Janet D. Stemwedel (whose nom de blog is Dr. Free-Ride) is an assistant professor of philosophy at San Jose State University. Before becoming a philosopher, she earned a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. Email her at dr.freeride@gmail.com.
On April Fool's Day, our local Socrates Café had an interesting discussion around the question of what makes something funny. One observation that came up repeatedly was that most jokes seem aimed at particular audiences -- at people who share particular assumptions, experiences, and contexts with the person telling the joke. The expectation is that those "in the know" will recognize what's funny, and that those who don't see the humor are failing to find the funny because they're not in possession of the crucial knowledge or insight held by those in the in-group. Moreover, the person telling the joke seems effectively to assert his or her membership in that in-group. People in the discussion probed the question of whether there was anything that could be counted on to be universally funny; our tentative answer was, "Probably not."
With this hunch about joking in hand, I wanted to take a closer look at a particular joke and what it might convey.
The joke was posted at Greg Laden's blog:
How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?The very choice of patritypical hyper macho sexual imagery in reference to what one might do with a light bulb exposes a deeply held and hegemonic bias objectifying the light bulb as both passive, willing victim and as compliant proxy for the colonial fate of southern hemisphere alterity.
I'm going to take a pass on a detailed translation on the pseudo-postmodernist jargon in the answer to the question. Clearly, the joke is supposed to turn on the idea that feminists see everything in terms of heavy theory that seems kind of crazy to normal people. Or that they constantly inspect everyday activities for reasons to be pissed off.
The question raging in the comments after the post seems to be is this joke actually funny?
What is really funny is that this joke is in no way sexist. It does not have sexism or women as it's intent or object. It is a joke about pomposity in academics and post modern readjustments of reality...Anyway, my student, who is a certified feminist (and indeed one of the commenters above) thinks its funny, and she is a VERY hard audience....
(and this is science. I'm an anthropologist. This is a ribbing critique, mini critique, really, about communication in the social sciences.)
(Bold emphasis added.)
Of course, the joke didn't open with "How many academics in the social sciences does it take to change a lightbulb?" But maybe that's just a function of Greg not being a professional joke writer. Still, from the opening, the "critique" comes across as targeted specifically at feminists. Not feminist anthropologists, not feminist academics, but feminists.
Greg asserts here that the joke isn't sexist. And, he tells us his student, a "certified feminist", found it funny. (I'm wondering now when and where I was supposed to get certified ...) So, the in-group that finds the joke funny, I take it from this comment, is supposed to include feminists. Moreover, Greg, in telling the joke, is asserting his membership in the in-group (although it's rather vaguer from the comment where he is on the Venn diagram -- whether he also takes himself to be a feminist).
Not every commenter seemed to agree that the joke was funny, or that is was not sexist. For example, notfunny2 explained:
I'm sure most of us feel it's your 'right' to post this, just as it's the right of many of us to find it unfunny without being called humourless feminazis. Ask any comedian about the importance of context to a joke. You're posting this on ScienceBlogs, where I would garner that many/most of your female readers are scientists, science students, or working professionals. Which means that a lot of us have to deal with shit from men in our male-dominated workplaces and we come here to have a somewhat more enlightened discourse. Or not.It's as easy to make fun of humourless 1970's style feminists as it is to make fun of humourless Marxist-Leninist Russians. The difference is that your visitors aren't Marxist-Leninist Russians, but women, many of whom would call themselves feminist in at least some ways, even if they don't relate to the type being made fun of in that joke...
I'm guessing you're actually not a bad guy and that, chances are, with your background and your biologist wife etc that you are far enough away from a lot of this that you think we're all 'past' it. Which is why you perceive it as ok to joke about it, because it's a non-issue. The thing is Greg, for many of us, it's not. When the other woman in your building is a secretary, and when all the men turn around and give you the stink eye when you walk into the library, it gets to you. The same as "funny feminist jokes" can get to you when you see them on a place like ScienceBlogs. Probably I'll be called a humourless feminazi now, but so be it. Walk a mile in my shoes, in MANY of our shoes, y'all
In short: Greg may not be as far in with the in-group as he thinks he is. Or maybe the issue is that he's misjudged his audience and what they'll find funny on the basis of their experiences.
One of the commenters who found humor in the joke, StephanieZ, notes that some of Greg's unlaughing readers may not actually be the target audience for the joke:
Jokes have their audience. None of them are universal. If you're not part of the audience for this joke, it isn't necessarily a reflection on Greg--or on you. Calling Greg sexist because you don't share the same sense of humor, especially after he's explained the joke to you, is a waste of time you could spend on something you do enjoy.
