Just in case you missed it the first time. I realize you don't want any sort of logic injected into your social game of hostility and hate against people you don't know, will never know and for whom you have no need to worry about but it would be in your best interest to at least have some understanding of what the rest of us think. Beyond those of us with any interest, most people just don't give a flying f*ck what someone does on a show they don't have to watch!
From RTHawk, posted at AskaLesbian . comI've seen a great deal of anger, derogatory and inflammatory comments here as well as on the Bravo message board and have finally decided to comment. I bring this to you as I am not registered at Bravo nor am I interested. I would, however, like to address some glaring omissions and double-standards that continue to be dismissed on behalf of those wanting to encourage the demise of Jackie Warner in the name of social injustice. I've read your posts and continue to see that you defend your attacks on Jackie Warner and the show Work Out by claiming that her behavior and actions are in grave violation to all humanity. You maintain that you're here to correct a wrong and make it right and seem to believe that you're working on behalf of an entire population lacking in self-control and decision making. I hope I am able to open your minds a bit. If I am unable to post this here (it’s long), I will bring over a link. Otherwise, let’s begin-
Thus far, your argument against Jackie Warner and Work Out lacks depth and a clear understanding of facts. One cannot seriously accept your attacks, threats and hostility without placing your argument within the entire context of reality television. By refusing to discuss and acknowledge the daily and past violations of all reality programming, you demonstrate your double standards and diminish your credibility. Reality television has been criticized for its content since its inception and has continued to become more salacious and scandalous as ratings have indicated that this is what viewers want. You cannot demand removal of one show without addressing the others. I'd like to point out a few examples.
Most of you claim that Jackie Warner has behaved "inappropriately" with her adult clients, employees and personal relationships. In an effort to defend your own argument, please consider the following shows and explain how they differ and why Jackie Warner and Work Out deserve greater condemnation than the rest. A response of, "well, I don't watch that show" is not an acceptable argument. You are not required to watch Work Out. If murder is against the law and unacceptable, it applies to everyone not just those you see.
I have selected only a few. The collection of reality shows and the criticisms relating to content is extensive.
Note: I'll get to your rationalized aggression based on your assertion of negative stereotypes portrayed on Work Out, as well as the issue of Jamie Eason, etc. later.
Offensive Reality Shows and Questions
Jackass: A show geared toward teenagers promoted dangerous stunts, offensive behavior and starred a habitual drug addict Steve-O. Typical to the show was a stunt where the "boys" played a game of ball-busting in which they stripped to their briefs, painted red bulls-eyes on their crotches, and proceed to hit each other with racquetballs. Another example of the stunts performed on the show involved a model car rammed up the anus of a cast member who then went to the emergency room claiming to be in pain, just so they could see the reaction on the doctors' faces when they performed X-rays only to find a toy car in his bum.
Question: Was the show's material acceptable to you and your family? Did you write their sponsors? The Girls Next Door: Offensive to anyone with traditional values and degrades women. To those offended, Hugh Hefner is considered sexist, chauvinistic and exploitive of women. He uses his relationships to benefit financially.
Question: Is Hugh Hefner's treatment of the women in his life acceptable? Many of the women who Hugh sleeps with have and/or continue to be employed by him. Why is Hef's behavior and his reality show acceptable but not Jackie Warner's? Sunset Tan: Offends Skin Cancer survivors as well as promotes an unhealthy habit directly related to a main cause of skin cancer.
Cops: Promotes nearly every kind of urban stereotype there is.
Question: There are white suburban kids getting high on meth while their mothers down pain killers but they’re never the subject of Cops. Is this bias acceptable?
Are you Hot: This show required competitors to submit to a panel of judges for an appearance-rating, many contestants were ridiculed and belittled in front of scornful judges?
Question: Psychologists said that the show promoted an unhealthy view for young women and contributed to the furthering of eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorders. Were you outraged? Did you write the sponsors?The Bachelor (This is for those who claim to be lesbian feminists concerned with the well-being of women.) Most feminists and psychologists find this very popular show repulsive as it embodies the patriarchal concept that men define womanhood. For example, the woman the bachelor finally chooses from a field of twenty-five contestants supposedly represents the ideal female to viewers, most of whom are young women. In several surveys, young woman claimed that the show was not sexist since ABC also ran The Bachelorette
. However, it is The Bachelor that offers highly normative female types into which most women allegedly fall and ropes viewers into damning certain behaviors while applauding others. Thus girls are urged to place themselves on a post-feminist scale of femininity to determine how far they have to go to please men without losing all shreds of their own identity and dignity. In the process, young women calibrate, for better and for worse, what kind of female traits are most likely to ensure success in a male-dominated world.
