On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 15:19, Chad Perrin wrote:
> If you dislike it so much, perhaps you should not have turned a couple
> of off-hand jokes into a federal case.
"Federal case"? I merely pointed out your first post, and then the
subsequent follow-ups are _exactly_ the problem.
You haven't the faintest idea of what I was driving at.
And that's just sad.
I didn't say it was a list violation.
I didn't say I was offended.
I just merely laughed at the hypocracy of it all!
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:40, Paul M Foster wrote:
> Bryan, this was a joke. One that probably amused most of the list with
> its irony.
And that's the problem.
What is a joke is a "turn off" for others.
It wasn't the mere mentioning of her.
It was the entire set of assumptions and general BS with it.
I especially loved the response to my post.
I made some pointers and they were _totally_missed_!
I personally love the insinuation that I believed Linux women could only be
"ugly." Sigh. Man, that's just sad.
But people will often do such, if they feel "rebuked."
My post was _not_ a "rebuke," it was an "and you wonder why?" statement.
> Most of the people on this list are men. And a goodly portion of them
> are geeks. Like most men, and probably disproportionately geeks, they
> rarely find themselves paired with or even in the presence of someone of
> Jolie's looks.
Sigh, and many continue to ass-u-me what I meant.
I'm not going to even try to explain it, it was totally missed already.
> So it's a fantasy of sorts for them.
One that is not just sad, but paints a very poor picture for women who
see this sort of crap. The general "I desire this over-hyped charisma"
comment was bad enough to start. And that's what I was merely pointing
at.
Fixation on a charisma, especially over-exposed actresses who are childish,
just don't see it. Never really have, but in more recent years, I have
started to understand what _women_ see _of_ it. It's a big funny joke to
most of us guys. I would have been laughing 5+ years ago.
But now, when someone does it, I just say, "Hmmm, geez, and you wonder
why not many women are not associated with us?" It's not the joke, the
mention of a woman or anything else. It's all the crap in the statement,
the viewpoints and the general distain of anyone who says, "could you
pick a better example?"
And that's just scratching the surface. I would _love_ to take a
transcript of the thread, print it out, have each of us read it, and then
have at least 3 women state why such "jokes" only "turn them off." It's
_not_ about "rebuking," it's merely about "solving the problem."
Guys, I'm not here on my "high horse." I'm here stating, "this is why you
don't get the women!" Think about it!
> Most likely, if they did meet up with someone like that, they'd be
> simultaneously thrilled at their luck in meeting someone like that, and
> bored stiff by their lack of anything in common with such a woman. FWIW,
> I've been to a lot of meetings and never seen a woman of Jolie's looks
> show up, for _whatever_ reason.
I've been to trade shows, technical organizations and other very geeky
events where there are women who are far better looking, not there as
"hired" eye-candy either, but for their technical prowess.
I just feel for you guys, then realize where some of the problem is. ;->
That's what I was trying to share! Ugh, I think only reincarnation into
women will solve the problem for 95% of men. There's just no way I can
explain it to them, and God knows a woman can't either.
> There was no attempt to make draw any conclusions about women's looks
> and their intelligence or fields of interest. If people analyzed jokes
> that far, no one would ever laugh at anything.
The problem was the statements, follow-ups and then ass-u-me'ptions.
There's really no way I can explain it to you guys, and God knows women
try to explain it everyday.
It's more about the fascination with a particular woman, especially an
actress. But God knows women who are even more beautiful that buzz around
everyday, but unless she looks almost exactly like Ms. Jolie, or some other,
commonly quoted actress, you'd totally miss her!
Is it really "beauty"? Or just a familiarity of someone else's established
"charisma"? And that's the problem. The one that sets the _wrong_tone_
for 95% of the women I know. Guys, you only shoot yourself in the foot.
Hell, at least the comment on Asia had some actual intellect put into it.
Pornstar or not, she uses Linux. With a little deeper knowledge, you'd
find plenty of lesser know, but non-nude models. And not long after that,
you'd find some mega-hottie geeks around in the area.
Crap, I just met a sub-30 CEO in October that knocked me off my feet,
and God knows I was enchanted by the charisma of her technical and
professional achievements, and totally forgot about her stunning outer
beauty.
But no, let's "dumb it down." That's the worst thing you can do. The
joke isn't going to be funny to 95% of women, and that's going to scare
them off the list. Because women want intelligent men, not this, "I'm
fascinated with a particular, select charisma." One atop of a women who
is of a rather less "respectable" professional in general.
_That_ was my point. If you miss it, your loss. Nothing else.
> Yes, you obviously have some objection to the content of the joke, and
> that's unfortunate.
I did _not_ object to the joke, or the posts. I just said, "hey guys,
you just summed up _your_ problems in a just a few posts."
Then we go on with the discussion of Ms. Jolie's figure. Sigh. Maybe
I'm getting old. Maybe I've moved too far into lead/management roles,
as well as spent 4.5 months as a middle school teacher (if you want
to be confronted like you were a child molester by merely saying "hi"
to the kid of the wrong type of parent, become a teacher ;-), etc...,
but I've started to realize a _lot_ of women take issue with over the
past few years.
It wasn't the mention of Ms. Jolie. It was everything with it.
> Perhaps it does represent bad attitudes of men towards women.
> I doubt it, though.
It doesn't represent a "bad attitude." It merely represents a "poor
representation" of yourself. Again, I didn't come to this overnight.
I came to it over time. I started to realize not where the problem
is, but _what_exactly_ women take issue with.
It's not Ms. Jolie. It's not that men want women to be like her.
It's the series of suggestions, comments and non-stop intolerance.
Better yet, the response I received only worsened it all.
And made me realize there is simply _no_way_ to make my point in
a way that some men could even begin to understand. I probably
couldn't even make myself understand 5 years ago what I do today.
> My mother is quite intelligent and was considered a "hottie" when she
> was younger. My wife is one of the smartest women I've ever known.
> And both of them take particular glee in ganging up on me. ;-} So
> I consider myself as someone with a healthy attitude toward women.
> And I found the joke mildly amusing.
I don't anymore. I see the barrage of what women go through. I'm a
man, so I can't fully understand it first-hand, but when I look at
what I see second-hand, especially over the last few years, I can
accommodate it more.
> This joke was a long way from violating any list rules, and I don't
> think your diatribe convinced anyone to think twice about the way they
> view women.
Did I _suggest_ it was "violating any list rules"?
Please point out such?
I merely stated that some men wonder _why_ women aren't interested.
I saw it right there! And not for any reason I could even get many
here to understand.
And that's _your_ loss. That's all I said!
> Really, Bryan, you gotta loosen up. If you're gonna pick a fight about
> something, this isn't it.
I wasn't picking a fight.
I was laughing at the hypocracy of it.
I'm sure 95% of men will disagree with me.
In fact, I'm sure 75% of those men will hate me for it.
But I won't lose a wink of sleep.
And I'm really learning to hate my sex over the last few years.
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 15:51, Robert Foxworth wrote:
> Not me. My feeling is that if YOU are offended thn it is YOUR problem.
> Despite that, I agree with David.
I don't think I _ever_ said *I* was "offended."
And I didn't even really state that _women_ would be "offended."
I just offered the simple advise of "broaden your horizons."
I shouldn't have even bothered.
God, now someone's acting like I call it a "list violation."
WTF?
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:05:35 EDT