The jokes I mentioned are funny because it alludes to men being rapists and child molesters. E.g. the joke about me abusing my girlfriend wouldn't be funny if there wasn't the stereotype of men as abusers.
I get that, but I don't think you see the distinction I'm making, and it's pretty important.
The defining characteristic of privilege is not necessarily that you are judged more favorably, but that you are judged on the basis of your behavior, rather than on the basis of your group membership.
The situations you point out are about mocking behavior, not groups. Your friend said something about a young girl, so you make fun of him for being a pedophile. Your girlfriend happens to have a black eye, so you get jokingly accused of abusing her. The humor is rooted in your specific circumstance rather than in prejudice. Yes, they are only funny because the stereotypes exist, but they are still jokes about the individual rather than the stereotype.
Contrast this with a "joke" like, just off the top of my head:
Q: What do you call a man who hasn't raped anyone?
A: A virgin.
...which is more the sort of thing I'm talking about.
> The defining characteristic of privilege is not necessarily that you are judged more favorably, but that you are judged on the basis of your behavior, rather than on the basis of your group membership.
That's a good point.
> The situations you point out are about mocking behavior, not groups. Your friend said something about a young girl, so you make fun of him for being a pedophile. Your girlfriend happens to have a black eye, so you get jokingly accused of abusing her.
I think there are elements of both. For example, if a female friend had said something about Harry, it wouldn't have the same impact, humor-wise, to imply she was a pedophile. The joke depends heavily on making the connection between innocuous individual behavior and the stereotypical behavior of the group. I suppose the equivalent for women would be "that time of the month" jokes. They're usually making fun of an individual, but rely on connecting individual behavior to the stereotypical behavior of the group.
That said, I think there is a spectrum of purity in such jokes. "Duke guys are rapists" jokes, for example, focus less on individual behavior and more on group membership, at two levels (Duke student, man).
It's strange; I feel like I would be offended by that joke if anybody whose opinion I care about took it seriously, but since they don't, I'm just puzzled by how pointlessly counterfactual it seems.
The jokes don't rely on the fact or imply that most men are abusers of women. The jokes rely on the listener associating the behavior in question with the stereotypical behavior of the group.
E.g. most Catholics do not have dozens of children, but the behavior is associated with that group enough such that a joke can rely on the listener making that association.
I think stereotypes imply the characteristic to be common. In your example, I think the stereotype is that Catholics have large families (which I believe was true at one point), and the dozens is exaggeration for effect.
The characteristic need not be common, just easily associated.
See the study here for rape and sexual abuse statistics: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault.... Even if we limit "rape" to situations involving violence and the threats of violence,[1] the study found about 1.3% of the college students questioned admitted to acts that met the definition of rape, and 1.1% admitted to acts that met the definition of sexual abuse of a child.
Now, for example, are even 1% of muslims terrorists? Almost certainly not, but the behavior is common enough that it is easily associated with the group, and readily supports many jokes relying on that association.
The relevant behavior does not need to be common, just common enough such that it is readily conjured up in the mind of the listener in response to the joke.
[1] If you include people who answered "yes" to the question of whether they had sex with someone who was "too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)" the number skyrockets to 6.4%.
If you include people who answered "yes" to the question of whether they had sex with someone who was "too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)" the number skyrockets to 6.4%.
Sadly, this study did not ask the question of what happens to that number if you reverse the genders. I have multiple male friends who meet the definition of rape victim -- but wouldn't dream of reporting it as such because they're in long term (and aside from the occasional misunderstanding, entirely consensual) relationships with their rapists.
