11 Feb
2013
11 Feb
'13
7:05 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:01 AM, James Mckernon <jmckernon(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
[gratuituous, unhelpful sarcasm liberally snipped
here...]
Then let us settle the issue at the very heart of this dispute at once. To
the scales!
The
rotten prankster <male>, in his twisted little mind, tries to imagine
what
kind of person would be "not amused" by
the image. Because of his low
class
standing, <male> is clearly aware that
"not amused" is a euphemism that
(sexist) men use when the searing hatred that often emanates from jealous
individuals. He knows that Mr. Richards also referred the individual
beaming
this hatred as his 'partner', a euphemism
for wife... What kind of wife
would be jealous of a cute little cartoon doll figure? Why, a morbidly
obese
one, of course. This kind of accurate and witty
humor is exactly what is
wrong with the world today.
[...and ditto here.]
I'll leave 'witty' to the discretion of the reader, but I'm afraid
that I think it's a bit much to call this remark 'accurate'. In what
sense is it 'accurate' to imply that only one who weighs 350lb would
object to this image?
In general terms, the nasty tactic of insulting a woman's (presumed?)
appearance, rather than responding to the substance of her position
itself, is seen all too often when gender issues like these are
discussed. I don't think it's a nice habit.
To make a slightly distasteful joke in an unguarded moment on IRC is
hardly a crime, but I don't think this particular remark deserves to
be held up as a paragon of insight, free thinking, accuracy, etc.,
either.