Wednesday 5 December 2012

Not an angry letter (aka, Dear FHM)



Dear FHM, and Bauer News Media,

Thank you for your apology. The fact that you have recognised the hurt and anger that your editorial slip has caused is a positive thing, and I genuinely thank you for it. Your apology, however, demonstrates that you don’t see the situation as one for which you need to take responsibility, but rather as one caused by misinterpretation on the part of the reader. This means that a lot of people have been left unsatisfied with your response. I don’t want to assume that your apology is disingenuous; by issuing it, you’ve entered into a dialogue with those you've upset, and that is good. You’ve given us an idea of your point of view of the joke, and this is helpful.

You may genuinely see it purely as a misinterpretation, and the writer of the joke may never have intended ‘victim’ to be read as ‘victim of rape/violence/murder’. Rape ‘victim’ was my initial reading of it, but I have since seen other possible readings of it, and friends have pointed out other ways that it can be read. However, this does not make the reaction of those who read it as ‘victim’ in the sense of violence any less valid nor any less distressing. You must understand that the writing you produce can be interpreted in many ways, be sensitive to this, and accept responsibility when ambiguity in your writing leads to a valid reading that you are making jokes in regards to violence against women. And I think that, as reasonable people, you can accept that that is what the joke looks like to many people.

It might also be helpful for you to understand why it looks this way to many people. Women are used to being portrayed in the media as sex objects, doting supporters of men (mothers or partners), or victims. I might sound like an old record to you, but recent research by Women in Journalism has found this to be a very pressing reality; we are either represented sexually, or as victims, or not at all. There is also another fact I’m hoping you are aware of; current austerity measures in this country mean that support for violated women has been drastically cut, meaning that women are not only frequently victims of violence, but now find it harder than ever to escape such violence. We are faced with a government telling us that our safety is not a priority. Add to that a press that makes light of offences against us, and you can see that this is quite a tense time to be a woman. So, when people see examples of someone making light of this situation, in a way that humiliates and threatens victims of violence, they are likely to react negatively and strongly.

I know you meant it in fun, not malice. I also know it wasn’t intended for me as a reader. I am not your readership. But I am on the receiving end of your readership’s attitude towards women, so the normalisation of violence against women has very real implications for me and other women. YouGov states that one in three teenage girls have reported being groped or receiving unwanted sexual contact whilst at school. One in three. And that’s only the number that have actually declared it. I’m hoping you can come to understand that sexual harassment and violence is a very real problem for women, and finding ways to lighten the issue for your male readership can only make the world a more hostile place for us.

I do understand that the joke was not intended for me. I’m not offended because I didn’t find it funny; rather, I was disturbed that violence against me was being casually joked about. Please understand that the women who are upset by this are not kill-joys, or trying to find things to be outraged about; we are worried - we are worried by the very real threat of violence, and the potential increase in that threat if mainstream publications normalise violent behaviour.    

I realise you did not mean to cause offence, but unfortunately you have unwittingly caused offence. The fact that you have responded with an apology is appreciated and I genuinely applaud you for engaging positively with your critics. But do not be surprised if your deflection of responsibility is not enough for many people. Please continue to listen to your critics, try to understand their fears, and respond appropriately and sensitively, and, finally, please take responsibility for the upset that your editorial slip has caused. You will only be respected for it.



We, the undersigned, agree with and support this letter.


Sacha Scott, Stuart Wigby, Ché Bee, Matt Bradshaw, Robbie Pickles

from Wadham Feminists
Phillippa Hibbs, AliceThomas, Hannah Dart, Amy Muckersie, Adrienne Joy, Lloyd Houston, Rosa Bennathan, Rhiannon Kelly, Yara Rodrigues Fowler, Sarah Poulten, Alexander Beecham, Anya Metzer, Eleanor Connor

