Irony doesn’t negate sexism, it just helps it dodge accountability.
March 19, 2017 9:26 AM   Subscribe

Emma Pittman's article, Ironic Sexism: the Male Gaze of Hipster Spaces, discusses the ways that hipster spaces try to rebrand sexism as ironic and therefore acceptable.
posted by bile and syntax (38 comments total) 58 users marked this as a favorite
 
For a little while now, I've been thinking about the connection between ironic sexism and a phenomenon I frequently come across in genre fiction: Male authors who claim that their work isn't sexist, or is even anti-sexist, because the sexism they portray is realistic to the setting.

Which rings hollow, because they're not portraying sexism in a subversive way, but rather, in a way that reinforces it. It's though they think you can paper over the offense of being sexist with a claim of self-awareness, without making any real change to how you portray women. This paragraph nails it:
While his uncle is harassing a young woman, ironic sexism swaggers up to her, laughs dismissively at the outdated, greasy approach, and then proceeds to continue objectifying her, but with self-awareness and a wink that make you almost forget they’re essentially doing the same thing.
It seems like we have reached a point where it is at least common among men to believe that "sexism is bad" in the abstract - although there are certainly holdouts. But actually living according to that belief would be hard, and would require real introspection and work on one's self, and might mean that you can't write that sexbot story you want.

When you suggest this, they cry as though you want to censor any representation or mention of sexism (or sex). That must be it, because they're not sexist, right?

It's all so stupid and frustrating.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:49 AM on March 19 [36 favorites]


This behavior is so, so gross. I hated stoner circles because of it. It shows not only is feminism a maybe in your world, but you don't believe in personal accountability either? The piece that is even more maddening is I get the slanty eyes for saying the opposite - that I believe women should stand up and be proud of who they are for being people, and acknowledging the struggles women face on a day to day basis, because most men I've encountered communicate about feminism this way/some other, equally toxic way.

Thank you so much for posting this. Shared widely :D
posted by thebotanyofsouls at 11:17 AM on March 19 [4 favorites]


These guys, along with many other masculine stereotypes, are positioned along a spectrum from overt to covert when it comes to their exercise of power.

This observation, and her subsequent description of points on this spectrum, is amazing. It seems so obvious when I see it written down, and yet - I have known many of these men, dated some of these men, and always thought to myself: "They aren't fuckboys, they're good men who just don't realize that such-and-such is sexist, how can I best explain this while Maintaining My Cool?" As in, it becomes my problem and I just might have to live with it. Because "it's not that bad." But she is right:
They wear women down by requiring a frankly invoiceable amount of emotional labour, with limited reciprocity or commitment, fostering insecurity and remaining inhospitable to being called out for anything.
Yes. Yes. Exactly this. It is true, and I am so done with it.
posted by sockermom at 11:29 AM on March 19 [42 favorites]




Yes, very related, I agree.
posted by chainsofreedom at 11:32 AM on March 19 [1 favorite]


As an aside, you have to ask yourself why most people are a lot more careful about deploying "ironic racism." Is it because they know someone might unironically kick their ass?
posted by jfwlucy at 11:44 AM on March 19 [6 favorites]


A) Great writing, and the point is well made.

B) The only female member of our small team schooled me this month after I made what I initially thought was an inoffensive and harmless remark.

The war against sexism hasn't been won, and I found out that I wasn't on the right side of this as firmly as I thought I was.

I will try harder.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:50 AM on March 19 [16 favorites]


It was the handsome beta male with the beard and flannel

Beta? Ironic sexism, or has that term been reclaimed?
posted by effbot at 11:56 AM on March 19 [3 favorites]


I read that as a reference to the idea of ironic self-reference on the part of the handsome fella in question, yeah.
posted by cortex at 12:00 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]


I know that it's not the point of this article to offer a positive account of how a person should be, but I was left (as some version of a cis white millienial hipster male) at the end wondering, well, how should I be?
posted by tummy_rub at 12:15 PM on March 19


This article rang so true to me. It defines this uncomfortable feeling I get in hipster spaces where pinups are used "ironically" and nostalgia for Mad Men is celebrated without any examination for what that means for women, queer people, trans folks, for PoC who are not longing to go back to those days, especially when we haven't even made enough progress today to guarantee basic human dignity for all.

