Stereotypes, caricature, and humor: what's acceptable?

When I was an undergrad, my university had a very poorly-thought-out multicultural awareness program with which they tried to indoctrinate all incoming freshman. I don't think it was a bad idea, but their approach was very heavy handed, and tended towards zero-tolerance, no exceptions rules to avoid any semblance of discrimination. This was also, I think, the peak of the PC movement; I heard people seriously discuss changing the spelling of words (e.g. -- women to womyn, Walkman to Walkmyn, person to persyn, Wegman's (local grocery store) to Wegmyn's, etc... and history to herstory!) I could write a whole book on the excesses of PCism at that place and time, but I'll save it for another thread. Although I think the PC movement has an important point in that thought shapes language shapes thought, I think it is often carried too far... but perhaps this is an area in which I happen to be reactionary; I believe there should be no sacred cows.

Anyway, I would like to solicit people's opinions on PCism and humor; specifically, the role of stereotypes and caricature. A fair deal of humor is based on caricature, which, when applied to a large group, could also be called stereotype.

Are all stereotypes to be avoided, or are there any benign stereotypes? Certainly, painting an ethnic group as predisposed to criminal action is a negative, unfair stereotype. I also agree that seemingly-positive stereotypes are unfair: stereotyping an ethnic group as "good with money" or "good at athletics" could be demeaning, as well. Is there any benign ethnic caricature? What about the following joke:

What do you call it when an Italian has a broken arm?

A speech impediment.

Caricaturing Italians as being gesturers strikes me as sufficiently inconsequential as to be benign. When I raised that point in a freshman seminar 16 years ago, I was told that it wasn't a valid example of caricature, and that all stereotyping is unacceptable, since any stereotyping can make acceptable further stereotyping. I bristled at that, since I was essentially being told that I didn't have, and never would have, the sense to recognize the difference between benign caricature, and destructive stereotyping.

Beyond caricature of ethnicity/gender, and other personal characteristics generally held to be immutable, what about caricaturing adherants of differing political philosophies or inhabitants of different locales? Are these fair game, or does the rule of "all generalisation is harmful" apply here, as well? I feel that caricature here is acceptable; not only can it be humorous, but useful.

Your thoughts?

are they still cousins (brother and sister in some versions)?
I don't take offense at that and, the first time I heard it, I thought it was funny. There are some strange things that go on out where the blacktop ends.

I pretty much agree with what you say.
A few here are much more thinskinned.

Your type isn't welcome around here.

;)

Seriously though, I know what you mean. When I was in 8th grade I did a presentation on Pearl Harbor and this Japanese girl in my class started crying, literally in tears, for the rest of the day, talking about what a monster I was for bringing it up. Then people tried to make *me* apologize. I told them to stuff it. Interestingly, I'm great friends with that girl now.

One thing that really bugs me is the cultural demise of the word "Jew". As a Jew, the whole "Jewish-person" or "Jewish-American" trend that has been going on lately really pisses me off. Nobody talks about "Christian-Americans" or "Christian-people". Nobody says "I'm a Christian person". People seem to think I'm going to get offended if they call me a Jew. I won't. Now, Cartman is another story... :)

Actually, Cartman doesn't bother me either. Neither does Archie Bunker, Mr. "Henry Kissinger's got enough problems without being a Heeb". Maybe I'm just thick skinned, or maybe because I give as good as I get... lol.

Beyond being parts of speech, for some reason, to both of us, the sentence, "He's a Jew" sounds sinister, whereas "He's Jewish" sounds fine.

To me, the word "Jew" conjures mental images of the word "Jüde" written on storefront windows.

The Cartman thing is more a caricature of anti-semites than anything else, in my opinion.

That's why Archie Bunker was so funny. I can see the point of view that says "Jew" is offensive, but to me it's just easier to say. It's not offensive if people just refuse to be offended.

i belonged to a college with a lot of radical feminists. and i love gender inclusive speach. to some of us who are not male this is not excessive pc'ism. this is the way it should be, the world is sexist. no need to join the fight against it but dont deride people who do.

