I think I’ve talked before about the relative who sends me dumb blonde jokes. (I’m blonde, for those of you who don’t know or haven’t clicked on the About page.)
Unfortunately, the joke sending has now morphed into sending random jokes that are offensive to all women. Equal opportunity offense. I don’t know what to say to this person. I really don’t. Because if I speak up and others find out about it — and others WILL find out about it — I’ll look like a real sourface prissypants. Which I am, I just don’t want to look like one. I’ve created an email filter, but occasionally a joke gets past it. Then the email is magically clicked on. You know, somehow. Okay. Well, mainly because it’s there and I see it and I experience a phenomenon I just made up that I will call “pre-anger” or “anger foreplay.” I get all hot and bothered about the whole dealio, just thinking about what that email might say, so of course, I HAVE to go all the way and READ the damn thing just to have the sweet release of anger that I’m so jonesing for and just to prove that my pre-anger anger was justified. (This all makes perfect sense inside my head.) If the jokes were funny, I’d forgive the offensiveness. I would. I mean, if you’re going to be offensive, you’d best be wet-my-pants funny, Slappy.
The problem here is the jokes are 1) NOT funny, and 2) SO offensive.
Here’s the email joke this relative sent this week:
A woman goes to the doctor, beaten black and blue.
Doctor: “What happened?”
Woman: “Doctor, I don’t know what to do. Every time my husband comes home drunk, he beats me to a pulp.”
Doctor: “I have a real good medicine for that. When your husband comes home drunk, just take a glass of sweet tea and start swishing it in your mouth. Just swish and swish but don’t swallow until he goes to bed and is asleep.”
Two weeks later the woman comes back to the doctor looking fresh and reborn.
Woman: “Doctor, that was a brilliant idea! Every time my husband came home drunk, I swished with sweet tea. I swished and swished, and he didn’t touch me!”
Doctor: “You see how much keeping your mouth shut helps?”
Wow. WOW. WOW. So we women deserve to get the crap beaten outta us because we can’t keep out mouths shut???
WHAT??
If that weren’t bad enough, I noticed on the list of recipients the name of a young girl, a mutual acquaintance, who happens to be about 18 years old. (And, yes, the sender is a male.) Is this the message he wants to send to an 18-year-old girl he cares about? That women just need to keep their yaps shut? That not keeping your yap shut is the thing that makes a man hit you?? That it’s YOUR fault if you’re hit?
I imagine most women reading this either have experienced being hit or know women who have been hit. I have. I do. And it’s not the woman’s fault. It’s NOT.
In what universe is this joke funny?? Or, really, tell me if I’m overreacting. And then tell me what you’d do about this person who’s sending these jokes.
I have no idea what to do. Or, rather, I know what I WANT to do, but I think the price of doing it may be too high.
And let me be the first to say — what’s with the “JO” in “jokes”? I don’t know what’s going on with my post titles lately, but I literally can’t fix it unless I change the title and I hate coming up with post titles anyway, so, naturally, I would hate even more having to think of a new and possibly lamer title.
But what’s going on???
That joke was forwarded to me this week, too! WEIRD.
I think you’re overreacting to this joke. It’s not suggesting that anyone deserves to get beat up. If you give it an honest second read, you’ll find that it is funny because, like a lot of funny jokes, it contains a grain of truth. Now granted that grain of truth is dressed up in a ridiculous groucho marx ensemble, but that’s how jokes are made.
If I need to spell it out for you, here’s the grain of truth: Women are often blind to the way they provoke their men. That’s true. Just because a joke contains violence doesn’t mean it is justifying violence in real life.
Not funny. Not at all. If you live in a universe that this is funny I’m sorry for you and your universe. I’m a fan of dark humor, you know movies like Heathers, Fargo, Harold and Maude, etc. but this is just wrong.
I know “anger foreplay” it’s the older, meaner brother to “irritation foreplay” which I get sometimes when I see certain numbers on my caller id.
Tracey,
Violence against anyone (women or men, adults or children, of any race, etc) is abhorrent. Agreed. On the other hand, jokes are not actual violence against anyone. While it could be argued that the jokes on some level validate the violence, that argument would have to be extended to literature, too, and we’d be banning books again just because a male protagonist beat some woman.
It’s up to you what you take from a book/painting/joke. From this one, while I admit it’s directed towards the stereotype that women talk too much, I actually understand that if we think a little bit, we can easily solve so many of our own problems. In this case, the woman’s problem of being beaten is not directly related to her husband’s arriving home drunk, rather to whatever it is she is saying to her inebriated hubby when he gets home.
Tell me, would you be so offended if the joke were so crude, but directed towards a group of which you are not a member? Brunettes, blacks, Catholic priests?
Kevin: Could you BE any more condescending??
Why don’t you read THIS again:
/If I need to spell it out for you, here’s the grain of truth: Women are often blind to the way they provoke their men. That’s true. Just because a joke contains violence doesn’t mean it is justifying violence in real life./
“If I need to spell it out for you”?? Do I somehow come across as an idiot, Kevin? Seriously? No, you don’t NEED to spell it out for me. The implication of the joke is perfectly clear to me: “Women, shut up and you’re less likely to get hit.”
“Women are often blind to the way they provoke their men”?? Unbelievable. So rather than telling a woman she’s angering you or something, it’s okay to SMACK her?? If she’s blind to the way she’s provoking her man — WHACK — that’ll open her eyes??
Good Lord. Scary, dude. Really scary. Glad I don’t know you in person. Why don’t you send this joke along to your daughter or your sister or your mother? I’m sure they’ll all enjoy it and appreciate your sensitivity.
Dear Kevin and Joe:
I hope that you can see that out of the three men that have responded so far, Brian, who happens to be my husband, is the only man who thinks that this kind of joking is wrong.
I feel sorry for the women in your life.
Sincerely,
Kathi
Now that I got that out of the way…
I don’t find any kind of violence toward women or children “funny.” Which is why whenever we see a show or comedian that tries to make a joke out of these subjects we turn the channel. I don’t understand why anybody would find this humorous.
I don’t know what to tell you as far as what you should do about this person. If “outing” him is going to cause him to retaliate against you, you may want to think twice. You could always contact the young woman who was also on the list and voice your concern to her – just to let her know that this kind of “joking” is not appropriate. A lot of women are led to believe that this is just the way it is and we should just deal with it. Some young women need guidance in understanding that there are decent men out there.
Joe — /From this one, while I admit it’s directed towards the stereotype that women talk too much, I actually understand that if we think a little bit, we can easily solve so many of our own problems./
Really, I’m not sure you understand the abuse dynamic. Anyone who does in the slightest is not likely to find this joke funny.
“If we think a little bit, we can easily solve so many of our problems”?
And in this joke, it’s the WOMAN who’s not thinking before she speaks, right, rather than the drunk man who’s not thinking before he hits? She just isn’t THINKING enough to avoid the fist of the DRUNK man. Damn her anyway! Plenty of thinking people find themselves on the other end of a fist and all the “thinking” in the world on the part of a victim doesn’t change the mental/emotional pathology of an abuser.
And both of you gentlemen — Kevin, Joe — have missed the larger point of my post. I regularly receive dumb blonde jokes and now random stupid women jokes from this relative. It’s a problem. I don’t find it necessary. This person could say something like “Hi, how are you?” and yet chooses to send these instead. Those forwarded emails are dehumanizing and timewasting, in my opinion, and yet people still want “credit” for sending a personal email when they haven’t made any effort whatsoever. (“Why haven’t you responded to my email?” “Did you get my email?”) This person believes he’s making a connection with me this cheap, no-effort, and frequently offensive way.
I have a good sense of humor, but this is becoming harassing. To me.
Kathi — Well, Brian is a gem, as we all know. 😉
And I can think of a few other men who read here who probably wouldn’t find this funny either.
The fallback position of certain folks is: “you’re overreacting, just like a typical humorless woman”. This is so typical as to be almost boring now. Jokes aren’t in and of themselves violent, but just go back and watch how blacks were portrayed in the movies in the 20s and 30s and you tell me that those “jokes” were not expressly meant to keep a certain population in their place, and aware of what the dominant culture thought of them.
Jokes are VERY important propaganda tools.
I’m not politically correct at all, and enjoy bawdy humor and bathroom humor and all the rest – but this isn’t bawdy. It’s hostile.
Me no like.
Another thing, Kevin and Joe — If you’re a joke teller or someone who likes to send jokes along in an email, it might be wise to consider your audience or your recipient. Personally, I don’t think MEN should risk sending a dicey joke about women to a woman, unless they’re sitting around thinking, “Hm. How can I look like a douche today? Oh! I know!”
I mean, I wouldn’t send a joke about black people to a black person. I wouldn’t send a joke that’s offensive to Catholics to a Catholic.
If I choose to go see, oh, Chris Rock or someone in concert, I go with the understanding that he will probably be really offensive and really funny too. I CHOOSE that when I buy the ticket. But I’m not choosing to get these in my email. Chris Rock can be pretty sure that the people out in his audience have chosen to take whatever he throws at them. I’m not paying to hear this man’s concert. He just shows up, unbidden, in my inbox and expects me to applaud.
Know your audience. Not everything is funny to everybody and even people with good senses of humor have lines in the sand or issues that trigger them.
This is one of mine. That YOU think it’s funny means it’s not one of yours.
Lisa – I feel strangely hurt that no one forwarded ME that terrible hostile joke.
sheila — Yes!
/I’m not politically correct at all, and enjoy bawdy humor and bathroom humor and all the rest – but this isn’t bawdy. It’s hostile./
I’m the same way. And I so agree.
I will forward it to you, but you’d BETTER LAUGH or I will SMACK YOU!!
Tracey – Do you know Kevin and Joe? If not, how do these people get to your site? It seems like there’s been at least one of these types of people who have come along on your last few posts.
There are countless stories now of bosses getting in trouble for forwarding TERRIBLE things to their staffs. You have to wonder what these guys were thinking.
Like I said: I laugh uproariously at certain things with certain people – but to send it out in a blanket email to coworkers or just people in my address book?
It’s a wee bit clueless.
Kathi — Nope. I don’t know them. Looks like Kevin has a blog, though. He apparently likes Hobbits, which, as I recall, are decidedly nonviolent types.
Maybe he and Joe are friends. I have no idea.
DEAR. GOD. As a woman who has experienced physical abuse in her life, there is NOTHING remotely funny about that “joke.” Oh. My. God. I am offended and HORRIFIED that 1) anyone would send that two you, 2) someone who loves you would send that to you, 3) ANYONE would actually defend it in the comments. I’m LIVID. LIV.ID.
My grandfather beat my grandmother. And my mother. And my aunts. In turn, my mother was very physically, and verbally abusive herself. In turn, my brother is also abusive. Maybe this just hits a little too close to home for me, but hooboy, nothing funny about it.
It’s like joking about rape. Or child molestation. Funny funny stuff!
Sorry Trac. You can delete this comment if you want, but my WORD. It just makes me really sad that anyone would think such a horrific, life destroying, topic is funny.
Yeah, sometimes women talk to much. I get it. That’s funny. Find another way to make your point.
Also yeah: saying “If I need to spell it out for you” in your first comment to a woman you don’t even know – that’s a huge red flag.
