Relationship Wisdom or Sexist Drivel?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Do all advice columns get these weirdos or just this one?[/b]

---

All of them do, but they don't necessarily publish them all.

Some advice columnists even write the letters themselves, to provide an opportunity to expound on some subject that has caught their fancy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]You missed the whole point of the advice. Obviously she's aware that people are different. The point was that she found the book offensive in terms of being a woman.

Don't know how you missed that one.[/b]

---

Being offended implies not being desensitized, and for that to be true it might need to be the first time she's ever heard corporate media dating advice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]What is wrong with this person that she feels she needs to correct 100% of people who have different world views?[/b]

---

quote:

---

Quote of Ms. Communicate:
[b]I feel completely confident that in the future you will encounter more situations in which people with little to no left-wing awareness offer you opportunities to assert your opinion.[/b]

---

I think it would have been okay for the writer to Ms. Communicate to make a comment to the reader of the book. At the same time, sharing “left-wing awareness” with some stranger is a bit like sharing one’s belief in Jebuz with a stranger.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
[b]Maybe "right" isn't the right word. I'm all for free speech, but what I mean is reading a book isn't an "invitation" for others to come forward with their comments or criticisms, especially when negative.[/b]

---

If it makes a person feel better to express their moral views (whether political or religious) to a stranger, have at it. But, most people are simply not receptive to listening to a stranger telling them their thinking is wrong, no matter how nice one says it.

Ms. C.'s advice is rude, at best. Commenting on stranger's reading choices is gauche

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]

If I'm not mistaken we have many discussions on babble about taking the time to educate people when they make racist comments. Especially if they engage you, which this guy did. The general message was that ignoring racism isn't right. Same goes for homophobia.

But suddenly it's rude to point out sexism? Be polite in the face of sexism? That just seems to be reinforcing the gender sterotype that women should polite gracious always. No one is saying she should tell this guy to "fuck himself" but she could say many things "politely" that would indicate that as a feminist that book is offensive. Then she could walk away. "No thanks guy, that's offensive to me as a women to be generalized about like that. Have a nice day though."

Women didn't get their rights by being nice. And we won't keep them by being nice either. But we can be assertive without being rude. Though why we shouldn't be rude boggles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
[b]I guess, but that just seems like a nice gesture after he noticed her looking at the book. I personally wouldn't say anything, though of course this woman has every right to start a discussion if she feels it necessary. It just seems belittling to me.[/b]

---

Hmmm, I can see what you are saying, however, he was looking at a book on how to develop a relationship with women based upon a premise, of the author's, on what men and women need. He also said it was "great", as he passed it to her. People look at books I am reading all the time, in public, and I never pass it to them and make comments. So, I believe that he was trying to use the book as a way to get an in with a woman.

The women in question, who read the back flap, obviously felt it belittled women. I would not think it rude of her to say so, under those conditions. Now if she knew the book, and just let loose about it, without any interpersonal interchange, I would have then felt she was rude, and wrong to inset herself into his privacy.

Women who accept sexism tools, as advanced by patriarchy, because it may be rude or belittling, are doing themselves no favours, nor other women. And indeed they are doing men no favours either, as that man who had the book, could now believe he knows what women need in a relationship, and in fact what he needs. Which clearly may not be the case.

Women's fear of using their voice, because it may be seen as being rude or belittling, to men, is actually an instilled patriarchial control mechanism.

As such, books such as this one, and other material along the same lines, which appear to be rude and belittling to women, should be challenged when a reasonable opportunity presents itself. And I believe this occassion was a reasonable opportunity.

quote:

---

We shouldn't be rude because we learned manners in kindergarten.

---

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Who sits in a cafe alone reading a book about relationships? What a douchebag.[/b]

---

Your typical judgmental arrogance on display.

Lots of people read books in cafes and they don't need nor want your approval. And some people sometimes read books that are about relationships. Personally, among the hundreds of books I myself have bought over the years I admit that one of them is about relationships.

Grow some modesty.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Who sits in a cafe alone reading a book about relationships? What a douchebag.