from No More Page 3
Lucy-Ann Holmes, Jess Rhodes, Katie Pollard, Rachel Holland, Sam Naylor, Jen Hicks Taylor, Emma Tofi, Mel Prideaux, Fran Kilshaw, Lauren O’Sullivan, Sylvie Martlew, Alice McCallum, Mel James, Hannah Curtis, Marie Paludan, Grace Kavanagh, Bronwen Kate Fogg, Malcolm Fogg, Em Ze, Gill RimmerCloudi Bluebell Lewis, Emily Beeson, Laur Evans, Katherine Armstrong, Keris Stainton, Claire Wade, Sadie Rees Hales, Eilidh Brown, Ceris Aston, Sara Guthrie, Kate Elizabeth Talbot, Rebecca Lehman, Clare Davidson, Abigail Rutherford, Sarah Jones, Nicole Stanfield-Caile, Claire Jones, Lizzie Houghton, Charlotte Fowles, Ruth Graham, Anna Bowen, Irene Walker, Jen Conway, Georgie Agass, Sam Chapman, Em Brewin, Rachel Graham, Sarah Gimigliano, Christopher Flux, Jayne Drury, Kathy Coutanche, Lame Magaga, Lara Scott, Rachel Dawson, Simon Bell, Grainne Purkiss, Sarah Pitt, Angela Gavin Towers, Louise Bromby, Tom Janes, June Stamper, Jessica Grace Moule, Shain Wells, Sophie Cole-Hamilton, Cliodhna Tyan, Emily Gray, Ashley Parke, Lauren Bravo, Hannah West, Amy Greenwell, Claire Postles, Charlotte Satchell, Angela Haynes, Cath Campbell, Louise Futcher, Lucy Alton, Holly MacDonald, Penni B rown, Lou Stirna, Alexandra Bateman, Ruth Tucknott, Joanna Chick, Jenna Sutherland, Sarah Cooper, Lizzie Blowey, Lindsey Withey, Claire Scott, Pippa Banham, Linda Theaker, Sue Jones, Lloyd Mills, Anna Tippett, Danni Smith, Claire Alexander, Ellen McGirr, Katy Chadwick, Alice Pember, Claire Butler, Rebecca Lax, Liz Chadwick, Jonathan J Williams, Rebecca Myers, Alison Davis-Kurley, Annelise O’Brien, Amy Kirkham, James French, Sam KayeSarah Faulkner, Emily Thompson, Kate Paice, Xenia Davis, Kirsty Hughes, Rebecca Milborne, Fiona Conway, Amy-Elizabeth Jones, Karolina Fung-On, Allison McCulloch, Charlotte McEvoy, Jessica Flowerdew, Ann Ruthven, Samantha Mackley, Jessamy Reynolds, Rebecca Linsdell, Maria Lehy, Hail Thompson, Sadie Price, Caroline Courtney, Rohanna Law, Elizabeth Ings, Sandy Alexander, Cathy Evans, Rowen West-Henzell, Sarah K. Bond, Alyson Fennell, Sarah Vogel, Dee Gorman, Aoifs Warren, Emily Harle, Frankie Edwards, Ben Picknett, Jenny Fyans, Fiona O’Carroll, Jen Aggleton, Eleanor Roberts, Katie Rhymer, Mhairi McGowan, Cheski Granger, Alice Knowles, Kate Pickett, Rebecca Chadwick, Caroline Tosal, Maddy Mould, Emma Sadera, Naomi Joy Makin, Debbie Brannon, Jessica Payne, Rosie Whitmore, Hayley Adele Robinson, Rosalind Oliver, Sonia Viner, Dawn Redpath, Summer Jade Dolan, Georgia Novis, Izzy Butcher, Anna Morris, Penny Lee, Tom Ball, Jo Cooper, Paul Clayton, Hannah F, Chloe Stables, Louisa Wells, Emma Bruff, RoseMary Warrington, Sophie Becket, Rebecca Askew, Sara Brammall, Georgia Waterton, Breege Whiten, Julie Clarke, Paula Court, Kelly Frost, Grace Murray, Jenny Brammall, Victoria Asquith, Fiorella Des’ree Jacobson, Hannah Partington, Imogen McCarthy, Kenneth José Lambert Loria, Nwando Ebizie, Bella Ferne Heesom, Sharon Thompson, Siobhan Smith, Helen Jenkins, Nicole Rowe, Anne Taylor, Clare Lion, Neve Ellis, Linda Walker, Gillian Riddell, Helena Horal, Ellie Judge, Asuka Leslie, Iris Flower, Paul Shepherd, Lisa Clarke, Caroline Taylor, Stephanie Pearce, Fiona McCallum, Aoife Kiely, Tracy Duckett, Claire Innes, Jackie Fitzsimons Lund, Sarah Vile, Beccy Hill, Barbara Boucher Brown, Katherine Hadoke, Louis Alloneword Lunts, Jessica Crowe, Fiona White, Rebecca Rose, Nicola Kerry, Jessica Stickland, Nathalie Lowe, Paulin Qu, Stephanie Davies-Arai, Lucy Fey, Emily Watson, Aislinn Corcoran, Caroline Pover, Ali Painter, Rachel Moss, Abigail Whitbread, Emma Cannings, Carri Gardiner, Frances Demuth, Michaela Sneddon, Eva Wilkinson, Hannah F Davis, Lucy Claire White, Elizabeth Roles, Kerry Gilroy, Caroline F J Hargreaves, Orla Mc, Will Wollen, Winking McScankster, Fiona Shaw, Andrea Watts, Valeria Murphy, Ellen Newberry, Sarah Louise Fellows, Cat Millar, Dan Fallon, Sarah Vogel, Kate Pickett, Catherine Svars Ker, Sarah Law, Claire Alexander, Sara Guthrie, Rosy Stephenson, Jane Dearman, Ali Painter, Nicola KerryRachel Dawson, Rosalie Courtney, Orla Pearson, Sophie Becket, Julie Clarke, Sarah Faulkner, Ariya Boone, Sam Naylor, Amyy Mallon, Nathan Stewart, Jessica Crowe, Ange Walter, Liz Naylor, June Stamper, Joanne Staunton, Lottie Hayes, Linzie Marie Clark, Anna Bowen, Jennifer McColgan, Diane Cox, Angela Gavin Towers, Grace Curran, Alasdair Murray, Jasmine Andersson, Hazel Ruxton, Sylvie Martlew, Lauren Parsons, Charlotte McEvoy, Severine Bernasconi, Tracy Hawdon, Claire Butler, Mandy Marshall, Katie Weidmann, Jess Rhodes, Chris Bromby, Marianne Skogen, Katy Turner, Mandy Meaghan, Julia Tippett, Lauren Wayland, Hannah Partington, Halima Cake Jafari, Asuka Leslie, Sarah Piantados, Alexandra Bateman, Dean Belfield, John Bruce, Ann Ruthven, Belén Amaia, Imogen McCarthy, Jacqueline Upton, Bernadette Gea Gea, Jen Hicks Taylor, Malcolm Mackintosh, Mick Swann, Amy Driver, Rosalind, Nicole Stanfield-Caile, Jane Lewis, Helena Horal, Reema Goldsmith, Sarah Gimigliano, Becky Symes, Lauren Bravo, Linda Theaker, 
James Galvin, Carys Nia Williams, Alistair Wardrope, Rachel Bellos, Jane Crawshaw, Noelle Magrino.

