Interesting. I've never heard of "Family Circus." Surely, as a joke told by an adult, it's unfunny and sexist. But as a kid's mis-hearing/-speaking, it's pretty funny.
Surely, as a joke told by an adult, it's unfunny and sexist. But as a kid's mis-hearing/-speaking, it's pretty funny.
It is a joke told by adults. The kid didn't mistakenly think that there was some meaningful connection between the words 'vagina' and 'agenda', the kid slurred/mispronounced a word, and some adult seized on that to make the connection. The kid isn't a meaningful participant in the joke at all (which is one of the keys to Family Circus's peculiar unfunniness.)
I totalled a Volvo station wagon in grand fashion when I was 16. Rolled it side over side, then end over end, and my brother and I both walked away with nothing but bruises and scratches.
And yet still, you remember the Family Circus. I swear to god, that shitty-ass cartoon will be the last thing on our brains in the nursing home, and yet we'll be too decrepit to kill ourselves.
Consider yourself lucky, Ogged. Shockingly culturally ignorant, but lucky.
Oh, and I love LB and want to have her lizardy little babies. Just for the record.
Apostropher is blessed by God. That really tells you something about God, doesn't it?
God also destroyed Grand Forks, ND, because He was upset about homosexual excesses. (Sure, his second try, New Orleans, was more accurate, but that's pretty careless if you ask me.)
We really should revive the Dysfunctional Family Circus.
Is Bil Keane dead yet? The reason DFC was shut down was because he wrote the site owner and said something along th elines of "kindly please stop shitting all over my life's work." I thought the DFC was hilarious, but really, the man had a point.
That being said, I am now in the uncomfortable position of eagerly awaiting a man's death so I can participate in shitting all over his life's work.
Physics may be skeptical, but I was in it as it rolled (side over side, 1.5 rotations) off the road, then went (end over end, 0.5 rotation, ending on roof) down a hill into some random family's yard.
I now have great faith in the safety profile of Swedish mobiles.
Did you ever read the Far Side? I think that's how most people ended up reading the Family Circus. Being irregularly shaped, they were always placed adjacent to one another in the paper. You'd go to read the Far Side and swear you weren't going to read the Family Circus but, somehow, you always ended up doing it.
I barely know what Family Circus is. I probably read it once, was faintly annoyed, and after that my eye would skip right over it on the funnies page.
Also, the first time I drove my car on the highway, a car hit the median in front of me, went spinning end over end, and landed right behind me with a great thunderous crash. I wasn't in Baptist youth group territory, though.
That layout actually led to some amusing situations. The captions of the two panels would sometimes be switched, greatly improving the Family Circus panel. There are examples in The Prehistory of the Far Side.
Is knowing about Family Circus the new "Who won the World Series"? Shouldn't someone be looking into a Iranian Shi'a who claims to be American but does not know about Family Circus?Or does our Homeland security suck?
And, yes, I'm sure we have some sort of reciprocal agreement with the Brits that makes looking into Celt-friendly ac, a purported American who does not really remember the Family Circus, worthwhile.
30: That is, "read it once and never again" is exactly the right reaction, while "never read the funny pages" is cyborgian--were you were the kid who didn't think it was funny to light farts?
31: The commentary to one of the cartoons in that book made me laugh so hard that I fell off the john (I wouldn't go so far as to call it a faint, but I did have tunnel vision).
but I still think I've got a right to make fun of his work.
Sure. It's the scale of the operation that made me feel bad aboutr the whole thing--every cartoon was getting 500 or more caption entries, and they were all just about as vile as you can get (and I thought were hysterically funny). When you consider that the characters are based on the man's own family...I dunno, even though his entire career swims in a sea of insipidity, I just can't bring myself to feel bad that the DFC shut down.
I never thought lighting farts was funny. Even as a juvenile, I thought it was juvenile.
The real reason one read the Family Circus is that one read *everything*, including the backs of cereal boxes and shampoo bottles. In the nursing home, I'll be reading the goddamn pill bottles and restroom signs, I'm sure. And griping about it to Apostropher, who won't have the right to tell me to shut up now that he's said he'll be happy as long as he has my grumpy company.
Bphd, I have no particular brief for lighting farts, but in discussing Ogged's cyborgianism it is important to work the word "fart" in as much as possible. Like this: Fart.
And yes, Family Circus and other comic strips gain lots of eyeballs because they're most frequently read by people who have just got up and are still kind of sluggish.
Hey Weiner, let me ask you a question: One is down a touchdown or so at the start of the second half. Why would one kick an on onside kick on the opening kickoff?
I was in the midst of a grueling trip back from Thanksgiving, but I understand the answer is "It might give the team a boost." Note that in Super Bowl whatever it was a similar tactic worked OK--the Steelers might have won that game if Neil O'Donnell had been able to remember which team he was on.
The real reason one read the Family Circus is that one read *everything*, including the backs of cereal boxes and shampoo bottles.
Bitch -- You probably shouldn't bear my children, because we're clearly related. On the other hand, given the relationship, how come you guys never show up for Thanksgiving?
So sorry to break up the love-in, but come on, everyone reads the shampoo bottle and the back of the cereal box. But that has nothing to do with whether one reads a particular comic strip, or comic strips in general. In related news, I hate you all.
given the number of DC-based people around here, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, which was just linked to in [Washington Post columnist] Gene Weingarten's chat...
the comics are home the the loveliest anachronisms around, e.g., Prince Valient. Also, the Blondie and Beetle Bailey cartoons. I like Blondie, because the strip reflects the present century in some ways -- in that the characters discuss the internet, and drive modern looking cars -- and yet it seems to exist in some parallell 1920s world, where all the men continue to pomade their hair, and the sexual revolution doesn't appear to have occurred. Conflict arises primarily over napping. Who actually identifies with these cartoons?
Similarly, in Sally Forth, it is perennially 1983.
What in the world has happened to Tom Tomorrow? He's been totally unfunny since Bush got elected, pretty much. It's like he fell victim to the Tom Lehrer conundrum.
Who draws Blondie, and what do they think of their surroundings? Are they constantly baffled by the world in which they live? Have they a mechanism by which they reinterpret sensory information to match the Blondie landscape?
Time ago curiosity got the better of me and I began to read Prince Valiant for a while. After the third or fourth strip, my reserve of tolerance for "Next week: Val adjusts his tights"-style suspense had been wholly sucked dry.
Chopper:I just can't bring myself to feel bad that the DFC shut down.
Seconded. FC has to be one of those things you just have to pretend don't exist...like Baptist Youth Groups. Things that that just sit there lumpily, like a zit. You don't go after FC for the same reason you don't get in fights with little old ladies. It's...unsporting.
O:I had a roommate who'd done the same thing--also a teenager, drunk, in the family station wagon, walked away. Another American rite of passage.
Do you have to roll it? I tried to demolish a light pole with my '72 Ford truck when I was 18. It wasn't a station wagon tho, and I didn't roll it. It left a dent approximately 1/4" deep in the front bumper and hood. Which is pretty good considering I must have been going 35 when I hit it.
Fucked my arms up real good, tho and I was quite thoroughly soused.
LB, I'll show up next year, now that you've invited me.
Ogged, don't be such an old fart.
Matt, see? I learn quickly.
Everyone, when I was growing up my dad would read Prince Valiant--which I *did* manage to skip--out loud to me EVERY SUNDAY no matter how much I begged or commanded him not to. Nowadays he sends me several links to various cartoons he finds around the web every day--he used to email me the cartoons themselves, beginning about ten years ago, until I finally managed to get it through his skull that they took forever to load on my dialup connection and therefore I was deleting all his email. His response was a pouty "Well, that's too bad, because that is one of the ways I express myself." He also has a tattoo of the alligator from Pogo on his ankle.
Ogged, I'll be happy to put you in touch with my dad, who can easily get you up to speed on the cultural background you've missed. One old fart deserves another, n'est-ce pas?
Ok, the first sentence of 28 is the strangest part of this whole exchange. Ah, so they were in the comics section. How can one be surprised/ find it informative that a comic is in the comic section? Where did he think everyone was finding it, talk radio?
Veering wildly off-topic (or, more accurately, to a different off-topic subject), did anybody else notice that the Royal Marines are apparently conducting commando training at the Mineshaft?
Maybe you didn't have to read Prince Valiant, but you at least have to look at the pictures - a character in my favorite novel is described as having a "Prince Valiant" haircut.
And it was always Zippy that got to me the most. Family Circus, Mary Worth - awful, yes, but I could imagine a certain kind of overly sweet person who would appreciate it. But who would like Zippy? I actually met someone who claimed to love it, once, who tried to mumble something about the rhythm of the dialog, but I wasn't having any of it.
Just imagine a young man turning up in his unit and being made to wrestle naked in a field while his non-commissioned officers are dressed up in women's frillies.
Doesn't that make you want to give money to Tom Ammiano, Washer? Its' about as stone cold awesome as I have ever seen a politician be in an interview setting.
Zippy. I quick glance at Ziggy, which looks different than I remember, shows normal Family Circus type attempts at humor, where Zippy was another breed entirely. Though poking around your link, I found the guide to understanding Zippy, which makes me think that I wasn't ready for it back in the days that I read comments.
I'm not saying Zippy is great, SCMT, but that its suckage is on the level of your standard comic. It's a different kind of suckage, but not any more severe.
Zippy the motherfucking pinhead. Consistently the most hated strip in the Washington Post 'comics poll', and paradoxically, sufficient justification for high-school jocks to persecute artsy types on well into the 22nd century. We all suffer.
I don't get comment 9. Are you denying that his wife's friend Jane's son said such a thing?
I'm not LB, but I do have the LB footy pajamas and decoder ring.
I don't think she's denying that at all. I think she's pointing out, rather, that whatever the little tyke said, Goldbarth turned it from a mouths-of-babes precious moment into a "joke told by an adult" when he included it in his poem.
Man, it sucks being humorless. Everyone else gets to make jokes about brussels sprouts, and I end up analyzing everything in merciless detail. On the other hand, no one's forcing me to do this, so I must enjoy it. And it beats writing this brief.
Mercilessly detailed analysis commences:
(1) The joke here is that 'vagenda' is a blend of 'vagina' and 'agenda'. Anyone with a vagina has an agenda, the meanings of the two words are connected somehow.
(2) If an adult, fluent English speaker made the joke, it would be kinda sexist and not all that funny; it's taking a weak phonetic similarity as an excuse to say something negative about women generally.
(3) The kid in question, whatever they said, wasn't drawing a mental connection between 'vagina' and 'agenda'. A kid who knows what 'agenda' means, particularly in the negative sense of 'having an agenda' referenced by the joke, is old enough that they aren't cutely mispronouncing 'vagina'. So what happened in the kid's head was a simple phonetic error -- they introduced an extraneous 'd' sound into the word 'vagina'. The funny connection isn't happening in the kid's head -- they aren't participating in the joke.
