Celivia

Spot-on post. Two people can tell the same joke, but one could tell it so that I'm rolling about laughing and the other could make me feel reviled.

A good example of the former is George Carlin - nothing and no-one is sacred and he is hilarious. May he rest in peace.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XD5L2CxRMG4

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WolxBmLpN4w&feature=related

Hopefully everyone here will be offended at something he says.

;-)

<<If you find that feminists are humourless, perhaps you're telling the wrong sort of jokes.>>

If it's a choice between the "wrong" sort of joke and the "right" sort, then I goddamn hope I'm telling the wrong ones. Personally, I don't see that dichotomy though — I see funny joke and non-funny jokes.

I agree with you about a lot of things. I think Germaine is hilarious too, and absolutely there's heaps of funny feminists out there. I also take your point about the myth of humourless feminists. (But I have to say that they do exist. And why shouldn't they? There are pollies and public servants and police officers and every other group possible who take themselves too seriously too.) I'd also defend the right of anybody who wants to express how other people's humour offends them.

BUT, as I said earlier, I don't think believe we can demand others don't offend us or restrict their right to do so. I also don't think trying to control other people's joke-telling is an effective political strategy. Like I said earlier, I like offensiveness and think it an integral part of democracy. The best weapon against objectionable ideas is satire and powerful argument and soaring rhetoric. By ripping off their clothes (metaphorically) and revealing the true motivations behind their humour.

Celivia: "Life would be pretty boring and restricted if we had to live without this form of expression."

SJF: "I would argue the very opposite.It's target-based humour that is boring and restrictive – because it is based on a narrow, one-dimensional mindset."

Those aren't the options. We either restrict humour to stuff that doesn't offend or we keep it free to be either offensive or not.

Fractelle: LOVE IT! Thank you for introducing me. He's like a prototype Sarah Silveman. My favourite joke of her is: "I want to get an abortion. But my boyfriend and I are having trouble conceiving."

SJF...

"Genuine feminist humour is specific to the aims of feminism. This, from Gloria Steinem, is a good example of distinctly feminist humour:

‘If men could menstruate they would brag about how long and how much.."

SJF...

"The sort of jokes that base their humour on social 'targets' DO mean harm – because the underlying agenda is to assert superiority over the targeted group, while hiding behind the guise of just having a bit of fun."

Translation...

Doing harm is specific to the aims of feminism, with the underlying agenda being to assert superiority over men:-)

The abortion joke is hilarious, Veronika! Now wait for a pro-lifer’s thread to post it there, hehehe.

George Carlin (and thanks btw for these video links, Fractelle, I’m a big fan of him) says, “I like to piss off any group that takes itself a little bit too seriously.”
And people bought tickets to listen to him pissing off people.
We need this kind of humour.

Really, if people take themselves so seriously that they can’t even take in some jokes aimed at them or their group, and then they probably needed to hear these jokes ‘coz it might help them take things into perspective.
If one lets some jokes rule ones life and emotions, then it’s time to take a long, hard look at oneself.

I think it would make me feel worse if everybody thought my needs not to be offended were so special and important that they all deprived themselves of expression and tip-toed around me to tend to my needs. I’d much prefer to swallow a few jokes at my expense here and there. I may not like some of the jokes, but sheesh, I’d tell myself to get over it. It’s hardly a drama.

People read too much into a little joke and immediately think they’re put-downs.

SJF, “you have to also value the right of people to EXPRESS their distaste for certain types of humour”
Absolutely, and I do. People should be able to express anything they like, but not demand others to NOT tell jokes.
And, of course, I am free to express my distaste for their distaste, and even joke about their distaste.

“It’s target-based humour that is boring and restrictive”
So are you saying that outlawing target-based humour would encourage free speech more than including the use of target-based humour?
How?

The sensitive, kind and whimsical Michael Leunig, who was the white haired boy of social liberationists for decades and especially during his days with the Nation Review, was savaged by the women's movement and made into a misogynist pariah over his poignant cartoon about day care, "Thoughts Of A Baby Lying In A Child Care Centre".

What about Mem Fox, would she have been less attacked as an ideological traitor by feminists if she had made a joke out of babies being put into child care at six weeks?

Feminists, it seems, only think jokes are funny when they are ideologically correct and preferably, tip buckets of manure over men and boys.

Feminists are interested in anti-male joke telling because they think it allows them a broader canvas to further their scurrilous stereotyping and blaming of men. As they figure it, jokes do not require facts (most convenient!) and if challenged the defence is (of course) it is only a joke. They are right to try a new approach because their rhetoric and bullying ways have worn very thin with the public over the years.

However, if as some here put it, feminist anti-male jokes are a celebration of our freedom of speech and are probably medicinal for the victims, why limit the jokes to men? What about some racist or cripple jokes? There is a whole field of opportunity out there for feminist 'anti-whoever' joke tellers. There are always Aboriginal men who could cop a bagging, which could kill two birds with one stone. Go get 'em, grrls.

Speaking for myself and the greater rump of the community, we will be trying to make the lot of our fellow man and woman a little better today and tomorrow, because that is where we find enjoyment and meaning in life.

No wonder young women run screaming from feminists!

Cornflower, I'm not sure who you are addressing, but as one of those arguing for freedom of expression, you're incorrect in assuming that people can either tell jokes or try to make the world a better place. People frequently do both, and being very good at the former can transform into the latter. Eddie Izzard makes my world a better place. So does Ricky Gervais. So does Sarah Silverman. And etc.

The purpose of humour is not to attack but to MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH. Not all people, but some people. I don't think anything should be off limits, but it becomes pretty obvious when someone is motivated by anger or hatred rather than humour. It may offend, it may not. We can heckle, make fun of it, drown it out, walk away from it. My point is simply that no one should have the right to prohibit its existence.

I'd also add the "feminist humour" doesn't appear to be the problem. (Can anyone give us an example of "feminist humour" other than Gloria Steinam's period routine from the 60s?) The men-bagging stuff this article is about is the kind of lame, cliched, women's mag stuff.