Language and Jokes

In the first real post returning to my beautiful home with my beautiful roommates and my beautiful girlfriend (beautiful), I'm interested in dabbling in a topic that I've had no small number of disagreements about:

The way we use language and jokes.

I'm looking to tackle this due to the existence of a Tumblr gimmick account (Whether or not I should even be taking something like that seriously is another issue...) called "'Nice guys' of OKCupid" found at http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com
Suffice it to say the blog's intention is to point out a number of males on the dating site, OK Cupid, who claim to be a nice guy, yet have traits or opinions that are inconsistent with being "nice."

The idea spawned from the phrase "nice guy," (quotations included in the actual phrase) which refers to a male who specifically claims that he is a nice guy, yet he blames women for not being romantically or sexually interested in him, while also blaming women for problems in their own lives that involve other men. These males usually have an outward disdain for "bad boys" or jocks or whatever.
Psychologically, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that a lot of these people may have been bullied growing up, so they reject a culture that they perceive to be problematic, but they haven't grown to forgive the world, so they still blame the people around them for things that go wrong. Many of these people are socially awkward and have a bit of a superiority complex, which explains why they refuse to accept the idea that their ideology is problematic in the first place.

It's a recursive problem- If you don't have anyone in your life to point out your glaring social problems, you won't make any friends, which means you won't have anyone to help you with your social problems.

It's really a cultural creation that I would wager stems from the current discourse on gender roles in our society. We want to reject them, but many of them are so deep-seated that we don't notice when we're still enacting and perpetuating them. Conflicting role ques about masculinity cause these unfortunate souls to want to pry themselves from the culture, despite the fact that they carry many lingering ties to the culture- they're totally unaware and they haven't had anyone to correct them.

Anyway- enough digression.

One common pattern that people like to point out about the "nice guy" culture is that they tend to complain about being "friendzoned," in a negative context. The critique, as I've read it, is that this complaint suggests that these guys expect each potential romantic partner to acquiesce to their manpassion and have the funtimesex.

I'm wary of the previous critique. I don't read it as an expectation usually (although there certainly are times where that seems to be the case)- I usually read it as a pure lamentation of events in their lives.
Let me explain what I mean. In every potential romantic encounter, particularly after a lengthy spell of looking, you (collective) are not going to be happy if you find out that your interest in a partner is not reciprocated. You're left in a state of non-romance where romance was the goal and was a possibility. In lieu of referring to this a "non-reciprocated romance zone," a contemporary word to describe it was brought into existence- the friendzone.
Now personally, I'm not a huge fan of the word. It places a negative connotation on the word "friend," as though having friends is ever a bad thing, though I understand usage of the word, since it spawned from phrases similar to, "let's just be friends." It's not a phrase you want to hear as someone who is seeking a romantic partnership, hence the negative connotation. So, while I don't particularly like the word a whole lot, I understand its usage, particularly in a non-academic situation where people don't have a lot of words they can use to describe their situation.

As I said, however, there are those classy individuals who expect that certain actions ought to result in them being bedded by their romantic pursuit. These people are creeps in the same way that spouses who believe marriage means an obligation to have sex whether you want to or not are creeps. It's nothing about the word "friendzone," but rather the person who uses it.

Which brings us full circle to my intended topic. Language and how we use it.

I've heard the argument that anyone who uses the word "friendzone" seriously is an idiot. I've used it a number of times so far, but I like to think there's value in discussing how we view contemporary language. Now, perhaps the argument would be better stated as, "anyone who uses the word "friendzone" to describe a romantic situation seriously is an idiot." But even then, I'm not buying it. Like I said, I don't like the phrase, and I don't intend to ever use it in its intended context, but I do understand why someone would. I'd say it's a bit of an immature look on a current situation, but not an inaccurate one when used appropriately. Of course, when I say this, it's under the assumption that the word is being used purely descriptively, without any underlying expectation or malice.

It's obviously not someone's fault if they're not attracted to you. Nor should they be expected to do anything for you just because you're polite or whatever. However, whether you're male, female, gay, straight, bi, or any of the fluid, in-between states therein, you're still capable of having your romantic interest place you in a friendzone. And that's something we're all capable of doing. It's how romantic selection works.

