🚀 go-pugleaf

I was indeed misinterpreting Adrian. I assumed she was saying that the
joke was objectionable because it was offensive (to women).  Correct me
if I'm still wrong, but she seems to be saying that the joke is
objectionable because it harms womankind (a possibly related but
legitimately distinct position).  She is further stating that the Salome
mini-joke does not analogously harm anyone.

I might buy into this reasoning, except for one thing.  The
interpretation of a joke by the reader doesn't necessarily match the
interpretation of a joke by the writer.  Thus, judging the motives of
the writer by the joke itself is risky at best and maybe wrongheaded as
well.

Take the Salome joke.  I'm sure that she didn't intend this, but there
*is* an almost exact analogous interpretation to the interpretation she
put on the rape joke.  The analogous elements are women ->
non-christians, false claim of rape -> insensitive and repulsive
behavior, males -> christians.  Do you see it now?  Her Salome joke can
easily be interpreted to mean that non-christian heathens take death and
suffering lightly, and are therefore low and unworthy.  I rather think
that she didn't mean it that way, but the interpretation seems all too
plausible a way for the joke to be misinterpreted.

Need I say that I think she analogously misinterpreted Wooley's joke?  I
do *not* (repeat *not*) say that I think this proves that Wooley has his
head screwed on straight... I'm merely saying that this joke is by no
means sufficent evidence to "prove" to me that Wooley intended the
meaning that she advances, just as the Salome joke is not evidence that
she intended the meaning that I advance.

I hope I don't come across as being an ad-feminem jerk :-).  I have
really a rather small point to make.  Basically it's a variant of the
"never put down the malice what can be accounted for by stupidity" line
I threw at Adrian before.  Offense and harm is easy to read into a joke.
But I think that, for the most part, it is just that... read in... and
not "really" meant by the writer, nor perceived by the readers.  You may
say that the joke has a subliminal effect, and meshes with the prejudice
of the readership.  But the prejudice is a property of the readership,
not the joke.

To analogize point by point Adrian's objection to the rape joke:

>      Fr. Woolley's punchline's humor content derives from a prostitute
> calling a breach of contract rape.

The Salome joke's humor lies in the barbaric and insensitive behavior of
the non-christians.

> That's funny if you think this is a good
> illustration of the humorous little foibles of {prostitutes, women, sexually
> active women: choose your own category}.

That's funny if you think it is a good illustration of the way
non-christians really act.

>     But if you think that, you're very
> very stupid and not the sort of person who ought to be involved in the real
> world. (Particularly bad careers for you are those of police officer, parent,
> or priest.)

Ditto.

>    To many of the rest of us, the suggestion is extremely offensive:
> more so as it fits into a widespread and dangerous mythology about women.

The Salome joke fits into a widespread and dangerous mythology about
non-christians.

> (One caveat: some people - including Fr. Woolley - say the joke is really the
> discovery that the woman is a prostitute. I suppose this element is also
> there, though it doesn't send me into paroxyms. But I don't understand how
> you can claim this is the main part of the joke, still less the only part.)

Some people think that the Salome joke is a harmless attempt at black
humor, and the humor is in finding that there is a human head in a
refrigerator (and this is an anachronism).  But that can't be the main
point... a head in a refrigerator isn't all that funny.  The main point
is the crude behavior of the nasty heathen non-christians.

>      I hope it's clear from this that my signature line isn't objectionable
> on the same grounds. There are few career openings for messianic prophets
> these days, but I don't think I've denigrated the calling of those that
> remain.

I think it's clear that there is a *very* close analogy between the
Salome joke and the rape joke.  That's what drew my attention to it in
the first place.  I think it is clear that Adrian didn't intend the
rather twisted interpretation I put on the Salome joke.  However, I
think it is also clear (at least to me) that Wooley didn't necessarily
intend the rather twisted interpretation that Adrian put on the rape
joke.

>    "And the large pole?"
>    "Ah, that's for keeping the wolves at bay."

And oh yeah.... great Siberian humor there.  But I think it reinforces a
dangerous and widespread mythology about the lives of primitive arctic
peoples...   (just kidding, just kidding! it was great... really!)
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw