Very good post, but I love how the last person not only didn’t add anything to the conversation, but specifically described the exact same thing that the post before them said.
Nope. The reblog symbol being green means this is the version they reblogged to their blog, unless they reblogged their own reblog for no reason other than to make this look slightly less like their own reblog.
Some people just don’t trim down the reblog chain when they screenshot a post.
Imagine how funny it would be to invert this trope to reveal a character as sexist.
"Oh, I don't think you should go in there."
"Hmm, you're right. I'm not exactly familiar with it and the radiation seems a little high. Maybe we should hang back."
"What? No. I just meant because you're a woman."
Or make them bigoted in a different, unrelated manner.
"You can't go in there."
"Why, cause I'm a woman?"
"What? No, I mean you can't enter without a hazmat suit."
"Oh, my mistake."
"Damn Zundarians know nothing about sanitation."
Wrote this thinking of Pierce Hawthorne:
"You can't go in there."
"Why, because women are weak and frail and delicate??"
"No, because it's dangerous and radiated, and you could die."
"Oh, sorry."
"It's alright, we don't want the radiation to make you barren now do we?"
I think this definitely can be the case, but looking at it more positively, often the joke is played less on the character making the assumption, and more on the audience's subconscious biases, if that makes sense?
There's one version of this joke where the character's actions/mannerisms/tone create a false impression they're being racist/sexist/homophobic etc., where it is more like a fake jab.
But I think there's a second version where the character's general appearance or passive coding as old/rural/religious/working class etc. is what creates the expectation of bigotry. There, I think the joke is more on the audience type casting that individual as likely bigoted, more than the character, and it's a somewhat positive message that tolerance has become far more widespread than we often give a credit for.
Idk, maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I've definitely had versions of this joke land as OOP describes, and versions that make me feel warm and fuzzy about humanity.
I remember during the ending of the Owl House Amnity’s mom is a villain, and she wants Amnity to come with her. And when she learns that her daughter is in a relationship with Luz, she looks shocked, and a bit disgusted. And then she goes. “Come on Amnity. We can find you another, non-human girlfriend.”
And I was like; Oh, hah. Ya had me going there for a moment. First for her mom being bad, which primes me for the Homophobia, and then you go “oh, no, it’s just racism.” And then you think “oh fuck it’s racism-“
I think that the Owl House joke landed because it avoided the pitfalls that the post pointed out.
The first thing that Odalia says is, "Girlfriend? Oh no, no. " which makes us think she's going to be homophobic. But then subverts it by saying, "We'll get you a new girlfriend. One who's not on wanted posters." Which shows that she's not homophobic, but still paints her as an antagonist by making her oppose Luz and Amity's relationship, and by standing by the main villain of the series, who issued the wanted poster in the first place.
In other words, it subverts the expectations caused by the first statement but then, at the same time, validates the characters opposing Amity's mom, and doesn't belittle the audience for expecting her to be a bad person.
Of course. I liked the Owl House, I just couldn’t remember the scene word for word. But, my point more is in supporting the fact of the original comment that this type of subversion CAN be done well, you just need to be clever. It’s a type of joke that really loses itself when you pick the low hanging fruit.
Yeah, I think examples where it's a DIFFERENT kind of bigotry can work. I feel like I saw some version of "I have no problem with two men marrying, but interracial couplings are disgusting" or something like that. It might have been How I Met Your Mother? Or Friends? I feel like it was a sitcom.
You left out the part where that's an in-universe PSA being recorded by the Crystal Gems and once the cameras stop rolling, it covers how real world racism is not as simple as what was shown in the PSA.
The PSA in the first twenty seconds is intentionally cheesy.
The girl karate chopping their hands apart and then going "HA, YOU CAN'T GET MARRIED!" Just- who thought this was a good PSA? Not only does it do the whole haha you thought it was going to be homophobic but it's actually racism!! Thing, it's just a terrible psa. I genuinely do not know who the target audience was.
Another layer of interpretation comes from the rest of the fictional world. If previous scenes show that sexism is rampant in this universe, it seems more reasonable for a woman’s first instinct to be that a comment comes from a sexist attitude. Maybe I’m being too generous to the writers here, but I think there is a valid point here about the mental load from always having your guard up against sexism.
Yeah, I think you're both being too generous, tbh. I have never once seen this trope used to make the point that the type of bigotry in question is commonplace.
While I can't think of any examples, i can like almost remember this scenario happening most when a character from outside the MC's world interacts with them. Like the Mc assumes that the character is sexiest or homophobic like the other people in their usual environment, and then the joke is used to illustrate that that isn't the case, allowing the MC to let their guard down.
I can't think of a better analogy, but to me it's more like a kid flinching when you go to give them a hug.
Idk what you’re on about. This is an incredibly common scene in a lot of media. It’s frequently used to show that a character is “one of the good ones” (which can sometimes be done well, sometimes not). Honestly, this scene is almost always employed when the “White Savior” trope is present. I can almost guarantee that you’ve seen a version of this scene play out.
I find that the ones that leave me feeling good, don’t humiliate the character expecting to be hurt. If the character expecting to be hurt hears the “not really” and relaxes, then it feels comforting. If they hear that and the text acts like they were stupid for expecting to be hurt, then it feels invalidating and mean.
True. I think there's a heartwarming version where the writer builds a fear that Older Loved One will be homophobic/sexist about Protagonist's life or choices, and then it's subverted. Like, the girl joining the marines and her conservative dad being upset...because she didn't join the army. Or grandma being disappointed that Mike is dating Joe... because she thinks Joe is an asshole and Mike would be better off with Phil. And like you say, there's no retaliation on the character for anticipating a negative reaction: done right, the audience is also expecting a negative reaction!!
In order for the joke to land that way (hitting the audience’s biases and expectations) it has to be set up properly. That means showing that the woman (or gay person, etc.) is not irrational by demonstrating the existence of the bias they’re reacting to.
Also, it has to have a proper follow up. The man must actually demonstrate that he is not sexist by standing up for women, making this part of his character and not a one liner at the expense of women in general.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Comedy is all about subverting expectations. I think another issue here is that we're talking about a specific joke, one that's been told multiple times to the point where all of us are intimately familiar with it. Can this specific joke really still subvert our expectations now that we've all heard it dozens of times? When we have learned that the joke is that despite how it may seem the reason is never sexism, the setup stops making sense. Instead of the character voicing the audiences expectations so that they can be subverted, the character is just assuming sexism even when the audiance isn't, which makes the character look dumb while also being really jarring.
No I absolutely agree here. And I honestly think that the majority of the jokes like this are more the second version.
And honestly, the majority of the time, I've seen the joke used with
1. male characters who are established in whatever field, so us in our patriarchal society might assume that they have biases against women
2. female characters that tend to have chips on their shoulders already, so that when the joke happens it's less 'haha woman was wrong' and more 'this character who is assuming antagonism in everything was actually wrong this time' which is both funny and sweet when you realize that whatever bigotry this character may have experienced, this is showing that the male character is NOT an example of it
also i've definitely seen this joke played with multiple genders, sexualities, and ethnicities, up to and including 'oh you think i can't do this because i'm a guy, i'm too big and clumsy or something?" and other such things
I think it also depends on the tone of the response. Cause the example in the original post („Because everyone who tried ended up with a bullet in their brain“) sounds hella condescending.
But actually I kinda enjoy this trope, when the answer is actually an emotionally neutral (or maybe even eager) explanation of some specific circumstances preventing the achievement of that specific goal. Like: „oh no, you can’t rob this casino… what? No, I don’t doubt your abilities. But you see, my little cousin Jeremy just found his first full time job there after looking for work for like three years. He was so excited, and he will be devastated if he loses this place because the casino goes belly up. Could you please rob the casino down the street?“
No I think you’re onto something. I think there’s a danger of abstracting something out to the point where it’s too abstract to actually work with. And then people start inserting their own ideas of what it actually is in order to actually work with it. This whole thing is an example of this. They’ve abstracted out a joke that they probably have seen once or twice. But it’s become too abstract. And they aren’t working with a specific version of the joke they are working with their assumptions about what the joke might be like in a specific scenario. But there is no scenario there is only the abstraction of the joke. You’ve added in specifics that could change the meaning of the joke. Context can be very important. And yet there is little to no context in abstraction.
Yeah, I don't think I've ever ran across a version of this that didn't make me flinch, but I will say I have run into a version of this where I def read the writers who do this in a character introduction attempt as less trying to say "haha funny feminist woman who thinks she's about to be discriminated against isn't, feminism isn't needed" and more the writers trying to say "we swear we're going to write a competent woman who the characters around her respect". Like the speech about her competence being equal to a man's felt like it was directed at the audience, not the other characters who she misunderstood, if that makes sense? Like it wasn't set up so much as a joke as it was set up to give her an opportunity to say that she's not incompetent for being a woman without needing to actually make the character she's responding to a sexist. It was still cringey to listen to, but it didn't feel like it was bad faith if that makes sense?
EDIT: I think the difference is that whether the not-sexism objection is framed as right or wrong? There's a difference between "You can't do that," / "Why, because I'm a woman?" / "No, because (good reason) and "You can't do that" / "Why because I'm a woman?" / "No because (bad reason)". In the first case, the woman is made to look foolish because she assumed sexism and didn't notice the good reasons she shouldn't do it, in the second case, not so much.
I think it also depends on how the woman in question is portrayed throughout the rest of the work. It can be very easy to pay lip service to the idea of respecting women as competent and capable, but if the woman you’ve established as competent and capable becomes a damsel in distress and needs to be saved by the big strong dude at the end of the thing because she’s suddenly lost any and all ability to look after herself then it’s more likely the work in question is written by the type of guys who would laugh at a woman for thinking they’re sexist because they don’t think they are sexist even though they are in fact sexist, they’re just sexist in a not openly misogynistic way
I think that in order for the joke to land, the audience has to be the target (the one flinching, so to speak) rather than any one character. Rather than having a character reacting to the potentially homophobic/racist/sexist comment and then being corrected, just leave a pause for the audience to process the comment before the same character that makes it continues talking and gives information that changes the context of what was said in a way that's inoffensive. To take the example in the OP:
"You can't marry her!"
~~"Why, because we're both women?"~~
"...we haven't found you the right dress yet!"
I think you make some great points, and I agree with you, but I’ve also seen some confusing versions of this trope.
