Nov 07, 1996 10:25 PM
>I probably missed something, but I was offended by the stepping on
>testicles comment. Mark told me that it was an innocuous running joke.=20
>Until I understand what=92s up, would it be an innocuous running joke if
>it was reversed using the female body part? History of female
>oppression does not excuse hostility toward the male sex.
Quite true. However, before I attempt to "justify" my testicle barbs, I
shall admit that it is inappropriate, and just plain getting old.
To me, the main difference about women verbally attacking "body parts" of
men is that men are not in real fear that their "body parts" are really in
danger. If a man was to get on this discussion list spreading barbs about
women's body parts, I think women, and a lot of men, on this list would be
concerned. Call me paranoid, but women have good reason to be on alert when
a male "threatens" a woman's body part. Genuine fear is rarely a man's
response to a woman's ravings.
Finally, sometimes bringing the subject of "testicles" is the only way to
get men to stand up and take notice. Dismissal of women by men is a very
real phenomena, with women trying to make a point being seen as something to
guffaw about - until she is forced to bring out the heavy artillary. Being
conciliatory and polite, something that is drilled into women's heads, often
does not work in a "man's world" or a male-dominated discussion list. (I
tried once before to break into this list, being oh-so-demure, and I got
> There are plenty of other ways to get good laughs. =20
I really don't think laughs were the aim.
But anyway, point taken. I shall do my best to keep from using the most
base forms of communication.
Apologies to all who were offended. . .well, maybe not all. . .all right,
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application