Q: How many Muslim women does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: However many a Muslim man says. Now go fetch me my hooka, woman!
A multicultural dilemma: When it comes to fashionable scarves, modest clothing, the Muslim patriarchy, and the free market —what’s a good feminist to do…?
****
(h/t Allah, who points to Amir Taheri for context)
Plan A … blame the patriarchal legacy of two thousand years of dead white European male dominance.
Plan B … Blame Bush.
In the Feministe thread, Allah pointed to this, from Amir Taheri (the link to which I’ve just added to the original post):
To which they replied that Taheri was an anti-Muslim nut and claimed that the hajib was empowering in a “multi-dimensional” way.
Chris Clarke is still a 12-year-old.
Appearing a masturbatory cross-posting doofus is a risk I’m willing to take…
Mandos sez:
Which, personally, I think reveals the underlying beliefs of many on Feministe. Any attack on Muslims, they feel, aids the evil “fundies,” “neocons,” or “wingnuts” on their campaign to “dehumanize” Muslims, in order to wage war on them et al. A typical childish view of the world, to be sure… But, it does explain a LOT of what is said and thought at Feministe… Don’t attack the Muslims because that’ll help the Righties!
In 2005, Howard Dean, the wackiest democrat party chairman since well, since Terry McAuliffe, announced that scientific research has shown that tinfoil beanies will deflect Rovian mind control rays. The tinfoil beanie has been made mandatory headgear for all democrat party operatives, MoveOn.org functionaries and International Answer cadres. Violating the tinfoil beanie code is punishable by forced relocation to Kansas and sudden uncontrollable cravings for Miracle Whip, Velveeta and Lawrence Welk reruns.
In which case it is just a hat.
I was struck by this from the other side of the coin.
Namely, by trying to make the hijab “stylish” and “fashionable” (and therefore, drawing attention to it and, by implication, its wearer), this attempt at a trend is only subverting the whole purpose for which the hijab is used. The hijab isn’t only to cover skin – it’s also unambiguously about drawing attention away from the woman.
Do you honestly think any religious authority that thinks it’s necessary for a woman to cover 99% of her face would be cool with the garment that does so looking like a Hawaiian shirt?
I’m not going to comment over there anymore. Nothing against Lauren and Jill, both of whom are smart and have been gracious in responding to criticism. It’s just pointless to argue over this stuff. Our two sides are so far apart in our core beliefs that debate can’t help but degenerate into antagonism. When every argument depends on explaining why your opponent’s entire worldview is dumb, you might as well spare yourselves the aggravation and skip it. Ain’t no one winning any converts on the basics.
To-may-to, to-mah-to, let’s call the whole thing off.
You’re many times the more patient man than I, Allah.
Turing word “learned,” as in: “I supposed the Turing word is right. You’re far more learned as well.”
You also happen to be correct, but I think you knew that already.
That’s just what I thought you’d say, Allah. You sheep.
Of course, take that chastisement with a grain of salt. After all, it’s coming from someone who advocates for rape and the subjugation of women.
RAPE ADVOCATE!
Now, I welcome every opportunity for Amanda Marcotte to demonstrate that she is a bilious buffoon, but I do have to say… vague jokings about rape aren’t cute, Jeff. I don’t know if you did it in some context, but I have to give you a major thumbs down for that one.
BECAUSE OF THE RAPE ADVOCACY!
But to prove that I have a few brain cells…
QUOTED FOR TRUTH
I make that last post, of course to, to coin a phrase, reaffirm my bona fides. The last time I condescended to the author of a blog on their turf, they banned me and deleted the post and all comments.
Then again, that author WAS a woman…
Tell you what, OHNOES. Send me a list of joking-approved subjects, and a second list of contexts into which it is appropriate to place them. And, if you have the time, a third list that outlines power dynamics into which these things can and cannot be thrust.
Also, a primer on the appropriate use of irony and meta-ironic indicators would be helpful, because, though I thought I had a handle on such things, clearly I could use some additional help.
Or, if it’s easier, let’s just forget all that, SHOW SOME OUTRAGE!, and declare that jokes on such subjects are taboo. Period. END OF DISCUSSION.
That way, we can all go home early, pat ourselves on the back for being self-righteous, and (and here’s the bestest part)—because we won’t be wasting so much time, y’know, thinking through things—we have plenty of time left over to play XBox!
AND TO BOLDLY SPLIT INFINITIVES WHERE INFINITIVES HAVE NEVER BEEN SPLIT BEFORE.