---

One who's trying to pick up maybe? Talk about gauche. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

There is something classist and sexist about this need to never be rude.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
[b]

Of all the words you could have picked, you picked "modesty". I can't even imagine what you meant by it as it seems utterly out of context - I guess you are accusing catchfire of being arrogant? Which is weird and kinda snotty but I guess it maintain a polite facade. It's still a personal attack no matter how polite.

Maybe you should just avoid all threads involving feminism in any way shape or form, then you won't have to put your foot in it by using words like "modesty" in a thread where women are being encouraged to shut up and smile when a guy offers up a slice of sexism to them as to respond would be "rude". It's like a red flag and someone might be rude and gauche. And that is worse than anything else!!!

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

---

First of all, as far as I know, you're not the moderator.

Now to address something else,

I think you have some sort of complex with me. I don't really know from where, but you tend to interpret a lot of my posts in some really contrived, sinister way. I find it very frustrating, and at this point I can no longer remember where your hostility originates. Clearly my comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the fashion interpretation of modesty.

It's quite rich of you to criticize me for personal attacks. 100% of your posts where you adress me are personal attacks, so forgive me for not carefully considering your concerns.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

I sit alone reading in cafes, restaurants, waiting rooms etc. I love to read and if Im alone, I do. so there! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

1-If he had simply been reading, with no interaction with the lady, then to interupt his reading and give her opinion is intrusive and rude, and harassing.
However, having drawn her into his reading world, he deserved to hear her opinion. He was kind of asking for it with his actions. (and I dont mean asking for it as 'he was asking for it' is said when something bad happens to someone, I mean it literally)

quote:

---

I would not associate with the type of person who throws their coffee at someone's lap...

---

I wrote "shirt front". Be patient, my friend, we are working on precisely such an application for the forum... Dribble!

quote:

---

First of all, as far as I know, you're not the moderator.

---

I didn't demand you do anything or threaten or email a moderator, I made a suggestion. You seem to put your foot in it a lot when talking about Feminism and usually somebody flips out on you. You could ignore a suggestion I don’t care. But a moderator has asked you to stay out of the FF, so it seems your work around is to comment outside the FF when most people would clue in that they just shouldn’t discuss of Feminism all together. Most people would be polite enough and modest enough to stop forcing their company where it obviously isn’t appreciated. I was hoping you’d explain why you used the word before this thread exploded.

quote:

---

I think you have some sort of complex with me. I don't really know from where, but you tend to interpret a lot of my posts in some really contrived, sinister way. I find it very frustrating, and at this point I can no longer remember where your hostility originates. Clearly my comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the fashion interpretation of modesty.

---

I addressed what you said and how it could totally be misconstrued because the word "modesty" is a loaded word when it comes to feminism and I explained that in context of this thread where being polite is being stressed “modesty” was an odd choice. That you still don't know that either shows continued ignorance or you’re being disingenuous. Instead of explaining your poor choice of word you have decided that just plain old attacking me is a better idea. You seem somewhat hysterical actually.

That you still haven’t cleared up why you picked a word I just explained you was a bad choice and why and instead have flown of the handle at me makes me wonder even more if you used the word to cause shit. It’s such an odd choice. My bad that I took your bait.

quote:

---

It's quite rich of you to criticize me for personal attacks. 100% of your posts where you adress me are personal attacks, so forgive me for not carefully considering your concerns.

---

Did I make a personal attack in my previous post? I don’t think so – calm down dude.

Wow, leave a discussion for a few hours and see how it explodes. It seems as though threads about Ms Communicates communications are never dull.

Wonder what it about them that causes such controversy? I should look back over them to see if there is a pattern, as I suspect there is, but am not sure what exactly it is.

Perhaps a key could be in mspector's post above, where he says:

quote:

---

Some advice columnists even write the letters themselves, to provide an opportunity to expound on some subject that has caught their fancy.

---

As it would seem, though admittedly it may not be, there is some sort of exception being taken to a woman offering advice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
[b]Of all the words you could have picked, you picked "modesty". I can't even imagine what you meant by it as it seems utterly out of context - I guess you are accusing catchfire of being arrogant? [/b]

---

I suspect that he is using the word modesty, as pertaining to it being used to define conceit and vanity characteristics.