19 comments:

  1. Excellently put. As a single parent to a daughter, it disturbs, worries and upsets me to see the continuing normalisation of violence against women. As a man it disturbs, worries and upsets me to think that I could be lumped in with or targeted by such messages.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't read FHM because I am 29 and not 15. But If anything, I will stand up to this as a defence for dark humour everywhere.

    Family Guy, Monkey Dusk, The League Of Gentleman etc all regularly make jokes which are far far darker than this. They cover a variety of subjects and sometimes they may stray into this territory. An example from Family Guy

    (on discussing whether abortion should be legal)
    Lois: What if a woman was raped?
    Peter: Well she shouldn't have asked me for directions.

    I personally found that joke hilarious. As I do when they also mock incredibly serious issues such as child mortality or racism. The question here is whether you feel you have a monopoly on a particular area of humour because you are of a particular gender. It could be argued, and I am not going to go there, that this is a text book example of sexism itself.

    The examples you gave may seem poignant but are actually unrelated to FHM. Teenage boys have (probably) been trying to grope teenage girls since the dawn of time. Woman in Jerusalem have probably never heard of FHM and definitely have more pressing matters. There is no evidence, and I certainly don't think it is true, that anyone who previously believed that rape was wrong read a copy of FHM then went to hide in the bushes in the local park.

    The very funny comedian Dave Chappelle did a sketch a few years back discussing male rape (he pretended to have been raped) with particular reference to not wanting to talk to anyone about the incident. It did not offend me, though did make me feel uncomfortable as I laughed at it.

    The question is, should all comedy that makes people feel awkward and uncomfortable be banned. Or only the bits of it that offend you particularly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This isn't an issue of whether 'all comedy that makes people feel awkward' should be banned, it's an issue of making something terrible seem OK. The joke in FHM was unacceptable because it was out of place and had nothing to do with the context it was in: it's one thing for a comedian or a comedy show to make light of a situation (although, to be honest, I have to admit that even though I am a fan of Family Guy I believe that they can and do cross the line sometimes), but another for a magazine which is specifically aimed at young men to fetishise violence against women- the magazine's tag line is already 'Sexy Girls, News and Men's Fashion' online, which objectifies women unnecessarily, so why should casual violence against women be thrown into the mix?

      I actually saw the Dave Chappelle sketch, and I remember not finding it funny at all- just as I don't find casual jokes about the rape of women funny. I don't think that anything as horrific as rape should be joked about, whether the victim is male or female, as making the situation laughable can make it also seem acceptable in the eyes of some people.

      As for your point about casual groping happening for a long time, that doesn't make it OK; just because something has happened before, doesn't mean to say it should happen again. In the modern world, it should not be the norm for things like this to happen: surely by the 21st century we should have moved beyond base animal instincts controlling our social conventions. When women took their first steps on the road to equality in Britain in the 1800s, if not earlier, I'm sure they didn't believe that we would still be so far from gender equality today.

      Delete
    2. Yes! We must immediately jump to the defense of all bad taste jokes! Because any attempt by people to suggest that bad taste jokes may in fact be bad taste and you may in fact be a bit of a prick, morally speaking, for liking and spreading them, is immediately equivalent to the mean old feminist thought police trying to BAN everything that the fine upstanding men of this world hold dear! You're the only one that's brought up banning anything, so don't suggest that's the message we're trying to convey here.

      We live in a world where women are raped, and attacked, and verbally abused, and demeaned, simply for the crime of being female. This is pretty awful. What's also awful is the sheer amount of time and energy we expend as a society trying to explain why this is a valid and natural way for our lives to be organised- that it's really our fault as women for not trying hard enough to escape these things. A few of these messages are overt, but most are stuff like this little bit of nonsense from FHM. Just a joke, right! A misunderstanding! FHM doesn't really condone having victims, it just condones the idea that having a victim might be funny. Just like raping a woman who asked you for directions is funny on Family Guy! And no, nobody directly goes out because they saw a funny rape joke on Family Guy and rapes, but it contributes to a culture where this becomes normalised. So when somebody tells you a joke about that girl at a party who was totally wasted and asking for it, maybe that's funny too! And then you realise that it wasn't a joke, it was a story... but hey, black humour, right? We can be uncomfortable and laugh, no problem.

      This stuff matters, not individually, but because of the sheer weight of bullshit and normalisation that spills over into women's real lives every day. People may have the right to free speech, but they also have to take responsibility for what they say and the impacts it has- that's how society works. So when you morally defend silly little black humour jokes about rape and abuse and groping, you do so at the expense of women for whom these jokes about rape and abuse and groping contribute to a society of rape and abuse and groping that we're pretty confident humanity can move beyond! So if the tradeoff for fewer women being raped and groped in this world (and let me tell you from experience that being a groped teenage girl is DEFINITELY more uncomfortable than having to listen to an awkward joke) is that Family Guy has a slightly narrower pool of topics to pick their humour from, I think that's a trade that I (and most of the people I know) would quite happily make. It's not about telling people what to say- it's about holding them accountable to what they DO say and moving towards a world where people actually think about these sorts of things before spouting entitled nonsense for the sake of edginess because they know they can get away with it.

      Delete
    3. There are various things in your comment that I'd like to refute but don't have time to - but I do feel compelled to point out the fallacy in your argument that no-one "who previously believed that rape was wrong read a copy of FHM then went to hide in the bushes in the local park".

      This type of rape is uncommon, compared to the rape that happens all the time within marriages and relationships. I don't believe it is hyperbolic to suggest that a man who regularly reads magazines like FHM would experience an incremental reinforcement over time of his sense that A) he is entitled to sexual contact with his wife/girlfriend, and that B) she is sure to want it.

      Nobody thinks that magazines create monsters, but it's naive to suggest that the things we read and consume don't gradually colour our outlook and values.

      Delete
  3. Hi Pete,

    Thank you for your comment. Dark humour is indeed important, and often works to point out disturbing absurdities in the status quo. Take for example the Family Guy quote you’ve provided. This rape joke works because it points fun at the rapist and rape culture, rather than the victim. It points out the absurdity of the excuses society (and rapists) find to place the blame on the victim of rape, rather than the perpetrator of the crime. I’m in no way saying that rape jokes can’t be successfully made - but dark humour is a difficult beast, and often only the most talented comedians can pull it off. The FHM joke doesn’t work (just like Daniel Tosh before it, and Uni Lad before that) because it presents itself as welcoming rapists and abusers into its readership and normalising their behaviour by joking that the males reading it will all have victims, just as they all have mothers. Dark humour is great, but we must be careful not to use it as a euphemism for bad taste and cheap shots.

