🚀 go-pugleaf

Thomas M. Cantine (tcantine@incentre.net) wrote:
: In article <34D0C9EF.40CF@dbis.ns.ca>, Barbara Amero <amero@dbis.ns.ca> wrote:
<snip>
: > I said any jokes that make light of rape, make rape a joke, 
: > i.e. meaning to take away the seriousness of rape, which is 
: > no joke. I will clarify that now by saying that any, all jokes
: > about rape make light of rape, make rape a joke, take away the
: > seriousness of rape. Rape is no joke!

: last year? I said something about how we were saving my son for
: Thanksgiving, and you played along with it. Anyway, with that joke we
: certainly were not saying that cooking and eating babies is really no big
: deal. Indeed, quite the opposite; it's so absolutely horrific an idea that
: our only reasonable way to deal with it is by laughing at it.

This is an excellent point, Thomas.  It's as dangerous and inaccurate to 
stereotype styles of humour as it is to stereotype people.  And when we 
insist that humour must always be a certain way (in poor taste) then we 
run the danger of censorship in response.

One point that I don't think I've seen so far in this thread is that to
anyone who has experienced rape or sexual assault, it's a lot harder to
see a humourous side to it.  This is especially true (but not exclusively)
for women, since women often feel more vulnerable to being raped.  One of
the reasons for this is that there are more rapes against women and so
it's in the media more.  

Ironically, the publicity about rape can have the side effect of
reinforcing the image of women as weak, vulnerable, etc.  And an
aggressive, serious, no-nonsense response is usually portrayed as being
the road to empowerment, especially in the face of the denial and
discounting of the seriousness of rape that still exists (albeit in much
smaller numbers). 

So, while I don't completely agree with Barbara Amero's blanket claim
about humour and rape, I do think I understand the reasoning behind it. 
When it comes to a subject that is still controversial (i.e., there is
still a lot of denial and discounting around about women's right to say no
to sex), as well as being such an emotionally charged issue, it can be
very brittle ice on which to strut out such a topic for humour.  

I have to admit that, while I agree with your argument in support of
controversial humour, when a man tells me a joke that involves portraying
women as vulnerable (rapable?), I feel very cautious, wary and defensive
inside.  But that's not *necessarily* about any insensitivity on the part
of the joke teller, nor about the (possible) tastelessness of the joke. 

However, regardless of the joke teller or the joke, it still reflects on
my own personal sensitivity to the topic.  So far, I don't believe I've
seen Ms Amero speak in terms of her own feelings or experiences, but only
in blaming terms toward those who don't agree with her perspective on
this.  As a result, I see her perspective as rather one-sided and rigid. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that controversial humour is just that
-- controversial, meaning that we'll get a wide variety of responses to it
and there's no real right answer to it.  You're right about the principles
of humour, but since this is also such a highly charged emotional issue,
principles can only present part of the picture and will not always or
necessarily negate the emotional factor.  If your son had, indeed, been
killed by cannibals or if you lived in a society where that was likely,
you might find it hard to laugh at a joke about it, too -- no matter how
dynamic, potentially healing or funny the joke.  No blame, just human
nature. 


Wendy

-- 

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
   "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." (John Wooden)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>