As many as five (and very possibly six) people noticed there was no Out to Lunch column last week. I tried....I really did... but at the moment I am surrounded by hundreds of cardboard cartons containing all my possessions pending a move to the Cape Winelands. I was so exhausted from sorting the stuff I will probably never need again from the stuff I know I am definitely going to need that I approached the editor as the final deadline drew near and asked if I might have the week off, to which he very kindly agreed.
I'm probably going to have to ask for further leave of absence in the next few weeks because I am not going to have internet connectivity. So be warned. However, this week I am holed up in a B&B in Stellenbosch with free Wi-Fi that seems to be semi operational so here goes.
Have we become a nation of cry babies? I ask this question because what often used to pass for playful banter has now been elevated by some to hate crime. Pierre De Vos tackled the issue in an overly intellectualised piece called "When a joke is not a joke" recently in a Daily Maverick column. In it he suggested that "humour (or what is presented as humour ) can sometimes be used by the economically, culturally and socially dominant as a vehicle to endorse harmful stereotypes and to promote prejudices about groups who are less powerful and influential in our culture."
He goes on to mention an article that appeared in the Cape Times which reported on a household survey with the introduction "If you want a tidy house for the rest of your life, never make a Western Cape woman your wife". So outraged was De Vos by this that he fired off an e.mail to the editors pointing what he referred to as "the sexist and patriarchal stereotypes being perpetuated in this introduction". Not surprisingly he received a reply telling him that it was a joke and he should get over himself. Clearly this upset De Vos even more and spurred him on to write his article on what he regards as acceptable humour and what is not.
Being a dyed in the wool lefty he focusses his attention on racist and sexist jokes. If you tell a racist joke it's quite possible that you will upset somebody. However, if you then accuse the upset party of "playing the race card" you get yourself (according to De Vos) into even deeper trouble because you are sending out a clear message that you are the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes racism. You are wilfully and arrogantly disregarding the feelings of those who may possibly be offended. But when did humour ever give a toss about offending people?
It's difficult to fault De Vos's argument because what he is saying in a very roundabout way is that someone, somewhere is almost certainly going to be offended by any "joke" that could be considered sexist, racist, homophobic, misogynistic etc etc. But so what?