"that's so gay": reactions on bullying

In New York Times, Judith Warner writes an amazing article on bullying and homophobia. The facts that bring in the discussion are deadly serious:

Early this month, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, an 11-year-old boy from Springfield, Mass., hanged himself after months of incessantly being hounded by his classmates for being “gay.” (He was not; but did, apparently, like to do well in school.)

In March, 2007, 17-year-old Eric Mohat shot himself in the head, after a long-term tormentor told him in class, “Why don’t you go home and shoot yourself; no one will miss you.” Eric liked theater, played the piano and wore bright clothing, a lawyer for his family told ABC news, and so had long been subject to taunts of “gay,” “fag,” “queer” and “homo.”

Teachers and school administrators, the Mohats’ lawsuit now asserts, did nothing.

If in Eastern Europe, bullying in school is not treated as a relevant case in media, in US violent events such as Columbine demand an important analysis. But apparently, the critique and direct action on bullying is not so engaged. The main ingredient of this type of reactivity is generated by a more structural process besides homophobia, the pathologization of femininity:

I’m only partly talking about homophobia, which, though virulent, cruel and occasionally fatal among teenagers, is not the whole story behind the fact that words like “fag” and “gay” are now among the most potent and feared weapons in the school bully’s arsenal.

Being called a “fag,” you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay.

It’s really about showing any perceived weakness or femininity – by being emotional, seeming incompetent, caring too much about clothing, liking to dance or even having an interest in literature. It’s similar to what being viewed as a “nerd” is, Bennington College psychology professor David Anderegg notes in his 2007 book, “Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them”: “‘queer’ in the sense of being ‘odd’ or ‘unusual,’” but also, for middle schoolers in particular, doing “anything that was too much like what a goody-goody would do.”

It’s what being called a “girl” used to be, a generation or two ago.

“To call someone gay or fag is like the lowest thing you can call someone. Because that’s like saying that you’re nothing,” is how one teenage boy put it to C.J. Pascoe, a sociologist at Colorado College, in an interview for her 2007 book, “Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School.”

The message to the most vulnerable, to the victims of today’s poisonous boy culture, is being heard loud and clear: to be something other than the narrowest, stupidest sort of guy’s guy, is to be unworthy of even being alive.

This type of interaction is so popular in the most opened environments that it really makes me wonder what the best tools to fight it are. I can only think of two very special environments where I experienced this type of discrimination: theatre schools and gender studies departments in different countries. What starts as funny jokes on particular gestures, outfits, ways of talking or interests becomes dangerous hate tools for exclusion in a very concrete manner. All guided by an internalized path to hegemonic masculinity or even hyperfemininity that is endangered by some particular attitudes that can challenge and subvert such hard earned positions:

It’s weird, isn’t it, that in an age in which the definition of acceptable girlhood has expanded, so that desirable femininity now encompasses school success and athleticism, the bounds of boyhood have remained so tightly constrained? And so staunchly defended: Boys avail themselves most frequently of epithets like “fag” to “police” one another’s behavior and bring it back to being sufficiently masculine when someone steps out of line, Barbara J. Risman, a sociologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, found while conducting extensive interviews in a southeastern urban middle school in 2003 and 2004. “Boys were showing each other they were tough. They were afraid to do anything that might be called girlie,” she told me this week. “It was just like what I would have found if I had done this research 50 years ago. They were frozen in time.”

Pascoe spent 18 months embedded in a Northern California working-class high school, in a community where factory jobs had gone south after the signing of Nafta, and where men who’d once enjoyed solid union salaries were now cobbling together lesser-paid employment at big-box stores. “These kids experience a loss of masculine privilege on a day-to-day level,” she said. “While they didn’t necessarily ever experience the concrete privilege their fathers and grandfathers experienced, they have the sense that to be a man means something and is incredibly important. These boys don’t know how to be that something. Their pathway to masculinity is unclear. To not be a man is to not be fully human and that’s terrifying.”

