Quote:
Originally Posted by softness
I reported it and I posted under my name..
"Where do you find any humour whatsoever in the sexual assault of drunken young women by predators? Be careful what you conjure...the images you have created and watch will linger in the culture and add to the pradigm that woman are just fuck holes. Well, the joke is on you..for it is your emasculated little erections not this video that are truly the pitiful jokes of our sick culture."
|
Is this kind of thing really necessary? Why throw in emasculating comments like this? Even if you believe the image is perpetuating something you do not support, stooping to what you believe to be a lower level is not the way to go about changing anything, imo. It perpetuates what appears to be the entire qualm you have with the video. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as they say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperFemme
I understand comedy. I really do, but I also think this particular clip could be construed as anti-lesbian and anti-woman to some.
I may be alone in thinking that, but pieces that are denigrating to women aren't funny. To me.
In the same way that the tired old frat boy type jokes aren't funny to me.
OMG. I've turned into my mother.
|
All satire can be misconstrued as anti- whatever the subject matter happens to be. In some ways, that is part of the reflective point of satire. How many people do you think watched Borat and thought Sacha Baron Cohen was
actually perpetuating sexism, racism, homophobia among other subjects he touched upon? The same has happened with nearly every satiric work that has ever come out, and it is because people fail to see the purpose of satire: to hold a mirror up to society, to overexaggerate and therefore make more visible its blatant hypocrisy.
And even if it was not meant as a satire by the original creator (which we still don't know yet, as far as I've seen), there is also the case of inadvertant satire that can function just as well toward that aim. Why not use it in such a manner, consequently stripping it of the power with which you believe it to be endowed?
For those interested, Slavoj Zizek actually talks about how such "jokes" or satires function, and may explain better than I currently am. It's a long clip and I understand most people don't want to get into the whole thing, but his overview of the example joke he uses starts at around 37:00 for those interested (the joke is used to support other arguments in the debate, but the whole debate does not centre around the use of jokes/satire as a tool toward illuminating social hypocrisy, so I don't want anyone to think the whole thing is about such jokes).