15
Darkies, Dwarves, and Benders: Political (In)Correctness in The Office
In the very first episode of the second series1 of The Office, Gareth Keenan tells this memorable joke:
Gareth: Alright, it’s Christmas dinner. Royal family, having their Christmas dinner. Camilla Parker-Bowles goes, “Ok, we’ll play 20 Questions. I’ll think of something—you have to ask me questions and guess what it is.” So what she’s thinking is “a black man’s cock.”
David: Ooh, trust Camilla! Not racist is it?
Gareth: No. So, Prince Philip goes, “Is it bigger than the bread bin?” She goes, “Yes.” Prince Charles goes, “Is it something I can put in my mouth?” She goes, “Yes.” Queen goes, “Is it a black man’s cock?” (2/1:26)2
Despite Gareth’s confident reassurance, the Black Man’s Cock (BMC) joke is obviously racist; it involves a degrading stereotype about black men.3 Yet, it’s also quite funny because it involves the Queen thinking of huge penises. When David Brent later tells the joke to some colleagues at the Welcome Swindon party, he suddenly stops when they are joined by Oliver, the black co-worker. The result is another awkward and mortifying Office moment. Clearly, he has realized that the joke is racist. Later on, however, when both David and Gareth are accused of telling racist jokes on the work floor, they do all they can to argue that the BMC joke is not racist at all. Gareth tries to convince Jennifer that the stereotype is actually true (by saying that he can provide the necessary photo material to prove his point), and David, who agrees with Gareth on this empirical fact, adds that, if it is indeed true, then the joke is “a compliment if anything” (2/1:38). Besides, Oliver himself thought it was funny once Brent was talked into finishing the joke, so no harm was done.
Certainly, we can say that the BMC joke is politically incorrect. As Jennifer tries to point out, it is offensive to reduce black men to large genitalia—as if this myth were the only interesting thing about them. Political correctness is a central theme in the humor of Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, and it is prominent in The Office.4 In the course of 14 episodes, almost no group is spared from political incorrectness: black people, women, homosexuals, the handicapped, the disabled, the obese, the bald, and so on.
Although many comedians use offense and shock to make their audience laugh (think of Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat), Gervais and Merchant go further by showing us the genuine struggle people have with being politically correct. On The Office, the rude person isn’t totally unaware of the damage he does, and so the comedy is enhanced by revealing the complexity of the issue. David Brent is totally inconsiderate and rude, yet he also openly professes that he is a “philanthropist” who would never do something to offend people. The ambivalence in Brent’s character adds depth to the comedy.
And, of course, if you like depth, then you’ll like philosophy. Despite the fact that it is a recent phenomenon, political correctness is a topic that interests moral philosophers. For indeed some important questions arise. Should we be politically correct? Should we, for example, refrain from telling the BMC joke? And can we take legal measures against people who do? Let’s delve into the subject. Or, as Brent would say: “Into the fray!”
The problem of political correctness (PC) arose in a very specific context. By the early 1990s, the term was used by conservatives to describe certain liberal reform movements that wanted to change the curriculum and teaching methods at various universities. These movements believed that the current curricula were unfairly biased. Literature, for example, was all about white men (thereby excluding important female and black authors), and history was nothing more than a one-sided story told from the perspective of the oppressors (those in power). Therefore, they wanted to restore the balance by giving due attention to the neglected authors and the untold histories.5
Moreover, the reformers believed that this biased view is so deeply engrained in our society that it has become part and parcel of our common language. We are used to saying “chairman,” for example, but why should this be a chair-man, when obviously a woman can be a chairman too? Our use of “chairman” is an unjustified relic from a patriarchal history, and we should now say “chair.” Come to think about it, why do we say wo-man if we know that a woman is not just some special kind of man? As if women have no essence of their own! Hence, some feminists believed that we should spell it as womyn instead of women. And, if we really look carefully (now that we have our magnifiers on), then it’s obvious that the prevalence of male vocabulary is everywhere, and that by using it we are (tacitly) confirming, or at least condoning, the supposed inferiority of women. So, we no longer attend a business “seminar” (which, pardon my French, reeks of male semen), but we go to a business “ovular.” Any language suggesting that people are not equal should be erased and replaced by a suitable alternative which does not suffer from this deficiency. Hence we say “differently abled” rather than “disabled” (and, as Brent notices, rather than Gareth’s mention of the “crippled”; 2/5:183).