The extremism of certain groups hurts their own agenda. I had a writing seminar TA who insisted we accept her misspelling of certain words, and knocked points off if we didn't spell them the same way. Whatever valid point she might have made about her views on sexism were lost in her perceived nuttiness.

I feel that by insisting on creating controversy needlessly, you may interfere with your own message. For example, I am a language stickler. Hearing GWB mispronounce "nuclear" as "new-cu-lar" sets my teeth on edge. Similarly, seeing deliberate misspellings like "womyn" causes me to linger on that, rather than the message.

I think most people would raise an eyebrow at prose in which the author insists on agenda-motivated misspellings of words. They would be more inclined to view the author as an extremist on the issue at hand, and less likely to take him or her seriously.

Now, I'm not trying to deride you, or tell you what to do. I'm merely pointing out that deliberately-chosen eccentricities can interfere with the intended message.

this has no social value, its a mistake made by stupidity. to want equality in language is a social value and thereby these are inherently incomparable.

"Similarly, seeing deliberate misspellings like "womyn": there is no particularly sanctity of the english language. it has evolved over time to something completely different from how it started. to pretend that there is some thing more dignified in the word woman rather than womyn, is false.

"I think most people would raise an eyebrow at prose in which the author insists on agenda-motivated misspellings of words.": most people like the status quo in gender relations. this makes them sexist, not right or in posession of higher moral value.

"I'm merely pointing out that deliberately-chosen eccentricities can interfere with the intended message": what is an eccentricity for you can be an issue for me, after all its my gender thats subjugated not yours

"Similarly, seeing deliberate misspellings like "womyn": there is no particularly sanctity of the english language. it has evolved over time to something completely different from how it started. to pretend that there is some thing more dignified in the word woman rather than womyn, is false.

Fair enough. Language evolves. However, these days, language mostly evolves through the addition of new words; the spelling of common words has been standard for centuries and isn't likely to change.

"I think most people would raise an eyebrow at prose in which the author insists on agenda-motivated misspellings of words.": most people like the status quo in gender relations. this makes them sexist, not right or in posession of higher moral value.

I consider myself a mainstream feminist. That the "womyn" spelling can be off-putting to me leads me to believe it could well be off-putting to people who haven't put much thought into women's issues.

"I'm merely pointing out that deliberately-chosen eccentricities can interfere with the intended message": what is an eccentricity for you can be an issue for me, after all its my gender thats subjugated not yours

You didn't really respond to the point I made. If I were to argue with somebody who finds jokes like these funny, I would realise it would likely be counterproductive to spell "women" as "womyn".

I just think that one should pick one's battles; if people start arguing over your choice of spelling of a word, you may find it harder to make the case you were trying to make.

I'm kinda in a hurry before a meeting so I'm gonna rely on the fact that we're friends to allow me a certain level of bluntness.

First, if spelling women as womyn is so off-putting to you maybe you need to re-evaluate your feminist sensibilities. Doesn't seem like a proportional reaction for someone who is on our side.

Second, in regards to picking one's battles...men have always tried to tell women which battles we should consider worth fighting. Thank you but I think we can decide that for ourselves.

Perhaps partly because most of my exposure to the word was courtesy of radical feminists who long before crossed the Plain Nasty barrier and went into attack mode -- misandrists. I still find it ridiculous.

do those spelling seem anything like ours? american spells differently from the british and its the same language. spelling can and do change.

again its easier for you to say things like "pick ones battles" but to some of us the line isnt so clear. its very personal. its how one generally feels when they are the ones subjugated.

Do you want to risk getting so mired in the spelling of a word that you can't make any headway in explaining *why* that joke was offensive?

and can deconstruct a sexist email in more ways than one.

But that doesn't answer the question I asked.

