Nappy Headed Hos

[StevenSeagal]

Also, just an observation that I find a little amusing.

 

Why is it that folks use the parenthetical for women and gals in this discussion? I can tell you how this may come across: that a person who utilizes this punctuation (which, by the way, is also easy to hear when a person is talking and throws in the old "and women" into their sentence) that has internalized the belief that females are secondary or an afterthought to the primary group--males.

 

I am not putting down anyone who does this, I am merely inviting them to examine an aspect of their communication that they may not be aware of.

 

Oops.

 

My excuse here is that Joseph decried the voice of the white male, FWIW. Just trying to be inclusive. Am I Marked for Death now?

[archenemy]

Nope, not at all. It is a common thing that I see and hear all the time. I am really just curious why it is so ingrained? And I am curious if folks have considered the implications to their audience when they communicate this way.

[archenemy]

Also, just an observation that I find a little amusing.

 

Why is it that folks use the parenthetical for women and gals in this discussion? I can tell you how this may come across: that a person who utilizes this punctuation (which, by the way, is also easy to hear when a person is talking and throws in the old "and women" into their sentence) that has internalized the belief that females are secondary or an afterthought to the primary group--males.

 

I am not putting down anyone who does this, I am merely inviting them to examine an aspect of their communication that they may not be aware of.

 

it seems to me the comments were aimed at objectifying and denigrating the WOMEN. Race was secondary, and more tightly related to *class* and class-stereotypes.

that was my gut reaction to this. And I this this is backed up by other comments that CNN aired by Imus. CNN was saying that Imus had previously made racial remarks, and then quoted him. I found it interesting that all these racial comments were directed at black women. It could have just been a sampling issue, but it was hard to miss nonetheless.

 

Also, since you are unfamiliar with Imus, I will let you know that the shit he says about women was so offensive that I refused to listen to him. That's bad. How bad? I am a fan of Howard Stern--and that dude talks some shit. But Imus wasn't even amusing when he talked about women. I couldn't stomach it--and I have a very rough sense of humor.

[ZimZam]

I just find it easier than putting he/she blah blah blah. I'm sure it's an ingrained response brought about by my parochial edu. I'll try and work on that madamoiselle.

[archenemy]

funny, why not just s/he?

[StevenSeagal]

Nope, not at all. It is a common thing that I see and hear all the time. I am really just curious why it is so ingrained? And I am curious if folks have considered the implications to their audience when they communicate this way.

 

It shouldn't be surprising that the language has developed into one that emphasizes the male- males are the more aggressive gender and every culture is dominated on the visible scale by male influence. Probably genetics. Just be happy knowing that female influence dominates just about everything else, the things you don't see in society- "behind the scenes", the subtle, the inferred....

 

[ZimZam]

Never saw that one before. Brilliant!

[archenemy]

I am not surprised by this.

 

I am surprised that many men in our culture in this time still speak that way without thinking about it.

Edited April 12, 2007 by archenemy

[StevenSeagal]

On another note, I'm surprised that Imus is taking so much more heat than his producer, who referred to the Rutgers-Tennessee match as "the jigaboos vs. the wannabes". He uses a direct racial epithet and it's kinda getting passed over.

[archenemy]

That is a good point!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Also, just an observation that I find a little amusing.

 

Why is it that folks use the parenthetical for women and gals in this discussion? I can tell you how this may come across: that a person who utilizes this punctuation (which, by the way, is also easy to hear when a person is talking and throws in the old "and women" into their sentence) that has internalized the belief that females are secondary or an afterthought to the primary group--males.

 

I am not putting down anyone who does this, I am merely inviting them to examine an aspect of their communication that they may not be aware of.

 

it seems to me the comments were aimed at objectifying and denigrating the WOMEN. Race was secondary, and more tightly related to *class* and class-stereotypes.

that was my gut reaction to this. And I this this is backed up by other comments that CNN aired by Imus. CNN was saying that Imus had previously made racial remarks, and then quoted him. I found it interesting that all these racial comments were directed at black women. It could have just been a sampling issue, but it was hard to miss nonetheless.

 

Also, since you are unfamiliar with Imus, I will let you know that the shit he says about women was so offensive that I refused to listen to him. That's bad. How bad? I am a fan of Howard Stern--and that dude talks some shit. But Imus wasn't even amusing when he talked about women. I couldn't stomach it--and I have a very rough sense of humor.

 

Well, the quotes I have seen printed about past comments he's made make this latest round look pretty tame.

 

As for Imus, I think it's hilarious that such a ugly loser is commenting on the relative merits of young women's desirability. The dude's hair and eyebrows compete with Donald Trump's combover on the ridiculousness Richter scale.

 

[archenemy]

Also, just an observation that I find a little amusing.

 

Why is it that folks use the parenthetical for women and gals in this discussion? I can tell you how this may come across: that a person who utilizes this punctuation (which, by the way, is also easy to hear when a person is talking and throws in the old "and women" into their sentence) that has internalized the belief that females are secondary or an afterthought to the primary group--males.

 

I am not putting down anyone who does this, I am merely inviting them to examine an aspect of their communication that they may not be aware of.

 

it seems to me the comments were aimed at objectifying and denigrating the WOMEN. Race was secondary, and more tightly related to *class* and class-stereotypes.

that was my gut reaction to this. And I this this is backed up by other comments that CNN aired by Imus. CNN was saying that Imus had previously made racial remarks, and then quoted him. I found it interesting that all these racial comments were directed at black women. It could have just been a sampling issue, but it was hard to miss nonetheless.