My oldest friend recently got divorced from her husband who loved ironic racist comments about his middle school students in a majority black school (but he's seen The Wire, he's totally not racist) and who felt like if my friend had been a more enlightened feminist she somehow would have been okay with him sleeping around. To my great dismay, the guys she's dated after him have been even worse, because they can hide under irony until their sexism comes out a month into the relationship. (Like the Hillary supporter who said it was a turn off when my friend said she wanted to have sex because women shouldn't ask for it. Granted I feel like he was clearly an asshole to begin with because he has previously talked about alpha/beta males, but my friend says he talked a good talk about feminism for the most part and I think she thought he really was being ironic about it.) Everytime we talk I end up bracing for her disappointment — I feel like a feminist killjoy when I point out red flags like the alpha/beta talk and I hesitate to send her this article because it's so depressing and once you start looking, this kind of "haha it's just a joke, be cool!" American Apparel type shit is everywhere.

I can see my male friends echoed in this article, too, and I just don't know what to do about it. They're so wrapped up in their narrative about being good, enlightened guys that being corrected on that involves a lot of emotional investment to help overcome. Ideally I'd call them out on it and they would handle the Feelings about it all by themselves but I know how hard it can be to be called out and sympathize with that feeling.

On that note, tummy_rub: I don't know what you're trying to ask or why you're feeling like your identity itself is the problem. Like, you just have to treat women as your equals. Be willing to speak up when eating at a place that objectifies women to advertise fried chicken about how that isn't funny or ironic, it's just tiresome and reinforces this idea that women's bodies are only valuable when they're sexualized. Your question really comes across like #notallmillennialhipstermen and I'm not sure why it wasn't clear after reading the article that you can be a hipster without being okay with sexism. The article offers up all these to these examples of sexist behavior, just don't be like that.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 12:30 PM on March 19 [52 favorites]


I know that it's not the point of this article to offer a positive account of how a person should be, but I was left (as some version of a cis white millienial hipster male) at the end wondering, well, how should I be?

Ironic sexism is sexism, if you're doing that, stop it. Treat women as actual people with their own drives, desires, thoughts, and dreams, and not just eye candy put on earth for your amusement/pleasure or to be the mascot for your greasy fried food and shitty hipster beer. We aren't the trophy you get for winning the game. Call dudes out when they make winking, nudging sexist jokes for what they are instead of playing along because you don't want to seem like a downer. Notice when you're in a group and the women aren't saying anything, and actively ask for their input. Dudes are in a unique position here, because those worst infected by this sexist BS are more likely to actually listen to you than to women.

If you want to do better you first have to identify how you currently help perpetuate this behavior in your own life, either by directly participating or by helping condone sexist behavior. Everybody has different things to work on (even women!), so there is no Five Simple Things You Can Do To Stop Being A Sexist Forever quick fix. Sexism is the water we swim in, and the more you tread the path of empathy and pay attention, the more of it you'll see around you all the time.

A good first step is to learn to pause and consider when you receive criticism about your words or actions being problematic instead of launching into defensiveness. Sexist action/words doesn't mean somebody is calling you "a bad person", they are simply saying that these things are hurtful to them and they'd like it if you stop.
posted by Feyala at 12:43 PM on March 19 [55 favorites]


Thanks for that, ttbhr. The reason that it wasn't clear for me: Like, is there an OK way to be a "softboy"? Like, can that behaviour be fleshed out in ways where sexism isn't the primary analytic? This isn't to be apologetic regarding whatever sexist fallout there is (a point to which the lived experience of those affected ought to be deferred), but rather can we take the personal behaviours of those typified as not "stemming" from a place of (personal, rather than structural, where structural="positioned along a spectrum from overt to covert when it comes to their exercise of power") sexism.

Maybe a question of where culpability lies prior to education? (And why this article is so useful.)

This question has less to do with the unproblematically problematic fried chicken example, and more with how identity buckets are created to explain behaviour. And how those buckets relate to structure and power.

(parenthetically, i think the #notallX pendulum has swung too far, but that's a less interesting discussion, I think)

and Feyala, this is #1 best advice : "A good first step is to learn to pause and consider when you receive criticism about your words or actions being problematic instead of launching into defensiveness."
posted by tummy_rub at 12:54 PM on March 19 [4 favorites]


The best way to be, tummy_rub, is to stay silent and listen carefully to women.
posted by Kattullus at 1:34 PM on March 19 [23 favorites]


Specifically, listen when women are talking about their personal experiences, trust that they're being accurate, and try to shut up the inner monologue that's coming up with excuses why something can't possibly be as bad as they say.
posted by Zalzidrax at 2:07 PM on March 19 [35 favorites]


I can see my male friends echoed in this article, too, and I just don't know what to do about it.

