Sounds like someone's got some sand in her vagina. January 18, 2005 11:30 AM Subscribe
Ehh, ban zelphi and let's call it even. Maybe get him a date with Lisa S. But please don't encourage procreation.
posted by Shane at 11:40 AM on January 18, 2005
posted by Shane at 11:40 AM on January 18, 2005
Zelphi and Lisa are listed as sweethearts in each other's contact list, so it looks like they already have a date, Shane. It's always makes me happy when two kids find someone that matches them perfectly, but I've been in the wedding mood lately.
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:43 AM on January 18, 2005
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:43 AM on January 18, 2005
According to women with whom I've spoken at length on the subject, sand in the vagina is very unpleasant and could easily cause the vagina's owner to become cranky and irritable.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:53 AM on January 18, 2005
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:53 AM on January 18, 2005
I didn't think there was anything wrong with Lisa S.'s comment - the first line was very clearly sarcasm, and the rest was a perfectly valid, reasonably insightful (although I'm sure most of us have heard it before) comment.
zelphi, though, was pretty clearly trolling.
posted by Ryvar at 11:54 AM on January 18, 2005
zelphi, though, was pretty clearly trolling.
posted by Ryvar at 11:54 AM on January 18, 2005
My sarcasm meter is in the shop. Still, though, given the tone of the conversation, I don't think I was far off base in taking Lisa S's comment seriously.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 11:58 AM on January 18, 2005
posted by Saucy Intruder at 11:58 AM on January 18, 2005
our "This Is Not A Boyzone" friends could maybe bookmark that thread for future reference.
"sand in the vagina"? as I said, this deserves a monster 256-point WTF?
posted by matteo at 12:03 PM on January 18, 2005
"sand in the vagina"? as I said, this deserves a monster 256-point WTF?
posted by matteo at 12:03 PM on January 18, 2005
I made my comment because the post was about a woman, who, when presented with evidence she disagreed with, walked out and got angry. It's as if she's trying to dispell myths about women by getting emotional.
posted by zelphi at 12:06 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by zelphi at 12:06 PM on January 18, 2005
It's only been mentioned how many times? But I'm really sick of hearing "sand in the vagina." Next time someone who's said that gets all upset about something that a man should legitimately be upset about, I'm going to tell the men they've got a "twig up their dicks."
posted by agregoli at 12:07 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by agregoli at 12:07 PM on January 18, 2005
P.S. I wouldn't really. But this really offends me and it's the kind of speech I'm sick of on Metafilter.
posted by agregoli at 12:08 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by agregoli at 12:08 PM on January 18, 2005
Your Sauciness:
Well, I'll be honest - my sarcasm meter is not gender neutral in this situation. If Lisa S. was not named Lisa, I would have had trouble distinguishing that she was being sarcastic. When a guy says, "These bitches need some chocolate and deep dicking" it is very difficult to distinguish - without knowing the person beforehand - whether they are being truly misogynistic or (hopefully) parodying classical misogyny.
When a girl says (and 'Lisa,' unlike 'Kim' or 'Tracy' is not an even maybe-possibly-gender-neutral name) that, though, it is 99.9% certain to be parody. Especially with the intelligent response ("there are genetic differences, deal with it") following afterward.
. . . Although, that 0.1% can be pretty funny to hang out with if there's nobody easily offended within earshot.
posted by Ryvar at 12:08 PM on January 18, 2005
Well, I'll be honest - my sarcasm meter is not gender neutral in this situation. If Lisa S. was not named Lisa, I would have had trouble distinguishing that she was being sarcastic. When a guy says, "These bitches need some chocolate and deep dicking" it is very difficult to distinguish - without knowing the person beforehand - whether they are being truly misogynistic or (hopefully) parodying classical misogyny.
When a girl says (and 'Lisa,' unlike 'Kim' or 'Tracy' is not an even maybe-possibly-gender-neutral name) that, though, it is 99.9% certain to be parody. Especially with the intelligent response ("there are genetic differences, deal with it") following afterward.
. . . Although, that 0.1% can be pretty funny to hang out with if there's nobody easily offended within earshot.
posted by Ryvar at 12:08 PM on January 18, 2005
"twig up their dicks" is not as humorous as "sand in the vagina", but it's a good start. With a few focus groups and some effort, I am sure you can find a funny and equivalent phrase. Good luck!
posted by xmutex at 12:09 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by xmutex at 12:09 PM on January 18, 2005
Is Lisa S prescribing a candy and sex combo OR modifying the dicking with both adjectives "chocolate and deep"?
Look, Ma...CAPS. /new_years
posted by danOstuporStar at 12:10 PM on January 18, 2005
Look, Ma...CAPS. /new_years
posted by danOstuporStar at 12:10 PM on January 18, 2005
"twig up their dicks" is not as humorous as "sand in the vagina", but it's a good start.
How 'bout "broken thermometer" instead of twig?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:13 PM on January 18, 2005
How 'bout "broken thermometer" instead of twig?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:13 PM on January 18, 2005
How about "dick in a vacuum cleaner"? Or maybe "balls in a vice?"
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:14 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:14 PM on January 18, 2005
I can't believe I haven't heard that expression before.
I'm going to tell the men they've got a "twig up their dicks."
Christ almight, stop threatening and start doing. You think we guys go around planning to get under women's skin? No, we just say things without thinking, and presto: sand in the vagina. If a guy pisses you off, stop worrying about his feelings. Go ahead and verbally ass-rape them.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:18 PM on January 18, 2005
I'm going to tell the men they've got a "twig up their dicks."
Christ almight, stop threatening and start doing. You think we guys go around planning to get under women's skin? No, we just say things without thinking, and presto: sand in the vagina. If a guy pisses you off, stop worrying about his feelings. Go ahead and verbally ass-rape them.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:18 PM on January 18, 2005
I made my comment because the post was about a woman, who, when presented with evidence she disagreed with, walked out and got angry. It's as if she's trying to dispell myths about women by getting emotional.
Bullshit. You were trolling, and you know it. If a man got angry and walked out, it seems you would assume it was because his testosterone-riddled brain was on machismo overload and that he walked out in order to prevent decking Summers.
I think "sand in your vagina" is mildly amusing and "twig up your dick" is a pretty good equivalent.
posted by Specklet at 12:18 PM on January 18, 2005
Bullshit. You were trolling, and you know it. If a man got angry and walked out, it seems you would assume it was because his testosterone-riddled brain was on machismo overload and that he walked out in order to prevent decking Summers.
