Am I being a cock if I complain about htis being sexist?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
this

I'm really offended and not entirely sure what to do.

hmmm (hmmm), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

It's unavailable, probably due to exceeding some sort of bandwidth limit. What was it?

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:44 (twenty-one years ago)

It was a .pdf of a mock diary describing an couple's evening events from a male and female perspective. The female's is fairly detailed and all about what they had been doing and how they guy was in a mood and didnt say much all day. it finishes with "... I was surprised when we made love. He still seemed distant and a bit cold, and I started to think that he was going to leave me, and that he had found someone else.

I cried myself to sleep"

The guy's diary just says

"Wallabies lost to new zealand

Had sex though"

hmmm (hmmm), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh I remember that. Bit of a dull joke but sexist?

mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I think you would be complaining about a very old joke.

(x-post)

Sexist or stereotypical?

___ (___), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Seems dull and an old joke. Also equally sexist to both parties, so everyone's knickers should be in a twist if anyone's are going to be. Why should one be particularly offended?

xpost

Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm super-sensitive to sexiam, and I laughed. I don't know. Yeah, it's probably sexist (but more sexist towards men than women) but I don't particularly find it offensive, because it doesn't seem to be intended in a mean way, or a way that invokes the power dynamic.

Ma$onic Boom (kate), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

To me, it says all men are interested in is sport and fucking. I think that's quite offensive. I'm tempted to send something back which says soemthing equally as offenseive but with the genders reversed but I'm not entirely sure that would be a good idea. Might have a go at writing something this afternoon.

multiple x-post.

I wonder why I'm being so sensitive to this?

hmmm (hmmm), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not malicious, just something that could have come from any observational 'comedian' over the last 30 years or so.

xpost: hmmmm, it also says that all women overanalyse and invest far too much emotionally in insignificant events.

Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Jokes like this aren't necessarily sexist, but they are doing their job in preserving the status quo, that is, keeping up the false impression that men and women are basically incompatible.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

You are sensitive to it because it is the close season for football. We all get like this. It'll be fine come mid-August.

(x-post)

___ (___), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Kate, did you ever find that Snub TV video with the Buttholes? I know I did....

mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Well yuhuh. Men are from...Mars did you say? Gosh. How interesting.

That was an xpost to Tuomas

Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmmm, this joke is actually reverse sexist. The funniness of reverse sexism is that it is the subversion of the normal status quo. IMHO, I feel that you don't *have* to make sexist jokes about women to prove any point, because society is so inherently sexist.

If you are offended by the joke, think about *why* you're offended by the joke: i.e. gender stereotypes are offensive.

Respond by trying to pay *less* attention to gender stereotypes, rather than responding with *more* gender stereotypes.

Ma$onic Boom (kate), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:05 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm not offended but nor am i amused (old joke). unfortunately there is probably some truth in women thinking more about their relationship than men. it's a generalisation not entirely without foundation.

the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:07 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe it's just retarded, and in trying to intellectualize it you're finding sexism where there's very little ... just stupid, unoriginal humor.

j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I think you need to insert another coupl of 'some's in there Steve. Also nature or nurture eh?

Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Kate how is reinforcing gender stereotypes "reverse sexism", even if takes account of both genders? I'd say it's more like "equal sexism".

Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I now see that I have neglected to mention that this was sent to me by my female office manager. The problem that I have with it is that I would never consider sending anything like this where the majority of the butt of the joke is on the female side, even if it was good, for fear of getting in to a lot of trouble.

hmmm (hmmm), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:11 (twenty-one years ago)

and FWIW there's no such thing as reverse sexism. there's m-f sexism and f-m sexism but it's the same beast.

j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Jeremy, sexism doesn't have to be intentional to actually exist. It's everywhere around us, therefore you can spot it even in "stupid, unoriginal humor".

Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:12 (twenty-one years ago)

That's a different question, Hmmm. That gets into issues of inappropriate office behaviour and of creating a "hostile work environment".

Me, I'd never send *any* questionable joke to a person in an office that I wasn't entirely comfortable with. I would address that issue with your boss, rather than sending back a nasty joke in reply. Because sending back a different sexist joke will just make your boss think it's OK to continue joking.

Ma$onic Boom (kate), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, that's a fair point. I may just mention it to her casually in the pub next time, (after my appraisal next week).

hmmm (hmmm), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

duh, but it's such an over-used term that it's been essentially decoded from its meaning:

"Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. "
"Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender"

Neither of which a pointless and asinine joke about the (perceived) lack of male observancy and preoccupation with sex are doing. It's not exactly PC, nor is it the height of a pithy humor, but I'll take issue with the idea that it actively (or even passively) promotes the stereotyping of men as sex-obsessed boors. It's harmless and dumb, maybe irritating and irksome, but I'd find it a hard sell as actively sexist.

j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Jeremy, the joke fits exactly to your second definition of sexism.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's quite funny. I've seen it before, sure, but it's a decent joke that works. I think a mature grown-up really shouldn't get het up about it, though the evidence is there if you really want to. Seems a waste of worry.

Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the title of this thread is fascinating, hmmm... a little ironic too. And perhaps eveb hypocritical.

You're using a slang name for male genitalia as a derogatory term.

Sexist?

Huey (Huey), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the question is reducible to an issue of promotion vs. observation. e.g. Does the joke promote actively dissimenate and promote the attitude or does it observe (and, problematically, reify the culture / attitude it's lampooning at a level less severe level than proper sexism)

j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 11:50 (twenty-one years ago)

or doesn't it? FAT BITCH TITS I LIKE SUBSERVIANT BROADS.

j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 12:01 (twenty-one years ago)

is that like the norfolk broads?

mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 12:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I once rode on one of the boats in the norfolk broads with jon williams, the night before i turned down sex with a lithuanian princess.

j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 12:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Norfolk "Broads"


Jer, I should post those pictures on ILX!

I CAN LEAD YOU THROUGH THE ZONE (ex machina), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 12:10 (twenty-one years ago)

yes!

j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 12:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the question is reducible to an issue of promotion vs. observation. e.g. Does the joke promote actively dissimenate and promote the attitude or does it observe (and, problematically, reify the culture / attitude it's lampooning at a level less severe level than proper sexism)

Interesting point. We should not let our desire for normative positions about gender prevent us from making observations as objectively as possible. Undoubtedly, the gender continuum changes over time but surely we can acknowledge biological differences in males and females which will affect their life experiences.


In the case of this faintly amusing joke, the question would be how much interest in sport or the details of relationships is the result of some biological imperative and how much of it is the result of culture.

The sports thing, I don't know. I am a little bit of a sports fan, but I know increasing numbers of women who both participate and follow sports. The numbers do indicate more interest in men but who knows? In many primates (gorillas, baboons, chimps), females are better at communication and relationship skills than males but again does that indicate social norms or biology?

Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 14:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I did say 'nature or nurture' upthread.

Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the majority of gender traits are socially constructed. Otherwise I would be a freak of nature.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

i think you are way over reacting to this one. i saw this joke a year back, only instead of Wallabies lost to new zealand it read "leafs lost". funny - there are canuk and down under version of this joke¡

but i don't think this joke is sexist in the slightest (really, to me, it seemed to illustrate how both sexes are clueless as to what the other is thinking). but since we're on the subject i want to mention how sexist i find commercials of late. watch 30 minutes of tv and you will see a man being the butt of every-other joke come advert time. in any given commercial break you will see at least 3 ads portraying men as too stupid to cook, clean or tell the difference between a tampon and candy. this is something that has bothered me since i went into advertising in college. i have no idea if anyone else has picked up on this or if i'm being over sensitive.

dyson (dyson), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Men's groups in the UK regularly complain about this. Most adverts are rubbish so I don't really pay any attention.

Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 21 July 2004 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the most important aspect of the joke was that New Zealand beat the Wallabies. This should not be lost sight of.

plebian plebs (plebian), Thursday, 22 July 2004 08:50 (twenty-one years ago)

In many primates (gorillas, baboons, chimps), females are better at communication and relationship skills than males but again does that indicate social norms or biology?

i don't know, but i wonder how much relevance the behaviour of other primates has to humans

in any given commercial break you will see at least 3 ads portraying men as too stupid to cook, clean or tell the difference between a tampon and candy.

well at least everything men do in ads doesn't make them orgasm. me, i'm having an orgasm over this new kitchen cleansing product. and here i am, naked, in the shower, orgasming over shampoo. now i'm orgasming over this tim tam.

The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Thursday, 22 July 2004 09:07 (twenty-one years ago)

tim tams oohhhhhohhhhhohhhhhhhhh

The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Thursday, 22 July 2004 09:08 (twenty-one years ago)

hey though good point, i'd never thought about how men are portrayed as incompetent in ads before. i'd always read that stuff as just endorsing a kind of boys-will-be-boys thing.

The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Thursday, 22 July 2004 09:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Just imagine. Eating confectionery could become a secretive act. Or orgasming in public could become acceptable.

