I made an effort to get educated on all the new terms surrounding gender identity. I thought I had them all down. Then I was reading some links in the Keely Mullen/Million Student March thread and stumbled across Stephen Mullen’s bio where he identifies as “gender mobile.” What is this now?
I tried to find some info on this term but not much was coming up. I am going to assume it is the same as “gender fluid.”
One definition I’ve seen often used is the use of humor, ridicule, and irony to point out hypocrisy, stupidity, and/or vices of others, especially those in influential positions of power in a given society as a means of social commentary and critique.
One phrase a few friends who have studied satire and/or have a part in creating/producing it for the public as an effective description is that the satirist should always make it a point to “punch up” at those who are influential privileged elites rather than “punch down” at those who are less powerful/marginalized.
For instance, a comedian/critic targeting those who are powerful politicians, wealthy, and/or part of the dominant majority is creating what they’d consider good satire. On the other hand, if a comedian/critic targets those who are marginalized such as URMs, the poor, etc…then it wouldn’t be considered good satire…or be considered satire period.
Serious question: Would anybody here consider it to be offensive to dress up as Pres. Obama for Halloween? And, would your answer change if the costume was accomplished by painting one’s face black vs wearing an Obama mask? Presidents have always been fair game at Halloween…but these days idk anymore…
“One phrase a few friends who have studied satire and/or have a part in creating/producing it for the public as an effective description is that the satirist should always make it a point to “punch up” at those who are influential privileged elites rather than “punch down” at those who are less powerful/marginalized.”
That’s just your friends ’ opinion, though, which directly reflects your own opinion and desire that people who are privileged should be mocked. There’s no rule that satire “must” be directed at those who are “up.” I can satirize Tammy Faye Bakker, who hardly holds any meaningful power, or Honey Boo Boo, just as much as I could satirize, say, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Monty Python is well known satire. Lots of their sketches aren’t satirizing anyone who is necessarily powerful - just stereotypes of everyday people (a psychiatrist, a middle aged woman, etc). Or cultures (the British, the Romans, etc).
The Onion is satire, too. They take aim at the foibles of ordinary people.
So no, I’m not buying that satire by definition “has” to be directed up the line. That’s what you’d like it to be, that’s all.
The Washington Post has an interesting piece written by 3 CMC students. I apologize if it has been posted, but I didn’t see it here:
“One phrase a few friends who have studied satire and/or have a part in creating/producing it for the public as an effective description is that the satirist should always make it a point to “punch up” at those who are influential privileged elites rather than “punch down” at those who are less powerful/marginalized.”
Come to think of it, I know people who act in Second City troupes. I’ll have to ask them if Second City - certainly a premier comedy venue and training ground - subscribes to your friends’ alleged “satire guidelines” of only making fun of those in power. I highly doubt it.
Saturday Night Live doesn’t. Colbert and Stewart and John Oliver don’t limit their satire to those in power.
Come to think of it, Jimmy Fallon and Justin Timberlake do quite hilarious history of rap sketches and they aren’t targeted for cultural re appropriation.
Great utopian experiment in diversity (all kind of diversity - racial, academic level, SES, etc.) is unraveling. And faculties are not happy either.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-divides-us-an-interview-with-yale-college-dean-jonathan-holloway
Seinfeld was all about the foibles of the common man as well.
@CCDD14 I did not read it that it is unraveling. I think the article ended on a hopeful tone that it could be worked out. I thought the comments on resiliency were interesting. He did not blame it on helicopter parents for one. He also seemed to acknowledge very few of these problems are new (mental health, racism, sexism) they are just highlighted in ways they did not used to be. I did not agree with everything he said but I think he is focused on bringing people together even acknowledging that some believe NC and EC have been thrown under the bus.
Good interview. It is interesting to read something thoughtful on this topic and not just hyperbole. Hopefully Dean Holloway and Yale can work this out.