That virus or whatever from Y: The Last Man seems like it might be a good start.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:12 PM on March 19 [4 favorites]


Seriously, like, the #1 behavior that I see in one of my hipster male friends is the tendency to turn things like this into an intellectual exercise instead of just listening to women. I have reread the latest comment you made, tummy_rub, over and over and I can't make any sense out of it and I find it frustrating that a straightforward answer like "don't act sexist and call sexist behavior out when you see it" warrants anything other than "okay, got it". Because now we're talking about you and how the article made you feel and that's an extremely good example of what not to do in action. Dismissing what the problem is about and redefining it in a way that turns it more into an abstract "but who is to blame" doesn't do anything except make you feel better.

Enough about that.

The Sporkful podcast had a great series, Who Is This Restaurant For? that talked about the coded way that restaurants express who their preferred customer base is, and I can't stop thinking about it. My identity is strongly based on two things: I'm queer, and I'm fat, and restaurants often speak volumes about whether I belong there. Are all of the servers extremely conventionally attractive women? My old hometown of Seattle has so many restaurants where the women might skew hipster or hippie, but are all thin, young, and attractive, and the message was the same: I'm not the target market, because this restaurant wants to make straight men feel welcome and desired. I never felt like I got good service in Seattle and TBH I carry a grudge but I've seen my male buddies get amazing service while the women at the table were ignored.

Is all the seating at counter stools with little room to move around? Well, this restaurant is for the young and spry. I don't know if it's still around but there's a place in the Wallingford neighborhood of Seattle that offers a vegan tasting menu that lasts for hours on uncomfortable stools. My disabled partner is for sure not desired there. Part of this is just ignorance about accessibility but some of it is intentional.

Other signals: Are the bathrooms single occupant? My queer friends are more likely to feel comfortable there. And it there's a lighter calorie section on the menu it's almost always a "women are always dieting and men love indulging, no men would order this shit" kind of message. I'm a "healthy" eater (by preference, not because I think it makes me morally superior) so I also don't feel particularly at home in restaurants like the Cheesecake Factory but fuck you if a restaurant tries to tell me that only women must be interested in low calorie food, regardless of whether calories actually make a food healthy or no.

It's also worth mentioning that my ex and my current girlfriend have both said they feel unwelcome (or just uncomfortable) in cupcake shops as very masculine of center women because they all lean heavily on femininity In a way that feels like a club they don't belong too.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 2:21 PM on March 19 [60 favorites]


[The Softboy] hasn’t texted you back for a reason; he was not blowing you off. He’s had a Weird Day. Or maybe he’s Trying To Figure Some Shit Out. Sometimes, he finds pride in declaring that he Just Needs A Night To Himself.
Asking whether we can analyze the Softboy "without sexism as the primary analytic" totally ignores one of the key reasons that he is allowed to exist in the first place, on top of ignoring the people he hurts in order to privilege and coddle him. This is a Type of Man who is so well-known he is a trope. There is no woman counterpoint to this trope; certainly, there are women who behave this way, but it is not so well-known that it is seen regularly in popular media, that the description immediately calls scads of women to mind. So no, absolutely not, there is no way to be a Softboy without also being a sexist. His actions are rooted in male privilege and in sexism, in prizing himself over all.
posted by sockermom at 2:36 PM on March 19 [9 favorites]


If anyone isn't familiar with the term "emotional labor" which the article's author uses, here's an enormous thread dealing with it, or just searching for it may turn up other good resources. As a concept, it does a good job of highlighting why one category of behavior that might seem mundane and inoffensive at first glance is actually heavily leveraging pervasive sexism.
posted by XMLicious at 3:01 PM on March 19 [14 favorites]


It's also worth mentioning that my ex and my current girlfriend have both said they feel unwelcome (or just uncomfortable) in cupcake shops as very masculine of center women because they all lean heavily on femininity In a way that feels like a club they don't belong too.