I think "sand in your vagina" is mildly amusing and "twig up your dick" is a pretty good equivalent.
posted by Specklet at 12:18 PM on January 18, 2005
[Yes, I realize I've left myself wide open there. Go ahead. It'll be cathartic.]
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:18 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:18 PM on January 18, 2005
"twig up their dicks" is not as humorous as "sand in the vagina", but it's a good start.
My great grandfather was an armless dowser, and I find that hurtful and offensive.
posted by docpops at 12:19 PM on January 18, 2005
My great grandfather was an armless dowser, and I find that hurtful and offensive.
posted by docpops at 12:19 PM on January 18, 2005
How common an experience is sand in the vagina? Does it actually occur with any real frequency in areas where there is sand? I'm curious.
posted by xmutex at 12:24 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by xmutex at 12:24 PM on January 18, 2005
I'm glad that women (and apparently fat people, from some of the other threads I've seen) are still fair game for demeaning slurs here on MeFi [insert sarcasm symbol here].
I'll believe that "sand in her vagina" is an OK way to describe the motivations of a leading female scientist once I see the same people defend as sarcasm using a phrase like "there must be sand in his/her watermelon" to describe a black academic walking out on a talk citing "The Bell Curve."
/have gotten sand in my watermelon before, but never in my vagina.
posted by availablelight at 12:28 PM on January 18, 2005
I'll believe that "sand in her vagina" is an OK way to describe the motivations of a leading female scientist once I see the same people defend as sarcasm using a phrase like "there must be sand in his/her watermelon" to describe a black academic walking out on a talk citing "The Bell Curve."
/have gotten sand in my watermelon before, but never in my vagina.
posted by availablelight at 12:28 PM on January 18, 2005
"Sand in the vagina" is a South Park reference, isn't it? Said by Cartman to Kyle, IIRC.
posted by smackfu at 12:31 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by smackfu at 12:31 PM on January 18, 2005
docpops wins the thread.
availablelight - I am unaware of any watermelon-non-Caucasian stereotype. I've heard of fried chicken, of course, but . . . watermelons?
posted by Ryvar at 12:31 PM on January 18, 2005
availablelight - I am unaware of any watermelon-non-Caucasian stereotype. I've heard of fried chicken, of course, but . . . watermelons?
posted by Ryvar at 12:31 PM on January 18, 2005
10 bucks says it's the same person.
posted by Quartermass at 12:39 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by Quartermass at 12:39 PM on January 18, 2005
These bitches need some chocolate and deep dicking.
posted by Lisa S
woha! ann coulter found mefi!
posted by mr.marx at 12:42 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by Lisa S
woha! ann coulter found mefi!
posted by mr.marx at 12:42 PM on January 18, 2005
Ryvar-- The 'watermelon' stereotype dates way, way back:
Since the earliest days of plantation slavery, the caricature of the dark-skinned black child, his too-red lips stretched to grotesque extremes as they opened to chomp down on watermelon, was a staple of racism's diet. Over time, the watermelon became a symbol of the broader denigration of black people. It became part of the image perpetuated by a white culture bent upon bolstering the myth of superiority by depicting the inferior race as lazy, simple-minded pickaninnies interested only in such mindless pleasures as a slice of sweet watermelon.
posted by availablelight at 12:45 PM on January 18, 2005
Since the earliest days of plantation slavery, the caricature of the dark-skinned black child, his too-red lips stretched to grotesque extremes as they opened to chomp down on watermelon, was a staple of racism's diet. Over time, the watermelon became a symbol of the broader denigration of black people. It became part of the image perpetuated by a white culture bent upon bolstering the myth of superiority by depicting the inferior race as lazy, simple-minded pickaninnies interested only in such mindless pleasures as a slice of sweet watermelon.
posted by availablelight at 12:45 PM on January 18, 2005
Ryvar: food-related black stereotypes that are considered derogatory would include fried chicken, collard greens, watermelon, and grape soda.
posted by u.n. owen at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by u.n. owen at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2005
My college, in fact, once got in a heap of trouble for serving just that "in honor of black history month." A lot of people were mortified at the menu.
I just said, hey, fried chicken and collard greens, yum! and dug in.
posted by u.n. owen at 12:48 PM on January 18, 2005
I just said, hey, fried chicken and collard greens, yum! and dug in.
posted by u.n. owen at 12:48 PM on January 18, 2005
available: thanks! This is something I have almost totally been unaware of, explicitly, but thinking back I *HAVE* seen some of those images in old comic books and the like. Freaky. I just never picked up on it being a real formalized 'stereotype' the way fried chicken is.
posted by Ryvar at 12:50 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by Ryvar at 12:50 PM on January 18, 2005
Er, what's the problem with "twig up his dick"? That's a laugh-and-a-half phrase.
How about "a bug up his ass" for someone who is irritated?
How about "a broomstick up his ass" for someone who is too strict and upright and tight?
How about "head up his ass" for someone who just doesn't think?
I'll bet all three of the latter have been used a dozen times over on MeFi, with no protest. In light of that, "sand up her vagina" is not out-of-place.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:50 PM on January 18, 2005
How about "a bug up his ass" for someone who is irritated?
How about "a broomstick up his ass" for someone who is too strict and upright and tight?
How about "head up his ass" for someone who just doesn't think?
I'll bet all three of the latter have been used a dozen times over on MeFi, with no protest. In light of that, "sand up her vagina" is not out-of-place.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:50 PM on January 18, 2005
Much like the article that sparked the thread that sparked this thread, this is a battle between open, unfettered discussion and closed-minded reactions. It's just as easy to ignore comments you don't like as it is to get your panties in a twist over them. I thought being able ignore offensive comments was a trait learned in elementary school and mastered by adulthood.
