When ineffective satire = woman-hating

There are about 100,000 ways in which this video is absolutely filled with misogyny. Here’s a step-by-step guide for making your own.

  • Start with the phony accent and inflection that will remind everyone just how stupid, vacuous and irritating women truly are.
  • Then introduce an ‘ironic’ quest for beauty that will really drive that vacuousness home, and emphasise just how self-absorbed women can be.
  • Then insert a series of jokes about filthy women and how they need to be scrubbed clean. (That’s literal and metaphorical, you see!)
  • Finally, finish with a good healthy dose of slut-shaming, and be sure to throw in a whole host of tired jokes about women who work in the sex trade and how dirty, whoreish, ugly, laughable and reprehensible they are.
  • Oh, and don’t forget to give yourself a massive pat on the back when you’re done, and remind yourself that because you’re so clever and important, you get to make an ‘ironic’ video about how above it all you are.

Because what’s really important in the world you live in is making assumptions about a life you clearly know nothing about and posting 2.5 minutes of rubbish on youtube at others’ expense. Good work. Sleep well tonight in your obliviousness.

23 responses to “When ineffective satire = woman-hating

  1. It made me giggle, something about how perfectly good looking people/women make themselves look frankly bizarre because they think they have to look a certain way to be considered attractive, similarly could be done with many other ‘styles’ of dressing and make up and equally with men as with women. I’d quite like to see the same thing done with the male rap star style with all the bizarre bling and I’m sure I’ve seem something similar years ago referring to the ned look. Didn’t get the anti woman sentiment from it.

    • The anti-woman sentiment is how she uses patriarchal notions of beauty, which are foisted upon women anyway, to slut-shame and degrade sex workers. (It is all very well saying that she is ‘only picking a group of people’ as if that group of people – namely sex workers – doesn’t matter.) What she is doing actually extends to all women and the decisions they make on the clothes that they wear, and the way they do their hair and make-up etc. She probably doesn’t realise that she is actually demonstrating how a very destructive cycle works by implementing a patriarchal idea of how women should look, while at the same time shaming them for doing so. Yeah, it’s all hilarious (not!) but the underlying message is completely anti-women by her reinforcement of those values.

  2. Yeah I did not get that from it at all. I thought she perfectly demonstrated the destructive cycle of views regarding how women should look, I kind of thought that was the point of the piece.

    • Then how do you explain her slut-shaming of sex workers at the end? Because we weren’t supposed to find that illustrative; we were supposed to agree with the slut-shaming and laugh at it.

  3. You mean the comment about choosing a degrading job like dancing in her underwear? That was so we could laugh/pity the person who would decide not use their brains (that got them a masters degree) but instead choose to do a job they find degrading (in her case she thinks dancing in her underwear fits the bill) all because what drives this fictional (although based on real peoples real world views) womans desire to be considered ‘attractive’ over and above all else.

    • It’s clear we see this in completely different ways. She was mocking sex workers and inviting the audience to do the same. So, in that sense, she succeeded because that’s what you did. (‘Crying’ over the sex worker’s master’s degree is mocking said person.) If she was trying to give any sort of message about the destructive nature of patriarchal mores, she shouldn’t have been mocking the victim of those mores. Slut-shaming/ victim-blaming/ women-hating, all equate to the same thing in this case. Mocking individuals who are most susceptible to pressure from the patriarchy is not, in any way, an empowering or progressive message.

      And why should we laugh at or pity sex workers who make an informed decision to become part of that industry?! I have a PhD and if I decided (through my own free will and in the absence of any sort of coercion) to become a sex worker, I would certainly make a lot more money than I do now. That’s not so ‘stupid’ to me. And such decisions are very seldom concerned with being ‘attractive’. Would I be bolstering a misogynistic society? Of course I would. But is that my (and anyone else’s) choice? Yes! Would I want your pity? No thanks!

