Racist, Sexist and other-ist Jokes

There's been a bit of a stir lately about this issue, and I thought it might be interesting to discuss the issues away from the actual jokes.Contracycle (please correct me if I'm wrong) has claimed that all racist and sexist jokes serve to dehumanise the target, and thus serve as a precursor to more serious discrimination. Mr Hambre (again, please correct me if I'm wrong) has countered that this is simply PC rubbish and that racist/sexist jokes are a part of freedom and free speech.In the interest of getting this to go somewhere I think we could perhaps start by seeing if we can get agreement on this statement:In some cases at least racist, sexist and other-ist jokes serve to dehumanise the targets and as a reinforcement mechanism within communities holding such a bias.

Only if you add, when done regularly and forcefully they also Humanize the target by pointing out how silly the stereotypes are.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yep, I agree.I have to admit that B2P's joke:Q: What do you do when your wife is staggering around the living room?A: Shoot her again.wasn't funny to me at all.but then I retaliated with a man-murder joke of my own.Of course, very few men are murdered by their wives or girlfriends compared to many, many women being murdered by their husbands and boyfriends. A lot of women kill in self-defense, too.I do have to say that I think there is a difference between jokes that highlight a physical or behavioral characteristic, such as asian's slanted eyes and men's refusal to ask directions and jokes that are making light of murder and horrible abuses.On the other hand, I just told a funny but very off-color Jewish joke to one of the partners in the business I work for, and he loved it, and even improved the punchline. Of course, I know he loves bad jokes and I know he is also the most egalitarian person I have ever known. He's also Jewish.I think you have to know your audience, but I also think that anything can be joked about. Yes, you CAN joke about violence against women, but not in a way that makes it funny that a woman is staggering around because she has just been shot. Anyone who can picture that in their minds and think it is funny is one sick bastard.

When we try to teach very young children about complex moral issues, we usually oversimplify things so they at least get the overall message if not every subtle nuance. It's expected that, as the children gain maturity, their capacity to understand these issues more fully will develop. Then they will realize that the ethical world is made up of a variety of gray areas that originally seemed black and white to them.Most mature humans would feel some hesitation, some ordinary compunction, about lecturing others about "hate speech" because of jokes posted on an anonymous Internet message board. Most realistic people would at least have qualms that their moral indignation may be misplaced if they were not aware of the ethnic or gender makeup of the board's members. This, of course, is what completely defuses the entire notion of "hate speech," that people can be secure enough not only to put stupid jokes in the proper perspective, but also to find humor in the ingenuity of comments that otherwise would have offended them.Unfortunately, not everyone is as mature and realistic as we expect. As we see in the Creationist view of scientific endeavor, it's much easier to cling to the notion that life is black and white. Whatever oversimplifications comforted us as children, in that view, should serve us ably as adults. Most importantly, to these people there is only one right way to think. Anyone deviating from their narrowly defined norm is wrong, in a very real and moral way.Our pal contracycle here has asserted that humor targeting races or genders (among other things, I assume) is "hate speech," which he asserts is not a protected form of expression in the Constitutional sense. He says that such jokes are the mere prelude to the systematic dehumanization of genocide, and those of us who take part in this joking are supporting the extermination of the people about whom we're joking. I am in no way suggesting that racist or sexist jokes are never told with the intention to demean others. I am suggesting that it is our responsibility in a free society to realize that even the most insulting and offensive speech is still mere speech. Freedom of speech that extends to only the opinions or ideas that we agree with is not freedom of speech.In the case of those of us who don't support racist or sexist measures in public policy, I guess contracycle would say that we’re unwitting minions of the Hate Conspiracy, being gradually brainwashed by our own hate rhetoric to despise (and later eliminate) the targets of our bad jokes. In the case of people who have told jokes about their own ethnic group or gender, contracycle must feel that this is indicative of suicidal self-loathing, and these people are actively preaching destruction of their own kind.This is the kind of shallow, irrational thinking we deplore in Creationists, and it shouldn’t be paid any more mind than that. I don’t share contracycle’s fear of free speech, and I don’t share his mistrust of the intentions of intelligent people here at EvC.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-30-2004 11:13 AM

