Letters to the Editor
-
Aaarghhh!!!!!
*pounds head on desk*
*breaks toe kicking wall*
*slices jugular with kitchen scissors while leaping from tall building*
THIS is why people think feminists are uptight humorless bitches who have ruined America by nit-picking and blowing things out of proportion.
This is why so many people "hate feminists" and why Hilary Clinton will never win a national election.
Jesus H. Christ on ice and Mary in the penalty box...as a feminist working in the comedy end of the entertainment industry, I believe strongly that not only can anything be funny, but also (as a corollary) that there's no better way to alienate large groups of people than to tell them what they're not allowed to find funny.
OK, I'm off to finish dying now...thank you Ms. Clark-Flory.
Give 'em hell.
-
burning kittens
DurianJoe, I remember that kitten-burning story, and I don't think the woman who rescued the cat was a humorless prig. See, there's a difference between words/play-acting and real actions. I would never say an actual rape could be funny. Same as I would never say poking someone in the eyes is funny, but darn it if I don't chuckle when Moe does it to Larry. It's possible to make a funny joke about burning kittens; it's not possible to make burning a kitten funny. Big difference.
-
Human progress
DurianJoe: you talk about human progress, but as I see it, your point of view is the atavistic one. Why is the Papua New Guinean tribesman scared of the polaroid (apologies to any Papua New Guinean tribesmen)? Why do some Muslims cry for blood when a teddy bear is named Mohammed? Why before the Enlightenment could you get tortured for painting Jesus the wrong way? The same reason you think a joke about rape has some equivalency to rape. Obviously, these are all examples of superstitious thought, while your argument is based on up-to-the-minute, well-intentioned psycho-sociology, or something. But your argument does share one essential ingredient with these examples: a primitive disregard for the difference between signifier and signified (for lack of a less pompous term).
-
Lerpa, sure there is a difference between wordplay and real life.
No doubt about it, and watching Moe poke Curly is always good for a laugh. Some shit, though, just doesn't lend itself to humor, and if you're going to make a joke about it, you better be damned good (take note, Emily -- this video isn't funny because among other things, the humor is lame as hell).
I've got a whole series of cartoon books by John Callahan, who is quadraplegic. He makes lots of jokes about people with disabilities, and most of them are really funny. For example, a sheriff's posse in the desert looking at an abandoned wheelchair and declaring, "He won't get far on foot."
Being paralyzed isn't funny, but the difference here is that Callahan approaches the subject with empathy. This underlies the unspoken rule that you can't tell ethnic jokes, etc., unless you're a member of that group. Even more, Callahan's creating an absurd situation, and absurdity can be very funny.
Sarah Silverman has a good joke (one of her few) about rape: "I was raped by a Jewish doctor. It was bittersweet." Sick joke, sure, but funny. She's riffing on her (and my) fellow Jews' historic obsession with either marrying doctors or becoming one. If you're not Jewish or familiar with that trait, is the joke funny? Probably not. There's both empathy and absurdity in that joke.
So what's funny about the rape joke in this video? Ha ha, they're so committed to the cause that they raped a woman. Unless you're in junior high, that's pretty lame.
-
Atavistic, eh?
Lerpa, you're trying too hard.
-
I'm with you, Tracy
I didn't think it was funny either, but understood the point to be that any good concept can be used as an excuse for bullies and antisocial types to hurt other people. I don't think it at all making any kind of statement that rape (or murder) is an insiginificant action. However, I also understand those whose minds just stop at "they're laughing at rape." Like those who don't want to watch violent movies, even if the movie makes a strong anti-violent statement, I can look beyond to the other side but understand if, for other people, it's too hard to tolerate the violence and get past it.
-
Myopic view is the issue
I used to be a regular commenter at Shakespeare's Sister. I know that Melissa McEwan is particularly sensitive when it comes to the subject of rape -- almost to the point of rabid paranoia. She seems to believe there is some kind of global conspiracy to eliminate the term "rape" from the media.
However, she doesn't have much sympathy for others who are offended by other controversial topics of humor.
For example, my life partner was killed by a drunk driver. So, I was particularly offended by the drunk driving scene in the film 40-Year-Old Virgin. I wrote about that on Shakespeare's Sister and McEwan was far from sympathetic to my reaction to the scene. Her position was that she thought the movie was funny and that was that. She even taunted me about it months later when she wrote about 40-Year-Old Virgin in another post -- "Oh, yeah. You didn't like that movie." Then, she had the nerve to send me an e-mail stating that I deliberately tried to make her look bad by writing why I didn't like the film.
McEwan is also a fan of Maddox's The Best Page In The Universe, which uses numerous anti-gay slurs. She became quite defensive when I let her know that I found the site to be offensive. McEwan defended it as "ironic" humor.
McEwan is a hypocrite. As a rape victim, she is rightfully outraged by anything that appears to take rape lightly. However, she is quick to defend other controversial forms of humor that deal with homosexuality, drunk driving, and racial issues.
Needless to say, I am no longer a visitor to Shakespeare's Sister.
-
The Word
If you think that rape, burning kittens alive, shooting someone in the face, setting people on fire, shooting and killing a wounded Iraqi who is writhing on the ground in pain without a weapon, and such is funny, then you are most likely a psychopath.
They are a very high percentage in the population nowadays. There is something wrong with them and there is nothing you can do about them. You don't even want to label them as mentally ill because that makes the rest of the crazy people look bad.
Now as to the Aristocrats, all of the obscenity that precedes the punch line is really not funny and is only the set up for attributing all of these acts and moral outrages to the ruling class which is funny because it is true. The Aristocrats is in fact a simple and concise distillation of "120 days of Sodom" by de Sade. The humor is in the indictment of the aristocracy and established order - the onus is directed against the rich and powerful.
Somethings can be used to set up the punchline but if you think that they are the gag then you really aren't getting the joke. Too many people don't "get things" and that is why it is prudent to avoid certain subjects. Monkey see and monkey do and this is the planet of the apes and desensitizing them to the hurt and harm that others inflict upon others is like feeding chum to sharks near a popular beach because of its entertainment value.
But that is show biz.