I disagree with the assessment that there's no useful way the joke -- and its failing to amuse some of Greg's readers -- reflects back on Greg, but that's a point I'll return to.
Indeed, responding to Greg's "it's not sexist at all, a feminist told me so" comment, notfunny2 notes that context in which the joke is delivered brings with it a certain audience:
...unfortunately, the joke in the context of this site is for me, sexist. And given some of the reactions, I wager I'm not the only one. If we were all academics in a similar field, or if we had just been joking about jargon, I might have been more inclined to give it a pass. But what looks like a tired old joke on a general science site? Like I said, sometimes context is everything. You seem to be assuming a whole context for this post that a lot of readers, like me, are just not going to 'get'...
(Bold emphasis added)
Further downthread, Another leak in the pipeline puts it more succinctly:
Just another reminder of why I'm getting the hell out of science.
I do not know whether Greg expected to be met with virtual peals of laughter upon posting this joke. I find it interesting that when commenters indicated they didn't find the joke funny for various reasons, Greg seemed to want to assure them that really, it was funny -- they just needed to understand the joke, and here's the cheat-sheet to find the funny ... and why aren't you laughing?
Greg seems not to be listening to the commenters explaining the reasons the joke is not connecting with their funnybones. I don't think his consciously pulling the sexist equivalent of the Whipping Out Your Best Friends maneuver to avoid really dealing with racism, but resting the whole "not sexist AND funny" judgment on the assessment of a single self-identified feminist -- when other self-identified feminists are voicing alternate views -- seems like a suspect move.
And you have to wonder if what he's really saying is, "I'm telling this joke to those of you who agree that it's funny; the rest of you are not really part of the group I'm trying to speak to here."
We all have our audiences, the people we have in our minds who we think we're trying to reach when we hit the publish button. What's kind of coming across from some of these comments (and from Greg's responses to them) is that maybe Greg's is narrower than some of his readers thought it was. He already knows all he needs to know about how women experience jokes, and he's not open to any reconsideration of whether his own is as funny and non-sexist as he thinks it is.
On a blog, he doesn't need to listen to the people who disagree with him. That's his prerogative. In real life, it's also taken to be the prerogative of those at or near the top of the hierarchies to decide whether to listen or care about all sorts of things -- how well the "standard" ways to make hiring decisions or tenure evaluations work, whether it's worth the trouble to switch to double-blind peer reviewing just to reduce gender bias, whether one ought to gather any kind of information beyond introspecting that, "Gee, I'm not consciously discriminating against anyone, and I don't see my colleagues doing it" before deciding that everything is just fine.
Just like context affects what makes you laugh, it also affects what you notice. And the fact that you don't notice something that others do does not mean you should automatically assume those others are hallucinating, or oversensitive, or humorless.
(And to nip in the bud comments to the effect that I have no sense of humor, I'd argue that my jokes do reasonably well when the in-group is stacked with nerds.)
Comments
pwned!
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 26, 2008 3:39 PM
Humorless feminazi screechymonkey liberal. How dare you insinuate that Greg Laden™ is not all he thinks he is?
He patiently explained the joke so that you could see the funny even though it was over your pretty little head (pat pat), and he established his Feminist Credentials by reference to a Certified Feminist who (we have his word for it) thinks he's funny and not sexist. And besides, it's Science™ -- he's an Anthropologist. (Oooooohhhh!)
What more could you possibly want of him? After all, it's pretty clear that he has all he could possibly want from him.
(By the way, once you get your Certification, will you be my Feminist Friend that I can Whip Out?)
Posted by: bill | April 26, 2008 3:49 PM
I am a feminist. I didnt find the joke funny. Not for any deep philosophical reasons, it just failed to even make me smile.
Posted by: Donalbain | April 26, 2008 3:58 PM
Don't you already have a Feminist Friend that you can Whip Out whenever you want?
(Was that funny?)
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 26, 2008 4:02 PM
I pretty much think everything is funny, no matter how offensive, but that joke struck me as sort of dull.
An old Mennonite minister of my acquaintance told me that he didn't know what makes something funny to one person and not to another, but that he had noticed over many years that if a couple laughed at the same things, most likely their marriage would succeed.