What is this, a genteel social club where everyone is prim and proper and would never dare to say anything uncouth? Oh my! I do declare, I am being overcome by the vapors!
posted by m0nm0n at 12:53 PM on January 18, 2005
What is this, a genteel social club where everyone is prim and proper and would never dare to say anything uncouth? Oh my! I do declare, I am being overcome by the vapors!
posted by m0nm0n at 12:53 PM on January 18, 2005
five fresh fish--
I hope you're not insinuating that there's anything wrong with buggery with those supposedly lighthearted "_____ up his/her ass" comebacks.
posted by availablelight at 12:54 PM on January 18, 2005
I hope you're not insinuating that there's anything wrong with buggery with those supposedly lighthearted "_____ up his/her ass" comebacks.
posted by availablelight at 12:54 PM on January 18, 2005
I didn't think there was anything wrong with Lisa S.'s comment - the first line was very clearly sarcasm, and the rest was a perfectly valid, reasonably insightful
why was it very clearly sarcasm? I mean, she is agreeing that the women who got upset about this are irrational tight-asses, right? So one imagines she thinks they need to relax, and the offending phrase is meant as a suggestion for what they 'need' to help them relax. I honestly can't figure a way to respond beyond what the fucking what huh? It confuses me greatly. But I don't see the sarcasm angle working here.
on preview, mr marx figured it out for me.
posted by mdn at 12:56 PM on January 18, 2005
why was it very clearly sarcasm? I mean, she is agreeing that the women who got upset about this are irrational tight-asses, right? So one imagines she thinks they need to relax, and the offending phrase is meant as a suggestion for what they 'need' to help them relax. I honestly can't figure a way to respond beyond what the fucking what huh? It confuses me greatly. But I don't see the sarcasm angle working here.
on preview, mr marx figured it out for me.
posted by mdn at 12:56 PM on January 18, 2005
My problem with it is that in the context of the thread, it's dismissive - it's like saying, "What's with this uppity bitch?"
Dissent and feeling offended doesn't mean you're being a bitch, or that you're a silly woman who can't control her emotions.
Reminds me of the "Why do you hate America" references for people opposing the war.
As a woman, I'm extremely tired of the "If you don't like it then shut up and if you're saying anything you're a bitch" attitude.
posted by agregoli at 12:56 PM on January 18, 2005
Dissent and feeling offended doesn't mean you're being a bitch, or that you're a silly woman who can't control her emotions.
Reminds me of the "Why do you hate America" references for people opposing the war.
As a woman, I'm extremely tired of the "If you don't like it then shut up and if you're saying anything you're a bitch" attitude.
posted by agregoli at 12:56 PM on January 18, 2005
u.n. owen: grape soda? really? I've never heard that one before.
posted by m0nm0n at 1:05 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by m0nm0n at 1:05 PM on January 18, 2005
Go ahead. It'll be cathartic.
Actually, it'd probably be more catheter-ic.
posted by me3dia at 1:07 PM on January 18, 2005
Actually, it'd probably be more catheter-ic.
posted by me3dia at 1:07 PM on January 18, 2005
Whenever I get grape soda in the summer, and I do, because it is sooo freakin good, I always feel a little, well, fey, mostly because of Radar O'Reilly. I had never heard of the connection with black stereotyping. That's actually sort of comforting, to think maybe I am subversively committing an act of solidarity.
posted by docpops at 1:08 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by docpops at 1:08 PM on January 18, 2005
deleted, and banned. "sand in her vagina" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this website.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:10 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:10 PM on January 18, 2005
I agree with agregoli. Threads and comments like that just make me cringe. It's amazing that some discussions of gender can go so well, and others just turn into complete trainwrecks.
On preview: Whew.
posted by subgenius at 1:13 PM on January 18, 2005
On preview: Whew.
posted by subgenius at 1:13 PM on January 18, 2005
All the men here: you have "sand in your mangina".
Tip: "boygina" instead of "mangina" adds a certain twinkly cloyingness that tends to really bug people.
And you can probably close this thread on that note.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:17 PM on January 18, 2005
Tip: "boygina" instead of "mangina" adds a certain twinkly cloyingness that tends to really bug people.
And you can probably close this thread on that note.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:17 PM on January 18, 2005
u.n. owen: grape soda? really? I've never heard that one before.
super-sweet drinks in general. orange soda, and that cheap red liquor I can't think of the name of, are also common stereotypes...
posted by mdn at 1:18 PM on January 18, 2005
super-sweet drinks in general. orange soda, and that cheap red liquor I can't think of the name of, are also common stereotypes...
posted by mdn at 1:18 PM on January 18, 2005
Who was it that originally said "sand in the vagina" in that thread, anyway?
posted by xmutex at 1:19 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by xmutex at 1:19 PM on January 18, 2005
So zelphi gets kicked, but his better half gets to stay n play in the sandbox?
posted by danOstuporStar at 1:21 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by danOstuporStar at 1:21 PM on January 18, 2005
The sad part is they will probably put the banning down to "the totalitarian monster of political correctness" as opposed to plain old stupidity on zelphi's part.
posted by liam at 1:41 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by liam at 1:41 PM on January 18, 2005
I'm going to tell the men they've got a "twig up their dicks."
That's a lot tamer that a lot of expressions that pass for "normal" around here.
"sand in her vagina" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this website.
Wow, you really DON'T read the site much, do you?
posted by rushmc at 1:43 PM on January 18, 2005
That's a lot tamer that a lot of expressions that pass for "normal" around here.
"sand in her vagina" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this website.
Wow, you really DON'T read the site much, do you?
posted by rushmc at 1:43 PM on January 18, 2005
So would zelphi have been banned if he'd said she has her head up her ass?
I'll bet not. I'll bet it wouldn't have even been noticed.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:44 PM on January 18, 2005
I'll bet not. I'll bet it wouldn't have even been noticed.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:44 PM on January 18, 2005
Sort of sad to see people getting banned for uttering a phrase that's deemed stupid.
But whatever. Not my site.
posted by xmutex at 1:47 PM on January 18, 2005
But whatever. Not my site.
posted by xmutex at 1:47 PM on January 18, 2005
So would zelphi have been banned if he'd said she has her head up her ass?
I'll bet not. I'll bet it wouldn't have even been noticed.
It's not about his opinion, it's about the crudity of how he stated it. Zelphi could've called her a 'stupid bitch' or some other idiotic phrase and it would've been more acceptable.
posted by Arch Stanton at 1:54 PM on January 18, 2005
I'll bet not. I'll bet it wouldn't have even been noticed.
It's not about his opinion, it's about the crudity of how he stated it. Zelphi could've called her a 'stupid bitch' or some other idiotic phrase and it would've been more acceptable.
posted by Arch Stanton at 1:54 PM on January 18, 2005
For instance, note that Barbara Boxer is said "to have balls", yet not a single peep was raised.
What's so damned special about "vagina" that it's a red cape to MeFi, when "balls" and "ass" are not?
MeFi: It has a twig up its dick.
Sheesh.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:55 PM on January 18, 2005
What's so damned special about "vagina" that it's a red cape to MeFi, when "balls" and "ass" are not?
MeFi: It has a twig up its dick.
