HULK SMASH PATRIARCHY

by Belle Waring on June 12, 2010

Are you following the peregrinations of feminist hulk through the twitspace? You should be. So much goodness:

#HULK SAY BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM IS FOR WUSSES. HULK NOT PASSIVE IN HIS APPROACH TO GENDER IDENTITY.
#HULK POLITELY REQUEST CHANGING TABLE IN MEN’S ROOM. HULK CHOOSE NOT TO EMPLOY SMASH IN THIS MOMENT. MULTIPLE TOOLS FOR CHANGE.
#HULK MAKE CAPITALIZATION EXCEPTION FOR bell hooks. HULK LOVE HER ESSAY ON MADONNA AND RACIST APPROPRIATION.

{ 37 comments }

1

tomslee 06.12.10 at 4:08 pm

Nearly enough to make me set up an account. But not quite.

2

noen 06.12.10 at 6:14 pm

“HULK DREAM: REMNANTS OF ABJECTED FEMININITY PUT ON A MUSICAL, WITH REVOLUTIONARY DANCE NUMBERS. NO MORE KRISTEVA BEFORE BED.”

Yeah, go easy on the Kristeva ok?

3

Kenny Easwaran 06.12.10 at 7:15 pm

Re 2: isn’t that Lady Gaga?

4

kid bitzer 06.12.10 at 8:29 pm

CAPITALIZATION EXCEPTION ENDORSED BY kid bitzer.

5

Myles SG 06.12.10 at 8:42 pm

Is it just me, or does the feminist Hulk tweets seem jejune without being genuinely witty? I mean, it’s a nice idea and all, but this is weak stuff.

Twitter without sparkling wit is a giant waste of time. As Anthony Blanche said, conversation should be like juggling, “up go the balls and the balloons and the plates, up and over, in and out, spinning and leaping, good solid objects that glitter in the footlights and fall with a bang if you miss them.”

This just seemed forced and unimaginative, with no glitter, no wit, and little original humor.

6

jacob 06.12.10 at 9:37 pm

Miles, I think we could probably agree that there are many different types of humor, and Blanche’s version of wit is just one. I for one find feminist hulk’s poppy distillations of theory very clever. I also recommend his interview in Ms. Magazine, which by explicating the project I think makes it funnier.

7

Emma (the first one) 06.12.10 at 11:00 pm

Myles, you might prefer the stylings of Twisty Faster at I Blame the Patriarchy. Pure gold. And the commenters aren’t bad either.

8

Myles SG 06.13.10 at 4:11 am

“Myles, you might prefer the stylings of Twisty Faster at I Blame the Patriarchy. Pure gold. And the commenters aren’t bad either.”

Haha, it’s hilarious. “Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women.” Pure gold.

“I also recommend his interview in Ms. Magazine, which by explicating the project I think makes it funnier.”

I read the interview, or I tried to, until I realized that I am not going to wade through ALL CAPS to get through a sort of humor already familiar to me through perennially lame Canadian television. Anyways, if you need to explain your humor, then……

The problem is essentially that this doesn’t really make fun of either the patriarchy or feminism. It’s feminist and firmly so. And satire, which is what this sort of thing is supposed to be, is simply horrifically unfunny when it’s actually pro something, whether be empire or patriarchy or feminism or constructivist theory or whatever, rather than anti-something.

To quote one line from the interview, by J: “J: Like a lot of others, I was given a reductive definition of feminism growing up. I later realized how many kinds of feminism there are, which got me excited about the kind of feminist I wanted to be.”
Is this supposed to be suppose comedy gold is made of? This sounds ghastly earnest, actually.

Oscar Wilde, I think, was supposed to have developed a perfect riposte for every occasion. This FEMINIST HULK business seems to be absolutely apt for it. Too bad I can’t remember what the specific riposte was.

9

alex 06.13.10 at 7:11 am

Myles, I hate to break it to you, but you’re really upping the stakes in this year’s Wanker of The Year contest here.

10

Earnest O'Nest 06.13.10 at 8:41 am

Hey, first Emma, thanks for that link.

alex, you mean you got competition now?

(one sure has to applaud the writing team for coming up with something that looks like it is one individual that worked her way up by pure twittering)

11

Emma (the first one) 06.13.10 at 10:14 am

Myles SG @ 8 said: And satire, which is what this sort of thing is supposed to be, is simply horrifically unfunny when it’s actually pro something, whether be empire or patriarchy or feminism or constructivist theory or whatever, rather than anti-something.

Right. Most of what passes for ‘humour’ is objectively pro-patriarchy, pro-racism, pro-classism and so on. You still get plenty of dudes cacking themselves at the first, racists roaring at the second, snobs sniggering at the third and so on. Not so surprising to find feminists laughing uproariously. We often find each others’ little jokes diverting and droll. Funny that.