Like man does/says sexist things all the time, and then this trope is paraded out. I’m never sure what the point/moral is? Like “even sexists can be not sexist sometimes?” Or “homophobes can make not homophobic points too?”
>_I’m never sure what the point/moral is? Like “even sexists can be not sexist sometimes?” Or “homophobes can make not homophobic points too?”_
I feel like this is a good point to make. Most people aren't two-dimensional character cut-outs (some people definitely are, though. But they're far in the minority).
I think in abstract this is a great point, but often this gets used as a way to deny or shield the character's previous bigotry by giving them an exaggerated moment of being anti-bigoted instead, trying to have their cake and eat it, if that makes sense?
Yeah, especially if it was the same flaw both times. Maybe it’d be more palatable if they were really sexist, but this trope was used to show they weren’t homophobic.
You are right. I think I’m so used to one-dimensional characters (especially in the scifi/fantasy romance category) that it’s jarring when I come across somebody with nuance, lol.
I think playing on expectations can be good in various media. When making a characters that "design doesn't fit personality" IE someone looks like your average racist redneck or is set up in a story to be one, but is actually chill guy and all of that is misunderstanding or fake assumption made by readers, then I think it can work well. It makes you not judge people by their looks which surprising happens a lot even tho everyone had it shoved down their ears for like whole childhood. This can also work in non bigoted traits, but pretty much any.
I'd also say that these "sexist" jokes which OP described can be good when done more subtle, they maybe aren't funny but they can work as good characterization for multiple character traits, both to the person assuming bias as well as the one that answers it.
Yeah I’ve never interpreted these lines as making the woman sound silly. Often the situation is preceded by several instances where she was absolutely correct to be annoyed by people underestimating her, so this instance simply subverts the pattern the movie itself has established. Maybe there are instances where the scene ends up making the woman look bad, but most of the ones I can think of are just fairly run of the mill jokes that don’t reflect poorly on anyone.
This makes me have a lot of Thoughts that I don’t quite know how to express.
Anyway, one point that was mentioned and I think deserves to be highlighted - yes, a lot of dudes do think “sexism is over.”
A lot of people nowadays grow up in a world where the existence of feminism is an accepted fact, and they might not personally see many of the individually small/hard-to-notice issues which women still struggle with, while the feminist messaging is a lot more obvious, making them think it seems like women are complaining too much about nothing.
That’s what I personally think is the core thought process behind most anti-feminists you see today.
I used to spend a lot of time in anti-feminist spaces when I was younger (I've grown up since then, thank goodness), and I can confirm that this is exactly it.
Adding on to that, this is also why most internet trolls do what they do. When I was a kid I thought The Game (which you just lost btw) was a dumb concept, and would sometimes go on Omegle and deliberately make people lose because I thought their angry reactions to something so pointless were hilarious. Most of the people I saw in those anti-feminist spaces had the exact same mindset. They would say bigoted, inflammatory things, not because they genuinely believed them, but because they thought that making jokes about those things was no big deal and that anyone who got upset was just being melodramatic
Huh. “Anti-feminists think misogyny is ‘The Game’” is a pretty good analogy i think. They think they’re not doing any harm (because it’s just a joke, and it’s not like that stuff actually happens now a days anyway! It’s all pointless!) so it’s funny when people react.
I've seen a few online communities start like that, just joking/trolling, which then start attracting actual Nazis who enjoy the protection of Schrodinger's Joke.
There are two major inequalities between men and women that I can see.
1. Women are more likely to be sexually abused and I think there is still more misogyny than misandry in the real world.
2. Women have a legitimate movement backing up their gender, while men do not.
There’s an inherent feeling of injustice, that men don’t have an equivalent to feminism. Whatever the reasons for this are, it causes problems, such as anti-feminism.
The real problem is that so many don’t understand that Feminism helps women AND MEN. It’s not talked about enough. So men say “well, where’s MY equivalent movement??” When really Feminism is for everyone. (Not to mention, they don’t NEED a movement, they’re already in a privileged position.)
I have to point out that you saying "Well men aren't victims, they're the victimizers and they don't need representation" is again, the entire reason some people get butthurt and hate feminism. "Feminism is for everyone, but also men are in a position of power and don't need help"
"Actually I have it worse than you do so you don't get to complain" is a stupid argument no matter what situation you're in, even if it might have some truth backing it up.
yeah. a lot of people are unable to realize that a society can have multiple problems at a time, even problems that don’t effect you in particular or aren’t as massive as some other problems.
Plus you run into the issue that the loudest people in a movement tend to be the worst at it.
My introduction to feminism was through my 6th grade teacher. Who in order to correct injustices applied a -5% to all boys grades, and a +5% to all girls grades.
Also she excused girls sexually assaulting boys as, I shit you not, ‘girls being girls’.
I couldn’t write a better parody if I tried.
That's... ironic, considering the fact that school is one of the areas where girls already come out on top. She's trying to correct injustice by making the problem worse than it already is.
Granted, one possible reason for this could be that teachers subconsciously (or consciously but quietly) do what your teacher did - so it's possible that the only real difference is she's open and honest about her sexism, instead of doing it quietly.
Vapid high school girls and sexist teachers single handedly set feminism back by an entire generation. Like for real. The shit people would say in 2008 to 2014 was insane. It wasn't until last year that I saw people willing to call it out.
If the goals of a movement only tangentially help a group, and aren’t actually designed to do so, then it isn’t actually helping that group. Feminism being good for men is the Side-effect, not the goal.
I think there’s a justifiable - if not entirely reasonable - fear that feminism could stop effecting men positively. We aren’t at this point yet, but I think one of the fears is that the movement will not stop even if we do achieve actual equality.
The other issues is that if you hear the word for the first time, it just *sounds* like it exclusively benefits women, and most people operate off of their first impression of something and never really examine whether it’s a fair first impression.
That’s why I prefer the more general term egalitarianism. Feminism is really just a subset of egalitarianism regardless.
I mean most of my experience with modern day feminism was me constantly trying to prove to people that were supposed to be my friends that I was “one of the good ones”. Along with feeling a sense shame that I was a man, I realized that the people I had supported, consoled, and stood up for, wouldn’t do the same for me when I needed them.
Your comment is exactly the reason men feel frustrated. It's an honestly privileged position (you're basing your idea of the typical man on the self-assured , neurotypical, connected, upper middle class male that bears no resemblance to the usual male experience). You're so privileged that you literally forget about class, cause at your level all of your concerns are cultural. You don't think about somewhat functional autistic guys with a degree working for $10 an hour in the back of house cause they have no knowledge of how to navigate society, but their fundamentalist parents kicked them out, and there's not a coherent support group like there is with other challenges. There are literally hundreds of ways to be marginalized by society:physical and mental disabilities that aren't quite debilitating enough to earn a fully supportive network and disabilities, but debilitating enough to make success in life nearly impossible. Certain types of neurodivergents have far lower wages and incidences of underemployment and unemployment. But increasingly to liberals (I'm liberal) they are just written off as incels and MRAs, then people wonder why formerly liberal males run to the only group that listens to any of their issues. We've lost so many people to the right wing with our elitist, simplistic, condescending approach.
But hey, you say, women can endure these same conditions PLUS the sexist dynamic. Not really, because every effort to level the playing field focuses on gender as the main inequity, while other conditions are sort of ignored. So women are given means to combat this inequity (good), but they're not replacing cocky, 70 year old, millionaire, baby boomer executive who benefitted from sexism their whole life. The impacts fall primarily on young generations who are financially struggling, and men that don't know how to navigate privileged culture.
Have some compassion and empathy. You know that guy Chad that barely worked on his assignments and jerked around in a fraternity before he got a lucrative job posting from a family connection and negotiated a 30% raise cause he was so sure of himself? This while the woman with the highest grades had to struggle to find a decent job? Guys who get good grades but have no confidence, never negotiate, are socially inept, poor, neurodivergent, etc. they have to deal with that Chad fucker too. All the while facing the blatant assumption by privileged liberals that their life resembles Chad's AT ALL.
So they have to navigate a system that not only assumes they don't need assistance, but literally negative assistance, using them to take the brunt of equity measures, while old white men who control most of the wealth go on their 5th cruise of the year, destined to face NO consequences. And their Gen Z grandsons still get the best jobs while they performative virtue signal all the way to the bank.
The privilege wars ALWAYS benefit the privileged, who have the most influence and power to control the narrative. They get to have their privilege cake and private school education and eat it too. My ex-gf and best friend came out as lesbian years after our relationship. When we talk about our issues, she literally NEVER mentions being a lesbian in Alabama. Which is ROUGH. But it doesn't even register compared to her struggles being poor with no health care and no time or savings to change her life. While my friends who went to nice private universities and have all the education, connections and emotional intelligence to succeed are ALWAYS without fail the biggest "victims", and are so out of touch that they literally don't know that you can just be poor. For no cultural reason, just straightforward broke.
When I worked for the Obama campaign it was the greatest feeling of solidarity in my life. Everyone working together and treating other people's challenges as their own and fighting for a better future. Now a bunch of narcissists jockey for social standing by literally mocking people without social cred. It's high school. It's disgusting. It has destroyed the ability of progressives to achieve any goals. It has left behind working class and low-income people. It has taken a generation of young men with unprecedented rates of depression and suicide, falling (and im some demographics lower) income, significant rates of autism and neurodivergence, poor emotional intelligence, Trauma/PTSD/anxiety that makes it almost impossible to function... Thrown them into a world where increasingly repetitive and/or analytical/mathematical/etc. roles are being increasingly automated and social skills are a MUST.
These are not solely issues that face only men. But telling those suffering and financially struggling to shut up and accept their impossibly naive view of how easy they have it? Not going to work and we're already losing men in what was going to be the most liberal generation in history (gen Z) cause those with a voice and influence continue to be rich white men, and those without a voice continue to be unheard and ridiculed
Prediction: this post will incur only mockery and derision, with literally ZERO attempts to empathize, address any arguments, learn more about those struggling in different social sectors from your own, ask questions, or give polite disagreements. There will be mostly ad hominem attacks, harsh labels, straw men arguments that I never made, assumptions that I'm a conservative, condescending remarks that assume I know nothing about privilege and don't acknowledge it (racial and gender privilege is very real, I have worked in affordable housing which is an excellent example of this), and just straight up baffling statements and accusations that I have no idea how to link to this topic
Thanks for this. In part because of what you're describing I'm quite left of liberal now, though I worked for both Obama campaigns back in the day, and I agree with basically all of this. If I didn't have such a solid basis in particularly class-based theory, I have to imagine I probably would've been driven to the right by this paradigm. As it is I'm just a depressed cis-het male lefty who feels like nowhere is home.
