11 Feb
2013
11 Feb
'13
7:01 p.m.
[gratuituous, unhelpful sarcasm liberally snipped here...]
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.
J