way to avoid any confusion.
DeleteI also agree with everyone on this string of comments. I think that when the satire is understood, it 100% changes the feelings that come with this video, so if someone watches this entire interview without knowing that it was meant to be satirical, they could take a very destructive message away from it. In general, I like satire. But when it comes to issues like what questions it's okay to ask trans* people on a televised interview (or even just in real life), I think it's important to be serious, since a lot of people haven't had any kind of trans* 101 training and could easily offend someone.
DeleteI also agree with everyone's comments on this string. I believe that individuals need to be educated on trans issues so that they can understand which questions are appropriate and which questions are inappropriate. I also agree with the comment that instead of being satirical individuals need to take a serious approach because rather we realize it or not this is someones life and it is important to beware of their feelings and emotions.
DeleteI'm not sure that I agree that in this situation humor is anywhere near the best option for forcing people into educating themselves. While satire can be effective, it does require a background of knowledge. In addition, it seems that in this case the satire is too close to the reality of situations when trans people are being interviewed.
DeleteIn response to question 3, I think that, to a point, the cis community does benefit from interviews like this one between Shumer and Jay. I do not believe fully that we can use satire alone to help raise awareness on issues of the trans community specifically, but, it is an additional tool to use when posing conversations and to inform the public. I did not feel that Jay was uncomfortable with the questioning here, but, it is evident for those following trans advocates in the media that these questions are ones that call upon each individual's personal decision to share their story on their own terms. From this, I think that the interview can be informational, while riding the line of offensive for those who do may feel uncomfortable with such a flip discussion of one's interiority. On a related note, Janet Mock was interviewed by Stephen Colbert (http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/px4k4w/transgender-awareness---janet-mock) and, while she is not asked the same invasive questions that Shumer uses, this provides another example of satirical investigation into the issues of trans identities.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 1, I believe that this interview is more a promotion of the status quo than it is satire. It's unfair for Bailey Jay to be continuously asked these questions. This obsession the media and, more broadly put, our culture as a whole has with the status of trans folks' genitals is so hardwired into the idea of normativity, but I think it's time for us to stop asking these questions. In my opinion, this is the only way that we can start a trend of increased privacy with regards to these issues. I think that such privacy will also lead to a further queering of gender as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you posted. I was just reading the list to make sure no one touched on the fact that this weeks group seemed to suggest that only cisgendered individuals care about the genitals of trans* folks. While not my own story, I do know people who attend a trans* group where they are asked from fellow group members incessantly about whether or not they have had surgery. It is a hotly debated topic even while attending their groups.
DeleteFurthermore, it goes beyond just cisgendered and fellow trans* people asking when trans* folks are unable to change the gender on their birth certificates because in the state of New Jersey surgery is REQUIRED. You must provide proof of genital reassignment in order to do multiple things in the state of New Jersey, and it is insulting whether or not you have the surgery. I myself would try my best to refuse to take part in such a scam as it is simply none of the governments business.
I have watched many of Amy Schumer's comedy special and episodes of this show in particular. Comedy about serious issues is often problematic, and from reading the comments I completely understand the backlash. However, within her satirical style, and particularly with this interview, I found the last part revealing to it's overall purpose. Bailey Jay discusses how many films and media regarding Trans folk are often tragic. She seemed to imply, on some level, that it is more complex, and perhaps "queering" that image and discussing the topic in such a way, was meant to change that perspective. That being said I do agree that interviews like the recent one with Bruce Jenner, are a better way of discussing the topic.
ReplyDelete2) Having watched "Inside Amy" before, and watching her interview a number of different women, I believe that her interviewing style is meant to be both comedic and sincere. The humor in the interview seems to be used as a tool for easing the tension of the questions, as they are very intrusive. The sincerity is shown when Amy expresses happiness for Jay having a positive social experience as a transgender woman - not attempting to force a victimizing narrative unto Jay, which is not a common narrative for many transgender individuals. It's tough to say what audience's responses to this interview would be. Some may think the interview was really informative, maybe helping them to break the ice on transgender issues; some may think the interview was offensive towards transgender women because of the rudeness of the questions; some may be disturbed by it because transphobic beliefs eclipse the content of Jay's character and story. A relatively new and sensitive topic has the potential to cause such varying opinions.