Several years ago I was standing with a group of associates (all Caucasian) as we "shot the breeze" during a coffee break. At one point we were approached by a salesman (who was Black) needing some information on which administrative offices he should contact in connection with his job.One of our group, (Gary B.), led the man to his desk, provided the assistance and direction, and the man then left.Only a matter of minutes later, still on break, we look up to see this same salesman approaching our group once again. Coming up close, he points to first one of us and then another, each time asking, "Was it you I just talked to?" . . "Was it you?"When we pointed out to him that it was Gary B. (still over by his desk) that he had talked to previously, he laughed and said, "Oh well, all you white guys look alike."We thought it was hilarious, and it occurred to me that what we were all really laughing at (both the Black salesman and ourselves) was the stereotype itself, and not either race.Amlodhi

It is hard for me to believe that all racist or culturally biased jokes are meant to humiliate. They are meant to make us laugh at the human condition, including our foibles and problems. Take Jeff Foxworthy, for example. He has made a living telling redneck jokes to REDNECKS. He gets his biggest laughs by making fun of his own audience. What do I do when black comedians make jokes about white people? I laugh my ass off (I am caucasian, btw). What isn't funny is people that aren't able to see past the intention of humor and instead try to pin their own insecurities on other people. At the same time, we can't expect everyone to see the humor, or understand why some people are comfortable about having jokes made about them. Lam is a good example. He welcomes Asian jokes, as I welcome redneck, white trash, and evil white man jokes. In the long run, I think it is advantageous to laugh at racially centered jokes since it beats the alternative, acting on racially centered bigotry.

I think there's a fine line between laughing at the fact that stereotypes exist, and actually perpetuating the stereotypes themselves. To demonstrate this I'll give you an example of how things can be a bit fuzzy:A while ago in the UK ther was a sit com series which included a character called Alf Garnet. He was a racist, sexist, homophobic moron and I thought the series was quite funny - but some people got the wrong end of the stick. I saw an interview with the actor who played him and he recalled an encounter at a football match. It went something like this:"I love the show Alf, especially when you make fun of the coons!""You don't get it do you? We're taking the piss out of wankers like you!"Now I think the show definitely fell into the 'laughing at stereotypes' category (Alf Garnet is obviously the butt of the jokes - he is clearly an idiot) but the distinction is not so clear when I read some of the jokes that have been posted. If you're making fun of the attitude, then why not tell jokes about the bigots themselves?I don't want to be labelled as knocking free speech, but I've got to say that some of the jokes that have been bandied around in the last few days have made me feel very uncomfortable. I have no real doubt as to the intentions of the joke-tellers, but the jokes themselves would not be out of place coming out of the mouths of card carrying bigots - should people condone this? Because there's nothing in them to say 'look what a silly attitude this is' its' quite a tricky thing to call.Just my twopenneth

In burlesque, no one was sacred and everyone was the butt of the joke. The worst stereotypes of the Judge on the bench, the cop on the street, the businessman in his club, the prostitute, Jew, Irishman, German, Christian, Muslim, Chinaman, Negro, crook, gambler, preacher, saint, dancer, singer, clown, tightrope walker, best friend, gossip, brother, sister, parent child, teacher, boss, worker, rich, poor, hod carrier or tycoon...all were paraded, and celebrated.Jokes and parody can hurt, but only when they reveal a truth. The jokes and parody are not what offends, it is what is inside us, the recognition that we too may have held such beliefs that offends.If we can say, "Yes, that is a stereotype and false", then the point has been made. If it is missed, rest assured, it will be realized when it is your turn on stage.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You make some good points. I personally think that this subject is tied tightly to the notion of ambiguity, and the Alf Garnett (in the USA, Archie Bunker) character is a case study in this phenomenon. My father used to howl laughing at Archie Bunker's bigoted comments, and I assume Norman Lear (the liberal creator of the TV show featuring Bunker) was well aware that certain people were simply not going to get the joke. Add to the irony the fact that even liberal groups denounced the show as offensive, proving that people on both sides of the ideological fence can miss the point.During the Sixties, comic Lenny Bruce had a brilliant bit called "How to Relax Your Colored Friends at Parties" that mined humor from the same ambiguity. It's a hysterically funny sketch, and it makes us realize how ingrained prejudice is, no matter how tolerant we consider ourselves. The white guy is sitting nervously next to a black guest, and breaks the ice with, "That Bojangles! Christ, could he tap dance!" You can imagine how the rest of it goes, with the white guy delivering every racist line in the book but feeling good about himself because he's being so nice and liberal by deigning to communicate with this black fellow. Are we laughing at the dumb honky? Of course, but we're also laughing at his racist humor, and so we're no better than he is. The fact that Bruce doesn't exempt us nice white folk from culpability won't make pandering PC fools feel any better, but the fact remains that it's a hilarious and profound bit.Nowadays, when we encounter a bigot in comedy, he is always safely separated from the rest of us nice enlightened people. There's no ambiguity between the racism, sexism, or homophobia expressed by a character and the squeaky clean consciences of the audience. I'm not just talking about tripe like Becker, but also a supposedly anti-PC (and certainly funny) show like South Park. The Bad Prejudiced Person gets to say a lot of naughty things, but he always gets his comeuppance at the hands of his multicultural co-workers or neighbors. The legacy of political correctness has made us unable to recognize our own prejudices, and only lambaste others for theirs.regards,
Esteban Hambre