The cartoon that got John Callahan (the quadriplegic cartoonist) thrown off the Chicago Tribune was one frame titled "Freaks of nature", which showed "an obedient cat, a happy-go-lucky feminist, and an honest lawyer." So many wrote in to complain that the paper got a different, completely inoffensive cartoonist for their Sunday feature. (Hint: no cats and very few lawyers complained.) I do miss seeing his clumsy drawings in the paper.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | April 26, 2008 4:36 PM
There are two elements of the joke - the parody of certain types of academic language in the 2nd half, which is mildly funny, and the group of people targeted in the 1st half... which isn't. If you said 'how many postmodernists does it take...' you could finish the joke in virtually the same way. But the author (and subsequent repeaters) of the joke decided to pick on feminists. Many academics who are not feminists use that kind of language, and many (most?) feminists don't. So what is it if not sexist?
(How many misogynists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to do the screwing and several thousand to argue that isn't really what he's doing at all and why are you such humourless bitches?)
Posted by: sharon | April 26, 2008 5:35 PM
I've previously heard that joke in a different form:
Q: "How many Feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"
A: "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"
Also, in discussing joke effectiveness, audience is important, context is important, but don't forget the huge importance of delivery. I find that effective styles of written jokes are not always the same as effective styles of spoken jokes.
Posted by: Spaulding | April 26, 2008 6:18 PM
Sharon,
I think you nailed it. Feminism has had a few pretentious postmodernists, but it's hardly typified by them; the joke engages in the same form of stereotyping as countless others, and is open to the same criticisms.
Posted by: idlemind | April 26, 2008 6:26 PM
Sharon, is it inherently sexist to make fun of feminists? If so, why?
There's an implicit question of whether humor ought to be bound by the tastes of the easily offended. Are Monty Python anti-semitic for making light of the Inquisition? Is it inherently unethical to make fun of tragedy? Is Dave Chappelle a bigot for his efforts to generate amusement from racism and racial caricatures?
My position is that there are no boundaries on what is fair game for humor, but when humor at the edge of taste falls flat, the speaker tends to be judged harshly.
It's risky, but the alternative is unfunny Family Circus-type pablum. Comedy is supposed to knock us off balance!
Posted by: Spaulding | April 26, 2008 6:32 PM
Sharon, is it inherently sexist to make fun of feminists? If so, why?
Not answering for Sharon, just for myself:
I think it depends on whether one is making fun of particular feminist strategies and tactics or whether one is making fun of the project of ensuring that women are treated as fully human. The former -- when done well -- can be hilarious. The latter? To me at least, not so much.
Again, context matters hugely. If one is using humor to target a feature of a group one actually belongs to, it has more potential for success than (say) pointing at a group that has less power than one's own and laughing. Similarly, pointing out the foibles of a group uphill from one's own hierarchically is often funny.
Maybe the harsh judgment is not of the joke-teller per se, but of his (mistaken) pretensions that he can claim membership to the group he's poking fun at -- or of his (mistaken) assumption that the people he's expecting to laugh feel themselves to be in kinship with the joke-teller on his views.
Posted by: Janet D. Stemwedel | April 26, 2008 6:42 PM
Love this blog. have a long comment though, apologies.
I continue to find discussions about what is funny pretty fascinating.
First, I agree that insisting to someone who didn't like a joke you told, that it really was funny likely seems condescending and patronizing.
However, it can also be a mistake to assume a whole lot about the intentions and beliefs of someone who tells a 'bad' joke. Maybe they are just clueless, maybe they made a bad call, maybe they are just in a light place.
This situation arises a lot on the internet, where tone of voice and other clues to intent are absent. You call them on the crap joke, you can explain that you personally didn't care for it, possibly accuse/imply them of something they don't believe, possibly they get defensive. Possibly they apologize, possibly they offer reassurances. Possibly you believe them, possibly you patronize them by insisting that anyone who tells such jokes must believe X, Y, and Z. The outcome of such exchanges may vary, perhaps it is an opportunity to become a little more sensitive (for the joker), perhaps it is an opportunity to lighten up a bit (for everyone), perhaps it will lead summary judgments, avoidance, etc.
Here's are some questions that interest me, as they seem to be a set of unstated assumptions.
Do people believe that making a joke about something serious, mean that the joke teller doesn't find any merit or worth, or respect the serious of that topic at all?
Is it possible to take something lightly, even though it is important? Or perhaps more importantly, take oneself less seriously, even though one is extremely concerned about a topic? (say environmental destruction, genocide, politics, oppression, poverty, feminism, etc.)
