Audience poll

[derdriu]

So I was reading an article a friend linked to and an interesting question/challenge came out of the discussion. Now the article itself is full of fail for many reasons, the majority of which are eloquently pointed out here. So I'm not going to talk about that. I am, however, going to ask for your opinions, dear friends, on an issue brought up in

Comments

[cupacoffey]

Whenever I read articles like this, it gets my hackles up a bit because I feel like the author is trying to box me in in some way. I feel non-specifically trapped, and then it usually takes more thinking and reading to figure out exactly why I feel that way (I know virtually nothing about feminism). It makes me feel trapped in a person with a bunch of "shoulds" thrust upon them way, not so much a being a woman in a man's world kinda way, as such articles focus more talk on women than men, but there are a bunch of implied boxes for men trapping in them, too. They encourage a gender divide, as if happiness is a zero sum game. Being people is not a competition, it's a collaboration.

And oh God, are the "happiness" differences not even statistically significant? I am too lazy and at-work to look into the stats further, but if these differences aren't even statistically significant or show a very small margin of significance, I am going to burn all your cities to the ground in a flash of pure science. If this is the case, then the entire article is a moot point. Two of my personal hates: misuse of statistics (which is to say, unfortunately, a lion's share of cases in which statistics are used by people, even scientists, who are not statisticians), and editorials in general. More the former though, as the latter frequently only have as much importance as you give them.

Is this all an insane tangent rant with too many sub-clauses to be comprehensible? To answer your actual question, for me it depends entirely on the context of the joke. (ADDITIONAL PARENTHETICAL: for contextual reference, I am not familiar with the movie/s of which you speak, nor did I read much of the comments section). Jokes that are funny are funny. This seems an obvious statement, but intent and context make all the difference. Even if someone is not really thinking about being mean or judgmental with their joke, but is coming from a place of not entire understanding or commiseration, it can make a joke really uncomfortable and even hurtful. In comfortable settings though, I have gotten a great deal of amusement at my own expense over aspects of myself that can and have been targets for discrimination, including situations that do not involve any reclamation. It doesn't have to be a setting of people who share the same discriminated against characteristic as me either, just an understanding. I think the situations in which people do not share my same characteristic but are making jokes and it's fun and comfortable are good for bridging gaps between us, and have made me feel understood and accepted on a deeper level. What annoys me most with movie jokes, actually, is when they spread misinformation--perpetuating stereotypes without really understanding what the stereotype is all about and what aspects of it, if any, contain truth. The best jokes are good because they're true; they resonate with something genuine and real, not value judgments or misconceptions.

Here I am again, brandishing the Scientific Method

[cupacoffey]

Okay, I lied. I did go and look at the graph and read part of the original paper. I have a tome of effing rants on the matter, but in order to avoid completely hijacking your post as a mouth piece for my pet peeves, I will just say that sloppy application of mathematics appears to be pretty much standard practice in many fields, and this annoys me to no end. It is further both interesting and deeply bothersome to then observe the progression from an experiment that is not entirely dumb, but* too sloppy, un-rigorous and full of unspoken assumptions and possibly an Agenda regarding data collection to really say something as definitively as our society turns to Science to say; to poor graph interpretation skills, wild unsubstantiated claims and just generally piss-poor research on the part of media; to cultural debate among a public that places way more trust than deserved in experts and the media to provide accurate information. It's like a butterfly flaps its wings in so-how-the-hell will-we-substantiate-our-claims, and then THE HOLOCAUST.

*Scratch that; the more I read of this thing, the more I'm inclined to convert your thread into my personal soapbox, so I will stop now, except to say I have many problems with the way social science (if you can call it that) is done and the way it's communicated to the public.

[derdriu]

Yeah. While I did not read the paper (no access without paying $5), I read a lot of commentary on it and saw some of the graphs. It is apparent that they did a very obviously sloppy job at setting up their study or accounting for factors that would cause people to report accurately or inaccurately. For instance, a few brilliant people suggested that more women may be reporting a lower happiness response, not because they are less happy than they were previously, but because one of the ongoing works of feminism is to make it okay for a woman to state how she really feels rather than constantly putting on a happy face.

Also... YES to everything you said. YES.

Re: Here I am again, brandishing the Scientific Method

[ibnfirnas]

Yeah, it's extremely poor "science" they're using, and poor journalism reporting it. It's just a ridiculous agenda-laden hatchet-job of a study.

[derdriu]

I'm just going to respond paragraph by paragraph, because you've got a lot going on and I think it is all really important.

First, I just want to say that the author -is- trying to box you in. He has set ideas of what it is like (or should be like) to be a woman, and he is using those ideas to make an argument. Further, just because something is all about women, does not mean it is feminist. There are a lot a manners manuals from the 50's that make that abundantly clear. In fact, a whole lot of what feminism fights is commentary from men about how women should be. Incidentally, one of those things is "happy." The second link in my post really does do a phenomenal job of outlining the feminist response to an article like this. I think you would find it engaging.

I think you talk more about statistics in your next comment, so I'll mostly just say... no. It isn't. Which makes this article more annoying.

I think what you are talking about here... the context of being with people who "understand," and making a joke with those people that would otherwise be inappropriate is reclamation. You and I calling each other "bitch," for instance. I have some exciting and otherwise engaging links on that topic if you want. Otherwise, for people who are just making those jokes willy-nilly without regard for anyone else, context or intent, it is totally reprehensible. I think you are on ibnfirnas, rattlenose, invertedreptile and my side with this. Or, at least, it sounds like you are.

[cupacoffey]

I read the second link.

I think perhaps my statement was a little confusing due to the language choice I used in attempting to keep it as general as possible. So I'll grab your example in clarifying one point: you and I are both "bitches", but there are situations that exist in which I find it humorous or overall positive in whatever way when a male calls me or another female "bitch". So I don't know if that fits the definition of "reclamation" or not.

Also, I mean to say that having ideas about what a woman should do or be also frequently has implications for what a man should do or be, and those male boxes are not always true to life, desirable or positive. I am not a fan of anybody making arbitrary rules about how others should be, and I think that's what I reacted to most strongly.

[derdriu]

Yeah, I caught you. I still think, if they are using the word to mean "a woman who is strong/awesome/snarky/etc as long as it's positive" it's totally reclamatory. And you are also a necessary part of it. Two dudes continually using "bitch" to refer to one another negatively... not so much.

Totally. Feminism frequently points out that sexism hurts men, too.

[cupacoffey]

I'm not bothered by "bitch" being used in a negative way either, even when it's a male calling another male or a female a bitch. Well, I mean obviously if somebody calls me or someone else I don't think deserves it a bitch, it bothers me in a being disrespected kind of way, but I must say, it's been a good long while since someone called someone a bitch in my presence in a gender connotation way that bothered me on a sexism level.

[cupacoffey]

I should probably add that this is not to say that people using "bitch" in a sexist manner doesn't still happen--of course it does, and it's happened to me before--just that the company I've kept for quite some time in work and personal life is not conducive to it.