Stereotypes and Jokes

I love to laugh, and I love good comedy.  Jim Gaffigan, Chris Rock, and Aziz Ansari are some of my favorite widely known comedians.  I even did standup comedy myself for about a year, performing at various open mics, and even co-hosting a comedy show out of a Jiujitsu gym I trained at.  During that time I met tons of great comics from southern California; some of my favorite were Karl Hess, Billy Bonnell, Rajan Dharni, Christian Spicer, and Zoltan Kaszas.  My good friend David Zafra, whom I had co-hosted the Jiujitsu comedy show with, still performs and is even getting booked shows now.  He's taking the comedy and podcast world by storm with his wild, take-no-prisoners style of wordplay that would have Shakespeare himself saying "damn, that shit was hot!  Now time to go smoke a blunt and write some more dick jokes."

Me doing standup, circa 2012.

 The point is, I'm no stranger to standup comedy.  In fact, I'm quite the fan.  During my time participating in it, I had a lot of fun coming up with new joke concepts and fleshing them out.  I also heard a lot of fantastic jokes of all sorts: some critiquing something about society, some dealing with certain traumatic experiences, some just so wacky and out of left field you couldn't help but laugh.  Then there were the jokes about race, and that's my topic for today.  There's a lot to unpack when talking about race and comedy, especially since there are different ways to do so.

First off, jokes where the punchline is the stereotype.  These are what people, even advocates, appropriately term "racist" jokes.  When you make jokes that draw upon stereotypes, you're perpetuating these stereotypes. You can say it is "ironic" or just in "good fun" or whatever, but you're still bringing those stereotypes to the surface.

Let's take an example of a racist joke I heard recently to look at what I mean. "What's the difference between a Mexican and a bench? A bench can support a family!" Literally, the punchline of that joke is that Mexicans can't support a family. It's feeding into the idea we are all unreliable and living in poverty.  If you didn't know about the stereotype, then this joke could not work.

For instance, we don't have many stereotypes about Bhutanese people here in the United States.  So let's try the same joke: "What's the difference between a Bhutanese person and a bench?  A bench can support a family!"  It's completely nonsensical.  That's what any joke about stereotypes would be if we didn't actually still hold onto those stereotypes as a society.

On a side note, holy shit, look at this picture from Bhutan!

Also, remember that stereotypes have real life consequences.  For instance, the stereotyping of young black folks as criminals means they're more likely to be shot than their white counter parts, more likely to be arrested for drug use despite similar rates between black and white folks, and less likely to receive employment when qualifications are the same.  Stereotypes are not harmless.

Now, if you and your friends just love teasing each other about your backgrounds and only make these jokes around each other, sure, do you and have fun.  But also, try to develop an actual sense of humor?  Because these types of jokes, aside from keeping around stereotypes, are also just structurally bad. Because the meat of your joke is literally "ha, notice that I just said a stereotype?  Pretty clever and ironic, right?" That shit is just weak.

But not all jokes involving stereotypes simply refer to them.  Plenty of comedians bring them up to critique, ridicule, subvert, or otherwise challenge them.  These comedians take these stereotypes on and challenge them.  For instance, check out this quick Dave Chappelle joke about chicken:

 
In it, he talks about an experience of his as a black man visiting the south. He then explores and mocks the stereotype about black folks liking chicken; "all these years I thought I liked chicken because it was delicious, turns out I'm genetically predisposed to liking chicken! I got no say in the matter! That guy ruined chicken for me, I was scared to eat it in public."

Notice how he deconstructs and attacks the stereotype. The punchline isn't "black folks sure do like chicken!" but "man, isn't that stereotype about black folks liking chicken ridiculous?" And that's what comedy has the power to be: subversive and challenging to prevailing ideas. Even outside the topic of race, it can be used to critique society and be a powerful tool for critical thought.

The thing is, when you make a racist joke where the punchline is a stereotype, you're doing exactly the opposite. You're just keeping stereotypes in people's minds without being critical about them, and that's where the difference lies.  A lot of people say "well, if you're criticizing racist jokes, then how about guys like Chappelle and Rock?"  It's a misunderstanding, because they are tackling the subject matter in very different ways.  Talking about your experiences involving stereotypes and deconstructing them is quite different from simply referring to those stereotypes and calling it a joke.

One thing that is important to keep in mind is that anyone can make jokes lazily relying on stereotypes.  Carlos Mencia's entire shtick is based on constantly repeating the punchline that lots of Mexican Americans are here without papers.  No one gets a pass when they are making shitty jokes.

Now, of course there are plenty of shades of gray when talking about jokes that subvert stereotypes vs feeding into them.  I've heard a lot jokes that I couldn't neatly place into one category.  What's important is that we at least try to analyze and think critically about them.

Especially when it's a super edgy joke about ketchup.

Damn him and his reckless comedy!

Self-Defense for Women

How awful is it that I even have to make this post?  Unfortunately, we live in a society that teaches young men that they are entitled to women's bodies.  Ever since childhood we are shown and told stories of men saving the day and essentially winning their love interest, even if that love interest previously didn't have any interest in them.  In every day life,"nice guys" think that if they act pleasant toward a woman then they somehow deserve her, as if a woman is a prize to be won at an arcade in exchange for politeness points.

