HULK SMASH PATRIARCHY

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

Re 2: isn’t that Lady Gaga?

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.

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

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.

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.

“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?

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

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

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.

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

Sadly, Myles is right about Canadian TV.

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

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

That’s not funny.

“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.

Politics.