Forums

Originally posted by mmm3587
This is fun...I just got a Jamba and was hoping something like this would be here for me to respond to while I languish on this call...

"I don't want to think you are a misogynist. I think your posts come across as misogynistic. When you reduce a woman to her parts -- great tits and stomach, haggard face without caked on makeup -- you don't seem like a man who loves women. Haggard is a really nasty, loaded thing to say about a woman, and given how smart you think you are, you should know that."

This is a joke, right? Half the discussion around here is around which body parts look good on which people. The woman in question is attractive; haggard is obviously an exaggeration. If it wasn't, so what? She posed half naked in a lad mag, and she wore revealing clothing in the last episode. Some objective discussion of here physical attributes is appropriate. This started by me appreciating how she looked. She does, like almost everyone, look much better on tv with a bunch of makeup on. Given all the blatant discussion here about how people look, you're calling _me_ out for discussing it. That's just bullshit. So is all this "you don't love women" crap. Just because I don't temper my statements around here about a woman who will ever see this doesn't mean I don't.

"Further, when you say there's an "appropriate line" for women in the workplace, you imply that there are different appropriate lines for women and men. We both know that there aren't. The line is between aggressive and abusive. The difference is that women are often perceived as having crossed that line earlier than men are -- by both men and women. As a result, they have to be more careful about it because they won't get the same results men would get."

Of course the line is always between agressive and abusive. However, society has different judgments about which behaviours cross the line for men and women. It's just like the line between "dresses inappropriately" and "dresses appropriately." Men and women are treated differently. The kinds of behaviour (or dress, but I digress) that get men in trouble might not get women in trouble, and vice versa

"I don't think it's unfair to criticize a woman who wants to succeed in business for failing to recognize that point. Your point was that the woman on the Apprentice was so far over the line that there could be no reasonable argument that people were judging her more harshly because she is a woman. That's a valid point. But don't be such a fucking pussy about it -- just call her a bitch and don't try to go all Alan Alda on our asses."

The label doesn't matter. She snapped at people when they questioned her; she couldn't explain herself without a fight every time. Contrast that to Kelly's behaviour; he was passive agressive and kind of a robot, but the times when it counted, in the boardroom and the interviews, he came across as reserved and staying above the fray, except when he made strong, measured statements like "I think that I did the best job and my record shows it." Jen could have done the same thing; that was the approach Amy took last season and it worked well for her. Boardroom reputation is clearly a major factor, and Jen also looked bad repeatedly beating up on Sandy when it was obvious Jen was the choice. Her behaviour was over the line for men and women; the fact that her behaviour could have been over the line for women but not men reflects problems with our society, not pronblems with me.

"And the mere fact that you have lamented sexism on the Apprentice doesn't mean that you don't have sexist attitudes. It's about as convincing as "How about that Denzel Washington? Great actor.""

Everyone has attitudes that can be classified perjoratively. The fact that you try so hard to classify my statements as sexist says more about the way you view the world, not the way I view it. Anyway, I think Denzel's kind of overrated. But, hey, way to call me a racist! I don't think anyone got that one!


"Finally, don't use impact as a fucking verb."

When you're actually having a substantive discussion, grammar flames are so fucking lame. Was it you that pointed out I had a subject/verb error with "none"? Why don't you address what I'm actually saying instead of creating all these strawmen and impugning my proofreading?

Mister Long Winded cannot quote Miss Paragraphs in a single post. While I am mainly sure that mostly nobody is reading this exchange, we all are at risk for carpal tunnel vision or whatever the fuck that pre-arthritic hand disease is called.