What a swell party this isn't

[serene]

Scene: party Saturday night, which I only attended in trophy-wife capacity (cute-poet-chick's college friend's birthday)

Montessori Teacher who looks like Garry Shandling and says things like "We traveled through Egypt, and everyone does laundry by hand. Lots of people earn their living doing laundry for others. It's a social thing for women to do it. So if they had washing machines, it would hurt their economy."

Me, after about an hour of ignoring his idiocy and chuckling lightly at his stupid jokes: "So, you have three teenaged daughters? Wow."

Garry Shandling: "Yeah. I'm the only guy in a house full of girls. So I have to keep remembering to think down to their level."

Me: "Um, excuse me. *Down*?"

GS: "You know what I mean. Guys think on one level, and girls on another."

Me: "Oh. And it's *down* a level? *Down*?"

GS: *sputter* "You know what I mean."

Cute-poet-chick, sotto voce: "Doesn't he realize he's sitting at a table with a bunch of women who are bigger than he is?"

Me, to GS: "Hey, that's right. I could totally kick your ass."

Me, to cute-poet-chick: "Here, honey, hold my jacket."

Grrrrrr.

Comments

Re: hooei.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

Read my words. carefully please:

good example of "talking down to". just lucky i am not a woman, eh?

and, while we're giving each other small hints about good manners, could you in the future compose and proofread your posts before sending them? i have now what, 6 copies in my inbox? you're getting to have a private spam rating from my filters. :)

i read your words. carefully. i hardly ever engage in reckless reading :). i disagreed with large parts of what you wrote in the first place, but i didn't elaborate on that because LJ is the damndest format in which to have a serious scientific discussion, and i don't have the patience for it. (i have fewer problems with your new statement; mainly just that i think the groups are too large for any meaningful generalization -- but hey, i think between any two individuals their respective idiolects can lead to gross misunderstandings.)

anyway, you wanting to be sure of Y, Z, and the whole kit 'n kaboodle, for yourself, is none of my beeswax -- it's fine. you have every right to your opinion (though man, i wish you'd lose the PC bit; that is so shopworn). i simply hung my very own opinion off your post. please note the complete absence of "and you should feel like i do".

but, while the equine skeleton still has some fleshy remains, let me refresh your memory about the post that started all of this friendly exchange because it appears to me you might have forgotten. (see, i can talk down too! :)

GS: "Yeah. I'm the only guy in a house full of girls. So I have to keep remembering to think down to their level."

Me: "Um, excuse me. *Down*?"

GS: "You know what I mean. Guys think on one level, and girls on another."

he didn't say ädults think on one level and teens on another.

and i note that he didn't give serene a better explanation after she called him on it. he is a teacher, for goodness' sakes. i would expect him to be able to express what he means if he were to have been seriously misunderstood.

you reserve your judgment all you want. i think he's got issues.

i hope we both shall survive this difference of opinions, *snicker*.

Re: hooei.

[breckan.livejournal.com]

heh - okay, roger dodger on the careful composing. Says he, recklessly composing this one sight unseen :)

I think we're getting somewhere though.

I said to read carefully, because initial assumptions appear to have been made which a careful reader would not have made.

Racism was one, for example, and the idea that I might be easy on someone belittling others is another. Both of these I abhor. A more careful read might have avoided them though. I choose my words carefully, and they sometimes need to be read with quite some care, too, to avoid misunderstanding. It was simply, a respectful request to re-read with care what appeared (from the evidence) not to have been read initially with care, and the same request would have been made to man, woman or martian.

And yeah, LJ isn't ideal, is it? Ideal would be 10 people round a table drinking coffee and orange juice at 2 am... that's ideal for this kind of stuff! :) Anyone proposing to host it?

As to the rest, I'm going to disappoint you. I hope. I totally agree your last lines and analysis there, and for exactly the same reason you did.

Where we differ, if at all, is I say to myself - "I don't like it". But I also then say to myself, "...But thats an instinct. Now lets impose some self-control, and check it out properly first, before assuming the instinct is right".

It usually is - my instincts, I mean. But I'm a human being, and I know the value of suspending instinctive clawing while you engage the issue exploratively, until you know more. Thats a common thing family threrapists have to teach, eg within couples, too. Often when you talk, stuff comes out that wouldnt if you didnt.

Perhaps serene feels she doesn't need to know or hear more, to know. She was there. I wasnt. I do need to, because I didnt see or hear it verbatim complete with body language. Allow and respect that intent, and that different approach, please. Its as honorable as your own.

Re: hooei.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

(ok, so i am guilty of not proofreading enough this time -- sorry! but had to correct for bad editing since it changed the meaning.)

please point out to me where i accused you of racism or of going easy on those belittling other people. i went back and reread my posts, and i truly see nothing of the kind, so i figure i'll just ask you to show me what you've interpreted that way.

and i guess we're otherwise not very far apart -- it's just that i don't know this guy, don't have to interact with him, i am merely giving some initial feedback in an LJ journal. so i am not going to be checking anything out regarding this person, and i therefore don't go into my routine of validating my first impression.

Re: hooei.

[breckan.livejournal.com]

In line with your own graciousness, I return in kind. You took my "please read carefully" or racism as personally directed to you, so I'm glad to clarify that the expression was a general one, requesting a careful reading and no prejudgement from any who had prejudged and replied without carefully reading or understanding. Apologies if you felt it pointed purely in your direction - I'm glad to put it right. Forgive me! :)

But yes, even in a 3rd party forum, where nobody will physically be hurt, I just cant see it being right not to validate what happened. People will read it, and I would have represented myself as definitely feeling some way or other... I had to be honest and say what I felt.

You just cant say "Its the internet so that kind of stuff doesnt matter", or "its merely initial feedback so I didnt act as I would normally".

I too dont know or have to interact with him, but by my words (or their absence), I'm saying "yes, I approve of your words and actions", or "no, I think I need to know more before approving them". The teacher isnt here, of course, but other casual readers, and serene herself are of course. I saw something that bothered me, and - one is deeply responsible not just for the few wrongs due to what one actually says and does, but also for every wrong that happens or is encouraged to happen in future, because it wasnt convenient to speak up.

If I dont say "I have doubts", and it therefore seems to the world that everyone apparently approved of these words and actions and finds them good.... that's exactly how racism and sexism and prejudice get a grip in the first place. People see stuff they arent comfortable with, but - they shut up. They stay silent so's not to cause ripples... or because its not them at risk... or because they seek approval and want to avoid being unpopular. Thats one big way that discriminatory ways of thinking spread - simply that people who had doubts, stayed quiet.

So no, its a 2nd hand report of a conversation that disquietens me, and the world seemed to be blissfully applauding it and I'm reading, wondering "But didnt anyone want to know more? Doesnt anyone care to check first?"

To not express my doubts, to not say "hang on, can I validate it first", to be silent... Silence gives consent. Silence adds me to the list of approving voices. Silence allows the illusion that nobody sees anything to question in the matter. Silence would be like making it appear that there were no doubts and it was unquestioningly a good action to me, too.