When visiting Andrea (name changed for privacy reasons), I always have to endure the crude humour of her husband. This time is no different; ‘Do you know what the three best holes are in a woman?’ he asks me. I truly have no idea, but I begin to believe I’d rather not know. ‘No,’ I say, dreading the answer. ‘The three holes in her stomach after stabbing her with a digging fork!’ he exclaims, and his booming laughter echoes in the room. Right, I would not have guessed this. My blank face gives away that I’m not amused, and neither is Andrea, who, perhaps tired of listening to these ‘jokes’ way too often, just brushes it off. ‘Yeah, very funny,’ she says with a sarcastic tone, but then adds, ‘I don’t know why you’re making these jokes, you know she’s a feminist.’
A few thoughts are running through my head. The first one is: Ah, that ridiculous concept of feminism is stopping me from laughing at such brilliant jokes (or not even allowing me to see them as such) at this depiction of (presumably) a man stabbing a woman with a digging fork. Perhaps if I wasn’t brainwashed by the stupid feminist ideology, I’d be laughing hysterically, tears streaming down my cheeks. Yeah. The second thought is: Well, if I’m not laughing, then who is supposed to laugh at this? Andrea didn’t find it funny, but she just dismissed it as a ‘bad joke’. Would it be a good joke if it were presented in a different setting, like a room full of men or anyone who isn’t a feminist? Would that make it funny then? And the last thought: Does he even realise who he’s talking about? In his so-called joke, he’s addressing all women as if we were this alien group he has nothing to do with, but somehow he forgets that he’s married to a woman (Andrea), he has a daughter, and now also a granddaughter. Also, I’m standing there, right in front of him, as a subject of his ‘humour’. I wonder, how would he feel envisioning any of us lying on the floor in a puddle of blood oozing out of those three bespoken holes in our stomachs after being murdered by a man? Would he laugh, or would that eventually cross his line of humour?
As I’m pondering these questions, poker face still on, he comes to a conclusion: ‘Ah, yeah, you just don’t have a sense of humour.’ Here we go. So the conclusion is that I am the problem, and the obvious issue is my lack of humour. Rather than accepting that the ‘joke’ he’s just made is just dressed-up misogyny, and the sole reason no one is laughing is that misogyny isn’t and cannot be humorous. But if you dare to call it out or even if you just don’t laugh, you will become the problem. I guess it’s just easier to twist it around and translate a negative response as being a sensitive, politically correct bore than acknowledging a liability for being a misogynist. I’ve learned that this is a very common response.
Speaking of humour, I also recall those countless times I was sitting on the living room floor like a slob and eating a dirty pizza while watching The Inbetweeners. I specifically remember the episode where Simon gets really smashed (as Jay wisely recommended) and then he meets Carli at hers in the hope she invited him to have sex, which obviously wasn’t the reason.
Simon: ‘You know why I’m here. And I know why I’m here. And you know why I’m here. Kiss me!’ Carli: ‘Simon, you know I’ve got a boyfriend.’ Simon: ‘Just finger yourself in front of me!’ Carli: ‘Jesus, Simon!’ (1)
I’m laughing out loud, nearly choking on the pizza. In the next scene, Simon gets finally too sick from the amount of alcohol he’s had and proceeds to throw up all over the kitchen top at first, and in the end, all over Carli’s little brother. Tears are streaming down my cheeks. This is fucking hilarious!
Since I’ve been introduced to British comedy, I’ve always considered The Inbetweeners absolutely brilliant. For a while, it was my favourite sitcom, but as time went on, I began to notice that it hasn’t aged really well. Actually, I have a sneaky feeling it hasn’t aged at all; it’s rather me who’s changed. Basically, the more I learned about sexism and misogyny, the more sexism and misogyny I started to notice.
There was also the episode where Charlotte and Will arrange to hang out later, but Will, being Will, keeps thinking it’s a date even though Charlotte stressed that it wasn’t. Will’s narration goes: ‘She said it wasn’t a date, but we both knew it was.’ (2) Which, in other words, reads: ‘When women say no, we know it means yes.’
In a different comedy show, Nathan Barley, the main character works for a magazine called Sugar Ape. One day, a design change was made to the magazine’s name, specifically altering the font size. The last letter of ‘sugar’ and the entire word ‘ape’ were merged together and enlarged, while the rest of the word ‘sugar’ remained much smaller and nearly invisible at first glance. As a result, the magazine’s name now essentially read as rape – or rather, suga rape if you are observant enough to notice the ‘suga’. Wow, wow, wow, how clever. But what exactly is the joke? The word itself? If so, it’s about as mature as a bunch of giggling 10-year-olds who’ve just discovered that they can use the words boobies, tits, and cocks with impunity as long as they pretend the conversation is about birds. Even today, those t-shirts with ‘suga rape’ printed on them are still available for purchase.
Fig. 1 - Nathan Barley, Sugar Ape - Sugarape Hoodie Sweatshirt
I don’t want this post to turn into a rant about The Inbetweeners or other comedies where I dissect all the sexist elements or debate what is and isn’t funny. However, I would still like to share a few observations. I feel that if you give something the label of ‘humour’ or ‘comedy,’ it gives you a green card to say absolutely anything, regardless of how bigoted or prejudiced it might be, without repercussions. The Inbetweeners is actually a compilation of misogyny (and homophobia), but because it hides behind its bulletproof shield of ‘comedy,’ it’s practically never met with outrage or even much criticism. It’s just a joke, eh?
When I tried to discuss the sexist content with a friend of mine (who actually agrees that it hasn’t aged very well), I came up against a brick wall. He told me to just chill out because it’s a satire and the characters are portrayed this way deliberately because they are not supposed to be likeable or relatable. While I might agree that the characters are not supposed to be likeable, saying that people don’t relate to them would be an underestimation. The characters are supposed to be a (not completely) bunch of losers who disobey and rebel against their parents, endure bullying from the big boys at school, face off with the dreadful principal, and struggle to form relationships with girls. Does it really sound like something teenage lads and even adult men wouldn’t relate to? There’s nothing wrong with the plot, as these are fair and common themes of growing up. The issue lies in the execution. What I find problematic is that nearly every scene involving women and girls is interwoven with misogyny. The women and girls are portrayed merely as objects of desire and plot devices to advance the male protagonists' stories, never given equal depth or agency. The humour often revolves around crude banter about shagging, fingering, getting with birds, cumming, and so on. The characters reflect real-world misogyny.
