Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

The weird thing is that, after reeling at the ridiculously offensive nature of that joke, I felt annoyed that it doesn't even make coherent sense as a joke.  I mean, the implication is that "Raping a woman does not have intrinsic value after it's been used once", which clearly doesn't work in any way even if you are a misogynistic prick.

I google searched to find the original article, and I must say I found the subject of it one of the most horrifically unfunny things I've ever heard.  It's not even "comedy that belittles rape", it's "comedy that just thinks rape is inherently fucking hilarious and good".  Argh.

[Glowcat]

I would add that assuming all the folks who post stuff like that are assholes or trolls, rather than people expressing their opinions, seems a bit optimistic.

That's not exactly an exclusive pairing. 

[Vector]

I hope it's just some sort of donkey headwear doing some trolling, because that's only marginally preferable to somebody actually believing it.

The interesting thing is that people seem to assume that trolling is different from believing.

Clearly they don't disbelieve it enough to think respecting rape survivors is more important than lulz.  They don't disbelieve it enough to find those "jokes" entirely unfunny.

To me, that would indicate a certain amount of believing in the comments they sow.

The weird thing is that, after reeling at the ridiculously offensive nature of that joke, I felt annoyed that it doesn't even make coherent sense as a joke.  I mean, the implication is that "Raping a woman does not have intrinsic value after it's been used once", which clearly doesn't work in any way even if you are a misogynistic prick.

I google searched to find the original article, and I must say I found the subject of it one of the most horrifically unfunny things I've ever heard.  It's not even "comedy that belittles rape", it's "comedy that just thinks rape is inherently fucking hilarious and good".  Argh.

I think the second part explains why the first joke is funny.

I'll also say that I found the comments for that particular blog post very enlightening.

I would add that assuming all the folks who post stuff like that are assholes or trolls, rather than people expressing their opinions, seems a bit optimistic.

That's not exactly an exclusive pairing. 

You're right, which is why I'm posting the first part of this current comment =)  Thanks, though.

[Leafsnail]

I think the second part explains why the first joke is funny.

Well, it's more a question of syntax than content.  As in, the person trying to tell the joke is clearly trying to say that a woman after she's been raped has no inherent worth, but managed to screw up the joke so much that it says something completely different which doesn't make sense.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

That joke is a stupid joke, and it wouldn't be funny even if I was a rock-stupid misogynistic caveman.

[SalmonGod]

I would add that assuming all the folks who post stuff like that are assholes or trolls, rather than people expressing their opinions, seems a bit optimistic.

Personally, I've known (note: not approved of) my fair share of guys who tell those kind of jokes, but I wouldn't believe to be nasty enough to actually condone the act in reality.  Lots of people these days treat audacious political incorrectness, or even just raw audacity of any kind, as sport.

[Bauglir]

The interesting thing is that people seem to assume that trolling is different from believing.

Clearly they don't disbelieve it enough to think respecting rape survivors is more important than lulz.  They don't disbelieve it enough to find those "jokes" entirely unfunny.

To me, that would indicate a certain amount of believing in the comments they sow.

You know, that's an interesting point, although the thing is that I think in the case of somebody trolling, it's because of a general problem where they prioritize their own entertainment over somebody else's happiness, usually because they (on some level) think they're not really hurting anyone because they never see the consequences, at least not in a sense that is meaningful  to them (in person or directly affecting someone they care about). Now, I might be drawing too many conclusions about people I've never met, but if I just go with that then there's a good chance that they're making a comment like that specifically because they don't believe it, and therefore think it's funny because it violates the social norms they assume are universal (because, again, the problem here is that they are failing to empathize with anything but their own experience).

That's a lot of ifs, though. And pretty shaky reasoning to support a conclusion that I probably formed independently of that reasoning. And I can already see a counterargument that a problem with misogyny as a subset is necessarily worse than a problem that is just misogyny. So I'm not sure if I should really post this stream of consciousness thing, but maybe it'll be helpful somehow.

[Africa]

Can I just comment on how much I hate the blogger who wrote the post Vector linked to? The snide commentary and the implication that, rather than trying to do his pain-in-the-ass job of spokesmen without producing abusable soundbytes, he's "mansplaining" (I hate her just for that word) things to women that he obviously disrespects because they have vaginas.

In any case, I'd be amazed to see women turn in large numbers to the Republicans, because however bad any given Democratic president may be for their interests, well...

[Vector]

(in person or directly affecting someone they care about)

[...]

And I can already see a counterargument that a problem with misogyny as a subset is necessarily worse than a problem that is just misogyny.