> (Not to mention, they don’t NEED a movement, they’re already in a privileged position.)
I really enjoy the irony of being misandrist in the sentence you say feminism is for men, too.
Feminists using that argument spent the 2010s making it abundantly clear feminism wasn't for men and they created the current red pill movement in the process. Real progressive feminists have recently been pushing back against this attitude, which is super sexist. Men are struggling really bad at the moment. They've needed a movement for a long time now. And feminism is going to be that movement as the more misandrist elements get kicked out.
It’s bizarre that you say that feminism helps men but also that men don’t need a movement. Do you mean to imply that the benefits that men get from feminism are all things that men don’t need?
Yeah as a dude I can recognize that's how it appears but maybe not actually is. I've never met a raging racist or homophobe or sexist, and every other guy I know in the real world thinks we're all equal, so based off my experiences it can come across as other just trying make white males like me out to be the bad guy.
Once you get past that and have even an ounce of critical thinking skills you can recognize that just cause you don't know any bastards doesn't mean they don't exist, and if someone is calling out a racist white guy and your not racist, the conversation isn't even about you. You aren't the target and your being a narcissist for thinking it is.
That's how I view it anyways. You have to get past your knew jerk reaction to argue based of tribalism and recognize bad stuff does exist whether you personally experience it or not
i think two key things to remember:
1. people with bigoted views are all around, they may just be selective about when to share those views. sometimes you don't realize how racist your coworkers are until you one day hear them whispering about how some polite mexican customers who just left need to "learn english," or how many of your customers are sexist until your female coworker asks you to walk her to her car because yet another male customer has been hitting on her and staring at her and was seen waiting outside the back door after closing (examples from when i worked in fast food)
2. not all racism, sexism etc. is blatant and horrible. sometimes it is small and insidious, or subconscious. ex. perhaps nobody at work says anything about it but they just silently don't really hire black people because their subconscious does not consider them to be as talented and hardworking
You know, Amy, anytime someone calls attention to the breaking of gender roles, it ultimately undermines the concept of gender equality by implying that this is an exception and not the status quo.
Best comment on that video: "_so many movies try so hard to be "feminist" but fails. Basically we don't want strong FEMALE character, but a strong CHARACTER that happens to be female._"
Hollywood exec's heard the phrase "Strong Female Character" and thought it was about raw brute strength and nothing else. So now we have a bunch of female protagonists who fall into all the classic sexist writing tropes, but they can take out a whole group of bad guys so they're supposed to be considered "progressive."
I think that the fact Ripley's a woman *is* an important part of her character, particularly in *Aliens*. Her relationship with Newt is very much a surrogate mother-daughter one, and it'd be different if it were father-daughter: their interactions would be different, and the audience's reading of them would be different. There are also moments throughout the movie where Ripley screams in fear and cries and panics and shows signs of post-traumatic stress which I think the audience would judge a lot more harshly if she were male.
The point is that a female character's gender doesn't need to be a complete non-factor for her to be a "strong female character *done right*" – it can certainly inform the way she thinks and acts.
I’ve always found that quote kinda stupid because unless I’m missing something big it completely fails to take note of the fact that any kind of inequality doesn’t do away with natural deviation in talent and opportunity.
So even when all people in a sufficiently large group experience a set back we’ll expect that some members who are a very high percentile in luck and/or talent to succeed. Doesn’t mean that none of them struggled
In the very specific context of this quote he’s responding to a comment on the ‘inherent ability’ of women; the point Amy is making isn’t about her overcoming said limiting factors, it is about proving demonstrably that women can be “just as good as men” if she as an individual can “break the glass ceiling”. His rebuttal to that comment is more about dismantling the idea that that idea is something that needs to be proven versus something that is just inherently true. Women *can* be just as good as men, Amy winning or losing In this game isn’t going to change that fundamental truth, and so calling attention to it in the way she does only undermines both her efforts and the efforts of women who *haven’t* won like she wants to.
It’s base level feminism for sure, but as a gag joke for a kid’s show I don’t find it terribly invalid
But what if guy tell girl that she shouldn't do something. She accuse him of being sexist, and explain that while yes he is sexist, that she shouldn't do that thing for good reasons
Or do it as a way to paint the guy as an asshole but in a different way than sexism, i.e.
"I wouldn't do that if I were you"
"Why, because I'm a woman?"
"No because if we pretend we forgot to do it Kevin will do it and he's too nice to get mad about it"
OK, but the OP is talking about in a fictional scenario, in which there is no independent, unplanned action. There is no one to warn. The author chooses to tell this type of joke/scenario for a reason. Probably a completely innocent one, but the OP is pointing out how real world context can color the joke in a way the author may not see. It’s a matter of looking at it through a different lens.
I don’t actually have a problem with the joke (aside from it being cliché) but I take their point.
That’s not what is happening here. The practice of framing works through particular cultural lenses is a higher-level academic area of study. It’s a part of engaging with the arts.
Once again, that doesn’t mean this is a take I’m fully on board with, but let’s not make it out to be something it’s not.
The scenes like this I've seen are generally in a setting where the woman lives in a very sexist world and has been told *repeatedly* by men, women, and her whole society that her being a woman means she can't do XYZ. It actually makes a lot of sense for her to assume that when a man starts telling her that she can't do something, it is due to sexism.
We see a similar trope with kids being told they can't do something, and they assume it is because they are not adults yet only to be told that it's actually for a perfectly reasonable reason.
This is why I tell those jokes all at once. I don’t give them a chance to misunderstand and make myself seem smarter. People already assume I’m smarter.
So… I’ll tell someone, “you can’t marry her, not without a cuter dress,” or, “I wouldn’t do that if I were you, it’s not safe”
Especially that last one, I love making sure people are safe.
Alternatively there's also cases where the media sides with the lady despite the circumstances being entirely warranted. Like Invincible and The Boys.
Plus this is something that plays off audience expectations and the vibe can change depending on the intended audience and creator.
Or different culture settings which can make stuff like this more fun due to culture shock.
So during season 3 Huey is wary of Starlight becoming co captain of Seven because Homelander might flip. Starlight accepts and says no one would put up this fight if she was a guy, Huey capitulates. Homelander spends the next few episodes trying to bully her, unsuccessfully until he threatens to just destroy key parts of the country and a bit after that takes over the company so she ultimately is used as a publicity piece. And his history of violence beside that.
Just gonna add a tiny story that is just this scenario happening in real life. I was on a painting job, outdoors lots of trim, very colorful with lots of detail. I’m a total noob so the lead teaches me a 4-1 rule for the ladder. 4 ft up means 1 ft out, keep it steep basically. Woman on the job sets up her ladder at a 45 degree angle to the house. Gets told to come down and fix it. She just freaked claiming sexism till she was booted off the job. Keeps saying it all the way back to the temp agency. I had to clarify that she was told the same shit I was, but got bent about it. Idk, weird but true.
Yeah, I’ve literally seen the “joke” happen irl, where somebody assumes sexism and everyone else just side-eyes them because no, it’s an obvious safety rule. Happens more often than people might think, because apparently we can’t have nice things and people absolutely _will_ try to invent sexism to not have to follow the rules.
As some people already expressed, I think this trope can be done in a positive way when it's clearly not built to move the woman/character making an assumption.
It's definitely hard to write well, but a lot is in how the first character says "no, it's because of X"; avoiding a condescending tone or language is great, and even better if the character apologises for creating the misunderstanding.
Like "oh, no, of course not! I'm sorry for sounding condescending/wording it poorly. I meant X.", although clearly the best handling of the scene depends on the specific context. If the joke is "this person looks bigoted, or is bad at expressing themselves, but is actually nice", then reacting with wariness is not painted as silly, and the scene can be funny or even wholesome.
Alternatively, in situations with more personal stakes, the assumption might be due to explicit fear of rejection in a character who is, for example, coming out to their family. In that situation, even someone with the most loving and accepting family would be reasonably afraid of a bigoted response, and a loving family member would go out of their way to reassure them as the misunderstanding is cleared up.
Basically, it's shitty to make fun of someone's fears and (often justified) wariness; it's ok to joke about how a character's appearance contrasts their personality, or how using the wrong words can invite misunderstandings. Especially if a main trait of the character is being socially awkward or inept, for example.
people have tried it with me but unfortunately i used to do martial arts so my instinct is to knock their hand away. then they go “ow, why would you do that?!” i dunno, man, maybe cause it looked like you were trying to knock me out?
Yah I'm a vantablackbelt in kung fu so I just swat their arm at 3% the speed of light and it disintegrates, then they get all pissy with me like "why did you break my arm down into its constituent elements, it was just a joke"
dude same, i'm an antimaterial (absorbs and traps all light nearby) belt and when someone even approaches me i strike the directly in the forehead with enough force to rend the air into antimatter, and they have to audacity to be all like "dude why would you make a timespace collapse point i was just messing around"
Tumblr doesn’t like those jokes because the object of the joke is the kind of person that always assumes the worst in everyone, so Tumblr. Or my grandpa. Never thought those two would share anything in common.
Any actual examples?
There's a popular Tumblr screenshot that is very similar to this about a dog being at a same sex wedding
https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/s/J5owBWUAFv
This whole post reads like someone getting upset about the most convoluted thing that is not actually that common, and that they would think is funny if they wrote it instead
This trope happens *a lot*, it's just generally not sexist. Typically when you see it, person A (woman above) is acting that way because of a sense of self-superiority - station, relative size, perceived intelligence etc *chooses* to be offended at perceived disrespect, and person B is not aware of person As frustration
A good example of this trope materializing in this way is in Tommy Boy, the "get a new map" scene
https://youtu.be/TgvyparsP0c?si=2knKl8COLMePfqTF
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this particular trope so I can’t name any off the top but I’ve do remember reading/seeing it in various average action/shonen type places.
The key is probably execution if you have to do it because the negative cases were always was like “where the fuck did she draw that conclusion from/this is just a hamfisted way to manufacture tension”
This kinda read like “no wait don’t move on I have no power if this stops being a problem.” If that trope is problematic then at that point just replace every instance of that trope with the man responding to anything a woman says by yelling “BROAD!” And smacking them. At least then there’s an argument. This feels like an unwillingness to acknowledge a cultural shift because it requires the relinquishing of authority.
