4672/17331
I started the day with an obvious joke on Twitter. But sometimes being first on social media is almost as good as coming up with an amazing new joke. And I hoped I might have pipped others to the gag. I wrote, "No women in the shadow cabinet, feminazis? Hilary Benn is in there now, so hopefully you'll be happy.” I often stop and think before tweeting a joke these days, knowing that some people will always fail to see the joke and weighing up whether it’s worth the mild inconvenience of being misunderstood. But in this case it was almost part of the impetus. I hoped that the kind of stupid man who thinks that the word “feminazi” means anything or is worth using might retweet this or indeed the kind of feminazi, ooh what a giveaway, I mean person who has a knee jerk reaction to buzzwords might also try and create a row. Or at least I was interested to see if that happened. Because Hilary Benn is a man and from thence the humour arises.
Indeed the first two tweets I got missed the joke, one saying that Corbyn must have thought Benn was Hilary’s first name and another saying they couldn’t believe I was the kind of person who would use the word “feminazi” (even though they had just used it to complain about me doing so, hypocrites, or that that was the first step in understanding that this was going to be a joke - you know aside from me being a comedian who mainly just tweets jokes). I got an unexpected tweet telling me someone else had found the joke transphobic, which I hadn’t anticipated, largely due to the total absence of anything to do with that concept in the 140 characters. Another person said that Corbyn was actually putting a lot of women in the cabinet, so this was unfair. But as the joke was clearly (I thought) about the kind of idiot who would use the word “feminazi” and do everything in their power to prove the unbalanced world was actually fair, even when their own example was laughably incorrect, that also seemed a weird reaction.
Those were, I think, the first four responses. Not even one person saying, “Ha ha, thanks for the funny, though let’s face it quite obvious joke, albeit with the subtle framing of mocking men’s rights idiots, who clearly are dicks, so well done.” This mild joke with a little satirical sting in the tail if you could be bothered to analyse it (which was hoping too much when it seems that most people weren’t even prepared to read it all and think about what it might mean), caused a mild ripple of confusion and comment, so I decided to do a further joke of explaining the joke in too much detail over a preposterous number of tweets, thusly,
"So to clarify the joke, Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised for not giving any of his top shadow cabinet jobs to women. I noticed Hilary Benn was in the shadow cabinet and also noticed that he has a name that is usually, but not always a female name. I thought it might be funny to satirise the kind of idiot who likes to rail against feminism by pretending that I thought Hilary Benn was a woman thus disproving the thesis that there are no women in the cabinet, but of course in doing so I was actually revealing the stupidity of the character I was adopting, as Hilary Benn (as everyone knows) is really a man. I assumed the use of the word "feminazi" by someone who wasn't actually a prick would be enough of a clue to get everyone onside. But I guess in my heart I hoped that idiots on both sides of the debate would fall into my trap and not realising that Hilary Benn was a man might think I was either on their side (if a stupid anti-feminist) or being sexist. If either side did that then they would both look stupid as they would have merely demonstrated their own ignorance of Hilary Benn's gende.r The first two people to respond perfectly straddled this divide and have since deleted their tweets out of shame. And thus my comedy has made the world a better place."
Although more people seemed to enjoy this than the original (supposedly throwaway) gag, it led to others thinking I was seriously trying to explain the joke (when I was of course, mocking the stupidity of anyone who needed it explained), some thinking it proved how unfunny I was that my jokes required such explanation. One wonders why someone like that would be following me or if they have ever looked at anything I have done on Twitter. Had I been one of my followers I would have been delighted that for once I had done a one-off actual joke which didn’t go on for months or years with the same basic premise being unchanged. I don’t follow me though, because I think I am a prick.
So I tweeted "There was also a joke in my overlong explanation that many of you have failed to appreciate, which means I now have to explain that too…” and I was very tempted to carry it on. Because that’s my favourite kind of Twitter joke. As much as Stewart Lee thinks Twitter is not a medium for long-form or pedantic jokes, I think I have proven that it is the best medium for that. Instead I just added "Also I don't think I have made the world a better place.” And then to further stir up the kind of people who don’t have a sense of humour (or more fairly my sense of humour, which I like to call “the correct sense of humour”) I added, "Most of the things I say on here are jokes. But if you want my real opinion I believe women should be treated as if they are equal."
It got a few bites, though thankfully (as when I have done it in stand-up over the last seven years) it got a lot of appreciation, as it is one of my only good one-liners. I can explain it to you if you like, but let’s just say the butt of the joke is me (or men who think they are being right on), not women and hope that that does the job.
Ah well, I had fun and that’s the main thing. As many people told me it’s probably best just to treat my jokes as if they are funny.
I've also updated my tour listings for Happy, Now? (might be worth booking ahead for these as I am mainly playing places that I do well at.
Also I have updated my gig guide. There is some crossover.
