Re: [Pan-users] Re: updated info

[Alan Meyer]

Steven D'Aprano <address@hidden> wrote:

...
> > http://img341.imageshack.us/i/qsoladvertisementps2.jpg/
> >
> > OK, I can see both sides of that one.  As a guy, it's amusing, but
> > offensive as well, because I can empathize with women.
>
> Why on earth would it be *offensive*? It's empowering. It's
> about a woman who *doesn't* need to give sexual favours to keep
> her job. ...

For me, my problem is trying to establish a context in which the
young woman would make the statement "Don't feel bad, our servers
won't go down on you either."  What was she just asked?  Who
asked her?  Is it someone that who is entitled to the polite
reply that she gives or is a nastier reply, or no reply, more
appropriate than the one she gives?  It's hard to to think of a
context in which her polite reply is nearly as empowering as
something more like "F--K OFF YOU MORON!"  If anything, I'd say
the woman's polite response is evidence of her weak and
subjugated position - even though it's not as weak and subjugated
as your example of the Philipina housemaid in Kuwait.

...
> > But I can certainly see how it might have provoked the
> > desired response from the (male) curly-haired-boss types it's
> > obviously aimed at.  But I'd not want my wife, daughter, or
> > simply peer that happens to be female, to have to deal with
> > that
>
> Because you think so little of your wife, daughter and female
> peers that you imagine that they can't cope with reminders that
> life is sometimes unpleasant?

My wife and my daughter can each handle any crap that's thrown at
them.  But I still wouldn't want crap to be thrown at them.  I
would still be pissed off at the thrower.

> What? Now you're really stretching. The difference between "take"
> and "take away" has nothing to do with it being voluntary or not.
> Either can be voluntary, or not.
>
> I'm rather amazed that the thing you're focusing on is the
> innocuous use of the modifier "away" rather than the obviously
> sexist implication that *male* Emacs virgins are third class
> citizens, not even worthy of consideration by the Church of
> Emacs.

I think you have a good point.  Duncan's analysis was rather
fine.  I thought his examples were good ones, but so are some of
yours on the other side.  The language of "take" and "take away"
is pretty flexible and context dependent.

...
> Me, I think that *everything* is worth joking about. Humour is
> one of the most perplexing, inexplicable, WONDERFUL human
> traits. The ability to see humour in tragedy is important, and
> making jokes about things which are unpleasant is an important
> coping mechanism.
...

I agree that humor is a wonderful human trait.  But insult humor
and humiliation humor don't fit in that category.

Bullies think it's humorous when they humiliate someone.  They
laugh.  Their friends laugh.  When a kid on a playground makes a
racist or sexist "joke" at the expense of another kid, everybody
might laugh.  If the butt of the joke looks embarrassed or
ashamed or cries, that may cause the bullies to laugh even more.
But that doesn't make it funny.  It's still nasty and mean.

I still think Stallman's little story is nasty, demeaning and
sexist.  It conjures up the old sexist image of the prim,
uptight, prudish virgin who just needs a strong, virile man like
Stallman to make her into a "real woman".  I'm sure many people
laugh at it.  But it isn't funny to me and not to a lot of
others.  It sounds to me like the kind of a "joke" that a bully
makes.  It finds its "fun" at the expense of others.

By explicitly excluding men from the joke, as Stallman did, he
has effectively said that he knows this wouldn't be funny if
applied to him or his male friends.  I can't think of any other
reason why he only includes women among the "Emacs virgins".  Can
you?

Remember, criticism of this story was given to Stallman before.
He knows that some people find it offensive.  Yet he continues to
tell the story and continues to only attack women in the story,
not men.  Where is the humor in that?


We have all known people who seem very good and decent who
nevertheless utter racist, sexist, antisemitic, or other
reprehensible jokes.  I don't believe all such people are
necessarily bad or immoral people.  In many cases they are merely
ignorant or insensitive.

Maybe such people have a strong sense of humor.  Good for them.
We all need that.  But we still have to do our best to educate
them into realizing that some of their "jokes" are hurtful to
others and not funny.


Finally, I want to re-iterate that I don't think Stallman, or you
Steven, or most other men who find Stallman's "joke" funny are
bad guys.  I just want to sensitize you to the fact that there
are people who will find the story personally insulting and/or
humiliating, and that those people have some reason to feel that
way.  We ought to consider that before making "jokes" like
Stallman's.  There are a thousand ways that Stallman could make
his point and be humorous without calling for men to take away
the virginity (Emacs or otherwise) of women.

    Alan