RoR: Forum

Very well, Hong. I obviously can't prevent you from feeling offended. But that still doesn't take away the pain in my abdomen.

More importantly, the only below-the-belt, psychological, uncalled-for insults in this whole thread have come from those offended by the jokes, and they've been levelled at Luke. Here's the hairball coughed up by Kat in her first post:

"If you guys hate women that much want us out of Solo, say so directly. Enough is enough."

What kind of over-emotional, hotheaded nonsense is that? Yeah, I'm sure Luke hates women. That much, no less. And I'm doubly sure he wants them expelled from SOLO. Of course, it's about time he say so directly. I mean, it's like, so obvious.

Snore.

The ironic thing is that these vile insults have been made seriously, while being targeted at a person whose comments were made jokingly!

Love the jokes or hate them, you had no right to attack Luke's character and impugn him as a closet sexist. Those are the tactics of the PC police. If the jokes hit you the wrong way, you could've just said so, and embarrassed yourselves only minimally.

As for the gutless, sycophantic men who've jumped on the PC bandwagon here -- I accuse every one of them of operating in bad faith, with alterior motives. Please don't try to defend yourselves, saps, because nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.

Alec

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian on 4/10, 4:17am)

Post 81

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 3:55am

> "Oh no! What am I doing posting on this thread?!": Michael Newberry - #71

I feel the same way. I don't know exactly why I am treading into this territory. It must be something similar to the fascinating horror of watching the aftermath of a terrible car crash ...

> "Those jokes have been around for yonks, and remained harmlessly humorous in the re-telling.": Lindsay Perigo - #75

I agree that this is just a joke - an one that I actually found pretty funny. I was able to laugh at it without feeling in the least that my respect or appreciation for women was slipping down a notch in the process. You can find equally funny jokes that skewer men all over the place. Subscribe to the USENET news group rec.humor.funny and you'll see plenty of them. I suppose I don't laugh as much as the jokes that are framed from a women's perspective - that's to be expected - but I also am not offended by them.

> "... or to actually define in objective terms WHAT their problem actually is.": Jason Quintana - #64

What a refreshing idea for a supposedly philosophical forum!

So what's really going on here? I certainly cannot speak for the specific reactions of others. I am sure that the reasons different people have for reacting so violently to this thread are varied and very possibly complex. Nevertheless, I will share one personal observation that I think may be relevant to this tempest-in-a-teapot that I find has much broader application to many ills of the world.

It seems to me that for a person to react so violently to a joke such as this, there has to be an element of feeling personally attacked. Since it is clear that the joke is not aimed at any particular individual, what would account for these feelings? As I see it, the reaction is a result of seeing one's group attacked, and thereby through that group association, feeling personally assailed. In this example, the group would be the class of people sharing one's sexual identity, i.e., women. Therefore, the more one's identity is aligned and defined by their sex, the more personally one will react when that aspect of their identity is threatened in some way as, apparently, this joke does.

Making a very sweeping generalization, I am going to suggest that the problem here is often a variation on "tribal mentality" that Rand frequently discussed. In this case, the "tribe" one identifies with is the fraternity of one's sex, and is equally applicable to both men and women - straight or gay. However, the "tribal offense" could just as easily result from just about anything such as one's nationality (Polish), race (Black), religion (Jewish), political affiliation (Republican), hair color (Blond), and so on. [Insert your own jokes here.]

Speaking for myself, in the typical context of my life, when I contemplate "who I am", the things that first come to mind relate to my intellectual content, my professional skills and my moral stature. These are the attributes that I have personally developed and which I see as being responsible for my accomplishments. Notice that these are totally individualistic traits that are not shared with any other person. It is true that I am also a white, American, atheist, libertarian, man with blondish (oh no!) hair. But these features generally seem relatively unimportant in defining my identity. My "manness" may be an essential characteristic in the bedroom, but I don't see it playing much a role while designing a building, writing a computer program, sailing, keeping my marriage on a sound footing, or typing this analysis. These activities are principally the product of rational thought. I'm not suggesting that people ignore or deny any of their personal characteristics. I am simply suggesting that in the act of "defining" oneself, there is a hierarchy of importance that one must place on them.

