In Wednesdays reading, Halberstam mentioned that, "humor is something that feminists in particular, but radical politics in general, are accused of lacking" (Halberstram, 2014).
In today's discussion class, my group had a very insightful talk in regards to the usage of jokes when speaking out on sexual assault. I personally do not agree with Halberstam as I do not see the awareness of sexual assault through jokes affective since it demeans the actually matter. I see jokes as diverting the issue from a space where language could be created to raise awareness and understanding to a space where people can laugh, have a good time and overlook the issue.
Yet, throughout our discussion, we did mention how some survivor's may use the coping mechanism of humour as a way to enlighten their trauma. This reminded me of an article that I previously read, where a comedian was conveying her sexual assault experience through humour, and the audience and her friend would laugh at the story, even though it is a severe issue. Her friend then confessed how guilty she felt afterwards and the survivor responded with,
"But I gave you permission to laugh!" ..."She explained that by telling the joke, she felt she was controlling how people reacted to her experience while simultaneously negotiating her own feelings about the incident. She found it therapeutic" (Stapp, 2013).
So this makes me question, is it only survivors who are allowed to use humour in regards to sexual assault? If they do, then is it still addressing the problem or is it just a form of self-care?
Further, changing the roles and having a perpetrator, or at least for this case, an "accused" perpetrator make jokes about sexual assault truly angers me as it reinforces the rape culture. Recently, Bill Cosby, a well-known actor who is accused of multiple counts of sexual assault had a stand-up show in London, Ontario where he was offered a drink by an audience member. "Cosby reportedly replied, "I already have one," pointing to a bottle of water next to him on stage, and added, "You have to be careful about drinking around me" (Nessif, 2015). This resulted in cheering and laughter from the audience, which demonstrates the devaluation of sexual assault as the audience supported a perpetrator and laughed at the unlawful actions he committed.
Indefinitely, I believe there to be a grey line between who can and who cannot make jokes about sexual assault. I do not wish to impede in someone's healing process, but the majority of the time, humour is used in settings where perpetrators can rectify their thoughts and actions. This leads me to continue to be certain of my personal opinion in which I do not believe humour should be utilized in crucial issues like sexual assault as it further encourages the rape culture. Yet, I do believe in various forms of self-care so who am I to tell a survivor to not use humour because of my personal opinions? Ugh, I just am left with so many contradicting feelings and thoughts that cannot seem to measure up to a conscious decision.
I think that you and I are on the same page! There's a significant difference between people unaffected by sexual assault making jokes about it, and those who have been affected by it, making jokes about it. It means something different. However, it only means something difference if the audience receiving the joke understands that. Often, that's not the case. Much of the time, jokes that are meant to be healing, poke fun at dominant cultures, or to spread awareness are absorbed into dominant culture as an affirmation of strongly held prejudices. This can be concerning, but it doesn't have to be. For example, a comedian can be concerned about the stigmas that her jokes are helping to spread, or she could decide she doesn't care and continue doing what she loves, how she loves it, for the people who it is aimed at and who will appreciate it for what it really is. So, humor can be helpful while also being harmful, and that's unfortunate. But I think it's important that people can express their hurt in whatever way works best for them.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are people who 'should' and 'shouldn't' be joking about this topic, but I definitely disagree that we shouldn't joke about it.
ReplyDeleteOne of the major components of comedy (good comedy, at least) is the concept of 'punching up.' Basically, this means that in order to tell a socially motivated joke (be it about politics, race, religion, sexuality etc.) you should never be attacking the people in positions of oppression -- don't punch down. By punching up, you're attacking the people in positions of power, those that have the ability to affect change on a significant basis, not attacking those who are victimized and belittled by the system at large. Obviously, the ability to recognize punching up or down requires the acknowledgement of privilege in ones self as well as society at large, which can absolutely be a problem with both those telling a joke as well as those hearing it. The reason why so many (generally white) male comedians cannot tell 'good' sexual assault jokes is precisely because they do not recognize their privilege in this matter, nor do they acknowledge the power of their words upon the audience they're speaking them to. They do not recognize that they're punching down, and as such do not understand why the joke is being received poorly by female audiences. They aren't flipping the script. Bill Cosby in particular is harmful because he is a male perpetrator of violence who is actively punching down and being rewarded by his audience.
The thing is, I'm a firm believer in both the healing power and learning potential of comedy. As you mention, survivors can take a significant amount of power in retelling their own story in a humorous way, and in my experience can also benefit from hearing about rape narratives with humour -- it can detach the trauma of the experience and allow some levity to come from a negative thing. Likewise, studies have been done that show a boost in retention amongst students who are taught by humorous teachers -- if you can make people laugh, they'll remember what you're telling them, and they're more likely to engage critically with what you were saying.
To me, I think it's imperative we tell jokes about sexual assault, but they have to come from a place of understanding. Whether that be from survivors themselves or from people who know their privilege well enough to flip the script, it's wildly important that we get people laughing about this. I understand the hesitance to laugh at this issue -- rape culture is all-encompassing and horrifically damaging. But often one of the best ways to strip the power of something horrifying is to laugh at it, so perhaps we do need to figure out a way to incorporate humour into this subject. But I also acknowledge that it is a mixed bag. Comedy in general is a male dominated industry, and the bulk of comedic audiences (at least in stand-up) are still male. It can be difficult and damaging for survivors in an audience or on stage to hear jokes about sexual assault that punch down and are rewarded with laughter. It does reaffirm rape culture. But I also think that trying to remove the topic entirely punishes both survivors who gain power from telling their story as well as those who learn from their jokes. It's likely going to push more women away from comedy rather than men, meaning the problem will only get worse. Banning a contentious topic rarely does anything but silence the voices already affected by the topic -- not talking about racism does not hurt racists; not talking about sexism does not hurt sexists; not talking about rape does not hurt rapists. It hurts the victims and survivors of these things. Educating people about the topic is what will hurt the perpetrators of these crimes the most -- and as I mentioned, laughter makes people learn.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete