Are you saying it’s a valid argument because it’s in agreement with the patriarchy? Saying “the patriarchy teaches this” isn’t exactly a very good argument for “so we should accept it as valid and true”…
I really thought… I really thought I loaded that statement with so much ridiculous bullshit that you guys would all understand that I was being satirical. And poes law got me again.
Yes. You can remove the exaggeration from jokes to turn them into statements and make a point.
If the “joke” was about “flat-chested women who can’t cook” not being “special,” then suddenly you might be more reluctant to defend it as “humor”…
If a joke is going to be offensive it should at least be funny
Oh, totally. I’m not defending the joke. It’s mid. I’m just saying that removing the exaggerated extra commentary just makes it a statement.
The point made in this joke is that the size of a manz boxers and bank account determine his worth.
According to the mom, if he pulled up in a Ferrari with a pringle can, her virginity as a concept would be relevant again.
That is what our patriarchy teaches us, is it not? That we must be providers and fertile to have value. It’s our role as men, no?
Are you saying it’s a valid argument because it’s in agreement with the patriarchy? Saying “the patriarchy teaches this” isn’t exactly a very good argument for “so we should accept it as valid and true”…
I really thought… I really thought I loaded that statement with so much ridiculous bullshit that you guys would all understand that I was being satirical. And poes law got me again.
Satire doesn’t always convey over plaintext, as it lacks tone of voice, facial expression, and gesture. That’s why we have emojis and “/s” tags…
providing and fertilizing are good things. expensive cars are bad things.
Providing and fertilizing are options, neither good or bad. I agree with the rest of your statement.
Why would providing and fertilizing be good things?
Oh right, negative stereotypes and shaming are fine if it’s for a joke
deleted by creator