Now, why aren’t people finding it offensive? Well, why would they? As my friend put it, it’s just a ‘satire.’ So, even though most people would probably agree that the humour in the scenes mentioned above is crude, they would defend it because it’s just a mockery; it isn’t real. The show is taking the piss out of the characters, and we’re supposed to laugh at them. Right?
Right. But no. Even though the characters are funny and, for the most part, they are ridiculed and punished for being idiots, there’s still this nagging sense that we can relate to their struggles. After all, isn’t this what boyhood is about? Being a bit of a twat, overestimating your charm, and telling a girl you fancy to finger herself in front of you? She obviously doesn’t like it, you get punished for it, but other than that, no big deal. Just boys being boys, eh? The problem here is the normalisation of such behaviour and excusing it as an inevitable part of boyhood. Normalisation breeds acceptance, making misogyny almost invisible, and leaving people to accept it as just a natural part of life, or in the case of The Inbetweeners, part of growing up, being teenage boys, and eventually becoming adult men.
But in the real world, where men treat women in the same way, it takes a much darker turn. Real-life women are not just poorly scripted passive characters who exist solely to fulfil the function of a sex object. And the men with the same attitude as the fictional characters often aren't those sloppy teenagers who say silly things. Real life doesn’t escalate into some ‘funny’ comedy situation. A lot of real-life scenarios where sexual harassment is at the centre begin with ‘banter,’ where men give unsolicited ‘compliments’ to women. This, however, often turns ugly when women reject (or ignore) those advances. Sometimes, the rejected men ‘just’ respond with something like: ‘You are an ugly slut anyway!’ But often times, the rejection ends in some form of assault or rape. And when women choose not to respond, they endure this attitude toward them daily (or are attacked anyway). These incidents happen in streets, public places, workplaces, homes, etc. Just check the Everyday Sexism Project by Laura Bates (3), where thousands of women share their experiences of men ‘just having a laugh/banter.’ Or perhaps check the latest news.
It’s always just humour, until it isn’t. The Inbetweeners isn’t an isolated example. There are thousands of sitcoms (such as Peep Show to name one), comedies (with American Pie being the most obvious), music videos, books, advertisements, and more, all containing casually misogynistic attitudes toward women and girls. Misogyny is so accepted as the norm in the real world that it often goes undetected.
This brings me to my final example for this section. In an episode of Peep Show, Mark befriends a guy he later discovers is a racist. He ultimately condemns the guy and ends the friendship, conveying the message that racism is wrong. However, the same character treats his object of desire - Sophie (who, like most female characters, is passive and lacks agency) - with an utterly dehumanising manner. He stalks her, demands her attention, sabotages her career pursuits, and in one episode, casually slaps her arse in front of another guy who also fancies her - staking his claim over her. What better way to reduce her to a mere object? So I’m wondering, if this is intended as satire, where is the critique of misogyny executed in the same manner as the episode critiquing racism? Have I missed something? I don’t want to say that racism isn’t still a problem - it undoubtedly is - but it isn’t framed as a natural way of life, as misogyny is.
The issue I see here is the message these shows send to viewers. This is particularly concerning for young audiences, who may lack real-life relationship experience and may internalise these depictions as expectations. They learn how to perform as boys (entitled, dominant, central, etc.) and how to perform as girls (submissive, passive, secondary, etc.). As for the banter, well, that’s just something men/boys engage in while women/girls are expected to endure and accept it. These shows promote the idea that engaging in misogyny is an inherent part of boyhood and manhood.
It wouldn't be as much of an issue if a bit of banter here and there weren’t the sole focus of the plot. Making fun of women in these shows wouldn't be a problem if their characters were better developed and given the same depth and agency as the male counterparts. It wouldn't be an issue if there were a greater variety of comedy and humour. Unfortunately, most shows are essentially the same - mishmashes of misogynistic banter directed at dull female characters.
Sexist jokes are not funny; they are just misogyny dressed up as humour. Specifically, making jokes about violence against women (rape jokes, etc.) is reducing real people’s trauma into a form of entertainment. This is extra alarming, given the current state of affairs, where 1 in 4 women have been raped or sexually assaulted (4), and 3 women are killed by men each week in the UK. (5)
But I have to admit that I’m still quite fond of The Inbetweeners and enjoy watching it now and then while sitting on the living room floor with a greasy Domino's pizza. I also still find it funny - not everything, but many scenes are still hilarious. The reason I made the effort to write all of the above is that I believe it is important to be critical of things we like (while still being able to enjoy them). I consider the level of sexism in the show worthy of awareness and think it’s essential to have a conversation about it. Remember, the issue isn't just one show; it's our deeply misogynistic culture that enables sexist and harmful attitudes toward women to thrive, within which these shows exist. These shows are a symptom of an ill society. But what really drives me nuts is when someone makes a highly inappropriate comment and then insists it was just a joke – especially when no one laughs. Like when Trump in 2005 made his infamous remark, ‘grab ‘em by the pussy’, referring to women, which he later dismissed as ‘locker room talk’. Or when the Texas Republican gubernatorial nominee, Clayton Williams, in 1990 likened rape to weather by saying: “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.” Obviously, after a wave of criticism, he also claimed it was just a joke, not a serious statement. A similar analogy was used by Robert Reagan in 2022 when he argued against the efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He said: “I tell my daughters, ‘Well, if rape is inevitable, you should just lie back and enjoy it.’” (6) (7) (8)
What a useful piece of father-to-daughter advice, really. Unlike others, he didn’t try to dismiss his poor choice of words as a joke; instead, he explained the true meaning of his analogy: that you should never stop fighting, even when the outcome seems inevitable. I’m not sure about you, but I just cannot see any connection between those two in the comparison. And neither could his daughter, Stephanie Regan, who then urged people not to vote for him. (9) In 2023, the UK Home Secretary James Cleverly made a rape joke about spiking his wife’s drink, saying that ‘a little bit of Rohypnol in her drink every night’ was ‘not really illegal if it’s only a little bit.’ He later apologised but insisted it was an ‘ironic joke’. (10) Considering that this is the same guy who was tasked with addressing the issue of spiking, it truly is ironic. Also, Roosh V (real name: Daryush Valizadeh), a controversial figure associated with the ‘manosphere’, sparked outrage in 2015 when he wrote an essay titled How to Stop Rape, where he argued that rape should be legalised on private property as a way to force women to take more responsibility for their safety. Needless to say, after receiving loads of criticism, he simply tried framing it as satire. (11) It looks like the word ‘satire’ has become a brand new euphemism for ‘sexist bollocks’.