I think you hit the nail on the head exactly.  "Someone they care about" does not include women, because this shit affects us directly.  It's just that people don't seem to understand that contributing to the problem means dealing with the tangible effects of the system.

And there's no "just" about misogyny.  The misogyny was enough.  The piling on of more hatred is rageworthy.

he's "mansplaining" (I hate her just for that word)

I hope to god you never use the word "bitching" to mean complaining--and never, ever let anyone else get away with it, either, without letting them know how much you hate them.

You can hate the blogger all you want, but I'm going to keep linking to her.  Yes, she's snide.  I happen to think she's pretty cool like that.

She also said, explicitly, that the issue isn't with Pfeiffer's competency, but with the administration in and of itself.

If his explanation doesn't make you think he's disrespecting women, then I suggest that you reread what has been said here in apologia, and then rewatch the video two or three times.  For what he should have said, see Truean's response.

In any case, I'd be amazed to see women turn in large numbers to the Republicans, because however bad any given Democratic president may be for their interests, well...

Exactly.

He can get away with it.

Because the opinions of women don't matter.

Personally, I've known (note: not approved of) my fair share of guys who tell those kind of jokes, but I wouldn't believe to be nasty enough to actually condone the act in reality.  Lots of people these days treat audacious political incorrectness, or even just raw audacity of any kind, as sport.

There's a very appropriate link I'm looking for.  I'll get back to you in a bit.

[Africa]

he's "mansplaining" (I hate her just for that word)

I hope to god you never use the word "bitching" to mean complaining--and never, ever let anyone else get away with it, either, without letting them know how much you hate them.

Yeah, yeah I do. Why do I not feel bad about it? See Aqizzar's comments on "hysterical."

You can hate the blogger all you want, but I'm going to keep linking to her.  Yes, she's snide.  I happen to think she's pretty cool like that.

Snide isn't necessarily bad. It was more her tone of complete contempt and enjoying railing on a guy for being a misogynist rather than examining the conversation as you would approach any conversation with a political spokesman. "War on women" is a loaded phrase regardless of its validity.

For what he should have said, see Truean's response.

That is what he should have said, but once again, he's trying to do his job without digging himself and people he's reporting to into a bigger hole, not to oppress women. There are entire news networks out there that exist to make his bosses look bad by taking things out of context, he's not trying to give them any extra ammunition.

In any case, I'd be amazed to see women turn in large numbers to the Republicans, because however bad any given Democratic president may be for their interests, well...

Exactly.

He can get away with it.

Because the opinions of women don't matter.

If you want to look at it that way, go ahead. Or you could look at it as what I said, which is, Democrats aren't worried about women doing a mass exodus to a MORE sexist party, and so yeah, they're going to be pursuing other issues with a lot more fervor. Like, for example, swing voters who may well go vote for the other party because they don't like the economy. Good or bad, that's politics, and politicians do it, be they male or female.

I'm also not sure what was so despicable about the position the guy articulated. He said Obama is concerned about it and is going to work on it. OK, so maybe it's a line of bull? It's the same line of bull every politician feeds to any interest group they talk to. It's not a special attack against women. The guy was trying to avoid linking the administration with a loaded phrase, is all.

[Bauglir]

I think you hit the nail on the head exactly.  "Someone they care about" does not include women, because this shit affects us directly.  It's just that people don't seem to understand that contributing to the problem means dealing with the tangible effects of the system.

And there's no "just" about misogyny.  The misogyny was enough.  The piling on of more hatred is rageworthy.

Well now I'm just replying to clarify my intentions since either the language uses the same wording to mean multiple different things, or I'm bad at using it, or I actually was thinking in a way that justifies being called out and am just rationalizing it by blaming the English language. Gonna need some time to think on that one, but at least what I think I intended to get across by "someone they care about" was "someone they know, personally, such as a friend, family member, or spouse", rather than "a member of an important demographic". And while it's possible you're just jumping off my word choice to (reasonably) expand the point, I feel I should mention that I didn't mean to imply misogyny is something minor enough not to care about (as one use of the word "just" often indicates), but to imply that it is necessarily less bad than a problem that is itself, plus more problems.

I need to be more precise with my words. Also, possibly, more concise.

[Truean]

As a member of the white minority (yes, caucasians are a minority in the world) I demand equal rights to draw the racism card. Whoop, there it is.

Seriously, yesterday I was talking to a chinese guy who was making fun of chinese people. But if I do it it's suddenly wrong and racist. In that same conversation a gay guy started cracking gay jokes. White guys never get to have any fun.

....

If you can't see the difference between self depreciating humor and making fun of someone with the purpose of knocking them down, then there's something wrong....

