Tag Archives: 98pxy

In and Around Rochester, Society

Two Morning Show Segments (and the Notions Behind Them) I Despise

2 Comments

No GimmicksI’ve mentioned before that I tend to listen to the morning show on 98PXY during my five minute drive to work most mornings.  I’ve blogged about the sexism (and worse) that I’ve heard the hosts of the shows espouse.  Today, I want to talk about some of the regular segments that they do for the show and why they bother me.

The first is “War of the Roses,” which has disturbed me so much that I often will turn off the radio on the days that it airs if it comes on during my commute.  The basic notion is that someone call in to the show because zie suspects hir romantic partner of cheating on hir.  So to “help out,” one of the hosts calls the partner at hir office and tells them that they are eligible to have a free bouquet of red roses sent to any person of hir choosing.  The idea is that if the partner chooses to send the flowers to the original caller, the caller’s fears are (hypothetically) allayed.  If the partner chooses to send the flowers to someone else instead — which has been the case for all of the half dozen or so times I’ve listened to the segment — zie is deemed a cheater and the original caller — who is also on the line the entire time — confronts hir.  Usually some sort of fight ensues and “great drama” is achieved.

For the record, I threw up in my mouth a little typing “great drama.”  Even in the scare quotes.  Because it sickens me to think that we as a society (or at least the segment that listens to morning radio) apparently consider this something great to listen to.  I mean, thinking your partner might be cheating on you is serious business, not to mention actually having a cheating partner.  Having dated guys who proved themselves completely untrustworthy, I get that.  Which is why I find the whole idea of using some radio show stunt as a way to try to find out or confront a cheating partner so disconcerting.1  Truth be told, dealing with a cheating partner or even just a partner suspected of cheating is not easy and I don’t think there are any simple ways to deal with that.  That includes having radio hosts try trapping and catching your partner in the act and then confronting them on air.

The other segment that bothers me is called “Communicake.”  The idea behind this one is that the hosts invite someone to call in with a situation in which they need to have an uncomfortable conversation with someone or tell them something that isn’t easy.  The hosts then put the message — letting the caller choose the exact phrasing — on a cookie cake, drop it off outside the recipient’s front door over the weekend with a card inviting them to call the show Monday morning to talk it out.  The resulting conversation is then aired, of course.  I haven’t listened to this segment (especially the conversations after the cake is delivered) very often.  The handful of messages I’ve heard about include break-up messages and one person telling her neighbor that a rank odor is wafting from his apartment into hers.

Again, I find this weird and creepy.  First of all, I find the idea of relaying uncomfortable messages via a cake troubling and trivializing.  To me, it’s like saying, “I know this might be the start of a difficult conversation, so I’m going to start it as flippantly as possible,” which strikes me as counter-intuitive.  Then there’s just the fact that the conversation is then aired for the benefit of the show’s listeners.  Because if I’m talking about something that may be uncomfortable for me and/or the other person, I sure want to have hundreds of eavesdroppers listening in on it.

The thing I note is that both of these segments have a couple things in common:

  1. They both offer “easy solutions” to complicated and troubling issues.
  2. They both offer listeners a chance to be voyeuristic when it comes to other people’s interpersonal struggles.

Are either of these things that we as a society really want to encourage?

No, don’t answer that.  The answer is obvious.  And depressing.

1I admit though that I’m more disturbed by the shows hosts who would use people’s real relationship concerns for a few laughs or even just a spectacle to observe on their show.

Gender and Sexuality, Rants

Today on Rape Culture FM

Leave a comment

[Content Note:  Rape Culture]

I’ve done a couple of posts that I’ve titled “Today on Sexist Morning Radio” after listening to the morning show on 98PXY on the way to work.  To be honest, I think I could probably write a minimum of one such post a week if I had more time or remembered the incidents by the time I have a chance to do any blogging.

Today’s gem, spoken by Duffy[1], however, goes far beyond sexism.  That’s why I’ve chosen what I consider a far more appropriate title.  After all, I can think of few statements that embody rape culture better than the following:[2]

She’s my wife.  She’s supposed to give me sex anyway.

To be honest, Duffy’s statement doesn’t really surprise me.  After all, he has in the pas indicated that he used to feel that the women he dated owed him sex if he paid for the date.

Now, I’m not saying that Duffy would actually have sex with his wife without her consent (but given that, statement, wow).  But at the very least, he’s reinforcing the idea that men are entitled to have sex with at least some women.  And that’s the kind of idea that emboldens and shields those who would take what they want regardless of consent.  And he used a radio station with a large audience to reinforce that idea.  At best, that’s irresponsible.

So to Duffy (and those like him), I would like to send out this reminder:

You are not entitled to sex from anyone at any time.  Not your spouse.  Not your significant other.  Not the person you bought a nice dinner for.  Not the person you keep doing dozens of favors for in hopes that you’ll hit the sexual jackpot in time.  And I’m disgusted that I actually have to tell you this.

—

[1]  I should note that while I’m focusing on Duffy’s
particularly horrible statement, his co-hosts should not get a complete
pass on contributing to rape culture.  After all, they tried to present the
idea that Duffy should try to make up with the argument he had with his
wife so that he’ll “get to have sex” later tonight.  (It’s their
suggestion that caused him to make that awful statement.)  It seems to
me, at least, that even they are turning sex into something Duffy gets
from his wife rather than an mutually fulfilling experience that they
share.  That’s a problematic understanding of sex at best.

[2]  This is not a verbatim quote.  However, Duffy’s exact words stated the same sentiment and equally as explicitly.

Gender and Sexuality, In and Around Rochester

Today on Sexist Morning Radio

3 Comments

As is normally the case, I was listening to a local morning show during the five minute drive to work today.  I happened to catch the hosts discussing the question, “How many people have a thing for their boss?”  Having just “established” that there are not a lot of guys with women for bosses (surely a topic that deserves its own blog post or twenty), they immediately started focusing on women who had a thing for their male bosses.

One of them (Duffy, if memory serves) argued that it would make sense that a lot of women would have a thing for their bosses.  After all, bosses “have money and power.”  Because, you know, that’s all a woman is looking for when she’s “on the prowl” for a man.

Let that sink in, all you women and men who love women.  A local radio host just suggested that all a woman needs to be attracted to a guy is for him to have money and/or power.  Things like looks, personality, being interesting, having mutual interests, and oh, I don’t know, being a decent human being don’t factor into the equation at all.  Or if they do, they can be easily overruled by the possession of money and power.

So which tropes are these guys intending to support?  Women as gold-diggers?  Women as manipulative shrews who only want power over others and who are willing to exert it through their man?  Women as weak people who simply want someone else who can pamper and protect them?  I don’t know (and don’t care) what they intended, but they’re certainly propagating all of those notions.

They’re most likely propagating a few others I’m not even thinking of right now.  Readers are welcome — nay, encouraged — to point them out in the comments section.