Minneapolis's only(?) donut shop has this going on in a major way. I believe it's owned and run by women, but it feels like the whole place hinges on a very narrow definition of "woman".
posted by hoyland at 3:35 PM on March 19 [5 favorites]


On the one hand, images like the ones the author uses as a launching point highlight a direct parallel between the commercialization of fast food and women's bodies: of both being "products" presented for male "consumption." That connection is both gross and depressing, but it's definitely our culture; metastasizing capitalism, it is a bummer.

On the other hand, images like that are incredibly uncomfortable and more often than not just reinforce the misogyny they're supposedly criticizing. I certainly wouldn't want to just randomly encounter that kind of imagery while I'm trying to eat, and potentially have to deal with overly aggressive dudes defending it if I express discomfort. There are numerous better ways to make intelligent points about how misogyny manifests in our culture. There does seem to be a something of a schism among feminist critics over whether art should engage with things like rape culture at all, on any level, but even there, I don't think anyone disagrees that we should be talking about misogyny and ways to combat it. The problem with images and narratives that either use critiquing misogyny as an excuse to indulge in misogyny or are genuinely trying to critique misogyny but it's, you know, insidious and difficult to be fully aware of, is that they're too often used as a way of shutting down discussions of misogyny, rape culture and women's perspectives.
posted by byanyothername at 3:49 PM on March 19 [3 favorites]


rather can we take the personal behaviours of those typified as not "stemming" from a place of (personal, rather than structural, where structural="positioned along a spectrum from overt to covert when it comes to their exercise of power") sexism.

Why, exactly, would we want to do that?
posted by praemunire at 4:36 PM on March 19 [9 favorites]


Excited to read the blue comments to get the most out of this. I got confused by use of the word hipster, and I have to reread TFA. The use of ironics as supposed teflon, that I think I got loud and clear. It seems like a more universal problem than hipsters but I think I get the use in generational (indeed regenerational) terms.

When people recycle old harmful and wrongheaded shit, repackaged for consumption by allies, weaponized for delivery, armed against criticism by that decade's "jk lol" - that bullshit has to go.

It harkens back to the older use of meme, in this case a virus of traditum that finds a new shape to attach itself to the new generation of hosts.

I try to educate my girl and my boy about this, and it can be arduous along the lines of the emotional labor awareness. I like to think of this as emotional if not ethical strength training!
posted by drowsy at 4:41 PM on March 19 [2 favorites]


When people recycle old harmful and wrongheaded shit, repackaged for consumption by allies, weaponized for delivery, armed against criticism by that decade's "jk lol" - that bullshit has to go.

One other dimension that I think is present is that, because a major type of emotional labor which is a built-in expectation of women is that they will console hurt feelings, any attempt on their part to object to "ironic" sexism—or even just to object to straight-up regular sexism that follows an "I'm not sexist, but..." disclaimer or other signal intended to exempt the speaker from accusations of sexism, or really just attempt to say anything about sexism in general that their interlocutor might construe as impinging on a self-perception of being non-sexist—can end up mired in a back-and-forth involving the woman performing the mandatory consolation, and end up in the actual salient acknowledgment or discussion of the sexism being lost in the noise or deflected into a gutter-ball no matter how spot-on or clearly-articulated the objection is.

And that can happen even if the guy is simply giving conventional conversational responses without any conscious intention; but he's still getting out of acknowledging or discussing the sexism or being accountable for it via actually leveraging sexism.
posted by XMLicious at 5:47 PM on March 19 [9 favorites]


But when you use sexualised images of women to brand your venue, you condone the male gaze and the objectification of women’s bodies

It's even worse, I think. It condones, but it also accelerates, normalizing (and re-normalizing) sexist conventions. It teaches a poisonous lesson as well as comforting the toxic assumptions of the men (and women, I suppose) who've already learned it.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:00 PM on March 19 [8 favorites]


byanyothername: "On the one hand, images like the ones the author uses as a launching point highlight a direct parallel between the commercialization of fast food and women's bodies: of both being "products" presented for male "consumption." That connection is both gross and depressing, but it's definitely our culture; metastasizing capitalism, it is a bummer.

