I have quite a bit to say on this topic. So much, in fact, that it seemed too gross of a hijack to place here. So go check out Is comedy possible without stereotypes? if you’re interested.
Agreed. I sometimes feel like I’m abnormal because I like being married, my husband and I like each other and treat each other with respect, and I like my MIL. How weird.
Good idea, WhyNot. I was wondering about that myself.
That was mighty white of you means, as far as I have always interpreted it as " That was really big of you to do that" but in a sarcastic manner. White meaning rich or superior (class or race) and taking the time out to help someone not worthy.
Keapon Laffin wrote:
Dear Mr. Gook chink Boy,
I have a few quesitons that I have always wanted to ask a member of your race:
-
What, exactly, is the origin of Gook?
-
What is the ancient chinese secret?
-
since I find chinese men hot: What are you wearing?
I thought “gook” came from American GIs in Korea, who, upon approaching Korean villagers, would hear them exclaim “Mi guk! Mi guk!”, which translates to “American”. Some mistakenly believed they villagers were saying “Me gook!”, as in “I am a gook”, and the term stuck.
Perhaps that’s what you think. But it’s very seldome what you SAY. And all we have to go on is your responses here in the threads. And they are overwhelmingly such that if anyone complains of ill-treatment towards women, you are Johnny-on-the-spot defending how much WORSE men have it.
What boycotts of women demeaning commercials have there been?
There ARE, hence threads like this. You know, titled and about GENDER generalizations? YOU are the one who started saying how much worse men have it. When, once again, NEITHER sex has it worse than the other.
I read everything you say, in each and every thread in which you pound your one note drum.
I see you the way you present yourself, when you present yourself as seeing both sides, rather than being one sided, I will most definitely realize that you do in fact see both sides. As it is, all we have to go on are your posts, and they are overwhelmingly slanted in the “men have it so much worse, and no one gets it” mode.
I don’t think you should “go away” at all. Just see and POST things from both sides, rather than constantly harping on the “men are so oppressed, no one stands up for them, you don’t see anyone boycotting etc on their behalf” mantra anytime anyone dares complain about bad treatment a woman might have gotten.
I’ve said it several times in this thread, and I said it in the thread that inspired this one.
I heard about many of them when I was a reader of the Ms. forums. The CWO (Campus Women’s Organization) at Pitt also did that and letter-writing campaigns against sexism aimed at women.
I was talking about a reaction beyond these forums. Out there, in the 3-D world. I don’t see too much of it out there.
Then you’ve got me all wrong. I don’t think men have it ‘so much worse.’ I just think that while people are out in that 3-D world caring about ending sexism against women, they should also be caring about ending sexism against men.
Well, we all have our own mantras. And the one time I did try to present you with an actual reference of fact, you ignored it. Two other people had to point you to the exact same cite before you would acknowledge that you’d even seen it let alone could be wrong.
No you haven’t.
Your very first post, #22 starts out with the very similar one-trick-pony refrain of:
Your snarky wording of “guess a little turnaround…etc” shows that you do NOT in fact think that both genders get hosed.
Post 22 is a quick “logically” worded slight lip service comment to a logical fallacy. Hardly the same as your empassioned defense of poor men in the previous post.
The rest of your posts in this thread are concentrated on the defense of men in commercials and how it’s so MUCH worse on them than it is on women.
In post 32 you continue this "men have it SO much worse by stating
Again, one note drum pounding, and incorrect as well. There are just as many “women are hormonal, ditzy, mechanically inept shopping addicts” type commercials as there are ones that target the supposed frailties of men.
Really? Cool. I heard Elvis was still alive, and that Bush was aided in the election by aliens. Care to give some hard data examples?
And you know that no one does this because? Ever heard of the men’s network, and damned if I can remember the name, but the organization that is fighting the unfairness of child support amounts? And you don’t know what people are doing on their own time to fight ignorance. I do it all the time. Just wrote a letter to Flonase for their IDIOTIC commercial about 3 months ago, and fight it IRL too. I’m just one, you don’t know what everyone else is also doing, so you can’t make this pronouncement.
Maybe I do, but again, all we have to go on are YOUR OWN WORDS here in the forum. And in just this thread alone, nevermind the dozens of other similar cases, you are overwhelmingly wordy and passionate on the men’s side, and make comments like “see how they feel” and so on. And you never let a comment about some women’s treatment in some situation go, or God forbid actually comment on that. No, you use it as an opportunity, as you did in your first post here, to basically say “see??? that’s what you get, serves you right, now you know how men feel”. etc.
The way you write, it’s as if you think one situation means the other can’t exist or something. That if someone shows sympathy for a woman’s plight, that that somehow mitigates that men’s plights exist.
WE KNOW. One doesn’t make the other disappear. We ARE aware of them even if we show sympathy to one sex at one point.
Umm huh? At one time you tried to present me with an actual reference etc? Care to cite this instance as well? Or are you talking of the time you were trying to use dystopic fiction, such as the Handmaid’s Tale, to support your views that feminists= feminazism?