Alright, I’m done.
The funniest thing about the sheep business, is if you go to Clarke’s website he is a fucking walking cardboard cut-out of the hip progressive intellectual. I live in a college town and meet dozens of him every damn time I go bar hopping.
I pretty much ignore the folks that are speaking a different language than me, and just talk to the ones I can communicate with.
I’m a simple man, so I can do that one quite easily.
List 1:
1. Anything that isn’t rape.
List 2:
1. In any context that doesn’t include rape.
List 3:
1. Into whichever power dynamic the joker feels that the humor of their remark would be appreciated provided lists 1 and 2 are met.
I only have one button to push Jeff, come on.
Of course, heaven forbid I judge you for joking about a topic that I think is horrifying regardless of context. What’s next? Jokes about Poland’s population pre and post WW2? Perhaps you could apply your unimpeachable wit to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Heck, think of how many puns one could make with the words Hutu and Tutsi! But, no, how dare you speak DISAPPROVINGLY of any jokes on such a subject matter. Not in Jeff’s presence!
Come on, Jeff. It isn’t like I’m making a blog just to delink you or anything that self-righteous. Calm yourself down.
I suspect Chris Clarke has bookmarked my alleged “rape advocacy” comment and will trot it out to good effect before people like OHNOES, who evidently has been so conditioned to PC-speak and tolerance—and to how fealty to such things marks one as both enlightened and morally clean—that he is willing to accept such nonsense as if I intended it seriously, even though he knows and admits that I didn’t.
Such has the degradation of language and intent become a weapon of choice among the lefties.
Orwell weeps.
That’s what I was getting at in my response to him on that thread. I eschew the “sheep” name-calling for two reasons: (1) it’s fucking lame, on the same order as referring unironically to “The Man”; and (2) like everyone else, I have a few sheep-like orthodoxies of my own. Let he who is without wool cast the first stone.
Do you just bottle up such grandstanding for any slight offense, Jeff? Is it so unreasonable, so completely unbelievable that someone finds jokes about rape to be in bad taste without them being some apostle of PC-speak?
Sorry. I don’t find it a “slight offense” when some little pipsqueak presumes to lecture me on when and where it is appropriate to say what I believe to be appropriate.
It is perfectly possible that you were truly offended by my joke—though I can’t for the life of my understand how anyone could be so dense. But forgive me if I don’t believe I should allow your offense to dictate my speech—particularly in instances where you are either purposely taking me out of context, or else are simpy too much of a moralistic prig to figure out what the joke was about.
But you keep letting Chris Clarke frame the world for you.
Now, I’m off to Target.
CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG???
Alas, no.
You apparently missed my fishing for what context in which you labored under the pretense that joking about that was acceptable. You’ll have to excuse me, a search for “raping Jill” on PW and Feministe yields very little in the oh-so-important context you demand others to seek. If you are willing to point out the context to me that would make this all better, I’m glad to hear it. But, you know, until then, as I am unable to find anything, and not for lack of looking or requesting help in finding this context, I am left with “Joking about rape? Not cool Jeff.”
There is ONE thing I know from context though, and it is that you’re much too self-righteous to even pretend to offer aid in finding context even when asked. I brought that issue up back when you WERE writing heavily on it and got nothing but silence, so I expect nothing but empty platitudes and, well, frankly, there’s simply no other word for it, asinine assumptions about how I don’t think Chris Clarke is a friggen idiot.
Quite clearly, you’re through with this argument. Dropped the Chris Clarke-apostle label and jetted for Target, you did. Big man. So, you know, no point in me whining any more than what I’ve said so extensively.
OHNOES –
Do you even know what the specific comment was, or in what context?
As I recall, Goldstein wrote that, unlike another obviously flirting commenter making jokes at his expense, if he “wanted Jill” he’d “just take her.”
Which – (scratches head) – can be interpreted in – (scratches head again) – a few different ways, including rape, playing hard to get, aggressive courtship, parodying people that have that chauvanistic attitude, etc.
Which … (can’t stop scratching head) when you think about it, makes Chris Clarke’s straightfaced assertion that Goldstein is some sort of “rape advocate,” and your posturing criticism of forbidden topics – ridiculous, wouldn’t you say?
Since there’s already an overabundance of sarcastically-capitalized phrases in the comments here, I’ll actually be somewhat serious this time.