Look, the fact is, I agree you have every right to spell "women" how you choose. My TA from 16 years ago stepped over the line when she insisted we all use her spelling of "womyn", etc, and deducted points if we did not. I argued with her that it was her perogative NOT to deduct if somebody chooses to follow her spelling of the word, but she did NOT have the right to deduct, and consider as misspelling, the same spelling that appears in the OED. This, perhaps, is why this issue sticks in my craw to this day.

The only one that fit in my schedule was one on fairy tales. The book was one that retold the tales with a feminist spin. The TA was in every sense an extremist, and I know that her extremism caused some members of the class to identify feminism with the more radical elements, and they may still, to this day, because of their experience with her.

This is why I am so conscious of losing the battle for the sake of personal affect.

The thing that bothers me the most, 16 years later, is that she possibly permanently turned many people off to any good ideas feminism contains, because she was their introduction to feminism.

Politically Correct Bedtime Stores, Once Upon A More Enlightened Time or Politically Correct Holiday Stories?

I love those books.

But if you mentioned the author, I might remember. I think she is a prominent feminist writer.

James Finn Garner

"man" IS inclusive. We are all "man", "mankind" Changing it to "mynkind" won't make life a damn bit better for anyone. It sure won't help a singe working mother get childcare, or healthcare. It will just give some single feminist with plenty of free time to harp on trivial semantics some sort of misguided sense of having "affected change" when NOTHING has actually been achieved.

That is the worst thing about the PC movement, it made everybody TALK like liberals at some sort of retreat, while at the same time, ALL the meaningful programs, labor protections, etc. that progressives back in the day fought for were being rolled back or destroyed completely.

So now everybody is supposed to use PC gobbledygook, but I can't start a union at my job. You call that progress? To hell with that. I'm not some full-time "activist". I live in the real world and have a real job that doesn't pay near enough, and real kids to feed.

I think it's silly to use "man" inclusively when you have a perfectly servicable word like "people" which doesn't piss anyone off. Saying "man" when you mean "men and women" assumes that having a penis is the original model and women are just an abberation. Is it the biggest problem in my life? No, and I don't treat it as such. But our language does influence our perception of the world. When you use langauge that suggests that men are the norm, or white people are the norm, or "straight" people are the norm, that colors how you perceive and treat women, people of color and gay or lesbian people whether you do it consciously or not.

And arguing that careful attention to language vs. worker's rights is a zero sum game is also unhelpful. Isn't it possible to fight for both at the same time? I've never had a problem doing both or met anyone else who did either. Hey, I have a cushy job. I don't need to fight for workers rights. But I'm happy to do because it's the right thing to do. I find that fighting the powers of evil gives me more energy, not less.

In 10 years of working for Nippon Cargo Airlines, I only had one Japanese guy mention Pearl Harbor. They paid me well and were good employers, so I sure as hell never brought it up.

Captain Ito had given me my annual check ride from Tokyo to Anchorage. We agreed to meet in the bar at 5.

Ito drank Long Island Tea. After about five of them, this normally reserved, standoffish Japanese gentleman became overwhelmed with bonhomie and the milk of human-kindness...or something.

He put his arm around my shoulders, drew me close, looked deeply into my eyes and said: "trof-san. Purr Hahbah. Bigga mistake."
I could but agree.

I have reproduced his statement exactly as I heard it. Racist? Not to me.
But some will think so.

It's funny how many Americans look at Pearl Harbor as some big deal, then gloss over Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

While the Japanese were certainly wrong to attack us, and we were right to fight & win the war, the several hundred deaths at the MILITARY TARGET Pearl Harbor can never compare to the hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS we vaporized or killed slowly with those A-Bombs. It is our country's greatest shame, IMO. I would have apologized for it.

I've been to ground zero at Hiroshima & Nagasaki. It is an unforgettable experience that EVERYONE should have.

then it is surely harmful to make the preceding declaration.

I think some stereotypes, employed as caricature for humorous purposes, are fairly benign, and it is generally understood by most that there's no real harm intended by their use. Also, I know many people who will make use of humorous stereotypes in poking gentle fun at their own ethnic heritage.

