WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by virtue on 2008-04-08 13:48:21 +0000

For the thirty dollars, you can prevent other women in a different part of Africa from being raped or beaten, by supporting solar cookery.

Posted by virtue on 2008-04-08 14:07:50 +0000

One last thing. Sexual violence is not a universal, but always occurs in a specific cultural and historical context. Most rapists are men, but most men aren't rapists. While I would say that our gang (which does not have the most even sex/gender distribution, in case you hadn't noticed) abhors sexual violence, we are frequently loose with our language, and even looser with ironic jokes, sometimes about violence and violence (sometimes sexual) against women. So while we're thinking globally, I'd like to call for some local action. Violence is not a joking matter, even if we have all been culturally trained to think that it is (e.g., almost any loony tunes short). Let's all observe ourselves, and see just how often we do joke about violence, of any kind, and especially sexual violence. When do we do it? Why do we think it would be appropriate, and why do we find it funny? Why do we assume that others would find it funny (otherwise you wouldn't tell the joke, right?)?

Posted by Miriam on 2008-04-08 14:37:12 +0000

Thanks for sharing this! It's nice to know that there are organizations that are providing tangible ways for us to help with the crisis. I've passed the link along to several people in my office, and hopefully our local Darfur Coalition will run with it.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-04-08 14:37:21 +0000

Hear hear!

Posted by Miriam on 2008-04-08 14:38:05 +0000

Second that.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-08 14:47:46 +0000

Thought-provoking stuff, for sure. And I wish I could watch the film tonight, but alas the only HBO over here is Hoger Beroeps Onderwijs (sort of a Dutch technical college degree). As for the humor about violence and sexual violence, I wonder if I'm so accustomed to hearing it that I don't notice it, or if I don't hear it because I'm so rarely around in person - is this rideside joking or back porch joking? I'm curious partly because most of my friends are men and I mainly hang out with men. I wonder if I've stopped noticing that kind of humor. I do remember being fairly shocked on a few occasions, but that was a long time (more than 10 years) ago. Edited to add: Just to play devil's advocate, a lot of humor revolves around saying something socially inappropriate, and the men in our group are nonviolent and supportive. While I do recall some humor which I found shocking, I have never felt unsafe around these guys. In fact, the men I have felt unsafe around in my life have been of the "oh, you can't talk like that - there are ladies present" variety. That being said, I do support what you're saying here, and I am in favor of raising awareness in ourselves.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-04-08 15:05:07 +0000

I'd say, too, that this applies to sexual violence in the gay world. Not a funny thing, but it's something I hear being joked about, probably for the same reason, that it's funny because it's a socially inappopriate thing to say. Honestly, it's kind of strange to hear gay rape jokes and innuendos being told by straight friends. I don't take it seriously, but it's odd.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-08 15:15:28 +0000

Oh, absolutely - humor about violence & sexual violence isn't limited to the straight variety, I'm 100% with you there. While gay jokes don't really seem to be told over here, violent crime against the gay community here is Amsterdam has been on the rise in recent years. Very depressing, for what is meant to be one of the world's gay capitals - a place where anyone should feel safe walking down the street holding hands with anyone else. Personally, I'd rather have a few "soap in the shower" jokes than to read about people getting attacked by homophobic gangs while walking home.

Posted by jbcardinale on 2008-04-08 17:18:15 +0000

http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905 My son gave me the above book for Christmas. Tragically the horror that King Leopold wrought is to some extent systemically responsible for the horror of today in the Congo or at least the lack of progress since colonial occupation by Belgium. I'm reserving comment on the humor issue for the moment....