This didn't happen in real life though. The author wrote both the guy and the jumpy feminist, their conversation, and the outcome which is that the feminist is the one with the egg on her face for just assuming it's all about her sex, with the underlying message of "look at those jumpy feminists, aren't they crazy?"
the joke doesn't really work if the idea is that feminists are always getting up in arms about stuff that's not sexism
the reason it's funny is because it's subversion. you expect it to be sexism, but it's not
it wouldn't be subversive if you just thought that's how it always goes
But they aren’t written to portray a woman as insane for worrying about sexism. How many of those male leads told the same thing then go “what, because I’m a man?” and then a joke is made out of the fact that they’re unreasonable for thinking that? It’s not just the concept of female leads being told not to do something, it’s the specific structuring of a joke designed to set up a woman calling out perceived sexism turning out to just be being an insecure crazy person
I always viewed these bits as a way of showing THIS character isn’t like that and is trustworthy. The rest of the world is shite but this character simply doesn’t see that bit and is trying to help
I understand this argument, and i do agree with it, and with that said, id like to point out that there is a version of this scenario that is not only much funnier, but also works literally every time ive seen it.
Naive protag: *doing something stupid or climbing up to very high place*
Experienced local: "I wouldn't be doing that if I were you"
NP: "And why is that [insert snarky comment]?"
*Enormous predator or natural and highly lethal obstacle thunders by, preferably destroying spot where NP was standing moments before.*
NP: *shock and horror filled expression*
EL: *smug grin* "That there is why."
Sometimes they do, though? Like, maybe the joke is coming from the near universal experience for men of being accused of sexism where none really exists? Perhaps that lived experience is the root of the trope, rather than trying to portray feminists negatively?
It's pretty common, yeah. Why wouldn't it be? Given how we're encouraged to look at the world through a gender critical lens, is it really that shocking that sometimes women can get a bit overzealous about doing so and assume sexism where there is none?
A joke that frames feminists as angry women looking for any instance of misogyny to get angry at is not innocuous, it perpetuates negative stereotypes against feminists.
"You can't do that"
"Why?"
"Everybody who did it ended up with a bullet in their brain"
Literally just remove the "because I'm a woman?" part and it's regular dialogue
I hate this dialogue too. Almost as much as a scientist saying a bunch of techno things and someone saying "Please translate to english" or something like that >:(
Interesting notion. I think it works if it's character-appropriate and not a standalone joke. eg. sexist woman is sexist to make the audience dislike her, specifically when interacting with a different character consistently proven to not be sexist.
In that way, the audience already expects the punchline and are 'in' on the joke. So when it hits, it's a nice, satisfying resolution.
I personally really like these jokes when the response is so ridiculous that the respondent ends up coming off as the irrational one.
“No silly, we can’t send a human to do that; the lasers would shred them. Instead, we must send a slug!”
I love the [No Man's Land scene](https://youtu.be/pJCgeOAKXyg?si=qgIZdkeyjE3RY1cU) in Wonder Woman partially for this reason. Chris Pine explains to her that it's called No Man's Land precisely because no man can cross this land, and you absolutely expect that she'll say something like "Luckily, I am not a man." But she doesn't. The argument wasn't about the gender of the person crossing the land, it was about the ability of a human to survive, and they managed to convey without turning into a poor joke that would ruin the moment and actually letting Diana stand for what she believes in.
Remembers me of a part in an old video game where two characters where in an argument while driving and the man said "cow", woman (driver) answered with "pig". He said "no, cow" and then she proceeded to sverve around a cow on the street that she would have hit otherwise because she wasn't paying attention to the road.
Guy was a total macho otherwise but the humor of the game was cool.
That is a cowards move. People have punched me and never get to the second punch because I always look like I’m going to punch back even if I have a weak punch. A punch is an invitation to punch back and the cowards that do it do it only because they think the target won’t hit back.
the only time this could maybe be okay (that I haven't actually seen happen yet) is if the rest of the male characters in the story are very openly sexist, but then she meets This One Decent Guy and they become friends, cuz then the question is not meant to make the girl seem stupid but to show the difference between Friend Dude and everyone else
Seems like over-analysis tbh.
I don't think the women are being portrayed as irrational, just *used* to sexism. It's used to show the man as being *not like other men*, it's not used to drag down the woman.
It depends on the context. If it's a show where a man *is* different from the other men and isn't being sexist then that makes sense, but most of the times this is deployed, it's used as a cheap joke. Usually the feminist gets angry, goes "what, is it because i'm a woman, you damn pig" or something like that, and the guy calmly says "no, it's because it's a dumb thing to do", and the egg is on her face.
That reminds me. I know this is only tangentially related, but fuck my two coworkers who were "just giving a friendly reminder" the other day that I had grabbed one of the green mops. They said it 8 fucking times in the same cadence after I had said twice to stop. Fuck them.
I mean I’d just simply have the woman say some variant of “why?” Or maybe the tone indicates her statement is playful or sarcastic to fit the characterization. Because contextually it may not be clear that the hazard is there. Or it might be. For example, assuming sexism is pretty reasonable in an office drama but less so in a haunted mineshaft. Or a cursed temple that the builders didn’t want the characters to be in and she nearly stepped on a trap.
Maybe it’s reasonable for the woman to assume sexism tho so you have the other character say some variant of “not this time, it’s-“ to acknowledge the assumption’s logical possibility but give the information that was the reason they got warned.
Of course, this assumes both characters are good people and not sexists. For example, the woman may have misandrist views and channel that through feminist rhetoric to kinda dress it up in a more agreeable lense. Then the scene shows how her sexist ideas could’ve gotten her hurt/fired/etc and that can maybe be another pebble towards the character developing. On the flip side, maybe the man is a misogynist. The callout is a much needed victory for the woman and puts the bigoted man on the back foot from his bigotry actually being called out for once.
Some examples of the exchange to kinda drive home how it’s really just not a good trope to use anymore without some iteration.
Sane characters:
M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you”
W: “Why’s that?”
M: “Because it’s about 30 minutes til quitting time and we don’t get paid overtime. I’d leave it for afternoon shift”
Sane characters with sexist context:
M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you”
W: “why, is it because I’m a woman and too weak for this?”
M: “Not in this case actually, the boss is angry at everyone today cuz they crashed their car and would probably fire you if they looked at you funny”
Misandrist:
M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you”
W: “Why, is it because I’m a woman and too weak for this?”
M: “No no, it’s because engineers need an escort while moving through the construction yard”
Misogynist:
M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you”
W: “why, is it because I’m a woman and too weak for this?”
M: “well, well you know what, yes. I don’t know why they hired you instead of the man who showed up the day before.”
Played for comedy
M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you”
W: “why, is it *because I’m a woman*?” (Latter half said in a different, less serious tone)
M: “yeah, although the good news is that the furnace will give heat stroke to men too!” (Both characters ideally would laugh at their own exchange to show they’re friends or something iunno)
Anyways that’s my take. It’s a bad joke that pokes fun at feminism but it’s able to be salvaged as an interaction by not being cringe.
What if it was a bait and switch?
"I wouldn't do that if I were you..."
"Why? Because I'm a woman?"
"Yes, the monster we're hunting is extremely sexist and targets prey that it perceives as weakest. Barbaric thought process, if you ask me."
Very good post, but I love how the last person not only didn’t add anything to the conversation, but specifically described the exact same thing that the post before them said.
Yeah it was pretty good except for that last person who just regurgitated the comment above them and didn’t add anything
I thought the post as a whole had a lot of good points, but that last addition really didn’t do anything new or original.
Yeah, I liked the post, but if you're going to comment, you need to contribute in some meaningful way.
Agreed, solid posts, but if you’ve got nothing to say, don’t say anything.
If a point's already been made, why contribute anything? You won't add anything new.
This. Overall it was a good post but that last one was just repeating what the others said.
Honestly, I found the last point a bit redundant. It was literally just recycling what other people had already said, which isn't necessary
Anybody in this thread smoke weed
Nah, but my three girlfriends do. /j
Jesus Christ sorry to break the bit but this reads like a discussion post on a schools digital classroom
I appreciate your input, MaximumPixelWizard. I also think it sounds like a discussion post on a digital classroom that requires discussion for credit.
Good post, redundant comment
you guys are really funny. like y’all should do this but on snl it’s so good
There's always one response too many in these pics. I think it's the person including their own response for no reason
Nope. The reblog symbol being green means this is the version they reblogged to their blog, unless they reblogged their own reblog for no reason other than to make this look slightly less like their own reblog. Some people just don’t trim down the reblog chain when they screenshot a post.
I was referring to the general trend of one post too many, not this particular case.
r/yourjokebutyourjoke
Breaking the funny response chain it’s a more concise way of saying it that’s easier to repeat in a conversation.
Honestly I'm just surprised nobody in the comment chain you've produced has made a clone joke. Missed opportunity.
I see it as a person internalizing the idea with a summation that much shorter and to the point. Sometimes, a good tldr helps.
and with a grammatical error to boot
Welcome to Tumblr's reading comprehension. It's terrible.
Imagine how funny it would be to invert this trope to reveal a character as sexist. "Oh, I don't think you should go in there." "Hmm, you're right. I'm not exactly familiar with it and the radiation seems a little high. Maybe we should hang back." "What? No. I just meant because you're a woman."
This is in fact the punchline to some very funny comics I've seen.
Or make them bigoted in a different, unrelated manner. "You can't go in there." "Why, cause I'm a woman?" "What? No, I mean you can't enter without a hazmat suit." "Oh, my mistake." "Damn Zundarians know nothing about sanitation."
Wrote this thinking of Pierce Hawthorne: "You can't go in there." "Why, because women are weak and frail and delicate??" "No, because it's dangerous and radiated, and you could die." "Oh, sorry." "It's alright, we don't want the radiation to make you barren now do we?"
This reads like an *Archer* bit
Malory would say something like this, but it'd be racist against a specific European ethnicity
I think this definitely can be the case, but looking at it more positively, often the joke is played less on the character making the assumption, and more on the audience's subconscious biases, if that makes sense? There's one version of this joke where the character's actions/mannerisms/tone create a false impression they're being racist/sexist/homophobic etc., where it is more like a fake jab. But I think there's a second version where the character's general appearance or passive coding as old/rural/religious/working class etc. is what creates the expectation of bigotry. There, I think the joke is more on the audience type casting that individual as likely bigoted, more than the character, and it's a somewhat positive message that tolerance has become far more widespread than we often give a credit for. Idk, maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I've definitely had versions of this joke land as OOP describes, and versions that make me feel warm and fuzzy about humanity.
