What is your sociological angle on this?

Ugh. God. That anecdote wasn't even amusing. It was just horrible.

See also Silvio Berlusconi's latest "joke" -- Italian women are so pretty, they'd need as many soldiers as them to protect them from rape!

disgusting. what is wrong with these people?

Thank you for the elaboration! It reminds me of something somebody said in the comments at feministing recently. The discussion was about Political Correctness, and people who complain about the restrictions placed on them by the expectation of Political Correctness.

One user made the point that it is ironic that being politically incorrect is "cool" and "edgy," because it's usually a lot easier to be politically incorrect than it is to stand up to people who are using insensitive and discriminatory language. Trying to enforce respectful and inclusive language brands you as being the "PC police," while just laughing along and conforming (the way Bill Clinton did) is much safer and easier.

I've been thinking about this, and I think it may have to do with the fact that a lot of the time making racist or sexist statements can be a way of making yourself look cool by breaking the "rules" while still conforming with the "Rules." In this case, the "Rules" of our society are framed by the larger social context wherein certain social groups are privileged (white privilege, male privilege, class privilege, etc). Racist and sexist commentary reinforce societally accepted norms, and are therefore is conformist while trying to be edgy.

However, it seems edgy because it is breaking the "rules" that have been set more recently, against great resistance, by the effort of minority groups attempting to change the balance of power and privilege. These rules are easier to break than the Rules that govern our society.

I am sorry if that sounds crazy. I asked for your sociological angle because I have had no training in sociology at all. I majored in psychology and studied mostly the neuroscience side of things, and not so much the social psychology side of things.

In any case, what my theory reminds me of is something that I do remember from social psych, which is that people often jump through a lot of hoops in order to satisfy their need to conform and rebel at the same time. People need to feel like they are included in a societal network, but they also need to feel like individuals. Therefore, people will often attempt to assert their individuality by adopting an even more extreme version of the beliefs that are adopted by their social group. This can often cause groups of people to become polarized, with individuals competing to see who can define themselves as the person with the most extreme position while still basically conforming with the ideals of the group.

If my theory about the "Rules" being the general rules that determine power and privilege in our society, and the "rules" being some rules set up by what would be an out-group to the racist or sexist speaker, politically incorrect humor could be a similar phenomenon. They are asserting their individuality by transgressing some "rules" set by an out-group, while conforming to society as a whole by re-enforcing traditional power structures.

So yes, thank you. I wondered what your take on things was, because mine feels a little... extreme. ~_^

I can't even imagine how people can laugh at that. I also can't help thinking "Who is H.W. to judge?" He's not exactly a 'looker' himself.

Wouldn't it be so nice for people to realize that women's bodies do not exist for the judgment of the public?