Objectivist literature is filled with articles analyzing the ills resulting from the tribal mentality applied in a religious, nationalistic or racial context. We need to bring this same analysis to our personal lives and apply the same lessons. When members of society start viewing themselves principally as self-made individuals rather than as members of various groups, that is the critical turning point that allows people of diverse backgrounds to peacefully coexist with one another - because it then allows them to see others as individuals as well. Or to put it more practically, this is what turns a suicide bomber into a productive trading partner and allows us to relax and enjoy a good joke - or shrug off a bad one without having to expend the debilitating energy of getting angered!

Regards,
--
Jeff
(Edited by C. Jeffery Small
on 4/10, 3:57am)

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small
on 4/10, 4:00am)

Post 82

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:35am

Post 83

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:58am

I find both of these "jokes" tiresome, and I can see why they are offensive. They reinforce the stereotype of women being hormonal driven and irrational. Both the "Rules for Women" and "Rules for Men" send the same message.

I have worked in an engineering department where one of the best engineers was a young woman from Israel. When she was not around, some of the engineers dismissed her as being too "pushy". Jokes like these encourage this behavior from men who feel "threatened" by women of accomplishment. Why do some men feel threatened by women and feel they have to put them in their place? [Notice I said SOME men]. Do you think Hong and Kat haven't felt this reaction from men many times in their lives and careers? That is the context for their reaction to this discussion.

Post 84

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:53am

As for 'Hooters' - used to work for them..... they're a nice place, and there is nothing wrong with promoting beauty [would you rather go to a place with uglies pushing the tables?] - and no, this is not sexism, at least in the 'put-down' manner, else you're claiming to prefer robots doing the tables [after all, they're a business, with voluntarily employed persons].... like 'Body in Mind' - which, by the way, have doubts that many here have read the writings around the beauty...... but these, as such, are not demeaning to the sexes, nor to that most 'tribal' of distinctions, being human per se...

And that is the crux here - yes, there are many such jokes hanging around for centuries - along with assorted bigotry and tribal hatreds and the like.... but that does not excuse them.... nor does it mean that, as consequence, there is therefore a lacking of humor for those who do glory in the virtues of being human - there are many appropriate things to laugh at.... and there are -as these jokes - many which are not appropriate to laugh at, and the reason why is that all jokes, all humor, do implicate a moral sense - what you laugh at matters......

Remember, these jokes and their similar kinds of humor came within a culture which - from the base start of how one looked at being human - demeaned being human... we know this as 'the doctrine of original sin'.... BUT - we, as Objectivist individuals, should know better than to buy in to that culture, even as we live within it - and to claim that these demeaning are harmless and of no real meaning is indeed to buy into that .

Post 85

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:31am

Sometimes stereotypes become ingrained in our culture because they are so...well,um...typical. If you took all the women in the world, you would find certain norms. Likewise, with men.

But we are all individuals and, of course, don't all fit the norm. In fact, there are many men who fit the feminine norm more than some women, and, many women who fit the masculine norm more than some men.

Vivre la diff�rence.

Post 86

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:57am

Luke, I was hoping you would have been able to figure this one out for yourself rather than me having to thunk you over the head again. What I meant by obvious recourse is to realize when you have been hurtful, check you premises and exercise a bit more sensitivity in mixed company. I noticed a negative trend and said enough is enough, it�s not funny anymore. You dismissed me and kept right on going.

Apparently this sensitivity issue escaped your comprehension. Your reaction was to prove your �manliness� by digging your heels in even further and bragging about oogling titties you can�t even touch. Luke, I never accused you of being gay, only insensitive and behaving inappropriately given your position as outreach guru of Solo. With your position comes a responsibility not to alienate people, which is exactly what such jokes have the tendency to do.

Call me an overly sensitive bitch, politically correct, feminazi or whatever. I don�t give a shit. I call things as I see them and I am just as entitled to my opinions as anyone else here.

(Edited by katdaddy on 4/10, 9:25am)

Post 87

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 11:01am

"A Solo leader should set an example, To draw both sexes to taste a sample"
Kat let me say that your marketing/respectability argument/guilt-trip, encapsulated in this piece of poetic pap, is horse-shit.

So to be a member of SOLO admin you have to be respectable is that it? To market SOLO successfully we should suppress our true personalities and present our non-threatening, beige-side to the world?

This sounds like an excellent way to encourage people with any get-up-and-go to get-up-and-leave.

In the name of respectability you think Luther should curb his rampant lust for boobies and his cynicism about marriage.

