What drives me batshit are those commercials marketing Midol and other period products. In particular, I hate the one where three women are walking along the beach, and one says, “God, I would kill for a brownie,” and the other two go, “Oh, yeah. She’s menstrual.”
I mean, what the fuck!?! Since when do I have to be on my period to want a brownie? I want brownies most of the time. For that matter, my husband does, too. Perhaps he’s on his period.
As far as the previous thread, I don’t know - most of it seems fairly harmless to me. And, as a woman, I can honestly say that some of those stereotypes are true, at least about me. I think the stereotype that bugs me the most is the PMS/period one. I don’t like that men assume that women must have to be hormonally imbalanced in some way to experience a bad mood. Why can’t I just have a regular, shitty day like a guy can? Why do I have to be on the verge of or in the process of bleeding? Also, assuming that I must be on my period to be cranky assumes that I’m happy and chirpy all the other three weeks out of the month. That’s far from true - I’ve got ups and downs like everyone else that are completely unrelated to menstruation.
Guess a little bit of turnaround from all those commercials where the man is too much of an idiot to do laundry, feed the kids, or keep the house neat while the woman is in bed with the flu really pisses you off?
Well, now you get to see how the other half lives. How the dads who see the Verizon commercial where the mother and daughter gleefully hug over their new phones but back off quickly when dad suggests a group hug and how the dad in the commercial for Internet service is treated when the mother steps in to chastise the dad for ‘bothering’ his daughter as she is so smartly using the Internet, which he can’t do because he’s a big buffoon feel.
Face it, men have been the butt of television commercial jokes for a long time, and this is just an example of the shoe being on the other foot.
Actually I think the term comes from the idea that blacks, being poor, did not have access to the specified tools or materials for a lot of jobs, and used a little ingenuity to make a workaround out of the parts and tools they did have. In other circles, we call it ‘MacGyvering’ a solution.
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Why couldn’t this have been in the other thread?<snip>QUOTE]
I registered my dissenting opinion of the other thread there; any more would have been too much for an MPSIMS thread, I believe.
catsix, did you notice in the OP where I stated a couple of times that this is about gender generalizations, not female generalizations? This thread isn’t about women-bashing; it’s about people making stupid, immature generalizations about the opposite sex.
I take that to mean that Idiot Husband doesn’t realize that automotive technology has changed in the last few decades and Strong Capable Woman is finding out the true facts about state of the art equipment available from Midas.
So what was the answer; was the husband right about what the car needed or was the woman right to doubt him?
catsix is right. Men are routinely portrayed as spectacular idiots. (Not that the portrayal of women is flattering, but I notice it more with men.)
aruvqan, for a good sarcastic measurement of a large volume, I use the term “metric shitload”.
How many miles to a gallon does your Fookin Car get? My first few cars were Fookin Cars. Fookin UpdaAhole and Fookin Tookme4aRide.
Back on topic:
I like playing up to the stereotype of Women This-Men That. Inciting mass chaos and general insurrection amongst the sexes is age-old and must be up held. Men get all primate-knuckle dragging defensive throwing surly looks and just about go into chest beating mode and women get their panties in a wad. Really, it’s like a hobby. No one is ever called stupid or dumb. It’s making fun of behavioral patterns: societal and inherited. Jane Goodall the slut studies Apes. I study humans. (Yuppious Starbuckus) Loads of research work, not enough funding.
IMHO, if you are offended when it is meant to be a joke ( not all jokes go off with a Boom. Some just go thud.) then maybe your sense of humor is more incline towards a touchy knee jerk reaction.
We all do have our hot button topics that we go apeshit over for whatever reason, known and unknown. If you were particularly annoyed by my sexist generalizations I made about Men/women. I would stop and start making fun of dogs and cats or something. If you made a really tasteless joke about a mushroom, gnome and a rabbi and it bothered me because my father is Rabbi Gnome whose hobby is growing mushrooms, I would expect you to cease and desist all jokes down that avenue. It is just common Humor Courtesy in a One-on-One Situation. In a crowd setting, (Zone Defense Best handled with rapid fire molotov’s) I fear the uncomfortable person is probably SOL and has the option to leave, go into their mental happy place or stand up and say something and be berated for being On The Rag.
Now, I am the first person to point out that Oriental or colored are passe and not PC to the standard slackjawed masses. I judge not on the color of skin or what they worship or vote. But if I can’t make fun of wimmen being so fooking my new favorite word moody and Men who are controlled by their hanging brain… that is just wrong.
And, by the way, if you are a man reading this: It is all your fault.
You said that all stereotypes have a kernel of truth. Truth. I’m looking for where this “truth” is.
For there to be “truth” in a stereotype, it has to be more true about the stereotyped group than it is about the rest of the population.
