­­To make the subject personal, the idea is similar to VMI cadets. If a “civilian” were to call someone a rat as an insult, a number of cadets would immediately resent the comment with verbal indignance. It’s a matter of having experienced the situation yourself; “we’ve earned the right to laugh at it.” The products definitely perpetuate the stereotypes, without a doubt. The issue, however, is not who is purchasing the products, but who is actually producing or endorsing the products. The creators of Duck Dynasty can “get away” with their show because they understand the situation and the observer is entirely sure that they do not mean anything offensively, that they aren’t joking in a derogatory way. By purchasing a product, one feeds the economic stability of the stereotype, therefore extending the social awareness of it. The way most people view it, it is acceptable for some individuals to purchase these products while it is unacceptable for others to do so; but it’s counterintuitive to want to buy the product in the first place. As a woman, I reject the title “bitch,” because it is a stereotypical generalization of women. I would absolutely not buy a t-shirt with a “funny” phrase like, “Bitches, man,” or “Go make me a sandwich.” Nor would I ever invest in the company creating these products. “Vote with your money,” if you will. This example is obviously more general than a “hillbilly” stereotype, but if a phrase offends me from one angle, it offends me from all angles, with maybe the seldom, situational exception. I’m not comfortable buying the kind of products referenced by Ballard for two reasons; I don’t understand the humor at a personal level, so I have no authority to see it as funny instead of offensive. Moreover, if it is offensive or derogatory, it is offensive or derogatory. Period.