  4. She was mocking herself for wanting to be a sex worker even though she personally finds it degrading because her desire to be thought ‘attractive’ over rules all else, she was inviting us to mock her, I certainly wasn’t laughing at sex workers, I was laughing at her and her messed up thinking. I don’t think at any point she did mock sex workers, she mocked herself for being weak and trying to be something she is not.

    Sure we could go into an analysis of what it is that causes insecure individuals to want to take on a persona that doesn’t suit them because they have somehow got it into their heads that being accepted as ‘that’ is the be all and end all and the girls who feign stupidity to ensnare a boy or turn their natural hair straw like because they think it fits with mans idea of beauty and attractiveness.

    In the same way it is probably very wrong to mock people who genuinely are sucked in by the tabloid sensationalism of asylum seekers sucking the country dry etc, of course on that level I completely understand that they have been unlucky enough to have encountered only a very narrow view in their upbringing and a tendancy to mistrust people they see as different and an inclination to believe whatever is written in the rag their parents probably read before them but then where would I get my fun if i could no longer mock daily mail readers?

    • That is a really important dialogue to have (i.e. what drives insecurity and the quest for beauty in the patriarchy). Such insecurity is literally crippling for millions of women in the world. It is not acceptable to just write it off as ‘stupidity’ because trying to fit in with the patriarchal notions of beauty is so incredibly destructive for women.

      Daily Mail readers are, by and large, a very privileged group (which is why they choose to discriminate against asylum seekers, gay people, ethnic minorities, women etc). Mocking them is nowhere near the same as mocking women who are not privileged and sex workers who are very far from privileged.

  5. I’m not talking about sex workers I am talking about women who think they have to look a certain way to be considered attractive. This was never about sex workers, if geek chic was the current yardstick by which men are perceived to judge women then this piece could have shown the girl dying her hair mousy brown and wearing oversized glasses and sensible shoes, it would be equally as funny/sad, that is the point. The fact that women often adopt a look or behaviour that they think marks them out. The fact that men are perceived to rate bleached blonde overly made up half naked girls as the most attractive (whether this is true or not or just what some women believe) is incidental to the point being made.

    No sex worker was mocked in this piece imo, women who sell out their self esteem and confidence to fulfil a role are being mocked although as I mentioned above I know that mockery is not the ideal response because in a sense we are all the result of our upbringing and society but by using that yardstick, no joke can ever be made about anyone.

    • The pressure for, and obsession with, beauty from the patriarchy is not incidental to the point. It IS the point. It is NOT a joke and it is not something to be mocked, whether the result be big boobs and blonde hair, or NHS glasses and brown hair.

  6. Exactly that is the point, not the sex worker thing which was as I said simply incidental in this case. I don’t want to necessarily have a debate about the merits or otherwise of certain attempts at humour, really I only commented because I thought you thought the girl was judging or making fun of sex workers when I felt she wasn’t.

    • Why it that only incidental then when she is deliberately culminating her point (whatever the hell it was supposed to be) in making fun of sex workers? That’s not incidental. None of this is incidental to the misogyny going on in that video. Though I accept that you don’t see that misogyny, and that’s fair enough.

  7. Well she isn’t making fun of sex workers she is making fun of, as you said above women who bow to the “The pressure for, and obsession with, beauty from the patriarchy” you think that’s a wrong thing to do, I don’t think it’s as bad as all that, making fun of something can be a healthy way for society to draw attention to issues such as these and label them daft or unpleasant or nasty or what have you, not to bring out godwins law too early but making jokes about serious things has been used since the beginning of time.

    • Making fun of it (women and sex workers) illustrates a huge lack of awareness of one’s own privilege. Not everyone has that much privilege, and can see the funny side of it.

  8. Well if she was making fun of sex workers that wouldn’t be very funny at all but making fun of women/some women for doing/thinking/saying many things is a huge part of many comedians’ repertoire, similarly making fun of men/some men for their ways, are you suggesting that it’s impossible to make a joke about a woman? Ever?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s