What else some people like these have in common, besides spewing highly offensive shit, is that they tend to kick off when being called out. They throw a tantrum like a five-year-old denied chocolate, crying out that their freedom of speech is under attack. The usual stuff they bring up to the table is that they can’t joke anymore these days, because everyone is so sensitive and politically correct. They typically go on to complain about those ‘snowflake’ millennials and Gen Z, who are always at the centre of their rage and are supposedly responsible for the tragic state of affairs surrounding freedom of speech. This lamentation, which denounces the younger generation as ‘snowflakes’ while nostalgically recalling the good old days when people could take a joke, reminds me of a similar sentiment about the past, when women (allegedly) regarded catcalling as a compliment – something ‘modern women’ apparently have a problem with.
There are two things I would like to say. First – there has never been a time in history when women regarded catcalling or other forms of harassment as a compliment. Never. Second – this is also similar to the claims that there used to be no mental health problems in the past. Yes, there were! What has changed, however, is not so much the people themselves, but the means and platforms available nowadays where they can openly discuss these issues, be heard and discover that there are loads more people dealing with similar stuff. These means of unity, readily available in the online world, allow people to stand against this shit, as there is strength in the collective voice. That’s why people are speaking out – not because they are more ‘sensitive’ than previous generations, but because they are no longer isolated individuals and can express themselves more easily. Also, in my humble opinion, I believe that speaking out about something that bothers you is rather brave than a sign of weakness – quite the opposite to what certain people would claim. One notable initiative of people speaking up is the #MeToo movement. However, as we know, where there’s a movement, there’s a glaring backlash.
I find this ‘freedom of speech’ lamentation really ironic, considering that the very act of the lamentation and name-calling, like ‘snowflakes’ or ‘woke lefties’, is kind of a confirmation that one’s freedom of speech is actually entirely intact. If one’s freedom of speech was threatened, then the means of expressing oneself would be suppressed. But they are not, are they? People quite comfortably say whatever they want to say, when they want to say it, to whoever is willing to listen (or even to those who aren't) without facing any consequences. There’s a significant difference between receiving a negative response for something you say and being prohibited from saying anything at all. I often notice that those who cry about freedom of speech are often the ones who want to freely shout racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or other offensive slurs without being held accountable. It reminds me of a guy I read about named Simon Williams, who, on his Facebook page, expressed the opinion that people who want to claim benefits should be neutered. After facing disapproval and being asked to take the post down, he angrily stated that ‘you can’t say anything these days,’ (12) clearly not realising that he just had.
Dr. Gail Dines, a radical feminist and professor of sociology and women’s studies, touched on the topic of freedom of speech during her appearance on the Female Dating Strategy podcast. She discussed how the porn industry has hijacked the narrative around sexuality by investing billions of dollars to dominate and control the conversation, stating that ‘Speech is not free, it’s the most expensive commodity you can buy,’ also adding that ‘When you say free speech, you don’t mean the freedom to speak; you mean the capacity to be heard.’ (13) This is something that really resonated with me because it’s so painfully true. As I mentioned earlier, people who moan about not being able to say certain things still do so without facing any real consequences other than disdain from some critics. Yet, that hardly stops them from continuing to voice the very offensive remarks they claim they are no longer allowed to make.
You don’t have to spend too much time looking around to see it first-hand – just consider how many followers (at the time of writing) Andrew Tate, the self-proclaimed misogynist, has (10 million followers on X), how many people support Donald Trump (91.1 million on X), Jordan Peterson, an influential figure in the manosphere and a critic of modern feminism (5.5 million on X), another alt-right manosphere figure, Milo Yiannopoulos, who is famous for attacking political correctness, women's rights, and what he calls "toxic feminism" (279.4K on X), men’s rights activist Mike Cernovich who has written about "alpha masculinity" and made inflammatory remarks about feminism, women's rights, and sexual assault (1.3 million on X), Piers Morgan, the British journalist and TV host who frequently mocks the ‘woke’ culture, modern masculinity, and feminism (8.8 million on X), and Jeremy Clarkson, the British TV host and former Top Gear presenter who is known for his unfiltered opinions and making sexist, homophobic, and politically incorrect comments (8 million on X). The list could go on. Also, this is just X; obviously, these people are active on other platforms too. With such a large following, these people certainly cannot complain that their voices are not being heard – even if they face some criticism.
On the other hand, there are feminist activists like Dr. Gail Dines (for the record, she has only 10.1K followers on X) who don’t have the same luxury of being able to speak so openly without facing any consequences. The wave of criticism they endure goes far beyond mere disagreement with their views. Feminist activists often face rape and death threats, as well as being compelled to cancel their speeches when the event organisers receive bomb or shooting threats if they don’t comply. Consider the infamous case of Zoe Quinn, a game developer who faced a backlash upon releasing Depression Quest. Her ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post in 2014 in which he falsely claimed that Quinn received a favourable review because she slept with the journalist (how mature). This sparked a harassment campaign known as GamerGate. She was subjected to death and rape threats, and her personal information (like her home address) was made public online. These threats eventually led her to move house due to concerns for her safety. (14) A similar fate was met by Anita Sarkeesian, the founder of Feminist Frequency, who made brilliant videos about sexism and misogyny in video games. Sarkeesian was also targeted by the GamerGate mob, had her public appearances cancelled, and received rape and death threats. She was eventually driven out of her house to spend the night with her friends after receiving very graphic threats to her and her family. (15) Another feminist author, Jessica Valenti, who’s behind the Abortion, Every Day newsletter, received rape and death threats aimed at her and her daughter. (16) Laura Bates, a feminist writer best known for founding the Everyday Sexism Project that I mentioned earlier, has also been subjected to the usual rape and death threats. (17) Dr. Jessica Taylor, a chartered psychologist and founder of VictimFocus, has also faced significant backlash for her work addressing societal attitudes that perpetuate victim-blaming in cases of sexual assault and domestic violence. She has been trolled and mocked online by numerous accounts, had her laptop hacked, and received threats of sexual violence – even from other academics in her field, individuals who are supposedly on the same side. (18) These are just a few examples that demonstrate the outrageous backlash women are met with when fighting against systemic sexism and advocating for women's rights.