I agree with the comment on feminista that empowerment and disempowerment are/can be multifaceted; this is obvious because people are multifaceted. It’s already been noted that one’s (anti-)war or political party agenda can conflict with one’s other deeply-held beliefs–there’s a cognitive dissonance at work when the ideology of a dutiful netroots Democrat finds common ground with an outraged LGF post–and in those cases it’s much easier to retreat to the emotionally-stable ground of not judging other cultures, because really our culture has some affects we’re not comfortable with either. But if you suggest I should be comfortable with the idea that someone is putting themselves into a position where they are empowering themselves religiously, but disempowering themselves as women, and that should be the end of the discussion for modern compassionate liberals… I’m afraid I can’t accept that. And if you further suggest that you can’t decide if what has–in a concrete, historic-and-contemporary sense–been a tool of religiously-inflicted misogynistic oppression–if you can’t decide if that is somewhat disempowering as a garment for women, but have no doubt that a brand of shoes largely popularized by a show focused on the sex lives of female Manhattanites are really patriarchal chains binding women to the stove of oppression… well then I have to think you’re completely off the reservation, “in left field,†etc etc.
Ah yes. Therefore the Pirates of the Carribean are chasing the wenches for, y’know, the food.
YES! FRIGGEN YES! IT IS RIDICULOUS! I KNOW HE ISN’T ADVOCATING RAPE! DO I HAVE TO PREFACE EVERY POST WITH THIS?! DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS EVERY TIME GOLDSTEIN CONTINUES TO IDIOTICALLY LABEL ME AS A CLARKE-APOSTLE?!
But, dangit, read the joke. To me, “just take her” and a “cute little fight” sounds to me like a rape joke. A parody? Yes. Did Jeff mean it literally? No. But a joke involving rape? YES! And to me, even joking about it is offensive. I find rape to be appalling beyond any definition. If you are to jest about it, you should go ahead and joke about dead babies and genocide and any other things that are terrible in the absolute as far as I’m concerned
I asked for Jeff to provide context up in my first post, knowing full well that Goldstein wouldn’t do it, even if asked. (I brought this up back when he was talking about how the interpreter was responsible for finding context and received nothing but silence.) He’s done with the argument, full in his smug, empty platitudes. I’m done with the argument. All I wanted to say was “Dude, joking about rape, not cool.” I’m not here to play to his dark fantasies about how I’m controlling his speech. I just want to voice disapproval. I’m not telling him to recant. I’m not telling him to never speak such ills again. I’m just saying that I do not find that in the realms of acceptability. He finds such things unworthy of debate, clearly, so I’m done here.
Jeff should just do what I do.
Other person: “I take offense at what you said!â€Â
Me: “You can’t have my offense, I’m not done using it yet.â€Â
If Bill’s potted history is correct, then OHNOES and Clarke seem to have gone to great lengths to find offense, mucking up contexts and innuendoes and interpretations in a way that is no doubt personally satisfying to them but abusive of the truth.
Oh, and OHNOE asked for a Tutsi-Hutu joke:
Tutsi: “Hey, you got Hutu in my Tutsi!â€Â
Hutu: “Hey, you got Tutsi in my Hutu!â€Â
Together: “Two great things that go great together!â€Â
The two repeat the phrase while breaking into a dance routine. The Hutu steps on the Tutsi’s foot. The Tutsi punches the Hutu. A brawl breaks out, and the two protagonists dissapear in a cloud of dust with random arms, feet, knives, guns, rocket launchers, and clusterized bomb units sticking out of the cloud. The cloud disperses, and the Tutsi and Hutu gentlemen are dead (or extremely sleepy).
Announcer: “And the moral of the story is, if they hadn’t taken offense at the outset, they would be alive today!â€Â
Howzat? I can come up with Poland and Khmer Rouge jokes too, if you like. I’ve got dead baby and genocide jokes, but they’re kind of limited contexts, not funny for everyone.
TW: find – and in “If it weren’t for the earnestness of the opposition, I would find their positions amusing.â€Â
I’d make a distinction between ‘joking or making light about a person’s actual rape’ and ‘making a jest that purely involved a hypothetical situation’.
For now, I’ll just lie back and think of England.
Though, more to the point of the original topic – why is it that Lawrence of Arabia chic never caught on?
I, for one, have the legs to pull off the look.
Merovign, for it to be a GOOD Hutu/Tutsi joke, it should be funny. You can do better.
Jeff’s original comment:
Which was in response to Robert’s:
I feel that I’m not digging too far to taking offense. I know he was being good-natured, but I still say “Not cool.”