(4) So for this to be funny, you still have the adult hearer of the mispronunciation seizing on an accidental phonetic similarity between whatever the kid said instead of 'vagina' and 'agenda', and using it to make a negative comment about women generally. The thought process you described as sexist in (2), with an adult making the joke, is the same as the thought process when it's based on a little-kid mispronunciation. Still unfunny, still sexist. (Also, you've got mad day-care skilz. You know that a kid little enough to be bumbling words like that is also mumbling and slurring, which means that the listening adult wasn't likely to have been presented with a clear-as-a-bell 'vagenda'. The adult likely had to do a fair amount of auditory processing to come up with the funny pronunciation. Again, the whole joke is happening in the adult's head.)
(Note: the pedantic over-analysis doesn't mean I'm taking this all too seriously -- it means I'm trying not to write a brief. The joke? No big deal.)
Seriously, what's funny is that a kid, who clearly doesn't intend anything sexist, and doesn't really intend anything other than a short anatomy lesson, would say something that sounds so jaded and sexist. That's one of the reasons South Park is funny, right? Kids talking in vulgar terms.
But the kids on South Park do mean what they say -- the joke isn't that they're innocently saying shit, it's that they are so young and actually so jaded (in that cartoon 'actually' sense.)
How this for an alternative possible joke: "Daddy, you always say that Rosita does such a good job, and keeps the house spic and span. To tell her how much we like her keeping the house spic and span, we should call her a spic." Innocent mistake on the (imaginary) kid's part, no one meant anything racist, but even if a real kid said that innocently, you wouldn't repeat it as a cute joke. The difference is that racist is really bad, but sexist is cute.
even if a real kid said that innocently, you wouldn't repeat it as a cute joke
Sure I would. On this very site, even. In fact, the only reason I didn't make a "nigger" analogy was that I couldn't think of a believable kid-mistake with it.
Point taken on South Park, though. Nevermind them.
Eh, maybe. You think Goldbarth would write a poem about it, though? I get a strong whiff of 'it's funny because it's true!' either that that's how women are, or that that's how men think of women - now the kid says it innocently, but in twenty years he'll really mean it.
(And I was going for a 'nigger' analogy, but couldn't get to one either.)
I propose that speakers of English use "vulva" instead of "vagina" whenever context allows. It's anatomically more accurate, harder to mispronounce, and its widespread adoption among adults would end the long disparity in childspeak between the word for male genitals (seldom garbled), and the word for female genitals (often garbled). I don't think anyone* will mourn the "women are from China" anecdotes.
I further propose we find a convenient, semi-clinical word to denote the whole male apparatus, one that embraces both penis and scrotum in the same way that "vulva" does vagina, labia, and the rest. The answer is not "package", please try again.
I have never (for values of "never" in the neighborhood of "only a couple of times") read the daily strip of Zippy. But hearken to the call of John Emerson: "Are We Having Fun Yet?" is a classic. All I can say in this regard: three rocks.
A still-unmarried thirty-year-old man was having dinner with his very possessive widowed mother. What he meant to say was, "Please pass the butter, mother". But what he actually said was, "You fucking bitch! You ruined my life!"
Not clinical enough, though. This is supposed to be the word little boys use when talking to their parents. I can't see "unit" failing to creep out mom and dad.
The 'gentles' (or, for the uncircumcised, the 'gentiles'.)
Actually, what's wrong with penis and scrotum (or balls -- do little kids really say scrotum? I don't seem to discuss Newt's genitalia with him much, now that toilet training is a thing of the past.) Whence this need for a unifying term?
In my experience, it's mostly teenagers that say scrotum because, let's face it, that's a funny, funny word. And this is the most disturbing scrotum news I've heard all month.
Oh heavens, the reason one uses "vulva" instead of "vagina" is NOT because "vulva" is all-inclusive. It isn't. The vagina isn't part of the vulva, only the vaginal entrance is. Nor are the uterus, the fallopian tubes, or the ovaries part of the vagina. The reason one uses "vulva" is because it names the *external* parts, the parts little kids can see. One might also use "labia" perfectly accurately, except that a halfway intelligent little girl who's done any exploring at all knows that there's more there than simply the external labia.
By those standards, one uses "scrotum" and "penis" because they are visible and external to small children. Again, if one's kid is halfway intelligent, they also get explanations about internal parts that they can't see.
Actually, B, Standpipe's claim was "anatomically more accurate," not fully-encompassing. Also, his reasoning for a new term for the external (okay) male genetalia was brevity, not that penis & scrotum are anatomically inaccurate.
But, seriously, thanks for ruining our totally productive discussion.
We all agree that, qua joke, "vagenda" is sexist. The issue was whether the kid was just being used as a prop, to make the joke at a distance. Like I said, I'll post the context when I get home.
Of course the kid's being used as a prop. As a well-established kid-as-humor-prop user, that's how "oh, the things kids say!" works as a humor genre. Either it's funny b/c the kid is saying something true w/out realizing it, or it's funny b/c the kid is saying something that's absolutely ludicrous but *almost* true. And as LB said, the humorousness of any given little-kid mispronunciation depends on whether or not it functions as a malapropism. "Vagenda" functions as a malapropism only inasmuch as it evokes the sexist argument that, well, LB already said it. If one conflated the word with, say, a day planner, it wouldn't be especially amusing. I mean, fine, I'll read the broader context when you post the thing when you get home, but as posted here we all agree: unfunny and sexist, yes?
Anyway, I didn't mean to crap on anyone's good time. Back to vulvaesque terms for men's external genitalia. I propose "Google."
No. Plays on words are funny. Genitalia are funnier. I quote:
This sudden Right-wing embrace of radical PC speech codes about sex is certainly a fascinating development; but, sadly, it doesn't make any more sense than it did when the Campus Hippy Loser Crybaby Coalition first tried it during my college years. For, much as my junior high school principal, scowling hippy wankers, and y'all might wish it weren't so, sex - as everyone who passed the fourth grade knows - is hilarious. Sorry, just is - granted, some people may have outgrown this point of view, but I think we all know what some people are like. It involves all of the most disreputable and silly-looking parts of the body, smells silly, sounds silly, looks totally ridiculous, and makes people behave like total fools. That's some funny, funny shit, and we haven't even mentioned online advertisements featuring ridiculous poses, horrible porn nicknames, and embarrassing sexual CVs. That all of this is so, and that it is, nevertheless, quite fun, is one of the main reasons that God didn't make walls see-through.
Plays on words about genitalia are funniest of all.
Increasingly, I think LB's #2 is the key. More specifically, isn't it the general reference to women that makes it sexist? Imagine you were with a close group of friends, male and female, all of whom you trusted not to be sexist. If one of them, male or female, described another friend's new girlfriend as having a "vagenda," wouldn't you laugh? And wouldn't you treat any sexism inherent in it in roughly the way we treat any inherent homophobia in our use of "teh gay" - that is, obviously available, but obviously not being deployed on this occasion.
"Teh ghey" looks like the name for some sort of specialty yoghurt. Given the conversational arenas into which threads here drift, I avoid like the plague anything that evokes images of yoghurt .
Honestly, when I hear "vagenda" I just hear somebody with a cleft palate saying Virginia. Which is the second funniest state name behind West Virginia.
Are all jokes that play off (negative) generalizations about one gender or another sexist? I guess in the dictionary definition sense, that's got to be true. And one can understand, what with history being what it is, why ears are sharp for these things when the generalization is about women. Nonetheless, I feel that in common usage I want to think of sexist behavior as obviously unsupportable behavior, and humor which relies on negative generalizations does not seem to fit that bill.
Perhaps that's beacuse manyof these generalizations about gender appear to have strong basis in fact? Men are, truly, more aggressive and sex obssessed. Women are, in fact, more ... well, some other things surely. And aren't these differences often a great well-spring of humor and *good natured* chuckling. And do not these differences play a role in art which is not low art? Would Pride and Prejudice work if it were Lizzie who was distant and proud, and Darcy who was lively and to quick to judge. Or would that just seem weird and unnatural?
Having doused myself in kerosene I await the match.
Re 181 Thanks A, but I'm partial to Juan de Fuca. 'course were I ever to Wendy my Walter, I could then change the Juan de to Wanda, so that my fan base would not be *too* confused. One must plan for all, even the most unlikely, eventualities.
Would Pride and Prejudice work if it were Lizzie who was distant and proud, and Darcy who was lively and to quick to judge. Or would that just seem weird and unnatural?
Why wouldn't it? I don't see either of those as male or female stereotypes anyway. Were they at the time? I wasn't paying too much attention back when I was trying to pick up chicks in eighteenth-century England.
Seriously, though, I'd think most of us are mature enough or worldly enough at this point to have met a sizable number of (for example) aggressive women and non-aggressive men, just to take a whack at one obvious stereotype you mentioned.
#170, no, actually, I wouldn't; I'd say it was a sexist joke. B/c the point is that whether or not X is sexist isn't about whether or not I think the person saying X is a good person or a bad person; it's about the role that language and stereotypes play in culture. Hence, people who aren't especially sexist can, and do, say sexist things all the time; I do it.
Hence, also, re. #183, no, *in and of themselves* jokes that play on negative stereotypes of men/women aren't sexist; however, given that neither the people who make jokes, the language with which they are constructed, nor the cultural context in which they are found funny exist in a vacuum, yes: at this historical moment, they are virtually always sexist. The reason P&P "works" with the gender roles assigned is because those gender roles speak to a cultural and historical truth. And recall that those truths are at least as much about social class as about gender--Darcy's aunt is also distant and proud, and a major part of Elizabeth's informality is that she is basically middle class.
One man's "good natured chuckling" is another woman's patronizing chuckling. One can surely harbor sexist ideas while nonetheless liking women a great deal and sincerely believing in their equality. And yes, in social context we let those things go. Nonetheless, there's a difference between letting slips among friends go and absolving those friends of sexism. Just as there's a difference between friendship and political opposition, and just as there's a difference between social realities and the integrety of ideas.
The pun isn't sexist, in and of itself. The joke that "men have a penis, women have an agenda" is sexist b/c it evokes the stereotype that women are conniving bitches who manipulate men. You can't possibly say that you don't "get" that.
I'm not sure I said anywhere that sexism, in and of itself, is never funny. I, for one, greatly enjoy the misogyny of, say, Byron: "Oh you lords of ladies intellectual / tell us truly, have they not hen-pecked you all?" Sexist and funny ,yes. But that particular joke, imho, is sexist and not funny.
But we must cheer up Ogged. How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
B, I conditionally buy your argument, but I'm super-hesitant about it. (It sounds right, but I'd want to think about it, and Gawd knows that's unlikely to happen.)
That recipe is flawed. (It's probably damned good, but if you cooked the steak first in a non-nonstick pan using little bit of vegetable oil, you'd get a fond. Then you take the steak out of the pan to let it rest while you cook the shallots in the remaining fat in the pan. Deglaze with the wine, reduce slightly, add butter, whisk to incorporate,, return steak to pan briefly to bring back up to temp, done. Same amount of time, extra flavor.)