MrHambre, I'm going off topic slightly, but this reminds me of an incident I witnessed years ago. I was working in a pub, & overheard this skinhead type with this, "blacks this, blacks that" kind of speak. Ten minutes later his (black) mate came in. Clearly everyone at the bar was friends with this fellow, & was clearly fond of him. I cannot understand to this day their racist bigotry in the absence of their black friend, whilst at the same time they had so much time for him as an individual of that group. The racist language stopped the instant he appeared.I can only conclude these people were mirroring their cultural east-end-of-London Alf Garnet language without pausing to think that they actually weren't particularly racist at all (which is encouraging). It was disturbing, & kind of comforting at the same time.Wierd.It has occurred to me since then that a lot of people that spout racist language "in the bar", so to speak, aren't when it comes to dealing with people equitably. My father, bless him, has been the most outrageous racist whilst drunk around the dinner table, but has stuck his neck out for asians who work in his "team" at work at the expense of the layabout white guy.Again, wierd. Why is that? There seems to be some strange abstract scenario when dealing with other groups as a whole, that don't apply when dealing with those people singly.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I agree, parody is a very effective humour, and jokes involving stereotypes can be very funny. The stumbling block comes when defining the butt of the joke becomes difficult: are we really laughing at the person telling the joke or the race, sex (or whatever) of the subject?In other words, it's context dependent. In an environment where everyone accepts that the object of mirth is the idiot who believes such stereotypes (as you described) then it is funny. In the context of a one or two line joke then it is (in my mind), a little to close to saying: "I'm not a racist, but..." I disagree with this. They hurt when they pretend to be the truth.

This probably sums up my thoughts on the matter - the definition of the fuzzy line I was talking about. Making people feel uncomfortable and start to examine they're own ideas about race etc is what makes this kind of humour sharp. When my own personal see-saw tips too far the wrong way however, I stop laughing.It's all context dependent, so from my point of view:Friendly joking between people (like a man and a woman exchanging sexist jokes, and in doing so exposing the stupidity in either attitude) is healthy whilst just churning out jokes because they 'challenge society' should always lead to questions.

Don't forget about the people that are listening to the jokes. I personally try to stay away from insecured people because everything you say has the potential to being an insult to them.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

schrafinator writes:

quote:

---

Of course, very few men are murdered by their wives or girlfriends compared to many, many women being murdered by their husbands and boyfriends.

---

Incorrect.F'rinstance, according to the FBI UCR in 1995, 499 men were murdered by their wives/girlfriends while 976 women were murdered by their husbands/boyfriends. In 1996, those numbers were 475 to 813.I should point out that the FBI's report mangles the data when reporting murder rates by relationship. That is in its discussion, the UCR says: But how did it come up with those percentages? It compares the number of men killed by a wife/girlfriend in ratio to the total number of men killed with the number of women killed by a husband/boyfriend in ratio to the total number of women killed.So for 1995, 16,630 men were killed which means about 3% of men were killed by their wives/girlfriends. 3,752 women were killed which means about 26% of women were killed by their husbands/boyfriends.This provides a false impression that women don't kill their husbands/boyfriends at nearly the same rate because the number of women killed is so much smaller than the number of men killed. Instead, what the FBI's statistic shows is that a woman is more likely to be killed by her husband/boyfriend than a man is to be killed by his wife/girlfriend. And, indeed, men do kill their partners more often than women kill theirs, but not by that much. While the FBI's direct statement is true, it is the phrasing in which it is made that can lead to interpretational error.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Which is all part of the context of the joke isn't it? I know what you mean - I have a few friends that you have to tread carefully with in conversation - but you should be careful not label everyone who objects to (out of context) 'ist humour as insecure or easily offended. Next, you'll be calling me a lilly-livered, bleeding heart liberal