Men are just happier

[mada85]

At no stage did I wish to cause offense. Sometimes it's difficult to know exactly what is hurtful to others so to all those that these remarks hurt, please accept my heartfelt apologies.

I think the crux of the matter which you appear to missing, is that apologies are all well and good, but the main thrust of the comments here is that people are asking you to take a good look at the reasons why you would find this stuff funny. Many posters have explained why it is not at all funny.

I've noticed that you've started quite a few threads in the 'Tickle Me' section. I also noticed that you mentioned that your father was making inappropriate jokes about Muslims. Is there a connection here? Does your "joking to dismiss peoples' concerns" program stem from your way of coping with your father's jokiness in childhood?

Speaking from my own experience, I know that as a child I was very disoriented by my father's sarcasm, superiority and self-importance, and I retreated emotionally – and often physically, if the psychological clues I've uncovered are correct – and this led to me as an adult having difficulties facing myself.

Well, facing oneself is difficult anyway. You don't need a childhood program to influence your behaviour too!

Can you see how you have been deflecting peoples' concerns? Can you see that your apology is an attempt to deflect the perceived threat of punishment? To get all these people off your back?

You have a great opportunity for increasing your self-knowledge right now. Don't waste it.

 

[HiThere]

Hithere, did you understand the thrust of the responses that Richard got to his initial post -- what it is about the content that's not funny?

Yes, I can see where the responses are coming from. But my own sense of humor often finds things funny that are inappropiate to laugh at in public - be it jokes about disease, dementia or over-the-top remarks about stereotypes.
While one can laugh about these subjects in familiar surroundings, it can be offensive to people outside of the familiar sphere, and then the best is to apologize for any hurt feelings, in my experience.

 

[shijing]

Yes, I can see where the responses are coming from. But my own sense of humor often finds things funny that are inappropiate to laugh at in public - be it jokes about disease, dementia or over-the-top remarks about stereotypes.
While one can laugh about these subjects in familiar surroundings, it can be offensive to people outside of the familiar sphere, and then the best is to apologize for any hurt feelings, in my experience.

I think you're missing the point -- it doesn't really have to do with something being funny in a public versus a private context. If you really look at the message that's being conveyed, it's not funny at all -- period. The question is, do you see why it's offensive? If not, please re-read the thread, and take the advice that people have given Richard as if it were given to you. We have all been conditioned to accept this kind of humor as "normal" to one extent or another, and trying to see this can be an important way to find blind spots so that we can work on them.

 

[HiThere]

If you really look at the message that's being conveyed, it's not funny at all -- period.

But then, our humour doesn't always conform to our preferred norms, and it would be dishonest of me to say I don't find humour of this kind funny at times.
It is always useful to self-analyze to get a grasp of what it is that tickles the funny bone, and this has been discussed by stronger minds than mine - one quote is from Rene Goscinny, the author of Asterix, who said that humour is the discrepancy between form and substance.

I think part of the reason why I found some of the post funny has to do with my conception of stereotyped male/female roles in the USA - it is a painful fact that no woman has been elected president in the USA. The nuts and bolts joke I didn't relate to in any meaningful way.

I read the quotes as being said from the viewpoint of the stereotyped male; a simple and slow guy, with a complete lack of understanding of the opposite sex. It wasn't something I believe all males think or believe, but a caricature as I saw it.

My main concern in this post is that humour cannot be controlled by dictums - thankfully. In my country the government actually banned the movie "Life of Brian" for 3 months, in order to stop people from finding it funny, and that of course generated a storm of laughs towards christians and governmental dictums.

 

[truth seeker]

I think part of the reason why I found some of the post funny has to do with my conception of stereotyped male/female roles in the USA - it is a painful fact that no woman has been elected president in the USA. The nuts and bolts joke I didn't relate to in any meaningful way.

I think what often gets lost in these types of conversations is what the jokes convey about not just women, but men as well. One, it places them in a box and two, what people think usually influences their actions. Even if they believe that these are "only" jokes, they seep into the overall consciousness and are reflected in everyday life.

I read the quotes as being said from the viewpoint of the stereotyped male; a simple and slow guy, with a complete lack of understanding of the opposite sex. It wasn't something I believe all males think or believe, but a caricature as I saw it.

