I do want to be clear -- it doesn't *bother* me, but somehow it intellectualizes it a bit, introduces a layer of indirection that muffles the emotional punch. I dunno. It may be my own lack of enlightenment.
I mean, I'd have no problem at all if the song was *written* about lesbian failures in love. But as it is, there's simply no way for Amanda to be worried about fathering a child she didn't like, so you have to take a step back and interpret it as her playing a character. Which, yes, Cornell is doing too, but his voice fits the character even better than Jackson's ever did.
The best cover of Billie Jean I've ever run across is this one, by Chris Cornell. The bluesy take on it is just perfect.
http://www.amazon.com/Billie-Jean/dp/B001NZ3AZS/ref=sr_f2_3?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1246281547&sr=102-3
Amanda's is great, but is just handicapped by her being the wrong gender for the song, like if a male singer tried to cover something like "Sun Comes Up It's Tuesday Morning".
A friend calls this "the most profound fluff piece he's seen all year". Say something nice about the guy you're not voting for.
I don't believe McCain ever wanted to end up here. The man who said "No, no ma'am. He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements" is one I can respect.
I'm a Canadian resident in MA, and this is the first election I've really been frustrated to not be allowed to vote.
I believe it's been established that the big angry lizard was a creation of the Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki blasts, not Trinity.
fidelio@26 wrote: I found it interesting that a hundred and fifty years ago, recycling was done far more thoroughly than it is now.
It's a lot more workable when rags are valuable because workers can barely afford one new pair of pants a year, and when unskilled wages are so low that "freelance rag-picker" sounds like a good plan. It seems to me not enough people appreciate that (I don't mean to pick on fidelio here -- I mean in general).
What I mean is, the fact that we now have a world where human labour is valuable while mere things are cheap, and therefore can afford to regard recycling as a luxury -- it's all a sign of enormous progress. And not just contemptible bourgeous "progress": I think it's a pretty fundamental measure of the success of a society if it regards people as more valuable than things.
There are lots of places in the world where people are still disposable.
Let me second Fragano@19's recommendation of Rats, Lice, and History. Zinsser's parentheticals are awesome -- for instance, "it is to Kepler's credit, however, that - although one of the most eminent physicists of all time - he never wrote a book on God and the Universe."
Don, Michael, and DavidS -- thank-you.
pericat@327: Also? Women are not "delicate flowers". They're people, in the same way you are people. If you interact with them on any other basis, you may have some extra difficulty communicating.
I know that *now*. I didn't when I was 15. It took me a long time to figure out that I had internalized a false belief, and I'm *still* working on rooting it out.
I think you will find, though, that if you imprint an impressionable 15-year-old with too much theory about the chilling effect of gendered communication, he will acquire the idea that women are extremely delicate. Particularly if the blunter counterbalance gets completely chased out of polite company.
Whatever. The horse is dead now. I'll stop.
Meanwhile, you are correct that I have been confused and entangled about when I was talking about expressions and when I was talking about feelings. I tend to find one of the main benefits of arguing on the internet is that teaches me where I don't have my thoughts straight.
heresiarch: That having places where he can treat women like dirt to the LOLZ of his peers will teach him how to reign in his worst instincts and respect women as equals?
What I think I've been *trying* to say, is boys need to come to terms with their urges sometime, somewhere. Suppressing them entirely is not healthy. And so it seem to me better that there exist someplace private, that doesn't have to be made safe for girls, so that actual girls don't have to be in the crossfire while it's happening. Ideally, there *will* be more mature men present to exert guidance.
colin roald @ 198: “"Look at the hooters on that one" is a thought that's inherently part of part of being an adolescent male.â€
heresiarch@310: No, it isn’t. (Especially not for the gay ones!) It’s inherently part of being socialized as an adolescent male. Feeling a deep and profound appreciation for the physical beauty of one’s preferred gender(s), now that’s an inherent part of life—equally so for women. How you express it, though, is entirely social.
Okay, I'm not talking about how you express it. I'm talking about the *thoughts*, the *urge*. If you're focusing on the precise wording, I'm failing to communicate.
The thought that goes repeatedly through the head of an average teenage boy is an intense and irrational: "oh my god i want to copulate with that person. oh oh look at her." If you water that down to describing it as merely "deep and profound admiration", I think you've pretty much missed the point.
Personally speaking, *I* grew up in an environment very close to the feminist ideal. I learned that this was a bad thought that "reduces the woman to meat". I internalized very very early that women were delicate flowers and they never wanted anyone to make them uncomfortable. In short, I learned that *my feelings* were *wrong*.
Please note very very clearly: this is *before* I ever expressed any of it. I have never catcalled a woman in my life. *Expression* doesn't enter into it -- I learned that my *feelings* were wrong.
Over the subsequent 20-25 years of my life, I have become convinced this damaged me rather significantly at a deep level. I think it's not unlikely that it's an important contributing factor to why I am 37 years old, unmarried and childless. And I'm just going to have to say I'm accustomed to be attacked at this point in the conversation by feminists who accuse me of variants of Nice Guy Syndrome, or whatever. That's a whole nother 3-day flamewar, and I think I'm going to refuse to go there. Please allow me to stipulate (a) sexism is bad and (b) I am not blaming anyone for my personal problems.
