Bros Before Hoes?

Submitted without comment, found via Racialicious:
bros-hoes.jpg
Ok, two little comments. First, how impressively offensive. Second, divide and conquer has always been an excellent strategy.
Update: Wow, I really didn’t think we still had the have this conversation. The use of the phrase bros before hos (the correct spelling for the plural of ho, I believe) in this shirt is racist and sexist. Just because it’s also in common usage doesn’t make it less so. The general usage of this phrase is also sexist. Calling a woman a ho is calling her a prostitute, and is meant as an insult (I don’t believe it should be used as an insult, but it is).
And just because you might think it’s funny doesn’t make it less racist and sexist. Sure, I get the humor. Doesn’t mean it’s not offensive.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

88 Comments

  1. Kimmy
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    You know, for a while there I thought you might actually be interested in learning something, Bryan. But the fact that you’re basically refusing to listen to any of us as we try to explain this to you shows me I was wrong. You’re just another man who, while he might agree with some of our positions, still thinks he knows better about sexism and it’s related shit than we women do.
    I’ll be ignoring you now. I’m moving apartments this week, and my frustration and annoyance levels are both high enough already.

  2. Posted June 21, 2007 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Bryan, if calling your friends historically derogatory terms is the norm of the social situation, I think you either need to find new friends or new social situations.
    (Exception: historically derogatory terms that your group has reclaimed. My friends and I can refer to each other as dykes. When we do so in mixed company, it has to come with context for the heteros so they know what’s going on. Because you said “black friends” rather than “other black people,” I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re white. Thus this exception does not apply to your hypothetical situation.)

  3. Genny
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Funny, I’m a female college student and if someone called me a ho, I’d assume they were implying that I was either overly promiscuous or dressed like a prostitute, regardless of their “intention”. Because that’s what the word means. In any context. It’s a way to marginalize women and reduce them to the lowest common denominator that men can think of, i.e, a prostitute. It makes it easier for men to dismiss what women say, how they feel, and anything they experience because “you know how hos are”. And Bryan, I’m sad to say that despite your good intentions and efforts, you are dismissing what women are telling you because you think that you just know better than we do. That makes you sexist.
    I wholeheartedly believe that you and your friends use the phrase in what you perceive as non-offensive ways, but everytime you refer to a woman as a ho, you take away a little bit of her credibility. It’s been done to me, it’s been done to friends of mine, it’s been done to women in the media. It’s the easiest way for someone to undermine a woman’s position, no matter what the argument. So while I believe that you have nothing but good intentions at heart, there’s a reason the road to hell is paved with those good intentions.
    But who cares what I think? I’m just a trick ass ho. (Been called that, for real, to my face, by a man who probably thought there was nothing offensive about that word.)

  4. ankathry
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Bryan, I agree that name-calling doesn’t get anyone very far; calling someone an asshole doesn’t do anything to advance a discussion. On the other hand, people aren’t out of line in saying “your arguments are sexist and here’s why,” and there’s been plenty of that going on here.
    So, w/r/t to your thoughts about where to use “bros before hos”: I disagree with anyone using the phrase at all (especially once they know it’s offensive to the “hos” being referenced) because it perpetuates the misogyny imbedded in the language. I don’t think swearing works as an analogy; your mom might not like it, but the word “fuck” (for example) isn’t a slur on her gender. Let me ask you this: would you use a racial slur – or hell, tell a racial joke – in private? When no one who might be offended is around? My guess, and correct me if I’m wrong, because I don’t know you, is no. It just… it sets a bad example for someone who knows that a certain term is offensive to use it; it validates more ignorant points of view.
    Finally, I have to agree with the commenters who have pointed out that just about everyone is sexist and racist (I would add classist, too). These -ists are ingrained in us by our culture from birth, and (I believe) the best that any of us can do is a) realize that our actions or beliefs may be informed by bigoted assumptions of which we might not even be aware, and b) work to recognize and combat such impulses via education and the help of others (even the name-callers) who point them out.
    So, like I said, I appreciate your coming here to engage, and I hope that your boundaries are in fact getting extended. It’s an admirable goal.