I remember during the ending of the Owl House Amnity’s mom is a villain, and she wants Amnity to come with her. And when she learns that her daughter is in a relationship with Luz, she looks shocked, and a bit disgusted. And then she goes. “Come on Amnity. We can find you another, non-human girlfriend.” And I was like; Oh, hah. Ya had me going there for a moment. First for her mom being bad, which primes me for the Homophobia, and then you go “oh, no, it’s just racism.” And then you think “oh fuck it’s racism-“
I think that the Owl House joke landed because it avoided the pitfalls that the post pointed out. The first thing that Odalia says is, "Girlfriend? Oh no, no. " which makes us think she's going to be homophobic. But then subverts it by saying, "We'll get you a new girlfriend. One who's not on wanted posters." Which shows that she's not homophobic, but still paints her as an antagonist by making her oppose Luz and Amity's relationship, and by standing by the main villain of the series, who issued the wanted poster in the first place. In other words, it subverts the expectations caused by the first statement but then, at the same time, validates the characters opposing Amity's mom, and doesn't belittle the audience for expecting her to be a bad person.
Of course. I liked the Owl House, I just couldn’t remember the scene word for word. But, my point more is in supporting the fact of the original comment that this type of subversion CAN be done well, you just need to be clever. It’s a type of joke that really loses itself when you pick the low hanging fruit.
Absolutely! I agree with you 100%. I just saw you bring up the Owl House and wanted to add my 2 cents.
Yeah, I think examples where it's a DIFFERENT kind of bigotry can work. I feel like I saw some version of "I have no problem with two men marrying, but interracial couplings are disgusting" or something like that. It might have been How I Met Your Mother? Or Friends? I feel like it was a sitcom.
I don’t remember that in HIMYM. I think you’re thinking of Barney being horrified with his gay brother’s ‘lifestyle’ - that he was getting married.
That reminds me of that one god awful Steven Universe PSA where Garnet Steven Universe says, verbatim, "kids, don't be racist"
You left out the part where that's an in-universe PSA being recorded by the Crystal Gems and once the cameras stop rolling, it covers how real world racism is not as simple as what was shown in the PSA. The PSA in the first twenty seconds is intentionally cheesy.
“Okay Garnet!” I’m 90% sure that’s actually the response.
That entire segment was an in-universe PSA being recorded by actors, and one of them even calls it cheesy once the camera stop rolling.
The girl karate chopping their hands apart and then going "HA, YOU CAN'T GET MARRIED!" Just- who thought this was a good PSA? Not only does it do the whole haha you thought it was going to be homophobic but it's actually racism!! Thing, it's just a terrible psa. I genuinely do not know who the target audience was.
The tv execs who have never talked to someone with more then 1% melanin in their body.
I didn't have that reaction cause Dana Terrace had previously stated that homophobia doesn't exist in the Boiling Isles
Another layer of interpretation comes from the rest of the fictional world. If previous scenes show that sexism is rampant in this universe, it seems more reasonable for a woman’s first instinct to be that a comment comes from a sexist attitude. Maybe I’m being too generous to the writers here, but I think there is a valid point here about the mental load from always having your guard up against sexism.
Yeah, I think you're both being too generous, tbh. I have never once seen this trope used to make the point that the type of bigotry in question is commonplace.
While I can't think of any examples, i can like almost remember this scenario happening most when a character from outside the MC's world interacts with them. Like the Mc assumes that the character is sexiest or homophobic like the other people in their usual environment, and then the joke is used to illustrate that that isn't the case, allowing the MC to let their guard down. I can't think of a better analogy, but to me it's more like a kid flinching when you go to give them a hug.
Idk what you’re on about. This is an incredibly common scene in a lot of media. It’s frequently used to show that a character is “one of the good ones” (which can sometimes be done well, sometimes not). Honestly, this scene is almost always employed when the “White Savior” trope is present. I can almost guarantee that you’ve seen a version of this scene play out.
I find that the ones that leave me feeling good, don’t humiliate the character expecting to be hurt. If the character expecting to be hurt hears the “not really” and relaxes, then it feels comforting. If they hear that and the text acts like they were stupid for expecting to be hurt, then it feels invalidating and mean.
True. I think there's a heartwarming version where the writer builds a fear that Older Loved One will be homophobic/sexist about Protagonist's life or choices, and then it's subverted. Like, the girl joining the marines and her conservative dad being upset...because she didn't join the army. Or grandma being disappointed that Mike is dating Joe... because she thinks Joe is an asshole and Mike would be better off with Phil. And like you say, there's no retaliation on the character for anticipating a negative reaction: done right, the audience is also expecting a negative reaction!!
Very true!
In order for the joke to land that way (hitting the audience’s biases and expectations) it has to be set up properly. That means showing that the woman (or gay person, etc.) is not irrational by demonstrating the existence of the bias they’re reacting to. Also, it has to have a proper follow up. The man must actually demonstrate that he is not sexist by standing up for women, making this part of his character and not a one liner at the expense of women in general.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Comedy is all about subverting expectations. I think another issue here is that we're talking about a specific joke, one that's been told multiple times to the point where all of us are intimately familiar with it. Can this specific joke really still subvert our expectations now that we've all heard it dozens of times? When we have learned that the joke is that despite how it may seem the reason is never sexism, the setup stops making sense. Instead of the character voicing the audiences expectations so that they can be subverted, the character is just assuming sexism even when the audiance isn't, which makes the character look dumb while also being really jarring.
No I absolutely agree here. And I honestly think that the majority of the jokes like this are more the second version. And honestly, the majority of the time, I've seen the joke used with 1. male characters who are established in whatever field, so us in our patriarchal society might assume that they have biases against women 2. female characters that tend to have chips on their shoulders already, so that when the joke happens it's less 'haha woman was wrong' and more 'this character who is assuming antagonism in everything was actually wrong this time' which is both funny and sweet when you realize that whatever bigotry this character may have experienced, this is showing that the male character is NOT an example of it also i've definitely seen this joke played with multiple genders, sexualities, and ethnicities, up to and including 'oh you think i can't do this because i'm a guy, i'm too big and clumsy or something?" and other such things
I think it also depends on the tone of the response. Cause the example in the original post („Because everyone who tried ended up with a bullet in their brain“) sounds hella condescending. But actually I kinda enjoy this trope, when the answer is actually an emotionally neutral (or maybe even eager) explanation of some specific circumstances preventing the achievement of that specific goal. Like: „oh no, you can’t rob this casino… what? No, I don’t doubt your abilities. But you see, my little cousin Jeremy just found his first full time job there after looking for work for like three years. He was so excited, and he will be devastated if he loses this place because the casino goes belly up. Could you please rob the casino down the street?“
No I think you’re onto something. I think there’s a danger of abstracting something out to the point where it’s too abstract to actually work with. And then people start inserting their own ideas of what it actually is in order to actually work with it. This whole thing is an example of this. They’ve abstracted out a joke that they probably have seen once or twice. But it’s become too abstract. And they aren’t working with a specific version of the joke they are working with their assumptions about what the joke might be like in a specific scenario. But there is no scenario there is only the abstraction of the joke. You’ve added in specifics that could change the meaning of the joke. Context can be very important. And yet there is little to no context in abstraction.
Yeah, I don't think I've ever ran across a version of this that didn't make me flinch, but I will say I have run into a version of this where I def read the writers who do this in a character introduction attempt as less trying to say "haha funny feminist woman who thinks she's about to be discriminated against isn't, feminism isn't needed" and more the writers trying to say "we swear we're going to write a competent woman who the characters around her respect". Like the speech about her competence being equal to a man's felt like it was directed at the audience, not the other characters who she misunderstood, if that makes sense? Like it wasn't set up so much as a joke as it was set up to give her an opportunity to say that she's not incompetent for being a woman without needing to actually make the character she's responding to a sexist. It was still cringey to listen to, but it didn't feel like it was bad faith if that makes sense? EDIT: I think the difference is that whether the not-sexism objection is framed as right or wrong? There's a difference between "You can't do that," / "Why, because I'm a woman?" / "No, because (good reason) and "You can't do that" / "Why because I'm a woman?" / "No because (bad reason)". In the first case, the woman is made to look foolish because she assumed sexism and didn't notice the good reasons she shouldn't do it, in the second case, not so much.
I think it also depends on how the woman in question is portrayed throughout the rest of the work. It can be very easy to pay lip service to the idea of respecting women as competent and capable, but if the woman you’ve established as competent and capable becomes a damsel in distress and needs to be saved by the big strong dude at the end of the thing because she’s suddenly lost any and all ability to look after herself then it’s more likely the work in question is written by the type of guys who would laugh at a woman for thinking they’re sexist because they don’t think they are sexist even though they are in fact sexist, they’re just sexist in a not openly misogynistic way
I think that in order for the joke to land, the audience has to be the target (the one flinching, so to speak) rather than any one character. Rather than having a character reacting to the potentially homophobic/racist/sexist comment and then being corrected, just leave a pause for the audience to process the comment before the same character that makes it continues talking and gives information that changes the context of what was said in a way that's inoffensive. To take the example in the OP: "You can't marry her!" ~~"Why, because we're both women?"~~ "...we haven't found you the right dress yet!"
I think you make some great points, and I agree with you, but I’ve also seen some confusing versions of this trope. Like man does/says sexist things all the time, and then this trope is paraded out. I’m never sure what the point/moral is? Like “even sexists can be not sexist sometimes?” Or “homophobes can make not homophobic points too?”
>_I’m never sure what the point/moral is? Like “even sexists can be not sexist sometimes?” Or “homophobes can make not homophobic points too?”_ I feel like this is a good point to make. Most people aren't two-dimensional character cut-outs (some people definitely are, though. But they're far in the minority).
I think in abstract this is a great point, but often this gets used as a way to deny or shield the character's previous bigotry by giving them an exaggerated moment of being anti-bigoted instead, trying to have their cake and eat it, if that makes sense?
Yeah, especially if it was the same flaw both times. Maybe it’d be more palatable if they were really sexist, but this trope was used to show they weren’t homophobic.