By trying to achieve some strongly gendered identities imposed by family, pop culture, school hierarchies, standards of coolness, they have to make the difference between them and those who don’t fit the narrow standards. And the best way to keep those standards is to discriminate, use hate speech and direct violence.

Malina Saval, who spent two years observing and interviewing teenage boys and their parents for her new book “The Secret Lives of Boys,” found that parents played a key role in reinforcing the basest sort of gender stereotypes, at least where boys were concerned. “There were a few parents who were sort of alarmist about whether or not their children were going to be gay because of their music choices, the clothes they wore,” she said. Generally, she said, “there was a kind of low-level paranoia if these high-school-age boys weren’t yet seriously involved with a girl.”

It seems it all comes down, as do so many things for today’s parents, to status.

“Parents are so terrified that their kids will miss out on anything,” Anderegg told me. “They want their kids to have sex, be sexy.”

This generation of parents tends to talk a good game about gender, at least in public.

In US as in Eastern Europe, family plays the major role in promoting this type of status, in offering legitimacy for hate and bullying. And the future of bullying looks rather dark, with the public and private discourse on gender roles becoming more conservative and bigoted. The examples are numerous, the two dead kids are just the most obvious ones.

photo via deviantart

learning some misogyny in English

Misogyny starts early. No wonder my male friends can't explain how words and attitudes are popping out of them. They use the ultimate excuse and argument: "this is how I was socialized." And sometimes I found myself using words or phrases that are so unthought. And they stand for so much bullshit. Yesterday I thought a lot about how we use dirty language and what all these colorful and funny expressions actually mean: homophobia, mysoginy, racism, classism, hate. Of course, the solution is not to completely delete all these words and language associations from your vocabulary but to think more about them when using. And if possible subvert them and play around their first problematic meaning. I know it takes a lot of work but that can also be fun, you can do it playfully. Because using what you learn in primary school as something impossible to change means hell. If you look at this "innocent" drawing from a children's book you might get the bigger picture. And fuck, I don't want to live in that patriarchal world. Or to make any kid believe that this is how this world functions.

thanks Bogdan for the image!

Reclaiming masculinity..not again!

Tyler Retherford, a "sophomore anthropology major from Springfield, Mo.", writes an article on redefining masculinity. Even if his argument is clumsy and so patriarchal, I stopped for a sec. I heard this type of redefinition of masculinity so many times that it makes me sick. Coming from anthropologists "interested in masculinity" or even teaching it or from my male colleagues in gender studies. Let's hear it:

Obviously gender studies should incorporate studying both genders, but stereotypically that's just not the way it tends to work out. It made me think about just how little masculinity is discussed. It's not something that comes up in conversations with my friends, and as evidenced by the name of the "women's and gender studies" minor offered at the University, it's not something widely discussed at an academic level either. It seems masculinity in popular culture is defined more by an avoidance of typically feminine behavior than by any actual definition of masculine behavior. The few stereotypical masculine behaviors such as hunting, working on cars and fighting aren't actually that popular among the majority of guys. However, participation in feminine activities such as watching "Gossip Girl," shopping or talking openly about feelings is much more likely to earn negative reactions.Popular media is starting to subvert this structuring of masculinity. One example is the growing "bromance" film genre. The recent movie "I Love You, Man" and a plethora of Judd Apatow films feature male characters who share their feelings about one another in a typically un-masculine way. In the television world, characters like J.D. from "Scrubs" act in stereotypically feminine ways, like carrying around a unicorn diary in one episode. It certainly isn't the norm, and usually these
characters are supposed to draw laughs rather than make a statement about the way we look at masculinity, but it is a step toward guys being more accepting of male participation in typically feminine activities. Even the new James Bond movies portray the ultimate "guy" as a little more emotional and less of a womanizer. Weakening arbitrary gender divides in popular culture is eventually going to cause a restructuring of the way we define masculinity. Unfortunately, gender studies tends to fall within the feminine realm of interests, meaning that working to develop a healthier definition of masculinity is, by its very nature, un-masculine. Guys need to make it OK to talk about what it means to be a guy. Even more importantly, having a better discussion of what it is to be a guy is a vital step in building a healthier view of men with differing lifestyle choices.