Just riffing a bit on bphd's 191. I think it is interesting (and perhaps relevant to the point I wanted to make), that an ungendered invokation of good natured chuckling (ungendered) evoked a profoundly gendered response: what men perceive as good natured women see as patronizing. But surely, woman frequently chuckle good naturedly at men's foibles. And sometimes the chuckling is not so kindly meant.
I am inclined to focus on the kindness, or lack thereof, rather than on the mere deployment of a gender stereotype. Why? Because I believe these stereotypes are inescapable. We cannot, however heroicly we try, reduce generalizations about gender to class, or to social construction. It won't work. We are all, I hope, Darwinists here; and both theory and established biological mechanism suggest differences will always, in general, be observed between men and women.
There are good reasons to think this hypothesis false, and equally good reasons to hope it false. Let us stipulate, however, that sex does correlate with significant, differences in psychology as well as physiology. Will it not then behoove us to distinguish between a mentality that views these differences as cause for contempt and justification of oppression, and any number of benign or neutral responses to these differences? And will this not be true even if historically the most significant result of noting these differences has been injustice? To get back to the earlier point, does it help us to use "sexist" -- in the sense of "immoral" for both these cases?
I should also note that the person who runs that site and the person who wrote that recipe are surely better cooks than I. I just like to shoot my mouth off.
Ben, I'm sorry to say I can't really remember it--a couplet with a shift from "friend" to "girlfriend" with the basic idea being that women become a lot less interesting and more annoying as the shift happens.
Baa, I agree that stereotypes are inescapable; that's why sexism, too, is inescapable in the current world. Maybe someday it won't be. No one is saying there are no differences between men and women; the point is that assigning value judgments to those differences imposes a hierarchy. And I gendered the "good natured chuckling" thing on purpose, to point out the problem.
Bphd, your short response evokes two thoughts. The first is that I wonder to what degree assigning value judgement does, in fact, impose a hierarchy. If we say Jane Austen is funnier than Joseph Conrad, we have imposed one hierarchy: on the great chain of humor, Austen > Conrad. But we have not imposed or implied any larger, all-encompasing hierarchy of artistic value, nor ranked Austen relative to Conrad on it. And anyone who thought we did would be making an error.
Trivial point, so why make it? It's because it is hard to separate the mere noting of difference with the assignment of some kind of value. Men are, on average, physically stronger than women. Men are, on average, more violent than women. The recognition of these differences cannot be easily segregated from the ascription of some kind of value. This suggests to me that we should simply accept this level of "value ascription", and keep our powder dry to resist the imposition of the larger, and more invidious, and false hierarchy. (men > women; woman > men)
[[I should just note that I do not intend this primarily as an argument about what position we should adopt as a matter of public rhetoric. It may be that in the service of abolishing the truly invidious hierachy, we want to police references to the less invidious hierarchies. I tend towards small "l" liberal on these topics (the truth will out, sunlight the best disinfectant, etc.), but I could be convinced otherwise in a given case]]
stereotypes are inescapable; that's why sexism, too, is inescapable
I took baa's point to be that the inference from stereotypes to sexism doesn't work, even if there's a reliable correlation between them. That is, suppose some stereotypes, read as statistical claims, are true. It's possible to acknowledge this without being committed to (or committing) some form of sexism. (This might be what's meant by "in the current world," though, in which case we partly agree.)
I'd absolve the poem of sexism largely because it seems to be using a different meaning of 'agenda' than we all came up with -- using it to mean something more like, maybe, itinerary?
baa-
Please take this as good-humored (albeit vehement) disagreement rather than an accusation that you're a sexist bastard.
I am inclined to focus on the kindness, or lack thereof, rather than on the mere deployment of a gender stereotype. Why? Because I believe these stereotypes are inescapable. We cannot, however heroicly we try, reduce generalizations about gender to class, or to social construction. It won't work. We are all, I hope, Darwinists here; and both theory and established biological mechanism suggest differences will always, in general, be observed between men and women.
Sure, we're all Darwinists. What established biological mechanism do you refer to that creates (on average) personality differences between men and women? Do you imagine that it is possible to, e.g., do a blood test and predict aggression levels from testosterone levels in any simple (or in any complex) way? Do you believe that any solid, rather than speculative, connections have been drawn between average differences in brain structures between the sexes and personality differences? I am not denying the existence of biology when I say that to my knowledge research has not yet been done establishing that there are (on average) innate physical differences between the sexes (hormone levels, differences in brain structures) that cause (on average) personality differences between the sexes. If you want to appeal to the fact that "We're all Darwinists" to establish something, you have to show me some solid science.
More socially, you talk about how the obvious average differences between men and women (and I'm certainly not denying that there are some in our society, nor that some of them may be innate, although they haven't been shown to have been) are a source of good-natured fun and are inescapable, so why bother trying to escape them? I don't think you are fully considering quite how much the expectation of conformity to those norms can fuck people up. To take an example you mentioned as noncontroversial:
Perhaps that's beacuse many of these generalizations about gender appear to have strong basis in fact? Men are, truly, more aggressive and sex obssessed.
Remember being a hormonally driven teenager? Couldn't think about anything but sex? Absolutely obsessed with it? Now picture that the fact that you're obsessed with sex makes you unmanly, abnormal, and undesirable, rather than a perfectly normal teenage boy. Welcome to my teenage years, and those of lots and lots of other women.
I don't actually know which gender is more obsessed with sex -- it's hard to figure out how to compare thoughts -- but I do know that every woman I know well thinks about sex more than she knows a normal woman is supposed to, based on what we all know about men and women. The harmless, obvious stereotypes you rely on aren't necessarily all that harmless.
Calling sexism immoral, as you did, is only going to confuse things, because you're going to believe that something well meant and therefore not immoral can't be sexist and therefore harmful. Whether or not you mean well has nothing to do wih whether what you've said is sexist, and pointing out sexism doesn't mean I'm calling you a bad person.
Would Pride and Prejudice work if it were Lizzie who was distant and proud, and Darcy who was lively and to quick to judge.
Well, we might call them Jane and Bingley under those circumstances.
I think the issue here is the loaded word "sexist". I've always assumed that the important part of the definition involves discriminatory intent or behavior. Clearly, in the context of the poem, no such intent/behavior is expressed. The following works just as well, without changing any of the poem's meaning:
And I've been pleased to have been issued passports into some of those "virginias"--to have traveled there.
Back to the point at hand, I don't see that manipulativeness is the stereotypical domain of either gender, but rather a trait assigned widely to members of each.
Actually it works a lot better, since "Virginia" is a geographical territory.
And jeez, can't we all agree with LB about the pervasive harm of the boys-are-randy stereotype? Is there a single straight guy here whose high school years would not have been much much better if it were OK to say in public that girls are just as crazy about sex as guys are? ("They weren't crazy about sex with you, Weiner." Shut up.)
I don't think the harm lies in the boys-are-randy stereotype (which is, of course, broadly and demonstrably true), but in the good-girls-aren't-randy stereotype.
First, lets just table the effects of these generalizations for a moment. That's what I meant by saying this is to one side of "public rhetoric." Let's just stipulate, for a moment, that there is a biologically based difference in sex drive between men and women. So that the generalization "men are more aggressive and sex obsessed" just is *true*. It may yet still be the case that we do not wish to reinforce that difference, publicize that difference, or make jokes about that difference because of all the negative results it will have (some people will feel abnormal, some people will be oppressed, etc.). And it may be also, that because of those negative effects , we should place much higher burdens of proof on those generalizations than we do on others. All fine, etc.
Ok, end to that digression. On the science, sure, the evidence you call for is lacking. That's why I said "suggest" rather than "proves" or "demonstrates." And I'm not really committed as a proposition about value, to whether this proves to be true or not. A world in which all average temperamental differences between men and women result from socialization is a fine one as far as I am concerned.
The problem is, that while I'd agree there's no definitive proof, as yet, about the biological basis of temperament, I really, really doubt that the 'no innate differences' world is in fact the one we inhabit. Again, it's not proven, but I would be *astonished* if there were not statistically significant, biological differences in psychology between men and women. If that's wrong, hey, great. The problem is, what if it's right?
You are of course right to note that kindly intention is no guarantee of good results. I would not dispute it. It's also the case, however, that a proposition being true is no guarantee that its promulgation will have good results. Since I think ultimately the truth will out, it is in all of our interests to find ways to make promulgation and reference to the truth compatible with a just society in which we all want to live, etc.
-----
That's the end to the serious comments. But just one thing. Bingly/Jane as a mirror image of virtue/vice dynamic of Darcy/Lizzie? That's crazy!
Let's just stipulate, for a moment, that there is a biologically based difference in sex drive between men and women. So that the generalization "men are more aggressive and sex obsessed" just is *true*...
On the science, sure, the evidence you call for is lacking. That's why I said "suggest" rather than "proves" or "demonstrates."...
The problem is, that while I'd agree there's no definitive proof, as yet, about the biological basis of temperament, I really, really doubt that the 'no innate differences' world is in fact the one we inhabit.
You're saying that if the truth is uncomfortable, we nonetheless need to face up to it. Sure. I'm just not willing to skip the step of figuring out what the truth is before I face up to it.
(And I need to disappear for the rest of the day -- I have way, way too much work to do. Could people please mock me if I comment again?)
Don't worry about the name mixup (although it's nice to know we're confusable. I always feel that my writing gets so dry when I'm ranting, but apparently not.)
And Weiner? That's the best rhetorical use of googlefight I think I've seen.
Baa--Do you really think that it is appropriate to talk of scientific proof? There are results consistent with an hypothesis, but outside of pure mathematics, I think it's probably inaccurate to describe any evidence as having proved a scientific truth.
On stereotypes of gendered difference (and on the broader argument, I agree with LB):
1. Men like sex more--well, LB's argument about the role of socialization here is a good one. I'll just add, anecdotally, that the most common criticisms I get from readers who happen upon my blog and realize I have an open marriage are (1) it must be fiction; (2) no "real woman" would "endanger her child and marriage" that way; (3) my husband must be a pussy.
2. Men are stronger, on average--I believe you mean, "on average men have more upper body strength." Again, this is problematic b/c, on average, women are discouraged from physically demanding activity and men are not. But even so, I believe studies have shown that women have more endurance and tolerate pain better. Surely these also constitute "strength."
3. Men are more violent: again, problematic in that violence is encouraged in men and discouraged in women. Women's violent impulses get expressed rhetorically and indirectly in many ways, but are still there. Also, please keep in mind that violence in women--which is often directed against children--is considered "unnatural," just as frank sexuality is.
And the sole hit reveals... it's completely innocent! Though that seems to be an online community devoted to perpetuated jokes about genitalia. For shame.
(It's probably damned good, but if you cooked the steak first in a non-nonstick pan using little bit of vegetable oil, you'd get a fond. Then you take the steak out of the pan to let it rest while you cook the shallots in the remaining fat in the pan. Deglaze with the wine, reduce slightly, add butter, whisk to incorporate,, return steak to pan briefly to bring back up to temp, done. Same amount of time, extra flavor.)
1> I'm not sure what he means by 'total reduction', but I assume since he doesn't want to brown the shallots he doesn't mean actual total reduction. Although carmelizing onions to go on steak is time-honored.