Sheesh.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:55 PM on January 18, 2005
Uh, that Barbara Boxer thing sounds like a compliment? Even though I don't really think it's a compliment myself.
posted by agregoli at 1:58 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by agregoli at 1:58 PM on January 18, 2005
Sort of sad to see people getting banned for uttering a phrase that's deemed stupid.
Oh. I thought he got banned because his comment was blatant trolling, off subject, and just kind of dumb.
posted by Specklet at 2:09 PM on January 18, 2005
Oh. I thought he got banned because his comment was blatant trolling, off subject, and just kind of dumb.
posted by Specklet at 2:09 PM on January 18, 2005
My problem with it is that in the context of the thread, it's dismissive - it's like saying, 'What's with this uppity bitch?'
Exactly. The problem isn't the assertion that her reaction might inadvertently validate stereotypes (which is what I think the person trey points to is saying, so I don't see the problem there); the problem is that, especially in this context, this is obviously an aggressive way to attack a woman via her womanhood. It's misogynist, if possibly unconsciously.
fff: to answer your question... If the entire scenario were reversed, would "stick up his dick" be similarly offensive? Depends. Because, unlike many, I think the whole social context matters, too. If men were regularly and nearly-universally discriminated against on the basis of being men, then that sort of comment would have a knife-edge to it that it doesn't have outside that counterfactual context.
Oh, the Boxer "balls" comment? That reminds me of the "drama queen" thing. It could be offensive because it associates a desirable quality with men. It could also be offensive because it might be a veiled insult to Boxer in the form of devaluing her as a person because she's "less female". I think both those things would be more true in the past than they are today because, especially since the 90s, our society has come to begin to truly admire aggressive and accomplished women. Many of those who really do admire these traits in women have, for better or worse, coopted the expression of "having balls" as a compliment. But this, like "drama queen" is transitional and is thus ambiguous. Probably best avoided by those who want to clearly communicate (as well as avoid giving offense).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:12 PM on January 18, 2005
Exactly. The problem isn't the assertion that her reaction might inadvertently validate stereotypes (which is what I think the person trey points to is saying, so I don't see the problem there); the problem is that, especially in this context, this is obviously an aggressive way to attack a woman via her womanhood. It's misogynist, if possibly unconsciously.
fff: to answer your question... If the entire scenario were reversed, would "stick up his dick" be similarly offensive? Depends. Because, unlike many, I think the whole social context matters, too. If men were regularly and nearly-universally discriminated against on the basis of being men, then that sort of comment would have a knife-edge to it that it doesn't have outside that counterfactual context.
Oh, the Boxer "balls" comment? That reminds me of the "drama queen" thing. It could be offensive because it associates a desirable quality with men. It could also be offensive because it might be a veiled insult to Boxer in the form of devaluing her as a person because she's "less female". I think both those things would be more true in the past than they are today because, especially since the 90s, our society has come to begin to truly admire aggressive and accomplished women. Many of those who really do admire these traits in women have, for better or worse, coopted the expression of "having balls" as a compliment. But this, like "drama queen" is transitional and is thus ambiguous. Probably best avoided by those who want to clearly communicate (as well as avoid giving offense).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:12 PM on January 18, 2005
So would zelphi have been banned if he'd said she has her head up her ass?
I'll bet not. I'll bet it wouldn't have even been noticed.
That's because it wouldn't have been about her gender, it would have been about her actions. Saying she has her head up her ass means she's being dumb/blind; saying she has sand in her vagina means she's being an dumb/blind bitch and a dumb/blind bitch because she's a woman. There's no need to bring up her gender here; in MeFi-related terms, it's like attacking the poster instead of attacking the post.
Personally I'd ban Lisa S too, or at least give her a time-out, because I don't think she was being at all sarcastic given the overall tone and meaning of her post and her several subsequent vigorous defences of her position. There were no indicators of sarcasm and she seemed truly to advocate that women with Hopkins' beliefs had "sand in their vaginas" and should just get laid and get over themselves. I think agregoli already expressed well how that makes me feel.
posted by livii at 2:13 PM on January 18, 2005
I'll bet not. I'll bet it wouldn't have even been noticed.
That's because it wouldn't have been about her gender, it would have been about her actions. Saying she has her head up her ass means she's being dumb/blind; saying she has sand in her vagina means she's being an dumb/blind bitch and a dumb/blind bitch because she's a woman. There's no need to bring up her gender here; in MeFi-related terms, it's like attacking the poster instead of attacking the post.
Personally I'd ban Lisa S too, or at least give her a time-out, because I don't think she was being at all sarcastic given the overall tone and meaning of her post and her several subsequent vigorous defences of her position. There were no indicators of sarcasm and she seemed truly to advocate that women with Hopkins' beliefs had "sand in their vaginas" and should just get laid and get over themselves. I think agregoli already expressed well how that makes me feel.
posted by livii at 2:13 PM on January 18, 2005
Once again, this group cannot muster the conviction to agree that pointed woman-bashing sucks. Bravo, y'all.
posted by scarabic at 2:19 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by scarabic at 2:19 PM on January 18, 2005
I, sadly, knows someone who uses 'sand in your vagina' for anyone who's upset - male, female, whatever - quite seriously, to indicate a state of annoyance in the target. I wish there was a way to show him how lame and school-yard it sounded.
I think many people fail to realise that (most) men simply don't care. People could say 'what's got your balls in a blender?' and it would sound the same as any other language vehicle. Gender-specific ones mean nothing special
Although it does annoy me that you can throw around descriptors for male genetalia at will, but try getting away with 'cunt' and suddenly it's all 'why turn something so beautiful into a curse word?'. Bah!
On preview: livii, you think people should be banned for saying something that makes you feel upset or uncomfortable? As lame as the sentiment of 'get laid & get over it' is, do you expect or even wish for bannage of people you don't agree with?
posted by cosmonik at 2:20 PM on January 18, 2005
I think many people fail to realise that (most) men simply don't care. People could say 'what's got your balls in a blender?' and it would sound the same as any other language vehicle. Gender-specific ones mean nothing special
Although it does annoy me that you can throw around descriptors for male genetalia at will, but try getting away with 'cunt' and suddenly it's all 'why turn something so beautiful into a curse word?'. Bah!