For the sake of "developing more inclusive notions of masculinity and making the discussion of gender more accessible to a wider audience" we are witnessing a major backlash. Weren't we always talking about this masculinity for hundreds and hundreds of years? Open your TV or a philosophy book and see what is discussed: masculinity as the norm, humanity as masculinity, universal as harmonious masculinity. Do you want to just name it positively and claim it? Go ahead, no one will stop you. The problem is when this positive claim of masculinity is related to gender studies as a form of inclusiveness and softening of the feminist discourse. I know that privileges have to be kept by white heterosexual men by any means but don't come with this bullshit that poor guys are marginalised and discriminated in gender studies departments controlled by lesbian terrorists. Or that we already leave in post-patriarchy and it's safe now. Or that egosyntonic masculinity can be subversive and empowering for women. As long as femininity is still pathology, masculinity is the norm and the healthy way to live in society, I see all these initiatives as dead ends. And for Godsake, try to be a little bit more modest!

men's rights?

Today I looked for some articles on google news with the search word feminist. I am amazed how they lead you to all the Christian right newspapers. Is it possible that they actually encourage a certain line of thought with their too-human search engines? Anyway, at some point, I ended up with this article: First Father Falls For Feminist Fraud, Fails Fatherhood. Please pay attention to the usage of equality and gender aware discourse, how twisted it can get. I see this type of writing as pure mockery, making fun of struggles for rights for decades, of personal grief and pain. Violence is not a civil right, in any type of democracy that you can dream of. If fighting domestic violence and misogyny is gender based discrimination, then this type of discrimination is needed. I am particularly touched by this subject because I know the side effects of gender mainstreaming in Europe and what for what incredible backlash it was used. To the point of closing women’s libraries for not having a male perspective. And apparently these supporters of male rights are doing it for “making things more equal between the genders” and not for supporting patriarchy and their undeserved privileges:

As a fathers’ advocate, I had hope when President Obama was elected. Some expressed disappointment that the author of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) had become Vice President. They feared more gender-based discrimination.
Being a liberal egalitarian, I was optimistic. My president had said he respects our civil rights. I believed all we needed to do was show President Obama and Vice President Biden how false allegations of domestic violence hurt 170,000 children a year.1,2 How VAWA has lead to uncontrollable corruption from individual shelters all the way to the US Department of State.

I was sure President Obama would agree that every parent deserves due process. Those parents deserve a trial with a jury of their peers, before the possibility of losing custody of their children. I wanted to show him how many fathers are absent from their children’s lives, by no fault of their own.But before I knew it, President Obama disappointed me. He also disappointed millions of fathers who are grieving the unjust absence of their children. Instead of making things more equal between the genders, we now have an Office on Women and Children. And we don’t have one for men and their children.

Gender roles coming with gendered grammer in French

I found a grammer book for kids from the 1970s with some very telling images. How else can children learn gender in French than through patriarchal gender roles? And they will remember them both: patriarchy and French. Thank you school for facilitating a sexist welcome into the French symbolic order.

backlash in US academia: no funds for queer theory classes

Republican Georgia state Representatives Charlice Byrd and Calvin Hill started a well-mediatized campaign to cut funds for professors who teach college-level courses on queer theory, reproduction, and sexuality. Hill, the Republican vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee in Georgia, said he alerted his constituents about some faculty whose research interests he considered questionable in hopes that they would voice any complaints to the state Board of Regents. He argued that in a time of budget cuts universities should not offer classes that do not help students get jobs.