PLEASE stop lumping me in with Chris Clarke. Here’s a slight chart for those who still don’t get it.
Clarke: “Jeff advocates rape!”
Me: “Jeff, you joked about rape? I disapprove.”
Aye, Allah, but we’ve enjoyed thee.
I do joke about dead babies and genocide (and on this blog, too!). Humor is often used as a vehicle through which one can disarm discussing topics otherwise considered sacrosanct.
I do think you’re digging too far, OHNOES–at least from that description–but what the fuck do I know anyway… can we get back to the thread topic pls? MY ORIGINAL COMMENT MUST BE VALIDATED!
By the way, this rape joke argument is providing me with a lot of blogging material. Thanks!
<blockquote>I do think you’re digging too far, OHNOES–at least from that description–but what the fuck do I know anyway… can we get back to the thread topic pls? MY ORIGINAL COMMENT MUST BE VALIDATED!</blockquote>
I can see where you’re coming from, but I stand by my assessment. Rape is a hot button for me.
APF, I agree with your comment, but I think that trying to describe it in terms of multiple scales of empowerment conjures up too much RPG meta-gaming for my tastes. (This hajib gives me a +4 to Muslim empowerment but a -8 to female empowerment. If I can get it blessed and enchanted to be fireproof and with a +3 AC bonus…)
Though was there anywhere in the Feministe discussion that implied that those shoes in question favor the patricarchy? I might have missed it.
Coincidentally, I doubt the idea that women empowering themselves as Christians but disempowering (Gah, I cannot keep using this empty empowering terminology. So… stupid…) themselves as women would get ANY respect at Feministe. They speak ill of “fundies” soooo often.
Okay – I hereby validate APF’s comment, and moreover, demand PIE!
Uhhhh… in a non-sexist manner, of course; and with all due qualifiers and caveats properly appended.
Plus, what will it take to get the ball rolling on turning Bumerstickerist’s Lawrence of Arabia chic into the latest craze? There’s some untapped potential there.
Yes, OHNOES, I could do better, but that would mean telling TWO Tutsi/Hutu jokes on one thread, and that would be wrong.
Genocide:
Q: “What did the last Olmec say just before he died?”
A: “AAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!”
Dead Babies:
A UPS driver and a cannibal were standing on a street corner in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. An intoxicated woman began a strip dance in the street, and to keep himself from getting too excited, the UPS driver decided to recite something horrible to quell his passion:
UPS Driver: “Dead Babies, Dead Babies, Dead Babies…”
Cannibal: “Stop it! You’re making me hungry!”
Khmer Rouge:
Of all of his insights, Noam Chomsky’s most distrubing was the observation that Cambodians “seem to have really good eyesight, probably because of good nutrition.”
I haven’t checked, but my guess is that there are many posts from OHNOES on the “rape joke” topic and Jeff is just tired of hearing about it. Broken record and all that.
Sounds to me like Jill set herself up for a wicked verbal smack, Robert passed and Jeff ran with it. Tacky? Sure. And you said it was tacky. And again. And again. And again.
You keep saying you wanted to make your point, and you did, but then you keep saying it.
Which is tacky.
TW: Book. As in “Shepherd Book.”
I could’ve stopped a long while back if people stopped misrepresenting it. Because lumping me in with Chris Clarke makes their dismissals of my argument so much easier.
The Khmer Rouge joke made me smile.
TAKE ME OHNOES! TAKE ME NOW!
Fine. You’re offended.
What the fuck ever.
I think the reason your argument in unclear to so many is that it isn’t an argument. “I’m offended” isn’t an argument, it’s a statement of affect.
I’m happy. That’s my argument.
Offense is all on the listener. Rudeness is on the speaker. Was the orignal joke rude? Yeah. In context? Not so much.
In the context of Feministe, people care if you’re offended. More importantly people think people should care if you’re offended.
Here? Not so much.
Do I care if you’re offended? It’s fair to say I don’t.
But I’m glad I made you smile with my little jape.
TW: clear. I think we covered this.
Jeebus! Knit one, purl two, knit one, purl two, knit one, purl two, knit one, purl two, knit one, purl two …..
Ribbing!! Who knew?