Jess — AMEN, hon. I know exactly where you’re coming from.
And these gentlemen — who may or may not ever come back and see these comments — need an education. You just gave it to them.
sheila — I know. That’s not the way to “introduce” yourself to a blogger, is it?
“Let me help you, poor dumb woman who I would never hit, of course, because I love Hobbits, but sometimes you chicks ARE SO ANNOYING AND BLIND to the ways you REALLYREALLYREALLY piss me — again, a nonviolent Hobbit — OFF!!”
Oh my God. This whole comment thread is so f’d up. Sheila and Tracey, love you both. Some of the guys here are douches. There’s no other way to say it.
Would Samwise Gamgee beat his wife and expect her to keep her mouth shut about it?
Would Bilbo forward this joke to Gandalf? Would he regale the elven community with it and expect them to chuckle?
Hobbits, as I recall, have good manners.
Not sure how practical this is as a solution, but… every couple of years I get a new email account. Not on purpose, it just happens to happen… but it’s a convenient way to get off certain “mailing lists.”
I also have a habit of having “dummy” email accounts for giving out to certain people, but then, I’m a hermit. And I HATE forwarded emails, no matter what’s in ’em. Those weirdoes who spam their address books really really need to learn to blog instead.
Jeez, I have no words, between that awful “joke” and the drive-by comments from a-holes, except that I’m sorry somebody thought it was a great idea to unearth something really unfunny from the compost heap and forward it a gazillion times.
Brenda — Good idea, but the problem is this person is family. Can’t escape him. Most anything anyone sends me with a “FW” is supposed to be caught by the filter I set up because I HATE those too. I don’t care what your “FW”ed email is about, DON’T send it to me.
Btw — I want everyone to now start their comments with “If I need to spell it out for you.”
That would amuse me.
Possible variations are “If I need to spell it out for you, peaches” or “If I need to spell it out for you, Slappy.”
Adding those dismissives that make my blog such a joy to read would really pack a punch. Also, I might add that employing that phrase when you’re meeting someone new or going on a date or talking to your gammie would really seal the bond between you.
Something like …..
“So what’s your favorite movie?”
“If I need to spell it out for you, Slappy, it’s From Justin to Kelly.”
“So, Billy, how are you doing in school?”
“Well, if I need to spell it out for you, gammie, I’m doing better at school than you are at breathing.”
You know, ad nauseam.
I think a lot of today’s humor is trending toward the tasteless and offensive. It’s a sorry trend.
Tracey, I’m sorry if my comment came across as condescending.
On the other hand, Joe and I both clearly said that we don’t condone violence. I don’t know how to make the women in this comment thread understand that other than saying it outright. So what can I do when the response from so many of you is to ignore what we said, and react as if we had said we think women deserve to get hit? Should I repeat myself? Wouldn’t that be condescending too?
People joke about all sorts of terrible things. Sometimes they are successfully funny and sometimes not. I don’t think the funniness of the joke has much relation to how terrible the subject matter. In fact sometimes jokes are funnier because they’re dark. Sometimes, paradoxically, we joke about terrible things to protect ourselves from dealing with them seriously.
If you think this joke isn’t funny, you’re free to take a stab at explaining why. But don’t just fall back on the “violence is never funny” meme. That’s not even trying. I mean, you might not like the joke because it reminds you of some terrible thing you haven’t gotten over. But if you have some kind of trauma that prevents you from appreciating the joke, that’s a special case. Condemning people for laughing at a joke that you are too emotionally injured to appreciate is like an alcoholic trying to get society to ban liquor.
(and btw I have no reason to think Joe is any of the Joes that I know.)
I thought it was offensive because the doctor obviously wasn’t using any sort of sense with this advice, was what jumped out at me first. Second, he was putting her in some amazing danger. The “shut up so you don’t get swacked” actually makes some twisted sense when you are IN THE MIDDLE of that situation. The part about why don’t you get OUT of that situation is just more complicated.
I knew someone who was the victim of domestic violence (doesn’t it sound nicer that way rather than, “he smacked her head into a pole because she told him to shut up?”) and the police came. Then the judge told the man that he ought to be nice to his girlfriend and to consider this a warning.
SO… my take is he’ll just be more careful to take away the cell phone next time. They had little kids, too.
Kevin – Tracey never said “violence is never funny”. You are imposing something on the post that doesn’t exist, because of your own preconceived notions.
And she did “take a stab” at explaining why. Did you read the post?
You may not agree with her conclusions, but your original comment was hostile in tone and aggressive and, yes, condescending. Do I need to spell it out for you? Deal with it. You have bad manners. If you are unaware of how you come across on the Internet, that’s your problem.
Sheila, I was responding to everyone. The general sense I get from the thread is that the joke isn’t funny precisely for the reason that violence in real life isn’t funny. If that line of reasoning holds, then it must be true that violence can never be funny.
I also see a lot of people, including Tracey, interpretting the joke in a moralistic sense to mean that women deserve to get hit because of how they provoke it. But that isn’t really stated. The only thing explicit in the joke is that the violence can be avoided by not provoking it. There’s no statement about who deserves what. Only causation. I think that’s an important distinction, and in fact the more I think about it, the more I think that’s what is not being understood.
Let me spell it out for you. (Sit down, I’m joking.)
Suppose I told a joke about a guy who keeps getting mugged. The story meanders along, throwing in some very random details that confuse the listener, and then the punchline is the revelation that
A) The random details were included for specific reason, to prepare for the punchline. This gives the “OH!” response that is an important component of humor.
B) The explanation in the punch line not only explains those weird details, but reveals that they guy has been walking down a dark alleyway every night with hundred dollar bills sticking out of his pockets.
Its too early in the morning for me to fill in the actual details and tell the joke, but you get the idea. We’re laughing at the man. Importantly, we’re not justifying the mugger. He’s a bad guy. He’s an archetype that is necessary to tell the joke. We’re not saying anybody deserves to get mugged. And somebody who was mugged in real life might be so horrified by their experience that they can’t laugh at the joke.
…But it’s funny. It has the same structure as the joke Tracey put in her post. Somebody is repeatedly doing something to provoke an attack. Just explaining it is a little boring, but you give it the proper confusing/clever setup and deliver it with the right timing, and it becomes very funny.
And here’s where I’m going to piss everyone off, so first let me repeat that no one deserves to get hit, but: Verbally nagging and needling someone who is drunk and irritable is just as dumb as walking down a dark alley with hundred dollar bills hanging out of your pockets. Ok, the first time is a learning experience. But if you do it over and over again, then you’re comedy material.
As to what you might do about this relative (who in my opinion is at the least expressing hostility toward the women in his life. “jokes” like that one are often a way of deliberately being offensive, expressing hostility, in a way that disallows the recipient to come back with equal hostility. “Relax! I was just kidding” and all that). Anyway–you could reciprocate with some jokes that express hostility toward men, preferably in an insulting or offensive way. Maybe a few jokes about castration would do it. If he gets offended and says something about it, it might at least open up the opportunity for you to say something, perhaps along the lines of ” I’ll stop if you will”.
Kevin, certain subjects just don’t make for good comedy. Beating a woman to a pulp because she spoke just doesn’t make for funny material. Stealing a $100 from a fool in a dark alley is different.
I suggest that you just take a glass of sweet tea and start swishing it in your mouth. Don’t swallow until all the ladies here have gone to bed.
WOW.
It isn’t funny. It just isn’t.
Set aside the knee-jerk reaction to violence against women.
Pretend it’s a man and the alcoholic is his employer.
Or a child and the alcoholic is the mother.
Or that the person getting beaten is black and the alcoholic is white.
Is it still funny to you?
Also consider the fact that when men read this, add to the scenario the sexually charged image of a very stupid woman keeping her mouth busy by swishing liquid around in it. Not something anyone wants to acknowledge – but very disturbing.
Anyway:
The “joke” predicates that the person who gets beaten is:
A) stupid
B) at fault
The doctor looks at the situation and, instead of finding a way to solve the problem that makes a joke at the expense of the person indulging in cruel and reckless behavior (the drunk who habitually beats his wife), it makes a joke out of the innocent and (apparently really stupid) party.
Part of a good joke and MUCH of the history of humor is the fall of the “bad” guy. It’s funny when Charlie Chaplain is chased by a bullying police officer and something falls on the officer’s head. Why? The physical humor becomes funny because the sweet “little guy” is being bullied and the audience feels good about the bully getting what he deserves – even if the reparation is silly and low-key.
Instead, this so-called joke places the burden of responsibility on the “little guy” – the weaker person. This ruins it as humor.
Kevin uses the word “provoke” – the use of this word implies that responsibility for the suffering lies with the person doing the “provoking.”
If you think it’s funny and feel the need to defend it – you need to take a good hard look at yourself and what it is internally that drives you to defend the reckless jerk in the scenario and not the weaker and, evidently, mentally deficient victim. Because the perception of this as humor predicates that you relate to the person who comes out on top. Which is why most people root for the “little guy” and find the triumph of that type of character satisfying.
If the sadist getting home and, thanks to the family physician, not having to face a wife who wants to know why he’s drunk AGAIN and, therefore, not having to beat her – if that’s a satisfying ending to the scenario and therefore comfortably funny to you – something is very wrong. And I feel sorry for anyone who feels that way.
Honestly? It’s a great barometer. If I could know, moments before I met them, whether a person thought this was funny or not – it would tell me all I need to know walking in. Who do your sympathies lie with? If they lie with the oppressive habitual drunk – I don’t need to know you.
Brian, would it make a difference if the mugger was beating the guy up every time he took his money?
I’m 100% serious with this question. I want to know what you think before I respond more.
Brian, I have a second question: Have you ever been mugged? At gunpoint? Do you think it’s a laughing matter to be mugged in real life?
Brian, you seem to think that a joke about somebody getting mugged because they act stupidly could be funny. How would you feel if Marisa concluded that your sympathies lie with real-life muggers? Are you a thug who harbors violent tendencies towards people who are wealthy and law-abiding? How would it make you feel to have someone assume that about you because you thought a joke was funny? Is it fair? How would you respond to Marisa if she said that about you?
OH – The best way I could think of to frame this – just came to me:
Why was the movie “Home Alone” a huge hit and super funny?
Because the kid is the “little guy” and he does all sorts of terrible things – things that make us cringe – to the “bad guys” – the characters who are engaging in illegal and morally reprehensible behavior (can we agree that breaking into a house that you KNOW a child is alone in is morally reprehensible?)
Re-imagine “Home Alone” in which the bad guys are trying to catch the kid and, in order to do so, THEY set up traps that burn the child on the face, make him slip and smack his head on a hard floor, and drive nails through his feet.
NOT FUNNY ANYMORE, right?
THAT’s why the joke isn’t funny.
TRACEY – I would send an email to the guy that says, essentially, “I know you probably forward jokes as a way to make people laugh and brighten their day, but I felt like I had to let you know that this last joke made me uncomfortable and kind-of had the opposite effect. I hate to ask, because it’s always good to get jokes from you that ARE my cup of tea (I get a good laugh at the blonde jokes!), but could you try not to send jokes like this one on to me in future?” Something like that. It’s excessively reasonable, but it makes you sound non-judgemental. Being judged for having such a crap sense of humor is what gets people (like the couple of bizarro commentors above) to jump into defensive mode. Some part of them must know what it says about them – so they get their dander up. Just don’t put his dander up.