Posted by virtue on 2008-04-08 19:26:23 +0000

In response to the second paragraph, I think it's probably a combination of both not being around and being accustomed to it. I've been doing more contemporary books at work recently, and have come across a number of social science-y books talking about rape, violence and masculinities, both in general and in American culture/history. Pretty grim stuff, and not material that I have a lot of familiarity with. So I've been thinking about it more than before, which is why I think I've noticed some instances of joking that in the cold light of day are of questionable taste. I did not mean to imply that I think these jokes are pervasive, or are prevalent to the exclusion of other kinds of humor. But they are there, and they are not exceptions to the norm. I may even have laughed and found them funny myself. I just want to call into question some of the underlying meanings, and encourage us to collectively work to end some of the worst tendencies of our society. For example, the men "of the 'oh, you can't talk like that-there are ladies present' variety." These men still believe that "ladies" are different then men, and need to be protected, which in turn implies that one may make jokes about this other class of women, who are not ladies, and need not be protected, but may be abused at will. Now we might not believe that, and because we don't believe that we don't protect each other from it. But does that change the fact that jokes about violence against women are essentially dehumanizing women? I don't feel that I could productively engage in a conversation about the function of humor, or how much of it revolves around the socially inappropriate, though I'd be interested if someone were willing to explain it, or recommend sources. I do think that off color humor occupies a space at the edge of acceptability, and that some of its power probably does come from the unacceptable. Sometimes the line between funny and evil is quite clear; dead baby jokes are funny but dead babies aren't. Sometimes its less clear. What about retard jokes? The boys who raped and horribly abused the developmentally disabled girl in New Jersey (15-20 years ago I think) thought that was funny. Through joking they completely distanced themselves from her humanity. We in turn distance ourselves from those young men--they are outliers, not the norm. But there are likely a lot of people who engage in less extreme but still offensive and hurtful behavior because they think its funny, and we (our society), might look down on such humor, but very rarely do we individuals stand up and say, no it's not funny when you laugh at a young woman who doesn't understand that you aren't really complimenting her, or why the bus full of kids is laughing at her (though she very well may realize that they are laughing *at* her). It seems to be a very slippery slope. Theoretically, we *know* the difference between jokes and reality --do our listeners? Could we be debasing ourselves (by which I mean diminishing our own humanity) by participating? Are we becoming too inured to what's wrong to try and change it? Can we really say that we are immune to the power of culture and society? Is it really healthy for us to find jokes that debase others funny? I do find it interesting that you found it necessary to say that you have never felt unsafe around our gang, especially since in my original post I assumed that we abhor sexual violence. For me it speaks to the strong link in our minds between word and deed, even when we attempt to separate them, which is why I raised the problem in the first place.

Posted by Miriam on 2008-04-08 20:03:25 +0000

Thanks for mentioning this book. I've been working my way through it for years. Very sobering, and unfortunately, sets the tone for modern times.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-08 20:04:16 +0000

I guess my comment regarding not feeling unsafe around "our boys" was related to feeling a bit protective toward them, which may be interesting in itself. I'm aware of the sensitivities of straight boys, and I have difficulties in being aware of those sensitivities without assuaging them. This may or may not be related to my apparent inability to relate to straight men without flirting with them. Huh. ********************************** Horrifically, gang rapes of developmentally delayed girls happen every few years. You're referring to the first one that got a lot of publicity. Other attacks have happened in other states since. I can't remember if the New Jersey one was the one involving a baseball bat or not. And last year a group of kids over here in Holland were finally brought up on charges after 6 years of systematic abuse against a severely autistic young man. And last year in England 4 teenagers befriended an adult developmentally delayed man, then started filming themselves kicking the shit out of him every day after school. In the end they kicked his head in and he died. These are the images that come up in my mind when I hear "retard" jokes. I'm pretty vocal about how jokes like that make me feel about the teller. I have been known to walk up to strangers, give them my best evil eye, and say, "What? Excuse me? I didn't quite hear you. Oh, you weren't talking to me? Huh." I've recently perfected the don't-you-dare-make-a-rude-remark-you-little-bastard-or-I'll-rip-your-face-off glare. Which is why I was kind of surprised to read your post about examining the amount of violence (both sexual and non) in our group's humor. In the past, say, 10 years I don't think I've heard anything stronger than the ever-popular and gender-neutral "Honey, I'm home, now give me a smoothie!" But as I say, maybe I don't notice these jokes. And that freaks me out a little. I have been told before that I'm a "bad feminist" and even a "self-hating woman", but this generally came from gay men who were mad at me for making fun of their record collections.

