Lesbian Cougar Video--funny or not?

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by softness

wait..let me mull this over...its ok for them to be satiracal about lesbians, cougars, predation, etc but its wrong for me to be offended?

Except it wasn't really a satire about lesbians, cougars or predation. If this is, in fact, a satirical work (and even so, could easily be transformed into something it was not intended to be), then it is not being satirical about lesbians, cougars and predation, but about those who perpetuate misrepresentations and stereotypes. It does not accurately represent lesbians, because it may very well not mean to, if, in fact, it is a satire highlight the existence of misrepresentation and stereotypes...I repeat: the target is not lesbians in such a case. I keep bolding this because the responses to what I've written continued to be offended responses that do not correlate at all with what I've actually written.

and FYI, HOW I said it is perfectly in line with how they will understand it. It takes the politeness out of the discourse. When it comes to rape, I dont need to be polite.

I am fascinated that you think you can come in and ask me was this really necessary. Obviously. Or I wouldnt have said it...

If it was necessary for you, then what exactly do you think continuing the cycle achieves? I am not talking about politeness. I am talking about perpetuating a certain type of behaviour: stripping away someone's dignity as a woman/man for the purpose of humiliating them simply because you do not agree with them for whatever reason. If you want to be rude, go ahead, but why do you see fit to bring one's sex into the equation? What do you achieve beyond venting your own anger? It certainly doesn't change anything. If we ever want this kind of thing to stop, it should start with us.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Except it wasn't really a satire about lesbians, cougars or predation. If this is, in fact, a satirical work (and even so, could easily be transformed into something it was not intended to be), then it is not being satirical about lesbians, cougars and predation, but about those who perpetuate misrepresentations and stereotypes. It does not accurately represent lesbians, because it may very well not mean to, if, in fact, it is a satire highlight the existence of misrepresentation and stereotypes...I repeat: the target is not lesbians in such a case. I keep bolding this because the responses to what I've written continued to be offended responses that do not correlate at all with what I've actually written.



If it was necessary for you, then what exactly do you think continuing the cycle achieves? I am not talking about politeness. I am talking about perpetuating a certain type of behaviour: stripping away someone's dignity as a woman/man for the purpose of humiliating them simply because you do not agree with them for whatever reason. If you want to be rude, go ahead, but why do you see fit to bring one's sex into the equation? What do you achieve beyond venting your own anger? It certainly doesn't change anything. If we ever want this kind of thing to stop, it should start with us.

So you see nothing wrong with a video that strips away the dignity of women (among other things) but chastize someone that you think is doing that here?

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by BullDog

So you see nothing wrong with a video that strips away the dignity of women (among other things) but chastize someone that you think is doing that here?

I get the feeling you aren't actually reading what I've written when you accuse me of "seeing nothing wrong with a video that strips away the dignity of women." If this is a satire, and I have good reason to believe it is, it is not attempting to strip women of their dignity (therefore, it is not about me making light of women or men's dignities). In fact, it is attempting to do the exact contrary by highlighting the existence of this tendency (of stripping women of their dignity) in society. Just because something displays a certain event does not mean it desires to perpetuate it. It can very well be a commentary on it, and where we are as a society.

For example, in Voltaire's Candide you have Pangloss who preaches theodicy, and no matter what ridiculously violent and terrible things happen to Candide and his party, Pangloss continues to claim that it is "the best of all possible outcomes." Is it because Voltaire supports Leibnitz's philosophy? No! It is entirely to the contrary: he stages theodicy in the forefront precisely because he disagrees with it and perceives it as a danger to society (thus allowing for little upwards class movement, since it supports the notion that the lower classes should stay where they because their current station is the "best of all possible worlds.") There are horrible scenes of rape, dismemberment and so on that are made light of, and not because Voltaire supports such things, but precisely because he does not. The violent and horrific things that occur to the party, and the fact that it is being made light of is the contrast. The overexaggeration of horrific events is needed in order to get the author's real point across.

I'm not claiming the creator of this video is anywhere near approaching the genius of Voltaire, but it appears that he is taking a similar approach in attempting to ridicule something by placing it in the forefront. And that something is not lesbians, but the stereotypes surrounding them that are commonly used in popular culture. It "makes light of" in order to make people aware of what they themselves may very well be perpetuating. Could it have been better written? Yes, but just because the creator was not a particularly gifted writer is not reason to claim that he was attempting to demean women, when that doesn't appear to have been the intention.

To use the Borat example again: Sacha Baron Cohen is not demeaning or ridiculing Jews when his character, Borat, makes anti-semitic comments. He is trying to make people aware and accountable for what continues to occur within modern society. The fact that he takes the role of an "ignorant Kazakh" even further plays into American perspectives on non-western nations, when Americans themselves are guilty of precisely the same behaviour.

As for my comments to softness, please explain to me what such comments achieve and why it is ever right to attempt to humiliate someone because of their sex/gender/race/ethnicity/age etc.? What does it achieve? If you have a logical argument against someone then state it. Don't turn it into an emotional maelstrom that may very well just get otherwise important issues ignored. I haven't seen anyone explain that to me yet. And since when is the whole eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth method ever effective in getting your message across in a logical and coherent manner?

