Your Joke is Not My Joke: Racism and Sexism in Jokes and Satire

By Guest Contributor Princesse de Clèves, islamogauchiste, originally published at Muslimah Media Watch

Have you ever noticed how minorities—and oppressed people in general—lack a sense of humor? Lately, there have been plenty of jokes about Arabs and Muslims. So why aren’t we laughing?

French Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux recently felt his joke fall flat after this year’s summer congress. One of his traditional supporters, Amin Benalia, asked if he could take a picture with the minister. A woman in the crowd jokingly introduced Benalia to the team as someone different because he “eats pork and drinks beer”. Ah, a meeting of old friends and politicians united under the banner of pork, beer and the finest French jokes. The Minister explained about Benalia:

“He doesn’t fit the prototype [of an Arab Muslim] at all. Not at all. We always need one. When there’s one, that’s all right. It’s when there a lot of them that there are problems.”

This moment of free expression had been launched on the website of Le Monde and raised lots of questions, reactions and criticism. But the merry minister did not apologize. He simply said it was a joke, and most journalists gave it legitimacy by saying the minister was “very laid-back”.

David Gee, the author of Shaikh Down—a  very “funny” novel about the Arabs (again)—claimed he “spent six years in the Gulf and never met an intelligent woman”, ignoring the fact that intelligent women had better things to do than meet up with a poor so-called satirist.

In Shaikh Down, Gee writes:

“Nayla was tall, olive-skinned, voluptuous, at twenty-six two years younger than her brother Ibrahim and exactly half her husband’s age, a feminist intellectual in a society that tended to ignore women and mistrusted intellectuals .”

Exclusively focusing his attention on the body of Nayla, the author completely ignores the role that high-profile women play in the Gulf. The “feminist intellectual” is at some point described as if she was either a prostitute or a commodity: by the size and the color of her “voluptuous” Orientalized body.

Here is another sample about Nayla, when the death of her husband is announced:

“Nayla sighed, which the houseboy took for an upper-caste Arabic demonstration of controlled grief. But grief was not what the new widow felt. Her marriage had been arranged between her brother and the Bahzoomis, whose wealth was second only to that of the ruling al-Khazi clan. Nayla had despised her husband in life – his gambling and drinking, his belly-dancing whores, his newspapers that kissed the backside of her uncle the Amir – and she felt only relief at his passing, however brutal it seemed to have been.”

In this paragraph, Gee develops the stereotype of oppressive arranged marriages among Arabs and Muslims. Nayla “despises” her husband. The Orientalist cliché of sensuality and availability always works in association with a harsh criticism of traditional marriage. Marriage is bound to be oppressive among these “shaikhs” and, most importantly, it makes the available resource of women not so available. Gee is not criticizing marriage as a social institution or as a bourgeois civil contract – like many feminists did in Europe. He is criticizing marriage in Arab societies–as if an Arab man was not able to love his wife and as if an Arab woman could only hate her husband while longing to be saved by some romantic white man…

But maybe, it only was a joke, again.

In one sentence, despising both the countries of the Gulf and the people who live in them, Gee proves that he is only recycling his own White middle-class fantasies. His book aims to be a “hilarious ‘blueprint’ for a Revolution that will sweep the tyrant Rulers of Arabia into the dustbin of history!” It is just one more Orientalist novel – a really bad and poorly written one.

Gee and the French minister are not comic; they only are racist. But maybe, I have no sense of humor. That’s the main problem, according to David Gee, Brice Hortefeux and all their funny ruling friends.

Kathleen Hanna gave the best reply you can ever make to these clowns:

“I have to deal with sexism every day so it’s like maybe boys can find that really funny and humorous, I don’t have the luxury to find that humorous. I live it every fucking day. That’s not funny to me, and if I say it’s not funny, it’s not funny. You know what I mean? It’s like there’s no argument there, whether it’s funny or not, if I say I don’t find it funny it means: hey, be cool to me and respect me, your joke is not my joke.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Lots (and lots) of link love: Part 2 « The Feminist Texican on 05 Oct 2009 at 10:04 am

    [...] Racialicious: Your Joke Is Not My Joke: Racism and Sexism in Jokes and Satire [...]

  2. More than just a punchline « the open book on 06 Oct 2009 at 1:57 pm

    [...] And I’m not saying I didn’t laugh quite a bit. But I am reminded of the title of this article that appeared not long ago on Racialicious: “Your joke is not my joke.” If we’re [...]

Comments

  1. Medusa wrote:

    GOD, Princesse de Clèves, where’s your sense of humor?

    /snark

    Seriously, aside from being racist tripe that we hear over and over again about Muslims, it’s not even funny. If it were funny, that wouldn’t excuse it, but it manages to not even be funny while being super offensive. I don’t see the humor anywhere.