Is it wrong that I’m getting turned on by this catfight?
Anyway, I can never seem to resist debunking this one:
Women have more accidents than men per mile driven, so statistically, women are indeed worse drivers than men. The actual numbers are (from memory) are that men crash once every 5.7 million miles driven, whereas women crash once every 5.1 million miles.
Mi guk (sorry, don’t know how to spell it properly in Korean) means ‘beautiful land,’ but you’re right about the rest of it.
I was stationed there, and some of the Koreans still say that when they talk about Americans. Usually the peasants living in the country, or the ones who escaped the North. Normal, citified South Koreans just call us Americans like everyone else.
How old does one need to be to have reached 5.1 million miles?
How offensive is it considered? I finally found some discussions of it elsewhere online after searching, and from what I could tell usually when it’s used it’s kind of a rip on the white guy.
Oh no, I was snarky in the Pit. God forbid!
I’m sorry that logic is a problem for you.
By my observation, when I watch TV, I see more commercials where men are the butt of the joke than I see where women are. Care to give more examples that it’s ‘just as often’ for women as men?
What, the CWO writing letters to companies whose ads used women as the butt of a joke or who advertised on a sitcom where women were ‘demeaned’ isn’t real?
Actually it was during a thread where you were barking at me and I presented you with a cite from the Straight Dope article by Cecil, when you pulled out the ‘rule of thumb’ myth and claimed that:
I sent you a link, via your published Yahoo! nickname, to Cecil’s article dispelling that urban legend, and you refused to acknowledge it saying that you had ‘a book’ that proved these laws existed.
I asked for help from Ms. Robyn and aesiron, and when aesiron gave you the link, you admitted your claim was wrong. Now do you remember that?
It was a neat little experiment to find out if the exact same cite coming from me would be rejected, yet accepted if it came from someone other than me. Turns out it was.
Point was, you claimed you were just as defending of the female gender generalizations as the male ones. You weren’t.
Regarding the rest. Way to ignore the main point, that is, that people ARE aware of the fact that there are gender biases against men, and that it is NOT necessary to come busting in everytime someone DARES complain about treatment of women in some circumstance to start pounding your “MEN have it WAY worse, now you know how THEY feel” drum. That complaining about something done wrong against a woman is NOT the same as ignoring things that happen to men.
Again, we KNOW, and other than the psycho feminazis from the feminist boards (and why do you hang out there anyway?), people DO fight this kind of ignorance in real life…
[quote]
Actually it was during a thread where you were barking at me and I presented you with a cite from the Straight Dope article by Cecil, when you pulled out the ‘rule of thumb’ myth and claimed that:
I sent you a link, via your published Yahoo! nickname, to Cecil’s article dispelling that urban legend, and you refused to acknowledge it saying that you had ‘a book’ that proved these laws existed
[quote]
Your “link” was to the very same thread where [aiseron** had already posted, and which I answered her immediately.
You then ignored my acknowledgment of such when I posted in YIM. Your loss, certainly not on me.
Well of course I’m not going to believe you out of hand. You didn’t need a “little experiment” (oooh, clever clever you, “tricking” silly old lady me that way), you could have just asked me, I would have told you up front and in fact I DID in the YIM. Nope, I don’t believe you. Most of the time your “cites” so frequently have turned out to be you saying “I heard it somewhere” as you did earlier in this thread, or citing works of fiction as support in place of hard data. I admit it here in front of God and everyone though. You DID finally provide an actual cite.
But, you’re NOT doing that here. You have provided no links, hard data research, or anything else of that nature to prove that the commercials targeting men’s gender frailties are more numerous than that of the women’s.
If you two have nothing to add to this discussion other than attacking each other, why don’t you go start a pit thread of your own?
Which you dismissed out of hand because it came from me, even though it was a link that clearly said StraightDope.com in it.
I have nothing further to say to you, and any further attacks because of your personal vendetta against me will be ignored.
No, I dismissed it initially because you just SAID it. You didn’t provide a link.
Are you not getting the difference between merely SAYING “well the SD says this” and actually providing the link to the actual thread that says that?
What you did was provide a link back to the thread in which aesiron then provided the actual link to the correction.
It wasn’t merely that it came from you, it was that, once again, you considered a “cite” to be you saying that something was true because you saw it, rather than actually providing the link WHERE you’d seen it.
I’m sorry featherlou. I should have, but thought that the argument was on topic, and don’t like pitting people.
Your OP was about gender generalization, not how much worse one sex has it than another. I was attempting to argue THAT point.
I will stay out of it and apologize for the hijack. 
Wow. The lies are continuing even now.
I pasted a link to the StraightDope, which MsRobyn and Aesiron were kind enough to find for me while on IRC, directly to CanvasShoes YIM. I pasted that link more than once.
After repeated refusals to look at it, I asked both MsRobyn and Aesiron to go into the thread and post it for me because I’d said I’d stay out of there.
And now that she’s caught in the act of deliberately refusing to look at a cite because it was me that furnished it, she’s lying about what was said.
If this isn’t evidence of a vendetta, I don’t know what is.