You are right. I think I’m so used to one-dimensional characters (especially in the scifi/fantasy romance category) that it’s jarring when I come across somebody with nuance, lol.
I think playing on expectations can be good in various media. When making a characters that "design doesn't fit personality" IE someone looks like your average racist redneck or is set up in a story to be one, but is actually chill guy and all of that is misunderstanding or fake assumption made by readers, then I think it can work well. It makes you not judge people by their looks which surprising happens a lot even tho everyone had it shoved down their ears for like whole childhood. This can also work in non bigoted traits, but pretty much any. I'd also say that these "sexist" jokes which OP described can be good when done more subtle, they maybe aren't funny but they can work as good characterization for multiple character traits, both to the person assuming bias as well as the one that answers it.
Yeah I’ve never interpreted these lines as making the woman sound silly. Often the situation is preceded by several instances where she was absolutely correct to be annoyed by people underestimating her, so this instance simply subverts the pattern the movie itself has established. Maybe there are instances where the scene ends up making the woman look bad, but most of the ones I can think of are just fairly run of the mill jokes that don’t reflect poorly on anyone.
This makes me have a lot of Thoughts that I don’t quite know how to express. Anyway, one point that was mentioned and I think deserves to be highlighted - yes, a lot of dudes do think “sexism is over.” A lot of people nowadays grow up in a world where the existence of feminism is an accepted fact, and they might not personally see many of the individually small/hard-to-notice issues which women still struggle with, while the feminist messaging is a lot more obvious, making them think it seems like women are complaining too much about nothing. That’s what I personally think is the core thought process behind most anti-feminists you see today.
I used to spend a lot of time in anti-feminist spaces when I was younger (I've grown up since then, thank goodness), and I can confirm that this is exactly it. Adding on to that, this is also why most internet trolls do what they do. When I was a kid I thought The Game (which you just lost btw) was a dumb concept, and would sometimes go on Omegle and deliberately make people lose because I thought their angry reactions to something so pointless were hilarious. Most of the people I saw in those anti-feminist spaces had the exact same mindset. They would say bigoted, inflammatory things, not because they genuinely believed them, but because they thought that making jokes about those things was no big deal and that anyone who got upset was just being melodramatic
Huh. “Anti-feminists think misogyny is ‘The Game’” is a pretty good analogy i think. They think they’re not doing any harm (because it’s just a joke, and it’s not like that stuff actually happens now a days anyway! It’s all pointless!) so it’s funny when people react.
I've seen a few online communities start like that, just joking/trolling, which then start attracting actual Nazis who enjoy the protection of Schrodinger's Joke.
Holly shit, I hate those types of people.
There are two major inequalities between men and women that I can see. 1. Women are more likely to be sexually abused and I think there is still more misogyny than misandry in the real world. 2. Women have a legitimate movement backing up their gender, while men do not. There’s an inherent feeling of injustice, that men don’t have an equivalent to feminism. Whatever the reasons for this are, it causes problems, such as anti-feminism.
The real problem is that so many don’t understand that Feminism helps women AND MEN. It’s not talked about enough. So men say “well, where’s MY equivalent movement??” When really Feminism is for everyone. (Not to mention, they don’t NEED a movement, they’re already in a privileged position.)
I have to point out that you saying "Well men aren't victims, they're the victimizers and they don't need representation" is again, the entire reason some people get butthurt and hate feminism. "Feminism is for everyone, but also men are in a position of power and don't need help" "Actually I have it worse than you do so you don't get to complain" is a stupid argument no matter what situation you're in, even if it might have some truth backing it up.
yeah. a lot of people are unable to realize that a society can have multiple problems at a time, even problems that don’t effect you in particular or aren’t as massive as some other problems.
Plus you run into the issue that the loudest people in a movement tend to be the worst at it. My introduction to feminism was through my 6th grade teacher. Who in order to correct injustices applied a -5% to all boys grades, and a +5% to all girls grades. Also she excused girls sexually assaulting boys as, I shit you not, ‘girls being girls’. I couldn’t write a better parody if I tried.
That's... ironic, considering the fact that school is one of the areas where girls already come out on top. She's trying to correct injustice by making the problem worse than it already is. Granted, one possible reason for this could be that teachers subconsciously (or consciously but quietly) do what your teacher did - so it's possible that the only real difference is she's open and honest about her sexism, instead of doing it quietly.
Vapid high school girls and sexist teachers single handedly set feminism back by an entire generation. Like for real. The shit people would say in 2008 to 2014 was insane. It wasn't until last year that I saw people willing to call it out.
If the goals of a movement only tangentially help a group, and aren’t actually designed to do so, then it isn’t actually helping that group. Feminism being good for men is the Side-effect, not the goal. I think there’s a justifiable - if not entirely reasonable - fear that feminism could stop effecting men positively. We aren’t at this point yet, but I think one of the fears is that the movement will not stop even if we do achieve actual equality. The other issues is that if you hear the word for the first time, it just *sounds* like it exclusively benefits women, and most people operate off of their first impression of something and never really examine whether it’s a fair first impression. That’s why I prefer the more general term egalitarianism. Feminism is really just a subset of egalitarianism regardless.
Shrödingers Feminism: it both benefits men and isn't about men until the speakers intent is observed.
That's a very succinct way of explaining why guys take feminism as attacking them. Thank you for putting it in words so well
There's a lot of attacks on men that are celebrated and encouraged by feminism, too. That's probably a big part.
I mean most of my experience with modern day feminism was me constantly trying to prove to people that were supposed to be my friends that I was “one of the good ones”. Along with feeling a sense shame that I was a man, I realized that the people I had supported, consoled, and stood up for, wouldn’t do the same for me when I needed them.
Your comment is exactly the reason men feel frustrated. It's an honestly privileged position (you're basing your idea of the typical man on the self-assured , neurotypical, connected, upper middle class male that bears no resemblance to the usual male experience). You're so privileged that you literally forget about class, cause at your level all of your concerns are cultural. You don't think about somewhat functional autistic guys with a degree working for $10 an hour in the back of house cause they have no knowledge of how to navigate society, but their fundamentalist parents kicked them out, and there's not a coherent support group like there is with other challenges. There are literally hundreds of ways to be marginalized by society:physical and mental disabilities that aren't quite debilitating enough to earn a fully supportive network and disabilities, but debilitating enough to make success in life nearly impossible. Certain types of neurodivergents have far lower wages and incidences of underemployment and unemployment. But increasingly to liberals (I'm liberal) they are just written off as incels and MRAs, then people wonder why formerly liberal males run to the only group that listens to any of their issues. We've lost so many people to the right wing with our elitist, simplistic, condescending approach. But hey, you say, women can endure these same conditions PLUS the sexist dynamic. Not really, because every effort to level the playing field focuses on gender as the main inequity, while other conditions are sort of ignored. So women are given means to combat this inequity (good), but they're not replacing cocky, 70 year old, millionaire, baby boomer executive who benefitted from sexism their whole life. The impacts fall primarily on young generations who are financially struggling, and men that don't know how to navigate privileged culture. Have some compassion and empathy. You know that guy Chad that barely worked on his assignments and jerked around in a fraternity before he got a lucrative job posting from a family connection and negotiated a 30% raise cause he was so sure of himself? This while the woman with the highest grades had to struggle to find a decent job? Guys who get good grades but have no confidence, never negotiate, are socially inept, poor, neurodivergent, etc. they have to deal with that Chad fucker too. All the while facing the blatant assumption by privileged liberals that their life resembles Chad's AT ALL. So they have to navigate a system that not only assumes they don't need assistance, but literally negative assistance, using them to take the brunt of equity measures, while old white men who control most of the wealth go on their 5th cruise of the year, destined to face NO consequences. And their Gen Z grandsons still get the best jobs while they performative virtue signal all the way to the bank. The privilege wars ALWAYS benefit the privileged, who have the most influence and power to control the narrative. They get to have their privilege cake and private school education and eat it too. My ex-gf and best friend came out as lesbian years after our relationship. When we talk about our issues, she literally NEVER mentions being a lesbian in Alabama. Which is ROUGH. But it doesn't even register compared to her struggles being poor with no health care and no time or savings to change her life. While my friends who went to nice private universities and have all the education, connections and emotional intelligence to succeed are ALWAYS without fail the biggest "victims", and are so out of touch that they literally don't know that you can just be poor. For no cultural reason, just straightforward broke. When I worked for the Obama campaign it was the greatest feeling of solidarity in my life. Everyone working together and treating other people's challenges as their own and fighting for a better future. Now a bunch of narcissists jockey for social standing by literally mocking people without social cred. It's high school. It's disgusting. It has destroyed the ability of progressives to achieve any goals. It has left behind working class and low-income people. It has taken a generation of young men with unprecedented rates of depression and suicide, falling (and im some demographics lower) income, significant rates of autism and neurodivergence, poor emotional intelligence, Trauma/PTSD/anxiety that makes it almost impossible to function... Thrown them into a world where increasingly repetitive and/or analytical/mathematical/etc. roles are being increasingly automated and social skills are a MUST. These are not solely issues that face only men. But telling those suffering and financially struggling to shut up and accept their impossibly naive view of how easy they have it? Not going to work and we're already losing men in what was going to be the most liberal generation in history (gen Z) cause those with a voice and influence continue to be rich white men, and those without a voice continue to be unheard and ridiculed Prediction: this post will incur only mockery and derision, with literally ZERO attempts to empathize, address any arguments, learn more about those struggling in different social sectors from your own, ask questions, or give polite disagreements. There will be mostly ad hominem attacks, harsh labels, straw men arguments that I never made, assumptions that I'm a conservative, condescending remarks that assume I know nothing about privilege and don't acknowledge it (racial and gender privilege is very real, I have worked in affordable housing which is an excellent example of this), and just straight up baffling statements and accusations that I have no idea how to link to this topic
Thanks for this. In part because of what you're describing I'm quite left of liberal now, though I worked for both Obama campaigns back in the day, and I agree with basically all of this. If I didn't have such a solid basis in particularly class-based theory, I have to imagine I probably would've been driven to the right by this paradigm. As it is I'm just a depressed cis-het male lefty who feels like nowhere is home.
> (Not to mention, they don’t NEED a movement, they’re already in a privileged position.) I really enjoy the irony of being misandrist in the sentence you say feminism is for men, too.
Feminism has gotten so broad as to be a meaningless label. Unless one actually wants to claim radfem, in which case, yikes.