I guess i have a black sense of humor. I don't insist that everyone share it, and I don't direct it towards someone who is suffering. I sometimes try to get people who seem very serious, to lighten up, but I try to titrate that to the degree which i think they will appreciate it. It's because I find that laughing (about oneself, and even the world) is preferable in the long run to crying and rage. I don't expect someone who is raging, or worn down, or has suffered or watched other suffers to laugh or be in the mood to be light, but I'm amazed and delighted when they can. We live, if you are inclined to look at in that way, in a world absurdly filled with suffering, injustice and pain. Getting angry can solve certain problems and provide certain focus, i get that, but it's a high cost and it's not the fuel that everyone runs on.
Are all invitations to lightness thought of as trivializing? No doubt some of theme are. I happen to love the feminist lightbulb joke. Does this mean i read it as implying 'all feminists are humourless'? or the goals of feminism are to be trivialized? or that the struggle and suffering are unimportant? I don't. why do i find the joke funny? because I'm not overextending it. I take it to apply only to a stereotype of self-serious academics (who may in fact be doing important work, but i'm unlikely to want to spend time around). But I get that you'd probably have to know and trust me to believe me. And since i believe I have a pretty good read on people that i'm telling my jokes too, I don't pour salt in open wounds. And I always try to make it right if I screw up. I don't always feel like laughing, and there are things that cut too deep to make light of easily.
Posted by: tbell | April 26, 2008 7:01 PM
in the discussion probed the question of whether there was anything that could be counted on to be universally funny; our tentative answer was, "Probably not."
*ahem*
Puns. Puns and fart jokes.
Posted by: Graculus | April 26, 2008 7:09 PM
"and he's not open to any reconsideration of whether his own is as funny and non-sexist as he thinks it is."
So - is the prejudicial content of an action determined by it's motives, or by the possible ways it can be interpreted? Kind of an ends vs. means problem: is it not sexist because of the means taken to get to the joke, or is it sexist because of an after-the-fact interpretation of it?
"People in the discussion probed the question of whether there was anything that could be counted on to be universally funny; our tentative answer was, "Probably not.""
How about universally un-funny?
One of Zuska's post also comes to mind: http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2008/01/undergraduate_men_and_their_oh.php
Posted by: dreikin | April 26, 2008 8:45 PM
An excellent post on the issues of in-group & out-group comedy can be found at Kung Fu Monkey:
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-sense-your-confusion-time.html
regarding the Imus affair a while back.
The point here is that Greg hasn't made feminism enough a part of his blog that he has sufficient in-group status to make that kind of joke.
Lastly, I have to seriously question whether a student -- someone in down-the-hierarchy from Greg -- is in any position to give an honest, open appraisal to a superior.
Posted by: kw | April 26, 2008 8:54 PM
All this ground was covered years ago in the book God, Man, and Archie Bunker. People used to stop Carrol O'Connor on the street and lecture him about women's rights. They confused character with actor. Some people really are irony-impaired but playing a misogynist and racist character was O'Connor's contribution to equal rights.
In many jokes the real butt of the joke is not the putative one but the mythic teller. To say something outrageously sexist is to condemn the stereotypic sexist - mocking the character the teller plays for a moment.
Irony-impairment cripples in two direction. First, the hearer may think the teller is an enemy instead of an ally. Or if a sexist/racist the hearer may agree with the mythic teller as some people cheered in apparently sincere agreement with Archie Bunker. Both are risks of every joke that has any edge at all. And a new risk is encoded in Poe's law, that it can be very difficult to tell a sexist teller from a sexist/racist mythic teller.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | April 26, 2008 9:47 PM
in-group status--basically enough credit to trust that a joke is a joke, and an invitation to lightness, not a bid to 'put someone in their place'
good link kw.
Posted by: tbell | April 26, 2008 10:15 PM
Don't you already have a Feminist Friend that you can Whip Out whenever you want?
Whenever I want? They'd lock me away.
Posted by: bill | April 27, 2008 1:02 AM
How many kids with ADD does it take to change a lightbulb?
Lets go ride bikes!!
Posted by: Donalbain | April 27, 2008 4:35 AM
How many bloggers does it take to change a lightbulb?
You're RUINING TEH INTERNETZ!11!!!!!!!1!!!ELEVENTY!111!11!!
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 27, 2008 10:29 AM
I think that if we assume *Laden* is a pretentious post-modernist academic, the joke is much funnier.
Also, I think that the jokes people responded with on this thread are much funnier than the ones on Laden's thread... wonder what that reveals?
