Re: ' then it is toRe: [OT][STRIPS] Great quotes . . .

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Captain Nerd wrote:

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "Fish Eye no Miko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Ken Arromdee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Fish Eye no Miko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >You can't compare talking
> > > >> >about a television show to making posts demeaning to an
> > > >> >entire gender
> > > >> I can if she objects to the posts because she's not interested
> > > >> in them, rather than because they're demeaning.
> > > >Have you ever considered that sometimes, they're both?
> > >
> > > Here's where I can't quite make out what you're saying.
> > > Are you saying that they're *only* bad when they're both?  Or are
> > > you saying that they're really bad when they're both, but they can
> > > still be bad even if you're just not interested in them?
> >
> > It's not that simple.  It's not one post, or one AS card, or one demeaning
> > remark; it's ALL of it, taken together, that add to an over all feeling
> > that no one cares that I and my fellow female fans exist (not to mention
> > gay men, who are also not addressed in these, "Ain't such-and-such woman
> > hot!" things).
> > I can't point to one thing, cuz it's NOT one thing, it's the culmination,
> > ADDED to an overall society that caters far more to men's desires than
> > women's.  Trying to point to one thing and saying; "There, that's what
> > offends me!  Stop doing that and everything's peachy-keen!" is like trying
> > to figure out which drop water was the first to start filling up a bathtub
> > after it's already full.
> > Instead of trying so damn hard to figure out *exactly* the letter of what
> > I'm saying, why not think about the spirit of what I'm saying?
> > At the end of it, my main point is:  Consider the fact that women may--in
> > fact, most likely WILL--read what you write.  If you wouldn't say it if a
> > woman was in the room... well, we are.  So don't.
> >
> > Catherine Johnson.
>
>    Still not a good standard.  I know women that aren't as sensitive
>    as you seem to be.  Should I assume the lowest or highest sensitivity
>    when I post?

why not assume the highest sensitivity?  what would it hurt?

Lena