I don't mean to depress you, but...
<a href=http://www.wmm.com/filmcatalog/pages/c709.shtml>The Greatest Silence : Rape in the Congo</a>
The description from one of my umpteen million list-servs:
A survivor of gang rape herself, Emmy-Award(r) winning filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson travels through the DRC to understand what is happening and why. This award-winning documentary features interviews with activists, physicians, even the indifferent rapists who are soldiers of the Congolese Army. But the most moving moments of this film come as dozens of survivors recount their stories with pulverizing honesty and detail, providing inspiring examples of resistance, courage and grace.
Women Make Movies is proud to be distributing THE GREATEST SILENCE: RAPE IN THE CONGO and we invite you to tune in to the national broadcast premiere, April 8 at 10pm on HBO.
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 <i>have</i> 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.
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.
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....
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.
**********************************
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.
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.
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 ...
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)
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.
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.
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.
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...
1. <i>Yeah, I feel protective toward certain types of men. Does that make me sexist?</i>
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...
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.
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.
<i>"A box of Kleenex next to the computer? I wouldn't be sure you're the only one getting use out of it!"</i>
Yes, I still have the sense of humor of a 14-year-old boy. So sue me.
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.