Kevin – the mugger’s victim isn’t the weak one in the scenario. He has a lot of money – something we perceive as implying power – and he boldly walks into dark alleys on a regular basis – evidently perceiving himself confidently (and apparently incorrectly) as someone who can defend himself or is at least a strong enough presence to go undisturbed in late night walks in dangerous areas.
Because of this, based on my parameters, the joke would not be comparable.
Now, if the joke predicated that the guy who keeps getting mugged works in a bar and his boss MAKES him come in through the back every night – through a dark alley. And he isn’t powerful because of money because say, that money is the pay he made that night and he NEEDS it – he’s just too dumb to put it well within his wallet. And the guy’s a skinny little guy who can’t defend himself, even if he isn’t smart enough to realize that the better solution would be to find a different job… well, THEN it’s comparable.
But then it isn’t funny. Because he’s the “little guy.”
Oh, and I HAVE been mugged and I have never been beaten by anyone (unless you count schoolyard fights when I was in 3rd grade. It was a scrappy year for me. But I usually won – so I don’t know that I identify directly with the victim as it were. LOL)
I think it’s just a natural dynamic:
Is the “bad guy” character morally reprehensible? cruel? is the behavior of the bad guy repeated – implying in a vague way that it’s a habitual bad guy/terrible person character?
Is the “victim” stupid but totally innocent? stupid enough to partially create the situation, but stuck in the situation?
Now, if the “victim” is a braggart or mean as well as stupid or at fault because the victim created the scenario as an effort to hurt the aggressor – THEN it’s funny. Because the “victim” character did something we perceive as “wrong” out of something other than just not knowing better. The humor depends on the bad thing or the punchline happening to someone who is deserving of it in some way that is not morally questionable.
For the record – so I don’t offend everyone else – when I say the woman in the original joke is stupid I am referring to her taking the “swish tea” cure as a fact and genuinely useful NOT to the fact that she talks to her husband when he comes home drunk. Until we are asked to believe that she ACTUALLY THINKS SWEET TEA IS A CURE – we have no info about her other than that she has a crap hubby. But we must assume she is stupid if she listens to that advice from her doctor. And doesn’t report him. 😉
Marisa, now you are just adding your own details. I never said the guy getting mugged was rich or powerful or confident or a strong presence. He obviously is not going “undisturbed” late at night in dangerous areas. For crying out loud, he is getting mugged.
And another thing, where do you get off saying a woman is the “little guy” in a marriage? Why the heck should we believe she is any less powerful? Women have more power than men in a lot of areas of modern life. She could go to the police and press charges, get a restraining order, get him thrown in jail, his kids taken away, and harrassed for child support payments regardless of his ability to pay or the affect his prosecution has on his job prospects… women have plenty of power.
Your assessment of the power balance in BOTH jokes is purely your invention. You’re just making things up to suit your case.
Oh, and I actually do agree with everything the ladies said above. Domestic abuse is never funny. My maternal grandmother (biological mother’s side – not my stepmom’s) beat my grandfather. Habitually. Almost killed him. Never gonna be funny.
I just felt like someone should address it the way Kevin was asking for it to be addressed. Take the “issue” out of it – still not funny.
What IS funny?
Kevin ended like, his fourth or fifth comment with “And here’s where I’m going to piss everyone off…” – HILARIOUS.
I actually snorted.
As my paternal grandmother would say, ‘Wake up ta’ yourself!”
Wake up to yourself, indeed. On this thread, I’ve been called scary, told people are glad not to know me, told people feel sorry for those that know me, told I need an education, called a doucebag, called an a-hole, called hostile, aggressive, condescending, and told I have bad manners, and told my sympathies lie with domestic abusers and drunks.
This is all because, aside from people’s anger at the mere fact of having their opinions contradicted, I was rowdy enough to say these words: “If I need to spell it out for you…”
Show me one place where I have responded in kind. Show me one personal attack that I’ve made. You can’t find one.
And this is all on top of having my opinion repeatedly restated in a way that blatantly contradicts what I actually said, namely the false charge that I think women who talk deserve to be beaten. You yourself said that I believe this because I used the word “provoke”.
But I’m trying to figure out if you people really believe that about me, or if it is just a convenient rhetorical attack. Why would someone whose sympathies lie with scumbag husbands bother to try to explain a different perspective to a bunch of women? Why would an insensitive doucebag hold their toungue when receiving so many insults and continue to try to make a contrary idea more understandable for a hostile audience? Why would the burping, lowbrow fellow I hear about in these comments not just retire to the company of like minds? In fact what was he doing reading Tracey’s website in the first place?
Kevin – no doubt, my mom, and my wife, and my sister are often blind to the way they provoke poor innocent ol’ me. But you know something? I DON’T STRIKE THEM, EVER. I don’t make horrible jokes about striking them. I don’t come home piss-ass drunk twelve times a month and then “put them in their place” with a well-timed belt to the chops.
This whole alleged bit of “humor” hinges on accepting that a husband has the right to strike his wife when she calls him on his bullshit. To even protest against his assholery is to “earn” a beating.
Frankly, the hubby’s the one who needs the medicine here – two lead tablets applied to center mass. Repeat as necessary.
If I need to spell it out for you – if keeping one’s mouth shut helps so much, you should try it.
Mike, the only thing you said that remotely touches on this conversation is that “This whole alleged bit of “humor†hinges on accepting that a husband has the right to strike his wife when…”
Would you care to back that up with any actual reasons, or are you just going to continue to imply that I approve of beating women (and subtly threaten me with violence)?
I don’t think I made any personal attacks, I believe I was general. Except for referencing the fact that you did – and that’s just funny after how mad everyone had been – make that statement about now getting people mad.
I intentionally didn’t click your link until after responding. And I chose NOT to say that you actually sympathize with wife-beaters specifically (or at least I did not intend to). What I noted is that you initial reaction seems to be to identify with the antagonist in the scenario – as opposed to the “little guy” character. Which is somewhat unusual in someone who would also frequent Tracey’s blog. It’s not unheard of on the whole, but it implies a different personality dynamic.
Now your reaction is probably one of two things: either you have a tendency to argue the unpopular point because you enjoy the squabble and/or the attention OR you identify with the overbearing, more powerful character and in some way feel a need to defend the fact that you find those jokes funny. This doesn’t mean you are a bad person. It is possible that it means you are insensitive in life and tend to be defensive about that. It is possible that you are a bullying “type” and that the need to defend this is compelling to you. But I don’t know you. You may be NOTHING like that at all.
You can tell from my response that I’m analytical and I compartmentalize emotional response, so I first wanted to come at this logically.
And that a lot of women here have negative responses to domestic violence scenarios because they’ve seen the damage firsthand, and honestly – once you have, that kind of emotional response makes all other discussion pretty impossible. Because a wife getting beaten makes ANYTHING NOT FUNNY to them… and to most people. Quite reasonably.
And that Brian is a sensitive guy who understands a female perspective (and agrees with it in this instance) and probably has a lot of women in his life. Who he is protective of.
You entered an arena where you had to know your opinion or the position you were choosing to defend would make you wildly unpopular and be ill-recieved. THAT is what I think one needs to wake up to. What did you hope to accomplish by starting that discussion? You seem fairly intelligent – you words things clearly and discuss abstract concepts – thus you are able to register the response this would illicit if you chose to think about it. So why?
AND Tracey was clear in her position and her desire to get advice about making the jokes STOP coming to her. You chose to address what were, as far as I can see, essentially rhetorical questions. You did respond without personal attacks, but that should be natural. This is Tracey’s “house” – I questions you thinking the joke is funny and sharing that with us, not your manners.
Don’t walk into a room, spout the most unpopular opinion you can think of, and then get upset when the crowd reacts the way anyone could have predicted they would. That’s just silly.
LOL. Typing too fast and skipping letters or adding extra ones. Oops.
Also – I meant to say that I didn’t click the link to Kevin’s website/blog/whatevs to avoid bringing anything personal into this. And actually it is far more frightening to think that an essentially normal guy finds this sort of thing funny. If you honestly do, I do believe it says things about one’s underlying personality that are unnerving. NOT that one is a douche or a wife-beater, but that one identifies with a dynamic that is well, cause for concern. And yes, I am okay with the fact that I don’t know you personally – in the abstract. If I learned that someone I was friends with found that joke funny, I would quietly find a way to end my association with them.
Marisa, your unstated assumption is that in order to find the joke funny, I MUST actually be able to identify with the wife-beater. But that’s not the only possibility. I don’t have to identify with either of them. Why should I?
Why do we have to pick sides whenver we hear of a dysfunctional relationship? When my level of knowledge is at zero, which it essentially is in this case, why shouldn’t I assume that both the husband and the wife are fairly contemptible, stupid people? Why can’t I laugh at them both? Because honestly, why would a non-dysfunctional person get into a marriage like that and then stick around to get beat up? It doesn’t make a lick of sense. The reality is, it takes two to tango. Adults that are voluntarily in dysfunctional relationships are dysfunctional people.
And to your response that I should have known better: I read a lot of blogs but I never ever read the comments unless I decide to comment myself. So I had no preconceived notion of the commenters here, and to be honest I was surprised it wasn’t more of a 50/50 discussion. I wasn’t being deliberately provocative. I was just responding to Tracey, who said,
“Or, really, tell me if I’m overreacting.”
Hmm. I must have worded something unclearly. What I am saying is that, in humor – we react and something is or is not funny due to the dynamic. And our perception of the dynamic. A lot of humor depends on the fact that most people identify with OR just root for the “little guy” or weaker character. I genuinely think the joke isn’t funny on it’s face because it is dependent on one seeing humor in the suffering of the underdog. That’s not humor, that’s exploiting the fact that some people have a wonky internal barometer regarding the upper-hand/lower-hand dynamic. People who laugh at this will be people I think less of and perfect not to know because of what it says about one’s psyche. I don’t think dysfunctional relationships or stupid people are funny. I don’t have the need to feel superior over others that that type of “humor” typically requires.
perfect= prefer. Dude. learn to TYPE, Marisa. 😛
Also – last comment acknowledged. I’m surprised – because I tend to take the temp of a room before I start talking. So I know who I’m talking to. But I suppose I can see how you may have had no idea that you were talking to a large group of people who would inherently think your stance on this was offensive.
Also – tracey. Sorry. Totally misread your take on the dumb blonde jokes. It they offend you as well (and it does seem antagonistic to keep sending them to you)… perhaps firmer action is required. I have sadly had to just discontinue interaction with some relatives who have an antagonistic bent. Life is too short to make room for crappy people. 🙂
I still think you’re trying to make absolutes out of generalizations. Haven’t you ever seen the Honeydew and Beaker skits on the muppets? Beaker is a quintessential “little guy” who gets constantly abused, and it’s quite funny. Furthermore, that kind of abuse would not be funny at all if it took place in real life. It would be really horrific. But that’s ok because … it’s a joke. You don’t have to be a person who deep down identifies with abusive and callous scientists in order to think it’s funny.
