andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2009-04-15 11:43 am

Welcome to the 21st century.

I can understand why there's a stereotype of feminists as humourless.

I mean, if you're used to being able to make jokes about horrible things happening to women and then a group of people start telling you that they don't find this funny then your perception of them is going to be that they just don't have a sense of humour.  After all, you don't _seriously_ want bad things to happen to women, you're just having a laugh, right?

My old friend Ed went to this debate in which a controversial comedian debated whether it was ok to make offensive jokes.  Frankie Boyle used his moments on the debating stand to tell a series of increasingly unpleasant jokes - all of which got a massive laugh from the audience, except when they touched on a subject just a little too close to home.  My friend found himself laughing at all sorts of appalling things, until the subject was (coincidentally) turned onto his own situation, at which point he found himself thinking "but that's not funny".

Because it's never funny when it's about you.  It's only funny when it's about someone you don't care about. 

Or, at the very least, if you can pretend that nobody you know is like that.

It's much easier when you live in a nice insular environment, where you only really know people like yourself, and you certainly only socialise with people just like you.  Then you can bask in in-group/out-group socialisation to your heart's content.

Not to easy when you're on the internet, and people are likely to pop up at any moment and point out the flaws inherent in something you thought was innocent fun.

The question is - how do you deal with it when someone points it out?  Do you have to let the flaws ruint it for you because they offend someone else?  Do you have to argue that there's nothing wrong with the thing you love?

If you care (and nobody is going to make you) then some very useful hints and tips can be found here.  The flow-chart at the end is particularly good.

[identity profile] cairmen.livejournal.com 2009-04-15 03:46 pm (UTC)(link)
The "you can't understand, you're not on the to-be-protected minorities list" argument is rarely convincing, and always irritating. If I was going to believe things based on people telling me I couldn't understand them, I'd be a lot more religious.

I'm sorry that my response is an inflamatory way to take this debate, and I won't be responding further on this, because I don't want to get into a RaceFail re-enactment.

However, I really don't feel, based on the number of people who have mentioned they find it extremely irritating, that anti-prejudice crusaders do themselves any favours with this argument. At base I actually do feel that trying to work against prejudice is a good thing, so, you know, I thought that was worth mentioning.

[identity profile] meihua.livejournal.com 2009-04-15 03:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Fair enough.

I'm not trying to "do myself favours", by the way. If there was a different argument I could use which would get the point across, I would do. If you notice, I then go on to try my best to communicate anyway.

This is an expression of my inability to communicate something as much as me suggesting that "you wouldn't get it".

Perhaps other anti-prejudice activists are better at communicating this thing than me. I ain't one of them, sorry!

[identity profile] cairmen.livejournal.com 2009-04-15 04:00 pm (UTC)(link)
I know I said I wouldn't comment further, but I think this could do with clarification - when I say "do themselves favours" I mean "increase the chances of their points being sympathetically received and understood".

Thanks for the very reasonable response.

[identity profile] meihua.livejournal.com 2009-04-15 04:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Yep, that's what I understood you to mean. I just read my reply though and it does look like I'm fingerquoting you to make it seem silly! Sorry about that.