ReplyDelete3) Since I identify myself as a cisgender heterosexual male, my views on this question may be skewed. Although Amy's interview with Jay was intrusive, and shouldn't serve as the formal model for discussing personal topics with transgender women (or transgender men for that matter), there is something unique about the interview in that it adds to the variety of (consensual) conversations people can have about transgender identities and experiences. Personally, I prefer interview and discussion styles that encourage reconsideration of more global issues concerning the transgender community - Laverne Cox speaking on college campuses about problems of violence, encouraging students to think about intersectionality, or Pepe Julian Onziema’s interview with John Oliver about LGBTQ+ problems in Uganda are great examples of such styles. But an argument can be made that Amy’s interview with Jay can be beneficial in informing cisgender people about questions that are intrusive. As long as the cisgender community is well informed about proper etiquette and respect for one’s privacy (which is a grand wish, I know), conduction of such (again, consensual) interviews can be beneficial in promoting healthy dialogue.
I'm speaking to both questions 2 and 3 in a way. I think humor is tricky. I'm taking a course on media and terrorism this semester and we had a similar conversation the other day about humor in the context of joking about ISIS. Humor is tough in general, and not just when it comes to sensitive topics. Sense of humor differs so greatly from person to person (coming from a person who was nearly excommunicated by a friend group who couldn't fathom how I didn't find arrested development funny in any way). So when it comes to joking about sensitive subjects, some will find it both funny and educational while others will feel uncomfortable with it and view it as exploitative. I think both opinions are valid. Even when I "approve" of humorous approaches to sensitive topics, I think there is a fine line that must be walked between offensive and humorous. It's a difficult line to locate and humor is so subjective that it's unlikely that a unanimous agreement on the location of that line will ever be reached.
ReplyDeleteAs for this specific example, I feel like Amy's approach landed on what I would locate as the offensive side. Which is interesting, because I read the above blog post before watching the clip, and in reading about it I thought "Oh this will be hilarious and will totally be an over the top parody in order to call interviewers out on their bullshit questions!" However, when I watched it, I couldn't help but think that Amy should have been more over the top. It wasn't obvious, in my opinion, that it was satire. If anything it felt like we were supposed to just presuppose that Amy is not being offensive, but nothing about the actual interview style told me that she was being satirical. It seemed to me like she was just repeating a lot of the same questions asked by mainstream reporters (okay aside from the cutting off the penis question). I think the satire would have been stronger if she had gone more over the top to really emphasize the ridiculous nature of the interview. In short, I guess I'm saying it wasn't ridiculous enough to be considered satire.
In response to question one I would read this interview as queer because it goes against the “normative” trans interviews. For example the questions that are presented, Jay may be totally comfortable with prurient queries about her genitals and sex life, but that’s exactly the kind of scrutiny that the majority of trans women are fighting against. “Did you ever think about snipping off … your penis?” Schumer asks, playing right into the genital fixation that is the bane of many trans people’s existence. And then, regarding Jay’s husband: “What was it like to watch him enter this situation. … I’m assuming he’d just been straight before?” Jay quickly clarifies that her husband remains straight, but Schumer has already reinforced the false connection between gender identity and sexual orientation that we all need to get past. Finally, there’s much talk of Jay’s being “gorgeous,” an interview theme that only makes sense if you are somehow working on the notion that trans people normally aren’t, and one that sets up a damaging division between those who have the resources, luck, and inclination to be conventionally attractive and “convincing” and those who don’t.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 3, I think that cis society would benefit greatly from interviews done in a more satirical, light style such as Amy's. I think that people can connect with humor so much more easily than the serious style interviews, making it easier for people to understand and relate to the person being interviewed. What it really comes down to, however, is how well Bailey takes the questioning, I think. We see her laughing throughout the interview, clearly not minding the questions (and we also have to acknowledge that questions are usually given to the person being interviewed beforehand to either accept or reject), so what right do we have to say that she is in the wrong for indulging us with her answers?
ReplyDeleteI think interviews like these are essential for cis people to understand trans* life, and also understand that trans* individuals are just like everyone else. When only exposed to serious interview styles that focus on the struggle of being trans* I think it creates a negative connotation to the term, and an assumption that trans* people are not happy with themselves. People need to see a lighter side of it, need to see that there is a sense of humor in the community and that they do in fact lead normal, happy lives like cis people. Granted, the serious interviews are still needed in order to not devalue the struggles of trans* individuals with humor, but it doesn’t need to be all business and no fun all the time.