And you just said that stupid people aren’t funny. Uh, I’m not sure you thought that through. Probably more than 50% of the humor our civilization generates relies on somebody doing something stupid, for comedic effect. And they’re often dysfunctional to boot. Now obviously, that’s not to say we all should be laughing at people who are stupid or dysfunctional in real life. That’s just kind of tragic. But we can still make comedy out of it when it is fictional.
Kevin – I am not implying that you approve of the husband’s behavior. You are implying it. I am merely pointing that out.
By defending the “grain of truth” about “how women provoke their men” you make that implication. Approving the doctor’s “shut your word hole” attitude and masking that approval with humor and “Whoa, just a joke!” betrays that attitude in spades. In fact it looks like you find it funny because a just comeuppance is often funny – but who’s getting the comeuppance in this story? The wife, obviously. Well, why does her uppance need coming? In order for this joke to work as a joke, she is getting what she deserves for hassling her drunk abusive husband. You say as much when you talk about the “grain of truth” in the punchline. You then go out of your way to reinforce that implication by calling them both dysfunctional and asking why you have to take sides.
Well, you have taken a side – the husband’s side. And you obviously choose to, since you say you don’t identify with him on a personal or emotional level.
Even though I believe you when you say you’d never actually so something like this, I’m afraid I call nonsense – quite strongly – when you say you don’t condone it. You’re laughing at a joke made at the expense of the victim, then you ARE condoning it.
Hells yes I take it seriously. The dysfunction in play for these women is that on some level they agree with the point of the joke – they don’t deserve any better, they shouldn’t have made him mad. I find that gruesome and heartbreaking. Laughing at it makes me intemperate in reply.
But we can still make comedy out of it when it is fictional.
YES. Aha moment. We make comedy out of it when it is FICTIONAL. Beaker’s misfortunes could never happen in real life. Women die every day of the year in shocking numbers because their men get “provoked” and let them have it. That is PRECISELY why the Muppets are funny, or slapstick is funny, while jokes about beaten wives are not.
Shortly after moving his family from NYC to Philadelphia, a husband comes home from the ballgame all black and blue, and his wife asks, “What happened to you?”
He says “A big gang of uncouth phillies fans jumped me and beat me up. I can’t understand it. I didn’t even wear my Yankees jersey to the game. They’re just animals.”
His wife gently puts some ointment on his wounds and says, “Oh, my poor dear. I think I know how to stop that. Next time you go to the game, bring a bottle of coke and swish the soda around in your mouth the whole time you are watching the game.”
“Do you really think that will help?” Asks the husband.
“Trust me,” she says.
A couple days later the Yankees come back to Philly for another game, so he goes to see it, being careful not to wear any of his Yankees gear. When he comes back, he tells his wife, “You’re a genius! It worked! I swished coke in my mouth the whole time and nobody bothered me!”
His wife smiled and said, “See how much keeping your mouth shut helps?”
Anybody who thinks that joke I just posted was funny is obviously condoning violence against Yankees fans and implying that people who root for the Yankees in Philadelphia deserve to get beat up, and it’s their own fault for opening their stupid mouths.
Now is that reasonable?
If I told this joke to a bunch of random people, would anybody be offended?
Good call, nightfly (thanks)! A specification I didn’t make while I was, admittedly, thinking about humor based on essentially real-life situations. I just don’t think suffering is funny. Domestic Violence, Racism, Rape, Child Abuse… no joke about these issues is what I would call funny. For the reasons specified by Nightfly. But Kevin will never think he’s wrong so – hey! Whatevs. I’m going to step of my little soap box. ::sweeps Tracey’s floor a bit, puts box under arm, ambles out to wait for the next post whilst twirling her walking stick:: 😉
Marisa – your analysis of the “little guy” humor is really on point, and describes much better what I expressed earlier about all the jokes leveled at black people (and Asian people, and gays, and other minorities) in movies from the 30s and 40s (as much as I love that era in film-making). It is not just offensive – it is a TOOL, used to tell the un-dominant group: “Here is what we think of you.” It’s not funny, end-stop. You can see the joke there, the punchline – having a black person trip and fall, or be overly subservient and stupid to the point of being a mental midget – but seen in the light of what actual blacks in America at that time were facing, the jokes are not just mean-spirited, but openly hostile and political. To say to a black person at that time, “Lighten up, it’s just a joke” (as many did) was stupidity and blindness of the highest order. I believe it was WILLFUL blindness. I believe a lot of that “humor” was consciously used. Much of it had nothing to do with the plot, had no relevance to the main story being told – it was a bone thrown to the audience, so they could rally around their hatred of a certain group.
Besides, the “lighten up, it’s just a joke” thing has been thrown at women who have the gumption to say, “Hey now wait a minute” since humor began. I find it tiresome.
The Yankee fan substitution doesn’t work, as we all know everyone hates the Yankees and their fans.
Mike, first of all, this bit is self-contradictory:
“I am not implying that you approve of the husband’s behavior. You are implying it. I am merely pointing that out.”
It’s the same thing. You are asserting now, where previously you only implied, that I approve of domestic violence.
Second, you say
“By defending the “grain of truth†about “how women provoke their men†you make that implication.”
Now if that’s all I said, I could see how you might think so. But the same comment by me contains statements to the contrary. So either I’m lying about what I believe, or you need to find a new interpretation of my words.
To put it perfectly clearly: Provoking a reaction doesn’t mean deserving a reaction. Speaking about provocation doesn’t imply the speaker approves of the reaction, especially if he happens to be saying in the same breath, “I don’t approve of the reaction being provoked!”
What is really amazing to me (maybe it shouldn’t be) is that after all this discussion (have you read it?) you still lack the basic capacity of imagination to think that maybe somebody sees the world in a way you haven’t already thought of, that maybe I can differ with your opinion without being basically a low-down and nasty person who literally laughs at a joke because they condone men beating up their wives in real life and think it’s funny.
The substitution doesn’t work, and I know because I already tried it. I used Kevin’s own line on him – in effect, putting him in the place of the wife, blaming him for provoking us here in the comments – and he immediately felt threatened. He didn’t feel like it was amusing at all. Yet he is far safer in a combox than any beaten woman, even one who flees to a shelter and cuts all ties to the abuser. How often do we hear on the news that the abuser hunts down and kills the woman anyway?
So, no, not funny. Not in the Yankee version, and certainly not in the original.
Sheila, your objection falls apart because we do not live in an era in which women are systematically discriminated against. We do not have an injust patriarchal system in which the mistreatment of women is condoned by society and widely accepted as The Way Things Are. Women are doing just fine. Women are considerably more likely to go to college, to graduate college, and considerably less likely to end up in jail.
In what “place” is is this joke supposed to be encouraging women to stay in?
Mike, this may be the internet, but it is real life, as opposed to a joke. And what you said could reasonably be interpreted as a veiled threat. That is a fact. On the other hand it isn’t true that I felt threatened.
But again, let me point out your lack of imagination: You think I’m taking the position I am taking because I haven’t considered what it is like to be a battered spouse?
Really?
I guess it isn’t even in the realm of possibility that I’m perfectly sensitive to real-life violence, but I have a different opinion about dark humor from yours? Solipsism.
I just shared this “joke” with my office with out any preface or reference to this little discussion. Out of the six men and four women I work with not one found it funny. Out of the ten of them four of them stated in one term or another that it was offensive to some degree.
Brian out.
Brian, I’m not really interested in whether you think the Yankees joke is “like” the original. I want to know if you think it is offensive. And if not, why?
What’s amazing to me is that you think that I’m mad at you because I don’t understand you; that you assume your point of view is somehow beyond my stunted mind, that I haven’t even been following the conversation. Au contraire: I understand your point quite clearly; I simply don’t think much of it.
By my reading it looks like you’re the guy with the blind spot – you can’t possibly imagine how laughing at a joke like this makes you look to everyone else. You bristle at the suggestion that your laughter condones of the behavior that is being made light of. I’d bristle too. To quote Thomas More, “It’s not a likeable thing.” But that is what the laughter implies. Your protests that “I’m not really that way, of course I don’t approve in real life!” are not convincing in light of two observable behaviors: first, that you did in fact laugh at the joke; second, that you are strenuously defending yourself for it and coming up with all sorts of failed parallels to it, like Muppets and baseball games.
I have no doubt that you would never smack a woman, nor approve of someone who actually did. So, try another parallel: say instead that this is NOT a joke. Say instead that it’s a serious and true story, written by an actual woman, who said that she’d learned not to get hit by simply knowing her role and shutting her mouth whenever her hubby came home sloshed. “I gargle mouthwash to remind myself,” she writes on her blog. “See how shutting your mouth really helps?”
Now could you laugh? If you knew the woman and knew her story was true, would you ever advise her the way the doctor did? Would you tell the story to your buddies over drinks at the bar with a wink and a smile?
That’s why I say that this is your problem. I am not painting your attitude in a bad light, I’m just holding up the mirror.
Kevin – My objection doesn’t at all fall apart, because discrimination (as evidenced by the attitude behind the joke and what it finds funny, what it thinks is a joke) is still alive and well and living in our society. Obviously.
As I’ve said, I’m not too particular about jokes, and find a lot of things funny that others may deem offensive.
Tracey’s point of the post (and this is a group of friends here, it’s a personal site, and we hang out here a lot, because we’re friends) is how to handle a sticky situation, and how to manage something most of us have experienced: The annoyance of forwarded emails, especially when the attitude in said forwarded email is a sore point (as Tracey expressed). Your coming in with guns blazing telling everyone to lighten up is just bad Internet form. It’s puzzling, but obviously the post struck a nerve with you. Shrug.
Also, it seems to annoy certain kinds of people when women complain about … anything. It brings out the contemptuous – and your first comment here, Kevin, whether you are aware of it or not, dripped with contempt. First comment on someone’s site and you take that tone?
Again, shrug. Moving right along. Marisa, can I join you?
Mike, is violence in a joke ever funny? I don’t see anything in the way you structure your argument that allows for it. Violence is never a likable thing. Violence is never funny in real life. Any time you stop treating it as a joke and think about it happening in real life, it is no longer funny.
So what?
If you think violence can never be funny in a joke, just say so.
But you haven’t argued for any distinction beyond saying that the Beaker episodes wouldn’t happen in real life. I dunno, don’t people get electrocuted in real life?
And from the other side, could you really imagine a doctor giving such ludicrous advice in real life?
Of course not.
So what is the difference between this and a funny joke that contains violence?
Is it that women are oppressed?
Sheila, you must live on a different planet from me. When I was in college, I received a list of scholarships I could apply for. Slightly less than half of them were for women only. A couple were for other minorities. None were designated for men only. Our society falls all over itself to give women extra chances to succeed in every way.
“I have no doubt that you would never smack a woman, nor approve of someone who actually did.”
Uh, Mike, you’re aware that approve and condone mean basically the same thing, aren’t you? Or have you changed your opinion of me?
“What’s amazing to me is that you think that I’m mad at you because I don’t understand you; that you assume your point of view is somehow beyond my stunted mind, that I haven’t even been following the conversation. Au contraire: I understand your point quite clearly; I simply don’t think much of it.”