  5. Bryan
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    I’m sorry to hear that, I really didn’t intend to upset anyone. I hope your move goes well.
    Mk,
    You are correct, I am white. To tell the truth, while I do have black friends, they don’t refer to themselves derogatorily. But I see no problem with Eminem using the N-word when talking to his friends, and in many areas, this is the societal norm.
    So my basic argument is this: If the term is used by someone who doesn’t mean it offensively in reference to someone who doesn’t find it offensive and to an audience that also does not find it offensive and infers that the speaker does not use it in that meaning, it is not offensive.
    Oh, and the last post was supposed to say “I heart Godwin” at the end. I guess my little heart emoticon didnt get through.

  6. Bryan
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    Sorry for the double post, posting seems to take so long, and I miss so much!
    Genny,
    My depiction of “college kids” referred to the term “bros before hos” not “ho” in general. I don’t use that term alone, because the intent of the word would be different.
    “you are dismissing what women are telling you because you think that you just know better than we do”
    I have never dismissed an argument because “I thought I knew better”, especially due to gender. Take Ankathry for example, she puts forth wonderful arguments without insulting me, and I try to respond in turn. Its lovely!
    Ankathry,
    You make some excellent points. And your right, speech like this or racist jokes can be bad examples, and I would never use them in front of those I thought might misunderstand me. But sometimes even racists jokes are quite clever, and, as long as have little doubt it will ingrain racism in those that hear them, they can be shared. Thats faux pas, I know.
    And your right about the inherent “-isms” people have. I do my best to recognize those and rid myself of them. Your comments have definitely made me reconsider my positions, and while they haven’t changed, I understand others points better because of them. Thank you.

  7. Sandinista
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    There is no debate as to what rape is.
    See, that’s simply not true. You would think there wouldn’t be, but there is. Her eyes said “yes.” We’ve had sex before. We’re married. She went to my room/she got in my bed. She was dressed provocatively. She’s a ho. None of this excuses or mitigates raping a woman in any way, but many patriarchy-addled brains think it does. No, really.
    Similarly, I can’t fucking comprehend how in the fucking world someone could think that “ho” isn’t sexist. But, hey, there you are, playing a [significantly less disgusting, I'll grant you] variation on the same old tune.
    I simply say that using language that may be considered sexist in one circle is fine in a circle that does not consider it sexist.
    A circle that does not consider the word “ho” sexist is a circle of sexists. They should not be encouraged.
    (as sexist language is not offensive to sexists)
    Yes. Exactly.
    I wouldn’t hesitate to call them it if that was the norm of the social situation.
    Fine, but sexism is the norm of our social situation and that’s what you’re adhering to.
    But I see no problem with Eminem using the N-word when talking to his friends, and in many areas, this is the societal norm.
    As regards race and gender, the “societal norm” is oppression of women and people of color. If you are primarily interested in adhering to societal norms, you will wind up complicit in said oppressions, sooner rather than later.
    Reclamation of offensive words is to be performed by the groups the words were used to oppress, not the groups who used them to be oppressive. You don’t know what it means to be called a ho and you therefore do not get to decide how offensive it is or is not. Ditto “the N-word” and ditto Eminem.
    If the term is used by someone who doesn’t mean it offensively in reference to someone who doesn’t find it offensive
    BUT WE CLEARLY DO FIND IT OFFENSIVE! You specified earlier that “ho” is being used to refer to all women. You have before you an array of women who are offended.
    an audience that also does not find it offensive and infers that the speaker does not use it in that meaning
    The big assumption coded here is that people don’t find the word “ho” offensive because they know that it is meant non-offensively. Please, refer to your own earlier statement: “sexist language is not offensive to sexists.” Finding “ho” inoffensive is not the mark of a post-sexist thought process, but of an explicitly sexist one. It signifies approval of and/or ignorance of and/or apathy towards and/or amusement about how women are treated as sexual objects, judged for their sexual choices and denigrated simply for being women. Any person who has a true sense of what sexism, as a social force, is and what it does to women would not find this hateful term acceptable.
    When “ho” is no longer used to mitigate domestic, sexual and other kinds of violence against women, then we can talk about intent.
    Oh, and if you don’t want to be on the receiving end of ad hominem attacks then DON’T CALL ME A HO.

