[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Pan-users] Re: updated info
Re: [Pan-users] Re: updated info
Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:03:10 +1000
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 12:33:22 pm Alan Meyer wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > http://img341.imageshack.us/i/qsoladvertisementps2.jpg/
> > >
> > > OK, I can see both sides of that one. As a guy, it's amusing,
> > > but offensive as well, because I can empathize with women.
> > Why on earth would it be *offensive*? It's empowering. It's
> > about a woman who *doesn't* need to give sexual favours to keep
> > her job. ...
> For me, my problem is trying to establish a context in which the
> young woman would make the statement "Don't feel bad, our servers
> won't go down on you either."
That's not *her* response. The ad is about disappointment, and avoiding
it. Think of the sales rep saying "She won't go down on you? That's too
bad buddy, but don't worry about it, our servers are so good that
they'll take your mind off your disappointment and frustration. You
might be disappointed by your lack of success with her, but you'll
never be disappointed with our servers."
> It's hard to to think of a
> context in which her polite reply is nearly as empowering as
> something more like "F--K OFF YOU MORON!" If anything, I'd say
> the woman's polite response is evidence of her weak and
> subjugated position - even though it's not as weak and subjugated
> as your example of the Philipina housemaid in Kuwait.
[Aside: there are *far* worse places to be female and powerless than
Kuwait. The Kuwaitis are *almost* civilized.]
But I'm fascinated by your response. Why shouldn't the woman's reply be
polite? Do you think that a request for oral sex is so disgusting, so
shameful, that there is NO POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES where anything but an
angry reply is justified?
What speaks volumes about our culture's sexism is the immediate
assumption that the woman is subordinate to the presumed male reading
the ad. What gives us that impression? If it were a handsome,
well-groomed man, we wouldn't assume he was subordinate. He might be
the star sales rep, or the CEO. We look at the woman and immediately
assume she's the secretary or similar. Why do we assume a handsome,
well-groomed woman is the subordinate?
Perhaps she's the boss, and the reader is her underling who has
fantasies that he can never act on. Perhaps she is his Mistress (as
opposed to lower-case mistress), and it's his job to go down on her and
then go home frustrated. Perhaps they are equals and friends, and a
polite request was politely turned down. Or rudely turned down by
someone who had no reason to be rude. Or maybe she had every reason to
be rude. Who knows? The assumptions that we make says a lot about us,
but they're not the only possible assumptions.
For that matter, perhaps the reader is another woman, and the woman in
the ad turned her down because she's straight.
The ad is about avoiding frustration, and there are many different power
dynamics and relationships that can lead to frustration between people.
> > > But I can certainly see how it might have provoked the
> > > desired response from the (male) curly-haired-boss types it's
> > > obviously aimed at. But I'd not want my wife, daughter, or
> > > simply peer that happens to be female, to have to deal with
> > > that
> > Because you think so little of your wife, daughter and female
> > peers that you imagine that they can't cope with reminders that
> > life is sometimes unpleasant?
> My wife and my daughter can each handle any crap that's thrown at
> them. But I still wouldn't want crap to be thrown at them. I
> would still be pissed off at the thrower.
If I work for a bad, unpleasant, ignorant Pointy Haired Boss who
requires me to kiss butt and work long hours for low pay making crap
products, and I have to kiss butt to keep my job, and somebody sends me
a Dilbert cartoon, should I be offended by the cartoon? Should I be
offended by the person who sent the cartoon because it reminds me of my
lousy job and the fact that I have three kids and a sick wife and
unemployment is high so I don't dare quit to find a better job, but
must suck up endless frustration and humiliations every single day for
the good of my family?
If *men* are expected to HTFU (google it if you don't know it), and
women are as good as men, why should they be treated with kid gloves?
> I agree that humor is a wonderful human trait. But insult humor
> and humiliation humor don't fit in that category.
> Bullies think it's humorous when they humiliate someone. They
> laugh. Their friends laugh. When a kid on a playground makes a
> racist or sexist "joke" at the expense of another kid, everybody
> might laugh. If the butt of the joke looks embarrassed or
> ashamed or cries, that may cause the bullies to laugh even more.
> But that doesn't make it funny. It's still nasty and mean.
No. Laughing at the powerless reduces their power even further and leads
to inequality. Laughing at the powerful produces equality. Laughing at
former president George Bush for (allegedly) thinking they speak Latin
in Latin America (or Dan Quayle before him) levels the playing field a
tiny fraction. And even if it makes no practical difference, at least
it makes that inequality slightly easier to bear.
> By explicitly excluding men from the joke, as Stallman did, he
> has effectively said that he knows this wouldn't be funny if
> applied to him or his male friends. I can't think of any other
> reason why he only includes women among the "Emacs virgins". Can
Homophobia. If you include the possibility that Emacs virgins are male,
then it hints at the possibility of sexual relations between
Emacs "priests" like Stallman and male virgins, and in a homophobic
society like the USA, that would be unthinkable.
Not that I wish to single out the USA alone. There's plenty of
homophobia in the world, enough for everyone.
> Remember, criticism of this story was given to Stallman before.
> He knows that some people find it offensive. Yet he continues to
> tell the story and continues to only attack women in the story,
> not men. Where is the humor in that?
I don't think it's a particularly funny joke no matter how you look at
it. But neither is it offensive. Believe it or not, there are
*billions* of people in the world, of both sexes, who can't wait to
have their virginity taken away, and once it happens, they never miss
it for one second.
[Pan-users] Re: updated info, Zing, 2010/08/03
[Pan-users] changing your underscores; some old problems coming back (Re: updated info), SciFi, 2010/08/04
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: updated info - O.T., (continued)
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: updated info - O.T., Alan Meyer, 2010/08/05
- [Pan-users] Re: updated info - O.T., Duncan, 2010/08/05
- [Pan-users] Re: updated info - O.T., Petr Kovar, 2010/08/06
- [Pan-users] Re: updated info - O.T., Duncan, 2010/08/06
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: updated info - O.T., Travis, 2010/08/06
- [Pan-users] Re: updated info - O.T., Duncan, 2010/08/07
- [Pan-users] Re: updated info, Duncan, 2010/08/05
- [Pan-users] Re: updated info, Petr Kovar, 2010/08/06
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: updated info, Steven D'Aprano, 2010/08/05
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: updated info, Alan Meyer, 2010/08/05
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: updated info,
Steven D'Aprano <=
- [Pan-users] Re: updated info, Duncan, 2010/08/06
- [Pan-users] Re: updated info, Zing, 2010/08/03