    A much more eloquent explanation of the point I’m trying to make was made by comedian Curtis Luciani after the Daniel Tosh fiasco. It’s linked here

    You mention banning certain kinds of comedy. I’m certainly not suggesting that anyone should ban anything, or that freedom of speech should be impinged. However, with freedom of speech comes the need to take responsibility for your acts of speech, and also accepting that people who you offend will have freedom of speech as well. I’m not saying that people can’t make rape jokes. I’m not even saying people can’t make successful rape jokes, that are funny, and edgy, and ridicule the idea that anybody but ourselves could have an ultimate say over our bodies. Rather, I’m saying that writers and comedians have to understand the power balance of who the joke empowers and who it ridicules, and if they choose to ridicule people who already find themselves unempowered, then they’re at best making a cheap shot and at worst contributing to a disturbing status quo, and they should be prepared to face criticism for it.

    Read the Curtis Luciani thing. Seriously. It’s really, really interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow! Muchos comments! Sorry it will take me hours to respond to every point raised.

    Personally I did not find the FHM joke particularly funny, structurally it is rather weak. Here is a better one.

    Man 1: I stopped a rape happening last night
    Man 2: How?
    Man 1: I stayed at home.

    The point of all dark and edgy humour is making light of a very unfunny subject. If I was to ask you to put the following issues in order of importance (female rape, male rape, jail rape, murder, cannibalism, suicide, abortion, terrorism, torture of terrorists, religious and ethnic stereotyping/bashing/murder) you would be unable.

    All the above are horrific and if we were not allowed to make jokes out of any of them then Family Guy, League of Gentleman, Monkey Dust would not exist.

    On being accused of fallacy, I must point out that a vague relation was drawn between the FHM joke and the existence of ACTUAL violence in society. I am sorry but until someone can show data that proves this then it is simply a fallacy itself.

    Sarah Silverman makes jokes about rape which I find funny. Lucy Porter makes jokes about her father (a priest) being a paedophile which I find funny. I would much rather read an article criticizing them (as women) for their content than an attack on FHM.

    It is also incorrect to assume that because the FHM article (which you admit you would never have read naturally) is aimed at young boys then it has a certain impact. Unless you are or were a young boy you are unable to comment on how they would receive such a gag.

    I was once a young boy and saw this joke as (rather weak) dark humour, and dark humour is something that has its place and I would not like to see it disappear.

    I look forward to an article about Sarah Silverman and Lucy Porter (my 2 favourite female comedians) :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes well we still seem to be stuck on the idea that it's more important that some things you find funny exist than that we combat systemic violence against women in society. Stay classy, yeah?

      Also, the "FIND ME DATA THAT FITS MY EXACT REQUIREMENTS OR I WILL NOT BELIEVE YOUR EXPERTISE AND LIVED EXPERIENCE ABOUT ANYTHING" is classic derailment. Just because we can't draw a graph linking an episode of family guy to the prevalence of shady men in bushes doesn't mean we're "fallacious", although it does mean we're pretty educated on a complicated subject that just MIGHT take you more than a couple of blog comments to get a full handle on. Go find out about rape culture and social conditioning on your own time if you're interested- it's not my job or anybody else's to educate you on the basics, and it's definitely not in my interests to debate somebody who's not willing to remedy their ignorance.

      Delete
    2. Getting rude because I have a different opinion to you and point out certain flaws in your argument does not help make you more correct than I. It makes you look a little weak actually.

      Delete
  5. @fiddle78

    'I actually saw the Dave Chappelle sketch, and I remember not finding it funny at all-'

    Well then we are getting somewhere. I actually found that joke very funny. If anyone should be offended by this joke it should be men. Dave Chapelle is a famous comedian. 3.9 million people have watched that male rape skit on youtube. So perhaps we have differing opinions on what is funny, and THAT is what I was getting at. I like dark humour and perhaps you don't?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Adrienne

    'So when you morally defend silly little black humour jokes about rape and abuse and groping, you do so at the expense of women for whom these jokes about rape and abuse and groping contribute to a society of rape and abuse and groping that we're pretty confident humanity can move beyond! So if the tradeoff for fewer women being raped and groped in this world (and let me tell you from experience that being a groped teenage girl is DEFINITELY more uncomfortable than having to listen to an awkward joke) is that Family Guy has a slightly narrower pool of topics to pick their humour from'

    So whenever you make any joke about anything negative (rape, murder, incest, paedophilia, torture, racism) you presumably contribute towards the negative thing the joke was about. So all joking about negative things should be banned? Family Guy and all dark humour is taken off the air. OR only the jokes about things you don't like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reread my first paragraph. Reread your last paragraph. Maybe enroll in some basic reading comprehension courses. That's all I've got for you at present.

