Sadly, the world will never experience the Scylla Punchdown Comedy Hour.[sup]1[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup]Mostly unfair jab IMHO, but hopefully amusing.
Counterpoint: 5 Awful (But Revealing) Examples Of Conservative Comedy | Cracked.com
So now we have a target and we can decide on an angle. It might be funny to try to figure out why Republicans would choose Roy Moore as their leader. Maybe conservatives vote for child predators because it’s the only way their sons will ever get laid? No, it’s a bit dark, and we’d have to first establish how religious contrarians who hate women and sexuality as a policy aren’t good at seduction. It’s clunky. Let’s try some wit instead of insults. How about “When you’re a sex criminal and a campaigning senator, do you go door-to-door twice, or do you inform your neighbors of both during the same trip?” We’re getting there, but we may be forgetting to account for the pushback from political opponents who will argue “Not ALL of us want to be led by child predators!” And it’s true. Roy Moore, leering panty sniffer, wasn’t representative of all Republicans. He was merely fully endorsed by the their National Committee and their leader, the actual president of the United States. You know what? Let’s take a peek at how conservative cartoonist Ben Garrison handled a Roy Moore joke.
That nonsensical shit is what happens when your politics force you to take the side of a … hold on, this can’t be right … child predator. Did you see how much fun we were having when we were writing jokes from the good side of history? We were going all different directions, being mean and silly an- oh! We could do a sketch wherein Roy Moore gets a job at a colonial doll store and can’t concentrate because of all the sexy child toys! Sorry, I thought there was something there. The point is, when you are required to defend the indefensible, you spend all your time on myopic little arguments instead of hilarity. A conservative version of Roy Moore getting a job at a colonial doll store wouldn’t be fun. It would be him selling dresses and accessories while his lawyer explains how it never occurred to his client to have intercourse with all the precious white dolls. To which Roy would add, “And before anybody calls me a racist, this guy’s a Jew!” That’s a fun reference to the time Roy Moore’s wife proved he wasn’t antisemitic by declaring that one of their attorneys … WAS A JEW. Then, in a fun twist, no he wasn’t. If you haven’t figured it out by now, Roy Moore gives any comedian more material than they can handle. So let’s take another look at how conservative cartoonist Ben Garrison handled it.
Hopefully you’re starting to see why conservative comedy is hard, if not impossible. Like every time you’re mocking things from the dumb side, Ben Garrison’s comedy options were limited to calling everyone a liar, arguing how evil things are fine, or meekly insulting the other guys. None of those are very funny, and the best-case scenario is that they distract your audience from the premise of your own joke.
Also, political correctness? Really? Have you watched any standup recently? If you’re actually funny, the list of things you “can’t get away with” pretty much begins with “federal crimes”, and given Louis CK’s comeback, even that’s probably not enough to keep a good comic down, as much as we might wish it was. Don’t believe me? Go watch some fucking standup! Jimmy Carr, Frankie Boyle, Louis CK, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Carlos Mencia, Jeff Dunham, Seth Meyers, Samantha Bee… If your jokes are actually funny and connect with the audience, even if that audience is fuckin’ stupid (lookin’ at you, literally anyone who didn’t change the channel on Mind of Mencia without being incredibly high at the time) you can get away with some pretty sick shit. Or just use a framing device - it could be as basic as “the joke is actually that the character I am portraying on stage is a completely irredeemable bastard” - i.e. Jimmy Carr’s entire schtick, or most Family Guy characters.
The problem is, most right-wing comics just aren’t very funny. As said - Dennis Miller is the best you have to offer, and it only goes downhill from there. So when they crack “jokes” that are basically a nonsense slurry of words and shitty bigoted bullshit, people don’t give them pass on the latter because the former ain’t funny.
iiandyiiii—I think the TLDR summary of your post to me is, “Coffeecat, what the fuck are you talking about?” Unfortunately, I don’t grok your confusion, so I don’t know what to do but rephrase what I said the first time and hope that I’m lucky enough to be clearer the second time around.
I understood you to say that straight white men oppress women by making them follow restrictive sexual mores. I’m saying that, as a straight white male, it is not to my advantage to make women follow restrictive sexual mores. Women seem to prefer their restrictive sexual mores. If I’m wrong, I encourage them to be individuals and go their own way, but I respect them too much to pressure them on what seems to be a touchy subject.