As these examples make clear, however, the enterprise of PC quickly becomes a laughing matter. And, of course, that’s exactly the way the conservatives wanted to depict the project: as a pipedream of over-sensitive lunatics.6 They obviously succeeded and today the term PC still has a pejorative ring to it. Very few people would want to be accused of PC. On the contrary, it seems bold and mature (and funny!) to reject or ignore the issue altogether. Just say whatever you want to say, because we prefer crude honesty over lame hypocrisy. Yet, if charges of political incorrectness were just silly, we wouldn’t laugh as hard as we do with The Office. The shame we feel when Chris Finch, for example, tells a rude joke is real, and we are anxious to explain that we don’t, in fact, believe that women are inferior to men. So, underneath the silliness of “womyn” and “ovulars,” PC might still point to a genuine concern.
To understand that PC is a real concern, we should first acknowledge that words can indeed do serious damage. In episode 4 of the second series, David calls Gareth into his office to rehearse the speech he is going to give at the community center. Gareth is asked to insult David so that he can show his audience that, as a good boss, “sticks and stones may break his bones, but names will never hurt him” (2/4:151). Unfortunately, the wisdom of this proverb proves to be rather worthless, for although these names do not damage David’s bones, they sure cut deep. As soon as Gareth reveals that the Swindon crew calls him Bluto or Mr. Toad (“the ugliest of all the amphibians”) behind his back, David is deeply offended and he storms out to settle the matter in his typically awkward way.
Words can wound because our self-esteem depends on the way other people perceive us. We are anxious to believe that we are loved for who we are, and we want to make sure that those we care about have a positive image of us. Hence, it comes as a shock if we find out that we are perceived in a different, less favorable, light. Even a narcissist like David Brent is not immune to the impact of this shock (although, precisely because he is a narcissist, he does not begin to question himself, but directs his anger outside). Our appearance, for example, makes us vulnerable because, to a certain extent, it exists independently of our wishes or intentions. Of course, we might change a lot (our haircut, our clothes, our boobs), but there are limits to that enterprise. Our physical look, whether we like it or not, will always taint the way people perceive us (“the jolly fatty,” “the stupid blonde”). We’re convinced that people should look past appearances and discover who we really are, but we all know how difficult that is.
Hence it is simply false that, by absence of physical damage, words are entirely harmless. By the use of a mere word, people can crumble our reality. Think of David. His world collapses when he is finally made redundant. Or think of Tim who is so deeply in love with Dawn, and who is convinced that the feeling is mutual, but who is rejected twice. We feel his pain, and anyone who has ever experienced how deep love’s teeth can sink, knows that this pain is well worse than a bump on the head. To keep in line with the bone-breaking metaphor of the proverb: nothing breaks like a broken dream.
But the plea for PC is ill-founded on the criterion of (emotional) harm. Whether racist or sexist language is morally wrong doesn’t merely depend on whether or not, and to what extent, someone feels offended. If this were true, anyone could claim to be offended by anything. Indeed, those opposed to PC think that this subjective element is what feeds the absurd wildfire of issues included in the PC project. Over-sensitive people want us to adapt to their personal and weak-hearted preferences. But the argument also goes the other way, because, if the feeling of offense is what matters, then it seems that if we could just teach those people not to feel offended, everything would be all right. But that’s not the case either.
The BMC joke is offensive even if, in fact, it would not cause emotional upset for anybody. The point is that there is reason to say that it is disrespectful of black people, because it joyfully celebrates and affirms a degrading stereotype. When David finds out that, in fact, two white women and a white man found the joke offensive and informed Jennifer about it, he is, at first, very surprised. The joke doesn’t have anything to say about them, does it? Eventually, however, he’s forced to agree that white people can be offended by racism as well, not because they are the direct object of the joke, but because they find racism deplorable. Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt has argued that our identity in an important way depends on “the things we care about.”7 These things might be people, or projects, or ideas, or whatever, and they are a very significant source of motivation. Almost everything we do can be explained by reference to what we care about. If these things are threatened, our identity is threatened as well, and we are spurred into action. This explains why we can personally be offended even though we are not the direct object of the offense.8
Clearly, people who care about equality and human dignity might be offended by cases of political incorrectness. So, in sum, although words can indeed hurt, the prime argument for PC rests on offense, not as an emotion, but as a token of disrespect for human equality.