If we look at the world around us, it would seem that many people (not just men in particular) subscribe in some way shape or form to these ideas. Perhaps consider Ht, how you would feel if people thought the above about you or anyone who finds this particular kind of humor funny? In other words, how do you think that kind of humor reflects on you?

My main concern in this post is that humour cannot be controlled by dictums - thankfully. In my country the government actually banned the movie "Life of Brian" for 3 months, in order to stop people from finding it funny, and that of course generated a storm of laughs towards christians and governmental dictums.

Just my thoughts but there's a difference between humor that supports truth and humor that supports lies. One of the reasons this type of humor isn't funny is because at the heart of it, it tells people (whether they're the butt of the joke or not) how others are - it's a way of categorizing others and it diminishes them. It also limits perception and lumps people together while completely disregarding their specific situation. It negates one's personal experiences and allows people to take the easy way out when considering others as opposed to actually sitting down with individuals and finding out who they are and what their life experiences are that led them to make certain choices. It's dehumanizing and keeps people blind to seeing the humanity in each other. It's a lie and you're attempting to defend it.

 

[SoCurious]

Hi Endymion

Can you see that your apology is an attempt to deflect the perceived threat of punishment? To get all these people off your back?

Yes, I can. My first thought upon awakening this morning after a long night of introspection was that an apology was most appropriate. Please accept it as such.

I have also download Caricature of Love and have just started reading it. The thread was pretty impressive.

 

[shellycheval]

Richard, try to summon the empathy necessary to really get on a deep feeling level what living the reality you described in your original post—the ”joke”—is like for women.
I’ll bet the farm that at this point in your development you cannot go there. That fact that you found this collection of misogynist stereotyping humorous and are still having a difficult time understanding why it is so offensive should be a revelation to you about your character that you both mourn and receive with gratitude.

It shows that you are like most men and many women who are victims of Patriarchy—the ideology/belief system that declares that men are innately superior to women and therefore entitled to power and control over women. The fact that you have a hard time perceiving this should reveal to you how deep your conditioning is and how much Patriarchal programming is attached to your identity. The same thing happens with racism—many people who believe they are not “racist” discover under some circumstances they do indeed have some deep level racist programs that they may want to purge.

The mirror you are being shown in this thread does not necessarily reveal that you are fundamentally a true women hater, but hopefully will provide you a picture of how much you don’t know about yourself. We all believe we know what we think we know and know ourselves until we are given opportunities to learn otherwise. If Anart hasn’t yet suggested to you that you read Madame Salzmann’s wise words, then I am doing so now. Search the Forum and ye shall find. ;)

Take a really deep breath Richard, pause, and just for a moment consider that you don’t know what you don’t know—that no matter how certain you may feel about your understanding of everything—that you could be wrong and that it is OK. Understanding that we are ignorant and being humble about it is the beginning of so much knowledge and wisdom that it is actually a priceless gift. The words of a close friend of mine remain in my ears forever—as I started to defend myself about something that now I don’t even remember, she said: “Be still—you might learn something.”
Reread the many wise words you have been given here and Good Luck.
shellycheval

 

[Gertrudes]

Richard, the posts on this thread are pure gold :)

I won't be adding anything new, but perhaps just reiterate what has been said with different words. Humour is something that I have been, over the past 2 years or so, pondering deeply about. It is one of those things that I find to be where my ingrained beliefs, and the way I really view the world is often manifested, if I care to look for it. I may, for example, have high conscious ideals, but they won't necessarily match what is ingrained in me, what has been instilled in me through my cultural upbringing. And the latter can be very, very scary. For example, when you say:

Do I respect women? More than you can possibly imagine and certainly way more than the evidence thus far shown.

You may believe so, but is that true?
In any case the anecdote is not just offensive to women, it is offensive to both men and women by compartmentalizing our behavior according to a seriously disturbed, sick world view.

Even scarier then what is instilled in us, is our blindness to it which, in cases such as this one, makes us lose sensitivity to the underlying roots of certain forms of expression, be that music, movies, anecdotes, and we stop seeing the pathology within them. But if you can open your eyes to that, if you can really see the meaning of what is being expressed for what it is, you'll begin to tear apart that hard crust of embedded beliefs we all have (or at least most of us), many of which we are completely oblivious to.

“Be still—you might learn something.”

