Your opinions on reality are fascinating and of great concern to me, so please tell me why I’m wrong. As far as I can tell, “You’re gay” is no more offensive than “you’re a woman,” especially if you don’t hate either group, so why is it different if Iowa was implying (or saying) its opponents were gay?
Sometimes I like to go up to Chinese people and go, “ching-chong-ching-chong chang!!!,” and if they get offended, I call them racist for associating my little jingle with their race.
It’s AWESOME.
Seriously, some of you are being such girls and need to stop whining so much. Also, some of you need to stop being so Black and also get it through your thick skulls.
Notice how I never directly equated girls w/ whiney and Black w/ dumb by saying “you need to stop whining LIKE a bunch of girls,” so you’re absolutely groundless if you call me a misogynist and racist jerkoff.
Just backing up what Excalibre and uglybeech said, though I probably came up well short of his funniness-to-offensiveness scale.
Also, twin infinitive, to repeat where I stand w/r/t reality, I’ve never said this was a hideous offense or a huge deal. But I do think the element of sexism is obvious.
Oops, forgot to add my own CYA disclaimer. Yeah, I don’t really see this particular case as that big of a deal and the funniness to offensiveness factor is enough for me. Personally, I think they should’ve made that lockerroom even more frilly and girly. Cuz when I saw those pictures the word “hygienic” rather than “girly” popped into my mind first.
If they painted “you’re all women” on the walls I would be right with you.
But they didn’t. I think one of the problems is that some people seem to think “pink” is a synonym for “women.” And “paint” is a synonym for “hate.” If I had learned those definitions, I too would take offense at a locker room that was painted pink. A quick look through a dictionary, however, would solve my dilemma. I recommend you look into that possibility.
Pink is often associated with femininity. I think anyone who lives within a county mile of reality would agree, and I take it that you probably do too.
Nope. Not even close.
I hate pink. I think it’s insipid and disgusting.
Does that mean I think women are insipid and disgusting? No, of course not, because I’m not a simplistic hair-trigger feminist.
Cite for where somebody said “if you don’t like pink, you don’t like women?”
It was implied. You said it symbolically.
Besides, it’s obvious that is what you meant.
sticks fingers in ears
Wow, that comment related both to women and to the color pink - it was truly in striking distance of somehow being a relevant, meaningful statement that was germane to the discussion at hand. However, since no one equated “not liking pink” with “not liking women”, and since that comparison doesn’t logically follow from the statements of anyone in this thread, I’m afraid you fell short of your target of actually saying something.
Seriously, if you really thought an obtuse comment like that had anything to do with what we were talking about, you need to read a little more carefully. Nice job creating a strawman, though. You imply in your statement that feminists somehow have a problem with those who don’t like the color pink. Gosh, it would sure be silly to judge someone based on what colors they liked! Those feminists must sure be silly! Except no feminist in the world has ever said anything remotely like the ideas you attribute to feminism. Seriously, what an utterly stupid, useless, idiotic comment.
Ah. Pardon me for making what I thought was a relevant comment on the need to make the color pink representative of effeminancy and/or feminity. Cause, you know, that’s not at all what this subject is about.
Ah, so that’s where your fingers are. I guessed wrong.
We’ll forgive you if you figure out what the topic actually is.
If you really, honestly thought it was a relevant comment (I trust you realize now that it certainly wasn’t), then I should apologize. I didn’t realize you were developmentally disabled - now I feel like a jerk for making fun of your intelligence. It’d be like beating up a kid in a wheelchair - just not a fair fight.
Oh God, what a mess. This post is to logic what gorilla painting is to fine art.
Is this some kind of Zen koan or something? Because otherwise from now on I don’t care what side of an argument you’re on. I’m on the other side. If that puts me defending Pat Robertson’s plan to install a giant 10 commandments edifice in every public toilet, so be it.
In fact I wish I was on your side just so I could distance myself from you.
I hate blackface. I think it’s tacky. Does that mean I think black people are tacky? Of course not. Because I’m not an instant Civil Rights Activist.
How about if they decorated the locker room to resemble a nursery?
Is implying that an opposing team plays like children hateful to children? If not, then implying that an opposing team plays like women isn’t hateful to women, either.
To quote the post directly in front of me,
And logic has nothing to do with either my statement or the original argument. So the opposing locker room is pink! Big fucking deal until someone decides to get offended about it. It’s as stupid and pointless as me commenting about my tastes in color.
Ah, I get it. It’s about time someone came along and said this wasn’t a big deal.
Y’know, this thread has put me in mind to see a movie. I hope nobody finds it objectionable.
FWIW – purple and pink are both associated with gay men AND with lesbians. And pink is a associated with women, obviously.
For the record, though – although I can absolutely see Professor B’s point (I have no doubt that she is correct about the original intent of the locker room’s pink hue), I don’t think the offensiveness rises to a level where a silly tradition needs to be torn out by the roots just because it hearkens back to older, less enlightened times. Before anyone starts screaming, I’m not a man, I’m not a football fan, and I’m not a hetero. I don’t buy into the idea of calling people fags or women or what have you to imply their athletic inferiority. Quite the contrary. (I’ll get back to Ellis Dee’s comments later.) However, this isn’t a lynching on the 50 yard line at half time, it isn’t a minstrel show, it isn’t a wet tee shirt contest being used to determine chemistry grades. It’s a teensy weensy bit offensive, maybe, to a few people. Big deal. It’s mostly a fun tradition, so why not leave it the hell alone and move on to more significant issues.
Perhaps ironically, THIS (and the other postings by Ellis Dee] is far more insulting to me than the pink locker room thing.
Women are NOT less skilled at football. They are NOT less talented at football. They are simply SMALLER and LIGHTER and have different centers of gravity. This has nothing to do with their skill level or their talent. Could a team of fit and talented women beat a team of fit and talented men? Probably not. But that is a matter of SIZE rather than ability.
Is an 18-wheeler tractor trailer better than a Lamborghini Testarossa? Not necessarily. It all depends on what you want to do. Women are NOT inherently “bad” at sports, they are simply not the same as men. Jerk.
(Not intended as a hijack, just food for thought, but – are women “worse” at figure skating than men are because they don’t do lifts?)
Not so much objectionable as execrable. Damn, but that was one stupid movie!
Daniel