What’s the actual joke here? It sounds like it’s almost mocking trans literature by how complex it is to understand for the average american. Is that it?
It’s unrealistic to expect people to judge your message on the merits of your argument if you’re not taking the time to translate it into a language they speak.
Not really interested in making an argument to whether it’s fair to apply this caricature here, but that’s definitely the message here.
I think that mainly mocks the idea that if only people talked to each other more, communicated with each other more, tried to see things from the others’ perspective, then everything would be great and everyone would arrive at a common conclusion.
The Onion does something really clever: they simply show what the world would be like if feminists actually succeeded in convincing people with their arguments. The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.
I’ve had this beef for a long time with feminists: they lack empathy and insight into the actual lived experience of the people they want to convince. They’re caught up in an authoritarian, entitled worldview where they imagine they can just coerce others into becoming better through force and shaming, using language that is so far above most people’s heads that it all just seems imaginary. Whenever I try to raise these concerns I am met with hate and am called a misogynist even though my intentions are to help. They have virtually no ability to listen. There are exceptions, but they are drowned out among all the (in my opinion) misguided people.
“Punching down” is in the eye of the beholder, and kind of supports my point about having empathy in the way you speak. I guarantee that steel workers feel like they got the short end of the stick in life, and that feminist academia is the elite.
The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.
The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.
Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.
I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ―Upton Sinclair
That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.
What’s the actual joke here? It sounds like it’s almost mocking trans literature by how complex it is to understand for the average american. Is that it?
It’s unrealistic to expect people to judge your message on the merits of your argument if you’re not taking the time to translate it into a language they speak.
Not really interested in making an argument to whether it’s fair to apply this caricature here, but that’s definitely the message here.
Thank you, it just clicked for me now
I think that mainly mocks the idea that if only people talked to each other more, communicated with each other more, tried to see things from the others’ perspective, then everything would be great and everyone would arrive at a common conclusion.
The Onion does something really clever: they simply show what the world would be like if feminists actually succeeded in convincing people with their arguments. The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.
I’ve had this beef for a long time with feminists: they lack empathy and insight into the actual lived experience of the people they want to convince. They’re caught up in an authoritarian, entitled worldview where they imagine they can just coerce others into becoming better through force and shaming, using language that is so far above most people’s heads that it all just seems imaginary. Whenever I try to raise these concerns I am met with hate and am called a misogynist even though my intentions are to help. They have virtually no ability to listen. There are exceptions, but they are drowned out among all the (in my opinion) misguided people.
Thanks for clarifying. It does feel like they’re punching down a little, but its a good commentary nonetheless.
“Punching down” is in the eye of the beholder, and kind of supports my point about having empathy in the way you speak. I guarantee that steel workers feel like they got the short end of the stick in life, and that feminist academia is the elite.
I wouldn’t generalise it so black and white, but I do hear what you are saying.
The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.
Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.
I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:
That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.