 

Redeemable for 20 chivalry coupons!

Beyond that, men are often encouraged to not respect when a woman says no, or to try to push the boundaries of what she is comfortable with, in order to score and prove how "manly" we are. It's an unjust situation.  If we lived in an ideal world, this post wouldn't be necessary.  Alas, we don't, and this is where we find ourselves.

The main focus of this post will be two-fold: critiquing so-called "self-defense" oriented programs and recommending better alternatives for training.

The main problem with most self-defense focused programs/styles is that they offer very little "aliveness" in their training- in other words, they don't have opportunities to go against an opponent who is actively resisting.  Instead, they usually only do choreographed drills that involve your opponent compliantly letting you do to them whatever you're being taught.  Static drills are an important part of any training regimen, but they can't be the only part.

The excuse you'll hear from these "reality based" styles is that their moves are "too deadly" to train with aliveness. And certainly, there are indeed highly effective moves you don't want to perform on your training partners for risk of severe injury.  But here's the thing: if you're not supplementing your training with aliveness, everything you learn will fly out the window the instant someone in real life actually tries to attack you.  If you're not used to someone trying to fight back when performing your moves, you will have no idea how to deal with an opponent who isn't being compliant.

Basically, if your training has no aliveness, this is what you're doing- which is all good,
but let's call it what it is.

And that's what most self-proclaimed "self-defense" styles do.  Compliant drill, after compliant drill, after compliant drill.  It's like becoming really good at playing catch and thinking that alone can make you a quarterback in the NFL, when in reality you need to practice throwing the ball while dealing with people trying to tackle you to the ground.

Instead, train in a style that offers aliveness.  The ultimate form of aliveness is sparring (or its equivalent in other styles such as randori in Judo, rolling in Jiujitsu, kumite in Karate, etc): a simulated match where each participant is trying to win.  There are other forms of aliveness, too, such as drills where your opponent offers increasing levels of resistance when you try to apply techniques on them.

Now, because you're training in a style with aliveness, your training won't focus on "deadly" moves.  But it's much better to be able to perform well-trained normal moves under pressure than to have "deadly" moves that you can't use on anyone willing to fight back.

To bring this back to women in particular, I'd recommend a good grappling style to train in.  Most violence against women outside of domestic abuse doesn't involve a man hitting a woman, but trying to force himself on her.  That is what a good grappling style will prepare you for- also, size also tends to matter less in grappling arts than in striking arts.  I'd recommend Judo, Jiujitsu, Sambo, or even good ol' Wrestling as consistently reliable styles.

A grappling match between a man and a woman where the woman wins by submission.

Check out that video up there (the advertisements end at about 20 seconds in).  Even when the guy gets the dominant top position and is trying to go for the finish, she is able to keep her cool, fight off of her back, and go for the finish herself.  That's what training with aliveness does.

Now, I do have to warn anyone reading this and considering training, it is not easy.  I honestly think part of the reason people train in less effective arts without aliveness in the curriculum is they know how hard it is  to train effectively.  In my post about martial arts and violence, I talked about all the setbacks and small victories that define training.  It sounds noble and almost romantic in writing, but in the gym it can sometimes be frustrating and discouraging.

However, the results are more than worth it.  That grappling match I posted was from an actual competition; in other words, that guy was actively trying to beat her and still lost.  Very, very, very few non-trained men could ever smother an experienced grappler, regardless of their sex.  When I first started training Jiujitsu, women that probably don't even have weight in the triple digits were able to submit me easily.  Even with my training, a high level grappler half my size can still wipe the floor with me.

For those of you reading who don't know me in real life: I am 6 feet tall, just shy of 200 pounds, and do strength training a couple times a week.  I am not exactly a small guy.  But if I were trying to win a match in Jiujitsu, I'd much rather take on a 250 pound man without training than a 120 pound purple belt.

We shouldn't have to live in a world where women are put in charge of defending themselves from sexual assault and other forms of violence.  Thanks to the objectification of women, however, we do.  To all the ladies out there, please, don't be taken in by talk of super deadly, super awesome, super quick self-defense classes.  It's a scam.  Instead, take a class where you are being pushed to your limit and put up against people in an alive training environment.  It'll be difficult, but if you are ever forced to put your training to the test, you need to be able to make it out okay.

Fantasy Worlds and Believability

As I've mentioned before on this blog, I write fiction in addition to blog posts.  Some of the settings I write are "realistic" in the sense that everything operates in the same way that everyday life does in the real world.  There are no mystical elements involved in these stories.  Others involve crafting new worlds, worlds with their own internal logic and creatures that inhabit it.

When discussing works of fiction that take place in worlds more fantastic than our own, criticism of certain plot points someone finds nonsensical is often met with the response "of course it doesn't make sense, it's a movie/video game/TV show/etc."  This post will be about unpacking that statement; I think it is mostly a cop out, but there is also some truth to it.

