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

[Waits. Waits some more. Serves extra spicy curry to perosn with ulcer.]

Thank you for your patience.
But I'm afraid the whole question has done a serious
tropic drift in my head. The original question was of
course why do some people consider an insult aimed at
a mother to be the ultimate insult that demands reaction.

Wives and girlfriends (and their reputations) are likely to
be defended but mothers are more in the 'who cares' area.
Most young men hate their mothers - they disobey, ignore,
avoid and reject them and anything they have to say. The
term for such youthful arrogance is Mother--ers
with the bit being used in a non-sexual context. Once
a young man reaches puberty it's just a screw you Ma attitude
they adopt to everything she stands for.

I keep thinking of a TV scene where a bully said something like
"That's not what your Mother said" and the victim is so enraged
he comes out fists flying.

The whole Oedipus thing caught me off guard since it seems
that suggesting one's mother is promiscuous with others,
including one's enemies, would only set people off if there
was an Oedipus desire creating jealous rage.

But then, I was never (almost never) attracted to anyone else's
mother and could never imagine anyone ever fancied mine. So if
someone tried to insult me by suggesting he had had relations
with her I would have been horrified and a little sorry for him,
especially if he thought I would be jealous rather than sickened
by the idea.

Then I remembered the whole MILF thing which seems to be a
modern problem and not something my generation ever had to
deal with (much). Perhaps it is because modern mothers are much
younger and more fit than the housewives of yesteryear.

Because as a general rule I am not moved by insults, especially
those which strike me as obvioulsy unfounded and even ludicrous
I find it difficult to imagine anyone getting that upset. Maybe
because my mother raised me to be a pacifist and taught me to
ignore anyone spouting mean words or libelous tales. When the
suggestion is as far fetched as claiming to have enjoyed some
mother's sexual favours I am at a loss to see any truth to it
or any reason to become angry at such a silly suggestion.

But Oedipus raises another perspective...
I have a theory that the story marks a shift in genetic mutations.

In the legend young Oedipus becomes sexually involved with his
mother but only because he does not realise who she is.

I cannot imagine anyone being sexually attracted to their mother.
Even if you didn't know who she was. Other forms of incest
notwithstanding there should be an inherent chemical/biological
respulsion between a mother and her son.

I believe the story of Oedipus marks the failure of this genetic
safeguard at a point in human history when 'civilised' ways were
distancing our selves from natural phenomena. The whole Greek
thing is all a bit weird for me.


~jwf~

Is this not elementary, my dear son of a ... what?

I think this is an interesting topic which might require some pyschology and sociology input. As others have said the insult seems to require a certain sociological construct that defines the importance of mothers in ones "heritage" and "position" in society. Then there is the pyschology angle with the relationships of mothers to the emotional and mental development of the individual.

>> sociology input <<

Yeah, I was hoping someone might speak to
my earlier generalisation that this current fad
of Yo Mama is usually shown as being mainly
an American, black, inner-city thing.

Here, if one can believe the mythos, many young
men are raised by very young single mothers.

No doubt their relationship is...

Yes, here words fail me and input from a trained
professional in the social sciences would prove
helpful, especially if I am simply being sucked
to accept a stereotype created by the media.

Is it cross-culturally common for young men who
grow up with a sexually attractive and likely
promiscuous mother would develop an active set
of defense mechanisms after encountering any
number of her male suitors?

"Yo Mama so poor she can't even pay attention!"


~jwf~

~jwf~

"if one can believe the mythos, many young
men are raised by very young single mothers."

I always thought the Mythos was about eldritch horrors from beyond the stars...

"Here, if one can believe the mythos, many young
men are raised by very young single mothers."

