Men part 2.
It's quite telling that all of the male respondents to my last post countered with sexual desires. That was incredibly stupid. Did you forget whose blog this was? I've just spent the last 5 days reading feminist theory. From the sample, I can only presume the following:
1) Men are driven purely by sexual libido (very sadly, rather low on the spiritual totem and Maslow's hierarchy)
2) If not #1 then men are extremely insecure as witnessed by their inability to express their 'genuine' desires and dreams
3) If not #1 or #2 then men are incapable of viewing women as significant others deserving of the position of equal interlocuter in a dialogue
Oh yes, and I was also respectful by addressing those respondents as 'men' as opposed to farmyard animals. Not just any farmyard animal mind you, but one that is tiny, vulnerable and easily crushed. On behalf of all women, thank you, for you are indeed god's gift to us. Or at least, that's what you want to believe.
6 Comments:
as chris rock said in some dvd i watched the other day: "i love black people but i can't stand niggers."
as chris rock's "niggers" shoot at drive-in theatre screens and spend all their money on rims, contessa's "men" neatly fall into one of the enumerated columns.
as for our commentators, i think they fall in the category of those who find talk less interesting when there is an implied connection between what you say and what you believe.
Ah Jesse, the bedrock of sanity and equanimity;) I knew I could count on you to respond!
I really didn't care about the sexual impulses. I was driven by the use of the word 'chick'. Never really bothered me before, at least not to that extent. Can you think of any word that is used in a comparable sense for men? Pigs, dicks, cocks. But they are nowhere used to to the degree that the term 'chicks' is...
Sorry, my fault. I didn't mean to hijack your last post.
Watch Office Space.
I have. And that would be topical because...?
Refer to question: "what would you do with a million dollars?"
Post a Comment
<< Home