Are we setting the bar for offence too low?

EVERYONE can be offended by something — even a much-loved meme — and that’s precisely why we need to lighten up about it, writes James Morrow.

If you’ve spent any time near the internet this past year, you’ve probably seen the “distracted boyfriend meme”.

It’s the one where a guy is turning his head to leer at a passing young woman while his girlfriend glares at him with anger and dismay.

With the right labels, it’s a great vehicle for illustrating the fickle nature of humanity in any area of life.

Thus bookworms share versions in which they self-identify as the boyfriend, labelling the fellow “me”, the girlfriend “the books I have on my reading stack”, and the other girl as “new books at the bookstore.”

Lazy types post a version where they’re the boyfriend, “adult responsibilities” the girlfriend, and “naps” the passing fancy.

And I’ve always been fond of version of the meme where the aggrieved girlfriend is tagged as “capitalism”, the boyfriend is “Millennials”, and the new pretty young thing is “socialism.”

All of us who share these things think the jokes hilarious. But they’re not, so stop laughing.

Despite being a popular viral sensation, Sweden has labelled the 'distracted boyfriend' meme as sexist and inappropriate. Picture: supplied

You see, according to Sweden’s Advertising Ombudsman, a local internet service provider’s use of the meme with the passing girl as a gig with them and the angry girlfriend standing for “your current job” is terrible, horrible, very sexist, and stereotypical as a plate of meatballs at Ikea.

Not, mind you, because the ad makes men look like slavering idiots with the loyalty of a house cat who’s just received a better offer.

Rather, the Swedes — who once upon a time had a reputation for sexual liberation — said the ad was “degrading”, and “portrays women as interchangeable objects, and that only their appearance is interesting.”

Of course, while it’s easy to laugh at this Swedish humourlessness, we’re hardly any better in Australia when it comes to giving unelected bodies the veto over free speech.

In recent years we’ve seen plenty of ads come under the censors’ scrutiny: A few months ago, a pork advertisement touting the health benefits of the meat came under fire for a spot in which an elderly lady tells her hard-of-hearing husband the doctor said “we should pork more often” (predictable spit-takes ensue).

Last year the Advertising Standards Board declared Meat and Livestock Australia’s annual lamb ad comprehensively cooked thanks to its portrayal of different religions’ deities all coming together over a roast. And they didn’t even get Mohammed to the table!

Last year the Advertising Standards Board declared a lamb ad offensive due to its portrayal of revered Hindu God Ganesh. Picture: Meat and Livestock Australia

And it’s not just the ASB that is playing speech police.

A few weeks ago the Administrative Appeals Tribunal took a break from its usual role standing between convicted criminals and deportation orders to smack down on an ex-soldier looking to open a cafe in Brisbane.

The problem is that the would-be entrepreneur, Peter Coster, wanted to use the same name as a California-based egg cafe chain, which goes by the name “Eggslut”.

Apparently this name, which passed muster in ultra-PC California, was too much for Australia, with the tribunal’s deputy president declaring that it had “something to offend almost everyone.”

Which may be true, though perhaps that’s the problem.

If everyone can be offended by something, than perhaps we’re setting the bar for offence — which really should be an emotion rarely experienced — far too low.

No one has a monopoly on being offended, which hasn’t stopped people from trying to corner the market.

Which suggests perhaps we should stop making taking offence so valuable.

James Morrow is Opinion Editor of The Daily Telegraph.

@pwafork

Originally published as Are we setting the bar for offence too low?