Liz :x (Liz :x), Thursday, 22 July 2004 09:10 (twenty-one years ago)

hey though good point, i'd never thought about how men are portrayed as incompetent in ads before. i'd always read that stuff as just endorsing a kind of boys-will-be-boys thing.

which it does, sorta, I think. "Men are stupid but we put up with them anyway, don't we?" (which seems to me the main message of most commercials/pop culture based around the stupid male stereotype) is a pretty deameaning message for men, but at the same time it also gives them a free pass at doing whatever stupid/macho shit they like; this goes as far back as "Bewitched" (and probably much further, but I haven't done my homework.)

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Thursday, 22 July 2004 09:22 (twenty-one years ago)

"well at least everything men do in ads doesn't make them orgasm"

I've come pretty close after having a really good salad...

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:13 (twenty-one years ago)

The portrayal of men in adverts as described up thread drives me up the wall

but at the same time it also gives them a free pass at doing whatever stupid/macho shit they like

and that's just what the world needs.

hmmm (hmmm), Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that the portrayal of men in ads as incompetent when it comes to domestic duties really suits advertisers because it reinforces the idea that men can't cook, clean or shop, so women should continue to do all those things. And women are more likely to take notice of ads offering new improved things, whereas men are more likely to buy the same brands over and over. It's insulting to everyone.

accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah I guess even if ads are more sexist towards men, the only reason is cos women are targeted so much more frequently by ads so it's not really a big deal.

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Why would men be targeted less by advertisers when they have more money? Maybe the 'incompetence' ads are supposed to mean "don't worry, ANYBODY can use this brand of power tool without disembowelling themselves"

dave q, Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

"Hey I'm washing the dishes REALLY BADLY so's I wont have to do it anymore!"

"Oh no, thwarted by the fantastic brilliance of eeezee washing up liquid!!"

(wife) "You'll have to do it more often!"

(child) "Haa haa heeeee"

This one?

mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd say that, in general, the male incompetence ads are for stuff aimed at women.

hmmm (hmmm), Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

i've been known to orgasm over tim tams.

dyson (dyson), Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:44 (twenty-one years ago)

...but not like that¡ (over=because of)

dyson (dyson), Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

have you guys read The Diaries of Adam and Eve by mark twain?

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

keeping up the false impression that men and women are basically incompatible.

different != incompatible though. i mean surely it's saying that those two people are living with the differences between them despite having different personalities (the story may or may not imply that those two personalities are respectively typical of a female and a male)

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:56 (twenty-one years ago)

The presentation of incompetent men in ads actually has everything to do with the fact that women buy most common household products. The ads tend to stroke the woman's ego (you're the only one around here who knows what she's doing) in a way that maybe distracts from the inequality of that.

Incidentally I don't think the sexism of this joke or the countless jokes like it -- just about every sitcom couple on American TV runs this dymanic, you know -- is at all pointed toward one side. Whichever gender you identify with becomes the reasonable one; the other becomes the butt of the joke. (Women care about relationships whereas men are strangely sports-and-sex simple vs. Woman are ridiculous touchy-feely overanalyzers whereas men are noble sensible beings.) The main slanting that goes on -- in this joke and in its countless variants -- is that identifying with the male side usually involves a certain boys-will-be-boys embracing of simplicity or stupidity as a cute, charming, manly value: see also the sitcom couple where always the man is incompetently or problem-causingly simple and the wife pretty much just works with him on it. I'm not sure whether that trope is a male privilege or stems in part from a sense of being assaulted.

All in all it tends to boil down to a single trope, which is that the male/female relationship becomes the son/mother relationship. Even in this joke, that's the dynamic. Pretty much all male/female sensibility jokes boil down to the idea that men are perpetual simple children being dragged reluctantly into what women dictate as constituting "adulthood."

nabicothingy, Thursday, 22 July 2004 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm more of a complex child than a simple one. Also, my girlfriend is more like my grandmother than my mother. Also, I'm much better at cooking and cleaning than she is.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 22 July 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

A side effect of the competent woman/incompetent man in so many US sitcoms is that the men get to be the funny ones, which is the key role in sitcoms.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 22 July 2004 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

eleven years pass...

hmmm

napster p2ppies (wins), Saturday, 6 February 2016 23:08 (ten years ago)

Worth asking imo

broderik f (darraghmac), Saturday, 6 February 2016 23:27 (ten years ago)

hmmm (hmmm)

napster p2ppies (wins), Saturday, 6 February 2016 23:29 (ten years ago)

'dick move' is a highly offensive sexist term btw

napster p2ppies (wins), Saturday, 6 February 2016 23:34 (ten years ago)

Yes, yes, hmmmmm

broderik f (darraghmac), Saturday, 6 February 2016 23:43 (ten years ago)

"well at least everything men do in ads doesn't make them orgasm"

I've come pretty close after having a really good salad...

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:13 AM (11 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/

kinder, Saturday, 6 February 2016 23:57 (ten years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.