Posted by: Becca | April 27, 2008 2:49 PM
I am a Jew and I find the joke to be un-funny.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | April 27, 2008 5:45 PM
Hey, Sol! Have you heard the one about the three rabbis who walk into a bar?
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 27, 2008 6:11 PM
I've got reasonably good feminist credentials (though I'm not an academic feminist anymore, so perhaps I have less at stake) and I thought it was mildly funny. It could have used a couple of re-writes. Actually, now that I think about it, I didn't find it funny the first time I read it, because I didn't feel inclined to read past the first line, but by the third line, I did find myself lightly giggling. The short version is much funnier, though I can imagine saying it with the wrong intonation and it not being funny.
I don't think it's an in-group/out-group thing, though I'm sure there's some correlation between those categories and who thinks it's funny. I think it's more an issue of whether you believe the topic is something that should be joked about or if you see it as so important that it should be above joking. Feminist academic jargon (which, again, the joke *almost* parodies successfully, though not quite, in my opinion) can be funny, which is not the same thing as saying or implying that it is inherently ridiculous under all circumstances.
Whether Greg Laden choosing to post this joke is interpreted as a hostile act, a self-mocking act, or a silly act is a separate issue from whether the joke is funny or not, anyway.
Posted by: Laura M. | April 27, 2008 7:17 PM
PP, I forgot to mention that I am also a feminist. Have you heard the joke about the Pope and the Rabbi?
Posted by: S. Rivlin | April 27, 2008 8:28 PM
As jokes genres go, "screw in a lightbulb" jokes tend to suck.
Lightbulb jokes are a step up from "knock knock" jokes, but only just.
The form is dated. I haven't heard a fresh lightbulb joke in years. Laden's feminist gag is at least 20 years old.
I don't think the joke is necessarily sexist, or that Laden was acting sexist when he told it.
A sexist could use that joke to put down all women, or all feminists. It really depends on the context.
Of course, it's fair to ask why a joke teller wants to put down feminists (or whoever the butt of a joke happens to be). If lightbulb jokes are funny at all, they're usually funny because they strike the listener as apt or accurate.
It's pretty common for sexists to segue from mocking feminists to mocking women in general. Rush Limbaugh isn't just putting down women's rights activists and academics when he throws out the term "feminazi." He uses it to make fun of anyone who takes women's equality seriously or challenges male privileges. Coming from him, and his ditto heads, "feminiazi" is a straight up sexist bullying tactic.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | April 27, 2008 8:44 PM
I admit, I have the context to know that Greg is pro-women in science and generally supportive of his female readership. So I knew the joke wasn't directly about the answer before I clicked through to read the punchline.
Could Greg have been more eloquent and tactful in the comments? Sure. Absolutely. Funnier, too. I also have the context to know that Greg's first reaction to most negative responses to posts is to say, "Read it again. That's not what I said." The second is to say, "If I add this context, does that make my intent clear?" The third is to muse for a while on what didn't work, and the fourth is to act on what he's learned.
People without that context weren't going to know that he was putting them in the same queue as anyone else or that he was taking them seriously by skipping to step 2. (Greg's first response to comments was to provide the context that the joke came out of: an academic running dry of humor because she's been studying humor--specifically feminist humor. How do you make it funny again? Make it more academic.)
Bloggers should be aware that they're always going to have new readers (if they're lucky) who aren't going to understand the tone of the place. Newer readers should also be aware that a blog develops understandings among regular readers. If readers are reacting to a post in wildly different ways, particularly if it's a joke, there's a fair chance the post requires some trust on the reader's part that regulars have built up and new readers haven't.
Does a blogger never post something that falls into this category? If they do, what do they say to the new reader beyond "You don't know me but trust me" and "My intent is not to offend you"? If the new reader doesn't accept that and still believes that the blogger's intent is hostile, then what? That's where my comment came in.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | April 27, 2008 10:21 PM
It's kind of funny to see one's comment interaction turned into a blog post, but I think Dr. Free-Ride did a good job of going into this in more detail.
As for Greg Laden, well, his last reply to me was particularly odd: "Well, now that you get it, you get it, right? What you were experiencing was a misinterpretation. What you are now experiencing is a learning experience!"
Um, no.