  2. Ike wrote:

    Really? There are white people with the last name “Gee”?

    I was all “Tsk! An Asian-American should know better.” And then I find out he’s white and British.

    Oh, assumptions. >.<

  3. Luis wrote:

    Exactly. The question that is never asked about racist jokes is why the same joke never seems to get old to the people laughing. How many people still laugh at “Why did the chicken cross the road…?” and yet trading in the same few racial stereotypes seems to always fill comedy clubs.

    I think the answer is pretty simple: they’re not jokes. They’re statements meant to push people’s boundaries into a slightly uncomfortable place, which elicits laughter as a defense mechanism. To the aforementioned white folks, the boundary is pretty loose, there’s no vested interest. To POCs, who’ve heard it all before, it’s just tired and not particularly funny.

    Case in point: Family Guy writers said in interviews that they only ever pulled a joke if it was offensive to “even white people.” Because no one else’s boundaries really matter in the media.

  4. Khinky wrote:

    I feel that some comedy involving racial stereotypes have people laughing at the stereotyes themselves, which is a good thing, and much needed. Of course you take the risk of racist people assuming that it excuses their racism. For example, with those ” Stuff [insert race] People Like” sites, many comments are along the lines of “haha yeah [insert race] your so dumb go back wer u came from!”

  5. Khinky wrote:

    Another anectdote…

    For a concert-type thing at my university, the theme was “Arabian Nights.” The entire premise consisted of a harem-like backdrop and “jokes” about curry, camels, polygamy and oil, delivered by two guys with tablecloths over their heads. The opening act was Indian dancing because apparently it “fitted the theme.” And this was organised and okayed by univeristy students living in freakin South Africa. They were homogenously black/white and christain. When I called them out on it they brushed it off and tried to make me “admit” that it wasn’t so bad (in any case, nobody could argue that it was funny, because the audience never laughed.)

    My question is, is it even worth my while not to pretend like I’m “over it” when they’re willfully ignorant and extremely defensive? Won’t I make things worse by carrying on showing my disgust? I’d just be re-labelling myself as “the uppity ballbusting fun-spoiling bitch who’s always getting up in everyone’s face about racism and sexism.”

  6. NancyP wrote:

    Yes indeed, there are Anglo people last name Gee. A prominent U.S. progressive non-profit service organization’s local branch is run by an Anglo person last name Gee.

  7. Donald wrote:

    What is supposed to be satirical about those extracts of David Gee’s book? Satire is about mocking the powerful by exaggerating their failings and behaviour. As such it works better with identifiable individuals than groups. The target for mockery should be the author’s two dimensional view of Arab culture. I’m sure there’s room for a satire on some arab prince, chief or other but it will be written by someone who knows the individual.

  8. Arabi wrote:

    Isn’t just a problematic to take one story about Arabs and assume that characters are to represent the whole culture?
    Thats what I’m reading from this review.
    Its just another form of stereotyping. Maybe Gee wasn’t trying to write a novel about Arab/Middle Eastern culture. Maybe the characters are to be taken for what they would /should be in real life, flawed, individuals.
    And I beg to differ with the overall jest of the comments: Minorities for the most part do find stereotypes of themselves funny or BET wouldn’t still be on the air.

  9. Ashlynn wrote:

    To bounce off on Arabi’s comment: Minorites usually only find race jokes funny when a person of that race is telling; the premise there is that the comedian, having grown up in such culture/under such influences, has an understanding of the good and bad of that culture/influence, therefore being able to joke about it. But for an outsider looking in? Not so much.

    Now, why BET is still on the air, is another WEBSITE altogether.

  10. Ishtar wrote:

    @ Khinky

    I know what you mean. I’ve encountered that same mindset too many times here in Cape Town. People look at you like you’re nuts when you call them out on it.

    For example, Mel Miller’s “comedy” – racist, misogynistic, crude and unoriginal. Yet, he has an audience!

  11. Princesse de Clèves wrote:

    @ Donald:

    David Gee is a self-proclaimed satirist.
    http://www.shaikh-down.com/how-and-why/
    I do agree with you: satire requires a witter style than Gee’s and more honesty.
    He collected racist clichés about Arabs and called them “satire” – only because he was able to put them in a novel… Provocation is just an excuse. Sometimes you pretend to be daring while you simply are racist.

    @Arabi:

    Gee’s jokes are not my jokes. Enjoy them if you like.
    The fact you think Gee’s book refer to “Arab/Middle-Eastern culture” only means that you tragically underestimate this culture.
    And about minorities finding the stereotypes of themselves funny (?), I would simply refer to Desproges, a French humorist. He said: ” you can laugh about everything, but not with everyone.”

  12. Princesse de Clèves wrote:

    @ Arabi:

    I just realized you wrote that Gee was NOT writing about Arab culture…
    Please accept my apologies for this misunderstanding.