On preview: livii, you think people should be banned for saying something that makes you feel upset or uncomfortable? As lame as the sentiment of 'get laid & get over it' is, do you expect or even wish for bannage of people you don't agree with?
posted by cosmonik at 2:20 PM on January 18, 2005
scarabic - I think 'that pointed woman-bashing sucks' is a given, and does not need a consensus or conviction. Do you think anyone here is defending woman-bashing? The least I see is a call for a level playing field.
posted by cosmonik at 2:22 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by cosmonik at 2:22 PM on January 18, 2005
Speaking of this thread, I was pretty annoyed at delmoi's comment ("What's with all the newb's all of a sudden, anyway? matt needs to shut down regisration!") though perhaps it was ironic? Or something.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:23 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:23 PM on January 18, 2005
Now showing in Meta! Drama Queen II: Sand in the Vagina. More PC outrage! More Me-too action! More ban calls! This time with a new nemesis: The CLOSE button! Will it survive? Hurry to post now!
posted by pivo at 2:26 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by pivo at 2:26 PM on January 18, 2005
When I was about six, my nine year old brother said, in response to my being agitated about something, "don't get your ass in an uproar". Being six, I laughed myself sick and started repeating it anytime I could like a mental patient.
Since then, not so much.
posted by docpops at 2:26 PM on January 18, 2005
Since then, not so much.
posted by docpops at 2:26 PM on January 18, 2005
An aside: thanks, Ethereal Bligh, for writing posts that intelligently clarify the original issue at hand. I keep wanting to post "What EB said."
posted by Specklet at 2:29 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by Specklet at 2:29 PM on January 18, 2005
Dude got banned for a South Park reference, is the bottom line here.
posted by xmutex at 2:29 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by xmutex at 2:29 PM on January 18, 2005
>just about the stupidest thing I've ever seen written on this website
>>Wow, you really DON'T read the site much, do you?
Not lately, sounds like.
Things have gone a bit pear-shaped around here lately with regard to Teh Suhmartnes, Matt. It's a-scarin' me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:41 PM on January 18, 2005
>>Wow, you really DON'T read the site much, do you?
Not lately, sounds like.
Things have gone a bit pear-shaped around here lately with regard to Teh Suhmartnes, Matt. It's a-scarin' me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:41 PM on January 18, 2005
"Twig up his Dick" should only be applied to men who are making posts equivalent to someone balled up on the floor whimpering "get it out, oh god it hurts, get it out, get it out, please, help me.....!"
posted by seanyboy at 2:48 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by seanyboy at 2:48 PM on January 18, 2005
"Twig up his dick" isn't really comparable to sand in the vagina; the former would probably land you in the hospital whereas sand is more of an annoyance (I think. I'm vagina-free).
"He has a mosquito bite on his scrotum" seems more apt: it's irritating but not dangerous and it's gender-specific.
posted by TimeFactor at 3:15 PM on January 18, 2005
"He has a mosquito bite on his scrotum" seems more apt: it's irritating but not dangerous and it's gender-specific.
posted by TimeFactor at 3:15 PM on January 18, 2005
I'm pretty sure that the phrase in question did not originate on South Park.
posted by trey at 3:16 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by trey at 3:16 PM on January 18, 2005
Dunno what to say about this - the comment was deleted before I got to it. However, I'm another voter for increased tolerance of cursing - I don't like to be the victim of verbal abuse, but was it a member, or a subject of the post who was described as having "sand in the va*ina"? [not sure whether the asterisk is needed there, just being on the safe side].
posted by dash_slot- at 3:24 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by dash_slot- at 3:24 PM on January 18, 2005
Metafilter is increasingly offensive. The quality of discussion is hitting some new lows, and the thread is a perfect case in point. We need some civility along with intelligent, thoughtful and articulate discussion. A few time-outs would help, too.
C'mon, people, this is just getting old.
posted by theora55 at 3:27 PM on January 18, 2005
C'mon, people, this is just getting old.
posted by theora55 at 3:27 PM on January 18, 2005
We should wash Lisa's mouth with soap. Bad, cheapest soap.
posted by c13 at 3:35 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by c13 at 3:35 PM on January 18, 2005
I've been lurking here for years, but this is the first time that I've actually been offended.
And it's not the vulgar language.
posted by cytherea at 3:57 PM on January 18, 2005
And it's not the vulgar language.
posted by cytherea at 3:57 PM on January 18, 2005
food-related black stereotypes that are considered derogatory would include fried chicken, collard greens, watermelon, and grape soda.
I thought grape soda was something to do with Radar O'Reilly...
posted by Doohickie at 3:59 PM on January 18, 2005
I thought grape soda was something to do with Radar O'Reilly...
posted by Doohickie at 3:59 PM on January 18, 2005
Matt -- it may be my computer, but rather than that comment showing up as deleted (or just not showing up at all), there's a "post" box and button underneath the FPP.
posted by occhiblu at 4:07 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by occhiblu at 4:07 PM on January 18, 2005
For anybody who didn't see it, it was the first response to the ffp, and that's all it said - no discussion of the post at all, just that comment. Maybe with some context it would have read different/humorous, but it was really dismissive, I thought it was clearly trolling, and I thank Matt for the action.
posted by rainbaby at 4:08 PM on January 18, 2005
posted by rainbaby at 4:08 PM on January 18, 2005
Banned for sand, eh? I'm not sure I agree with this one, unless this was a repeat offender (I don't want to wade through his old comments to find out). I have heard this phrase used many times in many different contexts to both genders, and I don't quite see how it warrants the label "pointed women bashing." There is a gender specific noun involved, and it was directed at a woman, so I suppose that could be used as evidence for that argument. But what if he said that to a guy? Still banned? I tend to think not. So what then, no dick comments to guys from women? Ban 'em...
This is not say the post in question wasn't childish, trolling, dismissive, or any other description people have posted above. But I think a deletion of the comment along with a "This is your warning" email from Matt may have sufficed. I don't know, maybe I am a stupid desensitized male but the phrase itself really didn't seem so bad to me.
posted by rooftop secrets at 4:20 PM on January 18, 2005
This is not say the post in question wasn't childish, trolling, dismissive, or any other description people have posted above. But I think a deletion of the comment along with a "This is your warning" email from Matt may have sufficed. I don't know, maybe I am a stupid desensitized male but the phrase itself really didn't seem so bad to me.
posted by rooftop secrets at 4:20 PM on January 18, 2005
Since I posted the FPP I should probably not even wade into this, but I think the offense is the comment combined with the topic, which was gender bias. A woman walked out of a conference because the speaker made, to her ears, offensive comments about the inferiority of women in the sciences, and zelphi responded with "Someone's got sand in her vagina." The context makes the comment more pointed than it would have been in thread about, for example, Britney Spears. Or David Hasselhof.