As a response to question 3, I think that cis society could benefit from a more comedic, satirical interview style since, as some others have pointed out, a more somber interview inevitably focuses on the struggles and the negatives the individual has gone through, rather than the triumphs. The problem with satire, and one that was also previously mentioned in other posts, is that it often doesn't come across as such and winds up sounding offensive and crude. While many people benefit from humor, and indeed it lightens up a serious topic, it sometimes downplays the situation entirely. Schumer's blunt attitude and over-the-top questions fall within this boundary and the comedic aspect, I find, served well to soundly point out the satire underlying the interview. While I'm not saying that serious interviews should be done away with entirely, more lighthearted interviews would not be such a bad thing either.
ReplyDeleteI recently had a discussion in another class about comedy and what is okay to laugh at and what is not. I feel comedians/audiences often agree that comedy is a safe space and it's fine to laugh at problematic things we wouldn't laugh at normally. Almost to say we need some relief from being uptight in everyday life? I think it's important to realize that there's comedy that is funny without using stereotypes that could offend. I appreciate some of the content Schumer addresses in her comedy but I don't like how it's done a lot of the time. I'd like to believe that she means well but just wants to make sure her content reaches a wide audience. I know some people would change the channel if a Bruce Jenner type interview came up on a comedy skit show.
ReplyDeleteAs a response to questions two, I think it is perfectly fine to laugh at a skit like this. First of all, it's comedy done by Amy Schumer. It is meant to be satirical and offensive. But I think she is doing it to make a point about the greater issue at hand - poorly conducted interviews. Which brings me to my response for question three. All I could think about as I watched this interview was when Katy Couric interviewed Laverne Cox. Katy asked her so many questions regarding SRS and how it made Laverne feel, like it is the only thing tran* people care about accomplishing. I think Amy was making fun of Katy by opening this interview with a question regarding whether or not Bailey Jay has a penis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a few other comments that comedy is a very complicated thing, people read things differently and people also have completely different life experiences that could affect what they find funny. With this specific interview I feel like Schumer’s intentions were harmless if not beneficial to the cis world. Because if they understand her humor then it may help them to realize how ridiculous and entitled people sound when they ask personal questions like these. However as a couple other people have mentioned: some viewers do not know Schumer’s comedic style and can take this and run the opposite direction thinking that it is acceptable to ask trans* people whatever they want to know and that all trans* people are going to respond like Jay did. So in my opinion it really depends on the viewer rather than the content of the clip. So it makes it hard to answer questions like #3 because again it depends on the person.
ReplyDeleteIn response to discussion 3 I think cisgender society would benefit more from this style of interview because it is not addressed very serious which create a easy atmosphere for people to listen and to observe, it is always a good way to persuade people or make them change their thoughts like those typical thoughts about transgenders and cisgender society.It is very real for and not offensive although there are some awkward questions but they all end up with laughters and a good response.
ReplyDeleteI think that satire is a great way to bring issues to light; however, I also think that Amy missed the mark on satire a little bit here. If I hadn't been prefaced, I wouldn't have known that this was satire. I think there was only one moment in the whole interview where I could clearly read that she was joking. I think a more blunt rather than subtle satire is important for this issue. The interview should have really made it obvious how ridiculous those questions are and that trans people shouldn't be subjected to questions about their genitals. Instead, it left me with the impression that it is totally fine to answer these questions. I don't think there is anything wrong with using comedy to educate. I just think it could have been done better.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this interview is in fact queer. Because of the fact that Amy is openly talking about things that most cis people do not even dare to mention when it comes to the trans topic, she is stepping out of heteronormative boundaries and norms. A lot of people are scared to ask trans people what it's like and do not even bother to educate themselves on their situations, probably for fear of offending them, not knowing what to say or how to ask, or just blatantly not asking because they do not agree with it. The way Schumer approaches the interview is queer because she so blatantly asks the questions that most people in society want to know, but would never dare to ask. I think she asks them in such a vulgar manner to get her point across and be obvious about what she is trying to do, rather than be offensive. I would draw on Warner's definition of queer because Amy is definitely defying norms/normative behavior with the interview that she conducted.