In respect to catchfire's comment about the guy with the book being a "douchebag", I take his comment meaning the same position as mine, the guy was alone in a coffee shop reading this book for the sole purpose of using it for a pick up gimick. That is why he noticed her looking at him reading the book. If he was actually reading the book, he would not have noticed her looking at it, as that is usually how it goes when you are alone reading a book in a public place. You are there to tune out and read, and nothing more.

As such, I do not see catchfire's comments as being arrogant, nor judgemental. In fact, I believe he was being pretty damn accurate in his perceptions of what said guy was up to.

Having said that, I really must take exception to catchfire's use of the word "douchebag". I find its use as troubling, as 500_apples use of modesty, when in a discussion on a feminist topic, and women's actions.

Though I understand, that he meant nothing sexist by saying that.

Really, I just wanted to point out an internalized word that really is something that pertains only women, but is used to denigrate, both males and females, by both males and females, and I would suggest that people when they perceive themselves using a gender biased term, to denigrate another, that they reject the use of it, and find an non-biased word to denigrate with. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Now, 500_apples I do not believe, your perceptions of self, as stated by you, as follows:

quote:

---

I'm against violence and violent people, and I would not associate with the type of person who throws their coffee at someone's lap every time they're unhappy. Certainly that's never happened to me, and the last time I was in a fight was eleven years ago, I was 14.

---

are quite accurate, in respect to your statement that you have not had a fight since you were 14.

This could in part be because you appear to have some misconceptions surrounding "violence", and what denotes violence and violent actions by people, as it appears that you think that violence is only the physical act of being violent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b] And the vision my imagination returned was: douchebag.[/b]

---

Babbler discourse is certainly odd today. In a thread about stupid relationship books this is the descriptor?

As a matter of fact the only book I found that attracted unsolicited comments by women as I was reading it alone was the first Harry Potter book. I had at least three women make comments in passing and chat a bit about the book. Don't remember this happening with any other book.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Now, 500_apples I do not believe, your perceptions of self, as stated by you, as follows:

are quite accurate, in respect to your statement that you have not had a fight since you were 14.

This could in part be because you appear to have some misconceptions surrounding "violence", and what denotes violence and violent actions by people, as it appears that you think that violence is only the physical act of being violent.[/b]

---

You're right. I've had many fights, many that I remember. 14 is the most recent fight I recall that involves a physical component, was against another guy. In light of comments I've made in a different thread sometime back about violence I should have included the adjective "physical".

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] and while they're at it, avoid calling it "denigrate". [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

---

OMG, martin good catch, it is so, so easy, not to see/perceive latent and entrenched sexism and racism, in our thought patterns and common word usage.

Well, that word will now be struck from my vocabulary! [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]

... and the etymology will show you that the word comes from the Latin verb denigrare, meaning to blacken. It has nothing to do with racism at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]... and the etymology will show you that the word comes from the Latin verb denigrare, meaning to blacken. It has nothing to do with racism at all.[/b]

---

That reminds me of the ruckus over "niggardly". The etymology of "niggardly": Middle English nigard, perhaps from nig (stingy person) of Scandinavian origin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Only a fool would seek to expunge from the English language all references to the colour black, out of a combination of ignorance and white liberal guilt.[/b]

---

Just the negative references that are clearly racist. So I hope that white cloud you are under lifts soon so that you can have a nice day.

Edited to add: Only a fool is a personal attack. Your debating style could use an upgrade from its current white trash style.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Only a fool would seek to expunge from the English language all references to the colour black, out of a combination of ignorance and white liberal guilt.[/b]

---

What about the very use of the word "coloured"?

quote:

---

[b]Pat, would you please make a [b][i]coloured[/b][/i] copy of this presentation for us?[/b]

---

Using the word “coloured” is a direct use (no etymological analysis required) of a word that was used to label people of African orgins.

Certainly, the word “coloured” should be avoided if the word “denigrate” should be avoided.

Right Sven take someone else's argument and reduce it to an absurdity. You are right up there with your buddy when it comes to debating issues. I see this same thing in most right wing politicians especially people like George II and Harpo's attack dogs.

LOL