h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I've met only women who are sexist, therefore all women are sexist."

Is that an unreasonable conclusion to come to after over forty years?

Here is a deal breaker for you. Unfortunately for the woman involved I think it may have been too late.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/epic-fail-photos-probably-bad-news-great-scot.jpg

Not for the faint hearted. Or those who are likely to suffer a heart attack whilst LOLing, ROFLing, LMHOing or LMAOing.

My own deal breaker? Popsocks.

PP

"Is that an unreasonable conclusion to come to after over forty years?"

Yes.

This is an interesting example of something I've seen many times: the discomfort people feel with spotting a pattern in data which doesn't fit their prejudice. Indeed, the dissonance is so strong that they'll bend over backwards to ignore such a pattern and even deny, in the teeth of the evidence, that such a pattern exists.

In this particular instance, here's my question: my observation, over forty years of life, is that I have never, even once, encountered a woman who felt it unacceptable to make sexist jokes about men. In that time, I've met many, many women who routinely joked about men's inadequacies with domestic chores, with emotional sensitivity, with sexual performance etc. I have never, ever, even once, heard or even heard OF a woman objecting to such jokes on grounds of sexism or anything else.

Apparently, this enormous dataset built up over decades is still, according to you, Mr. Dreadful, not sufficient data to draw a conclusion.

My question, therefore is this: how much longer would I have to accumulate this 100% consistent data before you would accept that I am justified in generalising from it?

OR: do you think that this is a special case, and no matter how long I observed, no matter how many women I asked, no matter how many times my hypothesis was confirmed, over and over and over again over decades, I would never, ever have enough data to make a valid generalisation?

They aren't *jokes* Twiglet, they are hard learned and bitter truths...

Um.

That kind of proves your point, doesn't it?

Damn.

"I have never, ever, even once, ... heard OF a woman objecting to such jokes on grounds of sexism or anything else."

You mean apart from the bit where I said several of my female friends do just that?

See, the key word for me was "unreasonable"... unless you can conclusively say that *every* woman you have *ever* met routinely makes sexist jokes about men, your conclusion is drastically flawed. And even if you can say that it's still unreasonable because I know for a fact that it is not true. Really, it says far more about the company you keep than it does about women in general.

Ok.

Let's back up a bit.

Was the post that I made offensively sexist?

How about this one?

F19585?thread=8254555#p109708922

Ben

I've been known to make the odd sexist joke or remark against men. More often than not immediately after the men around me have made sexist comments jokes and haven't understood what I've found objectionable about them.

I have also been known to laugh at sexist jokes and comments against women when they have not been totally completely and utterly malicious in intent. But then I often laugh at racist jokes (against the English) and blonde jokes too - because sometimes, they are funny.

Ben

Oh..right...um...off to bed to cry under my duvet,

Yeah ... to "cry" ...

>>..the discomfort people feel with spotting a pattern
in data which doesn't fit their prejudice. <<

Indeed! We are creatures of pre-established beliefs
and we only hear or accept data, info, anecdotes or
opinions that confirm our belief systems. It's only
natural.

Some people actually believe the whirled is round.

Some believe to such an extent they'll fake photos
purporting to be of the earth taken from space. As
if people could ever fly let alone breathe in outer
space. And they paint it blue!
Hmmmph! We all know it's green.


~jwf~

Surely it's rather more complicated than saying that anyone who tells jokes about stereotypical male/female stereotypes/characteristics is a sexist? Just as telling a joke about race doesn't make someone a racist.

Does anyone seriously think that if (for example) a female work colleague makes some unsympathetic quip about 'man flu' if I'm ill, it necessarily means that she holds deeply seated misandrist beliefs, and will systematically discriminate against men at every opportunity? Should I be watching my back in case she sabotages my career? Really?

The thing about jokes is that context is everything. As I've tried to explain many times over the years, the difference between jokes about ginger/Scottish people and jokes about black people is that the former categories aren't the victims of historic (and continuing) prejudice and disadvantage. It's not the abuse of less powerful group in society.

Some jokes play off relatively begin stereotypes that no-one takes seriously, and some off deeply harmful ones that actually are believed in some quarters. Some jokes are made playfully, and are clearly just banter. Some 'jokes' - even made ironically - are from harmful stereotypes, and aren't meant in fun, but to hurt or to belittle. And there are all kinds of grey areas.

In a perfect, utopian world, everyone would be able to make jokes about everyone else, because power relations would be equal.

Just for the record, I know many gingers who suffered at the unmerciful hands of their so-called peers. They may not be economic victims, B&Bs don't say 'no gingers' in the windows but the abuse they have to suffer through childhood generally makes each and every one of those 'harmless' ginger jokes really quite offensive. It relates to a real-life experience that they have had to endure. I don't know a single one who can laugh at those jokes because, like sexism, lots of people think gingerism doesn't exist. It does if you're a red-head.

>>my observation, over forty years of life.../

An obvious problem there is that your data is up to 40 years old, so it doesn't represent an accurate portrayal of contemporary attitudes.

Wonderful.

"You're data's not valid because there's not enough of it."
"But I've got STACKS - I've been collecting it for ages."
"Oh. Well, errr.... in that case it's not valid because some of it's out of date."

Another thing to throw into the pot...

Might there be environments in which people feel uncomfortable objecting to jokes?

@SoRB:

I note that you dress your comment up in pseudo-scientific language. ~Data collected over forty years.~ Now - what you say may be valid. But surely its reasonable to ask when the measuring instrument was last calibrated? For data of this sort, I dont think Id be prepared to rely on the anecdotes of *any* sole observer. Just think of the potential risks of bias! And have you *really* been on the lookout for this specific phenomenon over forty years? I do hope these are more than post facto reconstructions!

That nice Dr Goldacre would be most alarmed by such methodological failings, if indeed they occurred..

Or am I reading too much into it? Did you just mean ~I reckon...~. in which case its no more than your (possibly quite valid!) opinion against someone elses. Thats pefectly fine - but Im afraid I feel your 40 years of data from Me! Me! Me! angle is not the trump card you imagine it to be..

So Twiglet's experience is different from Mr D's. Not that surprising, since they are different dudes.

What I find myself wondering is

1) whether women behave differently around them
2) whether they hang out with women who have different characteristics
3) or whether they see the same behaviours and interpret them differently.

B

Interesting observation. I'd guess all of the above.

>>So Twiglet&#39;s experience is different from Mr D&#39;s. Not that surprising, since they are different dudes.

Well this was precisely my point. Note that I wasnt taking sides. I was merely pointing out that one sides vehement claim that, based on their data, they *must* be right wasnt worth a hill of beans.