Mike, when we discuss this, do you frequently get the impression that I don’t actually allow for the possibility that someone could believe the sorts of things you say you believe? Because I think I understand your opinion quite well, but you seem to be responding to things that I haven’t said. In fact, things that are the opposite of what I said.
For instance, I keep saying that nobody deserves violence. But you keep saying I condone violence. If you were me, wouldn’t you find this a little weird?
Kevin – There’s that strange contempt again. I’m talking about domestic abuse, which is what the joke is making fun of, not opportunities for women in the public sphere. Like I said, something here struck a nerve with you. Your last comment to me (//Our society falls all over itself to give women extra chances to succeed in every way…) reveals some resentment towards women, for whatever reason, I don’t really care, which I think is coloring your responses in this whole thread.
And take this passage:
“To quote Thomas More, “It’s not a likeable thing.†But that is what the laughter implies. Your protests that “I’m not really that way, of course I don’t approve in real life!†are not convincing in light of two observable behaviors: first, that you did in fact laugh at the joke;”
Fine, you have asserted once again that it is impossible to laugh at the joke without finding the same violence funny even if it were in real life.
1) Why?
2) If you believe this, why haven’t you admitted to believing that all forms of violence in jokes are not, in fact, funny?
Kevin — Oh, sweet baby Jesus in the manger.
I’ve been out this morning and I’ve obviously missed a lot here, but the way I see it Marisa and NF have more than handily managed things around here. Thanks, you guys.
I’ll make a few points, though:
~ First of all, Kevin, you came on my blog and as your very first comment, decided to give the li’l woman an education. You decided, without knowing me at all or knowing the kinds of discussions we have or the real vibe of the blog, to step into something and be a contrarian. You know, from the get-go. You didn’t ease into the discussion. You didn’t make yourself known in other posts with any kind of mellow or friendly-ish comment. Nope. You just barged in and started punching. Now I don’t know how you found my blog or how long you’ve been reading, but to me, it’s just an etiquette thing. It’s a wise idea to get a feel for the “room” before opening your mouth — that is, if it’s a place you feel you might want to stick around. If you’re just someone who trolls blogs, hoping to stir up trouble, well, then your goals are different, I guess. If that’s who you are — and I do not know if it is — then your goal is to incite, stir the turd, and sit back and enjoy your handiwork. The people who hang out here do so — I hope — because they like it here, because we have fun here, and because we’ve created a special little community here that we value. If you wanted to stick around here, you didn’t make the best first impression. It’s a blog etiquette thing.
I don’t know, Kevin. Check the temperature before you go outside, right? Being the new person on a blog is rather like being the stranger at a dinner party. LISTEN to the discussion before you participate. That is, if you want to make a good impression.
~ Your TONE in that original comment was condescending. I find your tone in some of your other comments condescending as well.
//Condemning people for laughing at a joke that you are too emotionally injured to appreciate is like an alcoholic trying to get society to ban liquor.//
Really? “Too emotionally injured”? Kevin, you don’t know me. If you’ve gone back and read everything I’ve posted for the last 5 years, you might know me some, but I doubt you’ve done that, so again, it comes down to this: You don’t know me. And that’s a condescending statement. It’s dismissive. I don’t know if you’re a condescending PERSON. I can only say that some of your statements here have a condescending vibe. I try to make distinctions, Kevin. There’s behavior and there’s character and they are not always synonymous. Your actions here have been condescending. I can’t speak to your character.
~ I never called you a douchebag. I was referring to men deciding to send out dicey jokes about women to women. Go back and look at comment #12. That’s what I said. If someone else here has called you a douche, I must have missed it.
~ I did say I was glad I didn’t know you in person. Based on your behavior here thus far, I stand by that. I’m not saying you’re not a lovely fellow in person, I’m saying I’m having a certain visceral response to you that might not make us BFFs in person.
~ I don’t censor what other commenters say here, Kevin. If other people said things that were offensive to you, they can stand by their OWN comments. But you came into the ring swinging away. It stands to reason you should be ready to take your licks.
~ I just find it disingenuous for you to say, “I wasn’t deliberately being provocative.” Kevin, you read my post, read my reaction to the joke, know that I’m a woman, and you took the opposite viewpoint and decided you needed to “spell it out for me.” Again, as a first comment on someone’s blog, it’s a bit of a trainwreck. I was bothered more by your condescension that anything else.
~ You think the joke is funny. I don’t. Whatevs. You won’t convince me; I won’t convince you. I don’t want to try.
~ My question about overreacting was directed towards the fact that I regularly receive these kinds of jokes from this relative. I was wondering if I was overreacting to THAT, not the joke. I feel pretty solid in my view that the joke itself is just …. not funny.
~ You don’t condone violence towards women. Fine. Great. That you don’t condone violence to women but find this joke funny is a bit of a disconnect to me, but fine. You don’t condone violence to women.
~ Marisa — It’s not that I’m offended by dumb blonde jokes. Some of them I find hilarious. I’m offended by the glut of these I receive. I’m bothered that this is now a regular practice for this man and I’m starting to wonder what it all implies, you know? It’s not the content of the jokes that bothers me (this one is an exception), it’s WHAT it means that they keep getting sent.
Sheila, simply go back and read your comment of 10:45. You are talking about systematic discrimination in society as a whole, not one dysfunctional relationship. And if you apply the same argument to a marriage, what you get is that it wouldn’t be funny if was told in a marriage in which the women was actually being beaten.
Uh… ok. Fine. If a guy is beating his wife and he tells her this joke, that’s not funny. Because of the context. I agree.
But I don’t see how that is relevant to our discussion.
To be specific, Kevin – my opinion is not of you so much as your attitude on this point. And that, I haven’t changed. As I wrote before, I think you have a big blind spot on this. You honestly think that this joke is no different from any bit of slapstick or farce. I suspect that you think there’s nothing wrong with the joke precisely because you wouldn’t ever do this in real life; therefore it’s safe to find the humor in it. The reason I suspect this is that you wouldn’t even answer my question – what if it was no longer a joke? And my suspicions rise when, instead of trying to answer that, you instead press for someone to laugh at some other joke that turns on violence – something, anything! – as if to say, “see, so it’s not so bad after all! YOU laughed at that, why can’t I laugh at this?”
That’s why I say “blind spot.” That’s why I say you wouldn’t actually do it, but there’s some small inclination on your part not to think of it as a big deal if it does happen at times, betrayed by your accepting it as a topic of innocent jest. I even think you suspect that this isn’t as innocent as it seems, which is why you’re so anxious to justify it.
Kevin – No, I was making a corollary with the brand of humor represented by the “keep your mouth shut, little lady” joke.
Tracey, I have already apologized for the tone of my first comment.
But you are, after all, putting your thoughts on the internet, allowing comments on your blog, and saying things like “Tell me if I’m overreacting”. Maybe I read too much into that.
Also, if you weren’t saying that in reference to the joke being funny, that misunderstanding is on you. Look at the previous sentence: “In what universe is this joke funny?? Or, really, tell me if I’m overreacting.”
And yes, one of your other comments called me a douce, so I guess you missed it.
The “emotionally injured” comment wasn’t directed at you. I wouldn’t assume you were reacting based on personal experience unless you said so. On the other hand, some of your comments were doing that – talking about the domestic abuse they had witnessed and how horrible it was. I recognize that that can prevent someone from laughing at the joke, but I don’t think it makes the joke not funny. Again, anybody traumatized by a particular kind of violence doesn’t want to hear it joked about. But that doesn’t mean violence in jokes is never funny in general.
Rereading, I see that comment of mine was made in a comment that began as an address to you, so I take responsibility for that and apologize. I was trying to respond to more than one person at a time, and I should have been more clear.
Kevin — Fine. I wasn’t clear in my communication in the post regarding the “overreacting” question. I can see that. But …. looks like this whole thread has more than smacked me down for putting my thoughts in the wrong order, since the joke itself has become the focus and not the interpersonal issue I’m dealing with because of it — and others.
Again, you think the joke is funny. I don’t. FINE.
Mike, if you never really thought I condoned violence, maybe you need to work on expressing yourself more clearly so you don’t go unintentionally slandering people like you have today. Or more to the point, if you think someone might condone violence, why don’t you try to see if that can be substanciated by anything they have actually said.
And by the way, I did answer your question. I said,
“Any time you stop treating it as a joke and think about it happening in real life, it is no longer funny.”
You, by the way, still haven’t answered my question. So here it is again:
Can violence be funny in jokes sometimes? And if so, why wouldn’t your exact objections to the joke in question apply to those jokes too?
See, this isn’t a grasping about for some way not to look bad. I’m reading what you write, considering your thoughts, and it seems like you condemn all violence in jokes everywhere. Follow your own logic. It’s not funny in real life, therefore it’s not a funny thing, therefore the joke is not funny. That would seem to be the argument of someone who doesn’t ever find violence funny. So I continue to ask, is that the case, or do you sometimes laugh about violence in jokes? Inquiring minds want to know.
And by the way, your idea about a blind spot isn’t right either. I’m perfectly aware that if somebody read my comments and made a snap judgment without really stopping to think or inquire, they would probably think I’m a bad guy. I’m ok with that. My comments are meant for thinking people. As for the others… I don’t worry about what they think of me.
82 comments on this! You have a topper for the “homeschool” post for nasty reaction now…
I think if I met you IRL we could be BFFs. And I say that even as someone who popped right into the discussion when I “met” ya and told you just what I thought. I think you were pretty tolerant of me and I also noted well that you took back some of your words on hs’ing. You are TEACHABLE. You are humble.
I really like you. God bless and here’s hoping the mail-forwarder is able to purchase a clue about women and life for everyone’s harmony and happiness. 🙂
Kevin — I have two questions for you:
What is your goal here? What do you want from me and my readers?
I think you need to ask yourself those things. If it’s just an endless roundy-round discussion, I gotta tell you, at some point the blog hostess will grow weary and dizzy.
If you have something specific you want or are hoping to achieve, that’s great. But you need to ask yourself the likelihood of getting or achieving what you want in this thread.
So what is your goal here? What do you want from me and my readers?
I’m sensing it’s some kind of capitulation. And good luck on that front.
Tracey, you very early on indicated you were willing to accept someone expressing a contrary opinion, and I think that’s admirable. I hope you don’t mind if I continue to respond to your other commenters, though.
Tracey – In terms of the interpersonal issue, maybe a little light response would do the trick? “Wow, are you trying to tell me something here?” Maybe add an “LOL” to give the right effect, seeing as this is someone in your family – who may have zero idea that what he is doing is not only unwelcome but seen as hostile. Unless this person wouldn’t recognize the LOL – maybe a “haha” or something to take the edge off.
If this were your BOSS sending you such jokes, I’d tell you to report him to HR. Stuff like that has no business in the workplace. But seeing as this is family … and you can’t block him entirely – maybe something light and jokey will at least make him AWARE of what he’s doing. It’s probably innocent on his part, not some veiled attempt to tell you “here is what I think of womenfolk!”
The dumb blonde joke has a long illustrious history, starting with that celebrated commedia dell arte troupe operating out of Milan in the 15th century, who were the first to broach this rich comedic landscape we still live in today.