2> More important is that he's using flank steak. All I can think is 'hockey puck'. All the flank I ever get is pretty tough, and sauteing it for four minutes would make it really tough. The tender part of T-bone or whatnot would work better. Otherwise, you're doing chicken-fried steak, so you might as well pound it with a hammer, which I don't think is he's going for. It would be about as easy to do the number on the shallots (well, onions, shallots are a waste when you're using mustard), and then braise the steak sans mustard in the wine until you get a nice reduction and then add some dijon to the sauce. (Or you could it add the beginning but it's useful as a thickener adjustment.) Like rostelyos but different.
apo, I don't know if Dr. B is around, but I'd love to hear you speculate as to why that is? And weren't there a number of years where they kept women out of studies, because it was thought that they would mess up the purity of the data? The symptoms of heart disease were always described in male terms, i.e. the ways that men feel when they're having a heart attack.
Strange that derogative "pussy" isn't dispreferred. I wonder what pattern, if any, governs your rhetorical dispreferences. Why agitate against "blows" but not "pussy"?
Possibly b/c women are likelier to need the money? Or to need the medical care?
Surely part of strength is the ability to endure pain. If you're in a fight and you get hit and fall on the floor yelling "ow!" you're going to be considered less strong than someone who gets hit and then hits back. Just to give a stupid oversimplified example.
I'm not sure why it is, but recruiting men for trials is always more difficult than recruiting women. My wild-assed, unsupported guess is that women are just generally more used to doctors and medical procedures, what with the semi-annual checkups of the plumbing. But since most of these studies deal with patients who have already been diagnosed with the studied condition, I'm not sure that really explains the disparity.
Surely part of strength is the ability to endure pain.
I'd say that's part of "toughness," but not of my internal definition of strength, which has to do with raw exertion of force on an object, ie torque and lifting.
I don't get it.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-28-05 10:48 PM
Great, start 'em young.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:12 AM
From Pseudodictionary:
Posted by Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:41 AM
This is basically a "Family Circus" joke, but with extra crotch - which, while adding creepiness, adds nothing to the intrinsic lack of funny.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:00 AM
This is basically a "Family Circus" joke
Exactly right -- unfortunately Not Me is not part of the joke.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:30 AM
Speaking of Family Circus jokes...
Posted by Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:02 AM
Interesting. I've never heard of "Family Circus." Surely, as a joke told by an adult, it's unfunny and sexist. But as a kid's mis-hearing/-speaking, it's pretty funny.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:40 AM
7: Now here was one
truly touched
by the angels.
the light was so
bright
we all looked
away.
with apologies, right?
Posted by foo | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:51 AM
You've never heard of Family Circus? Golly.
And this:
Surely, as a joke told by an adult, it's unfunny and sexist. But as a kid's mis-hearing/-speaking, it's pretty funny.
It is a joke told by adults. The kid didn't mistakenly think that there was some meaningful connection between the words 'vagina' and 'agenda', the kid slurred/mispronounced a word, and some adult seized on that to make the connection. The kid isn't a meaningful participant in the joke at all (which is one of the keys to Family Circus's peculiar unfunniness.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:53 AM
You've never heard of Family Circus? How is this possible?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:02 AM
Don't know Family Circus? Are you even American, ogged? Do you find our ways strange, and our language difficult?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:07 AM
Ogged is Unfrozen Caveman Blogger.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:10 AM
ogged did know about Family Circus, once, but his memory has been patchy since his accident in the Volvo.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:17 AM
I totalled a Volvo station wagon in grand fashion when I was 16. Rolled it side over side, then end over end, and my brother and I both walked away with nothing but bruises and scratches.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:20 AM
And yet still, you remember the Family Circus. I swear to god, that shitty-ass cartoon will be the last thing on our brains in the nursing home, and yet we'll be too decrepit to kill ourselves.
Consider yourself lucky, Ogged. Shockingly culturally ignorant, but lucky.
Oh, and I love LB and want to have her lizardy little babies. Just for the record.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:32 AM
As long as we're in the nursing home together, B, I'll be happy in our decrepitude.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:37 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:45 AM
Huh, just went to the Family Circus site and it doesn't even look familiar. I hate these ignorant immigrant moments.
Rolled it side over side, then end over end, and my brother and I both walked away with nothing but bruises and scratches.
I had a roommate who'd done the same thing--also a teenager, drunk, in the family station wagon, walked away. Another American rite of passage.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:53 AM
Rolled it side over side, then end over end
Physics regards your anecdote suspiciously.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:57 AM
Happily, I was stone cold sober. Leaving a Baptist youth group function, even.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:58 AM
Apostropher is blessed by God. That really tells you something about God, doesn't it?
God also destroyed Grand Forks, ND, because He was upset about homosexual excesses. (Sure, his second try, New Orleans, was more accurate, but that's pretty careless if you ask me.)
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:59 AM
Physics regards your anecdote suspiciously.
He forgot to mention the part where King Kong picked up the car and tossed it back and forth.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:02 AM
We really should revive the Dysfunctional Family Circus.
Is Bil Keane dead yet? The reason DFC was shut down was because he wrote the site owner and said something along th elines of "kindly please stop shitting all over my life's work." I thought the DFC was hilarious, but really, the man had a point.
That being said, I am now in the uncomfortable position of eagerly awaiting a man's death so I can participate in shitting all over his life's work.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:03 AM
Physics regards your anecdote suspiciously.
Physics may be skeptical, but I was in it as it rolled (side over side, 1.5 rotations) off the road, then went (end over end, 0.5 rotation, ending on roof) down a hill into some random family's yard.
I now have great faith in the safety profile of Swedish mobiles.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:04 AM
Did you ever read the Far Side? I think that's how most people ended up reading the Family Circus. Being irregularly shaped, they were always placed adjacent to one another in the paper. You'd go to read the Far Side and swear you weren't going to read the Family Circus but, somehow, you always ended up doing it.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:06 AM
25 was me.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:08 AM
I barely know what Family Circus is. I probably read it once, was faintly annoyed, and after that my eye would skip right over it on the funnies page.
Also, the first time I drove my car on the highway, a car hit the median in front of me, went spinning end over end, and landed right behind me with a great thunderous crash. I wasn't in Baptist youth group territory, though.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:11 AM
Ah, so they were in the comics section. Never looked at it. I read the Far Side later in books and calendars.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:11 AM
World O' Crap used to do some Family Circus reinterpretation.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:13 AM
I'm sure you'll all be making fun of ac any minute now...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:14 AM
That layout actually led to some amusing situations. The captions of the two panels would sometimes be switched, greatly improving the Family Circus panel. There are examples in The Prehistory of the Far Side.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:15 AM
OK, ac is a New Yorker, and may have been reading papers that don't contain comments, and Ogged is just weird.
(ac, does that mean the car went over you? Yow.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:15 AM
"comments" s/b "comics." But is there a difference, really?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:15 AM
31 to 25
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:16 AM
I'm sure you'll all be making fun of ac any minute now
Ah ha ha, ac isn't cool enough for Baptist youth group. Also, I believe there is an egregious error in my initial number of rotations.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:21 AM
Is knowing about Family Circus the new "Who won the World Series"? Shouldn't someone be looking into a Iranian Shi'a who claims to be American but does not know about Family Circus?Or does our Homeland security suck?
And, yes, I'm sure we have some sort of reciprocal agreement with the Brits that makes looking into Celt-friendly ac, a purported American who does not really remember the Family Circus, worthwhile.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:22 AM
but really, the man had a point.
This is one thing I won't feel bad about. Apparently Keane was nice about it, but I still think I've got a right to make fun of his work.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:24 AM
30: That is, "read it once and never again" is exactly the right reaction, while "never read the funny pages" is cyborgian--were you were the kid who didn't think it was funny to light farts?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:24 AM
31: The commentary to one of the cartoons in that book made me laugh so hard that I fell off the john (I wouldn't go so far as to call it a faint, but I did have tunnel vision).
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:28 AM
you were the kid who didn't think it was funny to light [oggs]?
He isn't alone.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:29 AM
There are examples in The Prehistory of the Far Side.
The cartoons in question. Turns out it was Dennis the Menace, not Family Circus. (You can get a better scan at Amazon: Prehistory is searchable.)
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:31 AM
but I still think I've got a right to make fun of his work.
Sure. It's the scale of the operation that made me feel bad aboutr the whole thing--every cartoon was getting 500 or more caption entries, and they were all just about as vile as you can get (and I thought were hysterically funny). When you consider that the characters are based on the man's own family...I dunno, even though his entire career swims in a sea of insipidity, I just can't bring myself to feel bad that the DFC shut down.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:33 AM
Ah right. I knew it was one of those old panel comics. Been a while since I read the book.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:38 AM
I never thought lighting farts was funny. Even as a juvenile, I thought it was juvenile.
The real reason one read the Family Circus is that one read *everything*, including the backs of cereal boxes and shampoo bottles. In the nursing home, I'll be reading the goddamn pill bottles and restroom signs, I'm sure. And griping about it to Apostropher, who won't have the right to tell me to shut up now that he's said he'll be happy as long as he has my grumpy company.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:55 AM
(ac, does that mean the car went over you? Yow.)
Yes. And it really was my first already kind of jittery time on the highway, driving my first car, about two days after getting my license.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:57 AM
The real reason one read the Family Circus is that one read *everything*, including the backs of cereal boxes and shampoo bottles.
Exactly so.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:00 AM
Except I still managed train myself to never read May Worth.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:03 AM
Fuck. Adam, there's a reason I send you work now and then.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:04 AM
Bphd, I have no particular brief for lighting farts, but in discussing Ogged's cyborgianism it is important to work the word "fart" in as much as possible. Like this: Fart.
And yes, Family Circus and other comic strips gain lots of eyeballs because they're most frequently read by people who have just got up and are still kind of sluggish.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:06 AM
Hey Weiner, let me ask you a question: One is down a touchdown or so at the start of the second half. Why would one kick an on onside kick on the opening kickoff?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:13 AM
I have no particular brief for lighting farts
Any briefs will do, of course.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:14 AM
I was in the midst of a grueling trip back from Thanksgiving, but I understand the answer is "It might give the team a boost." Note that in Super Bowl whatever it was a similar tactic worked OK--the Steelers might have won that game if Neil O'Donnell had been able to remember which team he was on.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:19 AM
The real reason one read the Family Circus is that one read *everything*, including the backs of cereal boxes and shampoo bottles.
Bitch -- You probably shouldn't bear my children, because we're clearly related. On the other hand, given the relationship, how come you guys never show up for Thanksgiving?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:20 AM
One never reads Prince Valiant.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:21 AM
So sorry to break up the love-in, but come on, everyone reads the shampoo bottle and the back of the cereal box. But that has nothing to do with whether one reads a particular comic strip, or comic strips in general. In related news, I hate you all.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:23 AM
Googling "toiletry literature" brings back this odd page.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:28 AM
My mother read "Cathy", which is why we never speak.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:30 AM
ANyone read Mark Trail recently? It used to be a nature comic, but recently there's been a steady run of impossibly evil villains.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:32 AM
There was a time, during a particularly bleak patch of singledom, when I really appreciated "Cathy" on a deep level.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:33 AM
given the number of DC-based people around here, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, which was just linked to in [Washington Post columnist] Gene Weingarten's chat...