“Do you know that your tax dollars are being used at our state universities to pay professors to teach your children classes like ‘Male Prostitution’ and ‘Queer Theory’? Yes, even in tight economic times like we are facing today, our Board of Regents is wasting your tax dollars to teach these totally unnecessary and ridiculous classes.” Hill says his only goal is to tell taxpayers how their dollars are being spent, and encourage them to contact the regents if they have concerns. Of course, the economic crisis is a good moment to promote some conservative discourses and to return to some good-old retun to „seriousness and sobriety” in terms of knowldge production. “I would assume someone that has those credentials can teach something else that is more worthwhile,” he said. What is that exactly? Charlice Byrd explains: "This is not considered higher education," Byrd said. "If legislators are going to dole out the dollars, we should have a say-so in where they go." Hill continues "Our job is to educate our people in sciences, business, math," and of course, professors aren't going to meet those needs "by teaching a class in queer theory."

The most quoted response is this: "Certainly the mission of higher education is to broaden the field of knowledge and research," said spokesman John Millsaps. "That covers a lot of topics. Some may be considered to some as controversial, but to others it could be considered needed." And another spokeperson ads: "Teaching courses in criminal justice, for example, does not mean that our students are being prepared to become criminals. Quite the opposite," said Jones. "Legitimate research and teaching are central to the development of relevant and effective policy."

Hill is quite radical in his obssession with queer theory courses: “Now that we need to cut the state budget, I think I know where we can eliminate a few highly paid professors and get rid of these classes.”

In most of the articles that I've read on the subject, it is shown that there are no classes titled “male prostitution” in Georgia, according to university officials. What the republicans found is a sociology professor at Georgia State University who is listed in a media guide as an expert on the subject of male prostitution. The professor in question, Kirk Elifson, studies risk factors involved in the spread of HIV/AIDS, among other public health issues. As for courses on queer theory, there is at least one offered at the University of Georgia, according to a Board of Regents spokesman.

Another area of cutting up the budget is environmental studies. In Alaska, at least one lawmaker has voiced a general objection to environmentalist faculty views at the University of Alaska. Fairclough, an Eagle River Republican, used a committee meeting last week to complain to Mark Hamilton, the university’s president, about soft faculty support for oil and mining industries in the state.

“If I ask university staff, the people who are educating our future leaders, if they support the Chukchi Sea development, the Red Dog Mine or the Pebble Mine or any type of industry along those lines, a stereotypical response is they are in opposition,” Fairclough said.

Carl Shepro, who heads a union that represents faculty members in Alaska, said Fairclough speaks about lawmakers looking for targets in tight budget times: “As long as you have legislators in other states that are making similar kinds of comments, it may be that it encourages or supports people in the Alaska Legislature. It’s kind of a shift in political culture, if you will.”

The academic backlash is US just started: in relation to the economic crisis, the bigger concern from conservatives is that public universities do not present ‘all viewpoints.’ Hill, who was present but did not question the experts from Georgia State University, said “We’re not backing off.” Byrd said there will be a hearing on the issue next week in the Senate Higher Education Committee. Hill and Byrd will continue to look for university courses that are a questionable use of taxpayer money, Hill said.

“Those are the ones we first found,” he said of the sex- and gender-related experts and courses the two legislators criticized.

Keep your eyes open, the storm just started in US. How are things in Europe?

Becoming Barbie-doll politicians

Manufacturer Mattel celebrates its 50s aniversary with a new Barbie doll: Angela Merkel. As you can see in the photo above, it has her suit and blonde haircut. That's it in regards to any resemblance. The affirmative element of representing a strong female political leader is washed out by the plastic depiction: with its anatomical features and the necessary pink it destroys any subversion. The innocent smiling face makes you think that there is no difference between making politics and having a doll party.
Guardian's article on this subject mentions:

A spokeswoman for Mattel said that like Barbie, Merkel embodied the dreams of many girls who want to get on in the world. "She's simply a good role model for girls around the world," she said.