Question: Do I really need to ask one for this?Stereotyping
Many of you have argued that Jackie Warner promotes a negative stereotype of gays and lesbians. I am unaware of any rule or mandate that requires anyone on television or involved in sports to be a positive role model. Nonetheless, I agree that there is a great deal of negative stereotyping but would like you to explain how Jackie Warner and Work Out differs from and is somehow more responsible than other shows.
Negative Racial Stereotypes: The portrayal of black men on reality TV is stereotypically racist. Black men are often shown as angry and violent, lazy and stupid, or sexually aggressive and dominating. Reality shows are guilty of perpetuating such a negative stereotype. Further, there is rarely more than one black male participant at a time on a reality show, no matter how many races are represented. Due to the pervasive nature of racism in America, producers of reality TV shows may not even be aware that they are seeking stereotypes when they choose black male participants.
It began with the popularity of reality television-
1992: In the debut season of MTV’s The Real World, set in New York, racially conscious and contentious Kevin is accused of throwing a candlestick at one of his white roommates, Julie. (Cameras weren’t present, so it’s a case of his word against hers.)1993: In the show’s second season, in L.A., David is the first cast member to get kicked out of The Real World house because his roughhousing was determined to be threatening.1997: Syrus, from the Boston edition, makes the moves on anything wearing an approximation of a skirt and brings lots of women back to the house.1998: Stephen, in the Seattle Real World, is forced to go to anger management sessions after slapping housemate Irene.1999: As for Teck, from the Hawaiian Real World, see Syrus above.2000: William, from Big Brother, is booted from the house because of his perceived hostile and confrontational attitude; while Gervase, from Survivor admitted on the show that he doesn’t work and is the laziest castaway.
And it continues--
Negative Gay Stereotypes: The following excerpt is from an article recently run in various publications regarding Big Brother.
Big Brother's gay contestant Joshuah Welch has helped solidify every loathsome characteristic that could be associated with the gay stereotype. From praying for a better body to verbally attacking the women in the house, you begin to wonder: Is the inclusion of certain minorities being used to break down barriers, or is it that in the casting process they are helping to reaffirm negative stereotypes? Here is a look back at the gay contestants of Big Brother and the impact they’ve had on gay culture:Big Brother 2 aired in July of 2001, and Bill "Bunky" Miller became the first known gay character on the show. Instantly he seemed like a typical gay stereotype, constantly crying throughout his entire first few weeks in the game. While the other "straight" men in the house like became known for their sex appeal and their competitive behavior, Bunky was portrayed as a weak-willed underdog, and after losing every challenge, was voted out by his housemates.
At the time Bunky was in a long-term relationship outside of the show, a refreshing characteristic of gay life, but inside the house, he quickly became the butt of jokes for the other players. Bunky did, however, develop an interesting relationship with 45-year-old Kent Blackwelder who before knowing that Bunky was gay expressed that he was homophobic and did not approve of the "gay lifestyle". The relationship proved to be one of the most compelling on the show, and audiences could see that despite their differences, these two men could come together in friendship.
The third season of the show introduced the world to one-time model and fashion stylist Marcellas Reynolds. From the beginning, Marcellas seemed targeted for eviction because of his sexuality and his negative attitude toward other houseguests. Unlike Bunky, Marcellas dominated competitions on the show and proved that a gay male could compete and win.On season four, the show added a different twist by putting the contestants in the house with their ex boyfriends of girlfriends. Conspicuously, there were no openly gay contestants added on the show despite the fact that Marcellas had been one of the most popular contestants on the previous season.Two gay characters found their way onto the sixth season of the show, which had players competing for the top prize with a friend or loved one that they knew outside of the competition. In order to try to revive the popularity of Marcellas from season three, African American fashion stylist Beau Beasley joined the cast. Beau had several run ins with female cast members, but was unable to break down any stereotypes for the gay community.Ivette Corredero was an interesting choice for the series as the first openly gay female contestant on any major network show. Ivette won several challenges and made it to the final vote, but lost after pissing almost everyone in the house off with her often racist and derogatory comments to other players. Producers had actually edited out some of the offensive comments she had made toward Muslim contestant Kaysar Ridha because they were so malicious and unnecessary.
Two bitter ex-boyfriends, Joe Barber and Dustin Erikstrup, were introduced in season eight after a disappointing All-stars season. The queeny couple displayed vicious behavior toward each other and toward the rest of the houseguests, which ultimately lead to their demise.
For its ninth season, it looked as though Big Brother had finally gotten with the times and cast two gay men as potential soul mates. While gay characters in other countries have been hooking up with each other in the house for years, in America, they were often treated as eunuchs with no possible romances available. Unfortunately early on, Neil Garcia left the house over undisclosed personal issues and gay porn star James Zinkland seems to be "gay for pay" only, hooking up with female partner Chelsia Hart. That leaves big-mouthed Joshuah representing an entire community, and he has done so with all of the grace of a serial killer.
