Talk:Humorless feminism - Revision history

Lquilter: Talk:Humorless Feminism moved to Talk:Humorless feminism: cap

2007-02-17T05:20:24Z

Talk:Humorless Feminism moved to Talk:Humorless feminism: cap

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

Lquilter: /* Reordering sections? */ reordering, what it all means

2006-12-11T06:55:15Z

Reordering sections?: reordering, what it all means

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 10 December 2006
Line 41:		Line 41:

	I think the article's sections could be reordered. I suggest folding sexist/gendered humour into one category (there are gendered jokes, and then there are _offensive_ gendered jokes) and putting it on top, since feminists' refusal to accept/play along with offensive/misogynist jokes seems to me to be the biggest reason for the existence of the stereotype. [[User:Glaurung quena\|Glaurung]] 15:30, 10 December 2006 (PST)		I think the article's sections could be reordered. I suggest folding sexist/gendered humour into one category (there are gendered jokes, and then there are _offensive_ gendered jokes) and putting it on top, since feminists' refusal to accept/play along with offensive/misogynist jokes seems to me to be the biggest reason for the existence of the stereotype. [[User:Glaurung quena\|Glaurung]] 15:30, 10 December 2006 (PST)

			: Hmm, I would prefer to talk about the stereotype at the top & define it; then below, discuss some potential reasons for it. Including feminist refusal to play along with offensive/misogynist jokes, which should link to a separate article in offensive humor.

			: BUT I'm not so sure I agree with you, Glaurung, that feminists' refusal to accept/play along w/ racist/sexist/etc humor is the biggest reason for the stereotype. The stereotype applies to "women", not just feminists, and as such, it predates modern the most common anti-feminist context that this stereotype comes up in -- the "feminists can't take a joke" kind of thing. Basically, I agree that there this is a major point for feminists; but there's something deeper that is also about misogyny and sexist stereotypes, not just anti-feminism. At least in the US, I think Victorian attitudes about women play a role, and maybe it predates even that. But there's something about piety, and fun, and gaiety, and the appropriation of those "fun" attitudes and approaches for men. It's just one instance of something that happens over and over again, with (a) male-dominant culture defining an attribute to be desirable (intelligence, piety, sense of humor, manual strength, endurance), and then (b) defining male as the standard, in both senses of the word (default and aim), and female as the outlier, the negation. ... I'm coming back to Simone de Beauvoir, aren't i? Anyway, I hope I'm being clear enough and sparking enough ideas in others to get other thoughts on this. Examples would be great, too. Damn, I've really got to dig out my old research on this. The only Victorian/Edwardian novel leaping to memory is Robert Chambers ''The Gay Rebellion'' but there were so many others .... --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 22:55, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Glaurung quena: Reordering sections?

2006-12-10T23:30:29Z

Reordering sections?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 10 December 2006
Line 37:		Line 37:

	actually i think the move that i was describing is only sometimes "attacking on pretension of humor". i think often the assertion of "humorous intent" is a retcon, just a defense response to perceived criticism. i'd rather have that point made clearly. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 12:00, 10 December 2006 (PST)		actually i think the move that i was describing is only sometimes "attacking on pretension of humor". i think often the assertion of "humorous intent" is a retcon, just a defense response to perceived criticism. i'd rather have that point made clearly. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 12:00, 10 December 2006 (PST)

			== Reordering sections? ==

			I think the article's sections could be reordered. I suggest folding sexist/gendered humour into one category (there are gendered jokes, and then there are _offensive_ gendered jokes) and putting it on top, since feminists' refusal to accept/play along with offensive/misogynist jokes seems to me to be the biggest reason for the existence of the stereotype. [[User:Glaurung quena\|Glaurung]] 15:30, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Glaurung quena at 23:07, 10 December 2006

2006-12-10T23:07:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 10 December 2006
Line 26:		Line 26:
	:::::::: But from my point of view it seems to me more that the person likes your way of thinking, admires you perhaps, and was trying (perhaps clumsily from your pt of view) to work with you... not to fix everything for you, but to engage with how you think; maybe even to impress you, or again, out of friendliness and intellectual agreement/desire to collaborate. I know what you mean about when people (male or female) leap in to "fix" a situation that you're working through for yourself. (BTW I don't know what made the article painful in the first place for you but am willing to listen.)		:::::::: But from my point of view it seems to me more that the person likes your way of thinking, admires you perhaps, and was trying (perhaps clumsily from your pt of view) to work with you... not to fix everything for you, but to engage with how you think; maybe even to impress you, or again, out of friendliness and intellectual agreement/desire to collaborate. I know what you mean about when people (male or female) leap in to "fix" a situation that you're working through for yourself. (BTW I don't know what made the article painful in the first place for you but am willing to listen.)