Fig. 2 - Threats made to Anita Sarkeesian, the founder of Feminist Frequency
Fig. 3 - Dr. Taylor’s X feed
It seems you just cannot be a feminist author and activist without experiencing fear for your life on nearly an everyday basis. And I’m asking – is this freedom of speech? Being unable to express oneself freely due to ongoing safety concerns is hardly a convincing example of free speech, is it? Or having public events cancelled due to threats against the participants is not a strong illustration of free speech either. This goes back to what Dr. Gail Dines said about the capacity to be heard. When you are threatened into silence, your voice can be barely heard – that is the true suppression of freedom of speech.
This level of hate and silencing is not reserved for feminist activists only – victims of domestic or sexual assault and abuse are met with similar treatment. Anne Munch, JD, one of the prosecutors who worked on the Kobe Bryant rape case, describes in Rape Myths on Trial that the 19-year-old victim who was allegedly raped by Bryant received so much publicity during the case that she had to move five times to escape the aggressive media. She also received hundreds of death threats, two of which were so serious that two different men in two different states were sentenced to jail – one of them was a murderer for hire. The details of her life were posted on the internet and international media, so it was very difficult to protect her privacy during the case. She also appeared on the cover of Globe magazine four times. The case was dropped in the end, and Bryant wasn’t convicted of anything because, in Anne’s words, the victim ‘couldn’t go through it anymore’ and decided not to testify. Bryant’s basketball career wasn’t significantly impacted as he went on to win several championships. (19) Consider also the case of Andrew Tate, who has been accused of sex trafficking, grooming young women to produce porn for online distribution, and rape as part of the human trafficking charges. Despite these serious allegations, a documentary film titled I Am Andrew Tate was released, portraying him as a ‘controversial internet star’ and providing him with a platform to defend himself. (20) What a slap in the face to his victims – where is the documentary that gives them a voice to share their stories of surviving Andrew Tate? Yet, this is the same man who claims a mainstream conspiracy is trying to silence him as he refers to the charges. The irony is staggering.
It would be wrong to assume that they got away with it only because they are famous and that ordinary men would be rightfully punished. Shit falls downwards – what happens in the upper circles of society reflects what’s occurring on a global scale. Rape and sexual assault are two of the most unreported crimes, with five out of six women who are raped or assaulted not reporting to the police (Office for National Statistics, 2022) (21). The following figures from the ONS reveal the reasons for non-reporting: 40% said it was due to ‘embarrassment’, 38% said they didn’t think the police could help, and 34% said they thought it would be humiliating. (22) Another staggering statistic from 2022 suggests that 1.3% of rapes reported to the police in 2021 resulted in a charge that same year. (23) Subjects of those crimes (whether they report to the police or not) are often victim-blamed or accused of being liars, attention-seekers, or mentally ill. The perpetrators often employ intimidation tactics to silence their victims through threats. These are some of the news headlines: Child rapist sent death threats to victim to 'intimidate' her into staying silent (2023), (24) Doncaster rapist threatened to 'bury' victim in garden if she told anyone of his attack (2023), (25) Rapist tried to silence victim by telling her to Google his name and murderer brother following terrifying attack (2015). (26) The list could go on. If anyone ever asks again why victims don’t report – this is also one of the reasons why. Silencing is a highly effective tactic, whether employed by perpetrators through threats or by institutions such as courts and police, which often downplay these cases as insignificant, unimportant, or mere ‘she-said-he-said’ disputes – that is, when women dare to report. Where is the free speech for all the victims who deserve to be heard and believed? In his book The Macho Paradox, Dr. Jackson Katz explains that the more social power you have, the more you are heard (27) – and in our society, that power largely rests with men. It’s no surprise, then, that women’s voices are often overshadowed by men’s.
I would like to go back to talking about humour. What type of humour is funny then? I believe that with jokes and humour, it's very important to question who it's made by and who it's for. Imagine a typical school scenario: a bully is making fun of a small kid with glasses, cracking ‘jokes’ about his size and appearance while laughing with his friends. These ‘jokes’ aren’t meant for shared amusement; they are directed specifically at the small kid to belittle him. One might argue that the small kid could change his perspective and find humour in the situation, allowing him to laugh together (trust me, I’ve heard this dumb argument). However, the reality is that bullying remains bullying, regardless of how one chooses to view it. The small kid is neither expected nor supposed to laugh along, as the very essence of the ‘joke’ is to mock him. The ‘joke’ was made by the bullies for their own amusement. While this is a clear-cut example of what isn’t funny – since it’s overtly bullying – many situations are far less straightforward. Often, the line between humour and bullying, or simply being ignorant and inappropriate, is remarkably blurred.
When I was a school kid aged 15, our school would organise an annual event where each class would get together and prepare a performance for the teachers, parents, and the public. We would prepare this months ahead and then perform it in an old cinema/theatre that had a stage and around a hundred seats for the audience. The performance could be anything of our own choice, including dance, singing, comedy sketches, etc., and it was usually supervised and guided by the teachers. So was this very performance I’m going to tell you about. I actually didn't participate in this one because our class had multiple performances, and I was too busy preparing for the other ones where I was involved. Instead, I watched it from the audience, thinking how brilliant it was. It was a comedy sketch, and the whole plot revolved around being a cop at a Vietnamese market seizing illegal goods from the vendors, who would immediately try to bribe the cop by giving him those items in question for free, especially after being challenged on whether they had the right to stay in the country. It was made in a comical way, and my classmates put a lot of effort into mimicking a Vietnamese accent. The entire audience laughed. Actually, the entire audience, with one exception – the only Vietnamese family in an audience predominantly made up of Caucasian people. In fact, this family, whose dad, funnily enough, owned a local clothing shop where all these teachers and parents would go shopping, filed a complaint. No one could understand why. And because we failed to recognise the connection between our own ignorance and the reason for the family's upset, we simply attributed it to a lack of humour on the family's part.
I will quickly provide context for this situation. In the Czech Republic, where I’m from, there are many Vietnamese people. This stems from an agreement between communist Czechoslovakia and Vietnam (1950–1980) that sent young Vietnamese to Czechoslovakia for education. After the Velvet Revolution in 1989, many chose to stay rather than return to Vietnam. Additionally, more Vietnamese migrated later to take advantage of growing business opportunities, particularly in small-scale trade and retail.