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:33 AM
I think even "Cathy" qualifies for the shampoo-cereal exemption.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:34 AM
60, see 6. You are pwned by a factor of 10.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:35 AM
the comics are home the the loveliest anachronisms around, e.g., Prince Valient. Also, the Blondie and Beetle Bailey cartoons. I like Blondie, because the strip reflects the present century in some ways -- in that the characters discuss the internet, and drive modern looking cars -- and yet it seems to exist in some parallell 1920s world, where all the men continue to pomade their hair, and the sexual revolution doesn't appear to have occurred. Conflict arises primarily over napping. Who actually identifies with these cartoons?
Similarly, in Sally Forth, it is perennially 1983.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:35 AM
I really appreciated "Cathy" on a deep level.
Even here, at Self-Ridicule Central, some admissions should be kept to oneself.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:36 AM
What in the world has happened to Tom Tomorrow? He's been totally unfunny since Bush got elected, pretty much. It's like he fell victim to the Tom Lehrer conundrum.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:38 AM
Who draws Blondie, and what do they think of their surroundings? Are they constantly baffled by the world in which they live? Have they a mechanism by which they reinterpret sensory information to match the Blondie landscape?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:39 AM
Time ago curiosity got the better of me and I began to read Prince Valiant for a while. After the third or fourth strip, my reserve of tolerance for "Next week: Val adjusts his tights"-style suspense had been wholly sucked dry.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:43 AM
Chopper:I just can't bring myself to feel bad that the DFC shut down.
Seconded. FC has to be one of those things you just have to pretend don't exist...like Baptist Youth Groups. Things that that just sit there lumpily, like a zit. You don't go after FC for the same reason you don't get in fights with little old ladies. It's...unsporting.
O:I had a roommate who'd done the same thing--also a teenager, drunk, in the family station wagon, walked away. Another American rite of passage.
Do you have to roll it? I tried to demolish a light pole with my '72 Ford truck when I was 18. It wasn't a station wagon tho, and I didn't roll it. It left a dent approximately 1/4" deep in the front bumper and hood. Which is pretty good considering I must have been going 35 when I hit it.
Fucked my arms up real good, tho and I was quite thoroughly soused.
Does that count?
ash
['Can I get a play review here?']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:43 AM
LB, I'll show up next year, now that you've invited me.
Ogged, don't be such an old fart.
Matt, see? I learn quickly.
Everyone, when I was growing up my dad would read Prince Valiant--which I *did* manage to skip--out loud to me EVERY SUNDAY no matter how much I begged or commanded him not to. Nowadays he sends me several links to various cartoons he finds around the web every day--he used to email me the cartoons themselves, beginning about ten years ago, until I finally managed to get it through his skull that they took forever to load on my dialup connection and therefore I was deleting all his email. His response was a pouty "Well, that's too bad, because that is one of the ways I express myself." He also has a tattoo of the alligator from Pogo on his ankle.
Ogged, I'll be happy to put you in touch with my dad, who can easily get you up to speed on the cultural background you've missed. One old fart deserves another, n'est-ce pas?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:49 AM
Even Family Circus doesn't approach the abyss Fred Basset occupies.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:00 AM
Ok, the first sentence of 28 is the strangest part of this whole exchange. Ah, so they were in the comics section. How can one be surprised/ find it informative that a comic is in the comic section? Where did he think everyone was finding it, talk radio?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:13 AM
62: Armsmasher, my only redemption is that later in the same chat Weingarten uses the phrase "Undogged". He pwned us all...
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:14 AM
How can one be surprised/ find it informative that a comic is in the comic section?
I meant as opposed to, say, a Matt Groening cartoon from back in the day, which might have made the rounds, but never been in a daily paper.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:22 AM
I always liked Fred Basset.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:36 AM
You see folks? He's evil!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:40 AM
Maybe we shouldn't have any more discussions on this site about matters of taste.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:42 AM
Veering wildly off-topic (or, more accurately, to a different off-topic subject), did anybody else notice that the Royal Marines are apparently conducting commando training at the Mineshaft?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:43 AM
baa is a man full grown. He can take it.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:49 AM
37: As long as we're hating on Scott Adams (we didn't stop, did we?) it's important to note that he has the same hangup.
Posted by neil | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 11:57 AM
78- The evil can be surprisingly thin-skinned.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:10 PM
I wasn't trying to protect baa, who can kick your ass all on his own, Ben, but musing, more generally.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:12 PM
So, what, it's to be all swimming, all the time?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:17 PM
I think so, yes. Have you thought about water, lately, Tim? I mean, really thought about it?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:19 PM
It sure does make for compelling swimming-related blog content, that's all I know.
(also, Tim, you are so right that not knowing the family circus = prima facie evidence of being a replicant)
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:20 PM
baa, you just reminded me to re-read the replicant test given to the San Francisco mayoral candidates. Verdict: still hilarious.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:41 PM
Maybe you didn't have to read Prince Valiant, but you at least have to look at the pictures - a character in my favorite novel is described as having a "Prince Valiant" haircut.
And it was always Zippy that got to me the most. Family Circus, Mary Worth - awful, yes, but I could imagine a certain kind of overly sweet person who would appreciate it. But who would like Zippy? I actually met someone who claimed to love it, once, who tried to mumble something about the rhythm of the dialog, but I wasn't having any of it.
Posted by Oztk | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:43 PM
the Royal Marines are apparently conducting commando training at the Mineshaft?
I especially like the reaction of the former commander:
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:46 PM
Zippy or Ziggy?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:46 PM
Oh, Tia...
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 12:58 PM
Doesn't that make you want to give money to Tom Ammiano, Washer? Its' about as stone cold awesome as I have ever seen a politician be in an interview setting.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:10 PM
Zippy. I quick glance at Ziggy, which looks different than I remember, shows normal Family Circus type attempts at humor, where Zippy was another breed entirely. Though poking around your link, I found the guide to understanding Zippy, which makes me think that I wasn't ready for it back in the days that I read comments.
Posted by oz | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:17 PM
I admit that's exactly what I thought, baa.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:17 PM
No, you were right the first time, oz: Zippy blows. (Or blew. Whichever.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:22 PM
Are we having fun yet?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:36 PM
Comments=comics. Argh.
I'm not saying Zippy is great, SCMT, but that its suckage is on the level of your standard comic. It's a different kind of suckage, but not any more severe.
Posted by oz | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:38 PM
Said to me by a music enthusiast friend after a couple of good tokes, and on the way to the CD collection:
"Dude, I know you've listened to 'Carry On, My Wayward Son' before, but have you ever really listened to how fucking awesome it is?"
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:44 PM
Zippy the motherfucking pinhead. Consistently the most hated strip in the Washington Post 'comics poll', and paradoxically, sufficient justification for high-school jocks to persecute artsy types on well into the 22nd century. We all suffer.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:45 PM
Consistently the most hated strip
However, this made me feel friendly toward it, despite only finding it remotely funny once or twice.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:48 PM
So, by analogy, you like Hitler. Apostropher is no hero.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 1:56 PM
Isn't that what it takes to make a hero?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:00 PM
NAITH!
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:00 PM
I believe, my initial-bearing friend, that would be the signal criterion of Powerline-heroism.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:02 PM
How do you know it isn't the sound I make as Cheney leads me to the slaughter?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:34 PM
I do not deny the potential multivocality of pseudonyms.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:40 PM
Ah, reminiscing, a walk down memory lane. Does anyone else miss "Little Iodine," or "They'll do it every time?"
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:50 PM
Red Meat at the Mineshaft.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 2:58 PM
I don't get comment 9. Are you denying that his wife's friend Jane's son said such a thing?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 3:56 PM
friend's (real) child announced at dinner table: "men have penises. Women are from China."
Posted by Joanna | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 4:18 PM
I don't get comment 9. Are you denying that his wife's friend Jane's son said such a thing?
I'm not LB, but I do have the LB footy pajamas and decoder ring.
I don't think she's denying that at all. I think she's pointing out, rather, that whatever the little tyke said, Goldbarth turned it from a mouths-of-babes precious moment into a "joke told by an adult" when he included it in his poem.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 4:21 PM
Yeah, that occurred to me, but I was hungry and felt like fighting, frankly. I should post the context when I get home--it's pretty friendly.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 4:26 PM
Man, it sucks being humorless. Everyone else gets to make jokes about brussels sprouts, and I end up analyzing everything in merciless detail. On the other hand, no one's forcing me to do this, so I must enjoy it. And it beats writing this brief.
Mercilessly detailed analysis commences:
(1) The joke here is that 'vagenda' is a blend of 'vagina' and 'agenda'. Anyone with a vagina has an agenda, the meanings of the two words are connected somehow.
(2) If an adult, fluent English speaker made the joke, it would be kinda sexist and not all that funny; it's taking a weak phonetic similarity as an excuse to say something negative about women generally.
(3) The kid in question, whatever they said, wasn't drawing a mental connection between 'vagina' and 'agenda'. A kid who knows what 'agenda' means, particularly in the negative sense of 'having an agenda' referenced by the joke, is old enough that they aren't cutely mispronouncing 'vagina'. So what happened in the kid's head was a simple phonetic error -- they introduced an extraneous 'd' sound into the word 'vagina'. The funny connection isn't happening in the kid's head -- they aren't participating in the joke.
(4) So for this to be funny, you still have the adult hearer of the mispronunciation seizing on an accidental phonetic similarity between whatever the kid said instead of 'vagina' and 'agenda', and using it to make a negative comment about women generally. The thought process you described as sexist in (2), with an adult making the joke, is the same as the thought process when it's based on a little-kid mispronunciation. Still unfunny, still sexist. (Also, you've got mad day-care skilz. You know that a kid little enough to be bumbling words like that is also mumbling and slurring, which means that the listening adult wasn't likely to have been presented with a clear-as-a-bell 'vagenda'. The adult likely had to do a fair amount of auditory processing to come up with the funny pronunciation. Again, the whole joke is happening in the adult's head.)
(Note: the pedantic over-analysis doesn't mean I'm taking this all too seriously -- it means I'm trying not to write a brief. The joke? No big deal.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 4:33 PM
Hey, I don't even have the footy pajamas. Now I want a set.
(Of course, given the whole LizardBreath thing, I understand they have a distinct odor of dead flies.)
And the decoder ring clearly works -- that's a much shorter and less crabby rendering of what I meant.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 4:36 PM
Least funny comment ever, LB.
Seriously, what's funny is that a kid, who clearly doesn't intend anything sexist, and doesn't really intend anything other than a short anatomy lesson, would say something that sounds so jaded and sexist. That's one of the reasons South Park is funny, right? Kids talking in vulgar terms.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 4:40 PM
it would be kinda sexist and not all that funny
Disagree. It would be really sexist and kind of funny. And if it were told by Sarah Silverman, it would be "edgy" and "transformative."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 4:48 PM
But the kids on South Park do mean what they say -- the joke isn't that they're innocently saying shit, it's that they are so young and actually so jaded (in that cartoon 'actually' sense.)