That’s what shocked me about this. “Thumbs down, Jeff.” is not me attempting to stifle his speech. I’m simply expressing disapproval. It isn’t something that rises to the level of Jeff’s disproportionate reaction. One fellow thinks his comment crosses THE LINE(tm). He explodes in a self-righteous frenzy and proceeds to lump me in with Chris Clarke. When you get to THAT level of insulting, I MUST defend my integrity. Everyone has been making a mountain out of my molehill. That is what has surprised me the most. A little criticism these days…
Boy, that bit about me stopping went RIGHT out the window.
And you were careful to point out why you disapproved, and to lecture on what is an isn’t “appropriate.” Joking about “rape”? Just isn’t done! Tut-tut.
Except the joke wasn’t about rape. It was a dig at Robert that, because it took place on a feminst site, I decided to make using a prevailing, cartoonish view of male chauvinism—and did so with a wink and a nod. Killed a bunch of birds with one stone, it seemed to me.
The force of the thing was aimed at Robert—not Jill—and was meant to go easy on Robert and offend no one.
Of course, it’s difficult trying to explain this stuff, so I’m just going to echo a couple things said above, namely, you’re offended? What the fuck ever. I simply can’t worry about your virtue glands.
As to disproportiate responses, here’s a tip: I don’t need or expect for you to grade, judge, or otherwise note approval or disapproval of my jokes—particularly those you don’t understand from their context and haven’t bothered to understand before grandly pronouncing on their worth here.
It was a…a…a dig?
At m,m,m,m,m,me?
(Lip quivers. Tear wells up…rolls down cheek…rolls…splashes onto keyboard.)
I don’t know if I can go on.
TW “rest” as in “give it one, ohnoes, it was a stupid joke for fuck’s sake.”
Once upon a time, in the vast empty of history, offense was serious, and apology not taken lightly. A grave offense was cause for action, but could be forgiven if an apology was offered.
The problem is, at some point both offense and apology were trivialized by old children, in an unworkable attempt to make the world all balloons and puppies. And now offense is as common as dirt and apologies are seen as insufficient to allay the hurt.
So if you take offense, and no one gives a rat’s ass, that’s why.
TW: herself. Anything I did with this Turing word would start another flame war.
Damn Jeff. That’s cold. I’ll lay odds that you have offended a lot of people on this site. Probably Ghandi, Wadman, Ken, Sandwichman and many others. That’s what I like about you Jeff. No defense here!! Just all OFFENSE.
You win with offense.
BECAUSE OF THE OFFENSE!!!!!
Who should I see if my virtue glands are swollen?
Hrm… I got ALL that context when I read it. I was assuming that all the worshipping at the altar of context here was for something that wasn’t plainly obvious. The joke still entailed a wink and a nod to the concept of rape though… and that bugged me.
The logic behind my posting that here was, pretty much this: a writer for whom I have a good deal of respect wrote something that I felt was not in good taste. Said writer gets backscratching and positive remarks on his blog almost endlessly, from myself at times included (And I have at least on occasion been accused of being a mindless yes-man for supporting.), so I figured that since I disagree with what you did, I should at least show you the respect of letting you know that I felt that joke could’ve been done better.
Merovign, I suspect that there was a time where people did not joke about such things, either.
Supporting him, excuse me.
What’s really offensive is this kind of posturing: link. Still, Camilla in hijab is not a bad thought.
Nordstrom probably also had a private showing of beautiful locking bangle cuffs, 24 karat chains, and exquisitely tailored restrictive undergarments for the Muslim woman whose man has everything. There are times when masking and hobbling women in yards of dreary dark fabric just isn’t enough, and western retailers are smart to start catering to such
perversediverse market needs.T/W show, as in catwalking to display fashion that doesn’t dare show anything
What’s the word we wingnuts say about this? Europistan? Idiots.
Prince Charles: I mean, Islam isn’t so bad. The terrorists they support and harbor only attack Jews and Christians, anyway!
What’s the word we wingnuts say about this? Europistan?
Can we pretend he’s from Canada?
I’d make a beaver joke but… you know.
THANKS OHNOES
Neither me nor anyone else are going to get any PIE are they?
Now that is offensive.
Turing Word “issue,” as in “Got an _____, here’s your tissue.”
‘Cause Austin Powers’ dad rocks.
I suspect there was a time when such things (and many others) were not discussed in polite company. Polite company is a pretty dead forum, however, partly because during the 60s, 70s, and 80s, angry politics finally found its way into the last niches of polite company.
However, I doubt there was ever a time when a bunch BSing around a campfire wouldn’t say just about anything.
Prince Mohammed Al-Charles is a well-known quantity. He’s another inbred European aristocrat who thinks he’s going to be the local satrape* in charge after the next Islamic Conquest, if he acts right now!.