As I recall, we Czechs always viewed them as ‘the other’, despite the fact that when I was growing up, many Vietnamese kids my age had been born in Czechia and spoke perfect Czech – because they were, in fact, Vietnamese-Czech. I remember the countless times someone would take the piss out of their migrant parents’ accents, their facial features, and also how we would look down on the clothes they sold – even though we were frequent visitors of Vietnamese markets. And, as far as I remember, we would never consider them equal. In high school, my Vietnamese friend once told me that his parents would push him really hard to have good grades in order to get the same level of respect that average Czech students got. That struck me hard.
It is true that some Vietnamese markets were full of fake illegal brands like Gucci and Giorgio Armani, but it’s also true that these fake brands are pretty much everywhere I went abroad for a cheap seaside holiday (and those weren’t sold by Vietnamese). It is true that the police would raid these Vietnamese markets and confiscate these goods; it would be all over the news. But the Vietnamese community isn't some homogeneous group where everyone is a stereotypical market vendor selling cheap fake stuff. They are individuals with their own distinct qualities and talents, just like anyone else, whether Vietnamese or Czech. But living in the Czech Republic, many Vietnamese people often feel compelled to work twice as hard as Czechs just to be accepted and viewed as equally skilled, intelligent, or capable. All this, while trying to fit into a predominantly white community that doesn't hesitate to mock them or remind them they don't truly belong.
With this context in mind, I hope it clarifies why the Vietnamese family wasn’t thrilled about the performance. It crudely perpetuated stereotypes by portraying all Vietnamese individuals as vendors of fake goods, ridiculing their accents, and primarily emphasising that they don’t belong. How could anyone expect the Vietnamese family would find this ostracising ‘comedy’ funny?
In an episode of Fact or Bullshit podcast titled No Topic Should Be Off-Limits in Comedy, hosted by Natasha Devon and Dr. Keon West, West points out that people tend to concentrate on whether a topic should be considered off-limits. However, he believes this is the wrong question. West argues that, in fact, no topic should be off-limits in comedy; instead, you need to ask yourself whether you are punching up or punching down. He says: ‘Black people have been joking about racism forever because we are allowed to do that. It happens to us and it’s not fun, and we can handle it through humour. But if you are a white person who, at the very least, never has to suffer from racism and you are joking about it, you are punching down. You are being an asshole.’ He provided another example, explaining that if you are a rape survivor (presumably female) joking about rape, that's completely different from being a heterosexual man (presumably with no experience of being a victim of sexual assault) on stage making jokes about it. (28) Ask yourself, who is making the joke and who is supposed to laugh? Also, are you laughing with the subject of the joke or at them?
In my opinion, jokes about women, racial groups, or LGBTQ+ individuals made by privileged people who lack firsthand experience with sexism, racism, homophobia, or transphobia are clearly not the best agents to tackle humour on those topics.
I think that a good example of how to approach intricate topics in comedy would be the stand-up comedian Joe Wells in his Having a Non-Autistic Brother video. Joe, who is autistic, humorously critiques the prevalent stereotypes surrounding autistic people. He does this by discussing his non-autistic brother, cleverly twisting those stereotypes to make it seem as though he’s mocking non-autistic people and the assumptions about their experiences. This approach serves as a metaphor; he exposes the stereotypes that autistic people face. In this context, Joe is punching up, as he, an autistic person, has the right to joke about autism while also making fun of the generally privileged group of non-autistic individuals. He can make these jokes because they reflect his own reality. But if you belong to a privileged group and are mocking something outside your own experience – stay the fuck away; there are other ways to create humour other than punching down in order to get kudos from your like-minded audience. Natasha Devon explained in the same episode of the Fact or Bullshit podcast that portraying the privileged guy who ‘doesn’t get it’ might get laughs, but it also reinforces harmful attitudes for those who genuinely don’t get it, which is deeply problematic. However, if you are from a marginalised community, let’s say a black person, as West argues, and you say traditional racist shit on stage as part of your comedy, you are just as bad, because you are reinforcing the stereotypes. If something offends, it's not humour, and the issue doesn’t lie with the recipient's response but with the privileged mindset of the person making the joke. True humour is when everyone can share a laugh, regardless of their sex, sexuality, race, or any other differences.
In a post about freedom of speech, I think it’s quite important to mention cancel culture as well. According to Google's definition, cancel culture is: ‘the practice of withdrawing support from public figures or companies after they have said or done something that is considered offensive or objectionable. It often takes place on social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook.’ It involves boycotting their work or refusing to promote them – basically ‘cancelling’ the person, company, TV show, etc. in question.
The most prominent person that jumps to my mind when the topic of cancel culture comes up is JK Rowling, who faced a massive backlash after her comments related to gender identity that people viewed as transphobic. One of the many comments she made was that trans women shouldn’t be allowed in female-only spaces. She attracted a big wave of criticism from the public, her fans, as well as from celebs including Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe, who disagreed with her views. Even the real-life quidditch was renamed to quadball in order to distance themselves from the creator. (29) I’ve personally seen a lot of people on Twitter saying things like they would never read Harry Potter again or that they would throw all Harry Potter books in the bin – what a mature way to disapprove of someone.
Donald Trump was banned from Twitter in 2021 following his incitement of violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, as a reaction to the 2020 election, which he falsely claimed to have won. After his speech, a mob of Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol, resulting in widespread chaos and destruction. Several people died, including his supporters as well as police officers. Numerous social media platforms, including Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, and others, deplatformed Andrew Tate due to his misogynistic content. However, Tate’s as well as Trump’s Twitter accounts were reinstated in 2022 when Elon Musk, the bastion of free speech, took control of the platform. (30)
Now, do I agree with any of these people? No. Do I think they should all be deplatformed? Also no. I will explain why, just keep reading.