It was also unclear for a while whether the comment was directed at me or at the woman in the article, which was rather unfortunate.
posted by occhiblu at 4:29 PM on January 18, 2005
It was also unclear for a while whether the comment was directed at me or at the woman in the article, which was rather unfortunate.
posted by occhiblu at 4:29 PM on January 18, 2005
There's a whole continuum of what I would feel comfortable saying to whom. It goes all the way from things I'd feel comfortable saying to the CEO of my company during the Q&A portion of an all-hands meeting, to jokes I crack under the covers in the dark, with my gf after a couple of drinks and some great sex. In between are areas like "jokes I would tell my friends but not my parents," "things my dad would find funny," and "things I would say to my brother, but not with his kid in the room."
Then there's the level of discourse at MeFi. I have to say that if I compare my interactions with people I sort of know kinda casually here, with the equivalent offline, that people feel one hell of a lot more license here. Faceless, anonymous. Maybe it's a good thing. I dunno. But it's hard to miss.
posted by scarabic at 4:32 PM on January 18, 2005
Then there's the level of discourse at MeFi. I have to say that if I compare my interactions with people I sort of know kinda casually here, with the equivalent offline, that people feel one hell of a lot more license here. Faceless, anonymous. Maybe it's a good thing. I dunno. But it's hard to miss.
posted by scarabic at 4:32 PM on January 18, 2005
There's no need to bring up her gender here
While that would probably be true in many, or even most cases, to suggest that it is the case in this case, where the very topic under discussion is gender-concerned strikes me as ridiculous.
posted by rushmc at 4:44 PM on January 18, 2005
While that would probably be true in many, or even most cases, to suggest that it is the case in this case, where the very topic under discussion is gender-concerned strikes me as ridiculous.
posted by rushmc at 4:44 PM on January 18, 2005
"I'm pretty sure that the phrase in question did not originate on South Park."
While that may be true, for a certain demographic (which probably overlaps the MeFi membership by at least 50%) it's certainly where the phrase was popularized.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:50 PM on January 18, 2005
While that may be true, for a certain demographic (which probably overlaps the MeFi membership by at least 50%) it's certainly where the phrase was popularized.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:50 PM on January 18, 2005
There's a whole continuum of what I would feel comfortable saying to whom. . .
Second that.
It was also unclear for a while whether the comment was directed at me or at the woman in the article, which was rather unfortunate.
The "sand" comment was a vulgar, demeaning, rude thing to say. Amazing that some people here will not (or can not) see that. In some social circles if a man made a comment like that at, say a dinner party, he would be asked to "step outside" to settle things. At a minimum he would suffer the opprobrium that such a comment merits.
Here? People act cute debating whether it is really offensive. Please.
posted by mlis at 8:41 PM on January 18, 2005
Second that.
It was also unclear for a while whether the comment was directed at me or at the woman in the article, which was rather unfortunate.
The "sand" comment was a vulgar, demeaning, rude thing to say. Amazing that some people here will not (or can not) see that. In some social circles if a man made a comment like that at, say a dinner party, he would be asked to "step outside" to settle things. At a minimum he would suffer the opprobrium that such a comment merits.
Here? People act cute debating whether it is really offensive. Please.
posted by mlis at 8:41 PM on January 18, 2005
"In some social circles if a man made a comment like that at, say a dinner party, he would be asked to "step outside" to settle things."
By another man, I presume. In such social circles. Ah, the days of chivalry, how some miss thee.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:14 PM on January 18, 2005
By another man, I presume. In such social circles. Ah, the days of chivalry, how some miss thee.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:14 PM on January 18, 2005
In some social circles if a man made a comment like that at, say a dinner party, he would be asked to "step outside" to settle things.
I have a hard time imagining that those so eager to resort to violence to quash free expression that they don't approve of would be the type to have "dinner parties." Seems far more probable that they'd be belching around a beer and pizza in an apartment somewhere.
posted by rushmc at 9:33 PM on January 18, 2005
I have a hard time imagining that those so eager to resort to violence to quash free expression that they don't approve of would be the type to have "dinner parties." Seems far more probable that they'd be belching around a beer and pizza in an apartment somewhere.
posted by rushmc at 9:33 PM on January 18, 2005
Well, that's why I couldn't help but assume MLIS was pining for some days-of-yore where men resorted to fisticuffs when a nasty word or indelicate expression was uttered in the presence of a woman.
Perhaps a better way to phrase the sentiment inplied in a generous reading of what MLIS wrote would be, "In some circles, if a man (or woman, for that matter) made a comment like that at, say a dinner party, he'd be told to "fuck off" or asked to leave by the host or hostess. Sadly, such things are merely chuckled at here."
Of course, that's not the case. The host asked the person to leave. And there were quite a few "fuck offs". And, hell, in person perhaps some woman or man would have knocked zelphi on his/her ass.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:43 PM on January 18, 2005
Perhaps a better way to phrase the sentiment inplied in a generous reading of what MLIS wrote would be, "In some circles, if a man (or woman, for that matter) made a comment like that at, say a dinner party, he'd be told to "fuck off" or asked to leave by the host or hostess. Sadly, such things are merely chuckled at here."
Of course, that's not the case. The host asked the person to leave. And there were quite a few "fuck offs". And, hell, in person perhaps some woman or man would have knocked zelphi on his/her ass.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:43 PM on January 18, 2005
"I'm pretty sure that the phrase in question did not originate on South Park."
I'm pretty sure it did
(Synopsis 1st paragraph)
posted by fullysic at 2:05 AM on January 19, 2005
I'm pretty sure it did
(Synopsis 1st paragraph)
posted by fullysic at 2:05 AM on January 19, 2005
Oh my God, that thread sucked so much. Thanks, Bligh, for making it slightly better. But Jesus.
Then again, I avoided looking at it until now -- the comment count screamed flamewar -- so maybe the system works.
posted by Tlogmer at 2:18 AM on January 19, 2005
Then again, I avoided looking at it until now -- the comment count screamed flamewar -- so maybe the system works.
posted by Tlogmer at 2:18 AM on January 19, 2005
Thank you, Matt, for setting the bar a little higher.
posted by agregoli at 7:18 AM on January 19, 2005
posted by agregoli at 7:18 AM on January 19, 2005
Actually, thanks to all who didn't let it devolve. Despite the 100+ comments, it was actually a fairly civil discussion.
posted by occhiblu at 7:25 AM on January 19, 2005
posted by occhiblu at 7:25 AM on January 19, 2005
Yes, that too. But I appreciate Matt stepping in and enforcing a community standard.
posted by agregoli at 8:06 AM on January 19, 2005
posted by agregoli at 8:06 AM on January 19, 2005
I wasn't outraged by the remark, because I was too busy being bewildered. At first glance I took it to mean something good as in "she's got sand" meaning she's got grit. So I was busy trying to figure where the vagina came into play and was left thinking it meant her vagina was heroically tough.