Is it so simple? I don't think so. By using a real strong model for girls, any potential affirmativity of agency is killed here: you first have to look like a Barbie doll in order to be her, you have to be nice, smiley, skinny, to have a small waist and big breasts. Then you can imagine yourself in the sober suit and decision making processes. So, there is a strong message under this plastic representation: no hope for not-alike-Barbie doll politicians.

Sex education from feminists

after reading an old post on All About My Vagina, little sparkles started to light in my mind: who can better teach sexuality to children if not feminists and queers? Let me explain: nowadays sex education is in the hands of high but limited-in-understanding authorities like parents, teachers, doctors, priests, eugenists (see Marie Stopes for example), media and celebrities. We should pay attention where Western anti-authoritarian and anti-oppressive sexuality information comes from: anti-oppression movements like feminism, civil rights and LGBTQ. But on the other hand, who controls sexuality controls the whole game - why should sexuality be empowering, why should someone not think for you and tell you what to do exactly? And this a-la-Foucault control is the key element in spreading bigotism. Anti-oppression movements were not so good in dealing with children in the sense that the topic was avoided in practical terms not to mention the fundamentalist attack based on slogans like protecting our children from perverts and Marxist feminists. I think that sex education for children can be a nice start for spreading some valuable and useful information that was kept secret. The image of the child has to be transformed because so far it is manipulated by bigots at their own will. I am glad to see that there are people working on it and there are methods involved: a collection of tools for learning about sexuality, drawn from do-it-yourself philosophies, unschooling, anti-oppression and pro-equality movements, nonviolence, a lot of sex activism and education, and some network mathematics for good measure.

Insecurities Increase

by Antonette*

Insecurities increase,

with daily verbal abuse

and death threats,

All because of the way I dress.

Aging tranny bitch queen,

tattooed masculine lines,

some ‘bull-dyke’ on steroids.

Nice figure,

but face like Freddie Krueger,

the serial killer.

Why can’t people let me be?

Constantly judging

by first appearances.

You can’t judge

by looking at the wrapping.

The woman in me,

dying to be accepted.

The public forces the Queen

to put the dresses away

after a certain age.

The abuse and constant danger,

Forces the she-male

to only come out at night,

if at all.

Imprisoned by letting the forces

of the shallow general public,

To intimidate the feminine side,

so she must fade away

and hide.

The tranny bitch submissive Queen,

Too old to be seen as anything other

than a sexual deviant,

Fallen so far.

Starting over again

at the bottom,

Can’t get much lower

than a tranny working the stroll.

Shit on from all sides,

an abnormality.

Can I keep going,

dressing daily for my femininity?

Old memories,

sadden the heart,

vacant loneliness,

Stress upon stress.

Afraid I might kill

some ignorant young fuck,

For his ill timed,

homophobic foul mouth.

Don’t look 30,

but awesome for 50-something.

Strong masculine lines

and tattoos,

Constantly reinforce

the fitting handle

of,

Miss Understood.

* I found this wonderful poem at the Queer History Project website. You can find the story of the poem and other amazing queer stories there.

Pedar (1996)