Great.

So I guess Miss Vera S. Doerr shouldn't even bother to apply for an administration position in SOLO because she has posted articles like this: http://www.solohq.com/Forum/Dissent/0010.shtml. Linz should step down forthwith! After all we don't want to scare off those people with homophobia-hangups do we? Only people with Vanilla sex-lives need apply! What next? Well, I know a lot of boys and girls who are disgusted by public displays of affection. So I guess that takes care of you and MSK. Jennifer and Marcus should probably be put on probation. I'd suggest locking them up together but they'd probably have too much fun and we can't have that.

I've heard comments nastier than Luther's jokes on a Jeff Foxworthy comedy show (http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/roast/foxworthy/bios.jhtml). If you hate sexist jokes, stay the hell away from Lisa - "his dick is so small his wife has to pour hot-sauce on it to feel anything" - Lampanelli. She isn't known as the "Queen of Mean" for nothing. If you women are congenitally "delicate" and must shy away from the mearest hint of a sexist overtone (and let us remember that debates like this one comprise probably 0.1% of the content of SOLO), why are Jeff and Lisa so popular? Are the women in their audiences there against their will?

So Kat et al, let me suggest an alternate hypothesis: YOU are over-reacting. I think you lot need your heads examined if you think that a few sexist jokes would scare off an honest, rational woman. Or do you think SOLO should bend over backwards to attract irrational women & men? Because after all, those are the women that Luther's jokes are aimed at.

Shit, Luther is a babe-at-arms compared to a woman (psycho-hose-beast is a more accurate description) I flatted with while I was doing my under-grad degree. I'm sure Luther has never dreamed of referring to other women as "fat pigs" before (and no she didn't mean it in jest), I certainly never had.

Before denouncing Luther, I suggest you read Anne Coulter's opinions about why the USA has gone down the toilet since women were allowed to vote. Who is the bigger misogynist? Anne Coulter or some bloke who likes big boobies, is cynical about marriage and giggles at sexist jokes?

Some of you need to get over yourselves and grow a thicker fucking skin. Who the fuck are we? Sense of Life Objectivists or the Christian Temperance Movement?

"I will say it out loud: I am a very straight man and I like to look at titties!" Amen Brother Setzer!

Now I will step aside and let the sanctimonious brigade burn Luther in effigy for another thirty posts. I've got better things to do then read the tripe on this thread. The sun has finally arrived in Kansas and the trees are in blossom. The Bible-belt outside, despite being full of clap-trap-spouting fruit-cakes, is looking better to right now than SOLOHQ!

Adios prudes.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/10, 12:01pm)

Post 88

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 12:51pm

From the original joke article that stirred this pot:

Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work! Just say it!

Kat confirmed the source material for this joke when she ranted:

Luke, I was hoping you would have been able to figure this one out for yourself rather than me having to thunk you over the head again. What I meant by obvious recourse is to realize when you have been hurtful, check you premises and exercise a bit more sensitivity in mixed company.

Robert Winefield penned a response that resonated with my own sense of life when he noted:

So Kat et al, let me suggest an alternate hypothesis: YOU are over-reacting. I think you lot need your heads examined if you think that a few sexist jokes would scare off an honest, rational woman. Or do you think SOLO should bend over backwards to attract irrational women & men? Because after all, those are the women that Luther's jokes are aimed at.

To paraphrase Hong, Robert Winefield captured my own feelings in Post 87. I suggest Kat study it carefully as it spells clearly some directions for her "obvious recourse" without leaving her hanging to "figure this one out for" herself.

Post 89

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 1:37pm

> ... all jokes, all humor, do implicate a moral sense - what you laugh at matters ...": Robert Malcom - #84

I agree. However, before rushing off to pass moral judgement, I think it needs to be noted that it also matters WHY you laugh. The "why" is what provides the personal context for the joke. When it comes to a sense of humor, people are just as diverse in that area as they are in all other areas of life. I think it is important to understand the "intent" behind the laughter before condemning someone.

