Talk:Humorless feminism

always interesting to see where people go ... i was thinking primarily of research focusing on comedy and humor that looks at gender distinctions, and the history of women's humor; and how that ties into aspersions cast on women and feminists. glad to see others raising the issues of sexist/racist/prejudicial humor, although it seems (to me) to be a somewhat different (albeit related) issue. ... certainly the relations of prejudicial humor to oppression/hierarchical class structures is an interesting topic that we have only begun to hint at. (probably we need to flesh out the further readings, though, because they primarily address the first issue--women's/feminist sense of humor or lack thereof. i haven't done much reading on the uses of prejudicial humor, so hopefully someone else can add some supportive "further readings"? )--LQ 09:25, 10 December 2006 (PST)

MISPLACED FUCKING CHIVALRY. --Ide Cyan 11:01, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Actually, rather than simply reversing without explanation, it would probably be more constructive to explain what was problematic in the edits. Whatever the reasoning behind people's contributions, I think it would be better to let them stand on their own. I liked some of the edits & think reverting with such evident hostility discourages participation. --LQ 11:07, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Info concerning sexist humour per se belongs in a fucking different ENTRY THAN THIS ONE. And THIS here is a case of a guy stepping in to be effective ON MY BEHALF when he had NO FUCKING IDEA what I wanted to do, and I DO NOT THINK MY HOSTILITY IS MISPLACED. AT ALL. --Ide Cyan 11:09, 10 December 2006 (PST)

What? I'm reading some of the stuff that got deleted now and it's cool and I'd like to put some of it back. Esp. the stuff about verbal self defense. I'm not seeing where all the hostility is... it seems like a good article in the making. Ide, if there are things you disagree with I would favor separating them out, like "on the one hand, this point of view, and also...." It is unlikely that collectively we will produce something where we all agree with every point. I am just learning through doing on Wiki writing, like many of us. But it seems that before I deleted big chunks of someone's work or reverted it, I would open discussion with them of why and would suggest a restructuring that didn't erase their efforts, which could be extremely discouraging. By saying this, I don't want to be discouraging of you, Ide, but I want to suggest a more open line of communication. I do believe that there could be situations where it is best to shut down a discussion, or discourage or kick out a person, but those should be for extreme cases of trolling or "invasion", I think, and this does not seem like that kind of situation to me. :Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 11:17, 10 December 2006 (PST)

Coming in from a link on MY LIVEJOURNAL to do an edit and usurping my bloody agency FUCKING COUNTS AS AN INVASION. HELL. Why am I THE ONLY ONE SEEING THIS?!?!? --Ide Cyan 11:24, 10 December 2006 (PST)

(A) I'm not sure this person is a guy. Maybe you have some extra knowledge on that point but it's not evident from anything I see in the posting or user profile. (B) From the (relative) outside, looking in, the edits themselves look pretty useful and interesting. I agree that some of them are a different topic (as I said at the top comment) but that just means we could split them out to separate articles, not delete. (C) I didn't say your hostility was misplaced; I have no idea where it comes from -- maybe you have other interactions with this person, whatever -- I just said that evident hostility discourages participation. --LQ 11:19, 10 December 2006 (PST)

So I'm the only one who sees the FUCKING IRONY in you two leaping to defend those changes while I'm here in the fucking humourless feminist role, huh? HA BLOODY HA. --Ide Cyan 11:22, 10 December 2006 (PST)

No, I see your point that you don't like your ideas that are under development to be edited by a guy (?) who you don't know or trust. But I would like us on the wiki to talk and explain reasons... that's why I'm talking now. --Liz Henry 11:28, 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. --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"? --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. --Ide Cyan 11:44, 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.)

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. Glaurung 15:07, 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. horrid article about how women aren't funny --Liz Henry 11:36, 10 December 2006 (PST)

HERE!!! Get your pipin' hot NEW page about Sexist Humor and edit it separately! --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. --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. 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 .... --LQ 22:55, 10 December 2006 (PST)