director: Majid Majidi

Yesterday morning we watched an Iranian movie, Father (Pedar), directed by Majid Majidi in 1996. Looking around on the net afterwards I was surprised to only find positive and extremely praising reviews, since my experience of the movie was quite the opposite. The story is set in contemporary (I guess) Iran, and the overtly Oedipal plot revolves around 14-year old Mehrollah who goes away to work in order to support his widowed mother and three sisters, only to find her hastily remarried to the local policeman upon his return. Unwilling to accept the new man in his mother’s life as a father, in fact, unwilling to accept a man other than himself in his mother’s life, he unrelentlessly goes about harassing her and the new husband, with male ego outbursts that the director seems to admire as heroic, but that end up being pretty annoying for the spectator who does not have much investment in patriarchy. The storyline doesn`t have much else going for itself, it`s a back and forth between the policeman and Mehrollah`s masculinities, climaxing with the boy managing to steal the policeman`s gun (his gun, get it?) and making a run for it. In the end, quite predictably, the two are brought together by their constant chase and the cheesy ending suggests that Mehrollah will finally be able to accept the policeman as a father figure.
Now, this movie could have been done in a way that is actually meaningful and interesting, given that the theme offers a lot of room for giving depth to the characters and their circumstances. However this movie is made from a normative male perspective, anchoring itself in its biases and conditions uncritically, and presenting them to us as if they were universal values we should understand and sympathize with. Why should I be moved by a deeply patriarchal story in which the crisis is triggered by the absence of the father (an absent presence metaphorically, and literally in the photo that the boy is sporting around) and is solved by finding another male to fill in this position? The character of the mother is completely subdued, she is given very few articulate lines (her token appearances are marked by gasps, cries and tears), and seems to exist only as a pretext for more male existential angst . To be fair, the mother is not presented without a certain degree of condescending compassion, but her gestures and feelings are not conferred with the heroic, tragic dimension that her sons` are. For whom, of course, the challenge is even greater now that she is married to the representative of a very phallic institution, the police, that requires Mehrollah to bring out the big guns of his alpha male kit. In the end, it seems to me that this is movie is a game of whose dick is bigger, an obsession that is apparently not restricted to Western patriarchy.

Who is The Rapeman?

Elena pointed me this short notice on feministing.com so I've done a little research.

So, who is actually The Rapeman? on imdb.com at the trivia section we find out that the cartoons are based on "humorous Japanese manga (comic book) series, written by Keiko Aisaki, a woman." Like that can justify its content or make the male viewers safer in their pleasure of watching some nice rape scenes. It appeared from 1985 to 1992 in 13 volumes. Exploring its good marketability, Pink Pineapple produced nine Rapeman live action feature films between 1993 and 1996 and it was rapidly transformed into a cult manga/film fetish in the US.

The Rapeman is a classic super hero with a twist: a shy high school teacher by day he does "great justice" by night and of course has a motto: "Righting wrongs through penetration". His cases are solved by one method in making justice - rape and the "villains" are, picking randomly, a gold digger girlfriend, a boyfriend stealer, a lesbian wife, etc. Even more outrageous, if in the middle of a rape scene, the woman becomes unresponsive or expresses enjoyment, he uses special techniques such as "M69 Screwdriver" or "Infinite Loop" to apply more pain to the villain.

I was surprised to see after a quick search that all information that I could find is presenting the character in a positive light (except the feminist page from where I've started which doesn't say much after all). What for me is ultimately wrong, not having any doubt about it, it is read in a most sincere misogynistic way possible as fun and even ethical. As one guy says "once you get past that whole raping women thing he’s actually a really good guy." That is exactly the issue, how can you pass the "raping women thing"? Considered by its fans more like an intelligent twist on the classic superhero boring narration: " Only in Japan would this type of production be made - and thank God for it. RAPEMAN is a strangely fun and "charming" super-hero" mentioning again that the rape is always done for a good cause. One negative point noted by another reviewer: "Hard-core sleaze fans will probably be disappointed as RAPEMAN isn't nearly as "rough" as some of the older pinku material, but there is some nudity - and there's something that's hard to nail-down that makes this one a big winner in my book. I think the combination of light comedy and strange concept works..." or can it be that straight forward misogyny is simply entertaining? Another guy: "The plot of "Rapeman" may sound offensive for some viewers...In fact it's surprisingly funny and humorous. A perfect flick to cheer somebody up!" Somebody, anybody? If you are a rapist, i guess this is some really good fun.
Rapeman has the effect of even changing the whole concept of rape, you might become rape friendly after watching it: "Most people find the subject of rape a very strong, criminal and evil part of life. And they have every right to believe that way. Then there are other people who think rape can be used as a means of justice, a way to avenge rights and honor. Well, before this movie I always thought Rape was a weird touchy subject. Obviously there's some whacked out nut cases out there, hurting people and families for their own sick pleasures and some of these sickos will actually commit murder. But I also believed that the act of rape can be a desirous outcome for certain people. Well, the latter is tackled somewhat in a movie I'll most likely never forget."
By reinforcing some good/evil dichotomies and the cliche of punishing the evil ones, rape becomes a just method for bringing peace and order. Here is another fan: "People are getting hurt, and that is not right. Rapeman stands for justice, honor and peace. He will not stop until the bad guys get what's coming to them! The movie is believe it or not, warmhearted. It's full of humor, and has some nice sex scenes...they are actually rape scenes but they don't play out like rape. Which for me makes the movie that much better. I wouldn't be down with this if the rape scenes were reminiscent of Irreversible. It take an incredibly serious subject and makes it seem OK....for 75 minutes anyways. It's definitely one of the most enjoyable movies I've seen in a while. And I'm definitely looking forward to the sequels. Yup, that's right! 9 outta 10 for the amazing Rapeman." When rape is done for a good cause, hurray! Well, I don't really think so.