All of the above I'm saying just to provide context for this: (c) there are real potential costs of telling adolescents that their emotions are wrong; (d) that boys have emotions, too; and (e) be careful what you wish for.
heresiarch: That having places where he can treat women like dirt to the LOLZ of his peers will teach him how to reign in his worst instincts and respect women as equals?
Um, no. I don't think that's what I'm saying at all. Apparently you can't see a difference between boys being allowed to actually talk about lust, and "treating women like dirt".
me@ 262: "If you think there isn't a meaningful difference in distribution of aggressiveness between the sexes, then I would ask why the large majority of the prison population is male."
heresiarch: hey're mostly black, too. Do you think that that's due to genetic factors?
Again, no. But I still think there's a meaningful genetic difference in aggressiveness between the sexes. Is it necessary for you to accuse me of racism, to respond to my question?
albatross@294 said: To paraphrase Trotsky, You may not be interested in Fark, but Fark is interested in you....
Yes! That's the question. Is Fark a private space? Can they say whatever they want?
Reflexively I want to say yes, but the line is so weird and new. At what point does harmless snarking about random strangers become harassment? Does it matter if to them, it's just a funny picture and they truly neither know nor care who you are? Does it matter if your name isn't attached, and you don't even know it happened? What if no one person says anything that could possibly be legally actionable, but the cumulative gestalt of the dogpile is horrifying -- can you hold anyone at fault?
Michael@274, I think you have to go to Stormfront to be allowed to advocate hanging blacks. (Though I'm not sure, because Fark tends to repulse me, so I don't know the fine detail of whatever social contract they have over there. Conceivably it's "you can advocate hanging blacks as long as no one thinks you're serious.")
In any case, I don't care. I think people on Fark can do or say whatever they want, and it's only the business of other people on Fark. Fark is not the Old Boys Club. It is not a place that anyone who doesn't want to visit, has to go to. It is not associated with any "real world" organization. It's not the gateway to any positions of power in society. It's a place that exists purely and solely for the juvenile to get the thrill of being crude.
It seems to me they are people too, and have just as much right as the extremely shy to have a discourse that they enjoy.
Stormfront I think is quite a bit more hateful, but I think *they* have a right to exist, too. That's where the rubber of Freedom of Speech really meets the road.
I mean, do people believe in freedom of speech or not? It would be bizarre if we're willing to cut more slack for real neo-Nazis than for random frat boys who like boobies.
Nicole@261 said: There's no good reason not to say that to an adolescent boy. He may go off and be crude in private, but he learns that in public that ain't OK.
Is all of the internet public, or is one allowed to be crude on, say, Fark?
Paula Lieberman@240 wrote: There are all sorts of axes, and the -variation- among individuals on the average.
Yeah, of course. I don't think that has anything to do with the point I was trying to make, though -- perhaps I didn't make it very well.
I say that variation between sexes is not *only* cultural; that is, at least some of it is genetic. If you think there isn't a meaningful difference in distribution of aggressiveness between the sexes, then I would ask why the large majority of the prison population is male. If you think that difference is just culturally driven, I'd ask how you can be confident of that, given that as far as I know it's true in every society in the world and at every time in history. (So far as I know! If I'm wrong, I'd be fascinated to learn the counterexample.)
caroline@247 said: Women's space is something that has to be constantly fought for.
I completely respect that. Ironically, somehow I find myself fighting here for the idea of also allowing boys' space, which also seems to need defending.
For the record, in case I haven't been completely clear: I think default public space should be moderated to be comfortable for most civilized adults, as many as possible, like 90%+. I think the rules of public space should make sure women are as comfortable as men. And I think there should be private spaces available for people who are too shy to be comfortable with the public space, as well as spaces for people who are too aggressive to be comfortable.
To Paula@229: If you believe that the only reason that boys and girls act differently is cultural conditioning, well, okay then. Fine. I don't agree, but I was not actually trying to start a debate about gender.
If girls want to have a forum where they can say things without worrying what the hell boys will think, that's fine with me. In fact, I presume they already do.
Michael Roberts@215 said: You just effectively implied it was OK to categorize woman as the out-group, as long as they didn't hear it done.
Well, that's about the most hostile possible spin, I think.
The main place I disagree I think is in the notion of a singular "the" out-group. Humans are tribal creatures. We form in-groups and out-groups as naturally as breathing. But they don't need to be fixed, and they evolve as you gain maturity. One of the ways to gain maturity is by having a place where you're allowed to express your idiot ideas.
In fact, I suspect that the more thoroughly we wall off the idiot ideas, the more they fester underground, and the longer it takes for people to grow out of them.
Nancy C. Mittens@207 says: The adolescent girls I know don't seem to have problems not saying, even in private, "Damn, he has a big dick!" . . .
Life is different in a woman's body.
Um. The adolescent *girls* you know aren't learning to deal with being pumped daily full of testosterone. It's a drug. It affects mood and the brain. Life is different in a man's body, too.
Please understand that I also expect adult men to have damned well learned to deal. But adolescents have to learn somehow, sometime. The body drives the thoughts; there needs to be an outlet for them *somewhere*.
To Michael Roberts@205: That's why I think this is different. But to the extent it's not -- yes, I think Stormfront should be allowed to have their own website. I also think they should keep the hell out of any ones I frequent.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 3 |
| 2008 | 25 |
| 2007 | 6 |
| 2006 | 38 |
| 2005 | 34 |
| 2004 | 3 |
| 2003 | 9 |
Total: 118 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by colin roald:
Show all comments by colin roald.