I believe that every single person on this planet knows Eminem and at least a few of his songs – songs that are well crafted with a catchy tune and loaded with violent misogynistic content. Yep, that’s Eminem, the lyricist genius. Everyone probably knows his top hits like Lose Yourself or Without Me, but he’s also the author of Stay Wide Awake:
I think I smell the scent of a placenta
I enter Central Park, it's dark, it's winter in December
I see my target with my car, and park and approach her tender
Young girl by the name of Brenda and I pretend to befriend her
Sit down beside her like a spider, hi there girl you mighta
Heard of me before, see whore you're the kind of girl that I'da
Assault and rape and figure why not try to make your pussy wider
Fuck you with an umbrella then open it up while that shit’s inside ya. (31)
Of course, his fans (or even non-fans) are fully aware of this content, but they defend him regardless, saying that he’s just an artist and this is his artistic expression and an act. Or even better, they rationalise it as ‘dark comedy’. Despite his popularity, he was criticised by some who believed he was a bad role model for boys and young men, to which he responded: ‘I didn't get in this game to be a role model.’ He didn’t indeed, but he has become one. In his book The Macho Paradox, Dr. Jackson Katz argues that even though Eminem’s songs don’t cause men and boys to be violent towards girls and women, they ‘contribute to the cultural climate that is conducive to the development of “rapist values” in boys and men.’ Katz further explains that rapping and ‘joking’ about rape have the effect of desensitising people to the real trauma and suffering experienced by victims. He says that consuming excessive amounts of fictional depictions of violence against women through pornography, movies, video games, and similar media can lead to increased callousness toward victims. This often results in a decreased likelihood of believing victims, a greater tendency to blame them for the violence, and a reduced willingness to intervene in real-life situations of abuse. However, Katz also believes that shutting Eminem up isn’t the answer. (32) There have been efforts to cancel him for years, starting with MTV in the early 2000s (which he addressed in Without Me) to his 2024 comeback, where he's now facing criticism from a lot of Gen Z. One TikToker views his new Houdini lyrics (‘My transgender cat’s Siamese / Identifies as black, but acts Chinese’) as embarrassing, stating that anyone who likes this sort of stuff must be brain dead. (33) But these attempts to cancel him were never really successful; Eminem won several Grammys and has a very strong fan base. Ironically, in Katz’s words, his critics are usually the ones who are dismissed as cultural rednecks and opponents of free speech. Katz explains that Eminem is revealing something that already exists in the minds of many people. Therefore, he believes that ‘It is imperative to explore the implications of his popularity. In fact, I do not think it is possible to talk about rape culture in this era and not talk about the man who has been called the “hip-hop Elvis.”’ (34)
I had the same thoughts about Tate, Trump, and other notorious misogynists with huge social media followings. Who are these people that follow them, and what exactly is it that resonates so strongly with them? It seemed to me that those trying to shut Tate and Trump down acted as if they were the sole agents of misogynistic views, and that by removing them, those views would disappear. But that’s far from the truth. Misogyny is already prevalent in our society, and figures like Tate and Trump aren’t introducing anything novel with their words or actions. I believe their popularity stems from their easily digestible, bite-sized content. However, the sentiments they express are far from original. If we ban misogynistic content and make these figures less visible, it won’t make misogyny itself go away. If anything, I believe such actions would only push these views further underground, making it even more challenging to monitor those horrid opinions and debate them on neutral ground. But it would certainly be far easier to simply pretend the problem has disappeared. The issue must be addressed at its root through systemic change, which requires engaging in open dialogue – even if it means having uncomfortable conversations with individuals whose views we strongly oppose and who may hold harsh opinions.
Unfortunately, cancel culture doesn’t affect only the likes of Trump and Tate. In an episode called Cancelling Cancel Culture of The Wandering Womb podcast, hosted by feminist writer and psychologist Dr. Jessica Taylor alongside her wife Jaimi Shrive, Dr. Taylor recounted how academics who disagreed with her attempted to sabotage her by reaching out to organisations where she was scheduled to speak, aiming to have her engagements cancelled. She also described a similar incident involving a woman on social media who disagreed with one of Jessica’s views. This woman publicly declared her intention to sabotage Jessica's work, stating she would delete any posts she had retweeted, unfollow her from all social media, and encourage all professionals in their field to avoid attending Jessica's speeches or buying her books. Ironically, this woman was from the same field as Dr. Taylor. (35)
There have also been numerous attacks on Dr. Gail Dines, a leading anti-pornography feminist, who has faced multiple attacks for her arguments that the pornography industry promotes misogyny, objectification of women, and sexual violence. Much of the criticism comes from liberal, sex-positive feminists who view her perspective as moralistic and anti-sex. Some of her speeches were even cancelled. The Community Centre in Austin, Texas, cancelled the screening of Pornland due to concerns that it may violate a ‘safe space.’ Dines rejected those claims, saying: ‘I am critical of the johns, the pimps, and the porn producers and distributors, but not the women who end up in the industry through poverty, racism, violence and trafficking.’ (36) This kind of silencing, though, echoes the ways far-right men suppress feminists and victims, as I discussed earlier. But in this case, this type of silencing is coming from the left. In her TikTok video, Dr. Taylor critiques the current dynamics within feminist circles, likening the behaviour of some people to that found in patriarchal structures. She notes that while anti-feminist men may threaten her with rape and death, those within feminist circles who disagree with her adopt a different approach. Instead of overt aggression, they attempt to undermine her by trying to remove her writings, seeking her dismissal, discrediting her work, and cancelling her speeches. (37)
A friend of mine once remarked that we’re free to talk about everything, but we’re not really allowed to say anything. Strange times indeed. It often seems that whenever someone expresses an uncomfortable opinion or holds a controversial view, people are far too quick to dismiss not just the individual, but their entire body of work. A prime example of this is the backlash against J.K. Rowling, where many distanced themselves from the entire Harry Potter franchise.
Little Britain was eventually removed from BBC iPlayer in 2020 due to its racist and misogynistic content. For that very reason, the show had been criticised from the start until it was eventually ‘cancelled’. (38) Should it have been cancelled? As I mentioned earlier, removing one source of racist and misogynistic views won’t eliminate racism and misogyny. Wouldn’t it just be better to let the show fade away into obscurity for not being funny?
Similarly, the character Apu from The Simpsons was discontinued in 2018 due to accusations that he represented a racist caricature of Indians and South Asians. (39) It kind of reminds me of when protesters took down the statues of figures associated with slavery and colonialism during the Black Lives Matter movement. By saying this, I’m not suggesting that slavery and colonialism were acceptable at any point in history; however, removing statues of people who are long dead will not eliminate the racism that still prevails in our society. Some might argue that these actions highlight the issue, but it seems clear that most people are already aware that racism remains a significant problem. Simply taking down statues will not change the systemic and institutionalised racism embedded in our society. Just like deplatforming a few misogynists won’t eliminate misogyny itself.