About rape jokes on facebook

I was reading today this article on Une Femme Plus Courageuse's blog and my curiousity made me check my facebook pieces of flair application for rape content. I was using pieces of flair for a while and it had some pretty smart jokes. totally funny. but what about this rape issue that is so big today? it looks like all those chuck norris jokes that were everywhere dissapeared and now there is something funny about rape. where am i standing towards all this? i try to reveal the mechanism of my critique: i often hear that feminists have no sense of humour, they don't get a joke and anyway feminist political corectness is so uncool that you can't even mention something related to it in non-academic circles if you don't want to get a mocking attitude from the joker and an embaressment comment from your good friend host-of-the-party. and why is that? well, first of all jokes are anyway innocent, somehow universal and there can be only good and bad jokes, never offensive ones. the offended is probably a square head that doesn't get it anyway, so don't bother about this type of characters. I have to say that i do not go with this essentialist explination for a number of reasons: rape jokes come with a bigger ironic discourse on protecting patriarchal practices, jokes construct social hierarchies and let's face it, inocent jokes coming from nowhere are not so innocent after all. The ideological game of relating to any form of reality is highly connected to the imaginary present in jokes: the consensus of what is reality is not much of a matter of rational agreement but more of an imaginary affirmation, a form of misrecognition. This type of misrecognition is exemplified by the rape joke: the ideological-distorted reality of the rape is epitomized by the usage of a mysoginistic dominant fiction. and the fictionalized content that makes reality is thrown straight into the popular culture and on facebook. The misrecognition of the rape is ideologically constructed to deny its existance and make it a joke, ie illusory, a made-up story and not a possible bearer of reality. And that's not funny at all.

some random examples of rape-friendly pieces of flair, there are plenty more:

hats

from Married to the Sea, the Champagne of comics

The white priestess of black magic

i found this amazing story here. An Austrian woman becomes the spiritual leader in Nigeria and she claims a return to a pre-Christian pre-Muslim faith. An example of hysterical creativity that brings empowerment.

Jehanne Complex

Exquisite

Research & Performing Group

Presents

Jehanne Complex

Jeanne Hamilton-Bick (US) will perform.

Deniz Gőzler (TUR), Trever Hagen (US) and Serhan Kazaz (TUR) will play live music.

Arany Gitta (HU), Lányi Katalin (HU), Rencsisovszki Beatrix (HU) and Seregély Beáta (HU) will dance.

A performance by Mihai Lucaciu (RO).

Tuesday, 20th of May, 8.00 PM – open rehearsal

Wednesday, 21st of May, 8.00 PM - premiere

In front of CEU Auditorium

Nador utca 9, Budapest

Everyone is welcomed but seating is limited

Boys and their plastic toys

Say no to GUNS! the whole imaginary argument is such a hoax. give them a pink truck or a barbie doll and their imagination will trully explode :)

an article from BBC News, Toy weapons 'help boys to learn'