This will be a short half-rant / half-argument piece.

During lunch at my school, I sit with a group of men and women. I know some of the women, but moreso the men. I like some of them individually, others less so, but usually things stay calm. Unfortunately, some of the women are what I feel I can now rightfully call misandrists. Usually, the topic never comes up, so I can simply ignore it and continue talking with the guys' side. Today, however, I couldn't help but overhear a discussion about "Kill all men".

I can't remember any exact words. But I can remember the gist of two things one of them said that inspired this post:

"I like saying it because people get so offended when you do. I mean, it's just a joke!" and "Why is it that society sees "Kill all men" as wrong, but jokes about raping and beating women are made all the time and nobody cares?"

These two comments in tandem got me thinking about the kind of rhetorical strategy that is going on here. There appear to be multiple assertions here:

1) "Kill all men" is just a joke, so it isn't wrong. 2) Society sees equivalent jokes against women as okay, so society is biased against women. 3) If society is unfair in it's assessment of jokes against women, that makes jokes against men morally permissible.

Finally, there is one final implicit assertion that I could see this kind of person making (and sensed that they were trying to make), which I will also address:

1A) If certain kinds of dark humor are okay, then "kill all men" is okay.

Let us begin with 2 and 3 - the subjects of the second argument.

First - where is the evidence that society condones jokes about beating and raping women? If it exists, I've never seen it. What I have seen is several pieces of evidence addressing related questions that strongly suggest that this idea is false:

When a man hits a woman: moral evaluations and reporting violence to the police

Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting

Attitudes of Dutch citizens towards male victims of sexual coercion by a female perpetrator

Attitudes about victims of workplace sexual harassment based on sex

(Credit: u/forgetaboutthelonely)

It may be objected that none of these directly address the topic of jokes. But if people on the whole see violence against men as more trivial and have less empathy for them in general, it seems extremely hard to believe that this trend would reverse when the topic comes to making jokes. In other words, the available evidence suggests that society condones joking about the rape and assault of men more than it does for women. So there is no inequality in favor of men here, but rather an inequality in favor of women. Thus, 2 is almost certainly false.

Second, we can go further and point out that the examples given are not equivalent to KAM. Joking about rape is bad, but surely joking about genocide is worse? After all, the moral status of the action should factor into whether you can joke about it, and, clearly, genocide is far worse than even rape. So the comparison is also a blatant false equivocation. Even if society was indifferent towards jokes about rape, it still wouldn't follow that making jokes about genocide was "equally bad". So the argument fails even at the minimum level of making a meaningful comparison.

3 is significantly simpler to respond to: Two wrongs never make a right. No - seriously. They don't. And thinking that they do doesn't make you a progressive, or a free-thinker, or an advocate for justice. What it does do is make you look morally infantile, at best.

So what, then, of 1 and 1A? This is where I hope to present something new to the discussion, as I believe it is crucial to counter this idea that saying "Kill all men" is just a "joke", or even a "dark joke".

To start with the most basic problem: "Kill all men", by virtue of its very essence, is not a joke. What I mean by that is it lacks the more explicit things that separate a joke from what you find funny. A "joke", at minimum, requires some kind of punchline, along with an element of surprise. Now: visualize the most "offensive" joke you've ever heard. Notice that, unlike "Kill all men", it very likely still has some kind of structure and punchline. Furthermore, this exercise actually becomes even more revealing if the joke you thought of is tasteless, bad, and genuinely morally questionable. Why? Because it illustrates that even in the case of a "bad dark joke", it still has fundamental qualities that make it a joke. KAM, however, does not. So it's not an "offensive joke" like the kinds that some (reasonably) enjoy - it's not a "joke" at all.

At this point, I'm sure that the counter would be that although not a joke per se, it's still ironic, so it's still "okay", as long as they don't "really mean it". And besides - it's not as if tons of women are actually joining genocide promotion groups, so they must be kidding. (/s)

I hope I don't need to explain how ridiculous this idea is. People on the internet constantly make fun of the stereotypical discord kid who thinks it's funny to be "ironically racist". Why is being "ironically misandrist" any more permissible?

I, however, will go even further here, and argue that the distinction between a "tasteless joke" and "tasteless irony" is even more important. Whereas with a joke, we can always assume that someone just has a really messed-up sense of humor, with "irony", there is no reason to assume that they are not partially serious. Because let's face it - nobody "ironically" supports evil without at least downplaying and minimizing it. Or, put another way, finding certain racial jokes funny, while tasteless and questionable, still isn't comparable to the blatant explicit statement of KAM.

Finally, with all this, we come back to 1; and I hope that I don't need to state how repulsive this is.

In conclusion: 1 - False. Not a joke. Being ironic is better than being unironic - but when the subject is genocide, "better" is still morally reprehensible. 2. Empirically false. 3. Morally immature.

Or, put another way:

"Ironic" advocacy of genocide is profoundly immoral and utterly deplorable, and trying to spin it as a mere "offensive joke" is a pathetic excuse.

And if you're wondering - why did I go to all this trouble when I could have just pointed out their hypocrisy (especially since they suddenly are using conservative rhetoric about "being offended")? Because I feel that it's important that male advocates fight back against manipulative rhetoric that tries to downplay and minimize disgusting behavior like saying KAM. It's precisely the arguments that try to make those who are repulsed by it seem like "sensitive snowflakes" that are likely to sway those who are on the middle and don't already know about things like the empathy gap. Pointing out the specific flaws in their "logic" and "arguments" (in this scenario I'm not sure I'd even dignify them with those words) could be key to getting these people to see that something is wrong.

Anyway. Rant over. Thoughts?