Jason’s comments about cricket are at 5:15. The worst part is 5:45

What is it with former Seinfeld actors saying awful bigoted things? First we had Micheal Richards (Kramer) being a racist a-hole during his stand up comedy act, and now Jason Alexander (George Costanza) went on an extended rant calling cricket “gay” and mocking how effeminate the game is, in his limited mind. It wasn’t as if he just used the word “gay” once as a derogatory term – he used it repeatedly, included the word “queer” and went on about it. He even mimed the cricket pitch in an exaggerated effeminate way. It was offensive, and he should know better. Alexander made the comments on Craig Ferguson’s show. He later apologized in a long twitter message that explained the origin of the joke and how he stupidly recycled it. In his apology, Alexander seemed to understand why people were hurt, and why his jokes were wrong. He really explained himself well, and I was impressed. Here’s more about this story:

Jason Alexander has apologised for calling cricket a “gay” sport.

While making chit-chat on Craig Ferguson’s late night talk show in the US, the Seinfeld star let his mouth run:

“You know how I know it’s really kind of a gay game? It’s the pitch. It’s the weirdest. It’s not like a manly baseball pitch – it’s a queer British gay pitch.”

He mocked the all-white uniforms worn by cricketers and how they seemed to always stay so clean, how players had tea breaks, and the “dance-like” way the ball was bowled.

The joke wasn’t well received by gays and lesbians (and possibly cricket fans), resulting in a lengthy, almost philosophical apology from Alexander.

In a message of amends, which he posted on the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation website, he wrote that he at first didn’t grasp why some might object to the comment, but that subsequent Platonic conversations with his gay friends led him to realise his insensitivity:

“I asked a few of my gay friends about it. And at first, even they couldn’t quite find the offence in the bit. But as we explored it, we began to realise what was implied under the humour. I was basing my use of the word ‘gay’ on the silly generalisation that real men don’t do refined things and that my portrayal of the cricket pitch was pointedly effeminate, thereby suggesting that effeminate and gay were synonymous.

“The problem is that today, as I write this, young men and women whose behaviors, choices or attitudes are not deemed ‘man enough’ or ‘normal’ are being subjected to all kinds of abuse from verbal to physical to societal. They are being demeaned and threatened because they don’t fit the group’s idea of what a ‘real man’ or a ‘real woman’ are supposed to look like, act like and feel like.

“In comedy, timing is everything. And when a group of people are still fighting so hard for understanding, acceptance, dignity and essential rights – the time for some kinds of laughs has not yet come. I hope my realisation brings some comfort.”

[From News.com.au]

It was nice the way he apologized and explained why he was clueless about it. You can read his full apology here. It’s better than him just saying he has gay friends and he understands, he did elaborate on it. Some people may be stuck in the past when it comes to what they consider funny, but at least they’re able to snap into reality and understand the implications of the dumb things they say. He did write something I didn’t agree with. He wrote “I hope we will someday live in a society where we are so accepting of each other that we can all laugh at jokes like these and know that there is no malice or diminishment intended.” The thing is, he might not mean anything by mocking a minority group, but I doubt we’ll ever reach a point in history where people have no reason to take offense at jokes like this. Yes I hope that society exists someday too, but isn’t that Utopia, not the real world? And if that Utopian society existed, why would people think these type of obnoxious, potentially hurtful jokes are funny?