I understood you to say that straight white men oppress women by making them do unimportant jobs like housework and childcare. I say no, housework and childcare are vital; they’re foolishly regarded as unimportant because they’re traditionally women’s work.
I understood you to say that “slut” has no masculine equivalent. I say yes, it does. I agree with the above quote; it’s my point.
A word can be used against women without being a slur. I gave examples of such words in my previous post.
They don’t directly address your post. They’re other thoughts of mine on the subject, namely—
“Slut” is a slur against promiscuous women and, as you say, such women have nothing to be ashamed of, but if we’re consistent in banning dumb sexual insults, we’ll scarcely have any insults left. I don’t think most inhabitants of the pit want that, although maybe they should.
Finally, I tried to say that because major bigotry has done so much horrible damage, we overreact to even a possible hint of trivial bigotry, get ridiculously judgemental, and overlook bigger problems. Let’s keep our perspective and remember “good enough” is a thing.
HTH.
No wonder with all this potty-mouthed slut talk I misread that “e” for an “o” in the thread title.
That’s not what I’m saying – I’m talking about systems and institutions. Our society, which has changed over time (and mostly for the better), still has somewhat traditional and oppressive gender roles, and generally more so for women. Expecially regarding sex. In my experience from talking to women, they would generally before to be free to make whatever choices they would like with consenting adults without highly unbalanced societal condemnation.
Again, this is about society, culture, and institutions, not “straight white men”, but I don’t understand what the point of this distinction is (and I never called any jobs “unimportant”).
There is no equivalent that’s about sexual shaming. Men are not shamed for promiscuity, in general. In many ways, we’re praised if we’re promiscuous.
This doesn’t refute my point. Okay, you think slur is a word that “can be used against women without being a slur”. I think it’s a slur. Contradicting me is not an argument.
Men outnumber women in prison in this country
By more than 10 to 1 (and though the statistics are difficult to produce, a sizable percentage of those women who are in jail, are there as accessories or accomplices to men they got mixed up with.)
The worst,truly dangerous, backbreaking, horrible, maiming and life threatening jobs like roughnecking in Alaska, are almost completely done by men. It’s the men who historically fight and most likely die in wars. Men tend to die 8 years earlier than women. Men tend to get shafted in divorces in this country.
None of this is to say that men have it tougher than women. To say that one has it tougher than the other is stupid, because men and women are different. They both suffer horribly. As Jim Morrison puts it “no one here gets out alive.” The challenges are different.
Up until very recently in history, the human life you were mostly likely to experience was one of almost constant suffering. It had nothing to do with your gender. Life was just very very hard.
There is no doubt that the suffering perpetrated on women by men both historically and into today is vastly greater as to render the converse infinitesimal. None of this should be interpreted as to excuse or ignore this. My point is that men do pay a price for their greater aggressiveness, disagreableness, and physical strength. Testosterone comes with its downsides.
As society evolves, and technology evolves, the historic male advantages of strength, aggressiveness and disagreeableness have far less utility, and can actually become disadvantages. Female qualities of greater conscientiousness, and social acumen are much more highly valued. Women are taking over traditional male roles in medicine, and receiving more advanced degrees.
As the world improves and becomes more and more civilized it is becoming a women’s world, one where women have the natural advantage.
While the above is settled biology, and psychology, my own personal observation is that women are immensely tougher than men, both mentally and physically. The Air Force did studies that show that women can handle more G force than men. I run marathons and ultra marathons. In ultra-running magazine, I read that the overall finish rate for one 100 miler was 60%. Women are only 15% of the starting field, but there finish rate was over 90%. This disparity is common. Women often win these races outright. Anne Trayson dominated both Leadville and the Western States for nearly a decade. If you run ultramarathons like I do, and you are a male, like I am, you will suffer a humbling phenomenon. As you stagger, crying and incoherent in the latter miles, you will get passed over and other by women, trotting by, looking fresh, singly, or chatting, and laughing amiably in pairs as if they were out for a light jog (this may actually be the only time where violent thoughts against women are justified (I kid.). This is such a common and humbling phenomenon in the ultra running community, that we have given it a name. It’s called getting “chicked.” As in, “I was doing well until the last right miles when I ran out of gas and got “chicked.”