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Tracey, I like to talk about ideas. And sometimes, when someone says something that I don’t think makes sense, I get a certain amount of satisfaction out of challenging them with a different idea. I like to make distinctions, shed light on vaguaries, that sort of thing.
…and I will admit that I get a bit of perverse pleasure out of being the un-pc member of the argument while at the same time keeping my cool a little better than others.
Kevin — //I hope you don’t mind if I continue to respond to your other commenters, though. //
What does this mean? That you’re unwilling to talk to me, the blog hostess? I don’t think you even SEE the weird contemptuous edge in your comments.
It’s like you’re saying, “Move along, Betty, while I talk to others more worthy.”
Again, I am asking you these questions and if you do not answer then, I will shut this thread down:
WHAT is your goal here? What do you want from me and my readers?
You’ve been given ample opportunity on MY blog to make your points, Kevin. I think I’ve been more than generous to you on that front. How long would you like me to allow this circular discussion to continue?
Yikes, that’s not what I meant at all. What I meant was that very early on, you had basically said “We disagree. Fine.” To that I say, Ok! I mean I will continue to talk to the other commenters because they are the ones offering contrary arguments to my opinion, that actually give me something to respond to. My impression was that you took yourself out of it. If you actually want to offer counter-arguments to something I say, I will be happy to respond.
My only goal is to enjoy the discussion, as I described.
I don’t think it is quite circular. For instance, I’m trying to get Mike to answer a certain question that he keeps avoiding. But maybe in his next comment he’ll really respond and then we can talk about the implications of that.
sheila — //The dumb blonde joke has a long illustrious history, starting with that celebrated commedia dell arte troupe operating out of Milan in the 15th century, who were the first to broach this rich comedic landscape we still live in today.//
Hahahahahahaha. Still laughing, even at the “edited” version. Oh, how we HATES the commedia, don’t we?
Anyway I’m heading off for the day. I may return either in a couple hours or else tomorrow morning.
hahahaha Any time I can make fun of commedia, I leap at it. It was either that or Restoration Comedy.
“According to Wikipedia, the dumb blonde joke was born in 1681 when a famous actor of the day improvised a line in a production of Richard Sheridan’s School for Scandal. It brought the house down.”
I could go on forever.
Uh … thanks for the heads up?
I don’t need to know your comings and goings, Kevin.
“The dumb blonde joke was born during an Oberammergau Passion Play in Bavaria in 1635. It had the audience rolling in the aisles, although there really no aisles at Passion Plays in Oberammergau.”
Hahahahahaha.
“The dumb blonde joke was born circa 27 A.D. when a fellow in the crowd following Jesus told his own impromptu parable about the woman with the strange hair living in the next village. Jesus laughed.”
NF and Marissa: Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Honestly, this kind of debate tires me. Which is one reason why I don’t like talking politics.
Wait a minute! Maybe we could change the joke into a Democrat/Republican beating and that would change the mood!
Anyway, Kevin, you’re obviously looking for a specific answer. You don’t like any of the answers given. So, maybe the responses should just be answered according to how you would like to hear them. Then we can move on.
Perhaps Kevin tells us where he’s going because he expects his feeble blond to not be able to read a clock.
Even a digital one.
I’m not really sure why my sense of humor requires justification here. Not that I haven’t already tried to answer your question, since I mentioned that this was very different from farce or slapstick. I’m with Tracey – on some level you’re waiting to pick one thing that resembles this joke, that someone else finds funny, so you can play the gotcha card. I also agree that you have this odd vibe, where you sound very reasonable and measured while being a bit rude:
And by the way, your idea about a blind spot isn’t right either. I’m perfectly aware that if somebody read my comments and made a snap judgment without really stopping to think or inquire, they would probably think I’m a bad guy. I’m ok with that. My comments are meant for thinking people. As for the others… I don’t worry about what they think of me.
That’s an O RLY moment for me, man – again, the assumption that you’re the cool-headed, reasonable fellow with healthy perspective, and btw we’re snap-judgers who don’t think.
But leaving that aside and going to your approach to an answer: “If it were real life it would no longer be funny.” Now we’re getting somewhere. You also said, earlier, we make comedy out of it when it’s fictional. Just put two and two together.
THIS isn’t funny (even in joke form) because it is not fictional. Every day real women get slobberknocked because men have the attitude that “she’s popping off to me again, I’ll show her.” The doctor’s preposterous advice doesn’t rescue the joke, because in context, it’s not meant to be preposterous – and in fact it does “work.” And the reason it “works” is because it teaches the woman – the victim, mind you – that she should know her place in life before the menfolk.
Every attitude on display in this wretched joke is horrible, and what makes it more wretched is that the punchline turns on taking sides against the woman. She’s the butt of the joke. The happy ending (so to speak) relies on her being too silly to realize that she had it coming and she should take it if she knows what’s good for her. I cannot regard that as anything other than odious.
If a joke involves violence, it has to be directed at a just target in some way, or be so cartoonish as to be unbelievable. To use your example of Beaker, we laugh when the experiment zaps him or sets him on fire because we know that next sketch he’ll be fine. He’s made of felt. We’re not laughing at electrocution or burn victims, none of whom are likely to be caught in some Rube-Goldberg contraption designed to grow rutabagas in outer-space or whatever Honeydew’s absently dreaming up. We laugh when Jerry slugs Tom with a frying pan because Tom is back up and running three seconds later. And in either case, the violence doesn’t make the joke – the joke lies entirely in Jerry being the mouse and Tom, his tormenter, getting his. The joke lies in Honeydew trying these crackpot experiments in the first place. We’d laugh just as hard if he was the one catching fire. But if he did it with the express purpose of hurting Beaker and enjoying it, and then joked about it afterward to a laughing Fozzie and Kermit, we’d never watch again.
I’m trying to walk back from my original anger about this and give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to insist that there is no doubt to benefit from. I’m staggered. Then again, I can’t see those Magic Eye 3-D things either. I mean, you just have to stare at it until it finally jumps out at you.
Kathi — I think Kevin just likes to argue. I mean, we’re nearly 100 comments later — a third of which are Kevin’s. (I counted because I’m a dork.) He’s already says he gets a “perverse pleasure” from being the un-pc guy. He gets a “certain satisfaction” from challenging people. Basically, he gets off on this stuff. It’s a little tedious.
NF — /because we know that next sketch he’ll be fine. He’s made of felt./
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
And I noticed that comment, too: “My comments are meant for thinking people.” There’s almost an implied, “ya dummies” or “morons” after that. “If you disagree or don’t care for my comments, you are part of the unthinking masses.”
Jean — I think your comment got lost in the fray. I’m sorry. But thanks for that — not a bad idea.
Mrs. C — Thanks! You stepped into that conversation in a completely different way than was done here.
Also – his absolute insistance on “Mike” in the comments. I guess I should be flattered that he took the time to look up my blog and then read my profile to find my actual name and use it, but it’s subtly controlling to choose what he will call me rather than just using my nom de internet; to repeatedly insist on it despite everyone else calling everyone else in here by their signed names, real or not. I didn’t say anything at first because I thought I was reading too much into it. The obstinacy of the conversation since then has me reconsidering.
Sounds like time for a virtual picnic at the Yurt. I mean, it is a holiday weekend coming up. Wow. Just Wow.
nightfly – kind of glad you addressed that. I always refer to someone using the name they have chosen to provide here… And it’s got a very creepy “I know where you live.” vibe. Talk about aggressive/control issues.
// circa 27 A.D. //
HAHAHAHA Circa!!!
“Fatty Arbuckle invented the dumb blonde joke in his vaudeville act in 1916 and we all know what happened to HIM.”
YES! I’ve had enough.
TO THE YURT!
Kevin – // and I will admit that I get a bit of perverse pleasure out of being the un-pc member of the argument while at the same time keeping my cool a little better than others. //
That confirms it. We DO live on different planets.
Back to made-up origins of the dumb blonde joke!
Nightfly – even though I know your real name, it took me a minute to figure out to whom he was speaking. Who is this Mike person???
Oh man, let’s flee to the Yurt. Quick!! I’ll bring margaritas.
Did I mention that we shouldn’t invite Kevin to the yurt?
Tracey – I am so proud of you for breaking out the “circa”.
I just read all these comments. . . Sheila, I don’t even like margaritas but please when we get to the yurt make mine a double.
To the Yurt! Yurt Ho!
Knock-knock.
— Who’s there?
Dumb blonde joke.
— Dumb blonde who?
If I need to spell it out for you… dumb blonde joke.
NF — Yes. I noticed that and it was TOTALLY BUGGING ME. But I didn’t see it as my place to say something. Yes, that’s your real name, but you choose to go by “nightfly” on line and he should call you that. I was like, “Oh, is he good friends with NF?”
And YES — Good thought, CV. To the Sudden Yurt Commune! Immediately! (Someone grab Jayne. We need us some good eats with our margaritas!)
sheila — Can I live on your planet, please? Circa now?
NF — HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Tracey – I agree. I think you’ve been more than gracious at the length that you’ve allowed this to go.
I’ll bring wine to the Yurt!
//“Fatty Arbuckle invented the dumb blonde joke in his vaudeville act in 1916 and we all know what happened to HIM.†//
Hahahahahahahahahaha!! Okay. NOW I’m loving this thread.
I’m making cream puffs. It’s go time!
Kate – hahahaha You got it.
Okay, Nightfly, that knock-knock joke made me laugh out loud.
Tracey – I knew you and I lived on the same planet from the first time I read one of your posts.
Thanks, Sheila! Right back at you for the passion play origin of blonde jokes.
You’re all beautiful people and I’m lucky to know you.
NF – Knock, Knock… I almost peed my pants.
“A veritable staple of Ren Faires today, the dumb blonde joke was actually popularized by P.T. Barnum in 1849 when, along with Tom Thumb, the bearded lady, and a real-live mermaid from Fiji, he added one final act to his circus of human curiosities: ‘The Dumbest Blonde in 3 Counties’.”
Tracey, I just wanted you to know that I’m going off to research the origins of the blonde joke, but I might be back in a couple of hours or else tomorrow.
sheila — /‘The Dumbest Blonde in 3 Counties’.†/ Wasn’t that a Kenny Rogers’ song?
Cullen — HA! Hope my blonde ass can bemember that.
You people are cracking me up.
Kevin — If you see this, way way up in the thread you said, in referring to yourself:
/In fact what was he doing reading Tracey’s website in the first place?/
You know, I would like to know the answer to that. People who have read my blog for any length of time know that I might have some really good reasons for my curiosity. If you don’t want to answer here, I’d appreciate an email. I have good reasons for asking. I do.
This works better as a visual joke because the punchline includes a gesture, but here goes…
A man in a suit stops by two workers who are digging a hole with shovels. They recognize him as a pretty high-up fellow in the company. One of the workers, a down-on-his-luck high school drop-out, says to the other, “How come that guy is up there, and we’re down here digging this hole?”
“I don’t know.” replies the older worker. “Why don’t you go ask him?”
So the young man puts down his shovel and climbs out of the hole.
“Mr. Jones,” he says, “How come you’re up here, telling us what to do, and we’re down in this hole working hard under the sun?”
Jones replies, “Because I have an education.”
“What difference does that make?”
Jones puts his hand in front of a thick metal pole, and says, “Punch my hand as hard as you can.”
