apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) (01/21/86)
In article <418@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >This girl goes into a bank, fills out a deposit form, goes up to the >teller, says she wants to deposit a fifty-dollar bill. The teller >takes the bill, looks at it, holds it up to the light, finally says, >"I'm sorry, ma'am, but I can't accept this bill. It's counterfeit." >"Oh my God!" says the girl, "I've been raped!" >-- > Peace and Good!, > Fr. John Woolley To set this lovely piece of sexist propaganda in context, look at an earlier article: In article <358@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: > In article <862@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >>You can get away with this sort of disingenuous appeal to traditional values >>in a conversation, but one of the advantages of the net is that we can sit >>back and analyze your fallacies at our own pace, rather than in real time. > Nicely put. But I don't think "disingenuous" is correct. I was being very > open about my traditional values, not trying to be false or cunning or > deceptive at all. I think your candor regarding your traditional values is now beyond dispute. Just two questions: (1) Do you understand that many of your readers are women, or like women, or both, and for that reason regard those values with contempt? (2) What was the first article doing in net.jokes? ak "Salome, dear, NOT in the fridge."
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (01/23/86)
I recently posted (to net.jokes) what still strikes me as a very funny joke that depended for its effect on a sudden realization of the previous history of one of the characters, i.e. that she'd obtained the money she was depositing by prostitution. Adrian Kent calls the joke "sexist propaganda". Now I've told that joke to a number of people of both sexes, and never had that reaction. I certainly didn't mean it that way, I don't think it can be fairly taken that way, and I'm forced to conclude I don't know for sure what Adrian was getting at. In article <1124@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes: >In article <418@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >>This girl goes into a bank, fills out a deposit form, goes up to the >>teller, says she wants to deposit a fifty-dollar bill. The teller >>takes the bill, looks at it, holds it up to the light, finally says, >>"I'm sorry, ma'am, but I can't accept this bill. It's counterfeit." >>"Oh my God!" says the girl, "I've been raped!" >>-- >> Peace and Good!, >> Fr. John Woolley > To set this lovely piece of sexist propaganda in context, look at an >earlier article: "Propaganda" means writing or talk designed to try to persuade somebody to do something or believe something. Two questions: 1. Is it even vaguely possible that anyone's opinions on women, or banks, or prostitution, or rape, or Life-the- Universe-and-Everything were changed by my joke? 2. What is it you thought I was trying to persuade people to do or believe? "Sexist" as I understand it means something like "characterised by a belief that women are in some way inferior to men". How in the world does the joke have anything to do with the superiority of one sex over another? I don't believe women are inferior, I certainly didn't say it, and I don't see how it could have been inferred from what I said. You know, there are a lot of things that show up in net.jokes that various sorts of people find offensive in various ways. There are a lot of jokes posted there that I find offensive, some of them because they're degrading to women. It strikes me as really perverse to take a joke that isn't the least bit "anatomical" and post it to net.women as the epitome of evil. Why was my joke so horribly offensive, but out-and-out sexual humour is acceptable? >In article <358@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >> In article <862@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >>>You can get away with this sort of disingenuous appeal to traditional values >>>in a conversation, but one of the advantages of the net is that we can sit >>>back and analyze your fallacies at our own pace, rather than in real time. > >> Nicely put. But I don't think "disingenuous" is correct. I was being very >> open about my traditional values, not trying to be false or cunning or >> deceptive at all. > >I think your candor regarding your traditional values is now beyond dispute. >Just two questions: >(1) Do you understand that many of your readers are women, or like women, or >both, and for that reason regard those values with contempt? Are you trying to say I dislike women? I like most people (including women), some people (including women) like me, and lots and lots and lots of women hold what I'd call "traditional values". You're being awfully sexist, no?, implying that all women and all men who like women have similar and non-traditional values. What "values" are you talking about? What "values" are so horribly revealed in the joke? Is a sense of humour incompatible with a respect for women? >(2) What was the first article doing in net.jokes? It was a joke. It seemed an appropriate place to post it somehow. -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "Compared to what I have seen, all that I have written is straw." -- St. Thomas
ruff@cisden.UUCP (Craig Ruff) (01/23/86)
In article <1124@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes: >In article <418@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >>This girl goes into a bank, fills out a deposit form, goes up to the . . . >>"Oh my God!" says the girl, "I've been raped!" . . . >> Fr. John Woolley > To set this lovely piece of sexist propaganda in context, look at an >earlier article: > >In article <358@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: . . . >I think your candor regarding your traditional values is now beyond dispute. >Just two questions: >(1) Do you understand that many of your readers are women, or like women, or >both, and for that reason regard those values with contempt? >(2) What was the first article doing in net.jokes? > ak I should like to state that I was unable to follow your non sequitur between the joke in the first part and the quoted articles in the second. The joke, while not particularly funny, contains a subtle play on the unstated context surrounding the situation the girl finds herself in. Perhaps you took offense to the word "raped". If so, you must realize that the girl in the joke was not raped considering the unstated context that surrounds the joke. Certainly rape, which was not the subject of the joke, is a serious subject that can not be dismissed as a trivial matter or advocated in any way. Prostitution, however, which was the unstated subject of the joke, has been around for millennia and has been the subject of countless jokes. Of course, the title of the article did not give any indication of the subject matter of the joke nor whether it might be possibly offensive to amoeboid life forms for that matter. Craig "Put this fish in your ear..."