12

Bill Benzon 06.13.10 at 10:32 am

bell hooks EH, SO 20TH CENTURY, SO CORNEL ‘FUNKY SUBLIME’ WEST

13

Myles SG 06.13.10 at 11:14 am

“Right. Most of what passes for ‘humour’ is objectively pro-patriarchy, pro-racism, pro-classism and so on. You still get plenty of dudes cacking themselves at the first, racists roaring at the second, snobs sniggering at the third and so on. Not so surprising to find feminists laughing uproariously. We often find each others’ little jokes diverting and droll. Funny that.”

You are arguing a normative point in what really is a positive debate, which is whether something is funny. Our culture is heteronormative, to some extent Eurocentric, and of course patriarchal. So to be “pro” these things doesn’t mean anything in the context of humor; in fact, in judging whether something is funny or not, to be “pro” something that is assumed to be the norm is, well, completely humor-neutral.

Or to clarify my point: when someone is cracking those jokes, they aren’t advocating for patriarchy, or Eurocentrism, or whatever. They are just making use of their being the norm, for comic effect. Because they are already the norm, it’s impossible for to advocate for something like that, at least not within reasonable humor contexts.

Feminism is another matter. Every bit of pro-feminist in some sense is political, and strained, and forced, because feminism isn’t the norm, and thus pro-feminist humor (if there be genuinely such a thing, which I doubt) in some sense is actively advocating for some action or position; i.e. it has a forced, unnatural quality. When someone makes fun of poor people or whatever, they are just exploiting existing norms for comic effect; you can hardly pinpoint whether he’s pro-poverty or anti-poverty (liberal comics make fun of poor people too). But whatever it is, you know it’s humor first, politics second. But when you hear pro-feminist attempts at humor, you instinctively figure that it’s advocacy masquerading as humor, because it’s feminist first and funny second.

Whatever. Have at it. If you like to think feminist humor is funny, help yourself to mad dollops of if. Chacun a son gout. But aesthetically speaking, its value is minimal, just like publicly-financed Canadian multicultural art (have you ever seen a public-funded Canadian-multicultural play or short film to see how insanely, horrifying, and laughably bad they are artistically, aesthetically, on every level?). Hey, there were even people who liked Soviet socialist-realist art, so weirder things have happened, although frankly some of the stuff produced for PC purposes in some countries pretty much beat Soviet art in terms of worthlessness.

At least the U.S.S.R. had Shostakovich. Who’s the Shostakovich of feminist art?

14

Myles SG 06.13.10 at 11:18 am

“We often find each others’ little jokes diverting and droll. Funny that.”

This is a very tempting Hitchens-quoting bait. Occam’s Razor: feminists find feminist jokes, that non-feminists generally don’t find funny, funny, because…

I am not going to go there. Stuff yourself with Chris Hitchens’s writings on humor if you wanted a seriously detailed answer.

15

alex 06.13.10 at 11:53 am

Is that Christopher “women aren’t as funny as men” Hitchens? If so, then, no I don’t think I will, actually, thanks.

16

Aunt Flo 06.13.10 at 12:13 pm

It’s funny because it’s Hulk? There’s an inherent contradiction in a large, green primordial male-monster’s earnest espousal of and familiarity with feminist thought. Surely that type of incongruence is the basis of lots of comedy, some of it very basic. (Myles’ attempts are much more subtle.)

17

Walt 06.13.10 at 12:13 pm

Myles is well into Richard Cohen “I am objectively funny” territory here.

18

Emma (the first one) 06.13.10 at 1:16 pm

If Christopher Hitchens knew how hilarious some people find him, he would blush. Except that would need some self-knowledge, so I think we just entered an infinite regression. Whatever, Myles.

19

bob mcmanus 06.13.10 at 1:42 pm

Twisty is hilarious, and alongside IOZ, one of the peaks of the blogosphere. That the humor is not, and is not intended to be, universal is the point.

20

Belle Waring 06.13.10 at 2:03 pm

Bob McManus: not trolling and objectively right.

21

Uncle Kvetch 06.13.10 at 2:55 pm

Thank you for this, two times over. feminist hulk is a bona fide hoot, and Myles is even funnier.

22

Bruce Baugh 06.13.10 at 3:24 pm

People who put a lot of time into defending the corrupt, capricious, and oppressive systems of power that Feminist Hulk’s sources attack don’t find Feminist Hulk funny. I’m totally at a loss to understand this. It baffles me. I cannot account for it.

23

tomslee 06.13.10 at 3:33 pm

Sadly, Myles is right about Canadian TV.

24

Miracle Max 06.13.10 at 5:15 pm

Few things more tedious than debates about what is funny.

25

Myles SG 06.13.10 at 6:47 pm

“Sadly, Myles is right about Canadian TV.”

Thank you. That’s why I don’t bother watching Canadian TV anymore. Nor read Canadian newspapers. Washington Post and NYT will do nicely for my news needs, thank you.

“Few things more tedious than debates about what is funny.”

Ah, tedium. You mean this?

“People who put a lot of time into defending the corrupt, capricious, and oppressive systems of power that Feminist Hulk’s sources attack don’t find Feminist Hulk funny. I’m totally at a loss to understand this.”

Woe is me. I pray in supplication to Evelyn Waugh’s comic gods for that the world is enlivened by better humor, or at least, humor.

26

Myles SG 06.13.10 at 6:51 pm

By the way, every humor-loving citizen of the world has a duty to endlessly and mercilessly mock humor attempts that are unfunny. Otherwise our Humor Quotient (HQ) descends!

27

Myles SG 06.13.10 at 6:57 pm

“If Christopher Hitchens knew how hilarious some people find him, he would blush. Except that would need some self-knowledge, so I think we just entered an infinite regression. ”

Now this sets me atwitter. (I mean it genuinely, and pun not/semi intended). It’s funny, but infinite regression pretty much illustrate’s the man’s narcissism.

28

Salient 06.13.10 at 7:51 pm

HULK STRIVE TO RESPECT RIGHT TO SELF-IDENTIFY, BUT HULK COMPASSION STRAIN AND BREAK UNDER WEIGHT OF SARAH PALIN’S BULLSHIT.

…yeah. :)

29

MQ 06.13.10 at 11:38 pm

I find Hulk light-hearted and entertaining, and Twisty Faster to be the kind of rageaholic stuff that gives radical feminism a bad name. But it takes all types.

30

Emma (the first one) 06.13.10 at 11:42 pm

Bob@18 I’m glad that there are others who go to Savage Death Island (home of Twisty) and IOZ in search of balm for their souls. The Epicurean Dealmaker is another you might enjoy, though he is very intermittent. There’s not enough black humour to go around these days, and most of it isn’t half black enough. Sometimes IOZ’s gallows nihilism is the only thing that cheers me up.

31

Helen 06.14.10 at 3:15 am

You are arguing a normative point in what really is a positive debate, which is whether something is funny. Our culture is heteronormative, to some extent Eurocentric, and of course patriarchal. So to be “pro” these things doesn’t mean anything in the context of humor; in fact, in judging whether something is funny or not, to be “pro” something that is assumed to be the norm is, well, completely humor-neutral…. [blah, blah for several more paragraphs]

Well, that had me rolling in the aisle, I can tell you.

32

ajay 06.14.10 at 8:45 am

It’s funny because it’s Hulk? There’s an inherent contradiction in a large, green primordial male-monster’s earnest espousal of and familiarity with feminist thought. Surely that type of incongruence is the basis of lots of comedy, some of it very basic.

Well, quite. I don’t think there’s any more analysis that needs to be done here. Feminist Hulk is funny for the same reason that the story about the first words of the three-year-old Macaulay is funny, or Cornel West is funny. We don’t expect three-year-olds to say things like “Thank you, madam, but the agony is somewhat abated” or Harvard professors to write things like “the sublime and funky love that I crave”.

33

noen 06.14.10 at 2:42 pm

How many anti-patriarchy pro-feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

That’s not funny.

34

chris 06.14.10 at 3:33 pm

You are arguing a normative point in what really is a positive debate, which is whether something is funny.

Am I missing something, or are you implicitly assuming an objective, observer-independent definition of “funny”? Which, by sheer coincidence, happens to coincide precisely with your own tastes — funny, that. (In my opinion, of course!)

There really ought to be a word for confusing your own subjective judgments with objective truths. “Arrogance” is sort of right, but too vague.

Whether something “is funny” is not truth-apt because it implicitly tries to use a binary predicate (X is amused by Y) as a unary one (Y is funny). Therefore, you can’t have a positive debate about it. (Whether or not a similar fallacy plagues many, or even all, normative debates is left as an exercise for the reader.) If you try, you generally run into fake disagreement — X1 is amused by Y, X2 is not. Is Y really funny or not, and therefore, which observer is wrong?

35

noen 06.14.10 at 6:05 pm

“There really ought to be a word for confusing your own subjective judgments with objective truths.”

There is, narcissism. Seems to be the default state these days.

36

GeoX 06.14.10 at 6:05 pm

There really ought to be a word for confusing your own subjective judgments with objective truths.

Solipsism?

37

alex 06.14.10 at 6:28 pm

Politics.

Comments on this entry are closed.