Gauss wrote:
I would disagree with your definition of what constitutes a sexist act or a sexist joke or a sexist idea to include something about intent of the action/joke/thought
So for a sexist joke regarding: Humor attempting to evoke recognition of stereotypes
with the intent to disparage, insult or otherwise demean
Crime, especially "thought crimes" should have a certain amount of <a href="
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea" target=blank>mens rea</a>, shouldn't it?
I can't see why it is not reasonable to at least take into consideration the intent of the joke before labeling it (and by extension, the poster of the joke) as sexist or prejudicial.
I get where you are coming from, Gauss. I simply do not agree.
Actually, I don't agree on a couple of points.
1. Intent has very little to do with definition. Person in bimbo box runs over motorcyclist and kills the rider. It is highly unlikely that the driver INTENDED to commit vehicular manslaughter, but that is exactly what he or she did.
Now, that is not saying IN ANY WAY that telling a prejudice joke is on the same level as murdering a rider with a SUV. It is simply an extreme analogy in order to make the point. People often have the best of intentions....however what they DO may be something completely different, and their intentions do not change the definition of the outcome.
2. A lot of assumptions have been made on this thread. Several of which have earned me my brand new, highly sarcastic, title. Assuming that when I say the JOKE is sexist that what I REALLY mean is "Dobbs is a prejudice, sexist asshole who hates women or else he would not have posted this crap." is a HUGE assumption....and a false one.
It is frankly obvious from my previous posts that I did not ASSUME ill intent, or that Dobbs is sexist. The absolute WORST that I actually assumed of
anyone was that it was more than possible that they might be ignorant of the fact that the joke was prejudice, and they might be ignorant of the fact that jokes that spread negative stereotypes increase prejudice towards those groups that are joked about.
***************
Lizzie mentioned that she could find a study that says anything....therefore I went looking for published studies that either had conclusions that prejudiced jokes had no effect on the listener's beliefs and feelings toward the group joked about, or that after hearing such a joke the listener had beliefs and feelings that were more positive than before they heard the jokes.
I have not been able to find a published study of the subject in America which had those findings and conclusions. I have a paid account on JSTOR and access to several University databanks...and digging through all of that did not turn up one, single study where the findings and conclusions were positive or even neutral.
That is not to say that such a study does not exist. However, the evidence so far, in great amounts, has findings that prejudiced jokes do, indeed, cause people to shift their feelings and beliefs towards a more prejudiced outlook. I would welcome anyone that will kindly cite a single study, and tell me where they found it, that has conclusions to the contrary.
I am very careful and very conscientious about NOT engaging in prejudice. It is one of my priorities. However, I also realize that it is NOT everyone else's priority, and that people, being individual, have different causes which they are passionate about. If we all gave time and resources towards EVERY worthy cause, we'd all be exhausted and broke.
That prejudice is lower on the list of things that some people are passionate about does not make them bad people. Perhaps their cause is rescuing abused animals, or helping starving children in Asia, or Alternative Energy, or.....well, you get the picture. All of these things are good things to be passionate about.
However, if your cause is helping starving children, just because you don't have time and resources to give to saving abused animals DOES NOT mean that saving abused animals is not important, or that people should not educate the public about the fact that animals are abused.
Some people, however, get a guilt complex when faced with an issue that is not on the top of their list. They may be spending 30 hours a week volunteering, as well as putting $500 a week to help the causes, for, say Saving the Spotted Mountain Goat and Solar Panels for the Poor...but if you mention to them that women in Saudi Arabia are second class citizens, or that Homosexuals are still persecuted in this country, they become aggressive, accusatory and outright insulting towards you.
This is not because they are horrible people who are so hard-hearted that they do not care about the unfairness and suffering that others go through.....most of the time it is because these people ARE compassionate, and DO care, but they do not have time or resources to take on yet another cause, no matter how worthy...and to keep from feeling guilty, they choose to either ignore the existence of the cause, or aggressively belittle the cause as unimportant.
And that is the reason that *I* have not been attacking, insulting or belittling those who have posted on this thread who do not agree with me, nor have I made assumptions about their personalities or home life due to their posts on this thread. I am taking into account the possibility that these people are reacting with such vitriol BECAUSE they are caring, compassionate people.
Odd, huh? The human psych is often paradoxical.
At any rate, I stand by my position...and I doubt anyone will be able to talk me away from that position without showing me published studies: The joke is sexist. Sexist jokes increase sexism.
That's it. I am not attempting to judge if the joke is funny or not. I am well aware that the only humor that I recognize consistently is sarcasm, and I am therefore not qualified to tell if a joke is funny or not.
If someone can show me how this particular joke does not fit any of the definitions of prejudice or sexism, and explain WHY that is so with more than just their own opinion, I am willing to modify my view.
If someone can show me how prejudiced or sexist jokes do NOT increase prejudice and sexism, and explain WHY that is so with more than just their own opinion, I am willing to modify my view.
However, so far in this thread, except for you Gauss, those who have addressed my view have done so with nothing more than attempts at character defamation. That might work well in a courtroom, but it doesn't hold water in academia.
"There is a time and a place for ruthlessness. You and I and many others on this board were trained by the government to kill, maim and terrorize people and destroy their property. However, we must always keep in mind that the only appropriate time to do so is when it will benefit multi-national corporations."--Yogi Kuddha
