Duck Dynasty and the age girls should marry

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson shows what's wrong with conservatives
We already knew he was racist and homophobic. Now it emerges that he thinks girls should marry at 15 or 16

Ana Marie Cox
theguardian.com, Wednesday 1 January 2014 13.30 GMT


Know what? If you had told me, a month ago, that the Christian Right would have a strong reaction to a bearded religious zealot in a headscarf urging men to take child brides, I'd have believed that. And I would have believed that the man's family would go on Fox News to defend him, but I would have assumed they were doing it from a bunker somewhere, with voice filters and behind a screen … not in the studio on New Year's Eve.

Yet this is how things are playing out in the aftermath of footage showing Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson advising young men to "marry … girls when they are about 15 or 16", after, of course, "making sure she can cook a meal". "You need to eat some meals that she cooks. Check that out," he said to an audience at a Christian retreat in 2009. "Make sure she carries her Bible," he added. "That will save you trouble down the road."

I suppose it depends on how you define "trouble" – Robertson implies that it has to do with the little lady (or, better said, barely pubescent child) wanting some kind of monetary compensation for her labor ("you wait until they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket"). It also depends on which version of the Bible she has. Better hope she skips the part where it says, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ!" Actually, there a bunch of sections you should edit out.

After his comments about homosexuality (it's a choice, and a sin) and race (no blacks were "singing the blues" when he was young!) in GQ magazine, Robertson was suspended by A&E (the network that carries Duck Dynasty) for a scant nine days – hardly a season in the wilderness. Given the network's apparent reluctance to do more than do a pious headshake over those statements, it seems unlikely that they will do more about – or even acknowledge – Robertson's charged take on the age of consent and gender roles.

Just for the record: the federal age of consent to have sex is 18; it's 17 in Robertson's home state of Louisiana. As in most states, sex with a minor is legal if the couple is married, but you can't just "check with mom and dad", as Robertson noted: they must sign their consent and be present at the marriage ceremony. If the bride is younger than 16 – which Robertson implies is ideal, I mean, you gotta lock that down – you have to get a court order to obtain a marriage license.

You'd think that Robertson would be on top of these things, as he married his wife when she was 16. But that was in 1966, and perhaps times were different then. You could marry a 16-year-old without much trouble, but not, say, someone of a different race. Or the same sex. As of five years ago, it was still pretty hard to marry someone of a different race: a justice of the peace who refused to marry a mixed race couple was forced to resign after a month of controversy; his parting words have an uncomfortable bearing on the Robertson situation: "It's kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven't done wrong."

It is still illegal in Louisiana to marry someone of the same sex, which is, I guess, good news for that half of the under-16 population that can't be forced into the Robertson clan or its emulators.

If Robertson's views on female sexuality and servitude had been made public first, the Right could be more properly scandalized. The idea that a young woman is ripe for bedding before she can drive has connotations about that side of a romanticized rustic culture that, even for white people, is decidedly less appealing than the hearth-and-heart, God-and-guns milieu that the earlier Robertson defenders harkened to.

Also, they could blame Miley Cyrus. In a vacuum, conservatives could to spin the apparent marriageability of female children as yet another piece of evidence for the degradation of culture and validation of the right's embrace of permanent victim status – "Dammit, things didn't used to be this way!"

Roberts' initial interview resonated so deeply with conservatives because it fit with the narrative they mutter to themselves daily: "Things used to be better, and once we're all dead you'll see we were right all along." Gay sinners in the closet, darkies picking and grinning on the porch, America the way God (their very particular and peculiar God) meant it to be.

For the Right to reject Robertson now would mean acknowledging that his advocacy of cradle-robbing is of a piece with his comments about the blissful black workers of his youth and his anus-centered eschatology. The thing about marrying off women before they got old enough to know better? It used to be that way, as well. And it was justified with the same paternalistic logic and ruthless rejection of anything that dared to threaten the position of those in power.

For the professional Right – candidates, pundits and the like – this Duck Dynasty flap is a reminder of a different disturbing truth: the gap between what you want voters to believe you stand for and what it's OK to say out loud. There's a reason they call it a dog whistle and not a duck call.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/01/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-child-brides

Wonder if Sarah Palin will back him on that?   

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

I take the hillbillies on a shitty TV show seriously and try to use them as normal examples of a certain political group

You mis-understand. I don't take them seriously, a certain group of Americans, including Sarah Palin, take them seriously.

Sassy wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

You mis-understand.   I don't take them seriously, a certain group of Americans, including Sarah Palin, take them seriously.

I'm talking about the person who wrote the article you posted.

Fine, that I take seriously, because it is a programme followed by a certain section of Americans, who created havoc when he said what he said about homosexuals and got him re-instated, and he was allowed to say that 15 was the right age for girls to marry on prime time TV on New Years Eve, and so far, with no repercussions.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Sassy wrote:


You mis-understand.   I don't take them seriously, a certain group of Americans, including Sarah Palin, take them seriously.

I'm talking about the person who wrote the article you posted.

I don't think Ms. Cox takes them seriously, either. The jist of the article, as I see it, is she is incredulous that anyone takes them seriously.

Sassy wrote:Fine, that I take seriously, because it is a programme followed by a certain section of Americans, who created havoc when he said what he said about homosexuals and got him re-instated, and he was allowed to say that 15 was the right age for girls to marry on prime time TV on New Years Eve, and so far, with no repercussions.

But didn't people only "create havoc" and get him re-instated because delicate little flowers had their feelings hurt by taking his opinions seriously and got him taking off it in the first place?