    I keep all the rest of my criticism though – especially Desproges’ point.

  13. g31 wrote:

    Derald Wing Sue’s “Racial Microaggressions,” discusses the psychological ramifications of unintentional racism, which may be good for your argument. Often, I engage in intense discussions with people of color regarding the weight of ‘jokes,’ in short that it’s about laughing off our marginalization. Still, I have had complementary arguments in which we recognize if/when we joke around the wrong people, there are consequences, some of which feel it’d be okay.

  14. Joyce wrote:

    I am reminded of Maria Shriver’s essay titled “The R-word Is No Joke”. Check it out.

  15. Crystal wrote:

    Princesse de Cleves – nice article. Too true.

    I’m going to cosign w/ Luis at #3 above – it’s not funny because they’re not jokes.

  16. Big Man wrote:

    Wrote about this same issue at my blog. My muse was an interview with Warren G by a popular hipster magazine.

  17. Donald wrote:

    @Arabi
    When you set fiction in a particular place the assumption is that you will describe the culture of that place. In this case it is the culture of the oil rich Gulf States rather than Arab culture in general. Yet having read the extracts he has published on the internet I see just a bunch of sex mad stereotypes. Granted that includes the white characters. Worse, he has used a third party style of writing which gives the impression of an impartial observer when he is assuming all sorts of moral values.

    I have no problem with using stereotypes in writing but it is necessary for the author to develop the characters into something more – to personalise them. Describing flawed individuals is fine but there needs to be something positive to humanise them.

    This story could have been told satirically if written from the perspective of one of the servants but the author is clearly incapable of that. It would also have been funny.

  18. RCHOUDH wrote:

    After reading extracts of his book I have to say I am sick and tired of comedians like him who have to resort to both sex and race jokes in order to look “funny”. And I find comedians like him resorting to such jokes because usually they’re really not all that funny. And Gee sure goes overboard with his rich Arab sheikh stereotypes. Resorting to stereotypes made his book out to be quite a boring read.

  19. mysskay wrote:

    @Arabi you wrote: “Minorities for the most part do find stereotypes of themselves funny”

    I’m assuming since you referenced BET in your example, that you were also talking about black people since BET stands for Black Entertainment Television. My response is based on this assumption. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I must say BET is not still on the air because black people find stereotypes about themselves funny. There is a large and growing community of people of color who wholeheartedly are against everything BET stands for in its present state. Which brings me to ownership. Viacom represents BET. Here is some of what Viacom has to say on their website (http://www.viacom.com/aboutviacom/Pages/default.aspx):

    Viacom connects with our diverse audiences everywhere they are… we know what our viewers want and proudly deliver it… Our respected brands include MTV Networks, BET Networks, Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, VH1, Nickelodeon, Nick at Nite, COMEDY CENTRAL, CMT: Country Music Television, Spike TV, TV Land, Logo and approximately 155 networks around the world. BET Networks presents the best in Black media and entertainment.

    First and foremost television is a business, and secondly it is designed for entertainment. BET is not taken serious by anyone except those who’s paychecks depend on programming. Viewership is not designed with the black audience in mind, in fact it is designed with the white audience in mind. They do find stereotypes about other races funny. Sometimes they find stereotypes about their race funny, but only because it doesn’t affect their place of privilege and power. There are many uneducated black folks who do not realize the images on BET are not designed for empowerment or education. They could turn to another channel, but every single channel, which we could refer to as WET, is not designed with them in mind either. BET the original is not BET as it is today. The BET today is used as bait. This is evidenced by the fact that every season someone else has signed a new contract for another waste of prime time television under the illusion that this is their ticket to freedom. And yet, the stereotypes and images are not improving for the better; which would be the assumption of one who thinks BET is for/about black people. I would argue the stereotypes are in fact declining along with the ratings/viewership.

    In America, everything is designed to protect White investment. So when you say: “Minorities for the most part do find stereotypes of themselves funny” I ask you, but at what cost?

  20. ALY wrote:

    @mysskay, in particular, and generally the article.

    I think that racial jokes in the mouths and minds of POC can be resistance, even if they are critical, but are they read as resistance to white folks who constantly reiterate them, buy the DVDs, tell them to their friends? I’m highly doubtful all the toking, uppity rich white boys getting a kick out of these jokes see them as anything more than a commodity to affirm their own racism.
    But I don’t think it is cut and dry, either, and I wonder if the joke isn’t on the racist white people who shell out the money to buy the work of comedians who are mocking their ignorance?

  21. mysskay wrote:

    @aly – thanks for your reply.

    could you explain what you meant by:

    But I don’t think it is cut and dry, either, and I wonder if the joke isn’t on the racist white people who shell out the money to buy the work of comedians who are mocking their ignorance?