[BullDog]

Ender I am not going to argue with you about satire.

See June's post. I don't appreciate a twenty something year old male trying to tell someone who has been a lesbian for over 30 years (that would be me) how I should interpret this video. You have a lot to learn about sexism and misogyny.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

If this is a satire, and I have good reason to believe it is, it is not attempting to strip women of their dignity (therefore, it is not about me making light of women or men's dignities). In fact, it is attempting to do the exact contrary by highlighting the existence of this tendency (of stripping women of their dignity) in society....

the stereotypes surrounding them that are commonly used in popular culture. It "makes light of" in order to make people aware of what they themselves may very well be perpetuating.

Ender - my question is -- does it work? I don't think it does. Because of the point I made earlier: You cannot successfully satirize something if you are basically ignorant about it on a social, cultural, and political level. That's what satire is after all - knowledgeable ironic commentary. This clip does not achieve satire - and if satire misses -- it easily becomes offensive. That's the risk of satire.

Actually the offensive part to me is the ignorant attempt at satire -- the making of satire without the requisite cultural analysis - the kind of analysis that makes The Simpsons work so well -- even when they skewer lesbians.

One last point: I am not at all convinced this was intended to be the kind of sophisticated satire you are arguing on behalf of.

Heart

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Heart

Ender - my question is -- does it work? I don't think it does. Because of the point I made earlier: You cannot successfully satirize something if you are basically ignorant about it on a social, cultural, and political level. That's what satire is after all - knowledgeable ironic commentary. This clip does not achieve satire - and if satire misses -- it easily becomes offensive. That's the risk of satire.

Hi Heart and thanks for your post,

To your first question I would response: No it doesn't work. Like I said, this guy shouldn't quit his day job any time soon. However, I don't feel that the reason this attempt at satire failed was because the author of it was ignorant lesbians, issues women face etc. I think the reason it failed was that he just didn't make it blatant enough that he was attempting to satirise this common misperception in every day society. As you said yourself, that is always the risk of satire (and arguably it happens, to some degree, with any satirical piece).

One last point: I am not at all convinced this was intended to be the kind of sophisticated satire you are arguing on behalf of.

Heart

Neither am I. But, actually, my point was not that it was akin to the genius of Candide or Les femmes savantes, but that to call the author out on misoginy himself is incorrect. Yes, he wasn't all that successful in his attempt, but let's at least recognise it for what it is. Also, there are cases where failed satires can be salvaged for a better purpose. That is part of what I am arguing as well. Do you not think that it may be more productive to approach the issue with a cool head, than with anger or throwing insults? And if it were an attempt to degrade women, would such an approach not have a better chance of gaining sympathy than mud-slinging?

[SuperFemme]

why is not agreeing with the video or disliking it = emotional reactions, anger and the lack of a cool head?

curious.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

why is not agreeing with the video or disliking it = emotional reactions, anger and the lack of a cool head?

curious.

This is where it feels like to me that whole some guy telling me to chill out and have a sense of humor, like shhh girl don't you see the comedy in it fuck if it's at your expense after all you are just

a

girl..

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

why is not agreeing with the video or disliking it = emotional reactions, anger and the lack of a cool head?

curious.

Actually, I was in part referring back to softness's comment on the "emasculated little erection" or whatever the wording was, along with a few instances where others claimed to be speaking out of anger, if I recall correctly. I can go back and find them, if you'd like.

[BullDog]

I haven't seen people focusing on the video makers themselves. I have seen them focused on the end product. Not sure why there is a need to defend the video makers or understand what their intent was. Are the "creators" and supposed art form (satire) of this product more important to you than the subject matter?

Their end product sucks. Actually the main stereotype it is perpetuating is that young girls are just fuckholes. I agree with Heart that actually this so-called lesbian stereotype that apparently they are trying to "mock" isn't really all that prevalent (except for the bad clothes and hairdos). They don't appear to know much about lesbians and they don't appear to know the potential damaging consequences of missing their mark.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by BullDog

I haven't seen people focusing on the video makers themselves. I have seen them focused on the end product. Not sure why there is a need to defend the video makers or understand what their intent was. Are the "creators" and supposed art form (satire) of this product more important to you than the subject matter?

I've seen a few people focusing their anger on the video makers themselves. I hesitate to go back and pull posts because last time I did that on the b-f.com forum people told me not to quote them. So if people don't actually mind, I don't mind going back and doing so, if that's what you're actually asking me to do.

I do think that the creators and art do dictate the subject matter to a degree. The final result may be separate, yes, and it is entirely possible to read any work of art in myriad of different ways, sometimes entirely against what the author intended.

Their end product sucks. Actually the main stereotype it is perpetuating is that young girls are just fuckholes. I agree with Heart that actually this so-called lesbian stereotype that apparently they are trying to "mock" isn't really all that prevalent (except for the bad clothes and hairdos). They don't appear to know much about lesbians and they don't appear to know the potential damaging consequences of missing their mark.