The young guy winds up and punches, but Jones removes his hand at the last second, and he ends up punching the metal pole. As he’s cussing and cradling his hand, Jones says, “That’s why I’m up here and you’re down there. Now get to work.”
The young man hangs his head and goes back down into the hole.
The older man says, “What did he say?”
The young guy looks up at the pole, and back down into the hole he’s in. There’s no metal pole down here.
So he puts his good hand in front of his face and says, “Punch my hand as hard as you can.”
# da-dum-KISH #
Now let me remind you all NOT to laugh. This joke contains violence, which in real life is NEVER FUNNY. It’s not so far-fetched and comical as Beaker and Honeydew, in fact it’s more believable than the original joke about the battered wife, because it doesn’t rely on a doctor giving preposterous advice that no doctor would ever give. It also creates a laugh out of a situation where the person being harmed is the “little guy” and deserves our sympathy. Anybody that laughs at this joke obviously identifies with exploitive, cruel bosses who play violent jokes on their employees to hurt them for fun. In fact, you would be condoning such violence if you laughed. And this is not funny because every day, real life people are injured by practical jokes that they are too stupid to avoid. Worse, if it is played by their boss, there is a power imbalance which makes them feel trapped. They might need to keep that job in order to feed their kids. So they go along with the violence and they are exploited. And there is nothing funny about it, no sir.
Now Mike might characterize this as a desperate effort to get him into a gotcha situation. But I don’t think that’s fair. I am actually paying Mike a compliment that he does not pay me. I am listening, understanding his argument, taking it seriously, wrestling with the concepts he suggests, and asking questions to clarify them. I am trying to get Mike to explain more fully how and why certain kinds of violence in jokes is not funny. The way to clarify that is to look at other examples. I chose this one because it is of the basic genre as the original. It is a one-off short story about fictional characters with a snappy punchline. No muppets here.
Tracey, I will respond to your last comment and your emails here:
Shortly after I posted my first comment on this page, I reloaded the page and my comment was gone. My first impression was that you had gotten upset by it and deleted it, so I emailed you to ask if that was so. A little bit later, my comment re-appeared and I had no response from you. So what I believed was that you changed your mind and restored my comment after reconsidering it. On the other hand, you say that’s not the case, so I believe you. It was probably just a glitch.
Second, you want to know why I was reading your blog. I have a LOT of blogs in my RSS reader, so many that I end up leaving many of them unread. Some years ago, somebody linked to your blog and I added your blog to the reader. I haven’t the foggiest recollection what that was about, but I have an inkling it might have been a link from The Anchoress. Did you ever get a link from her? Maybe not. Anyway, that’s how I ended up reading this post. I don’t read everything you write, but I remember you owning a coffee shop a while ago and then getting rid of it, which was unfortunate because you had some funny stories about the customers. I don’t have the slightest idea what your reasons are for asking, but I have heard you mention that kind of thing before. I guess none of the mentions I noticed was accompanied by an explanation.
For you and Mike both I say this: When I use the internet, I use my real name and I take responsibility for everything I say. I prefer it when other people do the same. In my view, the internet is real life. I am communicating with real people through a technological medium, like talking on a phone. I never assume something I write won’t be read by people I know in real life. I find this helps me control my temper and make sure I mean exactly what I say.
Oh and Mike, what I wrote about “thinking people” shouldn’t be construed as an insult. I wouldn’t be trying to explain my point of view here if I didn’t think I could be understood.
::sigh::
My kingdom for a troll.
ba-dum-CHING!
Slightly off-topic (you’re probably welcoming that sort of thing at this point lol), are you interested in joining the facebook group “One Billion Strong for the Doxology”? It’s been created recently and I hope you “like” it. 🙂
Mrs. C., only if you title it “one billon strong for teh docksologee.”
hahahahaha
The hypocrisy here about “rudeness” and “etiquette” is astounding to me. If I responded in kind to the abuse I’ve received, I would have been banned after my second comment, I am sure.
If anybody is interested in continuing this discussion without it being personal and nasty, they can email me.
You know how, sometimes after someone talks enough, they start to sound like Charlie Brown’s teacher? Your eyes sort of glaze over and it’s like this wonky sound comes out of their mouth and, whatever the content, the words cease to have meaning because there have just been SO MANY of them? I’m not sure what teh interweb equivalent of that is. Like, eventually it just looks like, “blah blah blah words words don’t I have fascinating thing to say? words words words…” and so on. I think my monitor has glazed over.
So, I am making Guacamole in my yurt (it’s really good – to go with Sheila’s Margaritas) and mebbe later I will do my Chaplain impression for everyone (it’s actually quite terrible). See you guys there. 😉
No way, sir. I’ve explained a half-dozen times what makes the “domestic abuse victim gets hers” joke unfunny. Your latest is yet another not-parallel: the ditch-digger is a caricature that could never exist in real life. He’s the opposite of the battered woman and her husband, of whom there are a hundred thousand copies, some of whom you no doubt know, without realizing who they are. And every day the “grain of truth” is that those women are told to shut up and take it if they know what’s good for them – sometimes, that message comes in joke form.
And I tire of your insistance that WE all explain our protests. This post makes, what, seven times? Again, either you get it or you don’t. Come to think of it, most of this conversation grows tiresome indeed. From first to last you’ve been trying to impose on the hosts and other commenters. When you ask questions it’s to look for the flaws in the reply, not to figure out what’s going on – that’s why you keep asking when you’ve already gotten a bucket full of replies that don’t suit your purposes. You went out of your way to address me in the manner of your choosing, rather than follow my own preference – like everyone insisting on “Cassius Clay” for years after Ali changed his name. It’s a denial of the other person’s identity and it seeks the power to define their own identity against their wishes: horribly controlling. You’re dismissive of the host, condescending to others, and then you dress it all up with smart language and a show of high principle: of course, I’M honest on the internet, shoudn’t everyone else be? Of course, my comments are meant for thinking people. Of course, I would never do something like this in real life. Wow, how hypocritical and rude! I would never do that…
See, the only thing we have to go on for that is your say-so. Evidence against is almost this entire thread. You’ve been rude and abusive from the start. It looks more and more like you’re an example of this guy. A finer petty bully I’ve rarely met. That you’ve chosen mental instead of physical force makes no odds, and your subtlety and turns of phrase are not a convincing enough mask. It’s still an attempt to dominate others and supplant their will and identity with something else.
We won’t miss you, sunshine.
Kevin — Well, obviously, we ALL assume that you condone violence towards women and you assume we ALL think no violence is ever funny. Let’s leave it at that, okay? Assumptions all around!! This is tiresome. You have a NEED to be right that I find really unattractive.
~ Kevin, new comments go into moderation — a kind of holding pen — awaiting my approval. If I’d never approved your first comment, you would never have been able to comment and instantly SEE your comments after that. NO COMMENT OF YOURS WAS EVER DELETED. What you saw was a comment in moderation. IF I DELETE A COMMENT, IT CANNOT BE “RESTORED.” There was no “restoring” going on. Don’t you know this crap? I thought you had a blog.
~ As for my reasons for asking about how you found me. I have legitimate reasons, as anyone else reading this comment will likely know. This only serves to prove to me that you don’t read that much or that often — which is fine, I don’t care, but that really does mean you barged into a discussion without much knowledge of me or the people who comment here. And I don’t need to explain my reasons for asking to you.
~ As for The Anchoress: //Did you ever get a link from her?// Oh, yes. I’ve gotten links from The Anchoress. I consider her a friend.
~ As for the “Mike” thing: NF has basically asked you in the above comments NOT to call him that. He has an internet handle he prefers. It’s not for YOU to insist that he be called something else. If I started calling you Slappy in this thread, would that be okay with you? It’s a kind of violation — which I find interesting, considering the topic of this thread. You are essentially deciding to take off NF’s internet clothes, so to speak, and INSIST that he be called what YOU want. That’s not your choice, Kevin. It’s just not. The Internet is not real life and I think it’s important to realize the distinction between your 3-D life and your cyber life. They are not the same.
If someone in your real life randomly started calling you, oh, Dirk, let’s say, would that be okay? No. It’s annoying. It’s for the individual to decide what he wants to be called. I’m really ramped up on this topic because of what recently happened to me on this blog. YOU don’t get to take another person’s internet clothes off. So STOP IT RIGHT NOW. You don’t get to openly dis my friend on my blog. Do it again and you’re done here. No means NO — which I’m sure you’d agree with??? As the saying goes: “The heart of legalism is to expect others to conform to your conscience.” Knock it off.
~ If you want to go around the Net using your real name, that’s your choice. As someone who’s had a stalker and an identity theft, I find that choice unwise, but that’s just me, based on my experiences. What you say on the Internet is out there on the Internet forever. I hope, for instance, that no potential employer for you ever stumbles across this thread — WEIRDER things have happened on this blog — and finds your viewpoint distasteful. Just sayin’ is all.
~ Here’s an interesting thing to me, Kevin: There’s no evidence of your hits on my stats page. None. Zip. When a person comments here, they leave a timestamp and their IP address. When I go to my stats page and look for your timestamp and IP, it’s simply — poof! — not there. Now this suggests to me that you’re using an invisible proxy to surf the net. Based on your whole open Internet policy as expressed above, I find this a huge disconnect. There is — literally — NO evidence of your hits when you have obviously been here and been here and been here over the last few days. (Based on the violations I’ve experienced here on this blog, I’ve had to become a LOT more knowledgeable about this stuff that I would ever have wanted to be.) I’m just curious. You seem to be visiting me from work. You seem to be surfing invisibly. And yet you seem to want other people to be honest and “take responsibility” and uncloak themselves. Little bit of a disconnect there. Look. I don’t care what your reasons are for surfing invisibly, I’m just pointing out a disconnect.
Kevin — So you’re running off pouting? Oh, brother. No one’s gonna email you, dude. You want to talk, you talk here. You basically steered the whole direction of this thread. You barged in to a group of friends here, Kevin. We’re FRIENDS here. When I posted this, I assumed I was asking my friends for their feedback, their advice. Again, you BARGED in, all contrarian, and then wonder why you’re not treated like the guest of honor or something. Since we’re friends here, when someone barges into our conversation without previously making himself known in some friendly, innocuous way, we tend to circle the wagons. That’s kind of the dynamic here. I can see how someone outside the circle might find that threatening, but just as you wouldn’t barge into a real life conversation between people you don’t know and start spewing contrary opinions, you shouldn’t do it here.
We’re generally a welcoming bunch here. WHEN someone approaches in a friendly way. (Mrs. C is the newest member of our little commenting family and I love her. She’s awesome.) If you wanted to be part of our little community, you should have moderated your approach. BUT, if you had no interest in that, if you are just a kind of Internet troll who just wants to stir the poo — again, I don’t KNOW — then you don’t get to cry foul when you’re treated as one.
Sorry.
This just in: Guess who’s a crankypants???
NF — Sorry! Your comment went into moderation and I just saw it. Kevin, go read comment #141.
Tha’s okay. Everyone gets cranky if peeples stomp around in their house and make a mess.
I like the “circle the wagon” description. We totally do. I haven’t even been around of late but as soon as I show up I’m all fired up and circle-ey. I like to think that they’re Gypsy Caravan wagons, btw (I’ve been catching up on my yurt reading).