How this for an alternative possible joke: "Daddy, you always say that Rosita does such a good job, and keeps the house spic and span. To tell her how much we like her keeping the house spic and span, we should call her a spic." Innocent mistake on the (imaginary) kid's part, no one meant anything racist, but even if a real kid said that innocently, you wouldn't repeat it as a cute joke. The difference is that racist is really bad, but sexist is cute.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 4:52 PM
even if a real kid said that innocently, you wouldn't repeat it as a cute joke
Sure I would. On this very site, even. In fact, the only reason I didn't make a "nigger" analogy was that I couldn't think of a believable kid-mistake with it.
Point taken on South Park, though. Nevermind them.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 4:56 PM
In fact, the more offensive and inappropriate the kid's mistake, the funnier it would be (within broad limits).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:00 PM
Sure I would.
Eh, maybe. You think Goldbarth would write a poem about it, though? I get a strong whiff of 'it's funny because it's true!' either that that's how women are, or that that's how men think of women - now the kid says it innocently, but in twenty years he'll really mean it.
(And I was going for a 'nigger' analogy, but couldn't get to one either.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:02 PM
I'm annoyed at myself for making you think ill of Goldbarth. I really will post the context tonight; it's not at all a "funny because true" line.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:04 PM
I propose that speakers of English use "vulva" instead of "vagina" whenever context allows. It's anatomically more accurate, harder to mispronounce, and its widespread adoption among adults would end the long disparity in childspeak between the word for male genitals (seldom garbled), and the word for female genitals (often garbled). I don't think anyone* will mourn the "women are from China" anecdotes.
I further propose we find a convenient, semi-clinical word to denote the whole male apparatus, one that embraces both penis and scrotum in the same way that "vulva" does vagina, labia, and the rest. The answer is not "package", please try again.
*Anyone who matters.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:05 PM
Giblets.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:07 PM
Giblets.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:07 PM
Hey, how'd that happen?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:08 PM
You only get one vote, LB.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:09 PM
apparently SB doesn't know about the invasion of the tripods.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:10 PM
also: flotsam and jetsom. Not clinical enough?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:14 PM
if not, then Mr. Floppy Pants And His Jolly Mumps Encased In Elbow Skin probably won't work either.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:17 PM
112: Thanks, LB. (The pajamas smell fine, BTW.)
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:17 PM
You forgot ligan. Which actually works in a kind of tantric yoga sorta way.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:19 PM
It's too bad "ganglia" is taken. "danglia"?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:20 PM
word to denote the whole male apparatus, one that embraces both penis and scrotum
With my older son, I've used "generals," playing off both genitals and privates.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:20 PM
I did forget about the ligan. In fact, perhaps I've forgotten about it many times before -- the secret to the male multiple orgasm?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:22 PM
I have never (for values of "never" in the neighborhood of "only a couple of times") read the daily strip of Zippy. But hearken to the call of John Emerson: "Are We Having Fun Yet?" is a classic. All I can say in this regard: three rocks.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:22 PM
Inspired by apostropher: The Admiralty.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:23 PM
the secret to the male multiple orgasm?
Anyone else thinking of the poor little rat bopping the pleasure lever, ignoring the food lever, and dying of starvation?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:25 PM
But let's not start talking about Rears and Vices. (Jane Austen's only anal sex joke.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:25 PM
Here's another funny slip-of-the-tongue story:
A still-unmarried thirty-year-old man was having dinner with his very possessive widowed mother. What he meant to say was, "Please pass the butter, mother". But what he actually said was, "You fucking bitch! You ruined my life!"
Aren't unmarried thirty-year-old men cute?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:27 PM
S/B -- how about "unit"?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:28 PM
"Johnny Unitas".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:29 PM
Not clinical enough, though. This is supposed to be the word little boys use when talking to their parents. I can't see "unit" failing to creep out mom and dad.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:31 PM
A reported malapropism that might work:
The 'gentles' (or, for the uncircumcised, the 'gentiles'.)
Actually, what's wrong with penis and scrotum (or balls -- do little kids really say scrotum? I don't seem to discuss Newt's genitalia with him much, now that toilet training is a thing of the past.) Whence this need for a unifying term?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:35 PM
I don't seem to discuss Newt's genitalia with him much
Yeah, once he left the House of Representatives, he wouldn't discuss the Little Speaker with me either.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:39 PM
Whence this need for a unifying term?
I was looking for a male analogue to "vulva". There isn't really a pressing need.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:39 PM
The Admiralty.
Goodness, yours is precocious. Mine's still fresh out of RUTC.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:41 PM
Speaking of gonads.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:43 PM
I can't see "unit" failing to creep out mom and dad.
Smug assholes. They could use to have their petty bourgeois world shook up a bit.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 5:44 PM
Howzabout "pleasure glands"? That might creep out my mom.
Oh, who am I kidding? After 37 years of me, 33 years of my brother, and 30+ years of teaching public high school, my mother is manifestly uncreepable.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:13 PM
do little kids really say scrotum
In my experience, it's mostly teenagers that say scrotum because, let's face it, that's a funny, funny word. And this is the most disturbing scrotum news I've heard all month.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:17 PM
Does one raise an Apostropher, or simply survive him? In either case, kudos to Ma'apostropher.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:22 PM
Oh heavens, the reason one uses "vulva" instead of "vagina" is NOT because "vulva" is all-inclusive. It isn't. The vagina isn't part of the vulva, only the vaginal entrance is. Nor are the uterus, the fallopian tubes, or the ovaries part of the vagina. The reason one uses "vulva" is because it names the *external* parts, the parts little kids can see. One might also use "labia" perfectly accurately, except that a halfway intelligent little girl who's done any exploring at all knows that there's more there than simply the external labia.
By those standards, one uses "scrotum" and "penis" because they are visible and external to small children. Again, if one's kid is halfway intelligent, they also get explanations about internal parts that they can't see.
And LB is right: the joke is sexist.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:30 PM
Of course bitchphd is right. Sorry for the muddle.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:35 PM
And LB is right: the joke is sexist.
Wot's wrong with being sexy?
And the proper word to fully encompass all the female stuff is "cooter".
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:35 PM
IST.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:41 PM
IST.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:43 PM
Actually, B, Standpipe's claim was "anatomically more accurate," not fully-encompassing. Also, his reasoning for a new term for the external (okay) male genetalia was brevity, not that penis & scrotum are anatomically inaccurate.
But, seriously, thanks for ruining our totally productive discussion.
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:50 PM
And suddenly, the comments lapse into monosyllabic German.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:50 PM
And LB is right: the joke is sexist.
We all agree that, qua joke, "vagenda" is sexist. The issue was whether the kid was just being used as a prop, to make the joke at a distance. Like I said, I'll post the context when I get home.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:51 PM
Ach!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:51 PM
Except for Sam there.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:52 PM
Sam K, I veered into foul territory with the second paragraph of 120 and, by association, its descendant comments.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:54 PM
Sorry, I wasn't talking about the joke, which of course is sexist. Also, not very funny.
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:54 PM
161 to 159.
160: Ah, gotcha. Still, that wasn't why we needed a new term, right?
Posted by Sam K | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 6:56 PM
Of course the kid's being used as a prop. As a well-established kid-as-humor-prop user, that's how "oh, the things kids say!" works as a humor genre. Either it's funny b/c the kid is saying something true w/out realizing it, or it's funny b/c the kid is saying something that's absolutely ludicrous but *almost* true. And as LB said, the humorousness of any given little-kid mispronunciation depends on whether or not it functions as a malapropism. "Vagenda" functions as a malapropism only inasmuch as it evokes the sexist argument that, well, LB already said it. If one conflated the word with, say, a day planner, it wouldn't be especially amusing. I mean, fine, I'll read the broader context when you post the thing when you get home, but as posted here we all agree: unfunny and sexist, yes?
Anyway, I didn't mean to crap on anyone's good time. Back to vulvaesque terms for men's external genitalia. I propose "Google."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:04 PM
Also, not very funny.
Bzzzt.
Yes, it is.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:04 PM
I propose "Google."
Or, more generically, "search engine".
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:08 PM
What about "ask Jeeves"?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:11 PM
Yes, it is.
This is that whole "Tragedy is when I slip on a banana peel; comedy is when you fall through a manhole cover and die," thing, isn't it?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:11 PM
This is that whole [...]
No. Plays on words are funny. Genitalia are funnier. I quote:
Plays on words about genitalia are funniest of all.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:16 PM
IST. IST.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:19 PM
Increasingly, I think LB's #2 is the key. More specifically, isn't it the general reference to women that makes it sexist? Imagine you were with a close group of friends, male and female, all of whom you trusted not to be sexist. If one of them, male or female, described another friend's new girlfriend as having a "vagenda," wouldn't you laugh? And wouldn't you treat any sexism inherent in it in roughly the way we treat any inherent homophobia in our use of "teh gay" - that is, obviously available, but obviously not being deployed on this occasion.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:30 PM
I just want to say I'm proud of having diverted this thread into a discussion of shitty comic strips for as long as I did.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:35 PM
roughly the way we treat any inherent homophobia in our use of "teh gay"
Yes, yes, precisely. And it's teh ghey, goddammit.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:38 PM
"Teh ghey" looks like the name for some sort of specialty yoghurt. Given the conversational arenas into which threads here drift, I avoid like the plague anything that evokes images of yoghurt .
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 7:48 PM
Ok, here's the whole stanza.
Moon of the gnashing wolf, moon of the overtumulting tidewaters,
moon of the itch of love, of the gnash of love, of the waters of love,
--we've all been there.
Upstairs, my wife is sleeping; dreaming--what? How far
is the tether unraveled? If life is a stem,
by definition its flowering grows outside of the stem.
How short, how everyday, is the step
between two worlds?--the thickness of the skull? of the skin?
My wife's friend Jane's young son announced,
in case we didn't know it, "Men-have-penises.
Women-have-vagendas." That's a good one, yes?
And I've been pleased to have been issued passports
into some of those "vagendas"--to have traveled there.
And always, at that journey's end, I've been left breathless,
changed for a moment and lost in myself and breathless,
and beached on a foreign shore.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:00 PM
howe everyday
In the original or a typo?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:05 PM
Shit, I'll fix it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:06 PM
I avoid like the plague anything that evokes images of yoghurt
But it's a tradition.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:07 PM
For whatever reason, I know 'vagenda' is 'v-agenda' but everytime I see it, I picture a woman with an accordian.
ash
['Momma's got a squeezbox, Daddy never sleeps at night.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:10 PM
Honestly, when I hear "vagenda" I just hear somebody with a cleft palate saying Virginia. Which is the second funniest state name behind West Virginia.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:12 PM
Wouldn't Virginia West be a good porn name? Based on a quick google, it seems not to be taken yet.