First we lost the heritage of Charles Martel, now we’re losing Richard the Lionhearted. Europe will be known in future histories as the region that inherited the glory Western Civilization, and then peed it down their legs.
TW: somewhat. I am somewhat anxious about the future of Eurabia (I think that’s the word you were looking for).
*Yes, I know “satrape” is a Persian term, not Arab. But I doubt Prince Al-Charles has thought about that.
“satrapeâ€Â
Now you’ve done it.
tw: needs, as in…
We must not judge!
Had that shit WEDNESDAY, bitches!
Has anyone been called an INFIDEL yet? Because, if not, then…
INFIDEL!
Merovign to OHNOES:
But I’m glad I made you smile with my little jape.
JAPE ADVOCATE!
There. Someone had to do it.
TW: volume. This discussion has become high volume.
OK, you all seem to be missing the point. Which is that my feelings were hurt because Jeff digged me. MY pain is the greatest!
BOW TO MY FEELINGS, YOU INSENSITIVE CLODS!
Your feelings, Robert?
Your feelings?
What about the absence of PIE?
PASTRY-DENIERS!
Good, ‘cause I’m halfway through Halo.
You’ll find that the second half is largely copy/pasted from the first.
Miserable little game, Halo.
Turing word “really” as in: “Is this REALLY a different room? I coulda sworn I just left this room. Dangit Bungie…”
The one thing I’ve concluded from this legnthy thread is that OHNOES is tedious beyond hope of redemption. YAWN.
TW: based—As in there will never be a hit television show based on his/her/its remarks.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1823632,00.html
Malaysia’s government has endorsed a university’s ruling that requires non-Muslim women to wear headscarves on its campuses, a report said on Wednesday.
The minister in charge of national unity, Maximus Ongkili, said the decision by the International Islamic University earlier this year was not a religious one, but merely part of university procedures.
“As the rule was approved by the university senate, it is not religious in nature but a matter of uniforms that must be followed. It does not breach basic human rights,” Ongkili was quoted as saying in the Star daily…
“In a multi-racial country each community must respect one another. But at the same time we must respect the laws of the country, institutions and organisations to ensure there is no disturbance to the community,” he said.
He was responding to opposition leader Lim Kit Siang, who had read out an email from a non-Muslim undergraduate from the university complaining she was forced to wear a headscarf to her graduation ceremony.
Lim accused the government of recanting on an April statement that non-Muslims would be “encouraged” but not forced to wear headscarves.
“So why the change now? Is this not disrespectful of a plural society,” he said according to the Star.
The government-funded International Islamic University has three campuses around Malaysia.
Its board includes representatives from the governments of Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, the Maldives, Bangladesh and Turkey, as well as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.
Slightly OT,
One angle that I haven’t seen mentioned is that the hijab often DRAWS attention to the wearer, especially if the observer is a red-blooded American male, who lives in an almost female-free environment, and has a tendency to be distracted by tightly attired, yet curvy, Semitic women.
I might be bringing a bit too much personal bias to this issue, though
I’m a long-time reader of Protein Wisdom. Never posted before. Never had to. Someone else always came along and wrote what I would have written, only better. But I think I must have really missed something tonight.
Didn’t we just all read a brilliant series of posts by Mr. Goldstein on language? Wasn’t it just recently decided that words have meanings?
So, someone tell me when “take” became an acceptable substitute for “rape.” And would that be always? Sometimes? Maybe never?
“After my grandchildren when home on their pre-Halloween sugar high, I needed to rape a couple of extra strength Tylenols.” “My own personal dead-beat neighbor just raped his garbage out to the curb.”
Seriously, I read the post, read the exchanges, read the comments, and I have to say I’ve seldom seen a thread so thoroughly highjacked over one such honkin’ molehill.
Nan, it is because “take” was paired with the imagery of Jill putting up a “cute lil fight.”
Lots of faux testosterone in that comment. But to take it seriously requires a huge leap of faith in the ugliness of my character.
I don’t think it requires declarations as to the ugliness as your character to call foul on rude comments. I’m certain you aimed to be funny. But me? I flinched.
Gotcha. I’ll avoid commenting on your site.
Just telling the truth.
Not “the” truth. Your truth.
Don’t get all interpretive on me, intentionalist.
Okay, I’ll still post on your site. But only because I like you.
Hi, I’m late to the party.
Did I miss anything?