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Sassy wrote:Fine, that I take seriously, because it is a programme followed by a certain section of Americans, who created havoc when he said what he said about homosexuals and got him re-instated, and he was allowed to say that 15 was the right age for girls to marry on prime time TV on New Years Eve, and so far, with no repercussions.

But didn't people only "create havoc" and get him re-instated because delicate little flowers had their feelings hurt by taking his opinions seriously and got him taking off it in the first place?

No, people created havoc and got him re-instated because they are Tea-Party types and agree with him, hence Sarah Palin writing stuff to get him re-instated. They take him seriously, that what's so bloody scarey.

Of course Robertson isn't a normal example of a political group -- in his case, conservatives in the U.S.

You can't win Conservative of the Year, 2013 from Conservapedia.com, run by two prominent members of the U.S. conservative movement, by being normal. The rest of your group has to consider you quite exceptional to give you an honor like that.

In the latest development to stem from "Ducky Dynasty" star Phil Robertson's homophobic and racist comments in a recent GQ profile and subsequent suspension from A&E, an unnamed group has launched "Chick-Phil-A" day, encouraging Robertson supporters to wear "Duck Commander or camouflage gear" and "eat at Chick-fil-A" on Jan. 21.

Organized through Facebook, the group claims that it has no affiliation with Chick-fil-A or Phil Robertson, but is "independent and organized from a grassroots view."

According to TMZ, the fast food chain stated that the event "is in no way sponsored by or affiliated with Chick-fil-A."

With almost 25,000 likes on Facebook, however, the campaign is picking up steam through social media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/27/chick-fil-a-duck-dynasty_n_4508177.html

Chick-fil-A, of course, is well-beloved by U.S. conservatives for its homophobic policies.

In 2012, former GOP presidential candidate and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee organized "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" in an effort to end what he called the "vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry" aimed at Chick-fil-A after the chain's president, Dan Cathy, sparked outrage with anti-gay comments of his own.

Sassy wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

But didn't people only "create havoc" and get him re-instated because delicate little flowers had their feelings hurt by taking his opinions seriously and got him taking off it in the first place?

No, people created havoc and got him re-instated because they are Tea-Party types and agree with him, hence Sarah Palin writing stuff to get him re-instated.   They take him seriously, that what's so bloody scarey.

But how could he get re-instated if he wasn't taking off in the first place, Sassy?

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Sassy wrote:

No, people created havoc and got him re-instated because they are Tea-Party types and agree with him, hence Sarah Palin writing stuff to get him re-instated.   They take him seriously, that what's so bloody scarey.

But how could he get re-instated if he wasn't taking off in the first place, Sassy?

He was taken off for his homophobic comments, and then re-instated.   Now he has said girls should be married at 15.

After his comments about homosexuality (it's a choice, and a sin) and race (no blacks were "singing the blues" when he was young!) in GQ magazine, Robertson was suspended by A&E (the network that carries Duck Dynasty) for a scant nine days

I never understood the popularity of these Deliverance wannabes in the first place. Why is anyone surprised at what they do or say? Consider the source. It's like make a reality show with the members of Westboro Baptist Church and then getting upset over their beliefs.

I'm not surprised Lurker, I just find it very scarey that the Right in America take them seriously and defend them.

“Phil Robertson is a new American hero,” said broadcaster Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association, in a series of Twitter posts. “He said exactly what the great majority of Americans believe. Phil Robertson is right. It’s a simple matter of plumbing. Easy to figure out what is supposed to go where. And where not.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/19/conservatives-rally-around-suspended-duck-dynasty-star-phil-robertson/

The whole "lone kook" theory just doesn't hold water here. Phil Robertson is a hero to a great many hate-filled Americans and people across the world. American conservatives also applauded Russia's oppression of civil rights for gay people.

So, to bring it back around to this comment:

I take the hillbillies on a shitty TV show seriously and try to use them as normal examples of a certain political group

A lot of people in America take this hillbilly seriously; he's not to be written off as an exception. But they are not, as Fischer asserts, the majority of Americans -- just the majority of American conservatives:



As you can see, the majority of Republicans think that homosexual relationships are immoral and should be illegal.

Lurker wrote:I never understood the popularity of these Deliverance wannabes in the first place. Why is anyone surprised at what they do or say? Consider the source. It's like make a reality show with the members of Westboro Baptist Church and then getting upset over their beliefs.

I agree.  And I think the whole situation is more complex than just the good guys and the bad guys.

Take the left.  Originally, Robertson was flamed by gays and Africans and A&E suspended the show.  Then, liberals like Michael Smerconish took the position that, Of course he is a horses ass, but let him on the air so everyone can see he is a horses ass.  Frankly, I took the same positions.

Duck Dynasty is the biggest money-maker on TV today.  A&E took a look at the conflicting opinions on the left, and it said, Hmmm...we can get that money-maker back on the air and not even take heat for it.  And that's what happened.  Basically, the money guys found a coincidence of values with those who condemn the Robertson sentiment, and put the cash-cow back on the air.

As I say, I agree with Smerconish...you can't see how ugly the right is, unless you let assholes like them put their wares on display.  I've taken this position even more generally.  The Democrat's best weapons against Republicans today...are Republicans.  The Republican  favorability rating is down to around 6%, last I looked.  They have revealed themselves to be racists, liars, seditionists and traitors, lazy, selfish and criminals---violaters of the Espionage Act (Representative Issa, VP Cheney).  Who wouldn't want them to be in the public eye?

It's one of the rare times in politics that you just want to let it ride. Hopefully, by November they will be completely out of business and we can put America back on her feet.

Exactly. When your opponent is repeatedly punching himself in the face, just sit back and enjoy it.