Even though it wasn't directed to me thank you for that shelly, wise words indeed.

 

[HiThere]

Just my thoughts but there's a difference between humor that supports truth and humor that supports lies. One of the reasons this type of humor isn't funny is because at the heart of it, it tells people (whether they're the butt of the joke or not) how others are - it's a way of categorizing others and it diminishes them.

I agree - humour used as a weapon against groups stigmatizes, and one should always try to be careful with whom one shares one's sense of humour. But it does no good to deny to oneself or others that one might see something humorous in matters that others find serious. Some terminal patients can have the most brutal sense of humour regarding their circumstances, and use humour to confront their prospects. Some are grateful if one gets in on the joke, but it is a balandcing act to get it right.
I'm sure that close family to terminal patients don't find any amusement in the circumstances at all, but it is the patient's right to handle his/hers predicament as best they can.

It is my experience that humor can lead to greater understanding between people, as long as it is bilateral and one shares the same sense of humour.
I haven't found any way to say with certainity what constitutes good humour and what does not - it depends on the circumstances.
In my country there is quite a lot of joking on the subject of this thread - the stereotypical man/woman, and it goes both ways. It might be cultural differnces that makes this funny for norwegian women as well as men (but not all of either sex). One should try to analyze why one find something funny or not - there is learning in this, and this thread has given me some food for thought.

It's dehumanizing and keeps people blind to seeing the humanity in each other. It's a lie and you're attempting to defend it.

I do not mean to defend misogynistic traits and apologize if that's what it came across as.

EDIT: Wording/spelling

 

[truth seeker]

I agree - humour used as a weapon against groups stigmatizes, and one should always try to be careful with whom one shares one's sense of humour. But it does no good to deny to oneself or others that one might see something humorous in matters that others find serious. Some terminal patients can have the most brutal sense of humour regarding their circumstances, and use humour to confront their prospects. Some are grateful if one gets in on the joke, but it is a balandcing act to get it right.
I'm sure that close family to terminal patients don't find any amusement in the circumstances at all, but it is the patient's right to handle his/hers predicament as best they can.

Just so you know, I can have a pretty morbid sense of humor at times. For me, the line of force does depend upon the specific situation and whether the joke comes from a place of genuine joy or unacknowledged anger/disappointment. In addition, it also depends upon how the joke is received. The line of force in this thread as I understand it is humor based on stereotypes, not humor as in Life of Brian, terminal patient humor in general. You're using apples to explain oranges. See the difference? It may also help you to read or reread the yes, but links.

In addition, many people that hear sexist/racist/homophobic jokes often find they are denying aspects of themselves. Some people simply laugh in order to not make waves because they don't want to say what they really think. One interesting film that touches upon this is What Women Want. In many ways, it's a typical American romantic comedy but the heart of it is that it's about a guy who doesn't realize how he comes across to others. Through an accident, he finds himself able to read the mind of any woman. What he comes to understand is that while he thought many people seemed to be laughing with him, to his dismay finds that they really held little respect for him.

I think this happens more times than people even realize.

I do not mean to defend misogynistic traits and apologize if that's what it came across as.

That's how it comes across because that's the subject of the discussion. It is important for us to question what we are laughing at and why, especially when the response isn't mutual. Here I'm speaking specifically in terms of this forum because what passes for humor in real life and particularly in the US often amounts to underlying anger.

edit: clarity

 

[HiThere]

That's how it comes across because that's the subject of the discussion. It is important for us to question what we are laughing at and why, especially when the response isn't mutual. Here I'm speaking specifically in terms of this forum because what passes for humor in real life and particularly in the US often amounts to underlying anger.

This is something I have not thought enough about. Humor is often used as a tool to get an upper hand in social or work settings, and even though one shares a laugh what it often amounts to is power play. Thank you for your time and thoughts truth seeker and Shijing. :)

 

[daco]

The majority of people on the planet, for millenia, have believed that women are inferior.