In one of Gareth’s favorite movies, The Dam Busters (1954), the protagonist’s dog is called Nigger, a fact that David tries to justify by saying this was in the 1940s, “before racism was bad” (1/6:254–255). Of course, racism has always been bad, even if it was not recognized as such. What the Nigger example makes clear, however, is that PC depends on a certain context. As the term suggests, it depends on the political context one is in, and this particular context might be deeply immoral or unjust (for example, the context in which the equality of men and women, or blacks and whites, was not yet realized). Perhaps, in the 1940s, one could still say “nigger” without being scorned and labeled as a racist because the contempt the word expresses was then part of the existing social arrangements. Sadly enough, one genuinely believed that blacks were inferior to whites. In Aristotle’s day (384–322 BCE), one could call someone a “barbarian” or a “brute” to describe that he was in some way less sophisticated than the Athenians. Or, in the nineteenth century, one could still call a person with inferior mental capacities an “idiot.” Such words expressed inequality and the common belief that some people were better than others.
Because context is so crucial, the use of words requires a certain sensitivity, and those who lack this sensitivity can be rude without knowing it (think of Borat). A person might use an offensive word without realizing its offensiveness, and this might exempt the person from moral blame. This, however, does not mean that ignorance is a valid excuse for being offensive. We can, after all, blame a person for being ignorant. For example, we would think that a prime minister who referred to black people as “niggers” should know better, and that ignorance or stupidity is a very poor excuse in this case.
Gareth, however, is right when he notices that in a complex society such as our own, it has become very difficult to maintain such a sensitivity:
That’s it, see. A lot of people can’t keep up with what words are acceptable these days and what words aren’t. It’s like my dad, for example, he’s not as cosmopolitan or as educated as me, and it can be embarrassing, you know? He doesn’t understand all the new trendy words, like, he’ll say “poofs’ instead of “gays,” “birds” instead of “women,” “darkies” instead of “coloureds.” (2/1:40)
Unfortunately, in using this last word Gareth perfectly illustrates that he himself has lost track quite a while ago.9
Liberal reform groups in the 1990s wanted to show how deeply certain prejudices were entrenched within our society. As they saw it, we are under the sway of a powerful ideology that not only fosters inequality but, at the same time, also prevents us from recognizing these inequalities. The term “ideology” is often linked with Karl Marx (1818–1883), who claimed indeed that it was a set of ideas that prevented the working class from seeing the capitalist chains they were caught in. Yet, of course, the presence of a comforting ideology does not justify these chains.
As an ideology, that is, as a set of concealing ideas, the “white male” bias has serious consequences of unfairness. So, to defend the status quo is to defend an unjust situation. Even if all legal obstacles for women or minority groups were cleared, the way in which they are generally perceived would still pertain.10 A policy of equal opportunities cannot root out all inequalities. Even if, in principle, all doors are open to both men and women, they might still be more open to the former than to the latter.11
In episode 2 of the first series, David is shocked that a pornographic email is circulating among the employees of Wernham-Hogg. He declares this highly inappropriate and propels himself as the guardian angel of PC. To that purpose David hires Gareth to find the perpetrator and swiftly bring him to justice. Of course, the real reason why David is so keen to find the culprit is that the email showed his face on some female porn star’s body (with, as Gareth so eloquently puts it, “two blokes jizzin’ on him”). David likes a good joke, as long as it’s not on him. However, to hide the fact that he is personally offended, he wraps his story into a general plea for PC.