  8. Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    You make some excellent points. And your right, speech like this or racist jokes can be bad examples, and I would never use them in front of those I thought might misunderstand me. But sometimes even racists jokes are quite clever, and, as long as have little doubt it will ingrain racism in those that hear them, they can be shared.
    *bangs head methodically against desk*

  9. Bryan
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Sandinista,
    I don’t believe I ever have called you anything of the sort.
    Perhaps I can clarify my position with a question: Would “Friends before girlfriends” be acceptable as a statement? (assuming the typical not-so-serious relationship, and not any kind of long term commitment).
    Again, if I mean it to convey exactly that question, and those that hear it get that meaning and nothing more, aside from the “setting a bad example” argument discussed above, is it sexist, and why?

  10. Bryan
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    Cara,
    De gustibus non est disputandum? Sorry, I do understand the frustration.

  11. Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    I’m not Sandinista, but I think that “friends before girlfriends” is fine, in most situations. As long as they’re not serious emotional relationships (and both parties are aware of this), I in fact think that’s a fairly good motto to have. If my husband went around saying that his friends were more important than me, though, I’d have a problem. [not that I don't want him to have friends or that I don't want those friends to be an important part of his life. But it's disrespectful to rate me up against them, especially if I'm "losing."]
    It also doesn’t imply that all of your friends are male. And it doesn’t imply that all men should come before all women– merely that, if I’m interpreting you correctly, you should put the feelings of your good friends over a woman you hardly know but would like to hook up with.

  12. Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    You have claimed that you are not racist. But you admit to sometimes telling racist jokes. That is a racist act, no matter what the context, unless it’s “want to hear how racist people are? here’s a joke some racist asshole told me. isn’t he an asshole? i hope i never have to speak to him again.” Period. You are ignoring your white privilege, as well as your male privilege, and simultaneously claiming that you are aware of them. If you were aware of your privilege, you would recognize that telling a racist joke is never a neutral act. I don’t know what else to say to you, except to again refer you to the Feminism 101 website.

  13. ankathry
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Bryan, you know I respect you and all, but I gotta go w/ Sandinista on this. Especially her last long paragraph. Indulging in sexist or racist language is… indulging in sexism or racism. And it’s not harmless, no matter who you’re around. And to me, it’s disingenuous to argue that something is inoffensive if no one is around to be offended by it — that whole tree-falling-in-a-wood thing. Of course it makes a sound. Plus it conjures uncomfortable images of exclusive gloaty groups chuckling amongst themselves at the hypersensitivity of the masses. Also plus, you can’t be sure that just because a member of the group being targeted is with you and appears to be OK with your language — you can’t assume s/he is. Being in such a situation can be very uncomfortable — maybe s/he’s internalized the bigotry, in which case you’re only digging their hole of self-loathing deeper for them; or maybe s/he doesn’t want to risk social retribution or dismissal by speaking up, a fear that is pretty understandable given the larger group’s usage of denigrating slang to begin with.

  14. Bryan
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Cara, I think you understand my point exactly. “Bros before hos” to my friends and I, means exactly that. I am sorry if it comes off offensive to anyone else, and would never intend it that way, but the fact that it is ingrained into my social surrounding means I will continue to use it. I would look silly saying “Friends before girlfriends”, when people equate a common phrase with that same meaning.

  15. Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    “If the term is used by someone who doesn’t mean it offensively in reference to someone who doesn’t find it offensive and to an audience that also does not find it offensive and infers that the speaker does not use it in that meaning, it is not offensive.”
    Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like an awful lot of work. Wouldn’t it be easier to just, you know, not say offensive things?
    Regardless of the “social norms,” as a white person I’m never going to feel comfortable referring to someone with the N-word. Likewise, there are a lot of wonderful straight people who are never going to feel comfortable calling me a dyke. I think that’s as it should be.
    Whether or not “friends before girlfriends” is an acceptable sentiment (and I think Cara sums that up quite nicely) isn’t the issue here, because the company in question didn’t design a t-shirt that says “friends before girlfriends.” They’re using precise language, and several here have outlined the reasons why that language is racist and sexist.
    “Ho” does not suddenly become a neutral term if it’s used among people who don’t believe it to be offensive, just as other slurs and epithets aren’t magically stripped of their meaning. Meaning can be subverted among in-groups, yes, and words can be used in jest or ironically–but this does not erase the baggage associated with those words.