In my home, and I suspect many others, I am not the boss. I am put in charge of things, and I am certainly granted authority, and sometimes it seems like I am in charge. But I am not. Throughout my married life, I have found that most of my direction was really not chosen by myself, and I don’t mean I received guidance or help. I mean I was told what to do by the women in my life. I am happy with this arrangement. I suspect that this is pretty common.
Nowadays, I do it mostly out of habit “training” may be the better word. As a young man I became a victim of The Great Ejaculation Control Conspiracy (while all males are aware of this, it was Neal Stephenson who first described it.)
The GECC is simply that while a male can execute a manual override, all of the good ejaculations are controlled by women, and if you want to have them, you are going to have to keep the women in your life happy and do what they say. Women speak to each other and work together, and if a male sufficiently displeases the matriarchy he may find himself shunned and deprived I quality ejaculations. While this last part is meant to be amusing the fact is that there is a lot of truth to it. A quality ejaculation facilitated by a women is something a young male heterosexual desperately values, and such a man must choose between forgoing such a thing, attempting to take it by force (and risking the consequences,) or of submitting to the GECC, in order to receive lawful and female approved ejaculations.
Again, none of this is to suggest that there is any excuse for violence against women, and there is certainly a lot of truth in the historic injustices of male dominated society, but this not a complete and accurate picture.
Women are not and have never been without their weapons. Without their Men with a shred of wisdom know this. “Hell hath no fury…”
To suggest otherwise is both demeaning to women, and to give too much credit to men. Again societal improvements tend to benefit women more than men. If there is to be a modern war of the sexes, men are going to lose. I have daughters. I am ok this. But I do worry for my brother who has boys. They may very well be at a disadvantage by the time they grow up, if they aren’t already. Women apparently already outnumber men in colleges and graduate schools across the country. It seems like **iandyiii[/] is inferring that as men we should feel guilty concerning women, or sorry for them. I don’t. I think I think better of them than that.
So, I don’t think I am unjustified in saying that when I read through Iandyii and his posts discussing the patriarchy and the subjugation of women, that he is living in the past, and just a piece of it. He dorsn’t Have the whole picture. The present is different, and the future belongs to women.
(That was really fun to write)
@Scylla: MRA talking points? Really? We’re really scraping the bottom here.
This seems like a “you” problem. If you feel like you lack control in your home life and you’re not happy with it, you should talk to your spouse. A lot of it has to do with learned helplessness - i.e. men often don’t make those decisions because you don’t want to, and it’s easier to leave that work up to the women, even if it means they make more of the decisions - in fact, because it means they make more of the decisions. In most cases, this is not the disadvantage for men you paint it as.
Man you almost went a whole post without posting something insane and offensive. Almost. What the fuck even is this entitled whiny bullshit? “WAAAH IF I WANT TO HAVE SEX I HAVE TO NOT BE A DOUCHEBAG! WAAAAAAH!!” Hey buddy, fun fact: women have the exact same problem. Except that they not only have to find someone willing to have sex with them, but that someone has to not be a selfish douchebag and often has to be willing to do more than just fuck them - which is harder than it sounds. And during that whole rigmarole, they have to constantly be looking over their shoulder in case the nice man who asked them out to dinner is going to try to “manually bypass” the “GECC” by raping them. And I somehow doubt that Neal Stephenson is quite as much a tool as you make him sound like. And so paranoid. “Women speak to each other”. “Displeases the matriarchy”. Unless you live in Podunk, Nowhere, I guarantee you can find women who don’t know each other. Jesus fucking christ, this is the “better” conservative. God save us all.
“quality ejaculations”? That’s some needy, whiny, entitled male bullshit right there. (ETA: I see BPC had that same idea, almost verbatim. Synchronicity!)
Question : Does American sex ed not teach that blue balls are a myth?
In the book, the GECC is the brainchild of a young man who is a brilliant mathematician but completely inept at all kinds of social relationships. Constructing the GECC is his way of explaining to himself the obvious fact that he’s going to have start paying attention to how other people feel if he wants to get on in life. The theory that women are using men’s sexual desire to civilise them is immediately and deliberately undercut by the character’s reflection that he’s in the middle of World War Fucking Two and Hitler doesn’t seem to be under very much control at the moment.
