Humorless feminism - Revision history

Lquilter: cats

2010-11-11T17:31:12Z

cats

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:31, 11 November 2010
Line 72:		Line 72:
	* [[Strawfeminist]]		* [[Strawfeminist]]

			[[category:Feminism]]
	[[Category:Feminism and critical theory]]		[[Category:Feminism and critical theory]]
	[[Category:Sexist insults]]		[[Category:Sexist insults]]

Lquilter: cats

2010-11-11T17:30:42Z

cats

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:30, 11 November 2010
Line 72:		Line 72:
	* [[Strawfeminist]]		* [[Strawfeminist]]

	[[Category:Feminism]]		[[Category:Feminism and critical theory]]
	[[Category:Sexist insults]]		[[Category:Sexist insults]]

Ide Cyan: ad feminem

2008-01-17T07:01:26Z

ad feminem

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 17 January 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	There are several reasons for this:		There are several reasons for this:

			== Attack the woman ==

			Attack the woman, and discredit whatever she has to say. Characterising feminists as humourless is first and foremost a personal attack ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Ad hominem argument]), which works to change the subject from whatever was being discussed and onto the feminist participant(s) in the discussion. Namely, because this stereotype seriously isn't tailored as an attack against men, onto the women.

			Every variation on the use of the stereotype of the humourless feminist against feminists is predicated on this basic tactic.


Line 68:		Line 73:

	[[Category:Feminism]]		[[Category:Feminism]]
			[[Category:Sexist insults]]

Lquilter: see also

2007-03-26T22:10:39Z

Lquilter: Humorless Feminism moved to Humorless feminism: cap

2007-02-17T05:20:24Z

Humorless Feminism moved to Humorless feminism: cap

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:20, 16 February 2007
(No difference)

Lquilter: Reverted edits by 210.233.196.237 (Talk); changed back to last version by Lquilter

2007-02-07T16:22:45Z

Reverted edits by 210.233.196.237 (Talk); changed back to last version by Lquilter

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:22, 7 February 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:
	==Attacks on women as humorless==		==Attacks on women as humorless==

	In part because of the gendered nature of humor and the double standard (that making fun of women is OK, but making fun of men is not), women are supposed to be somehow less funny than men, or funny only in particular ways (self-deprecating humor, menstrual humor). Female comedians have faced the typical sexist barriers, but also had to combat the notion that women, somehow, are inherently incapable of doing humor.		In part because of the gendered nature of humor and the double standard (that making fun of women is OK, but making fun of men is not), women are supposed to be somehow less funny than men, or funny only in particular ways (self-deprecating humor, menstrual humor). Female comedians have faced the typical sexist barriers, but also had to combat the notion that women, somehow, are inherently incapable of doing humor.

	~~We find that men in fact do laugh at sexist male jokes, because they have a sense of humor and they always think of "that guy i know" or a buddy that fits the joke perfectly~~. Women, being devious and manipulating, will claim offense even if deep down she either thinks of it as funny, or knows someone it fits. A woman will do this because like everyone else she is trying to get to the top and will use anything to shoot down her male counterparts for a workplace advantage. Usually a woman will respond with laughter as long as the joke is not in the workplace.

	Gloria Kaufman (''In Stitches: A Patchwork of Feminist Humor and Satire'') and [[Rosalind Warren\|Roz Warren]] (''The Best Contemporary Women's Humor''; ''Women's Glibber: State-of-the-Art Women's Humor'') discuss this false notion, and their books constitute a debunking of it.		Gloria Kaufman (''In Stitches: A Patchwork of Feminist Humor and Satire'') and [[Rosalind Warren\|Roz Warren]] (''The Best Contemporary Women's Humor''; ''Women's Glibber: State-of-the-Art Women's Humor'') discuss this false notion, and their books constitute a debunking of it.