  16. Bryan
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Cara,
    Could you explain “You are ignoring your white privilege, as well as your male privilege, and simultaneously claiming that you are aware of them.” I’m not sure I understand entirely what you mean.
    Ankathry,
    I’m not going to think you don’t respect me just because you disagree. I appreciate the constructive argument. I agree, you can never know for sure someone won’t be offended, but thats a chance I’m willing to take. I have no problem with controversial language or humour (as my postings here will definitely show!). If I make a few people mad, I’m sorry for that, but if they talk to me (as you and others here have) perhaps they will better understand me, and not be quite so offended. Perhaps they will change my mind on the matter.

  17. Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    I am sorry if it comes off offensive to anyone else, and would never intend it that way, but the fact that it is ingrained into my social surrounding means I will continue to use it. I would look silly saying “Friends before girlfriends”, when people equate a common phrase with that same meaning.
    Bullshit. If you understand what they’re saying, but continue to use what you now admit is a sexist/racist saying, then you’re not fucking sorry.
    Don’t say you’re sorry when you’re clearly not. If you were really sorry, you’d say “Wow, I hadn’t thought about it that way before, I’ll work on modifying my behavior so that I’m not taking part in a racist/sexist act.”
    You don’t fix racism and sexism by saying “Huh. Yeah, you’re right, that
    is sexist. Oh well, I was raised that way, so, you know, I’m just gonna keep doing it.”
    That you’d prefer to look racist/sexist over silly is pretty damning, personally.

  18. Bryan
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Sorry for the multiple post, but I thought I might let all those discussing this with me know I am leaving my access to high speed internet for the day, but will certainly check up on the thread tomorrow.
    To those I’ve offended, my apologies.
    To those that provide constructive argument, my thanks.

  19. Sandinista
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    When you call women hos, you call women hos. I am a woman. QED.
    This phrase is sexist because, outside of reclaiming, all use of the word “ho” is sexist. It is a sexist word. No amount alleged good will can change that.
    Yes, Cara, I think you understand my point exactly.
    Yea, but you haven’t understood at all. Your phrase doesn’t mean “exactly” what “friends before girlfriends” does. Did you read what Cara wrote?
    It also doesn’t imply that all of your friends are male. And it doesn’t imply that all men should come before all women
    “Bros before hos,” in contrast, does imply those things. And if you and your friends don’t mean those things then you shouldn’t be using that phrase.
    I am sorry if it comes off offensive to anyone else, and would never intend it that way, but the fact that it is ingrained into my social surrounding means I will continue to use it. I would look silly saying “Friends before girlfriends”, when people equate a common phrase with that same meaning.
    Well, at least we’ve gotten past the BS posturing. This is really what it comes down to: you don’t want to put in the effort to speak respectfully. Moreover, you especially don’t want to look like some kind of sensitive feminist type in front of your friends (who would never say anything intentionally sexist, mind you). You just don’t care enough. Well, that’s not unusual; that’s extremely consistent with the social mores you continually reference as a poorly-chosen moral compass. I would only ask that you then not take umbrage when we call it like we see it.

  20. ankathry
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    I also think that “Friends before girlfriends” is a lovely compromise; as Cara pointed out, the language is no longer fraught. And as MK pointed out, the language is what’s at issue here.
    And yeah, you’d sound wacky using it among your friends, but… well, take one of my many weaknesses. Most days I don’t wanna take the el, I wanna drive! In the car, get to control the commute, I can actually hear my music, and there’s no one’s morning breath to deal with but mine. But I take the slow, noisy, stinky el anyway, because otherwise I’m contributing to global warming. You know?

  21. ankathry
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    I also think that “Friends before girlfriends” is a lovely compromise; as Cara pointed out, the language is no longer fraught. And as MK pointed out, the language is what’s at issue here.
    And yeah, you’d sound wacky using it among your friends, but… well, take one of my many weaknesses. Most days I don’t wanna take the el, I wanna drive! In the car, get to control the commute, I can actually hear my music, and there’s no one’s morning breath to deal with but mine. But I take the slow, noisy, stinky el anyway, because otherwise I’m contributing to global warming. You know?