Also, stereotypes (save, of course, those whose only intended purpose is to demean, degrade and dehumanise) exist for a reason; they have been observed to be true, at some time, of at least a significant subset of people of a certain ethnicity/political philosophy/religion/nationality. Hence "German efficiency", "reserved Englishman", "hot-tempered Irishman", et cetera.

Although some stereotypes came into common use quite some time ago, they have remained associated with the group they describe; for instance, the stereotyped "German efficiency" dates to the nineteenth century, when Germany became the leading Continental military and industrial power largely through development and implementation of completely new practises. For most stereotypes, there is a clear series of historical occurrence whereby a set of characteristics seemed to define a people, thus becoming a part of the collective consciousness in regard to that people.

There's no real harm in stereotyping, since it can provide a sort of descriptive shortcut; but one would do well to remember that the labels given members of one particular group apply just as well to all humanity, in varying degrees; and that humanity consists of individuals, who are generally far harder to categorise in such a fashion.

(Apologies if this is excessively long-winded or doesn't make sense...I can't tell...sleep deprivation is a bitch...)

Your example is a good one, as would be any sketch on the Dave Chappelle show. :)

I actually heard Colin Quinn (?!) speak coherently on this subject once. He pointed out that he would write jokes about certain ethnic groups and catch all kinds of hell for it, but he wondered why it was that we were supposed to celebrate our differences, but we were never supposed to actually talk about any of those differences.

I tell you, the lazy shit people say about the Scots and Irish. If you swapped the word Scot for Jew, you'd be in some serious shit. As it becomes taboo to criticise one group, the same stereotypes move on to a substitute group.

because people are not that far removed from apes; there still exists in the human psyche, eroded to greater or lesser degrees by the influence of civilisation and knowledge, a fear and hatred of the outsider. Those not of our band, or tribe, or pack, or whatever you want to call it. It's our instinctive primate pack mentality coming out; although it seems that this is something that's slowly disappearing, as the march of technology enables more travel, a greater degree of exogamy, and the inescapable conclusion that ultimately our pack/band/tribe is humanity, beside which the other and smaller divisions and distinctions are stupid and meaningless.

A liberal friend sent me this joke:

How was copper wire invented?

Two republican CEOs found the same penny.

The answer used to be "Two Scotsman found the same penny." And before that, "Two Jews found the same penny."

Appropriate or not, the mental image conjured up by that joke always makes me laugh.

I don't know why, but people feel the need to perpetuate it against someone. Human nature, I guess.

if you're willing to take the heat for your statements.

too often people think it's benign until they're in the group being "caricatured".

And that's another pet peeve of mine.

but as a man you are being hypocritical when you say that radical feminist are just being neurotic when you yourself are being neurotic about the sanctity of the english language. is it really that difficult for you to get over your own language peeves and right womyn (especially your peeves dont do anything for societal change?) rather than acknowledge that her peeves for preferring gender neutral language may have some validity?

I never said "radical femists are neurotic"; I did say, however, that my one TA was a bit nutty.

I said that deliberately creating additional controversy may be counterproductive to getting your message out.

That's the only point I was trying to make with you in our side-debate.

or is it another one of those decisions that men in their extreme good judgement should make for us?

after all you know how irrational womyn can be!

Sorry, didn't understand what you were referring to.

Personally, I've known as many irrational men as women.

Perhaps I didn't make my message clearly; unfortunately in internet forums, an initial misstatement or misperception just perpetuates throughout a debate.

My message was not "The spelling 'womyn' offends me; please stop it."

My message was simply, "If spelling 'women' as 'womyn' is not the most important issue in your argument, you risk not making your most important point by insisting on that spelling."

If you're arguing with somebody whose attitudes toward women would be more at home 500 years ago, then the spelling of "women" is the least of your concerns, in my opinion.

The problem is that in this meta-debate, the spelling of "women" has become a prominent point.

this is what i meant: everyone has their own focus in feminism. to some language is the focus, to others welfare is the focus, to other equality in the workplace is. Its unfair to undermine someone else's focus just because its not the one you find most pressing.

same way in gay struggles some of us think that non-discrimination in the work place is more of a struggle than gay marriage is. however i will never undermine those that struggle for equal marriage rights just because its not my main focus.

