__ -.—_—7
”fr, ,0". .,-. A ...._ ...,. . '_‘,,,‘__,_. .V W- ._‘....._. w, ..--.-‘...‘.. _..- - ..,, -,.. ~ - ,, g,“ . "a V tel“.*xr(fl'!im"mw\
3-7

 

 

 

“SEW

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Function of Humor in
Gender Conflict

presented by

Renee B. Stahle

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters degreein Sociology

 

WBQ— Comm

Major professor

Date 5-15-80

0-7639

 

31293 10525 ”7

l

OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item

EETURNINS LIBRARY MATERIALS:

Place in book return to remove
charge from circulation records

 

V ' Z<é1~ ‘29“)é9 ‘7
W’ $536909 :3
. 6n?
W' APR282008

4 114/ g4 2% 9.5

_.

“AQ’Q’P I ’
$EBLJ/ *14‘4
a " ,4, 0‘4 F

an ,o 1996

{1‘43 51
,‘ ”

 

 

 

 

THE FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR IN GENDER CONFLICT

By
Renee Beth Stahle

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1980

é/A’éo 77

ABSTRACT
THE FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR IN GENDER CONFLICT
By
Renee Beth Stahle

The supposition that if men and women are in a majority-minority
relationship then their use of humor should be similar to that of other
groups in the same relationship was studied by comparing the content of
cartoons to the divorce rate as indicators of cultural patterns. A
content analysis was performed on cartoons that were randomly selected
from three categories of magazines for the years 1950 to 1975 by five
year intervals.

Three categories of humor were formulated; conflict, social con-
trol and social disregard. The percent of humor in Uneconflict and
social control categories was found to be negatively correlated with
the divorce rate. The percent of humor in the social disregard cate-
gory, however, was found to be positively correlated with the divorce
rate. These results suggest that the main response in humor to the
rising conflict between men and women has been a corresponding redefi-
nition and disregard of the conflictual relationship.

Nhen separated by type of magazine: men's magazines were found
to contain the highest percent of social control humor; women's maga-
zines, the highest percent of conflict humor; and general magazines,

the highest percent of social disregard humor. These results suggest

Renee Beth Stahle

that a higher percentage of the humor which reflects each group's
perspective of the conflict between the sexes will appear in magazines

that are oriented toward each of the different groups.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have contributed in important ways to this research; a
few must be acknowledged here for the specific marks they left on this
enterprize. When this research was in its formative stages, I took a
graduate seminar on humor from Dr. Edward Fink in the Department of
Communication which introduced me to the literature of humor. That
course and our later continued conversations about the sociology of
humor literature and the content analysis literature lead to the initial
formulation of my research problem.

Two members of my committee, Dr. Marilyn Aronoff and Dr. Barrie
Thorne, gave careful and critical readings to later drafts of this manu-
script. The questions and issues they raised caused me to clarify my
thinking on several points. It was this process that led me to refocus
my research problem to include an analysis of how the relationship
between men and women might be considered a majority-minority relation-
ship.

I am most indebted to Dr. Thomas Conner who has served as my
thesis advisor from the beginning of this research to its completion.
His conmitment to working with me in a substantive area with which he
was unfamiliar is deeply appreciated. Dr. Conner expressed a continued
interest in the development of these ideas and was unwavering in his
support of this research. He has been not only accessible to me but

generous in the giving of his time and talents. Most of the knowledge

ii

of content analysis I now possess was the result of the time we spent
applying my book learning and his substantive judgment to a sample of
cartoons until a satisfactory coding scheme was worked out. Or. Conner
consistently maintained a broad perspective on this research. That
perspective often enabled him to offer clear and insightful ideas when
I could only utter intuitions. Dr. Conner read this manuscript in most
of its many versions without losing that perspective; his comments have
remained critical and insightful to the last.

Each of the members of my committee have focused upon this project
as an opportunity for me to develop good scholarly judgments. They
gave detailed suggestions for the improvement of both the content and
the style of this manuscript. Moreover, their ability to articulate
the basis for each criticism helped me construct a foundation from
which to continue developing a professional style that is uniquely my
own.

Finally, my love and gratitude to family--especially Roy Beyer
and Jacob, Elizabeth, Phillip, Lorena and Robert Stahle--and friends--
especially Marie Connolly ahd Edward Weber--who listened, suggested,

supported, prodded and then listened some more.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ........................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................... vi
INTRODUCTION ............................ 1
SOCIOLOGY OF HUMOR ......................... 4
HYPOTHESES ............................. 24

The Rise of Conflict Between Men and Women Since T920 . . . . 26

METHODOLOGY ............................ 34
Definitions ......................... 34
Sample ............................ 36
Coding ............................ 37

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................... 39

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................ 47

APPENDICES ............................. 51
Appendix A: Coding Instructions ............... 51
Appendix B: A List of the Magazines Used in This Study . . . 64
Appendix C: Tables With Data by Subcategory ......... 65
Appendix D: Tables Without Disagrees ............ 69

iv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. The Percent of Cartoons Coded in Each Humor Category and the
Divorce Rate by Five Year Intervals .............. 4O

2. Pearson's r's for the Percent of Cartoons Coded in Each Humor
Category and the Divorce Rate ................. 41

3. The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded as in Each Humor
Category ........................... 44

C1. The Percent of Cartoons Coded in the Conflict and Social Con-
trol Humor Subcategories ................... 65

C2. The Percent of Cartoons Coded in the Conflict and Social Con-1
trol Humor Subcategories by Five Year Intervals ........ 66

C3. The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded as in Each Humor
Category by Five Year Intervals ................ 67

C4. The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded as in the Conflict
and Social Control Humor Subcategories by Five Year Intervals . 68

DI. The Percent of Cartoons Coded in Each Humor Category and the
Divorce Rate by Five Year Intervals-~Without Disagrees . . . . 69

D2. Pearsons r's for the Percent of Cartoons Coded in Each Humor
Category and the Divorce Rate--Without Disagrees ....... 69

D3. The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded as in Each Humor
Category--Without Disagrees .................. 70

D4. The Percent of Cartoons Coded in the Conflict and Social Con-
trol Humor Subcategories-~Without Disagrees .......... 70

DS. The Percent of Cartoons Coded in the Conflict and Social Con-
trol Humor Subcategories by Five Year Intervals--Without
Disagrees ........................... 71

D6. The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded as in Each Humor
Category by Five Year Intervals--Without Disagrees ...... 72

D7. The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded as in the Conflict
and Social Control Humor Subcategories by Five Year Intervals
--Without Disagrees .................... . . 73

FIGURE PAGE
1. How Humor Functions as Conflict, Social Control and Social
Disregard in Majority-Minority Relations ........... 2
2. Labor Force Participation Rate of Women Versus the Divorce Rate
from l890 to l975 ....................... 31
3. Percent of Humor in the Conflict and Social Control Categories
Versus the Divorce Rate from l950 to 1975 ........... 41
4. Percent of Humor in the Social Disregard Category Versus the
Divorce Rate from 1950 to 1975 ................ 43
A1. How Humor Functions as Conflict, Social Control and Social Dis-
regard in the Relationship Between the Sexes ......... 51
A2. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Depicts the Traditional
Stereotypic Portrayal of Men and Women ............. 52
A3. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Depicts Personal Salvation
within the Minority Group ................... 53
A4. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Depicts Trickster Motifs . . 54
A5. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Depicts Parody of an Alleged
Somatic or Cultural Stereotype ................ 55
A6. An Example of Cartoon Humor Which Depicts Rigorous Following of
Majority Group Logic to an Unexpected Conclusion ....... 56
A7. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Depicts Feminist Views . . . 57
A8. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Portrays Women Stereotypi-
cally ............................. 58
A9. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Ridicules Women who Challenge
Their Traditional Role .................... 58
A10. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Depicts Collective Surrepti-
tious Approbation of Men by Women ............... 59
A11. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Would be Considered Social

LIST OF FIGURES

Disregard ........................... 60

vi

FIGURE PAGE
A12. An Example of Cartoon Humor that Would be Included in the

Social Disregard Category ................... 61
A13. An Example of Cartoon Humor which Portrays Animals as Men and

Women ............................. 62
A14. An Example of a Feminist Joke ................. 63
A15. An Example of the Comic Strip "Cathy" ............. 64

vii

INTRODUCTION

Humor has played an important role throughout the history of
majority-minority group relations in this country. The majority group
(e.g., Whites) evaluates the characteristics of their own group posi-
tively and those of the minority group (e.g., Blacks) negatively. The
majority group claims that the minority group is inferior and uses this
claim to deny them access to the privileges and advantages available in
society. When an awareness occurs among members of the minority group
that their low status is unjust, they have often attempted to change
the relationship of inequality. These attempts have been met with
strong resistance from the majority group which attempts to maintain its
positive distinctiveness from the minority group and to preserve or
restore its superiority. One social control strategy adopted by the
majority group has been the use of humor to stress adherence to tradi-
tional cultural definitions of the minority group and to ridicule devia-
tions from these definitions. If we conceive of the society as a
selective system, then another social control strategy used by the
majority group is redefinition of the conflict between the majority and
the minority groups in society in such a way as to decrease its social
significance. The minority group, however, uses humor to gain ascen-
dency or temporary advantage over the majority group. Figure 1 summar-
izes this conceptualization of the use of humor in majority-minority

relationships. Since the use of humor by the majority group(ridiculer)

 

CONFLICT

AND DISREGARD

 

SOCIAL CONTROL
SOCIAL REDEFINITION

RIDICULER

Minority group,
member or
others who
represent the
views of the
minority group

Majority group,
member or
others who
represent the
views of the
majority group

TARGET OF
RIDICULE

Majority group,
member or
others who
represent the
views to the
majority group

Minority group,
member or
others who
represent the
views of the
minority group

 

Figure 1. How humor functions as conflict, social control and social

 

disregard in majority-minority relations.

which makes the minority group the target of ridicule is intended to
control the minority group it is labeled social control. The use of
humor by the majority group (ridiculer) which redefines the majority-
minority conflict as insignificant and makes the target of the ridicule
the minority group's contention that there is something wrong with the
traditional majority-minority relationship is labeled social disregard.
The use of humor by the minority group (ridiculer) which attempts to
change the traditional majority-minority relationship by making the
majority group the target of ridicule is labeled conflict.

The differential use of humor has been shown to have character-
ized the relationship between majority and minority groups (ethnic
immigrants and various racial minorities) throughout the history of the
United States. More recently, many people have drawn an analogy
between the inferior position of women and that of minority groups.

Analysis of the relationship between the sexes as one of majority and

_minority has been hampered, however, by the lack of a fully applicable
theoretical framework on the intergroup level. There has also been
little work done on the use of humor between men and women. This study,
then, is an attempt to study the supposition that if men and women are
in a majority-minority relationship then their use of humor should be

similar to that of other groups in the same relationship.

SOCIOLOGY OF HUMOR

Sociological analysis of humor1 has focused on the social func-
tions of humor in intergroup relations.2 Although most researchers in
this field agree that humor functions socially as a means of expressing
conflict and exercising social control, few would agree on how humor
accomplishes these functions. There are two theoretical orientations
that attempt to explain the function of humor in expressing conflict in
majority-minority relations. One orientation follows Freud's (l936)
assumption that exposure to tendentious humor reduces aggressive tenden-
cies. The function of humor, then, is to provide a safe way for group
members to express aggressive feelings. The other orientation follows
the superiority theories of humor (Berlyne, l968) which hold that laugh-

ter is directed at those who are considered inferior and is, in itself,

 

11n the sociology of humor literature, humor is used like Freud's
(l938) conception of wit. Wit is here defined as some form of clever-
ness which has the potential for amusing but also in intended to achieve
one or more other purposes.

2Group can refer to a particular gender, region, ethnicity,

» occupation, age, subculture or language. In the sociology of humor
literature intergroup has traditionally been used to refer to the
relationship between Whites and ethnic or racial minorities. According
to Gittler, as presented in Simpson and Yinger (l972), minority groups
are those whose members experience a wide range of discriminatory
treatment and frequently are relegated to positions relatively low in
the status structure of a society. According to Wirth, as presented in
Simpson and Yinger (l972), the existence of a minority in a society
implies the existence of a corresponding dominant group with higher
social status and greater priviledges.

a form of triumph and superiority. This theory sees thedeflation of the
target and the enhancement of morale of those who tell the joke as the
function of the humor. [There are also two competing approaches that
attempt to explain the function of humor in exercising social control in
majority-minority relationships. One approach stresses the use of
Stereotypic portrayals in humor of the minority group and the ridicule
of minority group deviations from these stereotypes. The other approach
stresses the redefinition in humor of majority-minority conflict as
insignificant so that it is not mentioned or it is presented as a minor
issue. The function of the humor in both approaches is the maintenance
of the traditional majority-minority relationship. [The conflict func-
tion of humor more often serves the purposes of the minority group
while the majority group uses humor for social controT]

An important variable in the majority-minority relationship is the
differential power of the majority group relative to the minority grOup.
The superior power of the majority group makes open resistance on the
part of the minority group seem useless or impossible. Consequently,
the minority uses more covert forms of protest such as sabotage and
humor. Humor has been a particularly important form of protest because
following a Freudian interpretation, it is an institutionalized provi—
sion for the release of hostilities which allows minority group members
to gain temporary advantage over the majority group without serious
societal consequences. [According to Simmons (1963), minority humor
utilizes the following forms: (1) trickster motifs, where a member of
the minority group successfully counters an insult offered by a majority
group members, (2) parody of an alleged somatic or cultural stereotype

of the minority group, (3) a rigorous following of majority group logic

6

to an unexpected conclusion and (4) denigrating the majority grougj

3

Cartoon examples of these forms of humor are presented in Figures A4

through A6.4
Humor functions as social control through (1) attempts by the
majority group to preserve the traditional majority-minority relation-
ship, (2) minority group sanctions against other minority group members
who do not conform to the minority culture and (3) societal disregard
of conflict between majority and minority groups. )Ehe social control
humor used by the majority group to preserve the traditional majority-
minority relationship contains two different contents. The first exem—
plifies the stereotyped pecularities of the minority group. In the
second majority group members ridicule deviations from these stereotypes
to show that members of the minority group cannot be taken seriously?}
for example, asserting that they are too stupid or dumb or ugly or
childlike or smelly or mean to count as human (Weisstein, 1973). This
humor functions as social control by creating the impression among mem-
bers of the majority group that they can stave off, postpone or other-
wise control social change with respect to an inferior minority group.
Winick (1976) also suggests that at some stage in the majority-minority
relationship the majority group begins to use humor as a means of learn-

ing to accept the new role of the minority group. Thus, majority group

 

3The following terms are used in this study to identify different
kinds of humor. Types of humor are those which can be distinguished
as identifiable classes; cartoons, written or verbal jokes and comedy
routines. Within the types of humor different forms or structured
patterns can be identified. The content of humor is the specified
material or topics contained within a type or form of humor.

4Figures with capital letters before their numbers can be found
in the appropriate Appendices.

members can express ambivalence toward a group while blunting its impact
and avoiding reprisal by sharing their humor with others who share their
feelings toward the minority group.

Minority groups may use humor to sanction their own members who do
not conform to the minority culture. Hence they, too, may draw on
humor for social control. Most of the research in this area is con-
cerned with ethnic (e.g., immigrant) groups. The primary cultural
affiliation for first generation immigrants is usually the ethnic cul-
ture. Second generation immigrants, however, can get trapped between
the ethnic culture of home and the majority culture of school and work.
One resolution of this dilemma is an attempt by some second generation
immigrants to assimilate or become part of the majority group. Some of
the tensions between first and second generation immigrants get
expressed in humor with each generation's cultural affiliations being
used as a target by the other generation.

The content of some humor that functions as social control within
ethnic groups is approval or disapproval of minority group members'
responses to the majority-minority relationship. With respect to the
ethnic culture, Simmons (l969) points out that the content of the most
prevalent ethnic humor implies that personal salvation is only to be
found within the ethnic group (Figure A3). With the assimilation
attempts on the part of some immigrants, however, the jokes they tell
each other become more concerned with the conflict between assimilation
and traditional loyalties than are jokes which others tell about them
(Winick, 1976). The presence among ethnic groups of humor that dero-
gates the ethnic group also results from the assimilation attempts by

some ethnic group members. According to La Fave and Mannell (l976),

immigrants who attempt to assimilate the majority group's culture .
experience so many frustrations with respect to their ethnic group that
they develop a more negative attitude towards it than members of the
majority group. The same effect was found for humor appreciation by
Middleton and Moland (1959). Middle-class Blacks were found to enjoy
jokes about Blacks as much as did whites; the same was not true of
lower-class Blacks. The position of minority group members in the assi-
milation process may also explain the differential use of stereotypes
among minority groups.

Minority group humor also perpetuates and develops stereotypes.
Winick (1976) provides examples of self-deprecating humor used by the
minority group involving the same kinds of stereotypes of the minority
group held by the rest of society. This humor is an attempt by immi-
grants to cope with their oppressive situation by naming it and laughing
at it.5 The use of stereotypes in minority humor may also reflect
"attitude switching" among some immigrants. For example, a present-day
immigrant may relate an amusing story about an event that happened to
him when he first arrived in this country (Winick, 1976). Humor also
exists among minority group members which reflects stereotypes that are
based on intimate, in-group relations. Schechler (1970, p. 154)
presents this example of ridicule of "Uncle Toms" by a Black cartoonist
who captioned these instructions of an elderly Negro head waiter to his
younger charges, "Patrons is all complainin', because you cats ain't

showin your gums and actin' like happy children of nature . . . so

 

5As suggested by Myrdal (1944) this humor also has the unintended
consequence of providing collective surreptitious approbation for the
relationship. An example of this humorous approbation by minority
group members is presented in Figure A10.

everyone stays after work tonight and we're gonna rehearse." Apparently
differences do exist between first and second generation immigrants in
their use of humor but the studies do not make clear whether these
differences are based on the content and/or the forms of humor used. It
is likely that first generation immigrants use both the same forms and
contents of humor against second generation immigrants that they use
against the majority group. Second generation immigrants may adopt the
humorous attacks on immigrants that are typical of the majority group to
which they aspire. The humor used by members of each generation may
also have unique contents and forms that reflect their intragroup rela-
tionship. In addition, Weisstein (1973) states that the ethnic humor
with which she was personally familiar (Eastern European Jewish) did not
contain Jewish stereotypes. It is possible given these unclear and
conflicting results that certain contents and forms of humor are used
only at certain stages in the assimilation process. Additional work
needs to be done on the sequencing of different contents and forms of
humor in the assimilation process.

Although the majority group sets the cultural pattern in society,
it must be kept in mind that there are also cultural values which pro-
mote social c00peration among all the subgroups in a society. The
studies done by Kolaja (1950) and Stephenson (1951) show adherence tov
the ideal of social cooperation in mass media humor. Kolaja (1950)
found that popular American magazine cartoons avoid controversial
social issues and social pathological phenomena such as corruption,
strikes and prostitution. Rather, the cartoons concentrate on small
group issues and their simple human aspects which Kolaja interprets as

stimulating a sympathetic attitude for universal human failings.

lO

Stephenson (1951) concluded in his study of stratification humor that
the kind of joke found in anthologies of humor reveals an adherence to
a set of values regarded as the traditional American Creed (e.g.,
harmony, equality) rather than any conception of an inherent conflict
within the culture itself. A final way that humor may function as
social control, then, is by reflecting the social redefinition of con-
flict in society as a minor issue which need not be mentioned or which
can be presented as amusing human failing.

TWo general conclusions can be drawn from this review of the
humor literature. First, humor reflects the differing perceptions of
groups with different stakes in the majority-minority relationship.
Secondly, the contents and forms of humor change, in as yet unspecified
ways, as the majority-minority relationship changes. Unfortunately,
the studies that were previously presented mainly describe the use of
humor by ethnic groups during the process of assimilation. By focusing
on ethnic groups this previous work ignores more physically distinct
minority groups (radial groups and women) who may find it difficult to
assimilate into the majority culture and hence must adopt other strate-
gies to gain equality.

Arnez and Anthony (1969) contend that there is a relationship
between Blacks' social and economic position and the humor they create.
Therefore their first stage of humor concerns the reactions of Blacks
to their treatment by Whites during the slavery period. In this stage
humor is used by Blacks to gain psychological leverage and as a weapon
of survival against Whites. The use of humor amongst Blacks during the
slavery period is an oral tradition in which the group pokes fun at its

own customs. It is based on many intimate associations and allusions

ll

that are a part of Blacks' social experience and so helps to provide a
social cohesiveness. By necessity, it is also a covert type of humor.
Burma (1946, p. 712) provides this example of two Black maids who were
comparing notes:

"At my place I have a terrible time; all day it's 'Yes Ma'am,'
'Yes Ma'am,'"

"Me, too," says the other, "but with me it's 'No, Sir,' 'No, Sir,'
'No, Sir.'" I
This is a joke rich in implications concerning the history of Black-
White, employer-employee and sex relations. Blacks during the slavery
period could hardly accept the unjustness of their situation in any
other way and retain their psychic equilibrium.

In their relationship with Whites, humor (Smiling and laughing)
became a means of accommodation. Blacks during the slavery period
laughed, though unamused, to attempt to appear as a "good sport" and so
avoid punishment. Blacks who smiled charmed the Whites so that they did
not have to work so hard. Finally, by grinning and laughing, they
fooled Whites into believing they were happy, contented and in their
place.

Arnez and Anthony conceptualize the second stage of Black humor as
a public humor perpetuated by Whites that depicts the Black stereotypi-
cally post-slavery and pre-civil rights (the Jim Crow period). Al
Jolson's routine is good example of this form of humor; his portrayal
of Blacks again reassured Whites that Blacks were safely "in their
place." Blacks even helped to foster this image through their own use
of public humor. According to Winick (1976) Bert Williams, a great

Black comedian, used to tell completely different jokes to Black and

l2

White audiences although both sets of stories were concerned with Black
life. The humor that was told to Black audiences perpetuated and
enriched the private in-group humor of the Blacks while White audiences
found comfort in his representation of happy and hopeful Blacks.

Arnez and Anthony suggest that the third stage of Black humor
paralleled the trends toward "Black consciousness" and militancy. In a
study of humor amongst Balcks by Singer, reported by Berlyne (1968), it
was found that Black college students told an increasing number of hos-
tile anti-White jokes as White-Black tension increased in the United
States. This increasing hostility was also prevalent among Black come-
dians. For example, Dick Gregory and others established their national
reputations as comedians commenting on the marginality of Blacks and
then appealing to the sense of fair play prevalent in this society.
Some comedians (Flip Wilson and Bill Cosby) have continued with this
subtle satire while Dick Gregory's humor has gotten more caustic with
his growing disillusionment. His humor still lacks, however, the inten-
sity of conflict that is typical of the humor used by revolutionaries
like Rap Brown when they address their Black followers. Theirs is a
humor which lays bare the hypocrisy of this society's adherence to
equality as it also gives Blacks self-confidence.

Arnez and Anthony's article leads one to the conclusion that all
Blacks in the United States have sequentially passed through various
distinguishable political and economic stages on their way to equality.
While it may be possible at a general level to chronicle Blacks' econo-
mic and political history, it is difficult to see where one stage leads
clearly to another stage. More importantly, the use of humor which is

supposed to reflect their economic and political position fails to

13

support a stage-like progression. Rather it points to two major and
overlapping trends in the use of humor by Blacks while the intensity and
content of the humor has changed over the years. The first trend is an
in-group humor which tells it like it is. The second trend is a more
subtle public humor which uses double meanings. Contemporary Black
humor is many things; the subtle appeals of comedians like Flip Wilson,
the more radical approaches of Dick Gregory and Rap Brown and the assi-
milationist approach of middle-class Blacks. It would appear that by
analyzing the use of humor by Blacks in terms of their economic and
political progress, Arnez and Anthony have focused on humor trends which
support their conceptualization of the relationship. It would be more
profitable for other researchers to think in terms of major but over-
lapping trends in tracing the use of humor between majority and minority
groups over the years.

In focusing on the relationship of Black humor to the economic and
political position of Blacks, Arnez and Anthony also fail to explicate
consistently the use of humor as an intergroup phenomenon. Blacks have
realized that they are not so much fighting an economic and political
system but the Whites that control it and that some of those Whites are
more their enemies than others (Burma, 1950). Yet, Arnez and Anthony
fail to consistently consider the response of Whites to the changing
Black-White relationship. During the slavery and Jim Crow periods
Whites used stereotypic portrayals of Blacks in an effort to make them-
selves feel safe and secure in their relationships with a supposedly
inferior minority. That this racist humor still exists and appeals to
some segments of this society can be seen from the popularity of the

television show "Archie Bunker."

14

A study of the depiction of Blacks in Playboy magazine done by
Greenberg and Kahn (1970) suggests another trend in the use of humor by
Whites. They found that the assimilation of Blacks into society could
be indexed in part by the increasing appearance of humor directed at
Blacks in mass media magazines like Playboy. A closer examination of
the content of the humor in Playboy magazine, however, led to the find-
ing that although race could be increasingly used as the basis for humor
as racial conflict receded, the sexuality of Blacks could not. This
finding in a magazine such as Playboy lends strong support to the
studies (Kolaja, 1950 and Stephenson, 1951) that found that conflictual
issues are not presented in mass media humor.

This review of the use of humor among more physically distinct
minority groups suggests that some refinements need to be made in the
previous conclusions on the use of humor between majority and minority
groups. As previously stated, humor reflects the differing perceptions
of groups with different stakes in the majority-minority relationship.
Predicting the type of humor a person will use or appreciate, however,
does not logically follow from identifying his/her majority or minority
group membership. Some minority group members disparage themselves
through humor and laugh at majority group humor which disparages them
as a means of accommodation. Minority group members may also be
oriented toward either the majority or minority culture and their humor
will reflect these differing orientations.

The second previously stated conclusion is that the contents and
forms of humor change, in as yet unspecified ways, as the majority-
minority relationship changes. The additional work done by Arnez and

Anthony (1969) points to one clear trend; the public humor of minority

15

groups'is less intense and angry than their private in-group humor which
tells it like it is. No study, however, has focused on the use of humor
by all parties involved in a majority-minority relationship over time.
A study of the use of humor between another majority and minority group
(men and women, respectively) over the course of the present women's
movement should help clarify various aspects of the use of humor in
majority-minority relations.

This discussion of the use of humor between men and women will
begin with a brief look at how a majority-minority framework can be

6 Analysis of the rela-

applied to the relationship between the sexes.
tionship between the sexes as one of majority and minority has been
hampered by the lack of a fully applicable theoretical framework on the
intergroup level. In 1971 Hochschild reviewed the four main perspec—
tives which had been used to study sex roles; sex differences, sex
roles, minority group and the politics of caste. She concluded that
some portions of the perSpectives could easily include the situation of
women while other portions were not at all appropriate for the analysis
of women in the United States. Early studies using the majority-
minority perspective attempted to draw analogies between the inferior

position of women and that of racial minorities. Hacker (1950) found

women and Blacks to be similar in the following ways: 1) high social

 

6Since support of the present women's movement does not clearly
divide people along gender lines, a few definitional clarifications
need to be made. The term feminist will be used in this study to refer
to women who advocate any of a whole range of reforms contained in the
present movement for the advancement of women. The term traditional
will be used to refer to women who favor little or no change in the
societal position of women. The use of the term men in this study will
refer to men as a homogeneous group who want to support the status quo
which favors their interests as opposed to women's interests. It
should be kept in mind, however, that there are also men who favor
equality for women.

16

visibility in terms of physical appearance and dress, 2) ascribed attri-
butes such as stupid, childlike, sexual, and basically inferior, 3) an
accommodating attitude and 4) recipients of prejudice and discrimination.
Pheterson, Kiesler and Goldberg (1971) have added the similarity in
internalization of the inferiority of their group which gets expressed
in a self-hate phenomenon.

More recently attempts have been made to apply concepts and theor-
ies that evolved from the study of general relations of inequality to
research on women. One researcher who did this was Henley (1976). She
investigated the verbal and nonverbal behavior of people in different
power and status positions to conclude that the interactions between
men and women are similar to interactions of people in other high and
low status relationships in this society. Berger, Fiskek, Norman and
Zelditch (1977) reached a similar conclusion in their brief review of
the patterned effects of sex and race differences hiinteraction. In
addition, they suggest that sex is a status characteristic such that
knowing the sex of a person leads to the formation of performance expec-
tations which get elaborated into a fully develOped status structure and
so determine the structure of subsequent interactions.

Although this short review suggests that there are several ways in
which a majority-minority framework can be applied to the relationship
between the sexes, there is also mounting criticism. Since women
comprise over half of the population, some sociologists have hesitated
to label them a minority. The definition of minority group used in this
study, however, says nothing about the size of the groups; for it is
relative power, not numbers of people, which is important. Another

reservation on the part of some sociologists is the intimate

l7

relationship that some women have with men. Hacker (1951) has noted
that even though women are not physically or geographically segregated
from men, their physical and social intimacy does not in fact create
equal relationships. Other sociologists have suggested that majority'
and minority be replaced by the terms dominant and subordinate to center
attention on the differences in power that differentiate one group from
the other. Such a narrow focus seems to me to be undesirable. However,
the terms dominant and subordinate actually imply more than a power.
difference. They include status differentiation as well. According to'
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary a dominant group is one who is
superior to all others in power or influence while the subordinate
group is one that is placed in or occupies a lower class, rank or
status in a society. I will continue to use the terms majority and
minority recognizing that at least the question of the intimacy of
male-female relationships will have to be dealt with eventually. I
will, however, also employ the clarification suggested by the ideas of
dominance and subordination and define a majority group as a group
which uses its superior power and the distinctive cultural characteris-
tics of the minority group to relegate group members to positions rela-
tively low in the status structure in society. Further research will
undoubtedly suggest the direction that further conceptual clarification
should take.

The little research that has been done on the use of humor by men
and women suggests that humor does reflect the structure of the rela-
tionship between men and women in this society. On a cultural level,
Grotjahn, as presented in Coser (1959), states that the cultural defini-

tion of a woman who has a good sense of humor is one who laughs (but not

18

too loudly) when a man makes a witticiSm or tells a good joke. The
interpersonal relationships of many women have also been characterized
by passivity and accommodation. Thorne and Henley (1975) and Weisstein
(1973) have commented that some women have an acquiescent and submissive
communication style with the smile used to signal that no harm or
threat of ill will is intended. Even women's laughter may serve to
italicize timidity and feelings of inadequacy. Women have sometimes
used humor to excuse the whole majority-minority relationship (Figure
A10). Chafe (1973) and French (1977) suggest that the content of the
humor used at coffee klatschs in cities and suburbs by women is that
husbands, like children, have their eccentricities and women had to put
up with them. Even mass media types of humor mirror these same reac-
tions. According to Mano (1975) the comic strip "Blondie" mirrors only
some embattled aspects of traditional marriages--Blondie's amused
acceptance of Dagwood's failings and Dagwood's teeth-gritting tolerance
of Blondie's foibles. Not that women in humor or real life never have
any victories such that they are; Blondie gets a new hat, Lois gets the
grass cut, or Lucy demoralizes Charlie Brown.

The small amount of mass media humor created by women expresses
the same type of relationship. Although there have been cartoons since
the 18905, women cartoonists have only been publishing since the 19405.
By and large the content of women's cartoons conveys the same tradi-
tional views of women as portrayed by men cartoonists (Becker, 1959).
Levine (1976), in her study of commediennes, concluded that females
indulge in self-deprecation humor to a greater extent than do males.
Her explanation for this phenomena may apply to women cartoonists as

well. She states that they (women) are echoing the values of their

19

social milieu in order to attract and keep a mass audience. Trilling
(1965) suggests an alternative explanation that has been applied to
women writers; apparently, the way men write is the more prestigeful
way to write and the women who would gain a high literary status are
constrained to conspire to men's view of the world. Even as late as
1973 Weisstein lamented that she could find no tradition of women using
humor as a weapon--recognizing a common Oppression, noticing its
source and the roles it requires and identifying the agents of that
oppression--like that of other oppressed groups. Recent events sug-
gest some new trends with the growth of the current women's movement.

Weisstein (1973) pointed to one new trend in the use of humor by
women; they were no longer laughing at jokes against women. Instead
women began to create their own humor which was funny because it made
the oppression of women by men the target of ridicule. Personally, I
have observed a fighting type of humor among friends and acquaintances
who are feminists (Figure A14). When Ball (1976) looked at a 1936 and
1972 anthology of jokes to investigate the dominance of male and
female characters over time, he found a similar phenomenon; women were
increasingly dominant in jokes with a personalistic focus while men '
were_increasingly dominant in jokes with an occupational focus. The use
of humor as a weapon was publically heralded by the publication in

1972 of Titters: The First Collection of Humor by Women. It was

 

quickly followed by women cartoonists whose humor, published in femin-
ist magazines, attacked sexism. Even more important was the appearance
in the male-dominanted mass media of syndicated comic strips that

reflected the changes brought about by women's liberation (Culhane,

20

1979). First, there was Gary Trudeau's "Doonesbury" in which Ms.
Joanie Caucus was a runaway housewife who ended up as a Berkeley law
student. "Cathy," one of the few strips about women by a woman, made
its publishing debut in 1976. It reflects the many new options women
have today. Cathy has a boyfriend named Irving who is an uncompromising
chauvinist. She has a best friend named Andrea, who is an uncompromis-
ing feminist. She has a traditional Mom named Mom. Irving and Andrea
and Mom have different ideas of what a woman should be and Cathy gets
torn between the lifestyles (Figure A15).

There are several trends in the use of humor by men which relate
to the relationship between the sexes. Kihere are two points here
which need to be clearly distinguished. First, within humor itself men
have been found to be dominant. Kramer (1975) in a study of cartoons
found women pictured in fewer places than men were. Secondly, in
everyday interaction men use humor to control women:} Coser (1959)
studied the use of humor among hospital staff members and found that
men made more frequent witticisms than women. The same social control
strategy has been used by men in mass media humor. Weisstein (1973)
suggests that the primary trend in the use of humor by men has been the
stereotypic portrayal ofwomen (Figure A8). According to Almquist,
Chafetz, Chance and Corder-Bolz (1978) some new stereotypes have
appeared with the growth of the present women's movement. These
include the ideas that the women's movement is concerned only with the
problems of professional women, that it appeals only to White middle-
class women, and that feminism among Black and Chicano women would
seriously subvert the efforts aimed at achieving racial and ethnic

equality. Cole and Robinson (1956) and Rowbotham (1972) state that

21

previous attempts by women to act outside of their traditional roles '
immediately led to cartoons which ridiculed the deviant behavior of
women. Murray, as presented in Hole and Levin (1971), feels that this
ridicule is also present in the current women's movement; feminist
claims and symbols have been reinterpreted in a ridiculing way (Figure
A9). The underlying assumption of both the stereotypic portrayals and
the ridicule would appear to be that feminism is a trivial issue.

This review of the use of humor between men and women suggests
that humor does reflect the structurecfi’their relationship in much the
same way that the use of humor between majority and minority groups
reflects the structure of their relationship. A comparison of the use
of humor in the two relationships should suggest similarities and dif-
ferences not only in the use of humor but in the relationship struc-
tures as well. [The type of humor used by many women/minorities sug-
gests that on a general level their positions in society can be
characterized as inferior and powerless. On an interpersonal level,
women/minorities laugh at men's/majority's humor even when the humor is
derogratory of women/minorities. Some of the humor used by women/
minorities is also derogatory of their own groups or it has the unin-
tended consequence of excusing the whole male/majority-female/minority
relationship:] The same trends were found in some of the mass media
types of humor used by women/minorities; the comedy routines of A1
Jolson and Phyllis Diller, for example.

{This review of the humor literature has also suggested that
although women/minorities use humor as a weapon against men/majority
there are differences in the humorous attack:] The use of humor by

minority groups has been characterized by (1) personalistic attacks

22

which showed that members of the majority group were only human and (2)
a political awareness of their oppression. [The use of humor by women,
however, has typically consisted of only personalistic attacks on méE)
(e.g., Phyllis Diller's comedy routines or the comic strip "Blondie").
There are several possible explanations for the lack of evidence on the
use of a politically aware humor by women. First, the isolation of
women on a mass scale may have hampered the development of a political
awareness of Oppression and oppressors that could have been expressed in-
humor. Second, it is possible that women did develop humor as a weapon
but never used it publicly or were unable to pass it along from
generation to generation. Further support for the lack of political
awareness explanation can be found among feminists who have developed an
awareness of their oppression and a humor to express it. Feminist
humor is present in cartoons, comic strips and the comedy routines of a
lesbian and Black commedienne. The humor of minority groups, however,
has always been in the form of comedy routines and stylized jokes.
Additional work needs to be done on the differential use of humor forms
by feminists and politically conscious minority group members.

This review of the humor literature also suggests that the use of
humor by men and majority groups is similar in that it consists of the
following major and overlapping trends: (1) the stereotypic portrayal
of women/minorities, (2) the ridicule of deviations from these stereo-
types and (3) a change in the content of humor as the male/majority-
female/minority relationship changes over time. Finally, the following
results that have been found for either men or majority groups could be
profitably applied to research on the other group: (1) it has been

suggested that at some point in the majority-minority relationship,

23

majority group members begin to use humor to learn to accept the new
role of the minority group, (2) men dominate in their use of humor and

(3) when women increase their use of humor in one category, men increase

their use of humor in another category.

HYPOTHESES

In using mass media humor as an indicator of the relationship
between majority and minority groups, this study assumes that infer-
ences about society can be made by studying the social artifacts that
it produces. One such social artifact is literature (of which humor is
a type). Its relationship to society has been variously conceived
(Albrecht, 1959). This study assumes that literature reflects the
values and beliefs in a complex society. This literature is produced
by artists and writers who reflect the views of different groups in
society. Each group then responds to the literature and art that con-
firms its own set of values, customs and beliefs. As such, literature
will mirror the norms and values that are common to all groups in-
society or group differences in society. If these groups are to some
extent in conflict, then, we can expect their literature to also
reflect this relationship. This assumption is at the core of the socio-
logical analysis of humor.

Sociological analysis of humor has focused on the social function
of humor in majority-minority relationships. The majority group eval-
uates the characteristics of their own group positively and those of
the minority group negatively. The majority group claims that the
minority group is inferior and uses this claim to deny them access to
the privileges and advantages available in society. When an awareness

occurs among members of the minority group that their low status is

24

25

unjust, they have often attempted to change the relationship of inequa-
lity. These attempts have been met with strong resistence from the
majority group which attempts to maintain its positive distinctiveness
from the minority group and to preserve or restore its superiority.
Consequently, the relationship between the majority and the minority
group will be conflictual.

As the conflict between the majority and the minority group
increases it has consequences for the larger society. There are socie-
tal mechanisms that are designed to control the level of conflict in
society. One such mechanism is the use of humor among subgroups in
society. The use of humor between the subgroups is an institutionalized
provision for the release of hostilities and tensions. As such humor
contains more or less well concealed malice so that an analysis of the
content of humor should be particularly revealing of the tensions and
attitudes that may not be expressed in other ways. More specifically,
the majority group will use humor to stress adherence to traditional
cultural definitions of the minority group and ridicule deviations from
these definitions. Another strategy is to stress societal cohesiveness
by ignoring or playing down the conflict between majority and minority
groups in society. The minority group, however, uses humor to gain
ascendancy or temporary advantage over the majority group. The more
conflictual the relationship between the majority and the minority
group in society, the more pronounced should be the use of each cate-
gory of humor described above. Also the humor of each of the parties
involved in the majority-minority relationship, like literature more
generally, is presented to audiences which are similar and can best

appreciate it. Consequently, the humor which appeals to each party in

26

the majority-minority relationship should appear more frequently in mass
media that is oriented toward that particular subgroup. Given changes
in the amount of conflict in a majority-minority relationship, the use
of humor as described above should reflect these changes.

For the purposes of this study men and women, respectively, are
considered as a majority and a minority group. Given the previous
conceptualization of the majority-minority relationship, the relation-
ship between men and women should also be conflictual. More specifi-
cally, it can be shown that changes have occurred in the amount of
conflict between men and women and crystalized in the current women's

movement.

The Rise of Conflict Between Men and Women Since 1920

World War I occurred during the end of the Women's Suffrage Move-
ment which created societal upheaval of its own. Many women put aside
their campaign for the vote to help in the war effort. Women in stea-
dily increasing numbers entered "men's" fields and were highly satis-
factory workers. In their homes women learned to hammer a nail and
replace a blown fuse. Yet, when the men returned, women were dismissed
from their jobs. They lost not only their wages but the social status
associated with a paying job. Those women whose husbands returned
were faced with the challenges of domesticity. Those women whose hus-
bands did not return fought to retain their jobs. They encountered
unequal pay and discrimination. On top of these post-war adjustments,
the Women's Suffrage Movement succeeded in getting Congress to pass the

Twenty-first Amendment in 1920.

After securing the vote in 1920, women failed to use it in their

own behalf. More important, the cohesion generated by the suffrage

27

movement disintegrated after the vote was won. Women again become
polarized into two opposing camps, this time the disputed issue center-
ing on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) pr0posed by the National Women's
Party in 1923. The radical feminists envisioned the ERA as a way of
achieving total equality for women and an end to discrimination. The
social feminists, seeking broad social reforms, contended that women
were weaker than men.belonged in the home, and required protective
legislation. Along with other social factors this social feminist view
helped reinforce an ideology that women, due to biological differences,
best served as wives, mothers and homemakers (O'Neill, 1969).

Two events, the Depression of the thirties and World War II,
added to the difficulty of clearly defining the "women problem.“ The
increase between 1930 and 1940 in the labor force participation rate of
women was due mainly to the employment of young, single women (Maupin,
1974). Men,jealously guarded their cultural definition as "breadwinner"
while twenty-six states passed laws prohibiting the employment of
married women. For middle-class women, then, the roles of paid worker
and homemaker remained separated. Still the employment rate of married
women rose from 11.7 percent to 15.2 percent as financially desperate
minority women went to work (Ryan, 1975).

Then came World War II when women were needed by industry. Those
women who were already employed moved out of the tertiary sector into
industry. Of the new workers entering the labor force, seventy-five
percent were married and sixty percent were over thirty-five years of
age (Ferriss, 1974). The pay was good, especially because of overtime;
and women read and heard about their remarkable abilities, their

strength, ingenuity, resourcefulness and courage in learning quickly to

28

work like a man. But at the end of the war, when employers wanted to
get rid of women workers, the message changed. It was claimed that
women really did not like to work outside their home. Not that they
could not, not that they should not, but that they preferred the crea-
tive occupation of full—time homemaker; raising children, washing
dishes, mopping floors and doing the family wash. Young, married women
did just that but retained the knowledge and pride of what they had
accomplished. Many single women, however, stayed in the labor force,
but not in their war jobs. They returned, often under protest, to the
laundries, the eating and drinking establishments, domestic service,
and clerical work. Only women with technical or professional training
clung tenaciously to their trades. There was also a continued post-war
increase in the labor force participation rate of women due to the
supply of older, married women. Carefully avoiding these facts, the
media continued to pour out happy homemaker tales from the end of the
war right through the 19505.

During the 19505 the "happy homemakers" grew disillusioned. Ear-
lier marriages, deurbanization, economic prosperity, lower brithrates
and an emphasis on peer group independence challenged the existing
familial ties and roles of men and women. In 1964, for the first time,
the number of women seeking psychiatric treatment and institutional
help dwarfed that of men (Chesler, 1972). In addition the divorce
rate skyrocketed. Or, more accurately, it peaked and leveled off right
after the war in 1946, then during the mid-fifties rose to the highest
height it had ever been up until that time (Jacobson, 1959). As

divorced women reconsidered their roles as wives, mothers and

29

housekeepers, they joined other women who had found it advantageous to
return to school and work.

The number of working women doubled between 1940 and 1960 and
again, for the first time, the majority did not come from the lower
classes (Ryan, 1975). As to education, from 1950 onward there has been
a very rapid expansion of the number of educated women (Howard, 1974).
These educated women found, however, that although they made the same
investment in time, energy and intellect in schOoling as men did, the
payoff was not commensurate. Between 1940 and 1968 the percentage of
women employed in all major occupational categories except that of pro-
feSsional and technical workers, rose (Freeman, 1975). Like World War
11, women were again working around men with whom they could compare
their skills and wages. Unlike World War II, the 19605 Women had the
education and so the ability to articulate and disseminate their grie-
vances (Howard, 1974).

In 1963 Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique gave voice to the
murmurings of discontent from suburbia and beyond. This discontent I
later focused on the administration of laws against sex discrimination
in employment as stated in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At
the third National Conference on the Status of Women, several women
proposed a resolution that the Equal Opportunity Commission should
treat sex discrimination seriously. The resolution never reached the
floor. The few women that were in favor of the resolution met in Betty.
Friedan's room and the National Organization of Women (NOW) was quietly
founded.

Younger women activists also became interested in women's libera-

tion groups due to their experiences in the radical movements of the

30

19605. When these women were told they could best help by making
coffee and typing letters, their awareness of the incongruity between
these activities and the movements' rhetorics grew. After repeated
attempts to bring up the issue of their roles in the movements, several
women began using the skills they had learned in the radical movements.
Soon college students, housewives and other women across the nation
were organized into consciousness raising groups.

This brief review of the changes in the relationship between men
and women shows the emergence of more explicit conflict from the 19505
onward. According to Ferriss (1975) this conflict has centered on-
issues that have been troublesome for women throughout this century: 1)
the educational level of women has been increasing, thereby improving
their employability, 2) a greater demand for certain categories of work-
ers has led to the increasing employment of women, 3) discrimination in
the workplace with women more often found in dead-end and low-paying
jobs, 4) the difficulties of combining a career, marriage and children,
5) the disparity between legislative and actual equality, and 6) women's
growing independence as evidenced by a) an increase in the proportion
of single women and b) mainly due to divorce, a quite rapid increase
since 1960 in the percent of families and households with female heads.
All these issues are bound to cause strains in many marriages. The
additional effect of these issues on some marriages may result in so
many tensions that they end in divorce. Support for this supposition
is graphically presented in Figure 2. It shows that there is a close
correspondence between the labor force participation rate of women and
the divorce rate from 1890 to the present. The increasing ease of

obtaining a divorce and the growing economic independence of women

 

.meeeem eee_e=

 

31

$5» $0 Humsumn’.‘ quwumwumwm we; :5th Locuzm me; he “um—1:550 mm: cawLm mwcu. Cw Umm: mumv 05,—. "mumzom

 

 

ommF Eocw ope; moco>wc asp mamcm> case: we mum; copueawuwucma pogo; LoamF mg“ mo :amgm < .wamhmmw
ommfi sea“ coma ommm oemfi ommH ommfl onH ooofi coma

mg a
ma m
Hm m
mm A
mm m
KN HH
mm mH
Hm mH
mm
mm
Km _\\\ mama mueo>Po lllllll.
mm \\\ muem cowummwwmacwm

llll llllo mono; Lona; ...l..

fie o

32

makes divorce an even more likely alternative. Consequently, the
divorce rate will be used as the indicator of conflict between the
sexes. _

Previous research on the use of humor by majority and minority
groups has focused on the use of humor by minority groups to express
conflict and the various uses of humor by the majority group to exercise
social control as though they were three unrelated phenomena. This has
led, then, to the separate conclusions that an increase in the conflict
between majority and minority groups results in an increase in the use
of humor that is characteristic of each of these groups. Since there
is a finite amount of humor which is present at any given time, however,
each of these conclusions cannot be simultaneously true. Given the
present state of the literature it is unclear which of the categories
of humor will increase when all the categories are tested in one study.
' Therefore, the prediction was made for this study that the increase in
societal conflict between men and women since 1950 should be reflected
in an increase in humor by women that expresses the conflict in the
relationship between the sexes and an increase in humor by men which
expresses social control of women and social disregard of the societal
conflict between the sexes. Therefore:

H1: The amount of conflict between the sexes in humor increases
as the divorce rate increases.

H : The amount of social control of women in humor increases as
the divorce rate increases.

H3: The amount of social disregard of the conflict between the
sexes in humor increases as the divorce rate increases.

Previous research has also shown that humor, as a literature
form, is produced by artists and writers who reflect the views of

different groups in society. Each group then responds to the

33

humor that confirm its own set of values, customs and beliefs.

Therefore:

H4:

The relative frequency of humor in the conflict category will
be greater in humor sources intended for female audiences
then in humor sources intended for general audiences and
greater in humor sources for general audiences than in humor
sources intended for male audiences.

The relative frequency of humor in the social control cate-
gory will be greater in humor sources intended for male
audiences than in humor sources intended for general audi-
enCes and greater in humor sources intended for general
audiences than in humor sources intended for female audi-
ences.

The relative frequency of humor in the social disregard cate-
gory will be greater in humor sources intended for general
audiences than in humor sources intended for male audiences
and greater in humor sources intended for male audiences

than in humor sources intended for female audiences.

METHODOLOGY

The proper method for analyzing a sample of cultural artifacts
such as cartoons is content analysis. As defined by Holsti (1954,

p. 601) content analysis, “is any technique for making inferences by
systematically and objectively identifying specified characteristics of
messages." Berelson (1952) would add the following assumptions: 1)
content analysis assumes that inferences about a relationship between
intent and content or between content and effect can validly be made,
and 2) content analysis assumes that the "meanings" ascribed to the
content correspond to the "meaning“ intended by the communicator or
understood by the audience.

In describing the content of messages, three basic types of com-
parisons can be made, two of which are appropriate to this study.
First, comparisons can be made of different sources over time for the
purpose of relating theoretically significant attributes of communica-
tion sources to differences in the messages they produce. Secondly,
one can analyze the content in order to make inferences about the_
causes or antecendents of the message. This comparison has been used
most often in studies that attempt to get at the spirit of a past age~-

attitudes, interests, values or mores of a population.

Definitions

 

The following terms were operationally defined: (1) a societal

indicator of conflict, (2) a source of mass media humor, (3) a form of

34

35

mass media humor and (4) specific categories of mass media humor. For
the purposes of this study the societal indicator of conflict-~divorce--
is defined as the act by which any marriage is dissolved in a way other
than through the death of one of the spouses, so that the parties are
free to remarry after a certain period of time. Included in the divorce
statistics used for this study are annulments, where a competent
authority declares that a marriage is void. The specific rate used in
this study was the standardized divorce rate.7

Magazines were chosen as a source of mass media humor because
they are original sources of that humor and are distinguishable in
terms of the subgroups that are being studied in this research. There
are three major types of mass media humor; cartoons, written or verbal
jokes and comedy routines. Cartoons were selected over jokes because
they are a familiar type of humor. There are several other reasons why
cartoons were selected. According to Becker (1959, p. VII) cartoons
appear to be topical; "cartoons dramatize the issues and attitudes of
the day, and cartoon characters reflect the role expectations held by
the public for a person or group of peOple . . . it is cartoonists who
hold to light the faults and failings and who point up the fads, foi-
bles that amuse and worry society." Cartoons can accomplish this func-
tion because they dramatically cut through defenses, making people
laugh before they realize the point of the cartoon.

The functions of cartoon humor in the relationship between the

sexes is conceptualized in terms of three categories. The use of humor

 

7The standardized divorce rate is computed as follows:

‘Number of Divorces in‘a given year
1000 married couples

36

by women to show antagonism towards men and to stress women's equality
with men is defined as conflict. The use of humor by men to stress
adherence to traditional cultural definitions of women and to ridicule
deviations from these stereotypes is defined as social control. The
use of humor by men which socially redefines the conflict between men
and women as insignificant so that it can be disregarded is defined as

social disregard.8

Sample '

Magazine cartoons were selected for this study in the following
manner. To choose the most popular magazines, I obtained a list of the

leading U.S. magazines for each year from the World Almanac.9' These

 

statistics are provided by the Audit Bureau of Circulation and are
based on the average circulation per issue. I selected general, men's
and women's magazines as categorized by the type of reading audience.10
I then checked each magazine fbr the inclusion of cartoons until there
were five magazines in each category. One magazine per category and

year was then selected with the use of a table of random numbers. All

 

8Social disregard was originally presented in the text as the
social redefinition of conflict in society as a minor issue which need
not be mentioned or which could be presented as amusing human failings.
The social disregard category of humor used in this study, however,
measures only the failure to mention or disregard aspect of this dis-
cu55ion. The other aspect, that conflict can be presented as nothing
more serious than human failings was measured in the "traditional use"
versus the "fighting back" subcategories of conflict humor.

9Using circulation to select the most popular magazines led to
the inclusion in the sample of a disproportionately large number of
middle-class magazines. Given Albrecht's (1959) findings that litera-
ture is created by and for specific audiences I would expect these
results to apply mainly to the middle-class.

10Katz (1972) and Ulrich (1932) were consulted as an aid in
correctly categorizing the magazines used in this study.

37

twelve issues of a magazine per year were used. One issue per month of
magazines that were published more than once a month was selected with
the use of a table of random numbers. A list of the magazines that were
used in this study is presented in Appendix B.

The first step in selecting cartoons was to count the total
number of cartoons in each magazine issue.11 A table of random numbers
was used to select three cartoons from each issue of the magazines that
were sampled for this study. Regular and special cartoon features were
excluded from the sample. An example of the former is Good Housekeep-
jhgfs "Light Housekeeping" feature; the latter are features that are

included in magazines around the holidays.

Coding

Once the sample has been selected, one must decide how to code the
documents. Coding is the process whereby raw data are systematically
transformed and aggregated into units which permit precise description
of relevant content categories. This involved several decisions. The
first is the designation of the unit of analysis. Since cartoons are
a self-contained meaning unit the whole cartoon was analyzed. Second,
relevant content categories were selected; the conflict, social control
and social disregard categoriescrfhumor. The specific coding scheme
used in this study is presented in Appendix A.

The three judges used in this study were undergraduate students

at Michigan State University and Saginaw Valley State College. Several

 

11There were distinct differences in the number of cartoons con-
tained in the different categories of magazines; women's magazines
contained on the average of two to five cartoons per issue; general
magazines, ten to twenty; and men's magazines, twenty to thirty. This
differential inclusion of humor in magazines needs to be investigated.

38

training sessions were conducted by the experimenter to familiarize the
coders with the coding scheme. Since this study is concerned with the
conflict between men and women in society, the cartoons were first
coded separately by'a male and a female student. An intercoder corre-
lation was then run on this coding. An agreement rate of .76 was found.
In order to simplify the data analysis, a second female student recoded

12

the cartoons on which the original two coders had disagreed. The

data were then recoded to reflect the agreement among two of the three

coders.13

 

12There is a possible bias in this study due to the effect of
having two female coders and only one male coder. Seventy-one percent
of the disagreements between the male and the female coder were decided
by the second female coder in favor of the first female coder.

13Since there were still twenty-five cartoons that no two of the
three coders coded in the same category, the data was analyzed with
the disagreement cases both included and excluded. Little difference
was found in the two sets of data. The data that includes the dis-
agreement cases is presented in the tables in the text. The corres-
ponding tables in Appendix 0 contain the data that excludes the
disagreement cases.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The relationship between the sexes has mainly been defined and
controlled by men who characterize women as inferior, assign them a
lower status and then discriminate against them. This relationship has
consequences for men, women and the larger society of which they are a
part that gets expressed in humor. The intent of some of the humor
used by men is social control of women through stereotypic portrayal,
ridicule of deviations from these stereotypes and disregard of the con-
flict between men and women in society. Women, however, use humor to
gain a temporary advantage while expressing their antagonism towards
men. It was previously shown that the conflict between men and women
has increased since the 19505 while previous research on humor has
shown an increase in the characteristic use of each group's humor as
the conflict between the groups increases. Therefore it was hypothe-
sized that:

H1: The amount of conflict between the sexes in cartoons has
increased as the divorce rate increases..

H2: The amount of social control of women in cartoons increases
as the divorce rate increases.

H3: The amount of social disregard of the conflict between the
sexes in cartoons increases as the divorce rate increases.

The data used to test H H2, and H3 are presented in Table l.

1,
It shows the following trends: 1) the percent of humor in the conflict
category was higher in 1955, 1965 and 1975 than it was in 1950, 1960

and 1970; 2) the percent of humor in the social control category was

39

40

TABLE 1

The Percent of Cartoons Coded in Each Humor Category and the Divorce
Rate by Five Year Intervals ,.

 

 

Year . Humor Categories and Divorce Rate
Percent Percent Percent
of of Social of Social Divorce
Conflict Control Disregard Rate
Humor Humor Humor
1950 14.4 33.4 52.2 2.6
1955 19.0 29.7 51.3 2.3
1960 7.9 40.2 51.9 2.2
1965 11.6 29.2 59.2 2.5
1970 8.3 28.2 63.5 3.5
1975 9.3 25.5 65.2 4.9

 

 

 

 

 

higher in 1950 and 1960 than it was in 1955 with a steady decrease from

1965 onward, 3) the percent of humor in the social disregard category

was lower in 1955 then it was in 1950 with a steady increase from 1960

onward, and 4) the divorce rate was lower in 1955 and 1960 than it was

in 1950 with a steady increase from 1965 onward.

The results from

Table I show that the most consistent and similar trends are those of

the social disregard category of humor and the divorce rate.

This

conclusion was tested by running a product moment correlation between

all three categories of humor and the divorce rate.

these correlations are presented in Table 2.

The results of

No support was found for

H1 and H2 since the conflict and social control categories of humor

were negatively correlated with the divorce rate.

In order to aid the

following discussion the results that pertain to H1 and H2 are graphi-

cally presented in Figure 3.

The higher negative correlation between

the percent of humor in the conflict category and the divorce rate

appears to be a result of the polar opposite switches in the percent of

41

TABLE 2

Pearson's R's for the Percent of Cartoons Coded in Each Humor Category
. and the Divorce Rate

 

Humor Categories

 

Conflict Social Control Social Disregard

 

r -.68 -.41 +.6O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .Social Control Humor ~39
.----. Conflict Humor

21- .____ . Divorce Rate ~36 '3

i:

18- .33 5

U

15- ~31 7;

Q) 13* _29 §
4‘; U S.
‘1 11‘ 427 g g
8 1,2

‘5 '9- 425 .2

.2 I:

o 7‘ P23 5

U

5. ~21 “5

II. {-3

3‘ o_‘~ _____..o —— —.// . p19 5

‘0 -—-- g

1-0 1'17 g:

 

 

 

1950 I955 1960 1965 1970 1975
Time

Figure 3. Percent of humor in the conflict and social control categor-
ies versus the divorce rate from 1950 to 1975.

humor in the conflict category every five years. Although the negative
correlation between the percent of humor in the social control category
and the divorce rate was less strong than the previous correlation, the
same reasons may apply since the percent of humor in the social control

category shows no consistent trend until 1965. There are several

42

possible explanations for these results. Attempts were made to account
for these trends by comparing both categories with the significant
events in the present women's movement, the social unrest of the 19605
and general U.S. history. None of these events consistently accounted
for the ups and downs in either category. One explanation is, then,
that in sampling only every five years I have missed a lot of the signi-
ficant events in the women's movement that may have caused an immediate
but temporary upswing in the percent of both conflict and social con-
trol humor in the mass media. Secondly, the percent of conflict and
social control humor in the mass media may be subject to popularity
cycles similar to those found with fads and fashions. One category of
humor is popular for several years and then replaced by the other cate-
gory of humor when either editors, cartoonists or the public expresses
a need for a change.

The overall sample does show support for H3. As the results from
Table 2 suggested there is a fairly high positive correlation between
the social disregard category of humor and the divorce rate. The
results pertaining to H3 are graphically presented in Figure 4. There
are several possible explanations for the strong position correlation
between the percent of humor in the social disregard category and the
divorce rate. First, given the mutually exclusive nature of the humor
categories and the negative correlations between the percent of humor
in the conflict and the social control categories of humor and the
divorce rate, the third correlation had to be positive. Secondly, this
result lends support to the studies that suggest that public humor is
usually sanitized (Arnez and Anthony, 1969) and that there is adherence.
in mass media humor to the disregard of conflict (Stephenson, 1951 and

Kolaja, 1950).

43

 

 

‘ . Divorce Rate I
54 .---—. Social Disregard Humor &
5
4.5~ ~ I:
E
41 1'68 8,,
G) (D
+4 S-
g 3.54 ~65 ,3
8 C:
E 3.. ’62 E
'5 2.54 ~59 5,53
q...
2. ~56 °
/ - *E
1'5‘ .\“ "./ l"50o5§
11 ~50 EB

 

 

 

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975
Time

Figure 4. Percent of humor in the social disregard category versus the
divorce rate from 1950 to 1975

Previous research in the sociology of literature and the sociology
of humor literature has shown that humor is produced by people who are
members of and so reflect the views of different groups in society.
Men and women respond, then, to the mass media that confirms their own

views of the relationship between the sexes. Therefore it was hypothe-

sized that:

H4: The relative frequency of humor in the conflict category will
be greater in women's magazines than in general magazines
and greater in general magazines than in men's magazines.

H5: The relative frequency of humor in the social control cate-

gory will be greater in men's magazines than in general
magazines and greater in general magazines than in women's
magazines.

H6: The relative frequency of humor in the social disregard
category will be greater in general magazines than in men's
magazines and greater in men's magazines than in women's
magazines.

44

TABLE 3

The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded as in Each Humor Cateogory

 

 

Humor Category . l V Magazine Category

General Women's Men's
Conflict 10.2 18.3 6.8
Social Control 28.2 31.0 33.7
Social Disregard 61.6 50.7 59.5

 

 

 

 

Table 3 presents the data thatwere used to test H4, H5 and H6'
The results were as follows: (I) the percent of humor in the conflict
category was higher in women's magazines than in general magazines and
higher in general magazines than in men's magazines, (2) the percent of
humor in the social control category was higher in men's magazines than
in women's magazines and higher in women's magazines than in general
magazines and (3) the percent of humor in the social disregard category
is higher in general magazines than in men's magazines and higher in
men's magazines than in women's magazines. The data strongly support
H4 and H6 while providing only weak support for H5 since there is a
higher percent of social control humor in women's magazines than in
general magazines. There are several possible explanations for these
results. First, the number of cartoons in traditional women's maga-
zines is so small that few trends could be observed. Another reason
for this result may be the increasingly schi20phrenic task of women's

magazines (e.g., Good Housekeeping and Ladies Home Journal) that

 

attempted to appeal to both traditional women and the growing number of
feminists. If this is true then there should have been a increase in

humor oriented toward feminists from 1950 to 1975. Since the data

45

needed to test these conclusions was available a post-hoc investigation
was conducted on the conflict humor subcategories. The results pre-
sented in TablesCfl.through C4 show no consistent relationship when the
subcategories were compared with each other (Table C1), over time
(Table C2), by magazine category (Table C3) and by magazine category
over time (Table C4). It is also possible, then, that humor that

would appeal to feminists began to appear in the feminist publications
in the 19705. Several feminist magazines (Mg, New Woman and Playgirl)
were initially selected for this study based on their popularity. They
had to be dropped from the study, however, because as of 1975 they did
not contain humor. Playgirl and New Woman, at least reading, now con-
tain on the average of between ten and fifteen cartoons per issue.

This suggests that additional work needs to be done on feminist maga-
zines to decide if the respective use of humor was and is due to edi-
torial policies and/or a previous lack of cartoonists with a feminist
perspective. It would also be interesting to look at the reasons why
MS, and Women's Day magazines still do not contain humor and why other
women's magazines (e.g., Good Housekeeping) include only two to five
cartoons as fillers per issue.

As previously mentioned, the two dominant social control strate-
gies used by men in humor are stereotypic portrayals of women and ridi-
cule of deviations from these stereotypes. The observation made by
Cole and Robinson (1956) and Rowbotham (1972), however, was that the
ridicule of women in cartoons was an immediate response to the previous
attempts by women to challenge their traditional roles. This observa-
tion suggested that there might be a differential use of ridicule and

stereotypes of women by men. Since the data needed to test this

46

assumption was available in the “women stereotyped" and the “ridicule
of libbersl social control subcategories, a post—hoc investigation was
conducted. The results showed that the percent of humor in the "women
stereotyped" subcategory accounted for eighty—seven percent of the
humor while the "ridicule of libbers" subcategory accounted for only
thirteen percent of the humor in the social control category (Table C2).
Again no consistent trends were found for either subcategory over time
(Table C4). Since no systematic study has been done on the use of both
stereotypic portrayal and ridicule in humor together, it is possible
that the ridicule response to the earlier women's movement was over
reported. It is also possible that there are differences between the
women's movements that have occurred in this century that account for
the differences in the use of ridicule. More specifically, cartoonists
who ridiculed previous women's movements could focus on a single cohe-
sive issue (e.g., bloomers or suffrage) which was amenable to the art
of cartooning. The current women's movement, however, is concerned
with a myriad of issues (e.g., abortion, lesbianism, equal pay for

equal work) which may also be more difficult to capture in a cartoon.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrecht, Milton C. "The Relationship of Literature and Society."
American Journal of Sociology 24 (1959): 425-436.

Almquist, Elizabeth; Chafetz, Jent; Chance, Barbara and Corder-Bolz,
Judy. Sociology: Women, Men, and Society, New York: West
Publishing Co., 1978.

 

Arnez, Nancy and Anthony, Clara 8. "Contemporary Negro Humor as Social
Satire." Phylon 29 (1968): 339-346.

Ball, Howard, H. "The Position of Women in Humor." M.A. thesis, Michi-
gan State University, 1976.

Becker, Stephen. Comic Art in America. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1959.

Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glen-
view, Ill.: ThE’Free Press, 1952.

Berger, Joseph; Fisek, M. Hamit; Norman, Robert and Zelditch, Morris.
Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation
States Theory Approach. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, Inc., 1977.

 

Berlyne, Daniel E. "Laughter, Humor and Play." In Handbook of Social
Psychology, III: pp. 705-852. Edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aron-
son. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

 

Burma, John H. "Humor as a Technique in Race Conflict." American
' Sociological Review 11 (1946): 710-715.

Chafe, William H. Women and Liberation. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1972.

 

Chesler, Phyllis. Women and Madness. New York: Doubleday, 1972.

Cole, William and Robinson, Francis. Women Are Wonderful. Boston,
Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1956.

 

Coser, Rose L. "Some Social Functions of Laughter: A Study of Humor
in a Hospital Setting." 'Human Relations 12 (1959): 171-182.

 

Culhane, John. "The Funnies Are Us."‘ Reader's Digest, August 1979,
pp. 163-170.

 

47

48

Ferriss, Abbott L. Indicators of Trends in the Status of American
Women. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1971.

Freeman, Jo. The Politics of Women's LiberatiOn: A Case Study of an
Emerging Social Movement and Its RelatiOn to the Poligy Process.
New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1975.

French, Marilyn. The WOmen's Room. New York: Jove Publications, Inc.,
1977.

Freud, Sigmund. "Wit and Its Relationship to the Unconscious.” In
Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, pp. 633-803. Edited by A. Brill.
New York: Modern Library, 1938.

Frieden, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Dell Publishing Co.,
1963.

 

Greenberg, Bradley and Kahn, Sandra. "Blacks in Playboy Cartoons.
Journalism Quarterly 47 (1970): 557-560.

Hacker, Helen M. "Women as a Minority Group." Social Forces 30 (1951):
60-69.

 

Hayes, William L. Statistics for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.

Henley, Nancy M. Body Politics: Power, Sex and Nonverbal Communica-
tion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977.

Hochschild, Arlie R. "A Review of Sex Role Research.“ American Journal

 

of Sociology 78 (1951): 1011-1029.

 

Hole, Judith and Levine, Ellen. Rebirth of Feminism. New York: Quan-
drangle Books, 1971.

 

Holsti, Ole R. "Content Analysis." In Handbook of Social Psychology,
V: pp. 596-692. Edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

 

Howard, John R. The Cutting Edge: Social Movements and Social Change
in America. New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1954.

 

Jacobson, Paul H. American Marriage and Divorce. New York: Rinehart
and Co., 1959.

 

Katz, William. Magazines in Libraries. New York: Bowker Co., 1972.

Kolaja, Jiri. "American Magazine Cartoons and Social Control." Jour-
nalism Quarterly 30 (1953): 71-74.

 

Kramer, Cheris. ”Stereotypes on Women's Speech: The Word from Car-
toons." Journal of Popular Culture 8 (1975): 624-630.

 

49

LaFave, Lawrence and Mannell, Roger. "Does Ethnic Humor Serve Preju-
dice?" Journal of Communication (Summer 1976): 116-123.

 

Levine, Joan B. "The Feminine Routine.”’ Journal of Communication
(Summer 1976): 173-175.

 

Mano, 0. Keith. "Funnies," in MaSs Media: Forces in Our Society, pp.
345-347. Edited by Francis Voelker and Ludmila Voelker. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1975.

 

Maupin, Joyce. "Working Women and Their Organizations. Berkeley, Ca1.:
Union WAGE Educational Committee, 1974.

Middleton, Russell and Nolan, John. "Humor in Negro and White Subcul-
tures: A Study of Jokes Amon University Students," American
Sociological Review, 24 (1959): 61-69.

 

Myrdal, Gunnar. An American Dilemma. New York: Harper & Bros., 1944.

 

O'Neill, William L. Everyone Was Brave: The Rise and Fall of Feminism
in America. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1969.

 

Pheterson, Gail 1.; Keisler, Sara 8.; and Goldberg, Philip. '"Evaluation
of the Performance of Women as a Function of their Sex, Achieve-
ment and Personal History." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 19 (1971): 144-148.

Rowbotham, Sheila. Women, Resistance and Revolution: A History of
Women and Revolhtion in the Modern World. New York: Vintage
Books, 1972.

 

 

Ryan, Mary P. Womanhood in America: From Colonial Times to the Pre—
sent. New York: New Viewpoints, 1974.

 

Schechter, William. The History of Negro Humor in America. New York:
Fleet Press Corporation, 1970.

 

Simmons, Donald C. "Protest Humor: Folkloristic Reaction to Preju-
dice." American Journal of Psychiatry 8 (1968): 360-363.

Simpson, George E. and Yinger, J. Milton. Racial and Cultural Minori-
ties: An Analysis of Prejudice and Di§crimination. New York:
Harper 8 Row, 1972.

 

Stephenson, Richard M. "Conflict and Control Functions of Humor.”
American Journal of Sociology 56 (1951): 569-574.

 

Stillman, Deane and Beatts, Anne. Titters: The First Collection of
Humor by WOmen. New York: Collier Books, 1976.

 

Thorne, Barrie and Henley, Nancy M. "Difference and Dominance: An
Overview of Language, Gender and Society." In Language and Sex,
pp. 5-42. Edited by Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley. Row1ey,
Mass.: Newbury House, 1975.

50

Trilling, Diana. "The Image of Women in Contemporary Literature, in The_
Woman in America, pp. 52-71. Edited by Robert Lifton. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1965.

Ulrich, Carl F. Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory. New
York: Bowker Co., 1932.

 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, StatistiCal Abstract of the United States.
Washington, D.C.: U.STIGovernment Printing Office, 1951, 1956,
1961, 1966, 1971, 1976.

 

Weisstein, Naomi. "Why We Aren't Laughing . . . Anymore." Mg, November
1973, pp. 50-51; 88-90.

Winick, Charles. "The Social Contexts of Humor." Journal of Communica-
tion. (Summer 1976): 124-128.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
CODING INSTRUCTIONS

 

 

 

RIDICULER TARGET OF
RIDICULE
CONFLICT Women or Men or
others who others who
represent the represent the
views of views of
women men
SOCIAL CONTROL Men or Women or
others who others who
SOCIAL REDEFINITION represent the represent the
AND DISREGARD . views of men views of
. women

 

Figure A1. How humor functions as conflict, social control and social
disregard in the relationship between the sexes.

CONFLICT: The use of humor by women to express antagonism towards men
and adherent to group norms. There are three subcategories of humor in
the conflict category: 1) the "traditional use" of humor by women which
portrays men stereotypically, 2) a "fighting back" humor in which women
outwit men and 3) the use of humor by others who represent the "liber-
ated views" of women.

51

52

 

 

“If someone should happen to eek me whet I eee In you,
whetehuMdlteflthenfl”

Figure A2. An example of cartoon humor which
depicts the traditional stereotypic portrayal

of men and women.
SOURCE: The New Woman March-April, 1978.

The more common stereotypic portrayals of men by women are the
following: uncommunicative, incompetent, lazy, physically weak, clumsy,

childish, dominated, cheap, physically undesirable, messy, unromantic.

 

, .. :‘.:‘_ “ ,mM'Vi' ‘r
.~ "2%,“: rdW

 

“I’m married. I have three sons. My boss is a men.

5 I sell Jockey shorts. And I Just need s women to talk to!”

Figure A3. An example of cartoon humor which
depicts personal salvation within the minority
group.

SOURCE: The New Woman November-December, 1979.

 

54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Actually, I dldn't lose them . . . I sold them for $200
and bought a bull for $95. I sold the stud services
of the bull to ten farmers for $225 each, then . . .”

Figure A4. An example of cartoon humor
which depicts trickster motifs.
SOURCE: The New Woman July-August,

1979.

55

  

 

    

l——[—_:

"Ir
/ ; SW? '

/ I

“Okay, so you’re a rich, handsome prince . . . that still doesn’t
tell me why I should KISS you.”

 

.A-____._ ~—

Figure A5. An example of cartoon humor which
depicts parody of alleged somatic or cultural

stereotype.
SOURCE: The New Woman November-December,

1979.

56

.fl/ac

 

elaeleeveeu...

“Mr. Dumbkaui, you think a women shouldn't be Presldent
because her menstrual cycle would make her act crazy
and want to declare war on somebody?
Gee, I’m In my cycle right now — as are millions of other women.
Can you explain why we’re not all out In the street
stabbing, shooting and setting tire to people?”

Figure A6. An example of cartoon humor which
depicts a rigorous following of majority group
logic to an unexpected conclusion.

SOURCE: The New Woman January-February, 1978.

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\M’
“Miss America had to show herseii In a bathing suit before she
got chosen to be the country’s ambassador of good will.

How come Andrew Young got to be an ambassador
without showing himseli In a bathing suit?”

 

Figure A7. An example of cartoon humor which
depicts feminist views.
SOURCE: The New Woman July-August, 1979.

58

SOCIAL CONTROL: The use of humor by men to portray women stereotypi—
cally and ridicule women's deviations from their traditional roles.

lltl I M \(.,\/I\r

 

“Put your fingers in its eyes and your thumb in its mouth."

Figure A8. An example of cartoon humor which portrays
women stereotypically.
SOURCE: True December, 1950.

The more common stereotypes are as follows: politically unaware,
not worldly, physically weak, no good at sports, talkative, gossips,
nags, critical, bad drivers, vain, always need money, fond of presents,
anxious to be married, attracted to rich and/or goodlooking men, roman-
tic, soft-hearted, sentimental, stupid, silly, bad cooks, sex objects,

sexually passive, harassed mothers, housewives, mechanically inept.

 
   

Figure A9. An example of cartoon humor which ridicules
women who challenge their traditional role.
SOURCE: Mg September, 1979.

 

59

 

 

"Oh, man are all the same!"

 

 

 

Figure AIO. An example of cartoon humor
which depicts collective surreptitious
approbation of men by women.

SOURCE: Penthouse April, 1970.

SOCIAL DISREGARD: The redefinition of conflict between men and women in
society to the level of a minor squabble so that it can be disregarded
inhwnn

 

60

 

    

_ .n -—
. ,4 . .
Drawn by Wm. Hermite": 9'; 1973 The New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

‘Nice day’? What the he]! do you mean, ‘Nice day’?
Haven ’Iyou read the Wall Street Journal this morning?

 

 

 

Figure AII. An example of cartoon
humor whlch would be conSldered social

disregard.

SOURCE: The New Yorker Magazine

June, 1973.

61

Men and women who are in an occupational relationship belong in
this category. A good way to decide whether or not the cartoon would be
included is to replace the sex of the target of the ridicule. In the
cartoon below Unapoint would be the same whether the characters were a

female clerk and a male customer or vice versa.

“ _z... “V‘FM’PV -
“9". d" ’ .

‘l

Emromm 2'
.l ’ , £77554 CUOM MMNTEEDJ’]

1331—: CT 215;“;
1%:

   

 

   
  

 

 

 

“It’s that drip, drip, drip —iz': driving me nuts!”

_—-_ u. ."-,--

Figure A12. An example of cartoon humor that
would be included in the social disregard
category.

SOURCE: McCalls November, 1970.

62

NOTE: Animals which are portrayed as men or women as a part of this

study.

 

  

ulnar uawrlrr

   

"This is a good day to stay in and
get things done around the hole."

 

 

 

Figure A13. An example of cartoon humor which por-
trays animals as men and women.
SOURCE: Good Housekeeping December, 1971.

63

 

The feminist who was giving a
speech in support of the Equal
Rights Amendment was inter-

rupted by the deep voice of a

man?"

you?"

heckler from the crowd:
”Don't you wish you were a

"No," she replied without
missing a beat.

”How about

 

 

 

Figure A14.

An example of a

feminist joke.

SOURCE:

Psychology Today

January, 1979.

 

CATHYByCATHYGUBEWHE

 

l FANTASTIC PRESENTATIOA),
I CATHY comeRATuLATmns!

 

 

 

Figure A15.
SOURCE:

you were onenl in THAT 1
meenue loom, CATHY.
eveawone was TALKING

ABOUT 11! .

Detroit Free Press

TA 0A!
TA oA!!

      

 

 

 

I we BRILLIANT AT
THE OFFICE room,
HDMEV.

 

    

 

An example of the comic strip "Cathy."

March 14, 1980.

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B
A LIST OF THE MAGAZINES USED IN THIS STUDY

1950 1955
GENERAL Saturday Evening Post Rotarian
MEN'S Argosy True
WOMEN'S Women's Home Companion Ladies Home Journal
1960 1965
GENERAL Look New Yorker
MEN'S . Playboy Esquire
WOMEN'S McCalls Family Circle
1970 1975
GENERAL Elks Saturday Review
MEN'S Penthouse Playboy
WOMEN'S Good Housekeeping Ladies Home Journal

64

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

TABLES WITH DATA BY SUBCATEGORY

TABLE C1

The Percent of Cartoons Coded in the Conflict and Social
Control Humor Subcategories

 

Humor Category

 

 

Percentages
Conflict Social Control
Fighting Liberated Traditional Women R1d3$U]e
Back Views Use Stereotyped ”Libbers"
Frequency
of
cartoons
by
subcategory 60 24 65 348 54
Percent of
subcategory .40 .l6 .44 .87 .l3
Percent
of total .05 .02 .05 .27 .04

 

 

 

65

66

TABLE C2

The Percent of Cartoons Coded in the Conflict and Social
Control Humor Subcategories by Five Year Intervals

 

 

 

Humor Category
Year
Conflict Social Control
Fighting Traditional Liberated Women Rid3$UIe
Back Use Views Stereotyped "Libbers"
1950 5.6 l.4 7.4 26.9 6.5
1955 6.5 .9 ll.6 27.8 l.9
1960 3.7 .5 3.7 37.0 3.2
1965 4.2 4.2 3.2 29.2 --
1970 4.6 2.8 .9 24.5 3.7
1975 4.6 l.9 2.8 l6.7 8.8

 

 

 

67

 

 

 

 

 

om OF N mm mm m mm m _P mnmfi
NV m_ m cw mm m we m_ m Omaa
we om m mm m o mN mm m mama
mm mm PP cm mm m we cm N ommfi
om mp v we mm w ON ON mm mmmfi
mm mm m om mp v mm mm up ommfi
efimwm _ammm ...w........m .fimmw 23m 4%
Fmgmcmw m.:m: m.:mEos
me>

accumumu mcw~mmmz

 

 

mpm>cmu:_ me> m>wd >5 xgommumu Loss:
comm cw mm umuou mm:_~mmmz cw mzoougmu mo “smegma och

mu u4m<h

68

TABLE C4

The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded as in the Conflict
and Social Control Humor Subcategories by Five Year Intervals

 

Humor Categories

 

 

Magazine
category Conflict Social Control
Fighting Liberated Traditional women R‘dlgu‘e
Back Views Use Stereotyped "Ligbers”

GENERAL
1955 -- __ 4 I8 --
1960 2 __ 8 26 2
1965 2 2 4 20 _-
1975 -- 2 __ 6 2

MEN'S
1950 2 _- 2 8 10
1955 -- __ 2 28 --
1960 4 __ __ 30 2
1965 2 6 __ 6 _-
1970 -- __ __ 18 2
1975 2 __ 4 22 14

WOMEN'S
1950 4 __ 12 22 4
1955 6 2 20 16 4
1960 -- ,_ __ 20 4
1965 4 2 2 36 --
1970 2 4 __ 14 4
1975 5 2 2 6 2

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D
TABLES WITHOUT DISAGREES

TABLE D1

The Percent of Cartoons Coded in Each Humor Category
and the Divorce Rate by Five Year Intervals--Without Disagrees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Humor Category and Divorce Rate
Percent Percent of Percent of
of Social Social Divorce
Conflict Control Disregard Rate
Humor Humor Humor
1950 ll.5 34.6 53.9 2.6
1955 l7.8 29.8 52.4 2.3
1960 5.7 41.4 52.9 2.2
1965 ll.3 29.2 59.4 2.5
1970 6.5 28.0 65.5 3.5
1975 8.6 24.8 66.7 4.9
TABLE DZ
Pearson's R's for the Percent of Cartoons Coded in Each Humor
Category and the Divorce Rate-~Without Disagrees
Humor Category
Conflict Social Control Social Disregard
r -.69 -.40 +.59

 

 

 

 

69

70

TABLE D3

The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded
as in Each Humor Category—-Without Disagrees

 

Humor Category

Magazine Category

 

 

 

 

 

General Women's Men's

Conflict 9.6 l6.4 4.8

Social Control 28.l 3l.9 34.0

Social Disregard 62.3 5l.7 61.2
TABLE 04

The Percent of Cartoons Coded in the Conflict and Social
Control Humor Subcategories--Without Disagrees

 

 

 

Humor Category
Percentages
Conflict Social Control
Fighting Liberated Traditional Women R1d3$UIe
Back Vlews Use Stereotyped "Libbers"
Frequency
of cartoons
by
subcategory 42 24 64 336 52
Percent of
subcategory .33 .18 .49 .87 .13
Percent
of total .03 .02 .05 .27 .04

 

 

 

 

71

TABLE 05

The Percent of Cartoons coded in the Conflict and Social Control
Humor Subcategories by Five Year Intervals--Without Disagrees

 

 

 

Humor Category
Year
Conflict Social Control
Fighting Traditional Liberated Women Rid;%U]e
Back Use Vlews Stereotyped "Libbers"
1950 3.8 -- 7.7 27.9 6.7
1955 5.3 l.0 ll.5 27.9 l.9
1960 1.9 -- 3.8 38.0 3.4
1965 3.8 4.2 3.3 29.2 ~-
1970 2.5 3.0 l.0 24.0 4.0
1975 3.8 1.9 2.9 16.2 8.6

 

 

 

72

 

 

 

 

Nm m op mN mm m cm m N mmmfi
ow my 0 we ON in we mp o Omma
wN mm m cm m m we 0N w momfl
0v «N ll em Nm V cm wN o— coma
m— ON mN Ne mN N Cm m_ c mmmfi
mN mN op om w— v em ¢N m ommfi
afifi _mwww gamma... _amm 2.3... 3%
m . Ems—03 m . cw: . Fmmemw
me>

 

xgommumo mcw~momz

 

 

mmmcmmmwo uzcspmzuim~m>gmucm me> m>_d mm Acommamu Loss:

zoom cw ma umuou mm=m~mmmz cw mcoopgmu we acougma use

on m4m<H

73

TABLE D7

The Percent of Cartoons in Magazines Coded as in
The Conflict and SocialControlHumor Subcategories
By Five Year Intervals--Without Disagrees

 

 

 

Magazine Humor Category
categ°ry Conflict Social Control
Fighting Liberated Traditional Women R1d;§U]e
Back Views Use Stereotyped "Libbers"
Women's
1950 4 - l2 22 4
1955 6 2 20 l6 4
1960 - - - 20 4
1965 4 2 2 36 -
1970 2 4 - l4 4
1975 6 2 2 6 2
Men's
1950 2 - 2 8 10
1955 - — 2 28 -
1960 4 - - 30
1965 2 6 - 6 -
1970 - - - 18 2
1975 2 - 4 22 l4
General
1950 4 2 2 24 -
1955 - - 4 l8 -
1960 2 - 8 26 2
1965 2 2 4 20 -
1970 2 2 2 l6 2
1975 - 2 - 6 2

 

 

 

"ITITTIIITTTTITTTITT