In regards to interviewing, I was a little worried at first about how this interview would be portrayed despite being a joke, but I thought it was decently well done. Obviously it was light-hearted and meant to be funny, but it did touch on topics that are typically wondered about by cis community. I think that different interview styles definitely accomplish this, though. One interview I watched that I think went particularly went above and beyond was Diane Sawyer's interview with Bruce Jenner who recently identified himself as trans. This interview had a more serious tone and because of that, I think more people took it seriously and found it as more educational (although I think the Amy Schumer interview also accomplished this in some respects). I think possible limitations of a more funny, comedic interview could be that trans people and issues may seem like a joke and just a funny thing to laugh about. I don't think that Amy Schumer's gave off this kind of vibe, though. Although there was a comedic spin on it, it still seemed professional and engaging. Although I've seen both serious and comedic interviews encourage asking questions, I think Amy Schumer's encouraged more so because it made the topic come off as not as serious as other interviews make trans people and issues seem. This is important because it opens the possibility for questions, which will in turn, lead to learning (as long as the questions are respectful and asked in tasteful way). Obviously, one could not ask a trans person who they do not know well or are close with the same questions that Amy Schumer asked.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 3, I do not think cis society benefit from more interviews done in this style. As many people have mentioned, if not for the fact that this interview was introduced as a satire by the blog post, I would have been extraordinarily appalled. I do not believe that cis society in America has an overall understanding of trans* issues—satire is punctuated by the fact that it is clear that the media in question is indeed satirical. I do not believe the majority of cis society in America would see it as such—the manner in which Bailey Jay is questioned by Amy Schumer and how she responds is something that I believe would be painted as “normal” to cis society. Because of the lack of understand about trans* issues and the fact that even many of the people in this class did not realize it was a satire until told, this style of interview is not something that a cis society would benefit from.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this didn't really do anything for cis society or shed any light on ignorance and the subject of transphobia. I feel like it's hard for people to recognize satire if they don't know what it is the media source is attempting to make fun of. In order for a cis person to understand this, they'd have to know what ignorance regarding trans* issues and transphobia even look like. I really feel like a lot of people would only see the supposed humor of making fun of a trans* person and making them a spectacle on television.
DeleteIn response to question 2, based on Amy Schumer’s comedy style I would say that this is definitely supposed to be satire, and that for the most part it does a pretty good job of pointing out how rude, invasive, and offensive many interviewers are when interviewing trans individuals. Without further context of Amy Schumer or her show I think that this interview by itself could be considered extremely offensive though. I think that this interview succeeded in bluntly pointing out how rude the media often can be to trans people, but I think that it could have been done in a way that more clearly said “satire” rather than just “offensive”. It felt like Amy was trying to walk weird line between satirical and sincere at some points that made the segment a little more confusing about its intentions.
ReplyDeleteI think that the cisgendered public does benefit from interviews conducted in the manner in that they're exposed to trans* topics that they would normally not be exposed to in a less serious manner. The satirical nature of the interview would help individuals who might feel uncomfortable branching out into more diverse, complex, and non-normative topics such as this by applying a sense that it's not too serious. Of course the interview should explicitly address that they are applying satire to the topic. I feel that interviews of this nature would expose cis-gendered individuals to trans* topics in a way that shows them exactly how they wouldn't act using the ridiculousness and satire. However if the interview is not specifying the satirical methods I think it's possible that one could misconstrue the message and these questions of that nature are acceptable in education of trans* issues.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 2, I believe this is a difficult clip to categorize. Prior to watching the video and reading the post, I had no previous background knowledge of the satirical style of the show. This being said, I agree with the group in that the interview itself is complicated—presenting an odd combination of offensive, satirical, and educational material. With the horrible, uncensored bluntness of the questions asked that clearly invade very personal aspects of Jay’s personal life and intimate life with her husband, I agree that this is emphasizing the “status-quo” of believing that the personal lives of transgendered people should be open to the public, and that the bluntness of the interview is working to highlight this idea. Additionally, despite the potential “benefits” of having discussions this heavy in satire, I think that the topic of trans* individuals in a mostly cisgender society is tricky and surrounded by ignorance, creating room for it to be more offensive and harmful instead of helpful and informative.
ReplyDeleteI think that this clip did a great job of interviewing as queer while holding the status quo. I think this is a strategic move so that it keeps the interest of everyone, therefore educating others. I think it was great that Amy asked the questions she did, as they are often questions that people ask. The questions may be personal, but having them answered ay stop others from asking again. No one should have to answer some of those questions, but if someone from the trans community feels comfortable answering them, we should be glad that they are helping us understand. Due to this, I think society could benefit from more interviews like this, so we had a better understanding of what is happening, and the issues that come along with it.
ReplyDelete