I think cobrat raises an interesting point. Satire is often aimed at people who are either in power or who are claiming power or people who, consciously or unconsciously, hold a viewpoint that they think is morally superior to others. Tammy Faye Baker wasn’t someone whom I looked up to, but the satire was funny because she had way too much power over way too many people–and way too much money as a direct result of that. Jon Oliver’s recent prosperity gospel piece was an awesome, more contemporary take on that. Life of Brian is hilariously funny while making fun of everyone, from the oppressed to the oppressor, but overall it’s poking fun at a religion (Western Christianity) that sits a little too comfortably in its assumptions of what is morally right and correct behavior. I’ll grant @TheGFG 's point about Seinfeld, but he’s primarily making fun of his own, very comfortable, first-world world.
But change my mind…what’s an example of satire aimed at a group that doesn’t claim some sort of moral, political, religious, etc. superiority or power?
I think this stuff is going to fade away fairly quickly because, as is always the case, activists push things way too far. [url=<a href=“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321190/F-filthy-white-s-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-scream-epithets-white-students-studying-Dartmouth-library.html%5DThis%5B/url”>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321190/F-filthy-white-s-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-scream-epithets-white-students-studying-Dartmouth-library.html]This[/url] is a story about Dartmouth, in which a protest about racism became abuse and, the article says, physical force against white students studying in the library who were screamed at with curses: “He added that after making a girl cry, one protester screamed ‘f*** your white tears’ at her. One protester is seen flipping off the person filming, while another demands they join in, repeatedly asking: ‘Do you think black lives matter?’ According to The Review, one girl was allegedly pinned to a wall by the protesters, who screamed ‘filthy white b*’ at her. And when one student decided to leave the library, protesters followed her out and hurled profanity at her.” I can’t believe there will be punishment because these are minority students. Imagine if a white student screamed at black students or, worse, pinned a black girl to a wall while “screaming filthy black b**” at her. My guess is a bunch of Dartmouth students and parents and alums are wondering why the heck they let people like this into the school. (And because someone will read race into that I mean any person who starts screaming curse words at a person in a library, etc.)
I recently walked through a Black Lives Matter protest in NYC. (I think I’ve mentioned that.) It was covered by some national press but there was no one there outside of a relative handful of core activists. The why became easy to see: I was accosted several times by people talking about “the revolution” and “police terror” and other stuff that completely alienates 9 out of 10 people even in NYC. Guaranteed failure.
We see the same thing with the Million Student March stuff: it has been hijacked in some places - notably CUNY - by anti-Israelis who took the MSM press releases and added all sorts of stuff about the “Zionist Administration” - because apparently “Zionist” is now an epithet you can use without violating anyone’s “safe space” - and who then showed up with their signs screaming about Palestine at a march about tuition and student debt. Guaranteed failure.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
@classicalmama, I don’t study satire, I don’t have multiple acquaintances who not only study it, but actually engage in it in some formal fashion, but I don’t agree entirely that satire is only ever aimed at those in power. People in power are typically the targets of satire, for sure.
I rarely reference Wikipedia, but it actually does have a pretty good chapter on satire. It makes the point that throughout history, the human foibles and behavior of regular Joes has often been the subject of satire, as have the religious beliefs of various populations, the sexual behavior of human beings, the attitudes about sexual behavior, etc.
Dartmouth has spoken:
To Ms. Ameer: you’re joking, right?
Like you all said earlier, maybe there’s a video beyond the one we’ve already seen (with the students marching through the library chanting and the one student who gives the camera the finger). If not, it becomes hard to believe the one source (repeated many times on other sites) that reported this. I sure hope that source didn’t use Yik Yak as its source for the article.
However, calling out students by name or entering study rooms is NOT appropriate behavior and doesn’t help the cause.
I can’t help but feel like this has something to do with standardized testing and performance differences.
Here’s why;
Choose the best answer from among the choices given.
A) White lives matter.
B) Black lives matter.
C) Brown lives matter.
D) Yellow lives matter.
E) All lives matter.
What’s the question?