<<Ethically speaking, if Celivia, Veronika and others believed what they say they would be advocating change to the anti-discrimination laws. After all, if it is acceptable to make certain jokes on OLO and in public, why should a female worker be able to complain about similar comments, jokes and behaviour at work?>>

The joke about women's shelters does not suggest that all men beat women up. It satirizes the view that all men beat women up.

And if men are offended by it or don't get it, or a woman is offended by a similar joke directed at women, so what? I want to live in a country where freedom of expression is a higher value than anyone's right not to be offended. I like offense. I think it's a sign of a healthy, free society.

I certainly don't think people should be discriminated against in a work situation. However, I don't necessarily agree that making jokes is discrimination. Or that it is advisable to outlaw it. We cannot legislate what people find funny.

I don't believe the best way to convince people that racism and sexism are rather stupid premises on which to base a worldview by legislating against them. I think we do it by airing them, by arguing them, by satirising them.

Veronika

'There are feminists who are very humourless and I find it very tiresome.'

Are there? Or is this another one of those persistent myths about what 'some' feminists do, that is designed to implicate all feminists by its sheer repetition. When repeated persistently over a long period of time, people lose the ability to question it - even feminists themselves.

The myth of the humourless feminist is like the myth of the bra burner ... Feminists never burned their bras, but the lie has been told for so long and so often that even many feminists assume it to be the truth.

Try spending a night at a Germaine Greer lecture. She's one of the funniest public speakers I've ever encountered. Also, there are quite a few witty feminist websites, like Feministing, which are great at taking the piss out of feminism's sworn enemies.

In fact, I've never met a feminist who doesn't know how to have a good laugh. The difference is that they don't laugh at humour that degrades or belittles women. Why should they? Why should anyone?

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

"There are men who are assaulted by women and they find it very hard to get their complaints treated seriously either because stereotypically, women are seen as nurturers, incapable of violence."

Men who complain about violence by women are often viewed as weak or even gay by other men because they dared to speak up. The fear of such a response prevents others from speaking up. If it was ok for men to be more outspoken about violence committed against them by women then society might just begin to realise how big a problem this is.

misschief,

Agree but that should be: 'Men who complain about violence by women are often viewed as weak or even gay by other men AND WOMEN because they dared to speak up.'

Of course there are tasteless jokes about men being assaulted/dominated by their wives - which only serve to send the problem deeper underground. If it is all so funny, why is the fellow with the split scalp not laughing?

Cornflower et al

“…they would be advocating change to the anti-discrimination laws.”
The only changes to the anti-discrimination laws that I would consider advocating for are our religious school’s exemptions from the anti-sex discrimination laws.

Although I recognise that there are some jokes that are hateful and some can be out of place, I can see no harm in laughing at the kind of jokes posted by people on this thread.

As an example of what I'd call hateful would be the racist tirade by Michael Richards (Kramer) some time ago.

In contrast, take someone like Steady-Eddy, with totally different intentions. His jokes could offer relief and understanding.
Others tell jokes to help make a point, or because humour makes it easier to discuss a controversial issue, or a taboo.

I think that it’s not so much the jokes themselves that can be either taken as humour or insult, but it all depends on the intention of the joker, the context, the timing, the place and how well one knows his/her public or readers.

Like Veronika, I do value freedom of expression. I value it more than political correctness.
If we have to be pc all of the time we’ll have to tip-toe around women and men, the tall and the short, the coloured and the white, the elderly and the young, the religious and the atheist, the dumb and the smart, the obese and the skinny, the fornicators and the celibate, the rich and the poor, the blondes, brunettes, and the mothers-in-law, too.
Select any group in our society and there will be jokes to be found directed at them.

‘Targets’ just have to realise that jokes are part of life and that most jokers don’t mean harm. Life would be pretty boring and restricted if we had to live without this form of expression.

Jokers, on the other hand, need to make sure that their intention is healthy.
Expressing anger by aiming hurtful jokes or ridicule at certain people is not a healthy way of managing anger.

[Celivia] ‘Like Veronika, I do value freedom of expression. I value it more than political correctness.’

Expression is a two-way street.

If you value freedom of expression, then you have to also value the right of people to EXPRESS their distaste for certain types of humour, especially genres that target certain groups. More importantly, you have to value people’s right to EXPRESS concern for how such humour may negatively affect the self-esteem of the targeted group and society’s perception of it.

‘Targets’ just have to realise that jokes are part of life and that most jokers don’t mean harm.

I disagree. 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.

If these jokes didn’t have a harmful purpose, albeit often mildly so, why do so many people refrain from using them out of concern for their effect on people? Of course, some can be quite funny, but I'm sure that I speak for many people in saying that the underlying malevolence has a way of cancelling out the fun.

‘Life would be pretty boring and restricted if we had to live without this form of expression.’

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.