Equality is my focus in feminism. To a lesser degree, so is language; I strive for gender-neutral prose, and use phrases such as "he or she" to that end. So, from my point of view, using "womyn" for "women" is arguably controversial, and I don't want to risk losing my main argument for the sake of something I personally consider to be unnecessary controversy.

The same goes in other areas... if I'm arguing with republicans, I'm not going to refer to GWB as *, shrub, etc. Even if that's what i think, I know that the moment I write that, I will have lost my argument, no matter how solid my points were.

:P

What's the singular of 'womyn,' though?

Please don't tell me it's 'chick.'

of how to be anything other than peeved.

:shrug:

I've actually been in a pretty good mood lately.

the hypocrits be hypocrits and let those who like to twist their knickers over linguistics twist their knickers over linguistics, etc. What difference should it make to you?

Do what you believe is right and deal with it in ways you believe correct. If you discover you're wrong, deal with the consequences.

Live and let live. Go. Do. Be.

Ultimately, the line you're trying to draw is between cultural differences & custom and stereotyping. Like any other broad brush generalisation stereotyping can lead to some serious failures of thought-filled and intelligent behaviour.

To say that all people of African descent excel at song and sports is stereotyping, however inocuous/positive it may be in it's message and however many statistics one may be able to draw upon in support. To say that Japanese businessmen indulge in a ritual exchange of business cards is cultural custom. To say that those raised in Spain have no sense of what we American's call 'personal space,' is observation of cultural custom, to suggest they all dance the Flaminco is sterotyping.

Cultural custom and the observations of them are not politically incorrect. Stereotyping, however mild, is typically not PC, but that doesn't mean one will offend nor even that the joke made or comment made isn't funny. I'd personally rather not do things to hurt, humiliate or offend people if there's an easy option available.

I don't feel offended about the Italians and gesticulation comment. But I've been deeply hurt and offended by some unkind references to Italians, 'meatballs' and 'mafiosos' in my life, so it's not as though I'm thinking I'm bulletproof. I try to apply the same logic to others that seems to be in place for me.

where do people feel the line lies between humorous caricature or witty satire, and hurtful stereotyping?

to bring logic into it. :hi:

Since I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about me.


Other than that, it's offensive.

As a liberal who absolutely HATES political correctness, I say the context is most important when using stereotypes, caricatures, etc. in humor. For one, you must be an equal opportunity offender. Look at South Park, for example. That show has something to offend everyone, but it is always done with a wink. You have to let the person know you're kidding.

:shrug:
However, people are individuals, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender. I'm not one to based opinions of others on stereotypes.

find jokes based on caricatures or stereotypes humorous.

and the identity of the teller and audience.

If I'm with my girlfriends and someone makes a joke about PMS it's cool because there's no underlying agenda.

If my male boss makes a joke about PMS in front of mixed company, that sucks.

I think people in positions of power (like teachers and employers) and especially groups who have traditionally been priviledged over others have a responsiblity to be especially inclusive in their humor. Otherwise, they're just rubbing salt into old wounds and then adding insult to injury by acting like the other person has a deficient sense of humor.

Surprisingly, I don't really mourn my inability to tell fag, retard and nigger jokes. I have to wonder about people who do.

Ah, the jokes are on us!

The Political Correctness thing has been done to death. It has been used as a political hammer for over a decade, and it was beat to death long ago. Rob Becker ("Defending the Cavemen") presided over its decease. Since the mid 1990s, it's all the same old crap, and it's petty bigotry in bad taste.

Somebody needs to realize that there has to be insight in humor, especially if it involves the conflict between different people. If you hate the "other", you won't make jokes, you'll be spewing out sarcasm. If you have something interesting to say, it won't be for hatred but for enlightenment.

And it will be funny.

--bkl
Take my nority. Please.