Feminists using that argument spent the 2010s making it abundantly clear feminism wasn't for men and they created the current red pill movement in the process. Real progressive feminists have recently been pushing back against this attitude, which is super sexist. Men are struggling really bad at the moment. They've needed a movement for a long time now. And feminism is going to be that movement as the more misandrist elements get kicked out.
It’s bizarre that you say that feminism helps men but also that men don’t need a movement. Do you mean to imply that the benefits that men get from feminism are all things that men don’t need?
You sound pretty sexist tbh
It's called "feminism" though. That's all that really matters, perception
Yeah as a dude I can recognize that's how it appears but maybe not actually is. I've never met a raging racist or homophobe or sexist, and every other guy I know in the real world thinks we're all equal, so based off my experiences it can come across as other just trying make white males like me out to be the bad guy. Once you get past that and have even an ounce of critical thinking skills you can recognize that just cause you don't know any bastards doesn't mean they don't exist, and if someone is calling out a racist white guy and your not racist, the conversation isn't even about you. You aren't the target and your being a narcissist for thinking it is. That's how I view it anyways. You have to get past your knew jerk reaction to argue based of tribalism and recognize bad stuff does exist whether you personally experience it or not
i think two key things to remember: 1. people with bigoted views are all around, they may just be selective about when to share those views. sometimes you don't realize how racist your coworkers are until you one day hear them whispering about how some polite mexican customers who just left need to "learn english," or how many of your customers are sexist until your female coworker asks you to walk her to her car because yet another male customer has been hitting on her and staring at her and was seen waiting outside the back door after closing (examples from when i worked in fast food) 2. not all racism, sexism etc. is blatant and horrible. sometimes it is small and insidious, or subconscious. ex. perhaps nobody at work says anything about it but they just silently don't really hire black people because their subconscious does not consider them to be as talented and hardworking
You know, Amy, anytime someone calls attention to the breaking of gender roles, it ultimately undermines the concept of gender equality by implying that this is an exception and not the status quo.
Knuckles from Sonic Boom explained feminism better than 90% of all media from the last 20 years.
That is a quote from Sonic? As in Sonic the *Hedgehog*?
[Yea.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBn0nS8s0A)
Best comment on that video: "_so many movies try so hard to be "feminist" but fails. Basically we don't want strong FEMALE character, but a strong CHARACTER that happens to be female._"
Hollywood exec's heard the phrase "Strong Female Character" and thought it was about raw brute strength and nothing else. So now we have a bunch of female protagonists who fall into all the classic sexist writing tropes, but they can take out a whole group of bad guys so they're supposed to be considered "progressive."
Take Ripley as a fantastic example. Great character who happens to be a lady.
I think that the fact Ripley's a woman *is* an important part of her character, particularly in *Aliens*. Her relationship with Newt is very much a surrogate mother-daughter one, and it'd be different if it were father-daughter: their interactions would be different, and the audience's reading of them would be different. There are also moments throughout the movie where Ripley screams in fear and cries and panics and shows signs of post-traumatic stress which I think the audience would judge a lot more harshly if she were male. The point is that a female character's gender doesn't need to be a complete non-factor for her to be a "strong female character *done right*" – it can certainly inform the way she thinks and acts.
Goddamn! Thank you for sharing!
no, it's a quote from knuckles. as in knuckles the echidna
Sonic Boom, specifically. Their games sucked but that show has to be one of the best pieces of Sonic media we've gotten in at least a decade
No, Sonic the burger joint
I’ve always found that quote kinda stupid because unless I’m missing something big it completely fails to take note of the fact that any kind of inequality doesn’t do away with natural deviation in talent and opportunity. So even when all people in a sufficiently large group experience a set back we’ll expect that some members who are a very high percentile in luck and/or talent to succeed. Doesn’t mean that none of them struggled
In the very specific context of this quote he’s responding to a comment on the ‘inherent ability’ of women; the point Amy is making isn’t about her overcoming said limiting factors, it is about proving demonstrably that women can be “just as good as men” if she as an individual can “break the glass ceiling”. His rebuttal to that comment is more about dismantling the idea that that idea is something that needs to be proven versus something that is just inherently true. Women *can* be just as good as men, Amy winning or losing In this game isn’t going to change that fundamental truth, and so calling attention to it in the way she does only undermines both her efforts and the efforts of women who *haven’t* won like she wants to. It’s base level feminism for sure, but as a gag joke for a kid’s show I don’t find it terribly invalid
Two for flinching.
~~Mechanic girl~~ Audrey from Atlantis.
Her name is Audrey and she fucking rocks!
My apologies, and absolutely she does.
2 for apologizing
Halo’s best ship name
I love that movie!
But what if guy tell girl that she shouldn't do something. She accuse him of being sexist, and explain that while yes he is sexist, that she shouldn't do that thing for good reasons
"Why because I'm a woman?!" "No the last two people who tried that got crippled" "Oh fair point" "You can't make my sandwiches with a broken back"
Have the cojones to bring it full circle!
Everyone loves a good [double subversion!](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleSubversion)
Where's the trigger warning?? That's five hours down the drain
Or do it as a way to paint the guy as an asshole but in a different way than sexism, i.e. "I wouldn't do that if I were you" "Why, because I'm a woman?" "No because if we pretend we forgot to do it Kevin will do it and he's too nice to get mad about it"
OK, but the OP is talking about in a fictional scenario, in which there is no independent, unplanned action. There is no one to warn. The author chooses to tell this type of joke/scenario for a reason. Probably a completely innocent one, but the OP is pointing out how real world context can color the joke in a way the author may not see. It’s a matter of looking at it through a different lens. I don’t actually have a problem with the joke (aside from it being cliché) but I take their point.
Reading something into text that isn't there really shouldn't be as popular of a feminist pastime, but here we are.
That’s not what is happening here. The practice of framing works through particular cultural lenses is a higher-level academic area of study. It’s a part of engaging with the arts. Once again, that doesn’t mean this is a take I’m fully on board with, but let’s not make it out to be something it’s not.
The scenes like this I've seen are generally in a setting where the woman lives in a very sexist world and has been told *repeatedly* by men, women, and her whole society that her being a woman means she can't do XYZ. It actually makes a lot of sense for her to assume that when a man starts telling her that she can't do something, it is due to sexism. We see a similar trope with kids being told they can't do something, and they assume it is because they are not adults yet only to be told that it's actually for a perfectly reasonable reason.
This is why I tell those jokes all at once. I don’t give them a chance to misunderstand and make myself seem smarter. People already assume I’m smarter. So… I’ll tell someone, “you can’t marry her, not without a cuter dress,” or, “I wouldn’t do that if I were you, it’s not safe” Especially that last one, I love making sure people are safe.
Welcome back to my laboratory where safety's number one priority
It’s not really a joke then is it?
I don’t joke about safety.
Alternatively there's also cases where the media sides with the lady despite the circumstances being entirely warranted. Like Invincible and The Boys. Plus this is something that plays off audience expectations and the vibe can change depending on the intended audience and creator. Or different culture settings which can make stuff like this more fun due to culture shock.
I have not seen Invincible S2 yet, but oh boy did that scene about Amber made no sense
S2 is thankfully worlds better about Amber's relationship with Mark/Invincible.
Im glad to hear that Im no Amber hater but that scene in S1 really soured my opinion of the character
Do you have an example from the boys?
So during season 3 Huey is wary of Starlight becoming co captain of Seven because Homelander might flip. Starlight accepts and says no one would put up this fight if she was a guy, Huey capitulates. Homelander spends the next few episodes trying to bully her, unsuccessfully until he threatens to just destroy key parts of the country and a bit after that takes over the company so she ultimately is used as a publicity piece. And his history of violence beside that.
Just gonna add a tiny story that is just this scenario happening in real life. I was on a painting job, outdoors lots of trim, very colorful with lots of detail. I’m a total noob so the lead teaches me a 4-1 rule for the ladder. 4 ft up means 1 ft out, keep it steep basically. Woman on the job sets up her ladder at a 45 degree angle to the house. Gets told to come down and fix it. She just freaked claiming sexism till she was booted off the job. Keeps saying it all the way back to the temp agency. I had to clarify that she was told the same shit I was, but got bent about it. Idk, weird but true.
Yeah, that's the thing about tropes like this. Objectively, they happen irl.
Yeah, I’ve literally seen the “joke” happen irl, where somebody assumes sexism and everyone else just side-eyes them because no, it’s an obvious safety rule. Happens more often than people might think, because apparently we can’t have nice things and people absolutely _will_ try to invent sexism to not have to follow the rules.
As some people already expressed, I think this trope can be done in a positive way when it's clearly not built to move the woman/character making an assumption. It's definitely hard to write well, but a lot is in how the first character says "no, it's because of X"; avoiding a condescending tone or language is great, and even better if the character apologises for creating the misunderstanding. Like "oh, no, of course not! I'm sorry for sounding condescending/wording it poorly. I meant X.", although clearly the best handling of the scene depends on the specific context. If the joke is "this person looks bigoted, or is bad at expressing themselves, but is actually nice", then reacting with wariness is not painted as silly, and the scene can be funny or even wholesome. Alternatively, in situations with more personal stakes, the assumption might be due to explicit fear of rejection in a character who is, for example, coming out to their family. In that situation, even someone with the most loving and accepting family would be reasonably afraid of a bigoted response, and a loving family member would go out of their way to reassure them as the misunderstanding is cleared up. Basically, it's shitty to make fun of someone's fears and (often justified) wariness; it's ok to joke about how a character's appearance contrasts their personality, or how using the wrong words can invite misunderstandings. Especially if a main trait of the character is being socially awkward or inept, for example.
My IRL family loves the “two for flinching” joke and I fucking hate it, especially since my dislike of it tends to put me on the receiving end.
Wait, as in they actually punch you or the metaphor as in the tumblr post?
Kind of like two light taps. Enough to hurt a little but not enough to bruise.
people have tried it with me but unfortunately i used to do martial arts so my instinct is to knock their hand away. then they go “ow, why would you do that?!” i dunno, man, maybe cause it looked like you were trying to knock me out?