Posted by tommy on 2008-04-08 20:41:50 +0000

I have a pretty decent book on the philosophical nature of humor. It's called "Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters" by Ted Cohen. It's actually a pretty light read. Most humor has at least some shock value to it: that's what makes it funny. The shock could be as innocent as an unexpected word choice (pun), or it could be something that would -- outside the context of a joke -- be completely offensive. Context means a lot -- who is telling the joke to whom? What are his (apparent) motives in telling the joke? What effects will the joke likely have on others? Etc. That book I mentioned gives an example of an especially obnoxious joke: - How did the passerby stop a group of black men from committing a gang rape? - He tossed them a basketball. Personally, I think this joke is too offensive to be funny. It almost makes me mad that it exists. However, contrast with another (true) situation, which theoretically should have been even more offensive: At a hockey game a few years ago, they trotted out a 9-or-so year old girl to sing the national anthem. Everyone expected it was for "cuteness" reasons, but man did she belt that anthem out. It was quite impressive. Our follow-up comments went like this (paraphrased except for the last line). Me: "Wow!" Ron: "She was amazing." Bob: "Seriously, that may have been the best singer we've had all year." (short pause) Dave: "I'd like to fuck her in the mouth" It was hilarious. But, we know Dave, and know that he is not really an advocate of sodomizing little girls. Had it been someone I did not know, then I would have been shocked into outrage rather than laughter. You might be able to make a good argument that people who sexually abuse children are even worse than racists. So, why is the first "joke" so abhorrent to me, when the second one made me laugh so hard I cried? The context, not the content. I don't think anyone's worse off for Dave's wisecrack. But, perhaps we are worse off for the basketball one -- it seems like it was intended to cause harm. Also, regarding the 'ladies present' people. I agree with you in principle -- gender should not matter. However, when telling a joke that could be hurtful, you ought to consider its effects on your audience. For example, Dave should not have made his joke in a playground in front of a group of moms watching their kids. So, I do think it's appropriate to tell different jokes to "people like me" and to "people not like me". Not because "people not like me" are somehow not as good as me, but because I can't predict what sort of harm, offense, etc. they might take.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2008-04-08 21:02:05 +0000

I know Dave, too, so I don't feel bad about laughing, or that I'm still giggling.

Posted by jbcardinale on 2008-04-08 21:11:19 +0000

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3654740.ece This is just reprehensible on so many levels, but how many people's first reaction is to make light of it. It makes me hear "Less Than Zero" in my head, "calling Mr. Oswald with the swastika tattoo ...

Posted by virtue on 2008-04-08 21:57:48 +0000

Crap, I just accidentally deleted my post. meh. Meeting someone shortly, so quick recap: i was speaking of quality not quantity (re-read original post, used word "sometimes") Bad feminist, self hating [whatever]=unproductive terms [that the man uses to keep us down?] Girl who can't help pandering to the sensitivities of straight (mostly white) boys=some kinda fucked up (identified as bf or shw by the unkind, I say it's for you and your therapist to discuss)

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-09 04:55:14 +0000

To be honest, I don't think it's so complicated. I'm empathetic toward pretty much everyone. I cry every time I watch (or even read) the news. Sometimes I get choked up when I see wee little old people struggling to walk down the street. I have an almost overpowering urge to help pretty much everyone I see, hear about, read about, watch on tv. I refuse to watch reality television on principle, but I'd probably want to give all those idiots a big ole hug. But as for the straight boys thing... I've dated some pretty sensitive guys over the years (some mind-bogglingly so), and I've been frustrated - and at times enraged - over how these young men feel about themselves and how confused they feel about their role(s). Yeah, I feel protective toward certain types of men. Does that make me sexist? I guess so. Problematic? Well, I guess that too. But I also feel like we can't make things girls-against-boys and I do take a certain amount of pride in being a gender transgressor in that sense. And I don't understand your codes. Which is probably a good thing. I don't really want to think about what kinds of names people might call me.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-09 05:02:57 +0000

Yeah, I agree that the joke you quote isn't suitable for "mixed company" as my father would say. And your explanation of the implementation of that rule makes sense to me too. The "ladies present" type of guys I referred to are a step beyond that common courtesy level - the men who think women don't/shouldn't swear, raise their voices, belch, fart, want sex, enjoy sex, etc. I've encountered very few over there, but quite a few over here. These are the ones that scare me and have made me feel unsafe. John Cleese did an excellent interview for PBS some years back about humor. He name-checked some books which sounded interesting, and said that in his view nothing is off-limits in principle, but some things are off-limits in certain situations.

Posted by virtue on 2008-04-09 11:23:20 +0000

Thanks, Pamsterdam, for succinctly explaining how the "ladies" present" guys we were talking about differ from context sensitive. joke tellers. I was struggling to put my finger on it.