Yes, "main" philosophers such as Kant, Platon, Aristotle, Hume, Nietzsche, Hegel, Weininger (G for example "'Woman is from ground, and only hope for her to arise to another stage of development - to go to Heaven as you say - is WITH man.'") and a lot more and they are not "mayority" of people, they influence all society.
The question is, why that people think that.
I mean they are not silly, they developed system two thinking at its peak. Differences between man and women are not soo small. I would not say that women are inferior, but they (women) made themselves inferior (Weininger describe that in Sex and Character).
One example, how women made themselves inferior; reproducing, bringing children in this world (my subjective opinion is that this is wrong and there is more reasons why).
Why there is no female religion author in history of mankind? Every religion have male figure (Jesus, Budhha..), why not a single one religion dont have female figure. Is it because of patriarchy or something else. That is real questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#18th_and_19th_century_philosophers
I,ve read Weininger (he,s book is the most controversial), Schopenhauer, Nietzche and Kant and can only say that they are not misogynist, I agree with some of their writings and I dont hate women. I just know that they are differences between male and female.
And I agree, women is not inferior (but they make themselves inferior in some sense), but there are differences.

 

[mkrnhr]

Hello daco,
Indeed the actual organized religions are by essence patriarchal/anti-women. It seems that a slow transition over the millenia led from a more natural religion (direct friendship with the universe) to left-brained (abstract) and more hierarchical religious systems. A hint to this primordial religion can be encountered in the bronze-age worship of the goddess, and that most of the shamanic activity was done by women. The divorce from nature, from the religious viewpoint, as well as from the sociological one (adoption of agriculture, centralized territories, etc.) was based upon the suppression and enslavement of women as contributors to the spiritual and social life.
You may find lots of material on this subject in The Secret History of the World :)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I mean they are not silly, they developed system two thinking at its peak.

And system 2 thinking is a janus-faced creature. It can function with a conscience, or without one. And it can run on auto-pilot, with many unspoken assumptions, and still give 'logical' results. Sometimes this gives similar results as functioning without conscience.

Differences between man and women are not soo small.

I agree. There are some differences. But there is usually at least some overlapping between the sexes.

I would not say that women are inferior, but they (women) made themselves inferior (Weininger describe that in Sex and Character).
One example, how women made themselves inferior; reproducing, bringing children in this world (my subjective opinion is that this is wrong and there is more reasons why).

Don't males play an important part in this process? After all, it is men who get women pregnant in the first place, often against their will.

Why there is no female religion author in history of mankind? Every religion have male figure (Jesus, Budhha..), why not a single one religion dont have female figure. Is it because of patriarchy or something else. That is real questions.

Maybe patriarchy is the wrong word. Pathocracy is better. When the 'pillars of society' are male psychopaths, instead of wise and compassionate women and men, it's easy to encourage violence, bigotry, cruelty, etc.

 

[ana]

Differences between man and women are not soo small. I would not say that women are inferior, but they (women) made themselves inferior (Weininger describe that in Sex and Character).
One example, how women made themselves inferior; reproducing, bringing children in this world (my subjective opinion is that this is wrong and there is more reasons why).

Bringing children to this world is not an inferior act but a natural and necessary one for those involved in the lessons of the physical experience. Without women having children, souls wouldn't have the oportunity to do so, included you and me.

The problem is not bringing children to this world the problem is the state of our world due to psychopathy control and that is something both men and women should work on together, as the C's say the only hope for the survival of our realm and species is the unification of aim.

Why there is no female religion author in history of mankind? Every religion have male figure (Jesus, Budhha..), why not a single one religion dont have female figure. Is it because of patriarchy or something else. That is real questions.

Maybe because it was purposely suppressed:

A: How about "Paleochristianity"?

Q: (laughter) (L) Well since you brought it up... (J) You should respond with, "Now that's an interesting question!" (laughter) (L) What do you mean by Paleochristianity? (laughter) (L) Would you define Paleochristianity for us?

A: The knowledge of realms that all men comprehended before the "fall".

Q: (L) Why is it called Christianity? Isn't Christianity strictly related to Christianity as we know it?

A: Oh no! The word was co-opted and everything you know of as Christianity is distorted. For example, the earliest "Christ" was a woman.

Q: (L) Okay. Were the Bogomils and the Cathars - as I have surmised - close to understanding this original reality?

A: They had some very close approximations, but they were still influenced by many of the distorted religious ideas of the time.

Q: (L) Okay, what is the importance of Paleochristianity?

A: The only hope for the survival of your realm and species.

Q: (L) In what sense do you mean that?

A: Unification of aim: survival and avoidance of the destruction hanging over your heads as a consequence of the machinations of psychopathy.