Feminism can be iconoclastic: When objecting against rape jokes becomes inappropriate

[sub_textual]

i⋅con⋅o⋅clas⋅t, noun.

1.       a breaker or destroyer of images, esp. those set up for religious veneration.
2.       a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition.

I have left Somarium.

I have done so because of one reason: I am a feminist, and I refuse to be punished for what

Comments

[anonymous]

I was not referring to your response to the previous Anon, but rather your discussion on the OOC post that started all of it.

I feel that we will have to agree to disagree. I do not see what they were arguing as a safe place for hate speech, whereas you do. As a general rule of thumb, I have a hard time agreeing that for example, ethnic jokes count as hate speech. My family is from India, and my favorite comedian is an Indian man named Russel Peters who does much of his material about his family and culture. There are times when I watch his routine, and find myself cracking up if only because I recognize exactly how accurate and familiar his jokes are. If we can't laugh at ourselves, who can we laugh at? Besides, they're funny.

Rape jokes, on the other hand, are different because they are not making fun of a section of humanity; they are making fun of a horrible event. This would be the difference, I feel, between telling a Jewish joke (and believe me, I have many Jewish friends who love to tell joke about their own culture) and telling a joke about the Holocaust. One is acceptable, one... is less so.

But somehow I doubt we'll convince the other of this, so perhaps we better head that topic off at the pass and simply agree to let things remain as they are. :)

I do feel that in your arguing, you came on incredibly strongly right off the bat, and I do kind of see why things got so heated so quickly. I don't necessarily blame anyone for that; this is the Internet, words can often be misconstrued in ways that spoken dialog cannot, and tempers flared on both sides. It's a shame, but that's just how things happen sometimes.

(BTW, if you haven't ever checked out Russel Peters, you should do so. He's hilarious!)

[sub_textual]

Thank you for your comment again. I appreciate that you are taking the time to have a polite conversation about this.

In regards to what you are referring to such as Russel Peters, you are actually talking about satire, and not about racist jokes. There is definitely a difference between satire, gallows humor, and racist/sexist/etc. jokes. I hope you don't mind if I explain this in an academic way, as it is actually the easiest and most accessible way for me to do this -- as you have a background in Sociology, I believe you definitely will understand my line of reasoning. It goes like this: when the oppressed subject uses humor in order to ridicule, critique, and/or reclaim what is usually extremely hurtful and problematic, they are actually using a form of reverse discourse that is actually empowering through its very execution. Someone who does an amazing job of this is Beau Sia, who critiques Asian stereotypes by satirizing and parodying them. Margaret Cho does the same thing, but she critiques gender, sexuality, etc. as well.

Parody and satire are extremely powerful political tools especially when placed in the right hands, and usually what is laughed at in the satire is not the subject of the joke (i.e. you are not laughing at the Indian man for being Indian), but what the subject itself is critiquing. And that is actually very different, in my opinion.

I feel that it is perfectly okay to satirize and parody things such as your own race, culture, religion, etc. or even something like rape, as it provides sociopolitically charged commentary and criticism through a humorous lens, and something like that is totally cool. The thing is, that isn't what was being argued about here. In the debate, what was commonly reiterated and argued was that "everything goes, or nothing" and that kind of an argument is clearly problematic, because it suggests that if everything is allowed, then hate speech -- all forms of it -- would be allowed as well. And that is why I took such a strong stance because it's not so much an issue of what is or is not allowed as it is what is or is not tolerated. If we allow everything, that could lead to a lot of people getting hurt, if hurtful jokes filled with hate speech such as racist, sexist, etc. jokes are told, and that isn't exactly a very positive environment. In fact, autoschismatic/papercutrose argued in her departure notice that it is a hostile environment that is being endorsed here if you actually allow everything to be discussed. (Her opinion is that there should be a zero tolerance policy on any kind of hate speech. My opinion is actually far softer.)

I did come off very strongly and can understand why things got so heated, especially as it was a very polarizing issue to begin with. It is very sad that things turned out the way they did, but unfortunately, that's just what happens sometimes, especially on the Internet.

(Thanks for the suggestion! I, in return, suggest the likes of Beau Sia and Margaret Cho!)