Whilst I believe certain people (and shows) shouldn’t be deplatformed, I also believe that they shouldn’t be celebrated either, because this is a different story. Allowing Andrew Tate back on X is one thing, but creating a documentary that portrays him as a ‘misunderstood internet star’ – which not only allows him to profit financially but also provides him with a platform to defend himself – is quite another. Likewise, Dior not only supported Johnny Depp after the infamous Heard vs. Depp trial but actively promoted him, signing a groundbreaking three-year, $20 million deal – making it the largest men's fragrance partnership in history. (40) That’s even after Depp’s text messages about wanting to rape Amber Heard’s dead burnt corpse were proved to be authentic. (41) What message does this send to men? And what message does this send to women?
In episode 2 of Shock of the Nude documentary, Dr. Mary Beard explores the profoundly disturbing work of Eric Gill and interviews Cathie Pilkington, who co-curated a show of Gill’s work. (42) Eric Gill was a sexual abuser of his two daughters, but he was also an artist. It’s particularly shocking because he used his daughters as models in his art during the years of abuse. He still is one of the most renowned British artists of the 20th century. There has been an ongoing debate about whether an artist can be separated from their art. Cathie Pilkington acknowledges the complexity of Eric Gill's legacy, and in the description for the exhibition Eric Gill: The Body, the text does address his abusive behaviour. However, it opens by emphasising that Gill was ‘an artist of talent, craft, and vision,’ (43) which I feel sets a problematic tone by prioritising his artistic accomplishments before addressing his disturbing personal history. Although the gallery acknowledged the sensitive nature of the subject and prepared to offer support to survivors of abuse visiting the exhibition, I still believe that showcasing his work feels like a slap in the face to all victims. Not only does it suggest that the perpetrator evaded accountability, but it also rewards him with a platform, allowing his problematic legacy to be publicly celebrated. This choice clearly elevates the perpetrator over the victims. Why exhibit this work at all? In Shock of the Nude, Cathie Pilkington argued that if they were to remove Gill, who else would have to go? It’s a fair question, but I think it ultimately reflects who we prioritise. Shall we give a platform to predators and abusers? Sure. What about giving a platform to victims to express their story? Nah. Apparently, his daughter Petra grew up to be a talented weaver, but I don’t think we will ever see her work. I guess that galleries find greater profit in adhering to traditional patriarchal norms by showcasing the works of privileged male artists – even those with abusive histories – rather than embracing more innovative approaches like supporting female artists or those from marginalised and disadvantaged groups so they could tell their part.
Also, if we argue that art can be separated from the artist, then why not exhibit Hitler's work? He was also undeniably skilled. Well, it’s widely understood that celebrating his work would cross a line. But why doesn’t exhibiting the art of a child molester and rapist raise similar concerns?
I'm not advocating for ‘cancelling’ or deplatforming Eric Gill. Rather, I'm questioning the logic behind continuing to provide a known paedophile with platforms. I’m not even advocating for cancelling Johnny Depp and his career, but I’m questioning the lack of support, empathy and justice for the victims of domestic and sexual abuse. I’m questioning the lack of accountability for perpetrators. I’m not advocating for cancelling anyone. I’m rather questioning what and who we choose to value as a society and what our support for figures like Trump, Tate, and others reflects about our collective priorities.
What’s the takeaway from this? What I’m highlighting is that misogyny is so pervasive and normalised that it has become nearly invisible – it’s accepted as common sense in our lives and is rarely questioned. For instance, few raise an eyebrow when major music stars rap or sing misogynistic lyrics, or when well-known misogynists gain massive popularity both online and offline. The fact that a documented misogynist and felon was elected US president in 2016 – and again in 2024 (tell me how sexual assault allegations ruin men’s careers and lives) – further illustrates this troubling reality. Similarly, the sexist humour found in comedy films and sitcoms, as well as the blatant misogyny present in video games and the violent depictions of women in pornography, often go unchallenged. While some individuals have begun to speak out against these issues, they often face significant backlash, including persistent threats from far-right groups. But many people may not even be fully aware of the extent of misogyny and its pervasive influence on their lives.
I would like to go back to the very beginning of this post – Andrea’s husband, who likes to make terrible ‘jokes’. Despite the terrible shit he’s capable of letting out of his mouth sometimes, I have a good relationship with him. People are not merely black and white; we are complex, multifaceted individuals, and his comments represent just one layer of his character. He’s not a terrible person, although you could argue that his statements reflect deeper problematic beliefs. I would agree. However, I also know his nice side – he is very hospitable when I visit, when he cooks meals, or when he entertains everyone with jokes that aren’t misogynistic or racist.
My point is that misogyny is like a disease. It infiltrates and spreads through societies to communities, and eventually to individuals. Its danger lies in how it often goes unnoticed and becomes normalised. As a result, even those we admire and respect can contribute to the issue by accepting misogyny as a form of humour or a standard aspect of everyday life – just like Andrea’s husband and millions of other normal, ordinary people. People who may be our family members, friends, neighbours, colleagues, and so on. Everyone is part of the problem. This is why I see a lot of people being ‘guilty’ of saying casually sexist shit. One person I know always moans about female drivers (even though statistically, women are less likely to be involved in a car accident). One Christmas, when he saw two women putting up Xmas lights from the car window, he commented: ‘Women putting up lights, what can go wrong?’ Hm, I don’t know, maybe nothing? Other people I know often call each other ‘little girls’ as an insult when one of them is unwilling to take a leading position or make a risky move while playing video games. Sure, being called a ‘little girl’ is such a good insult – except when you actually happen to be a little girl – of which there are millions. Why should any little girl think that her identity means being inadequate? But one truly memorable incident of encountering casually sexist shit happened in the city centre of Prague, where I noticed a board outside of a bar that was reading: ‘Don’t forget that alcohol helps to remove the stress, the bra, the panties, and many other problems.’ I thought, what a way to advertise rape. And surely, if challenged, they would simply try hiding behind the good old tiring ‘it was just a joke’ tactic. But either way, the advertising wasn’t targeting me (or any other woman) to become a visitor – unless, of course, I couldn't resist the premise of having my bra and knickers removed by some of the drunk male visitors, who were the true target of the advertisement. As a woman, I didn’t sense a welcoming atmosphere for females in that bar. But more importantly, I thought that if any sexual assault or harassment occurred there, I wouldn't feel encouraged to report it to any of the staff members – after all, women’s bras and knickers are just problems that need to be removed according to them.