			::::::::: I saw Ide Cyan's post on LJ and was interested to see what was wrong with the humourless feminism page. I followed the link, read the article, and wanted to revise it. My reply to her post was intended to let her know that I had made changes which I hoped were useful. No invasion, condescension, or chivalry was intended. [[User:Glaurung quena\|Glaurung]] 15:07, 10 December 2006 (PST)
	----		----

Liz Henry at 20:03, 10 December 2006

2006-12-10T20:03:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:03, 10 December 2006
Line 24:		Line 24:
	::::::: PRESUMING TO READ MY MIND IS PRETTY FUCKING CONDESCENDING. He has NO IDEA what I want. And then giving me what he ''presumes'', without any fucking basis, would make the entry "less painful", that is DOUBLY condescending. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:44, 10 December 2006 (PST)		::::::: PRESUMING TO READ MY MIND IS PRETTY FUCKING CONDESCENDING. He has NO IDEA what I want. And then giving me what he ''presumes'', without any fucking basis, would make the entry "less painful", that is DOUBLY condescending. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:44, 10 December 2006 (PST)

	The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)		:::::::: But from my point of view it seems to me more that the person likes your way of thinking, admires you perhaps, and was trying (perhaps clumsily from your pt of view) to work with you... not to fix everything for you, but to engage with how you think; maybe even to impress you, or again, out of friendliness and intellectual agreement/desire to collaborate. I know what you mean about when people (male or female) leap in to "fix" a situation that you're working through for yourself. (BTW I don't know what made the article painful in the first place for you but am willing to listen.)


			----

			The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants. [http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701 horrid article about how women aren't funny] --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Lquilter: "attacking on pretensions of humor"

2006-12-10T20:00:53Z

"attacking on pretensions of humor"

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, 10 December 2006
Line 28:		Line 28:

	: [http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Sexist_Humor&action=edit HERE]!!! Get your pipin' hot NEW page about [[Sexist Humor]] and edit it separately! --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:40, 10 December 2006 (PST)		: [http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Sexist_Humor&action=edit HERE]!!! Get your pipin' hot NEW page about [[Sexist Humor]] and edit it separately! --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:40, 10 December 2006 (PST)

			== "attacking on pretensions of humor" ==

			actually i think the move that i was describing is only sometimes "attacking on pretension of humor". i think often the assertion of "humorous intent" is a retcon, just a defense response to perceived criticism. i'd rather have that point made clearly. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 12:00, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Ide Cyan at 19:44, 10 December 2006

2006-12-10T19:44:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 10 December 2006
Line 21:		Line 21:

	:::::: Ide I am not getting where there is chivalry or denial of agency. Isn't it a collaborative article... When I edit someone's page that they're working on, I do it from a spirit of friendliness, engaging with them, pitching in, and not to usurp "their" subject. Is there something specific that was deleted, changed, or said by the person you reverted, that was objectionable...that was condescendingly "chivalrous"? --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:41, 10 December 2006 (PST)		:::::: Ide I am not getting where there is chivalry or denial of agency. Isn't it a collaborative article... When I edit someone's page that they're working on, I do it from a spirit of friendliness, engaging with them, pitching in, and not to usurp "their" subject. Is there something specific that was deleted, changed, or said by the person you reverted, that was objectionable...that was condescendingly "chivalrous"? --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:41, 10 December 2006 (PST)

			::::::: PRESUMING TO READ MY MIND IS PRETTY FUCKING CONDESCENDING. He has NO IDEA what I want. And then giving me what he ''presumes'', without any fucking basis, would make the entry "less painful", that is DOUBLY condescending. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:44, 10 December 2006 (PST)

	The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)		The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Liz Henry at 19:41, 10 December 2006

2006-12-10T19:41:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 10 December 2006
Line 18:		Line 18:

	::::: It ISN'T about my not "knowing" or not "trusting" the guy in question. It is FUCKING ANTIFEMINIST FOR A MAN TO USURP A WOMAN'S AGENCY. I'm not going to be fucking liberated by CHIVALRY. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:30, 10 December 2006 (PST)		::::: It ISN'T about my not "knowing" or not "trusting" the guy in question. It is FUCKING ANTIFEMINIST FOR A MAN TO USURP A WOMAN'S AGENCY. I'm not going to be fucking liberated by CHIVALRY. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:30, 10 December 2006 (PST)


			:::::: Ide I am not getting where there is chivalry or denial of agency. Isn't it a collaborative article... When I edit someone's page that they're working on, I do it from a spirit of friendliness, engaging with them, pitching in, and not to usurp "their" subject. Is there something specific that was deleted, changed, or said by the person you reverted, that was objectionable...that was condescendingly "chivalrous"? --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:41, 10 December 2006 (PST)

	The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)		The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Ide Cyan at 19:40, 10 December 2006

2006-12-10T19:40:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 10 December 2006
Line 20:		Line 20:

	The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)		The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)


			: [http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Sexist_Humor&action=edit HERE]!!! Get your pipin' hot NEW page about [[Sexist Humor]] and edit it separately! --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:40, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Liz Henry at 19:37, 10 December 2006

2006-12-10T19:37:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 10 December 2006
Line 18:		Line 18:

	::::: It ISN'T about my not "knowing" or not "trusting" the guy in question. It is FUCKING ANTIFEMINIST FOR A MAN TO USURP A WOMAN'S AGENCY. I'm not going to be fucking liberated by CHIVALRY. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:30, 10 December 2006 (PST)		::::: It ISN'T about my not "knowing" or not "trusting" the guy in question. It is FUCKING ANTIFEMINIST FOR A MAN TO USURP A WOMAN'S AGENCY. I'm not going to be fucking liberated by CHIVALRY. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:30, 10 December 2006 (PST)

			The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 10 December 2006
Line 21:		Line 21:

	:::::: Ide I am not getting where there is chivalry or denial of agency. Isn't it a collaborative article... When I edit someone's page that they're working on, I do it from a spirit of friendliness, engaging with them, pitching in, and not to usurp "their" subject. Is there something specific that was deleted, changed, or said by the person you reverted, that was objectionable...that was condescendingly "chivalrous"? --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:41, 10 December 2006 (PST)		:::::: Ide I am not getting where there is chivalry or denial of agency. Isn't it a collaborative article... When I edit someone's page that they're working on, I do it from a spirit of friendliness, engaging with them, pitching in, and not to usurp "their" subject. Is there something specific that was deleted, changed, or said by the person you reverted, that was objectionable...that was condescendingly "chivalrous"? --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:41, 10 December 2006 (PST)

			::::::: PRESUMING TO READ MY MIND IS PRETTY FUCKING CONDESCENDING. He has NO IDEA what I want. And then giving me what he ''presumes'', without any fucking basis, would make the entry "less painful", that is DOUBLY condescending. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:44, 10 December 2006 (PST)

	The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)		The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 10 December 2006
Line 18:		Line 18:

	::::: It ISN'T about my not "knowing" or not "trusting" the guy in question. It is FUCKING ANTIFEMINIST FOR A MAN TO USURP A WOMAN'S AGENCY. I'm not going to be fucking liberated by CHIVALRY. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:30, 10 December 2006 (PST)		::::: It ISN'T about my not "knowing" or not "trusting" the guy in question. It is FUCKING ANTIFEMINIST FOR A MAN TO USURP A WOMAN'S AGENCY. I'm not going to be fucking liberated by CHIVALRY. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 11:30, 10 December 2006 (PST)


			:::::: Ide I am not getting where there is chivalry or denial of agency. Isn't it a collaborative article... When I edit someone's page that they're working on, I do it from a spirit of friendliness, engaging with them, pitching in, and not to usurp "their" subject. Is there something specific that was deleted, changed, or said by the person you reverted, that was objectionable...that was condescendingly "chivalrous"? --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:41, 10 December 2006 (PST)

	The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)		The subject of humorless feminism is on my mind lately because of the Hitchens article that was so damned obnoxious. In fact Charlie was just joking about it onstage last night and then at dinner we all made fun of Hitchens until we almost peed our pants.--[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)