As I alluded to in the first paragraph, creating worlds different from our own involve creating a new set of rules.  No matter what type of world you're creating- a fantasy land of magic and mythic creatures, a science fiction space adventure, an alternative universe where United States foreign policy actually gives a shit about democracy- a fictional universe needs its own set of governing rules that dictate how everything operates.  Let's take Fullmetal Alchemist, an easy example.

A universe where perfectly coiffed hair curls can withstand anything.

In Fullmetal Alchemist, the show emphasizes the principle of "equivalent exchange"- the idea that in order to obtain anything, something of equal value must be given in turn.  In other words, alchemists can transform and modify objects in that world, but they can't simply make something out of nothing.  When you see Edward make his staff, he's transforming the materials in the ground into his signature weapon.

If someone in that show were suddenly able to make objects materialize out of nothing, then you'd want an explanation for how that happened.  Yes, alchemy is basically magic and defies our laws of physics, but the world of Fullmetal Alchemist still has its own set of rules that it is expected to follow.  Hell, if someone were to suddenly bust out an iPad when the technology of that world is about equivalent to the technology of the early 20th Century, you'd want an explanation.

And that is where the "it's a _____, of course it's not realistic!" idea falls apart.  Yes, we shouldn't hold our entertainment to our own laws of reality.  But fictional works need to hold up to their laws of reality, otherwise that is inconsistent writing, even if other elements of the story are awesome.

A big example of this sort of inconsistency from a work I like (I prefer to pick apart works I like so that it's more analysis than complaint) is from The Walking Dead.  As this article tells us, one of the main rules about zombies is that their eyesight is poor and their sense of smell is strong.  We see that confirmed when Rick decides to cover himself and his pals in zombie remains to walk through the streets... but then we see it broken later when they avoid zombies by hiding under cars.

Then Daryl does something badass and all is forgiven.

A common response to this criticism is that the walkers spot the humans first, and then they use the ol' sniffers to track out whether they are human or not.  But that goes against the rule mentioned above, which specifically says their eyesight is "poor" but they have a "strong" sense of smell.  That would mean that their smelling ability is stronger than their sight (unless the meaning of those words have changed recently), and therefore the hiding trick they used shouldn't have worked.  It's a vague, inconsistent trait that helps kill the believability of their world- again, not because it is "unrealistic" by our terms, but by the terms the show sets up for itself.

These inconsistencies can make us feel less like we're watching something unfold in a different world and more like we're watching something unfold in a clearly fictional one.  Now, different inconsistencies bother people to different degrees, and what some people consider plot holes others don't.  For instance, I find a lot of the so-called plot inconsistencies everyone usually brings up about The Dark Knight Rises to be unfounded, and a lot of the actual inconsistencies didn't bother me much.

"No one noticed Bruce Wayne in the European cafe!"  Oh, right, because a billionaire who is well known in his own town will definitely be globally recognized.  Just like how you would totally recognize the CEO of Walmart or Target if they walked by you right now!

So, yes, some things take some people out of the movies, while those same things don't take others out.  Some aren't taken out of the experience because they don't think the inconsistency is a big deal, while others don't think it's an inconsistency at all.  That's fine, because we all interact with fictional worlds in our own ways.

The main problem with saying "it's a [comic book/fantasy/sci fi/etc] [movie/game/TV show/etc], don't think about it" is that it's dismissing the fact that these types of works have the ability to be immersive and take people to a different world.  A well crafted world with consistency is a fantastic thing.  When you say "don't think about it" you're encouraging people to not immerse themselves, to not critically engage with what they enjoy.

Now, that all being said, not everything needs an explicit explanation.  A movie that comes to mind is the movie Midnight in Paris from a few years back.

They never once explain how Owen Wilson keeps finding work!

In the movie, Owen Wilson is a writer who is visiting Paris with his fiance.  He loves it there, particularly because it was the home of many ex-patriot US writers during the modernist era of the 1920s.  One night, while on a walk, he ends up transported to 1920s-era Paris and gets to meet Ernest Hemingway, F Scott Fitzgerald, Zelda Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, Salvador Dali, and others from that time period.  There is never an explanation given as to why Wilson (and, later, someone sent to track him) are able to travel back in time.

The thing is, the movie is still establishing a set of rules.  The movie shows us early on that time travel is possible in that universe, but everything else about it is realistic.  No one shows up with a light saber, or mind reading abilities, or a positive opinion of any M Night Shyamalan movies.  That is a universe that permits time travel in certain vehicles to the past, and the movie never adds extra fastballs into the mix.

So an explanation isn't always necessary.  In the original Star Wars trilogy, they established how the force functioned as a power, but not what it actually was "scientifically" speaking.  Everyone loved the movies, and then the prequels came up with a sci-fi explanation as to what the force was.  It wasn't a bad explanation, but it wasn't an answer people were clamoring for to make further sense of the universe.

So, in the end, what is arguably most important is establishing a clear set of rules that the works within that universe follow consistently.  Analyzing and picking apart fiction can be fun, and certainly helpful to anyone trying to create their own.  Critiquing and contemplating entertainment can help give us a deeper understanding of it- or at least that's what I tell myself to justify all the time I spend over-analyzing pop culture.