I apologize for perpetuating this nonsense, but a couple of comments
here beg for public response, and the rest just pisses me off.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> 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.
My first reference to Angelina Jolie intentionally involved the most
overmarketed personality that immediately came to mind. I made an
off-hand comment regarding celebrity. That's not a problem.
In fact, most if not all of the women I call friends would have found it
amusing. Of them, some would probably have responded with vaguely crass
references to Angelina Jolie's looks -- certainly more blunt than
anything any of the men on this list have said.
You seem to assume that all women are shrinking violets that feel
violated and insulted any time a man makes mention of the attractiveness
of someone who makes a living based in part on her looks. You're wrong.
Completely aside from the "locker-room talk" I've heard from women
over the years in reference to people like Johnny Depp and Vin Diesel,
the single most Angelina Jolie obsessed person I've ever met was a
bisexual ex-girlfriend of mine. If she was an involved member of this
group, I'm sure she would have waded into this discussion to excoriate
you at length for being such a self-righteous jackass about this whole
matter.
>
> You haven't the faintest idea of what I was driving at.
> And that's just sad.
Actually, I know exactly what you were driving at, and I find it pathetic.
>
>>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.
I don't think any of us are using this as a pick-up line.
As for this being "offensive" to some women, I'm afraid I don't really
give a damn. There has been a grand total of one comment made that even
approached offensiveness in the joking about Angelina Jolie (not
commenting some of the offensive remarks you've made), and really, if
anyone was to take immediate offense at it without pausing to consider
whether they might be overreacting, my response would be to label this
person oversensitive and on the lookout for slights, like you. You,
clearly, are just BEGGING for a reason to be offended.
I am absolutely flabbergasted at your inane prattling on about this subject.
>
> It wasn't the mere mentioning of her.
> It was the entire set of assumptions and general BS with it.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions yourself, in thinking you know
what I (or anyone else) was thinking. Here's a hint: You don't. You
especially don't if all this crap you've been spewing wasn't some
elaborate joke in very poor taste.
>
> I especially loved the response to my post.
> I made some pointers and they were _totally_missed_!
No, they were discarded as being insipid and pointless.
>
> I personally love the insinuation that I believed Linux women could only be
> "ugly." Sigh. Man, that's just sad.
You suffer a serious, profound lack of reading comprehension. I don't
truly believe you think that. Rather, I was displaying my contempt for
your own assumptions about what anyone else meant by providing an
example of how the same nonsense approach to discussion could be applied
to you as well. The fact that you completely missed that in your zeal
to find some cause to champion, whether it wanted you or not, is
mind-boggling.
>
> But people will often do such, if they feel "rebuked."
> My post was _not_ a "rebuke," it was an "and you wonder why?" statement.
I, for one, didn't take it as any kind of real rebuke. I saw what you
were saying as some kind of bizarre cry for attention. I'm only sorry
that anyone has given any to you when you've done this crap.
>>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.
Others' fantasies are not for you to judge, whether they're applicable
in this case or not. They are not applicable in my case, but that's
irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The important, salient point here
is that different people desire different things, and it's not up to you
to decide that someone else's taste in women is to be shunned.
I wonder: If Angelina Jolie, by some odd stroke of luck, were to show up
at a meeting with a Thinkpad that had NetBSD dual-booting with Slackware
on it, and we showed her printouts of some of the things you've said in
this discussion while you were in the room -- would you be properly
chagrined? Would you be embarrassed at your own stupidity in slandering
someone that isn't even here? You've equated someone being attracted to
her with being a sad little man with a tiny little mind. Somehow, I
suspect that she'd disagree with that assessment, and though I doubt she
has anything much in common with me, and I haven't any interest in even
meeting the woman, I disagree with that assessement in her absence.
If anyone here has been offensive and demeaning to women, Bryan, it's
you. In your overblown opinion of your own wisdom, you've taken it upon
yourself to decide which women are worthy of being attracted to and
which women are not. I've got some ideas about where you can stick your
opinion.
>
> 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.
Let's see how many people you can offend or insult in one discussion.
None of this even applies to me, but I find myself offended by your
small-mindedness.
>
> 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?"
Example of WHAT? You fail to realize that, in a split-second decision,
Angelina Jolie might have been a perfectly good example of what I was
illustrating in my post. You apparently don't even understand what she
was brought up to exemplify.
>
> 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."
You're solving a problem that doesn't exist. For every woman you know
personally that would be offended (or "turned off", as you'd have it), I
could probably find two women that are friends of mine who would be
amused at the jokes. Women are not made from fine china. Most are as
emotionally sturdy as their male counterparts.
>
> 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!
Actually, you're making assumptions again, here. Many of the men on
this list are married, for crying out loud. I personally know of at
least two who are currently dating a woman in a monogamous relationship,
which is really saying something considering that I've only ever been to
three meetings, total, for SLUG and am only in contact with one
listmember through off-list means.
Your statement doesn't really apply to me, either, but I'll not be so
vulgar as to start discussing my sex life. Suffice to say that you
clearly don't have any clue what you're talking about.
> The problem was the statements, follow-ups and then ass-u-me'ptions.
The problem is, in this discussion, with your own assumptions.
By the way, that ass-u-me crap was cute the first time. It's getting
extremely old now, and making your mashed-together grammar even more
difficult to read. Please stop.
>
> 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!
Really? You think you know what other people are attracted to? Did you
ask? News flash: Sometimes, I think Angelina Jolie is somewhat
attractive. More often, I think she should never have gotten any
surgery. Most of the time, though, she looks more like a logo to me
than a woman. I made a joke, you nit. Get over it.
> 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.
Your judgmentalism astounds me.
> 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.
The response was intolerance for your own BS -- for your own inability
to separate a simple joke from a crusade that begs for your
interference. It wasn't emblematic of any suggestive or intolerant
behavior toward women. You're not even making mountains of molehills:
you're making mountains of poppy fields.
>
> 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.
Gawd, your self-satisfied sense of superiority is disgusting. If anyone
here should have trouble with women based on the example of this
discussion, it's you.
>>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.
Yes, you were. When you start insulting people on-list, you're picking
a fight. You're casting aspersions on the desirability, sex lives,
intelligence, attitudes, and perceptions of a great many people.
> I was laughing at the hypocracy of it.
Nice cover.
By the way, it's "hypocrisy". It's painful to see the word misspelled
over and over again, in exactly the same way, with such regularity and
reliability.
>
> I'm sure 95% of men will disagree with me.
> In fact, I'm sure 75% of those men will hate me for it.
You might be surprised at how many women would think this whole exercise
of yours absurd, laughable, and asinine in the extreme.
You might also be surprised at how few men "hate" you for anything. For
the most part, you're just finding ways to make people feel contempt for
you, or otherwise lose some measure of respect.
-- Chad ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 20:05:41 EDT