Posted by Mr. B | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:18 PM
I think it's all yours, dude.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:20 PM
A) The funniest state name: Idaho.
B) Fishing tackle.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:25 PM
Are all jokes that play off (negative) generalizations about one gender or another sexist? I guess in the dictionary definition sense, that's got to be true. And one can understand, what with history being what it is, why ears are sharp for these things when the generalization is about women. Nonetheless, I feel that in common usage I want to think of sexist behavior as obviously unsupportable behavior, and humor which relies on negative generalizations does not seem to fit that bill.
Perhaps that's beacuse manyof these generalizations about gender appear to have strong basis in fact? Men are, truly, more aggressive and sex obssessed. Women are, in fact, more ... well, some other things surely. And aren't these differences often a great well-spring of humor and *good natured* chuckling. And do not these differences play a role in art which is not low art? Would Pride and Prejudice work if it were Lizzie who was distant and proud, and Darcy who was lively and to quick to judge. Or would that just seem weird and unnatural?
Having doused myself in kerosene I await the match.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:28 PM
Re 181 Thanks A, but I'm partial to Juan de Fuca. 'course were I ever to Wendy my Walter, I could then change the Juan de to Wanda, so that my fan base would not be *too* confused. One must plan for all, even the most unlikely, eventualities.
Posted by Mr. B | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:30 PM
Just imagine a young man turning up in his unit
So, this would be related to a Klein bottle?
(In ogged's case, a sehr klein bottle.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:30 PM
174: I'll say it. That poem sucks ASS.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:31 PM
Having doused myself in kerosene I await the match.
I gotcher back, Holmes. However much that might dismay you.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:31 PM
You and I agree on this one, Isle: it's a weak stanza in a weak poem. Some of his other stuff, however, is awesome.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:35 PM
were I ever to Wendy my Walter
Or switch-on your box, as it were.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:36 PM
Would Pride and Prejudice work if it were Lizzie who was distant and proud, and Darcy who was lively and to quick to judge. Or would that just seem weird and unnatural?
Why wouldn't it? I don't see either of those as male or female stereotypes anyway. Were they at the time? I wasn't paying too much attention back when I was trying to pick up chicks in eighteenth-century England.
Seriously, though, I'd think most of us are mature enough or worldly enough at this point to have met a sizable number of (for example) aggressive women and non-aggressive men, just to take a whack at one obvious stereotype you mentioned.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:36 PM
In context, fine; the poem seems not sexist.
#170, no, actually, I wouldn't; I'd say it was a sexist joke. B/c the point is that whether or not X is sexist isn't about whether or not I think the person saying X is a good person or a bad person; it's about the role that language and stereotypes play in culture. Hence, people who aren't especially sexist can, and do, say sexist things all the time; I do it.
Hence, also, re. #183, no, *in and of themselves* jokes that play on negative stereotypes of men/women aren't sexist; however, given that neither the people who make jokes, the language with which they are constructed, nor the cultural context in which they are found funny exist in a vacuum, yes: at this historical moment, they are virtually always sexist. The reason P&P "works" with the gender roles assigned is because those gender roles speak to a cultural and historical truth. And recall that those truths are at least as much about social class as about gender--Darcy's aunt is also distant and proud, and a major part of Elizabeth's informality is that she is basically middle class.
One man's "good natured chuckling" is another woman's patronizing chuckling. One can surely harbor sexist ideas while nonetheless liking women a great deal and sincerely believing in their equality. And yes, in social context we let those things go. Nonetheless, there's a difference between letting slips among friends go and absolving those friends of sexism. Just as there's a difference between friendship and political opposition, and just as there's a difference between social realities and the integrety of ideas.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:40 PM
Integrity. Shit.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:43 PM
But wait. What, exactly, is sexist about the pun "vagenda"? Having an agenda is neither a stereotypically male nor stereotypically female trait.
Really, in the self-proclaimed home of the cock joke, how much sexist intent can be assigned to a vagina joke?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:49 PM
The pun isn't sexist, in and of itself. The joke that "men have a penis, women have an agenda" is sexist b/c it evokes the stereotype that women are conniving bitches who manipulate men. You can't possibly say that you don't "get" that.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:52 PM
As opposed to the non-existent stereotype that men are conniving assholes that manipulate women? Come on.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:54 PM
Sure, and if I said "women have penis envy, but men are real dicks," that would be sexist too.
I bet Ogged is SO glad he let me back in.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:55 PM
that would be sexist too.
And funny! See?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:56 PM
Ogged is not enjoying this thread.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:56 PM
And I've been pleased to have been issued passports
into some of those "vagendas"--to have traveled there.
And always, at that journey's end, I've been left breathless,
changed for a moment and lost in myself and breathless,
and beached on a foreign shore.
Just him and a goddamned accordian.
ash
['He sounds like he needs an anima.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:59 PM
Apostropher is.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 8:59 PM
I'm not sure I said anywhere that sexism, in and of itself, is never funny. I, for one, greatly enjoy the misogyny of, say, Byron: "Oh you lords of ladies intellectual / tell us truly, have they not hen-pecked you all?" Sexist and funny ,yes. But that particular joke, imho, is sexist and not funny.
But we must cheer up Ogged. How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:00 PM
That's not funny.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:03 PM
Ogged is not enjoying this thread.
Killjoy. Is ogged enjoying anything these days?
B, I conditionally buy your argument, but I'm super-hesitant about it. (It sounds right, but I'd want to think about it, and Gawd knows that's unlikely to happen.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:20 PM
Would it help if I told you I was composing misogynist doggerel in my head the other day as I walked downtown to buy cigarettes?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:26 PM
Only if you quote it.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:39 PM
This site is a treasure. E.g.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:41 PM
The joke that "men have a penis, women have an agenda" is sexist b/c it evokes the stereotype that women are conniving bitches who manipulate men.
I think my brain agreed with you in the initial milliseconds of processing the line, and went hunting for another, actually funny, joke.
How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Two. One to screw in the lightbulb and the other to hold the fucking accordian.
ash
['Can I get a 'Yo, bitches!'?']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:46 PM
That recipe is flawed. (It's probably damned good, but if you cooked the steak first in a non-nonstick pan using little bit of vegetable oil, you'd get a fond. Then you take the steak out of the pan to let it rest while you cook the shallots in the remaining fat in the pan. Deglaze with the wine, reduce slightly, add butter, whisk to incorporate,, return steak to pan briefly to bring back up to temp, done. Same amount of time, extra flavor.)
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:52 PM
Just riffing a bit on bphd's 191. I think it is interesting (and perhaps relevant to the point I wanted to make), that an ungendered invokation of good natured chuckling (ungendered) evoked a profoundly gendered response: what men perceive as good natured women see as patronizing. But surely, woman frequently chuckle good naturedly at men's foibles. And sometimes the chuckling is not so kindly meant.
I am inclined to focus on the kindness, or lack thereof, rather than on the mere deployment of a gender stereotype. Why? Because I believe these stereotypes are inescapable. We cannot, however heroicly we try, reduce generalizations about gender to class, or to social construction. It won't work. We are all, I hope, Darwinists here; and both theory and established biological mechanism suggest differences will always, in general, be observed between men and women.
There are good reasons to think this hypothesis false, and equally good reasons to hope it false. Let us stipulate, however, that sex does correlate with significant, differences in psychology as well as physiology. Will it not then behoove us to distinguish between a mentality that views these differences as cause for contempt and justification of oppression, and any number of benign or neutral responses to these differences? And will this not be true even if historically the most significant result of noting these differences has been injustice? To get back to the earlier point, does it help us to use "sexist" -- in the sense of "immoral" for both these cases?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:52 PM
I just did it, Chopper, and if you use a non-nonstick pan, and a coating of mustard as called for, the fond you get is a thing to be reckoned with.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:54 PM
I should also note that the person who runs that site and the person who wrote that recipe are surely better cooks than I. I just like to shoot my mouth off.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 9:55 PM
Ben, I'm sorry to say I can't really remember it--a couplet with a shift from "friend" to "girlfriend" with the basic idea being that women become a lot less interesting and more annoying as the shift happens.
Baa, I agree that stereotypes are inescapable; that's why sexism, too, is inescapable in the current world. Maybe someday it won't be. No one is saying there are no differences between men and women; the point is that assigning value judgments to those differences imposes a hierarchy. And I gendered the "good natured chuckling" thing on purpose, to point out the problem.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:39 PM
Thanks A, but I'm partial to Juan de Fuca.
Me too.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-29-05 10:41 PM
Bphd, your short response evokes two thoughts. The first is that I wonder to what degree assigning value judgement does, in fact, impose a hierarchy. If we say Jane Austen is funnier than Joseph Conrad, we have imposed one hierarchy: on the great chain of humor, Austen > Conrad. But we have not imposed or implied any larger, all-encompasing hierarchy of artistic value, nor ranked Austen relative to Conrad on it. And anyone who thought we did would be making an error.
Trivial point, so why make it? It's because it is hard to separate the mere noting of difference with the assignment of some kind of value. Men are, on average, physically stronger than women. Men are, on average, more violent than women. The recognition of these differences cannot be easily segregated from the ascription of some kind of value. This suggests to me that we should simply accept this level of "value ascription", and keep our powder dry to resist the imposition of the larger, and more invidious, and false hierarchy. (men > women; woman > men)
[[I should just note that I do not intend this primarily as an argument about what position we should adopt as a matter of public rhetoric. It may be that in the service of abolishing the truly invidious hierachy, we want to police references to the less invidious hierarchies. I tend towards small "l" liberal on these topics (the truth will out, sunlight the best disinfectant, etc.), but I could be convinced otherwise in a given case]]
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 7:50 AM
stereotypes are inescapable; that's why sexism, too, is inescapable
I took baa's point to be that the inference from stereotypes to sexism doesn't work, even if there's a reliable correlation between them. That is, suppose some stereotypes, read as statistical claims, are true. It's possible to acknowledge this without being committed to (or committing) some form of sexism. (This might be what's meant by "in the current world," though, in which case we partly agree.)
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 7:51 AM
That was a lot shorter than what I said, Fontana, but much clearer. Thanks.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 7:55 AM
I'd absolve the poem of sexism largely because it seems to be using a different meaning of 'agenda' than we all came up with -- using it to mean something more like, maybe, itinerary?
baa-
Please take this as good-humored (albeit vehement) disagreement rather than an accusation that you're a sexist bastard.
I am inclined to focus on the kindness, or lack thereof, rather than on the mere deployment of a gender stereotype. Why? Because I believe these stereotypes are inescapable. We cannot, however heroicly we try, reduce generalizations about gender to class, or to social construction. It won't work. We are all, I hope, Darwinists here; and both theory and established biological mechanism suggest differences will always, in general, be observed between men and women.
Sure, we're all Darwinists. What established biological mechanism do you refer to that creates (on average) personality differences between men and women? Do you imagine that it is possible to, e.g., do a blood test and predict aggression levels from testosterone levels in any simple (or in any complex) way? Do you believe that any solid, rather than speculative, connections have been drawn between average differences in brain structures between the sexes and personality differences? I am not denying the existence of biology when I say that to my knowledge research has not yet been done establishing that there are (on average) innate physical differences between the sexes (hormone levels, differences in brain structures) that cause (on average) personality differences between the sexes. If you want to appeal to the fact that "We're all Darwinists" to establish something, you have to show me some solid science.