Let us say they don't know the potentially damaging consequences. What do you think an appropriate way of addressing that would be?

[Soft*Silver]

you said "stripping away someone's dignity as a woman/man for the purpose of humiliating them simply because you do not agree with them for whatever reason. "

wait...are you even suggesting I am doing this because I simply dont agree with them? I dont agree with the catholic church on their abortion stand. I dont publicly rebuke them...

I publicly rebuke this video because someone somewhere has to say to whoever is watching this "OH MY F&#$&@*# GOD THIS IS NOT EVEN FUNNY!!!!!"

and why? Because there are impressionable minds out there that are on overkill from the onslaught of horrid examples of "isms" that are passed around in our culture under the guise of humour...

[EnderD_503]

June, thank you for you response. I really appreciate it. I hope you don't mind if I respond in turn.

I want to make clear that I am not attempting to tell anyone how to think, but, instead, attempting to prompt people to think beyond their initial emotional reaction. I do not think this is a great work of satire, but I also realise that the author is likely not actually trying to take a swipe at lesbians or degrade women in any way. In fact, it seems the contrary is the point. That is what I'm trying to get through, and which I feel is contuously ignored. If people truly understand what satire is and how this video may very well be attempting to achieve it, then why not acknowledge that instead of calling the creator out on all sorts of things that don't appear to be true?

I also want to make clear that I am not telling anyone to lighten up (in fact, the point of the satire may very well be for society to get serious). In your final paragraph you seem to imply, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this video was funny to me and that I thought it was a good example of satire. This is incorrect, and, in fact, I stated earlier that I did not believe the video to be particularly funny. Additionally, the purpose of a satire that deals with such dark subject matter is not necessary to be "funny-ha-ha," but to point out that darkness by overexaggerating it, and yes, sometimes making light of the horrific. Believe it or not, such works and the contrast they present have been pivotal in changing social perspectives.

I am not telling people not to be angry, but to try and think past that initial anger. I have been insulted countless times in my life by a variety of things until I began to ask myself why I felt anger and insult, and what that anger actually achieves. Is it helping me attain my end to be insulted? I have found it effective to actually analyse the situation instead of lashing out in anger. I think such an approach is a good route to take if we wish to change society and it's perspectives on sex/gender. The more one continues on the path to logical debate and thought, the more irrational hatred and discrimination crumble. I don't believe we defeat such discrimination or humiliation by participating in it ourselves. I think this approach could be really beneficial to this community, and I'm sorry if that seems like an attack. I truly believe that it is a good idea to look inward as well as outward, and not only for things that we typically look for or recognise.

If for some reason the moderators don't feel my continued participation in this thread is desireable, I would be more than happy to make my own thread that addresses the issue. If my words are not desireable on this forum, then, well, I guess I'll just have to stick to my own writing. But I thoroughly believe that without self-criticism we threaten to become exactly that which we despise.

My thanks again, June. My additional thanks to all those who have participated in this discussion with me.

- Ender

Originally Posted by June

Ender - I disagree with you on this, and while we don't know each other, I do want to preface this by saying that I often really enjoy your posts and your way of engaging and talking about things. However, I think it's important to think about why this may not affect you, personally in the same way as some of us.

If Female and/or Lesbian do not resonate with you in the same way, you may not relate to things visually or even viscerally in the same way that those of us who do very much identify as women and Lesbians do.

"Ones Sex" is already in the equation because the actual video is very sexually charged. There is coersive sexual intent in that video. No one is being emasculated in that video, and frankly, I think it is a womans right, and a Lesbians right to respond in anger if that's what she is feeling to the makers of the video. To do otherwise would seem to be the same thing as "Sitting down and shutting up" And I call bullshit on that. If they have the right to make a mockery of women and Lesbians, then they/we/us have a right also to express our anger, outrage or even ambivalence in any way we choose to do so.

I do not appreciate someone who is not female or woman ID'd coming in here and trying to tell those who are how they should feel. It smacks of telling "us" to lighten the fuck up. And that's not your place. The OP asked how we feel about it, and we are saying it. That doesn't mean you don't get to have an opinion, of course. If you think it's funny, or the best goddamn piece of satire you've seen in a long time, then say that. But on a website such as this, be prepared for pushback.

And I'm not mad, I'm vehement here.

June

[Softhearted]

What if it was not intended as a satire by the authors???

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by Softhearted

What if it was not intended as a satire by the authors???

I think it would have appeared far more american style college humour and it would have been fairly obvious. It was definitely satire.

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by Softhearted

What if it was not intended as a satire by the authors???

Then someone's ass is gonna get whipped.

[SuperFemme]

second city is all about satire. no question there.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Softhearted

What if it was not intended as a satire by the authors???

Same group that put this piece of crap out a few weeks ago:

[Scota_Parisi]

I love all sorts of satire and comedy - "The Kids in the Hall", Monty Python, Mel Brooks, Clerks II, and mockumentaries etc.

All bets are off when it comes to satire, I get this. But just keep an eye out for the next Chick Tract depicting "Cougar Lesbians on College Campuses".

[Unndunn]

I think it was satire that missed its mark. I wasn't offended.