Guess I am paying the penalty now for all those years spent NOT watching South Park.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:18 AM on January 19, 2005
Guess I am paying the penalty now for all those years spent NOT watching South Park.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:18 AM on January 19, 2005
She's got balls in her vagina.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:20 AM on January 19, 2005
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:20 AM on January 19, 2005
A fairly civil discussion, but still a depressing one. As a woman in a science field, I think I'd be better off just not knowing that so many people feel that way about me and my work.
posted by transona5 at 9:14 AM on January 19, 2005
posted by transona5 at 9:14 AM on January 19, 2005
late followup; my system was fubared when I tried posting yesterday
Because, unlike many, I think the whole social context matters, too. If men were regularly and nearly-universally discriminated against on the basis of being men, then that sort of comment would have a knife-edge to it that it doesn't have outside that counterfactual context.
Uh-huh.
So pray tell, when will it be as okay to say "sand in her vagina" as "balls in a knot"?
I suggest the first step in defusing this supposedly "offensive" language is to not care about it.
This is a key idea. Men don't get freaked out when someone says "don't get your balls in a knot" because it's just stupid words.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:28 AM on January 19, 2005
Because, unlike many, I think the whole social context matters, too. If men were regularly and nearly-universally discriminated against on the basis of being men, then that sort of comment would have a knife-edge to it that it doesn't have outside that counterfactual context.
Uh-huh.
So pray tell, when will it be as okay to say "sand in her vagina" as "balls in a knot"?
I suggest the first step in defusing this supposedly "offensive" language is to not care about it.
This is a key idea. Men don't get freaked out when someone says "don't get your balls in a knot" because it's just stupid words.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:28 AM on January 19, 2005
This is a key idea. Men don't get freaked out when someone says "don't get your balls in a knot" because it's just stupid words.
No, men don't get upset by that because it's not backed by a generally dismissive attitude toward the concerns of men. Saying that a woman concerned about the attitude/policies of an administration towards women in science has got 'sand in her vagina' or is in need of 'deep dicking' (and I am still wondering what is up with Lisa S in all this) is essentially returning to the well worn attitude that she is being hysterical, irrational - that is, 'stereotypically female' - about the issue.
When men are reprimanded for getting their balls in a knot, it does not come with the same connotations, ie, that they're just being typical men & should therefore be dismissed.
posted by mdn at 10:38 AM on January 19, 2005 [1 favorite]
No, men don't get upset by that because it's not backed by a generally dismissive attitude toward the concerns of men. Saying that a woman concerned about the attitude/policies of an administration towards women in science has got 'sand in her vagina' or is in need of 'deep dicking' (and I am still wondering what is up with Lisa S in all this) is essentially returning to the well worn attitude that she is being hysterical, irrational - that is, 'stereotypically female' - about the issue.
When men are reprimanded for getting their balls in a knot, it does not come with the same connotations, ie, that they're just being typical men & should therefore be dismissed.
posted by mdn at 10:38 AM on January 19, 2005 [1 favorite]
No, men don't get upset by that because it's not backed by a generally dismissive attitude toward the concerns of men.
Actually, the phrase "don't get your balls in a knot" is very dismissive. Gender concerns was what the FPP was about, so someone disagreeing with with whether there was a valid concern (i.e., dismissing the concerns) is a fair comment.
I wouldn't use such language myself and I think it's vulgar, but no more so that "buckets of cocks", another term I don't freely throw around. I don't see why the sand comment resulted in a banning. I also bet that if it were one of the usual flamebaiting trolls, such as quonsar, it would have hardly even registered.
posted by Doohickie at 10:57 AM on January 19, 2005
Actually, the phrase "don't get your balls in a knot" is very dismissive. Gender concerns was what the FPP was about, so someone disagreeing with with whether there was a valid concern (i.e., dismissing the concerns) is a fair comment.
I wouldn't use such language myself and I think it's vulgar, but no more so that "buckets of cocks", another term I don't freely throw around. I don't see why the sand comment resulted in a banning. I also bet that if it were one of the usual flamebaiting trolls, such as quonsar, it would have hardly even registered.
posted by Doohickie at 10:57 AM on January 19, 2005
I don't understand why people are arguing that dismissing the concerns in such a way as to dismiss the woman for being a woman is a "fair comment." Saying she has sand in her vagina is not "disagreeing with whether there was a valid concern."
The only equivalent I can come up with would be a post about a guy who was upset with the high occurence of anal rape in America's prisons, and someone responding with "Spread those cheeks out more, honey. A big ol' dick will cure that uptight ass."
posted by occhiblu at 11:21 AM on January 19, 2005
The only equivalent I can come up with would be a post about a guy who was upset with the high occurence of anal rape in America's prisons, and someone responding with "Spread those cheeks out more, honey. A big ol' dick will cure that uptight ass."
posted by occhiblu at 11:21 AM on January 19, 2005
When men are reprimanded for getting their balls in a knot, it does not come with the same connotations, ie, that they're just being typical men & should therefore be dismissed.
Are you kidding me? How is "don't get your balls in a knot" not completely dismissive?
Pull your heads out of your asses, folk. Quit shitting yourselves. Don't get your balls in a knot. Quit dicking around. Don't fuck around. Keep your knickers on. Don't be such a hard-on.
MetaFilter: Don't Use Your Language Here.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:55 PM on January 19, 2005
Are you kidding me? How is "don't get your balls in a knot" not completely dismissive?
Pull your heads out of your asses, folk. Quit shitting yourselves. Don't get your balls in a knot. Quit dicking around. Don't fuck around. Keep your knickers on. Don't be such a hard-on.
MetaFilter: Don't Use Your Language Here.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:55 PM on January 19, 2005
That FPP was depressing, but the thread much more so. Thanks, Matt.
I felt like the woman in the article; reading that thread nearly made me puke-- if it were taking place in person I would have put my coat on and left as well. And not because that's the whiny, wimpy, girlish thing to do, but because it's the civilized and appropriate thing to do, for chrissakes.