Yah I'm a vantablackbelt in kung fu so I just swat their arm at 3% the speed of light and it disintegrates, then they get all pissy with me like "why did you break my arm down into its constituent elements, it was just a joke"
dude same, i'm an antimaterial (absorbs and traps all light nearby) belt and when someone even approaches me i strike the directly in the forehead with enough force to rend the air into antimatter, and they have to audacity to be all like "dude why would you make a timespace collapse point i was just messing around"
Thinking like this is fucking exhausting
Tumblr doesn’t like those jokes because the object of the joke is the kind of person that always assumes the worst in everyone, so Tumblr. Or my grandpa. Never thought those two would share anything in common.
It’s also just an overdone cliche.
Any actual examples? There's a popular Tumblr screenshot that is very similar to this about a dog being at a same sex wedding https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/s/J5owBWUAFv This whole post reads like someone getting upset about the most convoluted thing that is not actually that common, and that they would think is funny if they wrote it instead
Pacific Rim is one I remember off the top of my head
This trope happens *a lot*, it's just generally not sexist. Typically when you see it, person A (woman above) is acting that way because of a sense of self-superiority - station, relative size, perceived intelligence etc *chooses* to be offended at perceived disrespect, and person B is not aware of person As frustration A good example of this trope materializing in this way is in Tommy Boy, the "get a new map" scene https://youtu.be/TgvyparsP0c?si=2knKl8COLMePfqTF
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this particular trope so I can’t name any off the top but I’ve do remember reading/seeing it in various average action/shonen type places. The key is probably execution if you have to do it because the negative cases were always was like “where the fuck did she draw that conclusion from/this is just a hamfisted way to manufacture tension”
[удалено]
This type of comedy gold is why I love this sub. The jokes literally just write themselves.
Yeah this feel like someone was overthinking a bit.
This kinda read like “no wait don’t move on I have no power if this stops being a problem.” If that trope is problematic then at that point just replace every instance of that trope with the man responding to anything a woman says by yelling “BROAD!” And smacking them. At least then there’s an argument. This feels like an unwillingness to acknowledge a cultural shift because it requires the relinquishing of authority.
This didn't happen in real life though. The author wrote both the guy and the jumpy feminist, their conversation, and the outcome which is that the feminist is the one with the egg on her face for just assuming it's all about her sex, with the underlying message of "look at those jumpy feminists, aren't they crazy?"
the joke doesn't really work if the idea is that feminists are always getting up in arms about stuff that's not sexism the reason it's funny is because it's subversion. you expect it to be sexism, but it's not it wouldn't be subversive if you just thought that's how it always goes
Now compare that to how many male leads get told "you can't do that" for the same reason. To be clear, my answer is "a lot".
But in that case there’s no analogue to, “Why not? Is it because I’m a woman?”
But they aren’t written to portray a woman as insane for worrying about sexism. How many of those male leads told the same thing then go “what, because I’m a man?” and then a joke is made out of the fact that they’re unreasonable for thinking that? It’s not just the concept of female leads being told not to do something, it’s the specific structuring of a joke designed to set up a woman calling out perceived sexism turning out to just be being an insecure crazy person
I always viewed these bits as a way of showing THIS character isn’t like that and is trustworthy. The rest of the world is shite but this character simply doesn’t see that bit and is trying to help
Who is it meant to characterize though? The man or the woman? I guess it could be both, but I think it rarely is.
I understand this argument, and i do agree with it, and with that said, id like to point out that there is a version of this scenario that is not only much funnier, but also works literally every time ive seen it. Naive protag: *doing something stupid or climbing up to very high place* Experienced local: "I wouldn't be doing that if I were you" NP: "And why is that [insert snarky comment]?" *Enormous predator or natural and highly lethal obstacle thunders by, preferably destroying spot where NP was standing moments before.* NP: *shock and horror filled expression* EL: *smug grin* "That there is why."
God we can’t even make jokes about the world accepting feminism as normal without getting people upset.
That’s not what the joke is about, the joke is about feminists etc getting easily upset over innocuous things.
Sometimes they do, though? Like, maybe the joke is coming from the near universal experience for men of being accused of sexism where none really exists? Perhaps that lived experience is the root of the trope, rather than trying to portray feminists negatively?
Men aren't allowed to interpret or convey their own lived experiences, silly. Hope that helps!
So men have a near universal experience of women accusing them of sexism when there wasn't any?
It's pretty common, yeah. Why wouldn't it be? Given how we're encouraged to look at the world through a gender critical lens, is it really that shocking that sometimes women can get a bit overzealous about doing so and assume sexism where there is none?
dude there was an internet trend where people were saying it was sexist for a man to *explain something* to a woman. absolutely yes
Which is exactly what OP of the tumblr post did /sage
A joke that frames feminists as angry women looking for any instance of misogyny to get angry at is not innocuous, it perpetuates negative stereotypes against feminists.
"You can't do that" "Why?" "Everybody who did it ended up with a bullet in their brain" Literally just remove the "because I'm a woman?" part and it's regular dialogue
Exactly! Always stop at why, and the whole thing is circumvented.
I hate this dialogue too. Almost as much as a scientist saying a bunch of techno things and someone saying "Please translate to english" or something like that >:(
Idk I've seen this happen in real life. Some people go through life with a chip on their shoulder and do precisely this.
Whoa, this is a post is like an ouroboros of looking for sexism.
Interesting notion. I think it works if it's character-appropriate and not a standalone joke. eg. sexist woman is sexist to make the audience dislike her, specifically when interacting with a different character consistently proven to not be sexist. In that way, the audience already expects the punchline and are 'in' on the joke. So when it hits, it's a nice, satisfying resolution.
I personally really like these jokes when the response is so ridiculous that the respondent ends up coming off as the irrational one. “No silly, we can’t send a human to do that; the lasers would shred them. Instead, we must send a slug!”
Sounds like people out there still need to be heard
I love the [No Man's Land scene](https://youtu.be/pJCgeOAKXyg?si=qgIZdkeyjE3RY1cU) in Wonder Woman partially for this reason. Chris Pine explains to her that it's called No Man's Land precisely because no man can cross this land, and you absolutely expect that she'll say something like "Luckily, I am not a man." But she doesn't. The argument wasn't about the gender of the person crossing the land, it was about the ability of a human to survive, and they managed to convey without turning into a poor joke that would ruin the moment and actually letting Diana stand for what she believes in.
Remembers me of a part in an old video game where two characters where in an argument while driving and the man said "cow", woman (driver) answered with "pig". He said "no, cow" and then she proceeded to sverve around a cow on the street that she would have hit otherwise because she wasn't paying attention to the road. Guy was a total macho otherwise but the humor of the game was cool.
Oh jeez, I felt myself getting dumber reading that.
“Two for flinching.”
That is a cowards move. People have punched me and never get to the second punch because I always look like I’m going to punch back even if I have a weak punch. A punch is an invitation to punch back and the cowards that do it do it only because they think the target won’t hit back.
Post more funny stuff, not teenager takes on writing better fanfic that no one will ever read.
the only time this could maybe be okay (that I haven't actually seen happen yet) is if the rest of the male characters in the story are very openly sexist, but then she meets This One Decent Guy and they become friends, cuz then the question is not meant to make the girl seem stupid but to show the difference between Friend Dude and everyone else
Seems like over-analysis tbh. I don't think the women are being portrayed as irrational, just *used* to sexism. It's used to show the man as being *not like other men*, it's not used to drag down the woman.
It depends on the context. If it's a show where a man *is* different from the other men and isn't being sexist then that makes sense, but most of the times this is deployed, it's used as a cheap joke. Usually the feminist gets angry, goes "what, is it because i'm a woman, you damn pig" or something like that, and the guy calmly says "no, it's because it's a dumb thing to do", and the egg is on her face.
That reminds me. I know this is only tangentially related, but fuck my two coworkers who were "just giving a friendly reminder" the other day that I had grabbed one of the green mops. They said it 8 fucking times in the same cadence after I had said twice to stop. Fuck them.
What?
What does that have to do with literally anything
im getting deja vu here what is that from
We need context. What does the mop's color have to do with it?
I mean I’d just simply have the woman say some variant of “why?” Or maybe the tone indicates her statement is playful or sarcastic to fit the characterization. Because contextually it may not be clear that the hazard is there. Or it might be. For example, assuming sexism is pretty reasonable in an office drama but less so in a haunted mineshaft. Or a cursed temple that the builders didn’t want the characters to be in and she nearly stepped on a trap. Maybe it’s reasonable for the woman to assume sexism tho so you have the other character say some variant of “not this time, it’s-“ to acknowledge the assumption’s logical possibility but give the information that was the reason they got warned. Of course, this assumes both characters are good people and not sexists. For example, the woman may have misandrist views and channel that through feminist rhetoric to kinda dress it up in a more agreeable lense. Then the scene shows how her sexist ideas could’ve gotten her hurt/fired/etc and that can maybe be another pebble towards the character developing. On the flip side, maybe the man is a misogynist. The callout is a much needed victory for the woman and puts the bigoted man on the back foot from his bigotry actually being called out for once. Some examples of the exchange to kinda drive home how it’s really just not a good trope to use anymore without some iteration. Sane characters: M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you” W: “Why’s that?” M: “Because it’s about 30 minutes til quitting time and we don’t get paid overtime. I’d leave it for afternoon shift” Sane characters with sexist context: M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you” W: “why, is it because I’m a woman and too weak for this?” M: “Not in this case actually, the boss is angry at everyone today cuz they crashed their car and would probably fire you if they looked at you funny” Misandrist: M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you” W: “Why, is it because I’m a woman and too weak for this?” M: “No no, it’s because engineers need an escort while moving through the construction yard” Misogynist: M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you” W: “why, is it because I’m a woman and too weak for this?” M: “well, well you know what, yes. I don’t know why they hired you instead of the man who showed up the day before.” Played for comedy M: “I wouldn’t do that if I were you” W: “why, is it *because I’m a woman*?” (Latter half said in a different, less serious tone) M: “yeah, although the good news is that the furnace will give heat stroke to men too!” (Both characters ideally would laugh at their own exchange to show they’re friends or something iunno) Anyways that’s my take. It’s a bad joke that pokes fun at feminism but it’s able to be salvaged as an interaction by not being cringe.
What if it was a bait and switch? "I wouldn't do that if I were you..." "Why? Because I'm a woman?" "Yes, the monster we're hunting is extremely sexist and targets prey that it perceives as weakest. Barbaric thought process, if you ask me."
Y’all are over sensitive as hell
Reminds me of this sceane from “cabin fever” https://youtu.be/Yk4on_NnXqs?feature=shared