  22. Peter
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    racist? no.

  23. Crys
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Kudos to Bryan for keeping his cool and not defeating the entire premise of this discussion through snarky comments and over-emotional hyperbole (because what’s the use of trying to defeat one sexist stereotype when you actively perpetuate another?) Because frankly, this is just a t shirt, and I’m starting to wonder if I’m one of the few who upon first glance laughed at it, not because I like making fun of minorities (as a bi-racial woman, it seems a bit self-defeating) but because I thought it was a clever social critique of American politics in general. Obama DOES have an edge over Clinton for some voters because he is male, just as Clinton DOES have an edge over Obama for some voters because she is white.
    Yes, people who let differences like that decide the way they vote are irrational and prejudiced, but acknowledging that these people exist (and in short order, making fun of them) is not. At this point, the seething and gnashing of teeth being displayed here makes me wonder that as a devotee of satire, I’m supposed to turn in my feminist club card (if I had one–which, if I did, would be tounge in cheek as well.) Its like child-rights activists burning copies of Swift’s A Modest Proposal for its ageism and ethic prejudices. Sheesh.
    Also, as a side note: no one seems to recognize that as two very affluent presidential candidates, who due to their class and status are most likely well insulated from the equality issues that affect minorities in lower wage brackets, be called out in the general parlance that they would otherwise not be subjected to. I can’t wait until they’re running together–I’d love the BFF shirt…

  24. Itazura
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    Personally I am not worried about this shirt, because I know people who wear it in public will get the shit kicked out of them in most places in America. It’s the equivalent of wearing a swastika or a white pride logo. Lets let people wear it just to show how appalling American conservatism really is. Yes, most Republicans are not racist or misogynistic, but probably 95-99% of racist and misogynistic people vote Republican.

  25. Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    Your friends might think you’re silly, but choosing to stick with “bros before hos” is going to make a lot of other people think you’re stupid and sexist. Obviously, it’s your pick. Maybe you need some new friends?
    You claim to not be racist. Do you know what “white privilege” and “male privilege” mean? I ask that seriously, because you said you didn’t follow. If not, look it up. You seem to be stating here that you’re NOT racist and NOT sexist. And yet you admit to telling racist jokes and using sexist language in “benign” ways. That shows that you are completely ignorant to your white and male privilege, or think that you’re somehow above it. You’re not. No one is.

  26. Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Crys, I think a lot of us appreciate satire. Feminism and a love of mockery are by no means mutually exclusive. But effective satire must be read as such. I really don’t think the issue here is that all us angry feminists can’t take a joke. We can. We can also call a joke out when it’s rooted in racism and sexism.

  27. Sandinista
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    You’re mistaking prejudice for satire, Crys. Moreover, satire does not absolve its creators of social responsibility; it can go too far and it is wont to be somewhat problematic.

  28. Crys
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Hi Mk, what I’m trying to communicate that upon viewing the shirt, it’s ironic–by calling out the inherent racism and sexism in everday society and particularly in politics, by identifying it (my one defense in all this is that I cannot imagine anyone wearing it seriously. I mean, really, if you’re so virulently sexist/racist to believe that either of the candidates are unsuitable due to their sex or skin colour, why would you then parade around in such a shirt in the first place? I never seen a mysognist wear a Margaret Thatcher t shirt.) Lets be honest, the only people we’ll probably see wearing it are clueless hipsters in urban areas, but thats beside the point. Of course, call out the mean-spirited, purely motivated by greed or spite prejudice jokes–but also be able to recognize when a joke can have a double meaning: the overall satiric message does carry. one should not underestimate the intelligence of the citizenry. I can’t believe I’ve written so much about a t shirt. there must be more important things to do.

  29. tps12
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Have to say, I’m highly amused by the defense of the phrase “bros before hos” on the grounds that it “just” means “friends before girlfriends,” as if that sentiment weren’t itself steeped in machismo and immaturity.

  30. Posted June 21, 2007 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Crys, I do understand your point, but I don’t think we should give this particular t-shirt company that much credit. Have you looked at their offerings? This is just a sampling:
    International Age of Consent Tour
    If a fat girl falls in the forest, do the trees laugh?
    2 drinks away from girl on girl action
    For English press 1; para Espanol move to Mexico and press 2
    This company does not specialize in irony or satire. They willfully profit off of anti-immigrant, misogynist, racist, homophobic, fatphobic taglines. Some of it may be clever (two spoons in bed, with one thinking “Can’t we just fuck for once?”) but it’s still vile.