This thread's no picnic either, however. These MetaTalks about whether or not it's "reasonable" to be offended by sexist/racist/gender/whatever comments is ridiculous, as is trying to draw comparisons between balls/vaginas/watermelon and line them up with each other on some scale of acceptability outside of context.
It's like this: you can hold whatever opinion you like on whether a girl-bashing comment is offensive, but unless you're a girl, that opinion simply doesn't count for anything. You don't get a vote. I sometimes can't understand why people are offended by various comments, but I don't presume to explain to them that the shitty way they were made to feel was okay, because I thought it was funny, or because some parallel rude comment made regarding a Straight White Guy wouldn't be taken with as much offense.
posted by obloquy at 2:46 PM on January 19, 2005
I felt like the woman in the article; reading that thread nearly made me puke-- if it were taking place in person I would have put my coat on and left as well. And not because that's the whiny, wimpy, girlish thing to do, but because it's the civilized and appropriate thing to do, for chrissakes.
This thread's no picnic either, however. These MetaTalks about whether or not it's "reasonable" to be offended by sexist/racist/gender/whatever comments is ridiculous, as is trying to draw comparisons between balls/vaginas/watermelon and line them up with each other on some scale of acceptability outside of context.
It's like this: you can hold whatever opinion you like on whether a girl-bashing comment is offensive, but unless you're a girl, that opinion simply doesn't count for anything. You don't get a vote. I sometimes can't understand why people are offended by various comments, but I don't presume to explain to them that the shitty way they were made to feel was okay, because I thought it was funny, or because some parallel rude comment made regarding a Straight White Guy wouldn't be taken with as much offense.
posted by obloquy at 2:46 PM on January 19, 2005
obloquy-
Lots and lots of threads have comments that contain vulgar language; it's part of the culture of MetaFilter, like it or not. I think the sand comment stood out because it was novel.
And really, it's like this: you can hold whatever opinion you want on the subject, but even if you're a girl, that opinion simply doesn't count for anything. Metadiscussions about such things are just so much pissin' in the wind and won't change anything. None of this matters. No one gets a vote.
As far as the parallel comment thing- that is how one makes judgments about such novelties of language as the sand comment. Is it vulgar? Certainly. But it is more vulgar than the parallel comments? Well, that's what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? Is it so vulgar as to warrant a banning? I don't even think it's close, compared to other vulgarity that is regularly ignored. Even if you disagree with my assessment, it should be plain that this is how one arrives at a judgment one way or the other- by comparing it to similar things.
posted by Doohickie at 4:55 PM on January 19, 2005
Lots and lots of threads have comments that contain vulgar language; it's part of the culture of MetaFilter, like it or not. I think the sand comment stood out because it was novel.
And really, it's like this: you can hold whatever opinion you want on the subject, but even if you're a girl, that opinion simply doesn't count for anything. Metadiscussions about such things are just so much pissin' in the wind and won't change anything. None of this matters. No one gets a vote.
As far as the parallel comment thing- that is how one makes judgments about such novelties of language as the sand comment. Is it vulgar? Certainly. But it is more vulgar than the parallel comments? Well, that's what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? Is it so vulgar as to warrant a banning? I don't even think it's close, compared to other vulgarity that is regularly ignored. Even if you disagree with my assessment, it should be plain that this is how one arrives at a judgment one way or the other- by comparing it to similar things.
posted by Doohickie at 4:55 PM on January 19, 2005
I tell ya, I've been gone for a while, having burned out on politics and discussions thereof...which is pretty much all we were doing for a bit...and this thread happened to be the one I wandered back into first.
It wasn't the last one I wandered into, but I think it exemplifies what has started to pass for common discourse around here. Again, I haven't been here, so I'm not sure what happened...but the entire timbre of the place seems to have shifted towards the farkside.
In regards to LisaS's comments, I didn't read them as sarcastic. What I read seemed to be woman bashing on the basis that someone was unfortunate enough to be born with a vagina and expected to be treated the same as people born with a penis.
For those keeping score, being sarcastic about women's rights might be a statement such as: "How audacious...why, the thought of it...women being treated like people...how absurd!". Saying that those women deserve "deep dicking" and chocolate...not so much. Then again, tone is always difficult to decipher in text...thus, the use of connotators such as a sarcasm tag might have helped people realize what she was on about.
I'm not sure where the "sand in the vagina" thing started...LisaS's comment is the first one where I saw it...because it wasn't formatted any differently than the rest of her text, I assumed it was a (slightly non sequiter) part of her comment.
Despite who said it first, and regardless of whether South Park used it, it's a term used for the sole purpose of causing an effect. It isn't meant to further communication, enable discussion, or illuminate a point. It is purely linguistic bravado of the "oooh, look at me, look at me!" variety. Matt has every right to trim the trees of the poo-flinging monkeys.
That said, there does seem to be an awful lot of poo-flinging monkeys...and not all of them are new. Did I miss a memo? Have we given up thoughtful responses, well thought out posts and consideration even for those with whom we disagree?
posted by dejah420 at 11:24 AM on January 25, 2005
It wasn't the last one I wandered into, but I think it exemplifies what has started to pass for common discourse around here. Again, I haven't been here, so I'm not sure what happened...but the entire timbre of the place seems to have shifted towards the farkside.
In regards to LisaS's comments, I didn't read them as sarcastic. What I read seemed to be woman bashing on the basis that someone was unfortunate enough to be born with a vagina and expected to be treated the same as people born with a penis.
For those keeping score, being sarcastic about women's rights might be a statement such as: "How audacious...why, the thought of it...women being treated like people...how absurd!". Saying that those women deserve "deep dicking" and chocolate...not so much. Then again, tone is always difficult to decipher in text...thus, the use of connotators such as a sarcasm tag might have helped people realize what she was on about.
I'm not sure where the "sand in the vagina" thing started...LisaS's comment is the first one where I saw it...because it wasn't formatted any differently than the rest of her text, I assumed it was a (slightly non sequiter) part of her comment.
Despite who said it first, and regardless of whether South Park used it, it's a term used for the sole purpose of causing an effect. It isn't meant to further communication, enable discussion, or illuminate a point. It is purely linguistic bravado of the "oooh, look at me, look at me!" variety. Matt has every right to trim the trees of the poo-flinging monkeys.
That said, there does seem to be an awful lot of poo-flinging monkeys...and not all of them are new. Did I miss a memo? Have we given up thoughtful responses, well thought out posts and consideration even for those with whom we disagree?
posted by dejah420 at 11:24 AM on January 25, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by u.n. owen at 11:32 AM on January 18, 2005