As for Joshuah, well, after telling housemate Amanda Hansen that she should slip a noose around her neck like her father, who had committed suicide, had done, he has gone on to have frequent outbursts with other women in the house, resorting to the lowest of lows in name calling. As gross and reprehensible as his behavior has been, however, he is a change from the constant gay doormats that are consistently cast on the show.
So there you have it: Four criers, two fashion stylists, a receptionist, a salesman, a bigoted lesbian and Joshuah. An appropriate representation of the gay community? Not exactly. Negative portrayal of the Obese: The following excerpt is from an article written about obesity by
Martin Binks PhD, Director of behavioral health and research at the Duke Diet & Fitness Center in Durham, NC. It focuses primarily on the show The Biggest Loser (which is aired on NBC who also owns Bravo TV.)
Perpetuating StereotypesWhen the Biggest Loser first aired four seasons ago, I tried to approach it with an open mind. However, the title’s double-entendre made it difficult not to see that exploitation was right around the corner. I watched in disgust as tables replete with tempting cakes and foods were there to tempt participants – only perpetuating the stereotype that overweight people are gluttonous and lack self-control.I watched as so-called fitness experts spread the no pain – no gain message and encouraged participation in fitness challenges that pushed people beyond any reasonable medical risk and continued the misguided notion that in order to be successful in weight control, grueling and painful exercise is required.I was alarmed to see the participants’ medical and emotional well-being placed at risk. I quickly realized that the Biggest Loser was yet another missed opportunity for television to educate and help curb this growing epidemic. I hoped the public would reject this distasteful exploitation of human suffering.Unfortunately the opposite has occurred. To gain market share and rise above the competition in this now crowded field, the entertainment division of ABC recently stooped to an all-time low: the exploitation of obese children.This past summer, I reacted with disdain to the announcement of Shaqu'sBig Challenge. While some people hoped it might take the high road and reach millions of parents and families who struggle with obesity with a healthy and balanced message, we knew better. Healthy, balanced, sensible and medically responsible does not sell entertainment television. Instead, in Shaq’s Big Challenge, we saw children coerced into emotional submission, humiliated in front of millions, and their struggle with weight turned into a public spectacle. Note: I’ve noticed some very serious attacks on Jackie Warner’s qualifications. I’d like to point out that she has never claimed to be a nutrition specialists or dietician. In addition, many trainers have varying qualifications. Since there is yet to be a standardized requirement, most gyms have trainers with mixed experience. While some have advance degrees in nutrition, physiology and related areas of study, there are many trainers who have neither a college education nor personal training certificate. Trainers lacking credentials on paper are usually hired based on experience and references. Since I’ve just discussed The Biggest Loser, I will point out that Jillian Michael’s experience is very similar to Jackie Warner’s. In addition, Brian Peeler is without any sort of certification. Within Sky Sport itself, the trainers vary widely in their educations and certificates. This is not a question of someone’s competence but rather another observation of a tactic used to attack Jackie Warner and Work Out while failing to apply the same standard to other shows and trainers. I’ll offer the reality show The Gym of FitTV as a valid comparison. You can read about the trainers’ experience on their website and decide if certification and education is a relevant argument to your "cause."
http://fittv.discovery.com/fansites/thegym/bio/bio.htmlBefore I address the issue that has stirred so much hate and disdain, I want to make a quick observation regarding cancer survivors. The following list contains a few notable celebrities who have survived cancer. In addition to their battle with cancer, all of them have endured some level of hate and criticism both professionally and personally regardless of their disease or quality of character. I do not agree with the negativity expressed toward any of these individuals but want to point out the incorrect connection between comments about Jamie Eason's breasts and her cancer. Her cancer had nothing to do with the comments made at Sky Sport
-Suzanne Somers: Regularly ridiculed for her products and promotion.
-Colin Powell- Criticized for his handling of Weapons of Mass
-Melissa Ethridge- Criticized by right-wing fundamentalists for her sexual
-Joe Torre- Criticized relentlessly by his own boss George Steinbrenner
-Sharon Osbourne- Criticized often for her reality show and lifestyle
Question:
Should all cancer survivors be immune to criticism whether justified or not? Are they off limits? And concerning the arrest records reality stars and celebrities alike, they are too numerous to list; however, I am curious to your response concerning the drunk driving arrest of Extreme Makeover: Home Addition star Ty Pennington. Question:
This is a very family oriented show. Did you address this serious social issue? Did you contact sponsors? Jamie Eason, Brian Peeler and Sky Sport
Fact: Breast Cancer is terrible.