210.233.196.237 at 16:18, 7 February 2007

2007-02-07T16:18:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:18, 7 February 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:
	==Attacks on women as humorless==		==Attacks on women as humorless==

	In part because of the gendered nature of humor and the double standard (that making fun of women is OK, but making fun of men is not), women are supposed to be somehow less funny than men, or funny only in particular ways (self-deprecating humor, menstrual humor). Female comedians have faced the typical sexist barriers, but also had to combat the notion that women, somehow, are inherently incapable of doing humor.		In part because of the gendered nature of humor and the double standard (that making fun of women is OK, but making fun of men is not), women are supposed to be somehow less funny than men, or funny only in particular ways (self-deprecating humor, menstrual humor). Female comedians have faced the typical sexist barriers, but also had to combat the notion that women, somehow, are inherently incapable of doing humor.

			We find that men in fact do laugh at sexist male jokes, because they have a sense of humor and they always think of "that guy i know" or a buddy that fits the joke perfectly. Women, being devious and manipulating, will claim offense even if deep down she either thinks of it as funny, or knows someone it fits. A woman will do this because like everyone else she is trying to get to the top and will use anything to shoot down her male counterparts for a workplace advantage. Usually a woman will respond with laughter as long as the joke is not in the workplace.

	Gloria Kaufman (''In Stitches: A Patchwork of Feminist Humor and Satire'') and [[Rosalind Warren\|Roz Warren]] (''The Best Contemporary Women's Humor''; ''Women's Glibber: State-of-the-Art Women's Humor'') discuss this false notion, and their books constitute a debunking of it.		Gloria Kaufman (''In Stitches: A Patchwork of Feminist Humor and Satire'') and [[Rosalind Warren\|Roz Warren]] (''The Best Contemporary Women's Humor''; ''Women's Glibber: State-of-the-Art Women's Humor'') discuss this false notion, and their books constitute a debunking of it.

Lquilter: reframing head, link to SHE

2006-12-11T06:57:08Z

reframing head, link to SHE

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:57, 10 December 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:


	==~~Attacking~~ under pretense of humor==		==Attacks redefined as or under pretense of humor==


	Feminists who try to point out that a sexist joke is offensive are often accused of lacking a sense of humor, as this response allows the jester to deny that there was anything offensive about the joke.		Feminists who try to point out that a sexist joke is offensive are often accused of lacking a sense of humor, as this response allows the jester to deny that there was anything offensive about the joke.

	In her "Verbal Self Defense" books, linguist Suzette Haden Elgin has identified several types of covert verbal attacks. These are ways that a verbal bully can attack their victim subtly. If the victim calls the bully on their attack, one way for the bully to maintain the pretense that they were not actually attacking would be to claim that their verbal attack was not intended seriously: "can't you take a joke?"		In her "Verbal Self Defense" books, linguist [[Suzette Haden Elgin]] has identified several types of covert verbal attacks. These are ways that a verbal bully can attack their victim subtly. If the victim calls the bully on their attack, one way for the bully to maintain the pretense that they were not actually attacking would be to claim that their verbal attack was not intended seriously: "can't you take a joke?"

	In Haden Elgin's books, the bully and victim can be any gender. But when the bully is sexist or misogynist, then we get something like this:		In Haden Elgin's books, the bully and victim can be any gender. But when the bully is sexist or misogynist, then we get something like this:
Line 18:		Line 17:
	A: Geez, feminists have got no sense of humor.		A: Geez, feminists have got no sense of humor.

	~~By pretending that he was "only joking,"~~ A distances himself from his original sexist remark (de-escalating his attack), and stifles B's criticism of his sexist attitude as being "humorless."		A distances himself from his original sexist remark (de-escalating his attack), and stifles B's criticism of his sexist attitude as being "humorless."