I'll use myself as an example. I've been married to my lovely wife for 28 years, after dating for about six. Now I'm a pretty observant guy and in those 34 years you would think I would just about have her figured out. However, I'm afraid that there is a lot of her behavior that is still a mystery to me. In many of those cases I have tried to have a nice, calm, rational, analytical discussion about these "fuzzy" areas. [Hey, you aren't laughing at me are you???] Sometimes those discussions are illuminating - but often not. I'm ready to pack my bags and leave the irrational, non-objective SOB, until I realize that it will be more fun sticking around for another 34 years and tormenting her - because she has just a much difficulty understanding many aspects of my behavior - even though I have explained them to her in a nice, calm, rational, analytical manner over and over and over ... [Hey! I said stop laughing!!]

Have you been in a close relationship? Does any of this sound familiar? Maybe not. I suspect that the structure of personal relationships are as varied as everything else in life. However, there are enough people out there who can relate to this experience that it has generated a cottage industry for John Grey and others who attempt to provide some insights into these mysteries. And an exploration of this area was what was behind Robert Bidinotto's original article "Objectivism, Venus and Mars" which appears to have kicked off this controversy. Folks, I see no signs of malice anywhere in this discussion - just an attempt by poor slobs like me to try and understand something that is puzzling. Maybe you think the approach towards understanding is in error. If so, I welcome a discussion about that. But why all of this hostility? If, as Kat said in post #8, "Solo seems to be engaging in the battle of the sexes", I'm afraid I'm missing it. I think we may have a "misunderstanding between the sexes" (or, much more likely, a misunderstanding between different individuals), but not a battle!

When I read the "Rules for Women/Men" joke, I laughed at a number of points because they were almost verbatim exchanges that my wife and I have had. I am partial to irony and I found this joke had that quality in spades. If I'm laughing at women's "bizarre" behavior, I'm also laughing equally at my personal failure to "get it" despite quite a bit of effort. In any case, it is just a joke - but a joke with a point. As I see it, the joke attempts to highlight, in a humorous way, the fact that there are real differences between men and women - which is exactly what Robert Bidinotto attempted, in a much more serious way, in his article. No war, just a search for understanding.

> "Remember, these jokes and their similar kinds of humor came within a culture which - from the base start of how one looked at being human - demeaned being human... we know this as 'the doctrine of original sin'.... BUT - we, as Objectivist individuals, should know better than to buy in to that culture, even as we live within it - and to claim that these demeaning are harmless and of no real meaning is indeed to buy into that ." Robert Malcom - #84

Can humor be used in a destructive way. Sure. Maybe the person who originally authored this joke was mad at women really intended to belittle or demean them. Maybe "blond" jokes really are intended to put down people like me. However, I'm smart enough to find jokes of this type ludicrous, and, for me, that actually adds another dimension to the humor. Robert raises a valid concern when he shifts from a personal to a cultural perspective. However, what's the solution to that problem? Should I deny my natural inclinations to laugh so that I can show solidarity with those who "know better than to buy in to that culture"? That's a loosing proposition. Instead, we have to change the culture to one that is more understanding and forgiving of individual differences. I tried to suggest one signifficant way to do that in my previous post #81.

Oh my! So much seriousness in a humor group. :-)
--
Jeff

Post 90

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 3:32pm

Robert W,

That was one hell of a nice rant. You wrote:

In the name of respectability you think Luther should curb his rampant lust for boobies and his cynicism about marriage.

She doesn't think that as far as I can tell. She certainly never stated that to me - or on this thread.

The only thing I read from her was that she thought bragging about it was inappropriate as an answer to an issue. I wonder what on earth leads to this kind of misunderstanding...

I read a lot more in your rant that had nothing at all to do with what Kat said or thinks either - both on and off SOLO.

But hey. Get ticked off.

I tried to say it jokingly. I will say it seriously now. It seems that some people around here get real pissed off when a joke with a dose of rat poisen seems to turn against them - and they rant (and not just you either).

This is the kind of anger and discomfort that some women feel with overkill in gender stereotype jokes.

Feels good doesn't it? Oh, not the same thing? Well I wonder why? You still with me? You still mad?

Personally I empathize with them. I love joking. I do it all the time. But I don't like to callously hurt people's feelings over nothing at all just so I can get a laugh. (And I am one who will do almost anything for a good hearty laugh.)

Also, Luke and Kat are working out "marketing" approach issues. Sexual profiling is a valid concern. Both I believe have the best interests of Objectivism in mind. I am doing my best to let them come to terms themselves.