      Delete
    2. Getting rude because I have a different opinion to you and point out certain flaws in your argument does not help make you more correct than I. It makes you look a little weak actually.

      Delete
    3. Dear oh dear... One day perhaps you will understand the difference between a legal argument and a moral one and then we can talk about who looks intellectually weak here. Maybe if you ever grasp that, we can move on to a lesson about tone policing! Until then, I repeat: Stay classy.

      Delete
  7. @ornithology

    'This type of rape is uncommon, compared to the rape that happens all the time within marriages and relationships. I don't believe it is hyperbolic to suggest that a man who regularly reads magazines like FHM would experience an incremental reinforcement over time of his sense that A) he is entitled to sexual contact with his wife/girlfriend, and that B) she is sure to want it.

    Nobody thinks that magazines create monsters, but it's naive to suggest that the things we read and consume don't gradually colour our outlook and values.'

    So exactly what things do you read and consume that have coloured your outlook and values? I presume you are a rational human being who is able to make decisions for yourself. Do you not think it slightly patronising to assume that anyone who reads FHM (or watches Family Guy or anything else) does not have the same intellectual powers to differentiate between a dark joke and how to treat other human beings in real life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything that I read and consume colours my outlook and values, and it's the same for you. It's not about "intellectual powers"; no matter how critical a reader you are, things seep in unconsciously. This is a fundamental tenet of the marketing industry - I'm not making it up.

      Again, I'm not suggesting that everyone who likes FHM or Family Guy ends up with no sense of "how to treat other human beings" - you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that media messages influence and reinforce people's perspectives on the world, and therefore it does matter when a magazine with a large audience treats sexual assault as a joke (whether they intended to or not).

      My point is not that FHM is evil and dangerous - as a matter of fact I do think this was an innocent case of bad writing/editing creating an offensive but unintended implication - but that saying "it's just a joke"/"it's just a magazine" is not good enough.

      Delete
    2. 'but that saying "it's just a joke"/"it's just a magazine" is not good enough.'

      So we should...

      Censor it?

      Delete

  8. There's been some really interesting debate in these comments, but it does appear to be getting slightly cyclical now.

    Pete - the link below, which is to the Curtis Luciani article (which I mentioned earlier, but foolishly didn't correctly link you too), will shred some light on how it is possible to still be very much in favour of dark comedy whilst simultaneously recognising that comedy cannot give people a free ticket to say hateful things, and saying 'it's just a joke' isn't always a decent response when something hateful has been said.

    http://austin.culturemap.com/newsdetail/07-12-12-14-37-the-best-response-weve-heard-to-daniel-toshs-misquoted-rape-jokes/

    In your response to Adrienne's comment, you mention banning again. I'd just like to reiterate that nobody is talking about banning anything.

    It's very interesting to hear about Sarah Silverman and Lucy Porter. I tend to write articles based on what moves me to write, rather than suggestions, but if you have strong opinions on their work it'd be really fantastic if you wrote something about their use of dark comedy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will give the link a read for sure :)

      Let's not get cute regarding the 'banning' issue. You have taken offence at something written in FHM and are trying to tell them that maybe they shouldn't write things of the same ilk. You are attempting to influence the editorial content of a publication you do not even read because you believe it has wider effects in society. It's a censorship argument.

      Regards to Silverman and Porter, I have no strong opinions on them either way. They make vile and vulgar jokes in the same way as many other comedians do. I find them funny, others do not. They are unlikely to receive letters such as the one you have written above though. Because they are woman and so they MUST be joking when they make rape jokes. Could they be contributing unknowingly to violence towards woman?????? Maybe Adrienne thinks so...

      It is my belief that all speech should be free and anyone is allowed to make jokes about anything. If you are a spiteful negative person you would be so if you lived alone in a pod on Mars.

      Censorship is fascism.

      Delete