It's a little odd, or maybe the word I'm looking for here is 'patronizing', to be told what I'm experiencing. In fact, I'm not 'misinterpreting' anything, especially since I know that Greg obviously thinks it's funny or he wouldn't have posted it in the first place, and I have no problem at all 'interpreting' what Greg thinks since, like many of you, this isn't the first time someone has shared a "totally funny joke! (TM)" with me in the wrong context and with the same tone-deafness. Instead, I was trying to get Greg to understand how OTHER people besides him, namely myself and his readers, might interpret his "funny joke". Greg is neither a woman, nor an academic feminist. That means that whether or not he likes it, his joke-telling can easily be held to different contexts and meanings than he intends. Like, old male friend for 10 years sends me sexist but funny joke? Probably funny. Recent coworker in my 98% male workplace with possibly suspect attitudes who posts same joke? Probably not funny. And that's assuming a potentially funny joke in the first place, which I would argue Greg's was not, if not just because I have probably heard some variant of that one about 200 times in my life. Kind of like when people tell me the same joke about my last name to me, for the billionth time, like I've never heard it before. Funny! But hey, it's funny if Greg says so, right? I just need to experience a "learning experience!".
Clearly no 'learning experience' is forthcoming to him, unfortunately.
Posted by: notfunny2 | April 27, 2008 11:23 PM
Who here can give an example of a joke they they found to be both personally offensive AND funny?
Posted by: Lab Lemming | April 28, 2008 1:13 AM
Lightbulb jokes are a step up from "knock knock" jokes, but only just.
Disagree. Those jokes are so old that they invite terrific subversions of form, because the audience already understands the setup. The "That's not funny!" is one example (and, I think, a pretty funny one, at least when told with some ironic intent). In the same category:
A: Knock knock.
B: Who's there?
A: Control freak. Ok, now you say, "Control freak who?"
But everyone else's comments on the importance of context, particularly the identities of the jokester and the audience, are spot-on.
Posted by: Dr. Jekyll & Mrs. Hyde | April 28, 2008 1:25 AM
What you have to understand about Laden is that he is almost always trying to be funny, and he is almost always failing.
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 28, 2008 6:31 AM
I have observed a widespread inability to perceive harm which underlies many social conflicts.
The culture of science places high value on ideas as abstract, disconnected entities. Seeing the connection between our behaviors when we express ideas and the consequences of our behaviors seems to be a difficult challenge.
If we were to observe our human interactions with the same degree of curiosity, with the same degree of care that we observe our experiments, what would we see?
What are the effects of our own behavior?
How should we behave if we care about the answer?
Posted by: etbnc | April 28, 2008 9:27 AM
Janet,
Thanks for this analysis, it is very interesting.
The question that arises in my mind after reading your post (and most of the comments on your post and on mine) is this: There seems to be a kind of "certification" process for being a feminist. How does that work?
My most cynical thought in this regard is that some people decide to be the judges, and everyone else either has to accept that or accept a verbal lashing. In my day to day activities in academics and political activism, I don't see that as being the norm (or at least it is not the most common theme). But on blogs it seems to be common (as well as in similar on line discussion contexts).
notfunny2:
It is true that I was not clear in my responses to you, but you should know that I appreciate and take seriously your comments.
By the way, many of the Sb blogs, mine included, are often noted as having less science than they "should." What I think needs to be understood is that the overlap between science and politics is huge, and I see my blog as just as important (to me as a means of expression) in political areas as in science. Also, there are links that I probably see that others probably can't see between science and politics. For instance, I'm very interested in the science aspects of both race/racism and gender issues. So, these social and political areas may come through as political posts but what is going on in my mind makes the link. I don't feel that I need to make that link explicit.
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 28, 2008 10:55 AM
Oh, and shouldn't that be "whom"???
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 28, 2008 10:59 AM
Someone makes a joke about feminists not having a sense of humor, and your response is to prove that you do not have a sense of humor. This is a bit like those Muslims who riot when a cartoonist depicts Muslims as being violent. That'll show 'em.
Posted by: Virgil Samms | April 28, 2008 11:37 AM
Don't hang this one on feminists, Virgil -- it's the philosophers who are to blame.
You'll notice that in my post I do not take a stand on whether Greg's joke is objectively funny or unfunny. Rather, I'm examining why it might be that it was not a fully successful joke, at least as judged by the responses of various commenters.
I know not everyone digs the philosophical habit of analyzing everyday occurrences that most people happily take for granted. There's a reason they gave Socrates that hemlock ...
Greg, the "certification" people are riffing on comes from your own statement that "my student, who is a certified feminist (and indeed one of the commenters above) thinks its funny, and she is a VERY hard audience...." You were kidding about her being certified, right? As are the rest of us -- because we get humor! (Or were you claiming she was certified to inflate our perception of her credentials?)