One other matter. There is a real misunderstanding that somehow got started and has turned into a huge insane non-issue. That whole Hooters thing was protested against originally as a flippant remark. Only that. Nothing more. It had nothing at all to do with female breasts. That snuck in later and grew all by itself.

And boy! People sure do get pissed about that particular non-issue! Dayamm!

btw - For the record, Luke is a newly acquired friend. I consider him as such and I want to get to know him better. I feel that this will become a long-term friendship.

Obviously we disagree here. I strongly want to say to him, as one Southern gentleman (Virginia - me) to another (North Carolina - him):

Come, come, mah deah suh, wheah did youh mannehs to the fairah sex run off to?

But we disagree. So what? He's still my friend. And Kat is still my Kitten. And they will work things out - of that I am sure.

Also, I like looking at boobies. As a fully functioning sexual hetero, I better.

That's not the issue at all, though. On the real issues, I stand with Kat and Hong.

Michael

Post 91

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 3:45pm

The next person that rants on this thread should be castrated or have a forced hysterrectomy.

Folks, this horse is dead.

The poor bastard is in the late stages of rigor mortis, and the guys from the glue factory are on their way.

Let us respect the dead.

George

Post 92

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 4:23pm

Wow!

George, you've now got four horses...ah..um...statues I mean :-)

Post 93

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:13pm

Yeah - probably stole one when Linz wasn't looking.......

Post 94

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 7:48pm

For posting these jokes, standing up to defend them, and especially for Post 73, I have sanctioned every one of Luther's posts on this thread.

I am a very straight man and I like to look at titties!

There, I said it. I like breasts. Call them what you want: Boobs, tits, hooters, breasts, baby-sucklers or whatever. I make no apologies for my desires as a man. I enjoy what I see at Hooters.

Luke, this post literally made my day, not just for the staunch pro-breasts tone, but also for the reaction that I know must have seized the nattering nabobs' faces when they read it.

Kudos also to Alec for taking the SOLO pussy-whipped brigades to task.

Here's some more meat for the SOLO humor-watch crowd to get up in arms about:

I took an aviation class in high school. Of the 20-odd students in the class, one was a girl. One day, we had an instructor come and deliver a guest lecture to the class about taking pilot lessons.
About halfway through his lecture he said, "I've noticed you only have one girl in this class, but in my experience women are actually better at flying than most men."
To which I immediately replied: "Guess it's not like driving, then!"

Even the girl had to suppress a little giggle. Good to know some women can take inter-gender banter and ribbing for what it is, instead of launching into catty alert mode over what they falsely perceive as an attack on their own individual characters.

Kat wrote:

My main issue with this is that you are the voice of Solo to the outside world. There are certain responsibilities that come with your position here.

It seems to me that the "responsibility" you are assigning Luke is for him to suppress certain parts of his character, including a delightful sense of humor (which I had never noticed in all the algorithms and flow charts and tri-quations), in order to maintain or cultivate new relationships and connections with potential Objectivists. I would urge you to peruse Linz's writings and speeches, where he often exhorts Objectivists to banish pretense and insincerity, if you think this is a part of the SOLO sense of life.

This also seems like a good occasion to call SOLOists' attention to my own favorite SOLO article, Sam Pierson's "We Happy Few."

Post 95

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:10pm

Hey Bissell, didn't you read my post #91 where I said: "The next person that rants on this thread should be castrated or have a forced hysterrectomy."

Now I will grant you that that was a terrific rant, so the cost to you will only be one testicle.

Wait a minute? I take it back, no testicle loss will be administered.

You see, I just thought of something. As the only hispanic on the forum, I'm the only guy that *always* carries a knife.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/10, 8:20pm)

Post 96

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:18pm

Dammit!

I change my mind again, you *will* lose that testicle after all.

I just remembered those members of an ethnic group who have names like Sciabarra, Bidinotto and Iannolo.

That means I won't automatically be assumed to be the only guy that always has a knife on him.

I nominate Jennifer 'the stiletto' Iannolo to do the honors.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/10, 8:22pm)

Post 97

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:34pm

Would you fellas prefer my left boob or my right boob?

George, I am begging you to please be merciful with me. I'd like to keep least one for the Colonel.

Post 98

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 8:37pm

George, since "force and mind are opposites," if I undergo a forced castration, does that mean I'll be losing my mind as well?

Insert jokes about men thinking with their dicks here.

Post 99

Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 9:03pm