Fuck your ladylike, you’re just as bad as him but w/ a different vocabulary. I realize you’re playing some persona and you’re in a basement apartment laughing, typing w/ one hand while you two-finger jerk it w/ the other over our hatred of you. But even though they’re fake your misogynistic posts contribute to the overall sexist problems of this board and the internet in general. You don’t want to be the change the world needs, you’re a self-involved pissant who’s no good for anything but worm food some day.
Reminds me of a story I read about Golda Meir. There was a high-profile string of rapes happening, and her cabinet was trying to figure out what to do about it. One of the ministers suggested that women stay indoors after dark. Meir, who was the only woman in the room, said, “I don’t understand. Men are committing the rapes. Men are the ones who shouldn’t be allowed out at night.”
It’s true. I used to believe in all that equality nd women’s lib crap, but after reading just one octopus post I decided to turn all that around. I now have very different (if that’s the right word) ideas about wimmins and their place in the world. Thank the gollies I can point to ocotopus whenever anyone asks me what the hell’s wrong with me. 
That’s some dark and depressing thoughts you have there. And if you are going to flame me I’d appreciate you not using internet shorthand. The lack of effort is insulting.
Did you skim over my post or do you just not know what contribute means?
You honestly think I care what you appreciate?
I think you do. And I also don’t think you really think I’m misogynistic and that your selective outrage, I notice no one is outraged by child rape jokes, is mere virtue signaling for the “in crowd.”
There was no “internet shorthand” in the post you quoted, Gramps.
I don’t know where you’re getting that claim, but it appears to be falsified in her own published autobiography:
So yes, Barrows was a worker in the escort business (and is that appallingly exploitative boss part of what you consider “civilized circles”?) before she set up an escort business of her own.
A standard dictionary definition of the word “pimp” is “a man who controls prostitutes and arranges clients for them, taking a percentage of their earnings in return”. Standard dictionary synonyms for “pimp” include “procuress”, “brothel-keeper”, and “madam”. So yes, apart from happening to be a woman rather than a man, Barrows was definitely a pimp “in the commonly understood meaning of the word”.
What’s “silly” about pointing out that it doesn’t enhance one’s quality of life when an ordinary act like walking to one’s own car at one’s own workplace after dark is treated as too risky to venture upon unaccompanied?
If you or any of your male co-workers were encouraged to believe that you needed to be walked to your cars after dark for your own safety, and that you shouldn’t just walk out the door independently whenever you’re ready to leave but should “dally around waiting to get [your walker’s] attention to let [them] know [you’re] leaving”, I very much doubt you’d think your quality of life was improved by that irksome restriction.
As I said, why not try supervising the behavior of men around your workplace (i.e., the ones allegedly “posing a potential threat” in your parking lot) after dark, instead of trying to persuade your female co-workers that they need a safety escort? You police the parking lot to keep out the “random criminal element”, and allow the law-abiding women the genuine freedom of being able to walk to their cars by themselves in safety whenever they damn well please.
Well, if you did think about it for a change instead of hardly thinking, it would be clear to you that it is restrictive of women’s behavior when walking unaccompanied to their cars at the end of their workday is treated as risky and unsafe. And expecting women to accept a safety escort so they don’t walk unaccompanied, rather than making the parking area secure from “criminal elements” who “pose a potential threat”, is supervising their behavior.
No matter how social and pleasant your colleague-escorting excursions may be, if you are trying to persuade women that it’s too risky for them to walk to their cars unaccompanied after dark, and that the solution is for them to depend on you to accompany them, then you are promoting restrictive supervision of law-abiding women’s behavior as a safeguard against potential criminal behavior by men.
Restrictive supervision of the actions of people who haven’t done anything wrong is not something that actually makes their lives better. Making their workplace safer so they’d have the freedom to walk to their cars unaccompanied whenever they want, just as you do, would make their lives better.
But that would be an unglamorous pragmatic approach that would not give you opportunities to exhibit your “chivalry” and indulge in “pleasant chit-chat” with your young female co-workers. Like most men who advocate “chivalrous” behavior towards women, what you’re after is a situation that allows you to show off for female attention and deference, rather than a situation that genuinely improves security and autonomy for women.
Kimstu, you rock.
Seconding their rockness.
And obviously, not Ohio State coaches.
Do schools even still have hall lockers?
