I see personal interactions as a microcosmic version of the group's general views and attitudes at large. If stereotypes fail us (and they do on so many levels) then we are FORCED to take into account the actions of individual. If individuals do not represent, at least on some level, the actions and attitudes of the group as a whole, then I firmly believe our assessment of the group must be flawed.
Good points by Palimpsest. I'll add that if there were no emergent properties when moving from the micro to the macro, you would have no fields of Sociology or Anthropology. Psychology would be able to cover it all. Psychology is important and related to both fields- as there is a relationship between the macro and the micro.
To take another look at humor and gender politics, think about humor that involves a woman dressing up as a man vs. a man dressing up as a woman. A man dressing up as a woman
usually serves to make fun of women, or women with certain characteristics (e.g., Rasputia from Norbit). If a man is passing as a woman and fools others, discovery of the deception usually leads to humiliation and embarrassment for the man that lowers his status. However, when a woman masquerades as a man, the result is to raise her social status, and when her true identity is discovered the response is anger and feelings of betrayal (e.g., Victor Victoria). There's at least one good academic example from ethnography that I can easily site as well.
In fact, this observation can perhaps be extended to the case of Palimpsest being mistaken for a man in the Forums, or at least to the theoretical discussion. In essence, "if you're a woman, you should advertise it so we men are not tricked into thinking you're a man." I am not accusing men on the forum of consciously thinking this. But, I think that we men need to reflect a little on that and see if there is some of that in our response.
Again, this is an expectation of behavior that stems from the norms of our culture. I'm not saying this to beat up on anyone. However, the only way for the culture to change is for individuals to change. If you think a behavior is wrong, you as an individual must take responsibility for contributing to the change. You contribute by changing yourself, by learning to recognize these harmful patterns, patterns that we tend to accept because we are brought up into them. You contribute to change by your actions and by talking to others about their actions.
In beginning Anthropology we talk about real norms versus ideal norms. Ideal norms are believed by the culture to be true. For example, we are society based on social equality and believe it is wrong to discriminate. However, we are often blind to our own discriminatory behavior unless it is extremely blatant, and even then we may rationalize it and fail to recognize it for what it is. The real norm is that discrimination persists.
Also, when you think of yourself as a good person it is hard to imagine that you could do something that your are philosophically opposed to, even unknowingly. It is painful to realize that you're being hypocritical.
Add to this the tendency of people to push back when you push against them. I see this as one side of the fight or flight response. Some folks have probably flown from this post in fear of facing something painful or being criticized. Some people have stood up to fight. I would also like to add that these are not the only possible responses, just our instinctual responses. There have also been others who have risen above these animal impulses and stayed to discuss the topic further and seek their own self-actualization. This is what I try to do, and I applaud all the other forum members who are doing the same.
It looks to me like Palimpsest is having to repeat herself (although I think her arguments have been clear), and she's already contributed hugely to the discussion. If she's ready to move on, I don't blame her. It wouldn't be fair to continue discussing her posts without her rebutting, but if there are questions that members still feel are outstanding, perhaps they can be re-framed and the discussion can continue with those who remain. I think there are others whom we could hear from, too.
To fiveyearwinter- If you disagree with how Palimpsest defines racism (as being intrinsically tied to oppression), I simply you suggest you fill in "racist oppression" whenever you see the term, and fill in "sexist oppression" when you see sexism. You don't have to get hung up on the terms. We can pull out a dictionary or search definitions on the web to resolve that if need be. I think the words you're using are secondary to the points that each of you is trying to make about the damage that gender-based jokes can have on both men and women.
I think you're saying it's a double standard for someone to say that jokes against women to not be ok while jokes against men are ok. I don't disagree with that claim about it being a double-standard. However, I'm not convinced that it serves to remove the social power that still rests with men. I'm not sure if you believe that to be the case either. Even if it did, well, there's still plenty of power left to share. If the power differential between women as a class became switched with that of men as a class, I might be worried because it is unequal. So, jokes against men are not as harmful on the group scale as they are on the individual scale.
I do see negative repercussions of jokes against men on the macro scale, however. I don't think the jokes can makes men an oppressed group, but they can increase tension between men and women and impede communication. Derogatory jokes tend to reinforce our perceptions of differentness and make it more difficult for us to understand and relate to each other effectively and functionally. Extending that back down to the individual level, it gives individuals a convenient excuse for not communicating effectively. Men might say (and women might use analogous statements)
- "No wonder she can't understand where I'm coming from."
- "What else would I expect of a woman."
- "I don't understand women, they're like a different species."
It's important to aknowledge differences, hopefully to understand and appreciate them. However, it is essential to also recognize our similarities and the common ground we share in order to have healthy and productive relationships.
I can understand Palimpsest pulling out since she's contributed so much and obviously has some other obligations to attend to. Maybe that's part of your reason too. I believe you were posting to this thread before I got here. I don't want to make assumptions about your motivation, and I'll give you a benefit of the doubt. I don't even know your gender, but I don't think that precludes this same type of thinking between two women who see themselves as belonging to different groups. I just hope hope this kind of "we're incapable of understanding each other" attitude is not a motivation for you to leave the discussion. Anyway, your reasons are your business, and I respect that.
With all that said, I have to admit that I sometimes find myself laughing at a gender based joke that I disagree with philosophically. When that happens I have to think about the joke a bit, and about the source of the joke. Times like that help bring things to a conscious level. But sometimes I decide that I don't have to take the joke too seriously. In general, I don't care for gender or race based jokes, and usually do find them offensive, though.
One time a woman who works in another office in my organization sent an e-mail chain letter of anti-man jokes to a few of her friends, all women. One of those women has a nickname that is the same as my first name, and the sender ended up directing the e-mail to me instead. I laughed about that and was not offended. A couple of the jokes I thought were pretty clever. I didn't think she was trying to be mean-spirited, and I just didn't take it too seriously. I knew that the sender found it embarrassing, anyway, so I tried to just make light of the situation. I certainly didn't find them very harmful to me.