Also, Greg's synopsis over at his own pad:
has got to be a reference to the contributions of the commenters here, given that nowhere in my post do I:
Posted by: Janet D. Stemwedel | April 28, 2008 11:52 AM
Greg, the "certification" people are riffing on comes from your own statement that "my student, who is a certified feminist (and indeed one of the commenters above) thinks its funny, and she is a VERY hard audience...." You were kidding about her being certified, right?
The entire statement was a cynical, perhaps funny (well, I thought so but I'm often found off by myself grinning for no apparent reason), remark about the whole process of certification that I am indeed asking you about, yes.
I could write off the certification issue as just an annoying thing and nothing more, but I'm not sure that is a good idea. There is probably another level to this discussion: The attribution of meaning and intention, and how powerful that can be. Self-serving judgment often seems to replace a desire to understand.
The light bulb joke, by the way, is probably funny, but it's not that funny. It is not nearly as funny, for instance, as the Interrupting Sheep joke.
Knock knock.
Who's there?
The Interrupting Sheep.
The Interrupting She..
BAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 28, 2008 12:00 PM
This is just a re-hash of the centuries old argument of whether it's less of a problem for Jews that gentiles to tell Rabbi jokes. One is hardly going to make significant progress on that question.
What is truly interesting is the (let me try to be as neutral as possible) vehemence of the response, which began with personal insults to Greg, and has gotten downright anatomical in some places. I grew up in Ireland, and 'Irish' jokes in England are the equivalent of 'Polish' jokes in the US. And the Irish and English have a certain amount of history (no more than 800 years of it, though). Do we get upset when we hear them from an Englishman? Mostly, no. They're a set-piece, and frankly my delight at hearing a really good joke far outweighs that there's a slight edginess in that a Brit's telling it to me.
So let me ask what I think is a much better question: why the enraged response? And I do mean enraged, not testy or even angry.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | April 28, 2008 12:10 PM
notfunny2, this is something I should have said in the comments of the original post, but I was angry at having my feminism put in quotes (not by you) and wasn't at my best. Thank you for reaching past your first emotional response to give the context of your reaction. You went far beyond the efforts of any other commenter, myself included, to use reason and not be defensive. I'm sorry that got lost in the fray. I appreciate it more than I can say.
I hope you'll bring some of that perspective back to Greg's blog from time to time and allow us to show ourselves in a better light. We're a contentious bunch who tend to talk in hyperbole (see sexist bastard, above), and there are a couple of unbelievable trolls because Greg doesn't moderate actively, but once you sort that out, we're pretty friendly. I'll understand if you think that's more work than it's worth, but I'll be sorry.
Again, thank you.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | April 28, 2008 12:26 PM
Interesting discussion, which I mostly will avoid. However, in relation to the "Interrupting Sheep" point which Greg raises in his most recent post, I would like to point out a good callback to follow that (or its cousin, "Interrupting Cow") up with that a friend told me: "Interrupting 3-toed Sloth".
The form is, a few minutes after telling one of the more traditional "Interrupting Farm Animal" Jokes:
Knock knock.
Who's there?
Interrupting 3-toed Sloth.
Interrupt- (person 1 begins slowly swinging there arm at person 2 with just 3 fingers out in a slight curve, imitating a sloth) -ing 3-toed Sloth who? (at this point, if you've moved your arm more than a foot, you're too fast, and if it's less than an inch, it's probably too slow).
Posted by: Jay De Lanoy | April 28, 2008 12:34 PM
I like the sheep joke! That one really was funny!
In relation to "certification", as far as I can tell, you don't get "certified" as a feminist or feminist ally. What you do is build up a reserve of trust over time through one's statements and actions that you are, indeed, a good-faith ally.
For men, building this trust seems to require that one exhibit at least some recognition of one's privileged status, and some willingness to modulate one's statements and actions based on that recognition.
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 28, 2008 1:03 PM
Bloggers should be aware that they're always going to have new readers (if they're lucky) who aren't going to understand the tone of the place. Newer readers should also be aware that a blog develops understandings among regular readers. If readers are reacting to a post in wildly different ways, particularly if it's a joke, there's a fair chance the post requires some trust on the reader's part that regulars have built up and new readers haven't.
Privileged straight white males in their workplaces should be aware that they may occasionally get new female/gay/minority colleagues who aren't going to understand the tone of the place. These new arrivals should be aware that a privileged straight white male enclave develops understandings among the in crowd. If newbies are reacting to cultural mores in wildly different ways, particularly if it is a joke, there a fair chance the newbies should just 'trust' that the privileged straight white males are not in fact discriminating against them but are actually just joshin' them with the greatest love to make them feel welcomed.