Yep. Lots. It’s the first route the school takes the dogs on.
[curtseys to Sunny Daze and Nawth Chucka in a ladylike manner]
Thirded.
Looks like there’s a new quoteabove the lockers. So that’s good news.
Warning- do not read the replies.
You said:
This indicates to me that you think her former employment as a ‘sex worker’ would increase her susceptibility to sexual harassment. If you didn’t intend to intimate that her imagined call girl looks were the reason for that, I’d like to know just what it would be about the work she did on a telephone that would account for this increased risk.
It’s clear you meant to cast her as a former call girl when you originally referred to her as a sex worker. Clearly the description is apt when talking about the work she did behind the scenes in her business, but it fails in accounting for her supposed increased risk of sexual harassment.
By “commonly understood”, I presume you mean by those having a dictionary handy and disposed to look it up.
I submit that if we were to stop 100 people on the street and ask them to describe people known as pimps, and I were to take $1 for every one who offers a description other than the ones you list, and you were to take $1 for each one who answers with one of your dictionary definitions, at the end of our experiment I will have either $100 or very close to it, and you will have either nothing or very little.
Thus I disagree that your use of the term pimp was meant to convey the image of someone who works behind the scenes on the telephone in order to facilitate voluntary rendezvous between call girls and their clients.
Two things. First, no claim was made that such risk enhances the quality of one’s life.
Second, the term “quality of life” means just that - the quality of life as one lives it. It is not defined by individual moments of risk any more than it’s defined by individual moments of annoyance or frustration.
When one moves through life with self-respect, poise, and confidence, and treated respectfully, cheerfully and pleasantly by most of those with whom one comes into contact, it may properly be said that they enjoy quite an enhanced quality of life, even if obvious risks in life still need to be taken into account.
I doubt very much that I’d think of it as a quality of life issue in the first place. I’d be more inclined to think of it as a sensible risk aversion technique.
And for what it’s worth, I’ve been known to accompany guys who were leaving if the hour happened to be exceptionally late.
I’ll grant that I misunderstood what you meant by “the behavior of men around your workplace”. I mistakenly thought you were referring to fellow employees.
With regard to supervising the behavior of men around my workplace or the random criminal element, this is not possible, for at least two reasons. First and foremost is the fact that they have yet to make an appearance. Most men of the type inclined to abduct random women from business parking lots late at night are opportunists who act mostly on impulse.
So there’s no need to ‘police’ the parking lot to chase off would-be bad guys, as they simply aren’t there unless and until the opportunity presents itself.
Bullshit.
Life presents risks. Intelligent and sensible people take steps to minimize those risks when they can. These women I work with aren’t ‘expected’ to accept my accompaniment to their cars. I offer and they can avail themselves of it or they can decline. So far all but one (ex military and confident of her ability to drive a man’s nose into his brain. I have no idea how she would accomplish this were he to have a gun) have accepted and eventually come to depend on it because they appreciate the extra feeling of safety it provides. The risk that anything would actually happen is quite low.
I should think not. Moronically claiming that walking someone to their car is supervising them doesn’t make anyone’s life better either. You might want to work on that, you’ve done it twice now.
As I said, the risk is low and my accompaniment is more of a courtesy than anything else. Our business shares its parking lot with several others, and it’s highly unlikely that all these companies are going to agree to take on the expense of fences and gates and security guards and lend the whole area the appearance of a concentration camp just so a few women who happen to leave late at night on occasion don’t wind up having some man ‘supervising’ them safely to their cars.
:rolleyes:
No, actually I like and care about the people I work with. I read about women being abducted from shopping mall and Walmart parking lots and I don’t want that to happen to them. So, when an occasion arises where they’ll be walking to their cars alone and in the dark, I offer to accompany them, as much for my own peace of mind as for their safety.
I realize you can’t grant any but negative or foolish or sexist motives to my actions because the young women involved respond positively to them and you can’t have that. So you concoct ridiculous assertions involving supervision and restrictions, etc., so as to grasp at some way to try to portray these women as being victimized even as they’re happily chatting about their lives while we walk to their car.
But as for myself, I’m encouraged to see that young women today seem to be ignorant of the reasons why men don’t treat them better and that they appreciate it when men do.
Absolutely spot on.
Obvious Troll white knighting for a madam in order to justify his trolling misogyny. Strange times.