Fig. 4 - notice board in Prague, 2024
Women already feel unsafe in public spaces, and incidents like these only reinforce that insecurity.
I’ve said that everyone is part of the problem, but that also means everyone can be part of the solution. This post isn’t intended as a set of guidelines or instructions. Instead, it’s a reflection on today’s troubling issues and their connection to the ever-present force of misogyny – rooted in patriarchy, yet not the only enemy. Misogyny, white supremacy, capitalism, and other forms of oppression and exploitation overlap and reinforce each other in what bell hooks calls ‘imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy’ – a system of intersecting prejudices that operates together at all times. (44) But that’s a topic for another time!
One thing I will say: start with yourself – reflect and think bigger. What are the jokes that make you laugh? What makes them funny to you? Do you believe in gender roles? If so, why? Where did you learn that men and women should conform to gender roles? How are women and men portrayed in the media? How does the media shape the way you see the world? What stereotypes does it reinforce? Who around you is impacted by those stereotypes? How might they impact you? Do you think you are not affected by them? Think again. Everyone is affected, and this is not just an individual issue but a systemic one. Misogyny has had thousands of years to seep into people’s lives, becoming an almost invisible part of them. If a problem is systemic, it requires a systemic solution. But change can start with you by recognising the problem, critically examining your beliefs, and noticing the ways misogyny shows up in your life. Once you notice it, it’s hard to unsee it. Once you see it, you can begin rethinking your actions and beliefs. Once you see it, you may even help others see it too, you can start a conversation. That’s a solid start, but only if you give a shit. References: (1) https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=the-inbetweeners&episode=s01e02 (2) https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=the-inbetweeners&episode=s02e02 (3) https://everydaysexism.com/ (4) https://caraessex.org.uk/statisticsaboutsexualviolence.php (5) https://factcheckni.org/articles/are-an-average-of-three-women-killed-by-men-each-week/ (6) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html (7) https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc915993/ (8) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/robert-regan-daughter-rape-michigan-b2032101.html (9) https://people.com/politics/michigan-candidate-controversy-after-lie-back-and-enjoy-it-rape-comment/
(10) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67813689 (11) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/02/50000-sign-petition-to-ban-events-by-pick-up-artist-and-legal-advocate (12) https://newsthump.com/2024/04/08/you-cant-say-anything-these-days-insists-man-saying-exactly-what-he-thinks-every-single-day/ (13) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc3tLEliI-s (14) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/03/zoe-quinn-gamergate-interview (15) https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/16/anita-sarkeesian-its-frustrating-to-be-known-as-the-woman-who-survived-gamergate (16) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/14/insults-rape-threats-writers-online-harassment (17) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/29/laura-bates-everyday-sexism-sisters-sword-shadow-fantasy-novel-andrew-tate (18) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/apr/24/author-book-victim-blaming-misogynist-abuse-jessica-taylor (19) https://thoughtmaybe.com/rape-myths-on-trial/ (20) https://www.channel4.com/programmes/i-am-andrew-tate (21) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2022 (22) https://criminalinjurieshelpline.co.uk/blog/sexual-assault-data-stats/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGwEhdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHU2xmKAgKWLazBj4PviWS0i4SIMb_wYHlLe2bp92KYpGJZNmYUaO8b7eEA_aem_en44Bh73q1CCxq6eH7vxiw (23) https://cambridgerapecrisis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sources-for-website-stats-May-2023.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawGwEhhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHU2xmKAgKWLazBj4PviWS0i4SIMb_wYHlLe2bp92KYpGJZNmYUaO8b7eEA_aem_en44Bh73q1CCxq6eH7vxiw (24) https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/child-rapist-sent-death-threats-27409929 (25) https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2023-12-01/rapist-threatens-to-bury-woman-in-garden-if-she-spoke-out (26) https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rapist-tried-silence-victim-telling-6988464 (27) https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2019-09/Katz%2C%20The%20Macho%20Paradox%20-%20Why%20Some%20Men%20Hurt%20Women%20and%20How%20All%20Men%20Can%20Help%20%282006%29.pdf (28) https://open.spotify.com/episode/2xcP3yOQjO1Y8pPOJhTWO6?si=6c1ce60664414856 (29) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-62252514#:~:text=Quidditch%20has%20changed%20its%20name,'Develop%20its%20own%20identity' (30) https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-twitter-ban-trump-tate-west-b2229716.html (31) https://genius.com/Eminem-stay-wide-awake-lyrics (32) https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2019-09/Katz%2C%20The%20Macho%20Paradox%20-%20Why%20Some%20Men%20Hurt%20Women%20and%20How%20All%20Men%20Can%20Help%20%282006%29.pdf (33) https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/eminem-the-death-of-slim-shady-gen-z-tiktok (34) https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2019-09/Katz%2C%20The%20Macho%20Paradox%20-%20Why%20Some%20Men%20Hurt%20Women%20and%20How%20All%20Men%20Can%20Help%20%282006%29.pdf (35) https://open.spotify.com/episode/01YHWesACvevKPIx1X3rEQ?si=c3462e0451004858 (36) https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-porn (37) https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBRVMFZtEP9/?igsh=MWFuNHpiZ3d3djNqOA%3D%3D&fbclid=IwY2xjawHhArtleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHcmDU6eDHyeIzCQWjnICeDL-LET2sEWCJA9Sfo3xQ1JkiHVEIeu2aH_h0Q_aem_lntSfFJVegVa0VCz7ZYidg (38) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/05/little-britain-only-needs-one-iplayer-warning-awful-20-years-ago-and-no-better-now (39) https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/apu-leaving-simpsons-racial-controversy-adi-shankar-matt-groening-a8604156.html (40) https://variety.com/2023/film/news/johnny-depp-dior-biggest-mens-fragrance-deal-1235611017/ (41) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-b2062466.html (42) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000f8r3 (43) https://www.ditchlingmuseumartcraft.org.uk/event/eric-gill-body/ (44) https://medium.com/the-left-gazette/notes-on-the-imperialist-white-supremacist-capitalist-heteronormative-ableist-theistic-patriarchy-c7dc3c291b18
Figures:
Fig. 1:
Fig. 2:
Fig. 3:
Fig. 4:
Taken in Prague, 2024
Comments