You Sexist You!

[fm93]

Because you are bitching

Uh, no. I'm not. Not even remotely. When I read about this issue, the height of my reaction was literally to just raise an eyebrow and remark to myself "Huh. That's odd" and then shrug my shoulders and turn to something else.

But this does raise an interesting question: have you somehow been reading non-existent emotions into my posts on all the other issues too? Most of the time, I'm perfectly calm and not angrily complaining at all. I'm just offering what to me seems like a fairly straightforward, innocuous, non-controversial point. But I realize that emotions and tone aren't always easily conveyed online.

about a SINGLE news report adding personal information and then calling it "sexist". Why not look at Joan Rivers' entry? Or perhaps reality star Diem Brown? Or maybe comedienne Marsha Strassman?

The fact is that this PARTICULAR article that you claim is "sexist" was celebrating the DUALITY of Yvonne Brill's life, which included her work AND home life, which was the reason she was awarded the "Diamond Superwoman" (SEXISM!!! SEXISM!!!!) award in 1980 by Harper’s Bazaar magazine and the DeBeers Corporation for returning to a successful career after starting a family.

You detect anger in my tone but not in yours?

And almost the entirety of the article was about her scientific career and accomplishments. But, hey... don't let facts get in the way of a good victim mentality by proxy.

What makes you think there's a victim mentality anywhere?

So what? My reading of famous WOMEN's obituaries shows the exact same thing - that in virtually every instance, the women have the thing that they're famous for emphasized in the opening. This one looked to try to emphasize her personal life first (again for which she won an award).

I thought that this standard of opening with a de-emphasis of a famous woman's scientific career when that scientific career is the main reason that the piece was written was odd and inconsistently applied. That's all. The rest of the obituary is fine.

Snobbery. Plain and simple. And just as I said, disgustingly denigrating her personal life as insignificant in the face of her professional career. As if her life would have somehow had far less meaning if she had not won the "more prestigious" award...

It was the opening's de-emphasis of her scientific career that raised eyebrows. There was no "denigrating her personal life"anywhere.

[Sparko]

Uh, no. I'm not. Not even remotely. When I read about this issue, the height of my reaction was literally to just raise an eyebrow and remark to myself "Huh. That's odd" and then shrug my shoulders and turn to something else.

The old Square_peg shuffle. After arguing for several pages about obituaries, he says this. Can't commit to any viewpoint, you fence-sitter you. It's always you want your cake and eat it too.

[fm93]

The old Square_peg shuffle. After arguing for several pages about obituaries, he says this. Can't commit to any viewpoint, you fence-sitter you. It's always you want your cake and eat it too.

But I did commit to a viewpoint--that the obituary's opening evinces an odd and inconsistent standard. That quoted part was simply to explain that at no point was I ever angry about anything.

[Sparko]

But I did commit to a viewpoint--that the obituary's opening evinces an odd and inconsistent standard. That quoted part was simply to explain that at no point was I ever angry about anything.

wow! you can't even commit to your last post!

When I read about this issue, the height of my reaction was literally to just raise an eyebrow and remark to myself "Huh. That's odd" and then shrug my shoulders and turn to something else.

Yeah that is exactly what you did, shrug and turn to something else. That's why you have been arguing for several pages about it now.

[Paprika]

But this does raise an interesting question: have you somehow been reading non-existent emotions into my posts on all the other issues too?

Like how you were reading hatred into certain people's posts?

I thought that this standard of opening with a de-emphasis of a famous woman's scientific career when that scientific career is the main reason that the piece was written was odd and inconsistently applied. That's all. The rest of the obituary is fine.

You also proclaimed it as 'benevolent sexism'.

[fm93]

wow! you can't even commit to your last post!

I have no interest in playing games.

Yeah that is exactly what you did, shrug and turn to something else.

Yes. That's all I did after I first read about it. Then later, in this thread, I was reminded of it and mentioned it here.

That's why you have been arguing for several pages about it now.

As I've just explained, you're conflating two separate events into one.

[fm93]

Like how you were reading hatred into certain people's posts?

Where did I do that?

You also proclaimed it as 'benevolent sexism'.

Yes, and your point is...?

[Paprika]

Where did I do that?

Debate Etiquette thread.

Yes, and your point is...?

Though you proclaimed it sexist, it was merely "odd and inconsistently applied. That's all. The rest of the obituary is fine."

[JonathanL]

Where did I do that?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post170185

[fm93]

Though you proclaimed it sexist, it was merely "odd and inconsistently applied. That's all. The rest of the obituary is fine."

I'm not seeing what the contradiction is. It can't be both?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post170185

"...or complete disregard for people who simply hold different viewpoints on certain issues."

[Sparko]

I have no interest in playing games.

Pshaw! that is ALL you are interested in. Jump in, strike and then say "who me? I never said that!"

[Bill the Cat]

Uh, no. I'm not. Not even remotely. When I read about this issue, the height of my reaction was literally to just raise an eyebrow and remark to myself "Huh. That's odd" and then shrug my shoulders and turn to something else.

I'm talking about in this thread, not when you read it. You've been bitching that it was sexist.

But this does raise an interesting question: have you somehow been reading non-existent emotions into my posts on all the other issues too? Most of the time, I'm perfectly calm and not angrily complaining at all. I'm just offering what to me seems like a fairly straightforward, innocuous, non-controversial point. But I realize that emotions and tone aren't always easily conveyed online.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bitching

v. bitched, bitch·ing, bitch·es Slang
v.intr.
To complain; grumble.

You detect anger in my tone but not in yours?

No. I never said you were angry. I said you were bitching about the "obituary" article.

What makes you think there's a victim mentality anywhere?

You appear to be self-appointedly offended on her behalf by the original mention of her pot roast before her rocket science.

I thought that this standard of opening with a de-emphasis of a famous woman's scientific career when that scientific career is the main reason that the piece was written was odd and inconsistently applied.

But you've claimed it was sexist, which would typically be displayed by a pattern of behavior. it wasn't as I cited other celebrity females whose obituary articles began with their noteworthy contributions.

That's all. The rest of the obituary is fine.

Then can you explain what was so wrong about the inclusion of her home life in an opening hook?

It was the opening's de-emphasis of her scientific career that raised eyebrows. There was no "denigrating her personal life" anywhere.

The entire brouhaha centered around the initial hook's mention of her being a good cook and a good mother by those who obviously think that life is less honorable than her career. Please tell me what was so bad about including the original hook. As I cited, it is snobbery and elitism that elevates one over the other.

[fm93]

Pshaw! that is ALL you are interested in. Jump in, strike and then say "who me? I never said that!"

So I'm supposed to lie and say that I DID say a certain thing when I actually didn't say it?

[Sparko]

So I'm supposed to lie and say that I DID say a certain thing when I actually didn't say it?

we can all read your posts. No need to deny anything later and play the artful dodger.

[JonathanL]

"...or complete disregard for people who simply hold different viewpoints on certain issues."

And? It still doesn't change the fact that you've been interpreting Sparko's and MM's posts as exhibiting certain states of mind (hatred/callous indifference) even when these posts give you an extremely weak basis (at most*) for doing so. It would seem that the sensible thing to do here would be to admit that you were doing essentially the same thing you claim BtC was doing.



*I would actually go even further and insist that they give you no basis whatsoever for the aforementioned inferences.