Now, of course, the idea that pornography is degrading to women is by no means far fetched. In pornographic pictures and movies they are often portrayed as mere objects, rather than human beings, and one does not have to be a bra-burning feminist to recognize this fact. The women are just there to fulfill male desires, and that’s probably why a genuine storyline in porn movies is rather redundant. The audience does not want to know “who they are” and what they care about, they just want them to be there to have (virtual) sex with. Moreover, the element of subordination seems to add to the excitement. So, although the viewer does not want to know the personal history of these male actors either, the idea that the man is in charge (that he is “irresistible” in whatever possible way) seems to be a general turn-on.12 No doubt, men tend to have different fantasies as well (consider Gareth on his ultimate fantasy: “Two lesbians probably. Sisters. I’m just watching”; 1/4:166). Nevertheless, it is the reduction to something less than fully human—a reduction to the merely physical—that is degrading. In porn we see “women whose agency has been erased or reduced to a slavish desire to please men sexually.”13 The female body is reduced to orifices. And indeed, David himself complains that this dirty picture with his head on it “objectifies” him.
This reduction is typical of degradation or offense (as Brent says of Dolly Parton: “And people say she is just a big pair of tits”; 2/6:253), and it doesn’t matter whether the feature one is reduced to is positive or negative. David’s defense that the stereotype about a black man’s cock is “a compliment if anything” does not prevent it from being degrading. It is the pars pro toto (Latin for “taking a part for the whole”) that is offensive.14
Still, while most of us can understand why some porn can be demeaning to women, it is not banned in our society. Those who like watching or reading it are perfectly free to do so. The only restriction—and this is a mild one—is that they shouldn’t bother others with their hobby. No one should be forced to look at porn. The personal preferences of those who do not like it should be respected as well. The general idea is that as long as one is not forcibly exposed to it, there is no clear harm to others.15
Pornography, however, has also been defended on different grounds. In fact, a lot of instances of political incorrectness have been supported by emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech. On this account, the plea for PC is unconstitutional, flying directly in the face of the First Amendment. Nowadays, as soon as someone starts waving the First Amendment, we are inclined drop all accusations, but why is freedom of speech so important?
In the early nineteenth century, reformers such as John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)—“the zippy philosopher and libertarian,” whom, in his undergraduate philosophy days, Ricky Gervais was quite fond of16— defended freedom of discussion out of a concern for social progress. If people weren’t allowed to express their opinions, mankind (oops … humankind?) would be trapped in a dull same-old-same-old. Nothing new would ever see the light of day, and we would just rehearse and repeat the same ideas over and over again. If Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) didn’t have the opportunity to present his revolutionary ideas to the world—his discovery that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa—then the truth would be withheld from us. In fact, the Catholic church was not very keen on accepting Galileo’s findings because they obviously undermined the idea that God had placed mankind in the center of the universe (according to Psalm 93:1 and 96:10). As a consequence, his book was banned by the Inquisition and Galileo was very literally “grounded for life.” Of course, by that time it was already too late and his ideas were so convincing that the biblical picture seemed more symbolic than realistic. But, to return to our topic, if free discussion is prohibited and dissent is nipped in the bud, then this seriously jeopardizes our chances for arriving at truth.
This makes sense. Today, however, we do not share this nineteenth-century optimism about social progress and the gradual ascent to truth. We might still believe that this is possible in the realm of science, but we have come to understand that there are domains in which the question of truth has many answers, that is to say, in which there is no “better” or “worse,” but only a “different.” Religion seems to be such a domain in which one god is not necessarily better than another. This is not to suggest that religion is just hogwash and that it isn’t important. Much to the contrary, it is extremely important, and this is exactly why we should be tolerant with regard to different conceptions of god and the good. When someone invokes the First Amendment and the importance of free speech it is generally on the grounds that everyone should be entitled to express his or her own conception of the good, and criticize those of others. It should be a free discussion in the sense that no one should be compelled to agree. If there is no single, absolute truth then we should, indeed, as Brent says, “agree to disagree” (2/4:159).
Porn, however, does not intend to be the expression of any serious opinion. Its purpose is “entirely and plausibly to induce sexual excitement in the reader or observer” (Feinberg, 127), not to persuade or convert them. Therefore, it should not be taken seriously, in the sense that it “asserts nothing at all” (Feinberg, 147). Therefore, it is the particular context in which these images are shown that somehow exempts pornographers and porn-lovers from moral blame; it is a piece of make-believe. Walt Disney cartoons do not tell the truth, and Casper the Friendly Ghost clearly belies the fundamental laws of physics. Yet, are these films corrupting the minds of our poor children? And should they therefore be prohibited? It seems not. Their purpose is to entertain, not to convey an opinion.
Still, the discussion about whether pornography should or should not be legally banned is a difficult one. Liberal philosophers like Joel Feinberg (1926–2004) and Ronald Dworkin (1931) argue that pornography causes no great amount of harm (e.g., that it does not propagate rape), that its offense is something that can reasonably be avoided, and that one has every liberty to voice one’s disgust in a public debate. Most importantly, though it might be immoral, pornography does not infringe on the equal rights of women. Porn belongs to the realm of fantasy, and this is fine as long as, in the real world, women are respected in their rights. The opposition, however, will claim that the offense is deep (comparable to neo-Nazism’s offense to Jews), or that the image of women that pornography conveys is not innocent at all. With porn becoming ever-more violent, it sets a very sad ideal for young males, and this will, in the end, cause significant harm to women.17 Instead of being a mere fantasy, instead of being “just words,” it creates a social reality.18
However, with regard to the dirty picture with David’s head on it, we should bear in mind that the purpose of this email is not pornographic. It is meant to be funny, not erotic. So perhaps rudeness in the context of humor (for example, jokes involving political incorrectness) is not so bad.19 The reason seems obvious: jokes should never be taken seriously. To take a joke seriously is to not understand that it’s a joke. It is to show that one does not have a sense of humor. However, the term “sense” already makes clear that it requires a special sensitivity. A person with a sense of humor is not merely someone who likes a good laugh, but a person who also knows when and how to tell a joke. Such a person knows what’s funny. The fact that something is meant to be a joke, does not mean that it can be told at any time and place.20
Neil seems to master this sensitivity very well when he shoots the bull with Chris Finch (Finch: “Tell [Lucy] that I’ll take her up the ‘dole office’ ”; Neil: “The ‘dole orifice’ ” 2/3:126). Brent, however, says that porno laughs are never funny because of their offensive nature vis-à-vis women.21 Of course, he doesn’t mean that—he just wants to impress Jennifer by reprimanding Tim. In fact, what Brent lacks is this sense of humor, this social sensitivity. He frequently goes too far. For example, his smug assurance that there are clear limits to his comedy, and that he would never laugh at the handicapped (1/3:115), is quickly shattered by his infamous impression of the “wanking claw” (2/1:33).
The Office brilliantly portrays the life of David Brent, a man of many moral shortcomings, whose main moral flaw is that he is too busy with looking good, instead of being good. When the cameras are rolling, Brent is very much aware of the demands of PC, because he does not want to seem intolerant, or judgmental, or narrow-minded, or illiberal. Instead, he wants to be remembered for his humanity, his charity, and his humor. Brent therefore tries to present himself as a person of moral excellence. Yet, as we all know, this attempt fails miserably because his commitment to the values he wants to uphold is only skin-deep. Even his charity work is just a means for personal glorification.
Moreover, Brent doesn’t know how to behave appropriately. He very much wants to be loved by all, and, in doing so, he gets entangled in the various roles he has to play.22 He lacks the social sensitivity of Neil—who is perfectly able to be a good, respectful, competent, and strong leader with a strong sense of humor. Brent’s terrible ignorance (combined with a near pathological need-to-please) makes him so tragically funny. I say tragic because he does not want to be a bad person. He’s a failure, not a delinquent. And indeed, after 14 episodes we have to agree with his newfound love that, underneath the clumsiness and the layers of bullshit, there is actually a very sweet man, yearning to be loved.
There’s a bit of Brent in all of us. His struggle with political correctness is emblematic for our society. PC-language is often just rhetorical make-up, covering up the existing inequalities that persist. Like Brent, we go through the motions and watch our language, but this verbal correctness stands pale against the obvious inequalities and differences that continue to exist beneath the surface. For instance, our society is obsessed with standards of beauty, wealth, and success. Yet at the same time we proudly proclaim that everybody’s equal.
This is a recipe for mass hypocrisy. Instead of focusing on real social problems, even the most obvious differences are denied out of fear of political incorrectness. Saying that a man is physically stronger than a woman, for example, counts as a sexist remark. Saying that Bowie is better than the Spice Girls is a sign of cultural elitism. Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant clearly understand the absurdity of this situation and they show us how the project of PC quickly derails, especially in those who just “talk the talk” without knowing what they are talking about.
For example, in arguing that pornography at work is offensive to women, David is quick to realize that, in fact, women might be as guilty as men. So, his plea for equality also shows in his accusations:
Well, I’m angry, and not because I’m in it, but because it degrades women, which I hate. And the culprit, whoever he is, is in this room. Or she, it could be a woman. Women are as filthy as men. Naming no names, I don’t know any, but women … are … dirty. (1/2:73)
This absurd kind of verbal gymnastics—always looking over your shoulder trying to avoid any charges of political incorrectness so that you no longer see the enormous trap that’s lying before you—is also apparent when he tries to defend himself against charges of positive discrimination:
Alex: Now, I’m gonna ask you David, why, when there are three other forklift operators, do you decide to fire me and not Anton? You know, is this positive discrimination? Do you have disability quotas you have to fill?
Brent: I don’t know what you mean.
Alex: Are you keeping Anton because he’s disabled?
Brent: Anton is not disabled.
Alex: He’s a midget, David.
Brent: Yeah, but you’re not disabled if you’re a midget are you? That’s not a disability. That’s just small. (1/6:232–233)
There’s no “better” or “worse,” only “different.” So rather than use the term “disabled,” David starts a ridiculous discussion about the difference between midgets, dwarfs, elves, and pixies.
A genuine concern for equality should not be turned into a spasm for PC. Not that all speech is harmless, very far from it, but we should keep a clear head and fight inequality where it matters most. Morality is not about keeping up appearances, but about doing the right thing for the right reasons. The character of David Brent is, in Nietzsche’s famous words, “human, all too human,” and we recognize ourselves in his little ways. As such, he is an endearing warning sign for all of us not to get carried away by our selfish concerns even if they’re wrapped in big words.
NOTES
1 This is what Americans would call the second “season” of the British show.
2 All references between brackets refer to the official The Office scripts: Ricky Gervais & Stephen Merchant, The Office: The Scripts (London: BBC Books, 2002, 2004). First, I refer to the series, then to the episode, and then to the page number.
3 On the official BBC website, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant confess that this is the joke which received the most complaints from the audience: www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/defguide/defguide15.shtml.
4 Perhaps it is still even more prominent in Extras, the follow-up to The Office. There it seems that each episode takes a piss at various minority groups in society (blacks in the episode with Samuel L. Jackson, the handicapped in the one with Kate Winslet, gays in the one with Ian McKellen, etc.).
5 Another controversial policy to restore this balance is affirmative action, a corrective measure whose stated goal is “to counteract past and present discrimination sufficiently that the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large, at which point such a strategy will no longer be necessary.” The idea is that a company (or a university, etc.) should hire women or blacks, because if they don’t, then the existing inequalities will persist. However, the main argument against such positive discrimination is that it gets in the way of qualitative criteria so that, in the end, the lesser woman will be preferred over the better man. Brent himself seems to practice positive discrimination when he fires Alex—the person he hires in the very first episode—instead of Anton, the midget. For more discussion of this issue, see chapter 14 of this volume.
6 The fact that some people have become very sensitive indeed when it comes to language is clear from the David Howard incident. In 1999, Mr Howard, an aide of the Washington mayor Anthony Williams, used the word “niggardly” when discussing budget issues. Although “niggardly” of course means “ungenerous” or “stingy,” Marshall Brown, a black colleague of Howard, thought that this was an inappropriate racial slur, and filed a complaint, eventually resulting in Howard’s resignation. In a similar vein—though perhaps slightly more comprehensible—some people have contested the use of the terms “black economy” and “black market.”
7 Harry Frankfurt, The Importance Of What We Care About (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
8 Think of Brent, who takes offense at the poem “Slough” by Sir John Betjeman (1906–1984): “Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough/It isn’t fit for humans now/There isn’t grass to graze a cow/Swarm over, death!” (1/5:228). Interestingly, as Michael Heatley notices, Brent does not quote the fourth verse, which goes, “that man with double chin/ who’ll always cheat and always win.” Michael Heatley, Ricky Gervais: The Story So Far … (London: Michael O’Mara Books, 2006), p. 106.
9 Not only is it difficult to keep track of neutral, politically correct terms, but the exact meaning of derogatory words often eludes us as well. We just use them because other people use them, without much reflection on their origin. For the US Office DVD, Gervais had to add a glossary of British words, and he recalls the following incident: “I had to explain the word ‘bender’. I was at this serious meeting and I was like, ‘Bender is a derogatory term for a gay man. It’s derived … probably because gay men bend over.’ And then a gay guy there said, ‘No, actually it’s from the eighties’ gender bender.’ I wanted to crawl in a hole and die.” Michael Heatley, Ricky Gervais: The Story So Far … , p. 83.
10 “Some feminists have argued that women in patriarchal societies have been induced to adopt a depreciatory image of themselves. They have internalized a picture of their own inferiority, so that even when some of the objective obstacles to their advancement fall away, they may be incapable of taking advantage of the new opportunities. And beyond this, they are condemned to suffer the pain of low self-esteem.” In: Charles Taylor, Philosophical Papers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), p. 225.
11 The so-called “glass ceiling” argument claims that women only rarely advance to top-level management positions. The fact that the barrier is transparent doesn’t make it less real.
12 This theme of “low-grade sadism … and banal fantasies of phallic prowess and feminine responsiveness” are nearly always present. Therefore, George Steiner complains, “the stuff is predictable as a Scout manual.” In: Joel Feinberg, Offense to Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 131.
13 Cynthia A. Stark, “Is Pornography an Action? The Causal vs. the Conceptual View of Pornography’s Harm,” Social Theory and Practice, 23 (1997): 294.
14 Again, the funny thing is that even in arguing that he is not a racist, David uses one of these (positive) stereotypes, which undermines his entire argument: “No, I don’t have a great many ethnic employees, that’s true. But it’s not a company policy. I’ve haven’t got a sign on the door that says, ‘White people only’, you know. I don’t care if you’re black, brown, yellow—Orientals make very good workers, for example” (1/1:56).
15 Clearly, pornography can be valuable. As Kenneth Tynan mockingly writes, four classes in particular are likely to benefit from pornography: (1) those with “minority tastes who cannot find like-minded mates,” (2) the “villainously ugly, unable to pay for the services of call girls,” (3) “men on long journeys, geographically cut off from wives and mistresses,” and (4) “uncommitted bachelors, arriving alone and short of cash in foreign cities where they don’t speak the language.” Kenneth Tynan, “Dirty Books Can Stay,” in Perspectives on Pornography, ed. by Douglas A. Hughes (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1970), p. 112. There is a certain social utility to porn. Some believe that without porn (or without prostitutes), the number of criminal offenses, like rape, would dramatically increase (i.e., the catharsis explanation; porn as a harmless outlet). However, the opposite has also been claimed, i.e., that violent porn would stimulate actual rape.
16 Michael Heatley, Ricky Gervais: The Story So Far … , p. 33.
17 B. C. Postow, “Pornography, Indirect Harm, and Feminist Analysis,” Journal of Value Inquiry, 31 (1997): 354.
18 This idea was most famously defended by Catharine MacKinnon, Only Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).
19 Emrys Westacott, “The Rights and Wrongs of Rudeness,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20(1) (2006): 15–16.
20 Sexist jokes and remarks à la Chris Finch might be construed as a case of sexual harassment on the work floor.
21 Brent’s social ineptness in this regard clearly shows in his assumed “snappy comeback” to Finch when he says that, with regard to The Corrs, “I’d push the brother out of the room, I’d get the other three, and I’d bend them all over [he mimes the bending over part] and I’d do the drummer, the lead singer, and the one who plays the violin” (and he mimes violently shagging The Corrs, making people look at him in horror).
22 Brent: “I’m a friend first, boss second, and probably an entertainer third” (1/1:59); “When people say, ‘Oh, would you rather be thought of as a funny man or a great boss?’ my answer is always the same: to me they’re not mutually exclusive. There’s a weight of intellect behind my comedy, yeah?” (1/2:69).