Rolling 'this is sexist' thread

It wasn't really a "dick joke" anyway, the language that might have made anyone uncomfortable had already been used & yr joke was more around the word "reduced" so I doubt there's cause to worry although yr point is well-taken otherwise

A funny joke can still make someone uncomfortable. Sometimes the funniest jokes are ones that make people uncomfortable (hi dere, Chris Rock's standup career). I don't think my pathological need to make jokes is more important than having an inclusive, welcoming message board, particularly on a thread where we are talking through issues of sexism.

― relentless technosexuality (DJP), Thursday, April 4, 2013 9:36 AM (4 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Read this as a speech balloon over a cartoon of a walking hard-on.

John "ROTTEN" Lydon on Aussie TV recently, being an arse.

http://youtu.be/N4ZmopI-GUQ?t=3m26s

Yeah, not surprised. I saw some awful interview where he confirmed my worst fears about The Body.

He's obviously a prick and no doubt sexist (e.g. use of "birds" in this very clip) but I think where it looks like he is telling the woman "Do not interrupt A MAN" he is just using one of the inflexibly pompous locutions that make up what is left of the poor fella. What a waste.

He was pretty fucking nasty to Welsh pop singer Duffy (who is TERRIBLE but that's not really important) at an awards show I was at a few years ago.

Would Ian Curtis have been nicer to duffy, do you think?

Many punk/post-punk musicians fail "The Duffy Test"

Would Ian Curtis have been nicer to duffy, do you think?

It's hard to be unpleasant to someone when you're dead, I don't think I understand your point?

nm, dumb joke based on already-fading meme "what if john lydon died in 1980 &c". Have to say I'm not at all surprised to learn johnny's a sexist though.

Ah, I gotcha...

http://www.vice.com/read/fucking-hysterical-a-timeline-of-vintage-vibrators

you've come a long way, baby

should have known better than to click through the warning for that at work

ha yes just about every element of that url screams nsfw except for "http" and "read"

lol that page

tbf, the illustration of the crotch fire hose is pretty hilaious

stop that pain

http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-04-12/marvel-sells-i-need-a-hero-t-just-for-women/

Something about the tone of this article, in which two male economists criticize the arguments of a female treasury under secretary, immediately rubbed me the wrong way. One thing that kept jumping out at me was the use of "Ms. Miller." Would a male undersecretary be referred to as "Mr. ____" in this sort of article? I wasn't sure if maybe it was just because of the direct approach of this article (whereas a reporter speaking in a distant third person might just say "Miller")

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/the-treasurys-mistaken-view-on-too-big-to-fail/?ref=business

Use of titles is mandatory per NYT style guide.

Well I really dislike it in any case. It sounds vaguely condescending.

Like "Ms. Miller" doesn't make me think of a treasury undersecretary, it makes me think of a student in an econ seminar or something.

http://testdb.msmagazine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/154222_146559575391775_107530515961348_233555_2363153_n4.jpeg

Would you find it condescending if it was "Mr Miller"? Not being snarky here, just throwing it out.

xp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw07CDid0JM

It's really awkward and distracting, but it's NYT house style.

I rather like it. It's old-fashioned and polite.

Like "Ms. Miller" doesn't make me think of a treasury undersecretary, it makes me think of a student in an econ seminar or something.

It makes me think of Bohemian Phapsody, just sayin..

Would you find it condescending if it was "Mr Miller"? Not being snarky here, just throwing it out.

xp

― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:48 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I would say yes, but less so.

hurting otm that use of 'ms.' is totally condescending and sexist, you can't even tell if the broad is married or not

If you go to Wikipedia's page for American Novelists, you might notice something strange: Of the first 100 authors listed, only a small handful of them are women. You could potentially blame this on the fact that there simply are more famous male authors than there are female (a-whole-nother can of worms), but the real reasoning is much more intentional. Wikipedia editors have slowly been moving female authors to a subcategory called American Women Novelists so that the original list isn't at risk of "becoming too large."

http://jezebel.com/wikipedia-is-quietly-moving-women-off-their-american-no-481069352

HOLY SHIT

loool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_men_novelists

and yeah also what contenderizer said, wtf

wikipedia is a conspiracy of fuckheads and nobody in 2013 should be taking it seriously as a project

Judging from the treatment handed out to feminists who try to correct basic facts about themselves on talk pages, Wiki is full of MRA arseholes.

! haven't heard about that. has it been discussed here?

i wanna see these juicy wikipedia talk pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24#Category:American_women_novelists

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/no-seriously-this-guy-is-holding-a-you-deserve-rape-sign

No, We're Keeping The Night

(sorry)

grim lol

If they can't do anything about that dude and his sign (which let's be honest, if there's a code of conduct at the school I am certain that that level of aggressive speech crosses it and they are just being cowardly), one would hope his Twitter account could get him booted

calling U of A a school is excessively generous

lol

that dude would be awesome to hit against a pavement repeatedly

http://sixyearitch.com/2013/04/get-on-your-knees-for-disney-mom-bloggers/

most blogging "conferences" whether involving "mommies" or not are glorified marketing events.. Blogging is only a job for like .00001% of people who do it. That photo is o_O but I'm not really sympathetic to complaints about wanting to be taken more seriously as a blogger.

xxp Why, in the third picture of that charming gent I can see the top of his boxers and some bare midriff. What does a man deserve for such shameless public flesh- and underwear-baring? Also his mind is showing and it's not so appealing.