This is the key: the _only_ relationship in which a young man is allowed to let their defences down and feel something as 'weak' as affection. It stands to reason that it would be a strong link. Also, as the "man of the house", they would be given to understand that they are expected to guard and defend their family, even at a young age.
Also, these jokes are not just meant as insults to one person - the recipient's mother - but also as a general provocation and challenge, to which the expected response is violence. In some social circles of the past, a glove being thrown to the ground would prompt a duel with permanent injury or death at stake. Should we take this to mean that they had a deep-rooted hatred of gloves on the ground?

Bob's added another interesting factor: the insult could be the first part of a challenge ritual (something a hierachical society often has in order to establish pecking order).

The "mother insult" is more probably naturally perceived as a direct insult and challenge, whereas the thrown glove represents the challenge (rather than it of itself being a direct insult). So different meanings but still part of a "challenge ritual". The "mother insult" is probably the challenge from the aggressor, whereas the one throwing the glove is probably the "responder" who perceives himself (normally a him ...) to be the one offender.

... to be the one offended.

Thank you SA for that clarification.
I was having trouble with the thrown glove
(or its variant. the glove slap) as any kind
of analogy for the mother insult.

It didn't seem to fit but I couldn't say why.

You describe it clearly; the difference is that
the glove thrower (or slapper) is the offended
party while the mother insulter is the offender,
the aggressor.


~jwf~

Which means the "yo mama" still needs to be explained in terms of why it is perceived to be an insult, whereas the glove is just a glove (actually the symbol that the offended party accepts the challenge).

I think Just Bob did a good analysis in the first paragraph
of his last post. These young men must feel resentment and
jealousy and loss of control when their mothers take a lover.

If any lover proves to be cruel or violent or domineering and
has no patience for the presence or interference of the youngster
it is almost inevitable that some traumatic emotional baggage
gets loaded into the young boy's psyche. As he matures he would
be resistant to the authority of any revolving door lovers as well
as becoming super-protective of his mother.

At the age when most middle class white boys from traditional
families are rejecting their mothers and trying to break the
apron strings, these young men might be facing violence and
abuse at the hands of strangers who mean to abuse and harm
their only family connection.

My imagination is running wild now. We really do need some
professional guidance here. But how many American inner-city
social workers and shrinks are there at h2g2?


~jwf~

ps Actually I am not really clear on all the in and outs of the glove ritual. If someone actually slaps someone (with gloves as you mentioned) in public then that seems to me to be a direct insult (so the glove slapper is the aggressor and the insult is the action of slapping in public), whereas if someone throws gloves on the floor then maybe he is the offended party accepting the challenge.

Anyway the main thing is that I think Bob was suggesting that the "yo mama" was not an insult but just a meaningless "symbol" for a challenge ritual, and used the "glove" analogy as his argument. However, I think we have shown the glove analogy doesn't work, and that "yo mama" is indeed a bone fide insult to be assessed on its own merit.

pps Bob did advance the discussion by introducing the concept of "challenge rituals", which itself is a useful framework to help analyse and widen out the "yo mama" phenomenon.

ppps Talk of glove slapping opens up a new avenue for discussion - the phenomenon known as "happy slapping".

pppps I wonder whether the "happy slapping" phenomenon was inspired by a series of commercials presented to children by the company peddling the drinks brand known as "Tango".

"The campaign began in 1991 with an ad featuring a man being slapped around the face by a portly man painted orange (Peter Geeves) immediately after drinking Tango. It received widespread condemnation after a craze for "Tangoing" people swept the nation's playgrounds, and there were reports of children receiving serious injuries or even being deafened by being slapped on the ears." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tango_(drink)

This takes us onto another theme discussed on another thread - whether what children see on screen can affect their behaviour in a negative "anti-social" way. It would seem that from this example the answer is yes.

Doubtful. Those Tango ads pre-date 'happy slapping' by around 15 years or so and the kids doing the 'happy slapping' would mostly have been too young to remember them.

It takes two to tango.

~jwf~

The way I see it, the whole 'happy slapping' thing is about committing an aggressive act of sorts and coming across as the 'victor', without the risks involved in a full aggressive confrontation.