 

Also, since you are unfamiliar with Imus, I will let you know that the shit he says about women was so offensive that I refused to listen to him. That's bad. How bad? I am a fan of Howard Stern--and that dude talks some shit. But Imus wasn't even amusing when he talked about women. I couldn't stomach it--and I have a very rough sense of humor.

 

Well, the quotes I have seen printed about past comments he's made make this latest round look pretty tame.

 

As for Imus, I think it's hilarious that such a ugly loser is commenting on the relative merits of young women's desirability. The dude's hair and eyebrows compete with Donald Trump's combover on the ridiculousness Richter scale.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Nope, not at all. It is a common thing that I see and hear all the time. I am really just curious why it is so ingrained? And I am curious if folks have considered the implications to their audience when they communicate this way.

 

It shouldn't be surprising that the language has developed into one that emphasizes the male- males are the more aggressive gender and every culture is dominated on the visible scale by male influence. Probably genetics. Just be happy knowing that female influence dominates just about everything else, the things you don't see in society- "behind the scenes", the subtle, the inferred....

 

in every culture? are you sure about that?

 

 

[archenemy]

I think he's just generalizing. The main point is true.

[StevenSeagal]

I am not surprised by this.

 

I am surprised that many men in our culture in this time still speak that way without thinking about it.

 

Some do think about it...then they get made fun of by other men for being a wuss.

[ZimZam]

Something I heard once spoken by a woman. "The man may be the head of the household, but the woman is the neck. And the neck controls which way the head turns."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think he's just generalizing. The main point is true.

 

well, I've met people who think a Russian mail-order bride will get them some submissive woman, and they get a rude awakening.

 

 

[AlpineK]

I write letters and if I don't know who I'm talking to I usually address it to, "Dear Sirs." That's what I bring from school.

[archenemy]

I am not surprised by this.

 

I am surprised that many men in our culture in this time still speak that way without thinking about it.

 

Some do think about it...then they get made fun of by other men for being a wuss.

 

This, I think, is the heart of the problem. Folks who are happy with the cultural norms (they are the usually ones that directly benefit from it--even at the cost of others') will pressure/ostrasize/deride those who dare to question them. Yet, it is that very group of people--those men who question the norms in the company of other men--who are one of the most important keys to actually changing things. I don't envy those folks. Being a man in today's culture must be confusing and demanding beyond comprehension. It must feel like getting pulled from every direction at once.

[archenemy]

I think he's just generalizing. The main point is true.

 

well, I've met people who think a Russian mail-order bride will get them some submissive woman, and they get a rude awakening.

 

I bet!

Women are no more likely to be willing to be oppressed than any other group. This comes as a surprise to some folks.

[StevenSeagal]

Nope, not at all. It is a common thing that I see and hear all the time. I am really just curious why it is so ingrained? And I am curious if folks have considered the implications to their audience when they communicate this way.

 

It shouldn't be surprising that the language has developed into one that emphasizes the male- males are the more aggressive gender and every culture is dominated on the visible scale by male influence. Probably genetics. Just be happy knowing that female influence dominates just about everything else, the things you don't see in society- "behind the scenes", the subtle, the inferred....

 

in every culture? are you sure about that?

 

 

Maybe not 100%...yes, generalizing...but women tend to play a very subtle, less obvious, but no less influential and important role in almost every culture. Men think they make all the rules, and put up a visible outward show to demonstrate that; meanwhile, the women know better.

[archenemy]

I'd interject that the reason this happens is because women were not really given any other options. You will continue to see this change as our mores change and accept outspoken, strong women who were not raised to stay in the background.

[kevbone]

Nappy Headed Hos

[StevenSeagal]

I am not surprised by this.

 

I am surprised that many men in our culture in this time still speak that way without thinking about it.

 

Some do think about it...then they get made fun of by other men for being a wuss.

 

This, I think, is the heart of the problem. Folks who are happy with the cultural norms (they are the usually ones that directly benefit from it--even at the cost of others') will pressure/ostrasize/deride those who dare to question them. Yet, it is that very group of people--those men who question the norms in the company of other men--who are one of the most important keys to actually changing things. I don't envy those folks. Being a man in today's culture must be confusing and demanding beyond comprehension. It must feel like getting pulled from every direction at once.

 

There's a cultural element of truth in this, but I also think the reality of testosterone and natural male/female interaction makes changing this "behavior problem" an exercise in futility. 5000 years of human history, natural male aggression doesn't seem to have changed much even as acute sensitivities have changed towards women.

 

This reminds me of women who've told me they always wanted a sensitive man, then when they finally met one, they discovered they were bored as hell and missed the hormone fueled male psyche more than they ever realized.

[archenemy]

I disagree with this mainly because there are examples of other cultures that do not follow this model.

 

After growing up, I have only been with sensitive men. The bad boy thing is easy to outgrow. When I hear my women friends say they need the hormone driven madman, we get into some pretty deep discussions. Without an exception, my friends have mentioned that they were just not ready to settle down or had a need for the drama that they get from that type of guy b/c they hadn't really developed their own life as fully as they'd wished. I am sure there are many other reasons for this, but my guess is that men don't get any insight into them (as women tend to not understand or not share that information). And therefore, it is easier to use this commonly accepted belief to not progress beyond the hormone-washed brain into a thoughtful man who practises examining his beliefs and actions--no matter how painful that process might be.

Edited April 12, 2007 by archenemy