	==Attacks on women as humorless==		==Attacks on women as humorless==

Liz Henry: restructuring to split off analysis of sexist humor and reactions to it

2006-12-10T19:35:04Z

restructuring to split off analysis of sexist humor and reactions to it

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 There are several reasons for this:
@@ Line 23: / Line 19: @@
 By pretending that he was "only joking," A distances himself from his original sexist remark (de-escalating his attack), and stifles B's criticism of his sexist attitude as being "humorless."
 ==Attacks on women as humorless==
@@ Line 38: / Line 29: @@
 In fact, of course, humor is a survival response and coping mechanism for oppressed groups or underclasses, including women. Satirical humor mocking the privileged and the entire system of privilege (patriarchy) is one direction of humor, and one which may seem particularly un-funny to folks who support patriarchal norms.
 ==Further reading==

Liz Henry at 19:32, 10 December 2006

2006-12-10T19:32:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:32, 10 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Feminists are routinely lampooned as humorless creatures, as in the classic joke: ''Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: That's not funny!'' (that actually is kind of funny, at least to some feminists).		Feminists are routinely lampooned as humorless creatures, as in the classic joke: ''Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: That's not funny!'' (that actually is kind of funny, at least to some feminists).

	~~This stems from at least two responses to feminism~~:		There are several reasons for this:

	==~~attacks on feminists as humorless~~==		==Sexist humor==
	~~One, the defensive reaction of anyone who feels they are being critiqued or criticized; it is a subtle attack. It works like this:~~
	~~: A says something sexist ("Women can't drive.").~~
	~~: B calls A on the sexist comment ("You know, that's really not true, and in fact is a sexist generalization.")~~
	~~: A responds by bringing up humorless feminism ("Geez, feminists have got no sense of humor.")~~

	~~Here~~, A is ~~attempting to rebuff B's critique by reframing the original comment as "merely" humorous~~, ~~and suggesting that B~~ is ~~not on the ball~~ and is ~~missing the~~ humor ~~that was implicit. A's response minimizes both the original sexism~~ (~~which really isn't funny)~~, ~~and attempts to stifle critical commentary (which also isn't very funny~~).		* this section seems confused; do we need to explain it? here? * --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:32, 10 December 2006 (PST)
			As openly declared prejudice against ethnic groups is no longer considered acceptable, humor based on ethnic stereotypes has also declined. Sexism is still culturally acceptable in many quarters, however, and so is sexist humor (blonde jokes, for example).

	If A had a sense of humor, A would be able to hear a valid criticism and say, "Doh! My sexist upbringing strikes again. Sorry." or some other humorous rejoinder which acknowledges the truth of B's observation while indicating that A doesn't take offense at criticism and instead can humorously acknowledge criticism. B could humorously retort, "Yes, you really need reconditioning. As it is now, you'll be among the first up against the wall when the feminist revolution comes."

	Instead, A reveals A's own lack of a sense of humor, or at least, a lack of a robust sense of humor; since it is so easily derailed by a response which doesn't look just at the putative humorous element of the first comment. A sense of humor ought to be able to be woven in and about with truthful and honest speech, and in fact, to many people the funniest things are the things that are true on some level. A sense of humor that only reveals itself in untruthful generalizations is a poor excuse for a sense of humor. "A", here, reveals either that A is (a) very defensive or (b) has a very defective sense of humor~~, that is either extremely fragile or extremely one-dimensional.~~		==Attacking under pretense of humor==

	~~Sexists just have no sense of humor. (ba-da-bump)~~

	~~Numerous anti-feminist works have negatively portrayed matriarchal or egalitarian rule~~ as ~~humorless or joyless~~. ~~For example, Robert Chambers' ''The Gay Rebellion'' (1913)~~		Feminists who try to point out that a sexist joke is offensive are often accused of lacking a sense of humor, as this response allows the jester to deny that there was anything offensive about the joke.

