Med1 Men vs. Med1 Women = Doctors vs. Nurses

We have some competition going on between the med one men and women. In the midst of the polemic, apparently some of the men suggested that instead of “men vs. women”, the stakes should be, “doctors vs. nurses.”

Trying to keep good humor, I responded to all of the women and suggested “women vs. men” should instead be “doctors vs. murses.” Then I stared at my inbox for a while, and sent an email to my classmate: “Does no one else think this is unprofessional, sexist, and offensive?”

I posted an entry not too long ago after being chided for an attempt at humor that apparently came across as insensitive. In that same vein, my first email was good-natured because I asked myself: should I not be offended? Regardless of whether I should have been or not, I was offended.

This is not a rant about the inappropriateness of the comment, because there is a second part to the story.

After lecture, a classmate of mine told me a pretty offensive joke. Before I go on, let me contextualize by saying that this guy has a reputation for having a rather porous social filter. I don’t say this with any disapproval—as a matter of fact, I get along with him quite well, and this is because I expect him to say things that are completely inappropriate. But, per his behavior whenever I see him, it is always with the mind and confidence that he doesn’t mean any harm by it.

That said, I recognized right away that the joke was pretty abhorrent. But I burst out laughing. Obviously the humor registered somewhere in my brain—I would just never, ever, ever repeat it in a remotely professional setting or in company where I cared at all about my reputation.

I’m not going to repeat the joke—that just gives you an idea of how inappropriate it was. But I will say this: the “doctors vs. nurses” comment was pretty mild compared to what I heard after lecture.  Yet the former offended me, while the latter did not. So I tried to break it down.

In any other context, the subject matter of the joke would not be funny at all. I’ll hint at the nature of the joke by giving an example: I did not laugh when I watched Schindler’s List or read Night. Such jokes are offensive, I imagine, because they treat suffering not only with indifference, but with amusement. To be able to laugh at another person’s misfortune (if the misfortune is bad enough, because, come on, we all laugh at the video where the guy gets whacked in the nuts with soccer ball) is, as far as I can tell, bad form for either one or both of the following reasons: 1) the ability to laugh at suffering implies a degree of indifference for such suffering, and this reinforces a particularly negative quality of behavior, or 2) if we laugh in the presence of the one suffering, the person feels that his or her suffering merits not consolation and indignation, but ridicule, and this is hurtful.

I think I have my bases covered, so in examining reason number one, I’ll say this: there is a great deal of indifference to suffering that we accept in society, and its acceptability seems to depend on the context. Take my ever ubiquitous example of the homeless guy on the street. I’m not going to get into a rational argument about the true benefit to society in giving a homeless guy a dollar, but this is only because that is irrelevant. Empathy is not a product of rationale. As a matter of fact, the ability to override empathy with such dictums as, “they will only use it for booze,” or, “what kind of world would it be if we were always helping those who won't help themselves” is, in my opinion, actively trying to be indifferent to another’s misfortune. Regardless of whether you’re doing society a disservice or not, he still might be without a meal that night. Or cold. Or sick.

Passivity to caring, one may argue, is not as bad as actively finding suffering to be funny. Perhaps. But in jokes that make light of others’ suffering, it is not the misfortune in itself that makes the joke funny. We are expected to laugh in spite of what we have been taught about how to act when others are suffering, and perhaps the audacity (and we can only recognize the audacity because of the twinge in our consciences) serves to make the joke even funnier. Indifference takes care of the “in spite” part. Example: in case you haven’t heard the Tiger Woods joke, it goes something like this:

Q. What’s the difference between a golf ball and a car?

A. Tiger Woods can drive a golf ball three hundred meters.

There are two elements to this joke. We’re not expected to laugh simply because of the pun on “drive.” But we also aren’t expected to laugh simply because Tiger Woods drove his car into a tree.

I am in no way trying to justify the use of such jokes in any and all contexts, and this is precisely because I believe that, of the two possible reasons that offensive jokes should be offensive, the second reason – that someone who is suffering may hear and be hurt – is really the clincher.

Todd had commented on one of my posts about the use of “your mom” jokes, and how they are not necessarily offensive in themselves. In poor taste, perhaps, but this largely depends on who is present. Using a “your mom” joke on your boss may be a faux pas, but use it on someone whose mother recently passed away and you’re in entirely different territory. Why? Because we understand the hurt it may cause them. And it stops being funny.

My classmate’s joke did not offend me because I had no personal stake—but part of me realized that others did, and this was where my conscience kicked in. Was the joke harmful if no one else who had a stake in it heard? I’m going to say no, and that the only way it could be harmful was if it reinforced a particular attitude that perpetuated hurtful actions. Whether it does or not is, I admit, an entirely different debate. Secondly, simply from observing my classmate’s behavior, I knew that he held no ill-will or prejudice against the demographic targeted in the joke.

Now to bring the post full-circle. Why did I find the “doctors vs. nurses” joke offensive? First, I didn’t know the person who said the joke. There was nothing there to convince me, without giving him the benefit of the doubt, that his attitude was not in same way making a statement about women’s abilities to become doctors. Now, from a sampling of guys that I know, chances are that he doesn’t inherently believe that men make better doctors than women. But in the absence of any countering evidence, the indifference that he showed to the attitude that women shouldn’t be presented as inferior – in light of the fact that misogyny in medicine was no myth for quite some time—was enough to make me chafe. Secondly—and this is probably the bigger reason—there was the lack of consideration that, in making his comment, he may very well have offended some of his classmates. This goes back to the “your mom” jokes. Clearly if he did not intend to offend, he would have had to make the assumption that either a) no one would be offended, or b) that no one should be offended. But what determines whether someone should or shouldn’t be offended? Most men would argue that it’s silly to get offended at a “your mom” joke when it is clear that the source of the joke has no real ill-will toward the target. But intent is not always enough, and if the person has had a particular experience, the joke can sting.

Perhaps there would have been no harm done if I had never heard the joke. But I have heard it, and in order to not be offended, I have to be okay with idea of men finding the notion of women being inferior doctors amusing. Regardless of his intent, somehow I just can’t be okay with that.

• Robert Powell (probably the most severe case and one that culminated in a website that, despite the embarrassing schoolgirl adulation plastered all over the webpage, I can't bring myself to take it down)
• Gary Oldman
• John Malkovich
• Willem Dafoe
• Alan Rickman
• Mark Hamill