Posted by virtue on 2008-04-09 11:55:07 +0000

Sorry about the code confusion--bf=bad feminist and shw=self-hating woman. Throwing out the quick recap of a longer post wasn't the best choice I could have made to sustain a conversation, and I apologize for that. I remain fascinated, however, by the terms you choose, Pamsterdam, in your replies that weren't in my original posts. In this case, "sexist," and "girls-against-boys." I've been deliberately trying to avoid framing my arguments in terms like those, so I'd be interested to know where you find them, since I'd be the first to agree that our words can reveal things about ourselves that the speaker is the last to recognize. To that end, I understand you to be saying that the rigidly defined gender roles at work in our society are as damaging to men/boys as they are to women/girls, and that it can be very difficult for anyone who doesn't easily fit the gender norms to navigate life. If that's what you're saying, I agree completely. I do think that a tendency to identify and automatically move to assuage the troubles of a traditionally privileged class can be very problematic, even if in your case it's the product of your highly empathic nature, and part of a general tendency to identify and assuage the troubles of everyone. My further silence today should not necessarily be construed as an end to the conversation, but as proof that I actually do need to things at my job, all appearances to the contrary.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-09 13:19:04 +0000

You, my dear, are delightful. Sorry - coming from a bullied background I was convinced that the bf/shw codes stood for something mysterious and scary (the first things that popped into my mind were 'bitchfucker' and 'stupidhairywhore'). I have a bad habit of jumping to the conclusion "everyone hates me! must eat worms!" There is - as there usually is with me - a long story attached. Apologies in advance for this. My father's earliest memory is of playing with a Raggedy Andy doll out in front of his mother's apartment building in Queens, and when the garbage man came to collect the trash he said, "Oh, I didn't know you were a little girl. I thought you were a little boy." Dad threw Raggedy Andy into the garbage man's trash can as he passed, and received an approving nod in return. When I was growing up, Dad used to say that he envied the Greeks & Italians in his neighborhood who "could show emotion and still be 'men'." At first I didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Later I guess I got an inkling. My first year of university I had a blown-up copy of the cover of an early 70's Ms magazine on my dorm room door with the cover story: "Are YOU ready for male liberation?" I'm a firm believer in liberation liberating both the oppressor and the oppressed. There's a beautiful quote in James Baldwin's 'The Fire Next Time' which I don't have immediate access to, but it basically says that as long as I'm being held down, stuck in place, you're just as stuck in place as you hold me down - we're both trapped in a vicious circle. I have to admit that I take a certain amount of pleasure in describing some of my ideas as "sexist" - I remember a young man in one of my African American culture classes at UNH saying something along the lines that we're all racist, we all have racism in is, and we have to accept and face up to that before we can even begin to make changes - in ourselves, in our social circles, in our communities, in our world. That thought has stayed with me, and I do think it applies to all forms of prejudice. Our brains operate in such a way that they like to put things into boxes - I find that for myself, I have to be vigilant in avoiding boxing things up altogether, revisiting boxes, opening them up, and sometimes discarding them. It may be disingenuous of me, but I would argue that (or at least make a mild case for) the fact that you deliberately chose to avoid those words speaks to their connection to this conversation in our culture's mindscape. Or perhaps my boxes are showing. As for the traditionally privileged class, I can't help but point out that the men I hang out with have in some way rejected (and been rejected by) societal expectations. As a favorite t-shirt of mine reads, "I love dirty boys with no money". And I do. But yeah, I gots me some problematic behaviors. One of which may or may not be skiving...

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-09 12:34:50 +0000

Aw, shucks. :o)

Posted by G lib on 2008-04-09 13:22:16 +0000

I'd like to clear a few things up here for Pamsterdam: 1. Yeah, I feel protective toward certain types of men. Does that make me sexist? No. It's evidence of you having the bloodiest of bleeding hearts. And everyone has their soft spots-- yours just happens to be vulnerability. The only time, this kind of emotion/action is problematic is when you (I mean this generally, not you Pamsterdam) subsume your thoughts feelings ideas emotions to the detriment of yourself in order to help someone else. But who hasn't done that, girl or boy? 2. I don't believe in self-hating women. It's just a term to describe someone who has really really bad self-esteem and are desperate for love and belonging and some self-love. 3. You flirt with everyone, not just straight boys. There's more, I just can't think of it right now...

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-09 13:37:07 +0000

Oh my God, I think I'm in love with you. Um, oops - there I go again. :o) No, but seriously - you're awesome. 1. Yeah. Very astute observation. 2. It was actually BGM who said this. It was 1992 and I had just told him that I despised Alanis Morisette. And Tori Amos. And Sarah Maclachlan. He got all huffy and told me that "The only female artists you like are men in drag, like Joan Jett and freaking Madonna. You hate women! You're a self-hating woman!" Of course, he now denies this ever happened. 3. Gimme some sugar, baby.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2008-04-09 13:49:01 +0000

Could you ladies stop putting your fingers on each others sensitive contexts?

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-09 14:12:48 +0000

Whatever you say, sweet cheeks!