Fact: Jamie Eason had breast cancer but has never publicly claimed to have had breast augmentation because of it.
Fact: Jamie Eason explains in a youtube video that she chose breast augmentation to enhance her small breast size and assist in her success as a fitness model
Fact: The unseen comments made in the show Work Out had nothing to do with Jamie's breast cancer.
Fact: Women, men and humans in general sometimes make offhanded remarks about others. You have demonstrated such behavior on this board. People often speak poorly and make unflattering comments behind the backs of others. Whether it is a CEO discussing a subordinate, a waiter discussing a patron, your 13 year old daughter belittling the fat girl at school or trainers discussing clients and gym members, it is an unpleasant fact of our existence regardless of your opinion.
Fact: There is no law against commenting on one's appearance. A claim of slander would be a giant legal jump.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_...defamation.html (It can be easily assumed that if this were considered a case of slander, some sort of legal action would have been taken six months ago.)
Fact: Fitness modeling and figure competition is based solely on appearance. Many have argued such an industry is degrading and exploitive to women
Fact: Women who are involved in fitness modeling and figure competitions are used to being judged. Judgmental remarks made about these women and their appearances are part of their industry.
Fact: No one outside of Jackie Warner, Lisa, the production crew (1 or 2 individuals) and Rich know what was said in the office. So far, only Lisa has made any sort of comment regarding the situation and it was vague at best. One person's account versus silence from the rest is inconclusive.
Fact: No legitimate newspaper, news program or news wire has reported on the incident or confirmed any facts. I apologize but I've read your posts. TMZ doesn't count as a legitimate news source and cannot verify that they, in fact, spoke to anyone directly. The comments posted at TMZ simply mirrored the unsubstantiated "letters" supposedly posted and then removed by Jamie Eason.
Fact: The event involving Jackie Warner, Brian Peeler and Jamie Eason took place last October. All parties involved have had a significant amount of time to deal with the issue, address it and move on.
Fact: Doug Blasdell's tribute, A Night to Remember was last November. The event was not about the show Work Out or Jackie Warner. It was much bigger than that. I do not wish to offend Brian Peeler fans but it appears that he overstated or had a complete misunderstanding of his role and importance regarding Doug's tribute. He had no reason to be involved in the event. Although he expressed a great affinity and love for Doug, there were many others who loved Doug and had been deeply involved in his life for years. Brian was a small part of that world. I can only surmise that if those who organized Doug's tribute event wanted Brian Peeler to be involved, they would have made certain that he was. Brian Peeler had every right to mourn Doug but one must understand where they stand within the perspective of someone else's life. You may have a person in your life who you admire very much: a Priest, a Professor, or some other sort of mentor, but upon their passing you must accept your grief and yield to those family members and friends who have stood by that person for years. They deserve respect and space.
http://www.douglasblasdell.org/a_night_to_remember.htmlFact: Rich Luzzi has been interviewed by legitimate press several times the past few months and since the show involving his girlfriend, Jamie aired. He has never made a comment regarding the situation or Brian Peeler.
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/inde...-pro-wrestlers/Fact: Bravo and the producers of Work Out were in no way obligated to show the footage of this event. It could have easily been edited out of the show. As with most reality programming, they edited the show in a way they deemed to be as entertaining and as controversial as possible. Research dictates that this is what sells. Clearly, you have taken a huge bite of the bait. You may have a petition but it cannot compare to the hundreds and thousands of viewers who continue to tune in.
Finally, the show Work Out, its content and star Jackie Warner have been edited and promoted for your entertainment. Bravo has never claimed the show to be one solely about fitness nor has it claimed that the show is a guide to your weight loss issues, social well-being or interpersonal and homosexual relationships. It is a reality television show produced for entertainment. You are not required to watch. I am not denying your right to an opinion but if you do not want to be perceived as nothing more than a small group of people who despise Jackie Warner and wish to destroy her on a very personal level, I suggest you come to terms with what many of us view as complete hypocrisy. If you are unwilling to apply your high standards regarding negative stereotyping, offensive behavior and inappropriate relationships to all reality programming then your claims of social injustice are unfounded and your true motives revealed.
Removing Work Out from Bravo simply because of your personal dislike and disagreement with the show or its star would be nothing less than complete discrimination.
I hope that rather than taking my post apart, pasting it out of context on other boards and then proceeding to make disparaging remarks, you’ll simply address the questions concerning the broader issue of hypocrisy and double standards.
No sign of Farmgirl? Man, her GF must've gotten really po'd about the catbox huh? Anyway...guess we'll get things started again later...still can't believe that Bravo thinks this is going to go away. Not gonna happen...we are here to stay. 