  31. Posted June 21, 2007 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Lets be honest, the only people we’ll probably see wearing it are clueless hipsters in urban areas, but thats beside the point.
    What, it wasn’t enough for this thread to be full of racism and sexism, but now we have to throw hipsterism in there as well? You’re obviously not aware of your unhipster privilege.
    *playful wink, please don’t hurt me*

  32. Georgia
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Some times the comments on this site are endlessly frustrating, as a biracial female who does consider herself a feminist I like the stories featured here, but I find many of the comments difficult to deal with.
    If anyone doesn’t understand why young women shy away from calling themselves feminits they only need to read the responses that were aimed at Byran to find the answer.
    Everytime someone says something that the group doesn’t agree with they are immediately accused of being sexist or racist.
    Is calling a woman a Hoe sexist, yes. But in the context of the general phrase Bros before Hoes I don’t believe it is meant in this way. And people can agree to disagree.
    I think that Hoes is used because it rhymes with Bros and makes for a catchy phrase. Much like Chicks before Dicks.
    If some people want to use any of the watered down versions of the phrase that have been proposed its their choice, but realize that some people can make offensive jokes or references with out being sexist or racist.

  33. Mallorie
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    This is from Tshirthell.com, right? Their whole site is full of “offensive” shirt making fun of any and everything. It’s all meant in an ironic tone, and when people get all huffy and offended and write to them, they’re made fun of in the next month’s subscriber email. Personally, I have a “You can’t have manslaughter without laughter” shirt, as well as my trusty “A woman’s place is in the kitchen” one, featuring an old fashioned font and a woman in an apron. If you target one specific group to make jokes about and consider the rest to be sacred or too much, that’s when things get racist or sexist. It’s “equal oppurtunity offenders” that have it right, they don’t take a single thing seriously when they’re joking. No one is protected from ridicule. That’s how I live. I see everyone on an equal playing field.
    I can see how more sensitive people could take this joking the wrong way, though. With this shirt, it’s making fun of the huge deal everyone is making that there’s a black guy and a woman as top contenders for running for president. It’s made funnier by the stupid over used tagline. Shirts like this may be in bad taste to wear in public when you don’t know who’s going to get offended and start cussing at you, but that doesn’t make them any less funny. Sometimes it’s good to embrace a stupid stereotype and turn it around to something funny, showing how ridiculous the stereotypes are.

  34. Posted June 21, 2007 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    See, the problem with “ironic” racism and sexism is that it presumes everyone to realize how stupid and wrong the stereotypes are, and therefore ripe for ridicule. Problem is, racism and sexism are NOT over. Not even close. So it’s not funny, it’s offensive. And when people who are not a part of the group being “ironically” mocked where this kind of shit, it really shows how completely unaware of their privilege they are.
    And I’m sick of being told that, whenever I’m offended by something, it’s a “joke” that I just don’t “get.” I can get the joke and think that it’s not funny. And a joke can be racist and sexist, even if it THINKS it’s not.

  35. dinogirl
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Cara, Sandanista, Ankathry, and mk – just wanted to say your points are all awesome. If you’re feeling frustrated for wasting your powers of debate on someone who’s not interested, I just wanted to let you know that you all put what I was feeling about this into words and I really appreciate it. Bryan may not be interested in making the effort to change his offensive behaviour, but this feminist feels better equipped to argue these points in future debates. Thank you all!

  36. Posted June 21, 2007 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Thanks :)

  37. Posted June 21, 2007 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    The other issues have been well and truly gone over, but with respect to the lameness of “friends before girlfriends” compared to the rhyming version, how about “mates before dates”?
    I know “mates” is more British Commonwealth English than American, but you guys ate up the Crocodile Hunter, why not sound a bit Australian? It’s useful for men and women arguing for in-group loyalty as well.

  38. Jen
    Posted June 21, 2007 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

    I’m closing comments on this thread because frankly, it’s too exhausting. I’m happy to have people disagree, but this is out of control.
    It honestly never occurred to be that there’d be a debate about this. “But it’s mainstream” or “but I think it’s funny: are not acceptable excuses.
    Cara, Sandinista, Ankathry and others, thanks for what you say. But I will not watch this devolve into another round of “don’t be so sensitive” racist and sexist bullshit.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

197 queries. 1.038 seconds