More socially, you talk about how the obvious average differences between men and women (and I'm certainly not denying that there are some in our society, nor that some of them may be innate, although they haven't been shown to have been) are a source of good-natured fun and are inescapable, so why bother trying to escape them? I don't think you are fully considering quite how much the expectation of conformity to those norms can fuck people up. To take an example you mentioned as noncontroversial:
Perhaps that's beacuse many of these generalizations about gender appear to have strong basis in fact? Men are, truly, more aggressive and sex obssessed.
Remember being a hormonally driven teenager? Couldn't think about anything but sex? Absolutely obsessed with it? Now picture that the fact that you're obsessed with sex makes you unmanly, abnormal, and undesirable, rather than a perfectly normal teenage boy. Welcome to my teenage years, and those of lots and lots of other women.
I don't actually know which gender is more obsessed with sex -- it's hard to figure out how to compare thoughts -- but I do know that every woman I know well thinks about sex more than she knows a normal woman is supposed to, based on what we all know about men and women. The harmless, obvious stereotypes you rely on aren't necessarily all that harmless.
Calling sexism immoral, as you did, is only going to confuse things, because you're going to believe that something well meant and therefore not immoral can't be sexist and therefore harmful. Whether or not you mean well has nothing to do wih whether what you've said is sexist, and pointing out sexism doesn't mean I'm calling you a bad person.
Would Pride and Prejudice work if it were Lizzie who was distant and proud, and Darcy who was lively and to quick to judge.
Well, we might call them Jane and Bingley under those circumstances.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:00 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:00 AM
I think the issue here is the loaded word "sexist". I've always assumed that the important part of the definition involves discriminatory intent or behavior. Clearly, in the context of the poem, no such intent/behavior is expressed. The following works just as well, without changing any of the poem's meaning:
And I've been pleased to have been issued passports
into some of those "virginias"--to have traveled there.
Back to the point at hand, I don't see that manipulativeness is the stereotypical domain of either gender, but rather a trait assigned widely to members of each.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:11 AM
Actually it works a lot better, since "Virginia" is a geographical territory.
And jeez, can't we all agree with LB about the pervasive harm of the boys-are-randy stereotype? Is there a single straight guy here whose high school years would not have been much much better if it were OK to say in public that girls are just as crazy about sex as guys are? ("They weren't crazy about sex with you, Weiner." Shut up.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:17 AM
I don't see that manipulativeness is the stereotypical domain of either gender, but rather a trait assigned widely to members of each.
I think that's not at all true. Here's my opening bid. Cf.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:20 AM
I don't think the harm lies in the boys-are-randy stereotype (which is, of course, broadly and demonstrably true), but in the good-girls-aren't-randy stereotype.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:21 AM
And.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:21 AM
Thanks for the response bphd.
First, lets just table the effects of these generalizations for a moment. That's what I meant by saying this is to one side of "public rhetoric." Let's just stipulate, for a moment, that there is a biologically based difference in sex drive between men and women. So that the generalization "men are more aggressive and sex obsessed" just is *true*. It may yet still be the case that we do not wish to reinforce that difference, publicize that difference, or make jokes about that difference because of all the negative results it will have (some people will feel abnormal, some people will be oppressed, etc.). And it may be also, that because of those negative effects , we should place much higher burdens of proof on those generalizations than we do on others. All fine, etc.
Ok, end to that digression. On the science, sure, the evidence you call for is lacking. That's why I said "suggest" rather than "proves" or "demonstrates." And I'm not really committed as a proposition about value, to whether this proves to be true or not. A world in which all average temperamental differences between men and women result from socialization is a fine one as far as I am concerned.
The problem is, that while I'd agree there's no definitive proof, as yet, about the biological basis of temperament, I really, really doubt that the 'no innate differences' world is in fact the one we inhabit. Again, it's not proven, but I would be *astonished* if there were not statistically significant, biological differences in psychology between men and women. If that's wrong, hey, great. The problem is, what if it's right?
You are of course right to note that kindly intention is no guarantee of good results. I would not dispute it. It's also the case, however, that a proposition being true is no guarantee that its promulgation will have good results. Since I think ultimately the truth will out, it is in all of our interests to find ways to make promulgation and reference to the truth compatible with a just society in which we all want to live, etc.
-----
That's the end to the serious comments. But just one thing. Bingly/Jane as a mirror image of virtue/vice dynamic of Darcy/Lizzie? That's crazy!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:22 AM
222, absolutely, that's what I should have said. Or boys-are-randier.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:23 AM
Thanks for the response bphd.
You misspelled "LizardBreath".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:24 AM
OMG check out the top hit for manipulative asshole.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:25 AM
>You misspelled "LizardBreath".
Oh, fuck, that's awkward.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:28 AM
baa-
Let's just stipulate, for a moment, that there is a biologically based difference in sex drive between men and women. So that the generalization "men are more aggressive and sex obsessed" just is *true*...
On the science, sure, the evidence you call for is lacking. That's why I said "suggest" rather than "proves" or "demonstrates."...
The problem is, that while I'd agree there's no definitive proof, as yet, about the biological basis of temperament, I really, really doubt that the 'no innate differences' world is in fact the one we inhabit.
You're saying that if the truth is uncomfortable, we nonetheless need to face up to it. Sure. I'm just not willing to skip the step of figuring out what the truth is before I face up to it.
(And I need to disappear for the rest of the day -- I have way, way too much work to do. Could people please mock me if I comment again?)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:32 AM
Don't worry about the name mixup (although it's nice to know we're confusable. I always feel that my writing gets so dry when I'm ranting, but apparently not.)
And Weiner? That's the best rhetorical use of googlefight I think I've seen.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:36 AM
You commented again! Ha ha!
(Thanks.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:41 AM
LB--- I mock you.
Baa--Do you really think that it is appropriate to talk of scientific proof? There are results consistent with an hypothesis, but outside of pure mathematics, I think it's probably inaccurate to describe any evidence as having proved a scientific truth.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:47 AM
On the other hand...
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:47 AM
And phrasing matters.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:50 AM
Weiner rocks.
On stereotypes of gendered difference (and on the broader argument, I agree with LB):
1. Men like sex more--well, LB's argument about the role of socialization here is a good one. I'll just add, anecdotally, that the most common criticisms I get from readers who happen upon my blog and realize I have an open marriage are (1) it must be fiction; (2) no "real woman" would "endanger her child and marriage" that way; (3) my husband must be a pussy.
2. Men are stronger, on average--I believe you mean, "on average men have more upper body strength." Again, this is problematic b/c, on average, women are discouraged from physically demanding activity and men are not. But even so, I believe studies have shown that women have more endurance and tolerate pain better. Surely these also constitute "strength."
3. Men are more violent: again, problematic in that violence is encouraged in men and discouraged in women. Women's violent impulses get expressed rhetorically and indirectly in many ways, but are still there. Also, please keep in mind that violence in women--which is often directed against children--is considered "unnatural," just as frank sexuality is.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:50 AM
Apostropher, 234 was great.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:52 AM
223, quotes matter.
And the sole hit reveals... it's completely innocent! Though that seems to be an online community devoted to perpetuated jokes about genitalia. For shame.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:53 AM
Chopper:That recipe is flawed.
That was my reaction.
(It's probably damned good, but if you cooked the steak first in a non-nonstick pan using little bit of vegetable oil, you'd get a fond. Then you take the steak out of the pan to let it rest while you cook the shallots in the remaining fat in the pan. Deglaze with the wine, reduce slightly, add butter, whisk to incorporate,, return steak to pan briefly to bring back up to temp, done. Same amount of time, extra flavor.)
1> I'm not sure what he means by 'total reduction', but I assume since he doesn't want to brown the shallots he doesn't mean actual total reduction. Although carmelizing onions to go on steak is time-honored.
2> More important is that he's using flank steak. All I can think is 'hockey puck'. All the flank I ever get is pretty tough, and sauteing it for four minutes would make it really tough. The tender part of T-bone or whatnot would work better. Otherwise, you're doing chicken-fried steak, so you might as well pound it with a hammer, which I don't think is he's going for. It would be about as easy to do the number on the shallots (well, onions, shallots are a waste when you're using mustard), and then braise the steak sans mustard in the wine until you get a nice reduction and then add some dijon to the sauce. (Or you could it add the beginning but it's useful as a thickener adjustment.) Like rostelyos but different.
ash
['Brain turns off at non-stick pan.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:56 AM
Men like sex more
I think this has been proven to be an unsupportable assertion, and particularly difficult to disentangle from societal pressures.
Men are stronger, on average
Men are, on average, larger and have greater muscle mass and density. This one really is a matter of fact. Pain tolerance != strength.
Men are more violent
As you say, male violence is simply more accepted than female violence.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:56 AM
234, pwn.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 8:57 AM
You're all pussies. Especially Weiner.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:00 AM
pwn
The sample size being what it is, the p-value on that will not reach statistical significance.
Sorry, I'm editing study reports again today. I'll tell you this much: women are much more likely to participate in clinical trials than men.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:01 AM
Er, "...more likely than men to participate..."
I suspect more women participate in men than participate in clinical trials.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:03 AM
Thanks for posting that site, Ben—I am in the market for recipes for hors d'oeuvres for a winter party.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:04 AM
apo, I don't know if Dr. B is around, but I'd love to hear you speculate as to why that is? And weren't there a number of years where they kept women out of studies, because it was thought that they would mess up the purity of the data? The symptoms of heart disease were always described in male terms, i.e. the ways that men feel when they're having a heart attack.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:05 AM
You're all pussies.
Strange that derogative "pussy" isn't dispreferred. I wonder what pattern, if any, governs your rhetorical dispreferences. Why agitate against "blows" but not "pussy"?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:09 AM
Possibly b/c women are likelier to need the money? Or to need the medical care?
Surely part of strength is the ability to endure pain. If you're in a fight and you get hit and fall on the floor yelling "ow!" you're going to be considered less strong than someone who gets hit and then hits back. Just to give a stupid oversimplified example.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:09 AM
Strength is socially constructed!
Posted by JP | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:09 AM
I think O. used "pussy" because I did.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:10 AM
That "if any" was uncalled for. Sorry, ogged.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:11 AM
I'm not sure why it is, but recruiting men for trials is always more difficult than recruiting women. My wild-assed, unsupported guess is that women are just generally more used to doctors and medical procedures, what with the semi-annual checkups of the plumbing. But since most of these studies deal with patients who have already been diagnosed with the studied condition, I'm not sure that really explains the disparity.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:11 AM
Surely part of strength is the ability to endure pain.
I'd say that's part of "toughness," but not of my internal definition of strength, which has to do with raw exertion of force on an object, ie torque and lifting.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-30-05 9:15 AM
Yeah, yeah. Torque is cheap.
Posted by LizardBreath |