The GECC is an obvious piece of juvenilia designed to give us an insight into how this imperfect character views the world. It’s not a manifesto, nor is it anything grown ups should be expected to take seriously.
This doesn’t appear to actually conflict with any of my actual words.
Yeah that sounds more realistic.
It barely teaches anything, to the extent it exists at all. And many places it just teaches “sex is evil”.
Don’t many jurisdictions allow parents to “opt out” their kids from sex education classes?
Actually, it does.
You have argued that there is a history of cultural and physical oppression against women, and this has insinuated itself into our language and behavior, in such a way as to reinforce this lesser status that demeans women.
I am pointing out this is a woefully inadequate summation of both historical and present circumstances, that men have their own challenges, and women have their advantages, and this has also been so. As society has improved, the scales may be tipping and women gaining the advantage.
Further, that women, as a group, or singly need defending as a marginalized part of society would have much merit 100 years ago. It is woefully out of date and backwards today. Such an attitude is actually demeaning to women and contributes to the very attitudes that you despise. They don’t need your help.
Fluke knew exactly what she was doing. She planned it out, and executed her public action deliberately.
I disagree with her. To go after her and her stance in the strongest possible way, is a sign that I consider her an equal. If I were to hold back and not attack her the way I would a man, would suggest that she is an inferior. I considered her and her arguments formidable. Women today are formidable. In the war of ideas, and in the forum of message board, I have no gender based advantage over her.
It’s pretty much a direct refutation of what you have been arguing.
There’s this thing called “a grain of salt.” Take one and read it again.
So best case scenario you cited someone who’s shitty in his fantasy writing, well done.
“Hey, I have to call you a nigger. If I don’t, it means I don’t consider you an equal because I’m holding back and not attacking you.”
Bit of a shit argument, mate. You don’t need to use slurs like that to push back against ideas you don’t like. In fact, doing so just makes you look like a shit person. A slur isn’t an argument. It’s just an ad hominem.
This is a pretty good summation of what I’ve argued. There’s more to it, of course, but this isn’t bad at all.
So here’s where we differ – I think things have changed and are continuing to change, but the scales are still woefully out of balance, in general, mostly to the detriment of women (there are also ways in which men, especially minority and low income men, are disproportionately harmed by this system).
Accurately recounting history and the present circumstances (as I understand them) doesn’t deman anyone or contribute to any negative attitudes. Further, it helps everyone. Society will be in a better place for everyone, aside from perhaps the very rich and powerful, if we had a gender-equal (and race-equal and every other type of equality) and fair society.
None of this justifies using a hateful and demeaning slur. I seriously doubt you would have called a man making exactly the same argument a “brazen slut”. Further, I seriously doubt you would have called a black person making the same argument a n***** (if you would, then I’ve seriously misjudged you). But you are willing to use a hateful and demeaning slur against women. Which, IMO, says that you either don’t understand that “slut” and similar words are hateful and demaning slurs against women, or you have a deep-seated personal problem with women who speak out. I’m hopeful that it’s the former, and my main hope in this discussion was to persuade you that these words are, in fact, hateful and demeaning slurs against women.
“Hateful and demeaning” is the meaning that you have installed into my insult. Words come with context, and have multiple meanings and associations. I wouldn’t use “nigger,” or cunt as insults because, because they don’t have a meaning or context that I feel or endorse.
You are insisting on a rigid and narrow interpretation of language that is unrealistic and ill defined.
There are people (I grew up with many of them) who would say the same thing about n***** or other racial slurs as you do about “slut” – insist that their usage is not hateful and demeaning to all. I think they’re wrong, as you are about your usage. In effect, for a small number of words, the user’s intent is utterly swamped by the cultural and societal context and wide understanding of the meaning of the word.
And I think you agree with me to some degree – you seem to in the above paragraph about n***** and c***. You just don’t agree with me about “slut”. If so, that’s where the difference lies – you don’t think that words goes into the same category as the others, while I think they are all hateful and demeaning slurs.