[/massive eyeroll]
Posted by: DrugMonkey | April 28, 2008 1:03 PM
My most cynical thought in this regard is that some people decide to be the judges, and everyone else either has to accept that or accept a verbal lashing.
kinda like you judge whether someone is engaging in civil discourse or not and whether they are "an asshole" or not? You are pretty free yourself with the "judging of people rather than what they've said". Not to mention pretty free with the "attribution of malicious intent".
Since you are a professional anthropologist and all I won't draw all the obvious parallels with the same hypocrisy commonly expressed in privileged white male responses to critique.
In my day to day activities in academics and political activism, I don't see that as being the norm (or at least it is not the most common theme). But on blogs it seems to be common (as well as in similar on line discussion contexts).
It is quite possible that the real life analogs are eye rolling, disgusted expressions and post-encounter discussions to which you are oblivious or not privy. It could very well be that these responses are common IRL too, they are just not as salient to you because there is no lasting record for you to peruse at your leisure.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | April 28, 2008 1:14 PM
Drugmonkey: Any statement I may have made that you are an ass is not really something that can be brought into question. I'm not judging you at all, or even making some kind of insightful observation. I'm merely pointing out the obvious, and indeed, this is your desire, to be seen this way. Otherwise why would you act the part so marvelously well?!?!? If you have a different goal in mind, you hide it very well.
Please don't misinterpret this as me calling you names. I'm just reiterating what you've stated.
Have you added the pomposity lately, or has that always been part of the act?
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 28, 2008 2:15 PM
DrugMonkey, thank you for explaining that you know what I mean so much better than I do. I appreciate your attempt to keep the discussion from getting patronizing. I also appreciate being dismissed as part of "a privileged straight white male enclave" along with the other female regulars at Greg's blog whose wit, wisdom and unabashed feminism are part of the appeal of the place.
I've already said that Greg did not handle this as well as I'd have liked, that I didn't handle it by my normal standards either. The paragraph you reinterpret isn't intended to be a defense of my behavior or his (which is his to defend or not as he sees fit).
That said, is it wrong to suggest that if someone gets to know a person a bit before dismissing them and their cohort, they may find more allies, albeit some weird ones? I'm not talking about embracing people indiscriminately, just looking a little longer before backing away. It's an approach that risks more, but it's how I try to face the world.
I'm aware that there are people who are already taking enough risks to make the approach unappealing. I've been one of them. That's where I struggle with how much rearranging of my personal space is appropriate (obviously more than I did with notfunny2). Did you have any answers to my questions on the subject?
Posted by: Stephanie Z | April 28, 2008 2:24 PM
No, no, no!! I'm the pompous one! DM's the condescending one!
Please try to keep your assholes straight.
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 28, 2008 2:31 PM
Physio: You know, honestly, I do constantly confuse you two. Sorry about that. Sorry Drug Monkey.
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 28, 2008 2:44 PM
Greg, that uncomfortable feeling you are having is called a learning experience. (I got that from some super insightful blogger recently but I'll pass it along anyway.)
DrugMonkey, thank you for explaining that you know what I mean so much better than I do. I appreciate your attempt to keep the discussion from getting patronizing. I also appreciate being dismissed as part of "a privileged straight white male enclave" along with the other female regulars at Greg's blog whose wit, wisdom and unabashed feminism are part of the appeal of the place.
One way to examine the quality of one's logic is to translate it to other situations and see how it holds up. This "learning experience" does not require that you be a part of any specific group. In fact, the underlying assumption of choosing this particular translation of your argument is that you in fact do not feel sympathy with the group being (tacitly) critiqued. I actually sort of assumed you were female based on the 'plume "Stephanie" but if you are in fact merely a sockpuppet for a privileged white man, then I can see how the confusion might arise.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | April 28, 2008 2:55 PM
Please try to keep your assholes straight.
I -- but that's -- I mean, wouldn't that --
*dies*
Posted by: bill | April 28, 2008 3:49 PM
People in the discussion probed the question of whether there was anything that could be counted on to be universally funny; our tentative answer was, "Probably not."
Probably there are no jokes that are universally unfunny as well. But it seems as a general rule, if it needs explaining, it most likely won't be funny to the target audience, or, it is quickly rendered unfunny.
Posted by: Tony Jeremiah | April 28, 2008 4:03 PM
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a li