Kevin — //If I responded in kind to the abuse I’ve received, I would have been banned after my second comment, I am sure.//
You HAVE responded in kind, Kevin. Just because you couch your insults in cloaking verbiage and use twisty little barbs doesn’t make them any less insulting. The rest of us are perhaps more — gasp! — open in what we say. I’m giving myself a pat on the back for letting you go on and on and onnnnn for as long as you have. I could have banned you at any time.
I still can. Slappy.
Marisa – The SYC (Sudden Yurt Commune) link does have those gypsy caravans. They are SO cool. Beautiful.
And — hahahahaha — you ARE all fired up and circle-ey. That’s what friends do.
I would say that Kevin’s first comment here set the “nasty” tone, so yeah, that’s the disconnect for me. Weird.
Marisa – The SYC has canvas-covered wagons. They’re very rustic and homey. They also have Atomizing Zorcher P-36 Illudium Zap Rays, now with a refreshing mint flavor. Now witness the might of this fully armed and operational Yurt.
When we circle, boy, you’d better hold on to your seat cushions.
Maybe the phrase should be “circling the caravans or yurts or ” — what else does the SYC have? Oooh, boats! Cool boats!
NF – is that related to the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator? If so, I wants one.
Will there be hammocks circa Gilligan’s Island in the Yurts? I’ll need a nap after margarita’s and guacamole.
Tracey – the wagons TURN INTO boats. Q branch designed them. The mizzenmast has a secret blender and ice-shaver for the margaritas.
Brian – the canvas turns into the hammocks when we stand down. Q thinks of everything.
NF – //Atomizing Zorcher P-36 Illudium Zap Rays// – I’m howling here! Sounds like something Spaceman Spiff would use.
The refreshing mint would be nice for mojitos.
BTW – Where’s Kevin?
Kathi — He’s waiting for people to email him. I don’t know how he expects the rest of you to KNOW his email, but, uhm, if any of you want his email, I’ll give it to you. I mean, I assume he’s giving me permission to give it out, since he wants to continue the conversation without being personal and nasty.
Think I’ll pass. Life’s too short.
Also, perhaps on his planet what happened here was a “discussion”, but from my perspective it was being subjected to a condescending harangue.
And, you know, on that note, it’s curious to me that he seems to think that taking the conversation private will make it MORE civil. How many of us say things privately that we’d never say publicly? Pretty much all of us at one time, I imagine? Having this discussion publicly demands some degree of civility from most people. Why does he suddenly want to go “private”? I would venture to guess that Kevin himself would become a lot LESS civil in an email conversation and that’s why he wants the sudden privacy.
Out here on the Internet, he wants to “take responsibility” for what he says. Does wanting to go private imply he wants to say things for which he WON’T want to take responsibility?
I don’t know. Just guessing here. I mean, he seems to have disappeared so one can only hypothesize ….
He’s That Guy. Hostility works much better against single targets than it does against a group. He wants to shift the ground to a place that he can better control. He can target us one at a time, instead of in here where we can stick together and support each other. I’m thoroughly convinced that he’s bad news.
He’ll feel quite affirmed by the silence in his inbox, I’m sure.
Unless he comes back here and LEAVES his email, I’m not convinced that he really wants to continue. He wants to LOOK like he wants to continue.
Also, again, to send me an email accusing me of deleting his first comment is just … hostile. That’s a huge assumption to make and, for someone with his own blog, it speaks of someone who doesn’t really know how blogs work, which I find odd. The email could have said something non-accusatory like, “Hey, I posted a comment and I’m not sure what happened to it? Instead it said:
Subject: really, tracey?
Did you really just invite your readers to tell you if you were overreacting and then delete my comment when I told you you were overreacting?
-Kevin
If I’d gotten to this email before the thread exploded yesterday morning, I would never have allowed any more comments from Kevin, because, I’m sorry, that’s RUDE. It’s rude to just assume the worst of a blogger when you’re a new commenter. It’s like laying into someone who’s late for a first date without hearing the legitimate explanation that their dad was rushed to the hospital or something. People have lives outside their blog. Full lives. I know he thinks the Internet is real life; I do not. Sometimes I can’t get to a comment in moderation for quite a while for perfectly legitimate reasons, i.e.: real life.
And I’m not saying HE is hostile. I am saying that action is hostile. It does speak to character, a bit, but perhaps how he is online is not how he comes across in person.
It’s interesting to me how much he seems to want to educate everyone here — funny people all — on what is and isn’t funny in a joke. To me, the more important education that needs to take place here is for Kevin to learn how to navigate being a new commenter on a blog.
That’s the email he sent you? Wow.
This man lacks boundaries. Red flag.
sheila — Yep. Just cut and pasted it. That’s the whole thing.
Ooh. Let’s discuss flags again!
Seriously, that shows an amazing lack of boundaries with a person he has never communicated with before. Says a lot who he is in private, doesn’t it. Not so “cool” there.
Tracey – hahahahahahahahaha oops!
Wow-ow-ow. I just read all of this, and like Kate P., I am down for those margaritas at the SYC ASAP.
Dude! Seriously? Wow. This thread has turned me mono-syllabic.
Tracey, Sheila, Nightfly, Marissa…your comments and explanations were A-MAZ-ING.
Kevin, next time you are on this blog, and are feeling like no one understands you or appreciates your, uhm, unique insight, try this…
Have someone tie your hands behind your back while you read. Now, don’t you feel less misunderstood? You see how much keeping your aggression and condescension to yourself helps?
Tracey, just so you know, I am going back to work now. Then I am going to head for home, maybe stop at Target on the way and pick up some mascara. Then for dinner I was thinking we’d have…
MM — Oh, okay, good. I will enter this info into my Google calendar. Thank you.
I concur with NF: Kevin is That Guy.
Back to the original question: no, not funny. Disgusting.
Hostility disguised as humor.
Could you simply ask him to please not send you jokes anymore? It’s not as if you’re reading most of them, since they go into the filter.
If you think you can’t do that, because of family ramifications, then- hard as it goes against human nature and the itch of curiosity- just delete them, unread. And perhaps suggest to young mutual friend that she do the same.
Is it possible that instead of being the lone crankypants, there are other family members who are tired of trash in their in-box and would back you up in your request?
That’s all I’ve got. Personal favorite: Delete, unread.
Doesn’t sound like someone who’ll change easily and you’re the best judge of the price of confrontation.
You know ….. another thing that’s stuck in my craw over this is what I call Kevin’s non-apology apology. (I’ve talked about the non-apology apology before on the blog.)
Way up in comment #29, Kevin said:
/Tracey, I’m sorry if my comment came across as condescending./
See that? The dropping of the “if” bomb in that “apology”? No. That’s not an actual apology. An apology is taking sincere, honest ownership of what you said or did and not qualifying it IN ANY WAY. The ever-popular “IF” Bomb apology is a way to sound as if you’re apologizing when you’re really not. That one little word — if — does a huge thing: creates a sliver of possibility that, no, the offender DIDN’T really do or say the thing that you’re offended about. And, yes, it’s a sliver of qualification, but that’s HUGE in an apology. A person who does that isn’t taking ownership. He’s saying, subtly, “It’s YOUR problem that you perceived it that way.” He’s saying, “Maybe I did that, but MAYBE I DIDN’T.” It’s not a true humble apology. It’s BS and I call it.
Kevin had numerous people calling him on his condescension and contemptuous tone. He offered his If Bomb, his non-apology apology, and THEN CONTINUED TO BE CONDESCENDING AND CONTEMPTUOUS while all the while claiming moral superiority to the rest of us. “I’ve kept my cool.” “I haven’t returned insults.” Or whatever. Well, yes, he did, as I’ve already said earlier in this thread.
But if a person apologizes and is genuinely sorry, he turns away from the behavior that created the offense in the first place. What Kevin did would be like a husband who apologizes to his wife for being drunk on Wednesday night — while he’s drunk on Thursday night. In dropping that If Bomb, though, he gave himself permission to continue his bad behavior because maybe it’s a perception problem of, oh, a half a dozen people or more. Maybe it’s THEIR problem, not his. If If IF.
Gimme a break. That’s meaningless. A gloss-over. A knee-jerk thing to say that you really don’t mean. And it’s definitely NOT an apology.
So I’m very very late to the discussion. I’d read it when it was 20 or so comments in, didn’t have anything to add that hadn’t been well said by tracey or sheila or Marisa, so I didn’t jump in. Now that I’ve spent hours reading the thread, I’ll add my .02.
1) The joke is not remotely funny. Leaving aside the domestic violence aspect, it’s just not funny. Boring, predictable, stupid, etc. Kevin demonstrated this in all of his attempts to reword the joke into something that would prove violence can be funny (which wasn’t even the issue–DOMESTIC violence was the objection everyone had, not violence in general, but I don’t know why I’m trying to tell him that, because he didn’t listen the umpteen times other people said it). Every one of the reworded jokes was boring, stupid, predictable, etc.
I asked my husband (a bit of an expert on humor), “Is this joke funny?” Read it aloud to him word for word. His response? “That’s a BAD joke.” He seemed as offended that someone would try to pass off such a lame attempt at humor as I am.
And then he pointed out to me that it’s just an even less funny retread of the old old old woman-with-two-black-eyes joke. That’s not to say that all retreads of old material are not funny, but many of them aren’t. They just give you a been-there-heard-that feeling. And when the joke isn’t funny to begin with, the retread gives you the feeling of been-there-heard-that-didn’t-laugh-the-first-time.
The domestic violence aspect of the joke is offensive in itself, but I truly find the boring aspect to be even more offensive. As a lover of humor and a fairly funny gal.
2) tracey, my first thought on how to respond to the relative: Reply to All on that email thread so that the young girl is included and sees how you feel about the inappropriate and PAINFULLY UNFUNNY joke. “Hi, relative. Thanks for trying to make me laugh, but jokes about domestic violence aren’t really my thing. I would appreciate it if you didn’t send me those in the future. Love, tracey.”
But that’s me, and I tend to piss off a lot of people by saying what’s on my mind.
3) Kevin, you’re condescending and hostile, as the others have so eloquently pointed out. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. I was going to spell out how comment moderation on blogs works, but I sounded condescending, so I deleted that.
4) I’ll make the chimichangas for the SYC. They’ll go wonderfully with Jayne’s homemade jalapeno cheddar.
I stumbled across this by typing ‘pale jokes’ into Google. People say dumb shit some times. Women say dumb shit more often than not. Sometimes I hit people when I think they’re stupid and the situation has reached its logical conclusion.
I am a woman (gorgeous at that) and I think this shit’s funny. I’m leaving it up to show my boyfriend when he gets home because he’ll think it’s hysterical. Then we’ll probably read everyone else s politically correct cultish opinions about… a joke.
You all deserve to be executed.
-Annie O.
Well, Annie, you sound like a lovely girl, I gotta say. Your tolerant stance that people who piss you off deserve to be hit and/or executed makes you sound like a real joy to be around.
If you read the actual post and not simply the joke, you’ll see that the issue is that I have a relative who sends me these jokes — and only sends these jokes, no other form of communication. It’s not about the joke, per se.