	==attacks on ~~women as humorless==~~		In her "Verbal Self Defense" books, linguist Suzette Haden Elgin has identified several types of covert verbal attacks. These are ways that a verbal bully can attack their victim subtly. If the victim calls the bully on their attack, one way for the bully to maintain the pretense that they were not actually attacking would be to claim that their verbal attack was not intended seriously: "can't you take a joke?"
	~~The~~ attack ~~on feminists as humorless is in part an~~ attack ~~on any sort of critical activism; it is also~~ a ~~sexist attack on women, directly.~~

	~~Humor~~ and ~~comedy are gendered in popular perception~~. ~~As Gloria Kaufman (~~''~~In Stitches~~: A ~~Patchwork of Feminist Humor~~ and ~~Satire'~~') and ~~[[Rosalind Warren\|Roz Warren]]~~ (~~''The Best Contemporary Women~~'s ~~Humor''; ''Women's Glibber: State~~-of-the~~-Art Women's Humor''~~) ~~have observed~~, women are supposed to be somehow less funny than men, or funny only in particular ways (self-deprecating humor, menstrual humor). Female comedians have faced the typical sexist barriers, but also had to combat the notion that women, somehow, are inherently incapable of doing humor. The stereotype of women as humorless has shaped the history of women as professional comedians, and affected the portrayal of female characters in fictional works.		In Haden Elgin's books, the bully and victim can be any gender. But when the bully is sexist or misogynist, then we get something like this:

			A: Women can't drive.
			B: You know, that's really not true, and in fact is a sexist generalization.
			A: Geez, feminists have got no sense of humor.

			By pretending that he was "only joking," A distances himself from his original sexist remark (de-escalating his attack), and stifles B's criticism of his sexist attitude as being "humorless."

			==Gendered humor==
			Many jokes poke fun at (stereotypes of) men and women. Because society is male dominated, jokes that make fun of women are far more common. If the joke has a biting or misogynist edge, women are unlikely to find the joke funny.

			A sexist double standard works in this situation: a woman who responds to such jokes by telling a similarly sharp joke that makes fun of men will be told (by men) "that's not funny," while a woman who responds to such jokes by saying that the woman-hating joke is not funny will be told that she is a humorless feminist.

			==Attacks on women as humorless==

			In part because of the gendered nature of humor and the double standard (that making fun of women is OK, but making fun of men is not), women are supposed to be somehow less funny than men, or funny only in particular ways (self-deprecating humor, menstrual humor). Female comedians have faced the typical sexist barriers, but also had to combat the notion that women, somehow, are inherently incapable of doing humor.

			Gloria Kaufman (''In Stitches: A Patchwork of Feminist Humor and Satire'') and [[Rosalind Warren\|Roz Warren]] (''The Best Contemporary Women's Humor''; ''Women's Glibber: State-of-the-Art Women's Humor'') discuss this false notion, and their books constitute a debunking of it.

			The stereotype of women as humorless has shaped the history of women as professional comedians, and affected the portrayal of female characters in fictional works. Numerous anti-feminist works have portrayed matriarchal or egalitarian rule as humorless or joyless. For example, Robert Chambers' ''The Gay Rebellion'' (1913)

	In fact, of course, humor is a survival response and coping mechanism for oppressed groups or underclasses, including women. Satirical humor mocking the privileged and the entire system of privilege (patriarchy) is one direction of humor, and one which may seem particularly un-funny to folks who support patriarchal norms.		In fact, of course, humor is a survival response and coping mechanism for oppressed groups or underclasses, including women. Satirical humor mocking the privileged and the entire system of privilege (patriarchy) is one direction of humor, and one which may seem particularly un-funny to folks who support patriarchal norms.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:10, 26 March 2007
Line 63:		Line 63:
	* special issues/focuses in ''Ms.'', ''Bust'', ''Bitch'' magazine		* special issues/focuses in ''Ms.'', ''Bust'', ''Bitch'' magazine
	** Andi Zeisler, "Funny Girls Get No Respect," ''Bitch'' magazine		** Andi Zeisler, "Funny Girls Get No Respect," ''Bitch'' magazine

			==See also==
			* [[Strawfeminist]]

	[[Category:Feminism]]		[[Category:Feminism]]