I find it hilarious, all of this. Wow, just wow. The gist of your argument is that you are somehow oppressed by some grand false conspiracy of people who aren't being fair by demanding "bullshit" "equal" "rights." As if they were never really oppressed and have nothing to complain about. Said "bullshit" complaining is a nuisance to you and should stop, or to make things "fair" you should be able to make fun of them....

Basically, your gist is:
"It is actually you who are oppressed by 'so called minorities' because '(yes, caucasians are a minority in the world).' So clearly you're the "true minority."  And how dare anyone else consider not letting you make fun of them. How dare they, don't they realize you have a right to do so and it's simply not fair not to allow you that right? After all their self depreciating humor aimed at their own selves is the same as decades and centuries of other people making fun of them, and in some cases actually or constructively enslaving them, so 'clearly' you should be able to dress down other people based on race, gender, sexual orientation and whatever the crap else you feel like!

After all, you, as a white guy, like all white guys, never get to have any fun...."

Do you realize that is exactly what you're saying? Yes it is. The only possible redeeming quality is the possibility that you didn't realize you said it.

*sneezes* O I'm ... I'm sorry I'm allergic to bullshit and ... this is just... sneezing weather... all around this mess....

Your "demand" is denied....

[Vector]

SalmonGod and Bauglir, you mind find this interesting reading.

Sorry for all the links to the same place, by the way.  I've started looking for other blogs I like now that it's summertime, but so far this is the best thing I've managed to wrassle up.


Truean, could you possibly take Siquo's stuff out of my quote box next time?  I nearly jumped out of my seat, wondering how your reply related at all to what I'd posted.  Thanks.

Yeah, yeah I do. Why do I not feel bad about it? See Aqizzar's comments on "hysterical."

I'm going to say that, given that the root of "bitching" is much more recent, obviously female-based, and much more applied to women, this is absurd.

The term "mansplaining" is employed in that woman's particular blog to:

Men who dodge women's questions in order to waste time "educating" the woman in question about something obvious.

Not men in general.  Just people acting in an oppressive way and abusing power they possess.

"Bitching," however, is a general term for that thing all women do.  Complaining.  Like a bitch.  A female dog.  An animal.

Snide isn't necessarily bad. It was more her tone of complete contempt and enjoying railing on a guy for being a misogynist rather than examining the conversation as you would approach any conversation with a political spokesman. "War on women" is a loaded phrase regardless of its validity.

He treats women in general with contempt.  She treats his argument with contempt.

I don't see a double standard here at all.

The term "War on terror" is perfectly valid in standard parlance, but the term "war on women" isn't--given all the states where abortion is currently being banned, and women's rights slowly chiseled down?  Really?

That is what he should have said, but once again, he's trying to do his job without digging himself and people he's reporting to into a bigger hole, not to oppress women. There are entire news networks out there that exist to make his bosses look bad by taking things out of context, he's not trying to give them any extra ammunition.

The point is that there was a way to do it easily without engaging in the usual sexist argumentation style, which she deconstructed and you seem to find annoying because it actually addressed women's problems... rather than standard political analysis, which ignores misogyny in general in favor of considering "important" stuff.

If you want to look at it that way, go ahead. Or you could look at it as what I said, which is, Democrats aren't worried about women doing a mass exodus to a MORE sexist party, and so yeah, they're going to be pursuing other issues with a lot more fervor. Like, for example, swing voters who may well go vote for the other party because they don't like the economy. Good or bad, that's politics, and politicians do it, be they male or female.

I thought politics was about passing bills, not collecting as many votes as possible and then saying "I won."

I'm also not sure what was so despicable about the position the guy articulated. He said Obama is concerned about it and is going to work on it. OK, so maybe it's a line of bull? It's the same line of bull every politician feeds to any interest group they talk to. It's not a special attack against women. The guy was trying to avoid linking the administration with a loaded phrase, is all.

Sometimes it's more about the way it's said than the contents of the message in and of itself.

Again, that's why I linked to her analysis, rather than just the video.

I don't care what the explanation is.  He acted in a particular way.  End of story.

[Truean]

Truean, could you possibly take Siquo's stuff out of my quote box next time?  I nearly jumped out of my seat, wondering how your reply related at all to what I'd posted.  Thanks.

Will do. Sorry for any confusion I caused. Entirely my fault, but all I can say is that I was more than a little upset, hence the oversight.

[Vector]

Will do. Sorry for any confusion I caused. Entirely my fault, but all I can say is that I was more than a little upset, hence the oversight.

No, I totally understand, and I'm not super-bothered or anything.  Just a bit confused myself.

Thanks for fixing it =)