Posted by virtue on 2008-04-09 17:25:22 +0000

But that's how they taught me to do it at the Institute for Sexual Wholeness!

Posted by Miriam on 2008-04-10 14:52:45 +0000

Saw the last hour of the documentary last night. Pretty intense. There are generations of women, entire villages, completely traumatized because they've been gang raped. The interviews with the soldiers who did it are horrifying. They equate the rape with magic power to help them win battles, but many of them would kill someone else who raped their mother, sister, wife or daughter. Completely heartbreaking. An entire nation seems to be lost becuase of war. Education is at a virtual standstill. People are going hungry due to fear of rape if they go too far out of the village to gather food. Hard to watch, hard to hear the stories, but some of the work being done with the women is very inspiring.

Posted by virtue on 2008-04-10 15:03:32 +0000

You might be braver than me--I don't know if I'll be able to watch it at all. Pamsterdam's not the only one who gets all choked up--I can barely see the keyboard from just thinking about it.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-10 15:10:47 +0000

I hear you, sister. That's the reason why I leave a box of Kleenex next to the computer.

Posted by G lib on 2008-04-10 15:21:01 +0000

saps.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-10 15:22:24 +0000

Posted by Miriam on 2008-04-10 20:10:20 +0000

I watched documentary about drugs and their influence on mainstream society after that. Helped me clear my head before attempting sleep. Luckily didn't have any nightmares...real or imagined.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-04-11 08:16:41 +0000

I can't believe no one's taken me up on the awesome set-up above. Fine. I'll do it myself. "A box of Kleenex next to the computer? I wouldn't be sure you're the only one getting use out of it!" Yes, I still have the sense of humor of a 14-year-old boy. So sue me.

Posted by virtue on 2008-05-02 14:22:55 +0000

I sort of forgot about this thread, and never looked up the book that tommy mentioned, and then today I came across "The Fraternal Bond as a Joking Relationship : A Case Study of the Role of Sexist Jokes in Male Group Bonding," in Men's Lives, 7th ed. So here are a couple of paragraphs addressing the sociology of jokes that I find really interesting. "Although we conventionally think of jokes as a meaningless part of the dramaturgy of everyday life, this convention is part of the way that the social function of jokes is concealed and is necessary if jokes are to 'work.' It is when jokes fail that the social conflicts that the joke was to reconstruct or 'negotiate' are uncovered, and the tensions and emotions that underlie the conventional order of everyday social relations are revealed. Joking is a special kind of social relationship that suspends the rules of everyday life in order to preserve them. Jokes indirectly express the emotions and tensions that may disrupt everyday life in by 'negotiating' them, reconstituting group solidarity by shared aggression and cathartic laughter. The ordinary consequences of forbidden words are suspended by meta-linguistic gestures (tones of voice, facial expressions, catch phrases) that sent the message, 'this is a joke,' and emotions that would ordinarily endanger a social relationship can be spoken safely within the micro-world created by the 'the [sic] joke form.' Yet jokes are not just stories, they are a theater of domination in everyday life, and the success or failure of a joke marks the boundary within which power and aggression may be used in a relationship. Nearly all jokes have an aggressive content, indeed shared aggression toward an outsider is one of the primary ways by which a group may overcome internal tension and assert its solidarity. Jokes both require and renew social bonds..." This piece goes on to distinguish sexual jokes (told by individual men to women) from sexist jokes (told by men in groups). I do find these men and masculinities books fascinating (other articles in this book include "'Dude, You're a Fag: Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse," "Sissy Boy, Progressive Parents," "Ritualized Homosexuality in Nacirema Subculture," which is so fucking awesome that I think I'm going to photocopy it and bring it to the wads, "Confessions of a Recovering Misogynist," and "The Male Consumer as Loser: Beer and Liquor Ads in Mega Sports Media Events," to name a few). There are real truths in the collective descriptions of people provided by sociology and anthropology, yet somehow these truths are utterly inadequate in describing our individual selves. Yet our individual selves are never (almost never?) so autonomous that we can escape the characteristics of our group(s). Goddammit, I hate being just like everybody else. I'm fucking special, I tell you.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-05-02 14:34:44 +0000

Posted by G lib on 2008-05-02 14:37:18 +0000

Me too. You can tell by the jaunty way I'm wearing my very original scarf today before eating my organic, pesticide-free salad for lunch.

Posted by MF DU on 2008-05-04 11:42:35 +0000

Though I honestly don't feel like I have much to contribute to this thread, I am enjoying it and it gives me pause for thought. Good work, RSN posters!.