figmo@lll-crg.ARpA (Lynn Gold) (01/25/86)
>In article <418@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >>This girl goes into a bank, fills out a deposit form, goes up to the >>teller, says she wants to deposit a fifty-dollar bill. The teller >>takes the bill, looks at it, holds it up to the light, finally says, >>"I'm sorry, ma'am, but I can't accept this bill. It's counterfeit." >>"Oh my God!" says the girl, "I've been raped!" >>-- >> Peace and Good!, >> Fr. John Woolley Sexism or not, I just plain don't get this joke. Would somebody please explain to me why this is supposed to be funny? Thanks, --Lynn
CJC@PSUVM.BITNET (01/26/86)
Your "joke" insinuated that "rape" just means that the victim wasn't
paid enough. If you want a survey of reactions, I consider it
contemptible and totally without humor. It does reveal something about
you, Fr., and your defense of it reveals even more. When I read your
postings on other newsgroups now I'll know what value to give them.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/30/86)
> Your "joke" insinuated that "rape" just means that the victim wasn't > paid enough. If you want a survey of reactions, I consider it > contemptible and totally without humor. It does reveal something about > you, Fr., and your defense of it reveals even more. When I read your > postings on other newsgroups now I'll know what value to give them. > "Totally without humor" describes someone who misperceived the original joke as being about rape. It was about a prostitute who discovers that she was paid with a counterfeit bill and therefore decides that she was "raped" rather than be defrauded. I'm disgusted that the original joke (not brillant, and not that terribly funny) has been so thoroughly misconstrued.
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (01/31/86)
In article <4228CJC@PSUVM> CJC@PSUVM.BITNET writes: > >Your "joke" insinuated that "rape" just means that the victim wasn't >paid enough. Wrong. It insinuated that not getting paid enough was rape, not that rape was just not getting paid enough. A is B does not imply that all B is A. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross) (02/03/86)
In article <353@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >In article <4228CJC@PSUVM> CJC@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >> >>Your "joke" insinuated that "rape" just means that the victim wasn't >>paid enough. > >Wrong. It insinuated that not getting paid enough was rape, not that >rape was just not getting paid enough. A is B does not imply that all >B is A. > Wright, but still rong. The joke insinuated that the prostitute *thought* not getting paid enough was rape. The joke hinges on the very fact that not getting paid enough is NOT a definition of rape, and that's why all of us folks who know that thought the joke was funny. >Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim --MKR
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (02/07/86)
In article <443@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross) writes: >Wright, but still rong. The joke insinuated that the prostitute *thought* >not getting paid enough was rape. The joke hinges on the very fact that >not getting paid enough is NOT a definition of rape, and that's why all >of us folks who know that thought the joke was funny. I get the impression that much of the cntroversy over this joke centers on the use of the loaded word "rape" in the punch line. Let me propose an alternative: "Damn! I've been seduced!" This is the way I originally heard the joke told, mumble years ago. Does this version moderate anyone's opinions? -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp(+)TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Geniuses are people so lazy they Santa Monica, CA 90405 do everything right the first time. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (02/10/86)
> I get the impression that much of the cntroversy over this joke centers on > the use of the loaded word "rape" in the punch line. Let me propose an > alternative: > > "Damn! I've been seduced!" > > This is the way I originally heard the joke told, mumble years ago. Does > this version moderate anyone's opinions? I like it. It's still funny (even more so to my taste). In particular, it moves the joke more towards "pure" wordplay, and I like wordplay better than jokes where people get hurt. And I could be wrong, but the fact that in this version the woman mistakes breach of contract for seduction doesn't play into any dangerous stereotypes. (If I'm wrong, I suppose I'll be flamed into awareness of this fact. :-) Taking the analogous version of the joke where the punchline was "Damn! I'm a slave!" this would make the analogous punchline "Damn! I'm a volunteer!" or something to that effect. Again, an improvement in the joke, since there is less of an element of perceived coersion. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (02/12/86)
In article <> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >I get the impression that much of the cntroversy over this joke centers on >the use of the loaded word "rape" in the punch line. Let me propose an >alternative: > > "Damn! I've been seduced!" > >This is the way I originally heard the joke told, mumble years ago. Does >this version moderate anyone's opinions? > i like it. it makes the joke more subtle, therefore more funny. -- "Break, but never bend." from an oak tree i know ...that can move in two directions at the same time ...akgua!galbp!bing
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (02/14/86)
In article <141@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >In article <443@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross) writes: >>Wright, but still rong. The joke insinuated that the prostitute *thought* >>not getting paid enough was rape. The joke hinges on the very fact that >>not getting paid enough is NOT a definition of rape, and that's why all >>of us folks who know that thought the joke was funny. > >I get the impression that much of the cntroversy over this joke centers on >the use of the loaded word "rape" in the punch line. Let me propose an >alternative: > > "Damn! I've been seduced!" > >This is the way I originally heard the joke told, mumble years ago. Does >this version moderate anyone's opinions? I don't know. It does make it a dumber joke. There was an earlier suggestion to make it a joke about a "working woman". Again, that makes the joke dumber. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
dick@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski) (02/15/86)
In article <141@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: > >I get the impression that much of the cntroversy over this joke centers on >the use of the loaded word "rape" in the punch line. Let me propose an >alternative: > > "Damn! I've been seduced!" While it extends the language some, I've always enjoyed: "Damn! I've been mizled!" It is pronounced with a long i but the usual spelling is misled. Dick -- Dick Karpinski Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick (415) 666-4529 (12-7) BITNET: dick@ucsfcca Compuserve: 70215,1277 Telemail: RKarpinski USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143