What is not sexual in everyday life? We can reinterpret every moment of our daily life through the language and behavior of gender, whether it’s the time we wake up, where we go, or what we wear. However, such a perception of a gendered space in everyday life will not reveal any particular distinctions. So what do we mean by a gendered language? And what forces are at play within this discourse? In fact, the question of gendered language in everyday life is related to different gender systems. By gender system, we mean a set of sexual relations and norms in a network of social relationships that reproduce a particular form of power discourse at the political level. Specifically, we will examine the dominant sexual norms in Iran, norms that are promoted and justified by various institutions (family, education, work, etc.) and are analyzed in connection with the mode of governance. In this text, we will explore the dualistic and extreme femininity and masculinity with the clear superiority of men,

“We all, according to our lifestyle and social environment, participate in everyday language jokes and innuendos directly, and depending on our social position, we have different experiences of the implications of everyday language. But how are language jokes used and what potential forces do they have to maintain or blur the boundaries of their conventions? How do severe gender inequalities manifest themselves in the complexity of language? How do individuals use this everyday language? Behind every joke, there is always an underlying issue, how can we recognize these problematic issues?”

In the first step, we must address how gender is expressed in everyday language. What do we mean by gendered language? The initial definition of gendering or sexism in everyday language refers to linguistic and behavioral indications that emphasize gender in a derogatory manner. In other words, sexism is any form of discrimination and inequality between individuals based on their sexual or gender differences. Gendering applies to both men and women, but in its initial meaning and based on historical oppression, it often refers to discrimination against women and sexual minorities. In this definition, we must examine the necessary mechanisms for reproducing gendering in everyday life (who is marginalized and with what mechanisms?). In this sense, socially accepted norms are constantly reproduced through everyday language functions and relying on traditional stereotypes. For example, jokes that directly imply sexual superiority or inferiority or represent gender issues as natural laws in language are manifestations of this issue. Therefore, we can claim that every sexual word carries forces of power. The power of men over women,

A significant part of this everyday discourse of gender operates in hidden ways in daily relationships and is not always tension-inducing, but rather a process of reproducing underlying assumptions and the “normalization” process within patterns of loving and respectful behavior. In other words, the speaker or carrier of gendered language is in itself a sign of the emergence of a voice or thought that has become ingrained in everyday behavior. Freud draws a parallel between the process of unconscious perception and humor, believing that we are constantly creating games and jokes with the same complex and unconscious mechanisms that we use in our dreams. In fact, language is the medium through which these mechanisms of subversion are formed in the context of daily relationships. Jokes are marginal notes in the personal history of individuals that unconsciously shape patterns of expression in everyday language. In a way, the interpretation of jokes in everyday language indirectly reflects the two-sidedness of cultural norms. If we rely on this initial psychoanalytic analysis, sexual taunts are

In addition, the diversity of discourses deviates our attention from their main axes. Discourses that appear to be against the dominant gender discourse, but in reality, with their reactive logic, they are responsible for neutralizing the ethics of sexuality and replacing it with a feminist discourse. The best example of this spectrum in Iranian society is the discourse dominant in the cinema of “Tahmineh Milani”, which represents a predetermined reactive formula against male dominance, portraying a specific image of women; aggressive, “independent” women who fight against gender stereotypes and demand a change in language instead of the dominant sexual system. In fact, the movement pattern of women in Milani’s cinema is an opposite response to the dominant discourse, a tit-for-tat against anything “masculine”. A mechanism that works with a mirror-like logic: whatever you say, you are! A feminist woman who protests against the dominant standards of beauty, but lacks her own standards, while being interested in “mascul

Most sexual jokes justify their biased slip by teaching “exception logic”, that is, that this “only” is just a joke, a proper justification for ignoring unintended implications. That’s why it’s difficult to hold a specific person accountable for telling a sexist joke or sending images on social media, the predetermined response to these protests is the common and popular phrase “it was just a joke”, which in an unspoken agreement ignores its ideological implications. Let’s separate the linguistic mechanisms that work with sexual innuendos from the speaker’s intention, and temporarily ignore the intentions of the speakers to clarify the issue of sexism, and consider each person as a loudspeaker for a specific force based on their social role. It is clear that the use of clichés is not necessarily in the direct interests of individuals, for example, to prove that household chores are the duty of women, it is not necessary to be a man, you can be in the biological position of a woman and create a cost-benefit

Why do sexual jokes, which are said in a hushed voice as a secret, lead to louder laughter? What makes us laugh? Why do we joke? Three theories have been proposed about humor, the reason for joking and laughing, in three theories: first, the theory of incongruity, which explains how the coexistence of incongruous elements can be funny, second, the relief theory, which claims that the main reason for our jokes is pressures and undesirable conditions that are expressed as jokes to relieve the anxiety caused by these tensions. And the third theory, the superiority/inferiority theory, which sees humor as arising from observing the suffering of others, causing a feeling of superiority in the person making the joke. All three of these theories consider humor as a reaction to the outside. A kind of creativity in the face of external conditions to change a specific situation in favor of another. Often, our jokes in everyday language show our agreement with a particular group against another, for example

Michel Billig, a British sociologist (2005), distinguishes between two types of humor: regulatory humor and rebellious humor. According to him, humor that reinforces the existing order by making fun of “deviant” behavior is considered regulatory humor. These types of humor often have a repressive quality. On the other hand, humor that challenges pre-established rules and patterns is labeled as rebellious or subversive humor. In this sense, the political aspect of humor is determined by its everyday expression, who is making the joke and what it is about. Additionally, Billig examines the possibility of humor being replaced or transformed; rebellious humor may turn into repressive humor as circumstances change. Therefore, we cannot determine the fate of a joke beforehand or outside of its context. Each joke must be analyzed in relation to its context in order to understand the driving forces behind it.

Sunderland (2007) proposes four strategies for reading gendered jokes: the first strategy for feminist readers is to openly reject any form of joke. The second strategy involves actively analyzing the jokes, while the third strategy involves the reader engaging with the joke in a critical manner while still enjoying it, perhaps becoming involved in a sarcastic exchange. In the fourth strategy, the reader approaches the jokes from a feminist perspective in order to reclaim them. It seems that the fourth strategy offers effective possibilities for examining jokes. By reclaiming jokes, we can highlight the mechanisms that are reproduced through jokes and entertainment. What becomes normalized, what gets pushed aside, and how this scene is set in motion. The necessity of a theory of reading jokes and engaging with alternative language is essential in addressing such concerns.

Gendered language reproduces a certain everyday discourse system. However, the complexity of the issue lies in the historical institutions that benefit from this normalization of language at a linguistic level. In other words, we are witnessing the reproduction of ideological matters on the surface of everyday language, an ideology that is in line with its corresponding political and economic trends, but at the same time carries the potential for contradictions in its logic.

Therefore, in examining gendering in everyday language, we witness the intersection of power and resistance. In jokes and everyday language, opposing forces are heard and due to the fluidity of daily routines, they are either hidden or revealed in other mechanisms and internalized by social actors. In fact, it is not the everyday language that produces gendering through linguistic connotations, but rather it is a gendered foundation that continuously reproduces specific gender roles and re-evaluates them within the realm of everyday speech.