If someone comes to you and asks you on a date- you agree, and you come to find that you don't like them, but you might still want to be friends? You are, by definition, placing them into the label of "friendship," that this person is not seeking (at least initially).


And as much as I'm interested in this particular word right now (because controversy, yay), I've got more ground to cover, so we'll head to other words for now-

You often hear cultural relativists tell you that words have no meaning unless you give them meaning. Which is absolutely true. And you may also hear the saying, "You cannot offend me, I can only choose to take offense at what you said." Which is also absolutely true.

However, a lot of people use these arguments poorly to suggest that we should say or do whatever it is we want in public without worrying about the consequences of causing offense. It's a tangled argument, to be sure, but it's not quite as simple as telling a racist joke just because you're not giving it meaning and expecting everyone else to follow suit.

Social interactions follow sets of unwritten rules. One such rule is that people expect you to take into consideration their comfort levels (so long as they're reasonable) in public and in private. Those comfort levels vary between those two situations, so the distinction is important. And I should note that "reasonable" comfort levels are also entirely socially defined usually based on historical context.

For example, it is unreasonable to expect that people around you don't use a common and inoffensive word, like "jerk." Contrarily, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people around you don't use a word known almost exclusively for its offensive properties, like "nigger," or "faggot."

But, these rules can be tipped a little based on context. For example, You may not like hearing the word, but if you're in an academic setting and the words are being used academically, then it is unreasonable to expect people to avoid using them. (e.g. "The word, 'faggot,' has its etymology in...")

And we can tip these rules again when we consider private, social settings. In settings where you know everyone present closely, the social rules are a lot easier to bend, since you can be certain of who is and is not offended by what words. In social interactions with these people, you're able to determine what is and is not acceptable for them. So, even if a word or idea or joke is totally unacceptable in public or around strangers or mixed company, it's up to individual groups of friends to decide whether or not they're okay with hearing/using them. Sometimes this comes out in people being ironically racist, despite not being white. Or being a sexist gender studies student. Or other similar situations. However, it's important to remember that these rules used within friend groups do not transcend to public domain as well.

There's another caveat that I haven't discussed in the realm of "reasonable" expectations:
If you have a trauma related to a word or idea, and whether the trauma is common enough to warrant taking it into consideration when speaking in public (or private) before knowing about the trauma.

For example- rape is a serious problem in our (and many) country. It's typically a horrifyingly traumatic event for those that it happens to. It's not a terribly uncommon occurrence either. So, it is prudent to avoid making rape jokes in public with the knowledge that someone around you may be struggling with the issue already. (Once again, in private, it's up to you and the group you're with to determine whether or not anyone will be offended by ideas or jokes like that)
However, if someone was beaten as a child while being called a normally innocuous word, like "jerk," and they've internalized the word as traumatic, then it would be impossible to predict causing them stress in public, so there's not much that can be done about that. In private, the terms can be negotiated, but they can't in public.
This unfortunate phenomenon means that outliers to trauma are in a problematic situation.

The options that we have are to:
1. Avoid making any jokes or using any words ever, for fear of causing traumatic stress, or
2. Snub trauma outliers and continue making jokes/using words that aren't offensive to the majority of people.

Obviously, the first option is going to be the more ridiculous to most people, as sad as that is for the people who fit into the other group.

The solution, luckily, is pretty easy.
Be polite when you're in public. If you're unsure about a joke being used in mixed company, tell it through writing, text, or whisper. Or just wait to say it later.
In private, make sure you adhere to the requests of others when it comes to words they're not comfortable with.
And, if you're one of these people who is offended by certain words, remember that the intention of the person using them matters. Don't be angry with them (if it's a first offense) if they're using a word/joke/idea non-seriously.
Of course, this is where the public vs. private thing comes in- You can't know if a stranger is using a word seriously or non-seriously since you don't know their background. So, if you're telling a joke in public, remember that, to a stranger, you could very well actually be that racist, misogynist. Even if you know you're not serious, it's not really good enough to avoid causing problems.

Be mindful of the language you use when you use it. Know that there is a time and place for every single topic, idea, joke, and/or word. Even if you don't like it, there may be other people, more or less educated than you, who are willing to use it.

And that time/place is called Cards Against Humanity.

(But seriously, if you play this game with friends and still believe that some words/phrases/ideas are universally offensive, then I think you're being a wee bit inconsistent with yourself)

-
Waddles