On the other hand, images like that are incredibly uncomfortable and more often than not just reinforce the misogyny they're supposedly criticizing. I certainly wouldn't want to just randomly encounter that kind of imagery while I'm trying to eat, and potentially have to deal with overly aggressive dudes defending it if I express discomfort. There are numerous better ways to make intelligent points about how misogyny manifests in our culture. "


I can't help but suspect that whoever thought up the fastfood-meat-as-figleaf-for-hot-chicks decor was not focused on making a political statement about sexism and consumerism in our culture, rather their thought process stalled at "LOL aren't these pictures hilarious and outrageous?!". Maybe that's ungenerous of me, but that's where past experience has led me.
posted by Secret Sparrow at 7:06 PM on March 19 [5 favorites]


I can't help but suspect that whoever thought up the fastfood-meat-as-figleaf-for-hot-chicks decor was not focused on making a political statement about sexism and consumerism in our culture, rather their thought process stalled at "LOL aren't these pictures hilarious and outrageous?!".

Of course, they can do both at the same time, and the second is sort of an effect of the first, so it's like we can get two toxic paradigms for the price of one! Yay, us!
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:33 PM on March 19 [4 favorites]


images like the ones the author uses as a launching point highlight a direct parallel between the commercialization of fast food and women's bodies: of both being "products" presented for male "consumption."

Here's an image: a guy's severed dick served on a bun. You know you're eating MEAT from a living creature, right?

Except it's always stuff that straight men would enjoy.

On a negative note, I really wish she didn't feel like she had to *apologize* at the end for "taking up space" that might be dedicated to other issues and minimize what she's just said. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 8:07 PM on March 19 [10 favorites]


We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's interesting you should say that, steady-state strawberry, because I think that's one of the key things Pittman is saying in this article: that the defence of this kind of 'ironic' sexism (which also applies to racism in Australia) is always "But we don't mean it to be sexist/racist/queer-phobic/etc, it's just a joke!" Things, we are told, do not have multiple meanings.

Which is bullshit.

The archetypes that Pittman relates in the article - the Fuckboys, Male Sentimentals, Fuckboys, Softboys - all have a vested interest in "I mean it to mean what I mean it to mean, and you don't understand it" are just newer inflections of the Old White Man (link from the article, reproduced here because if you haven't read it you ought to, just to understand how fucking unrepentantly primitive this country is). Despite the insistence that there is only one interpretation of the image, or 'joke', or whatever, it is actually based on a profound understanding of the multiplicity of meaning within it. There is an implicit and knowing understanding of the offensiveness of the image: it's there to get precisely that reaction.

"If you're offended then you're a tightarse, unfuckable, ugly bitch." You're "self-righteous/bitter" as the scrawled-on sticker says. Underneath the fried-chicken-tits*, there's a distinct, unwelcoming separation of in-group and out-group (thanks for that insight, the thorn bushes have roses). So hipster, much shit.

I'm a straight white cis male. I'm a better feminist than I used to be, but I'm not the best feminist. I'm not even the second best feminist in my house, and one of us is a cat. But with everything in the world, with living in this country of racist, sexist fuckwits, I'm left thinking that it is #allmen. It's all of us. We've got to be dealt with. We've got to go.

Dear reproductive biologists, please make the final breakthroughs required for parthenogenesis. It's time.

*Being ironic about irony. Oh, the irony.
posted by prismatic7 at 4:25 AM on March 20 [9 favorites]


Call dudes out when they make winking, nudging sexist jokes for what they are instead of playing along because you don't want to seem like a downer.

And be pleased when your friends start dogging you for having no chill. My husband is earnestly uncomfortable with sexism and racism among his work friends and has a reputation for being a kill joy and having no sense of humor. Which is bullshit, he's hilarious, but he won't laugh along with ironic isms. He's gleeful about his downerism, and they, as resistant as they've been to it all, do use him as a coal mine canary; his disapproving reaction to something is usually a sign to check yourself.
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 7:29 AM on March 20 [13 favorites]


(by which I guess I mean to say I'm proud of the boy.)
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 7:34 AM on March 20 [8 favorites]


Ironic sexism and ironic racism are kind of like growing an ironic beard. You've still got a beard.

It's one step away from Schroedinger's Douchebag, where the response to your comment determines how much of a joke it was intended as.
posted by rmd1023 at 7:40 AM on March 20 [8 favorites]


> Other experiences included: a self-identifying feminist ally turning an intellectual conversation about sleep paralysis into a fictionalised sexual encounter between me and Kevin James (a.k.a. Paul Blart: Mall Cop), which he narrated in the first person, as me, paying close to attention my “gyrating pelvis” on Kev’s “shitty body” but of course as a joke, which was kind of funny, but it was also like “please stop, I barely know you!”

