Xiado said:
It's like if a little old lady robs a big mugger at knifepoint and someone says "haha, serves him right", and you respond with: "you wouldn't laugh if it was the other way around". No fucking shit, because the other way is the expected and we don't laugh at ordinary horrible things, only unusual horrible things.
Here's the problem with your example: The two characters are "little old lady" and "
mugger". See, you've already established that this character is of ill repute based on his past misdeeds. It's not "little old lady robs younger gentleman."
What makes it different in the real world, where real people live and use the real definitions of real words?
In order for this story to have that "Haha, serves him right" component, he must already be typecast as "the bad guy." For no reason whatsoever, because we aren't provided any information that makes it so.
There is an underlying inequality there, and that's the part that is particularly enraging. The fact that we can find this funny, but not the reversed situation, is because so many people readily accept the suggestion that the man
is always at fault. That is an inequality in perception, and it can (and should) be corrected rather than defended or encouraged. Just like we have done (and continue to do so) with racism.
In choosing this example, you've actually done more to damage your point than to uphold it. Unless you're saying you genuinely believe there is nothing inaccurate about a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to men and an "innocent even when proven guilty" approach to women?
(Also, you've indicated -- see bolded text in quote -- that somehow we were supposed to
expect that this man would mutilate his wife's genitals. I'm hoping that was accidental, but I thought I'd point out that this is what this statement objectively implies.)
That's why Tom & Jerry is funny, because mice aren't "supposed" to do horrible things to cats. We wouldn't laugh at a show where the cat just wins every time. You don't hate that double standard, do you?
(NOTE: We very often DO laugh at a show where "the cat wins." The whole reason "happily ever after" works is because we expect it, and feel rewarded when we are given it. Irony is only ONE type of humor.)
Tom and Jerry are predator and prey. This is a relationship established in the natural order of the food chain. As such,
the roles assigned to them are accurate. The perception that "cat is predator" and "mouse is prey"? Perfectly valid.
It is only for that reason that a changing of those roles -- either the cat and mouse are friends, or the mouse preys upon the cat -- is widely accepted as funny.
There was also a time when white society, by and large,
accepted the fact that black people were basically only valuable as unskilled labor and/or entertainment. And because they
believed it was a valid distinction, they were able to accept humor based on that expectation. We have since (for the most part) worked to show that it is
not a valid distinction, and there is a lot less acceptance for that sort of humor... or at least we're able to allow it on
both sides, now.
This "men are oppressors by nature" construct is just as invalid. This situation is
only funny to people who believe so misguided a construct. The "serves him right" only works
if we already automatically believe the man to be guilty. To go back to your original example, he must
already be "the mugger," absent of any evidence.
That is an assumption and attribution of traits based on subjective perceptions, incomplete information, and stereotypes. That is the very definition of a "prejudice." This man is pre-judged to have been somehow
deserving of this -- at least in the eyes of those that find it funny.
That's a problem, so don't be so surprised that people want to see it fixed.