Let’s say I claim: “People named Julie are lazy.”
Well, I can point to one Julie, me, and claim that there’s a “kernel of truth” to what I’m saying. But how silly it would be for me to defend my statement by saying, “Well, there is that one Julie and she’s awful slothful.”
Finding one example, saying it’s not even representative, and then claiming that it’s the “kernel of truth” behind the stereotype is ridiculous.
In other words, the only “kernel of truth” is that workers in the same situation would have the same results–that the resulting work was not a factor of race at all, but a factor of the work. The appropriate term would be “helper rigging” since it’s the type of work that would be done by their help, regardless of race.
Even in your defense of the truth of stereotypes you’re unable to come up with a stereotype that’s truthful. That’s sad.
And considering you have to defend every stereotype because you said that all stereotypes contain truth, I’m not too impressed with your argument.
Though I’m interested to see how you come back and redefine “truth” now. Perhaps if anything could ever have been said about anyone who was ever considered a member of any group at any time then a generalization can be made that has a “kernel of truth”? Pretty clever, considering that I don’t think you can name an activity or trait that hasn’t been done or carried by at least one member of any given group, unless you include things like giving birth.
I am aware of that. I brought up this example because it seems far more routine, and acceptable, to society to paint men as blubbering idiots in sitcoms and commercials than it does to paint women as the same.
A couple of commercials do so about women, and it gets a reaction, but dozens of them make unflattering generalizations about men and people what, just don’t notice?
I wonder why it is that until it’s something that’s less than kind to women, most people just don’t say anything?
I agree that this is happening. I notice, my husband notices; I just wish the braniacs making the commercials and sitcoms would notice that turning the stereotypes around so that men are being humiliated is no better than doing it to women. In my opinion, people accepting this double-standard and perpetuating it are part of the problem.
Says who? I don’t recall hearing that. “[insert racial group here] are a bunch of lazy slackers” doesn’t preclude any OTHER group from being lazy slackers.
To bring it back to the current example, Rednecks ‘rig’ too. But heck, Trailer trash is just another gross generalization. I’m sure you can find an example or two that are Ivy League trained.
You’ll not find me arguing that.
How wonderfully PC of you. If you haven’t noticed yet, the group of people making the ‘rigging’ generalizations aren’t exactly the most progressive.
I wasn’t aware this was a contest, and I’m sorry if I’m making you sad.
Where’d we leap from ‘give me an example’ to ‘defend every stereotype’? I wasn’t aware the burden of proof for all generalizations was mine. And In my given example, giving anything more than anecdotal evidence is pretty near impossible.
Having read your reply several times, I’m going to rephrase the statement you’re having the most disagreement with.
[/quote=Unintentionally Blank]
Stereotypes aren’t true…except when they are. Face it, if there weren’t a {Edit:perceived } kernel of truth, there wouldn’t BE a stereotype.
The object is to see beyond them when necessary, and be aware of their existence – also when necessary.
[/quote]
nice of you to grab on to ‘kernel of truth’ with both hands and neglect the second sentence entirely.
Since you were the one claiming that stereotypes were true, I think it would be pretty reasonable for you to show how stereotypes are true.
By the way, I didn’t say “Give me an example.” I wanted (and would still want if you were still defending the proposition) a specific accounting of the ways that racial stereotypes are true. Not how some of them might be true, but how stereotypes are true–which was your original assertion.
But now you’ve stuck a “perceived” in there. That statement, honestly, says:
“People believe in stereotypes because people believe stereotypes are true.”
Not excessively useful, but you aren’t saying anything offensive with it, either, unlike your original statement.
Technical Explanation: A wee bit. A very short distance. It is red not because many men are fascinated by red pubic hair, though they are, but because it gives the original unit of measure, the cunt hair, a bit more perceived precision and because red ones are more exotic, and possibly finer (though a representative sample will need to be provided for proper testing), than standard black cunt hairs.
I have never heard “nigger rigged” to mean anything but second-rate, sloppy work and my The Cassell Dictionary of Slang agrees. (Hey! It doesn’t have “polacky,” another word that can mean the same thing.)
My Bad. I spent so much time trying to distance myself from the racist aspect of my example that I missed the overall statement. I do NOT think racial stereotypes are true. By extension, stereotypes based on gender, financial standing, religion, or underwear preference are equally suspect. But much of the OP concerns humor. Unfortunately stereotypes used as humor rely on that ‘perceived truth’.
My grandfather did not use it to mean second rate, but rather unorthodox. My mother used the term afro-engineering. To qualify it had to work as well or better than the orthodox solution and be cheaper.
Well, red head-hairs are the coarsest kind, if I remember rightly. So red cunt-hairs might be the coarsest kind too, which sort of screws the expression, doesn’t it?