How big an asshole do you have to be to think this is a proper course to take in a conversation like this? JFC.

I'm a straight, white CIS male, but I feel like sexism has been getting worse again over the past 5-10 years for reasons similar to the excuses people make for "ironic" racism; as outlined in this article, it's the attitude that sexism is a solved problem and therefore the words, attitudes and actions of men like this cannot actually be sexist and if you think they are maybe you're the one with the problem and loosen up, baby, we're all cool here, etc. etc. etc.. I cut a former friend out of my life for a number of personal reasons, but one of them was that he was exactly the sort of "progressive" racist and sexist dude outlined in this article; it was okay when he made racist or sexist jokes because c'mon bro.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:46 AM on March 20 [3 favorites]


Like, is there an OK way to be a "softboy"? Like, can that behaviour be fleshed out in ways where sexism isn't the primary analytic? This isn't to be apologetic regarding whatever sexist fallout there is (a point to which the lived experience of those affected ought to be deferred), but rather can we take the personal behaviours of those typified as not "stemming" from a place of (personal, rather than structural, where structural="positioned along a spectrum from overt to covert when it comes to their exercise of power") sexism.

This boils down to one thing for me: are you a "softboy" with other men and boys? Do you act that way with your father, your elderly uncle, the mechanic at your local auto repair shop?

If yes, then fine, that is just your personality.

If no, if this is a self you only reveal to women (and especially to women you want to sleep with), then no, that is not OK. A lot of men like to claim "this is just the way I am!!!!", except it isn't. If they are not that way with the gentleman at the DMV or the middle-aged HR rep who is handing out benefits updates, then that is not "just the way they are", it is a performance that is only trotted out for women of a certain age and level of desirable-ness.

If your vulnerability and fragility can be turned off in most contexts except spaces where women can comfort and coddle you, then it isn't real. It's just an inverted form of machismo.

(Please note: I am in no way saying that men should not be vulnerable and fragile. I encourage it! But most men who partake of this schtick are uniquely titanium-hard and emotionally callous with everyone who isn't a possible conquest-slash-nursemaid.)
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:53 AM on March 20 [16 favorites]


XMLicious: any attempt on their part to object to "ironic" sexism—or even just to object to straight-up regular sexism that follows an "I'm not sexist, but..." disclaimer or other signal intended to exempt the speaker from accusations of sexism, or really just attempt to say anything about sexism in general that their interlocutor might construe as impinging on a self-perception of being non-sexist—can end up mired in a back-and-forth involving the woman performing the mandatory consolation

At one workplace, I got very quick on the draw after the starting phrase, "I not sexist [or racist, or...], but..." with "...but you're about to say something completely sexist and idiotic that you will regret and will make you look like a bigot." I'd say it with a big smirking smile. I had the status to do it without consequence - senior position in the department, white male, all that - so I can't guarantee that the same approach would work for others, but it was fun to do.

They'd usually still go ahead and say what they were about to say, but they'd do it defensively instead of triumphantly, and immediately start backpedalling and explaining and being embarrassed.

Not that I'm free of my own sexism, by any means. But hopefully shutting some of it down in public does some good.
posted by clawsoon at 9:02 AM on March 20 [8 favorites]


I should add that the big smirking smile I used was also an I-love-you-which-is-why-I'm-trying-to-help-you-not-be-an-idiot smile.
posted by clawsoon at 1:20 PM on March 20


I took another look at the pictures in the article. They don't look ironic at all. They just look like scantily-covered attractive young women being used to sell a completely unrelated product.

I'm reminded of the women in bikinis incongruously draped over ham radios in 73 magazine advertisements back in the day. This is the same thing. It's just ham sandwiches instead of ham radios.
posted by clawsoon at 4:30 PM on March 20 [3 favorites]


At one workplace, I got very quick on the draw after the starting phrase, "I not sexist [or racist, or...], but..."

I did something similar at work recently. At the break table, a co-worker of mine chimed into a discussion about race and incarceration rates in the States (I'm in Canada) with "Not to sound racist, but . . ." and I interrupted him waving my arms and shouting "STOP. Just stop! Nothing good ever comes after that!"

He did stop, the conversation shifted to other, less divisive things. Which I was extremely pleased about, given that I work in construction and am not a cis male.
posted by Jynnan Tonnyx at 5:03 PM on March 20 [7 favorites]


« Older Shrink your waste.   |   A Modern Prometheus Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments