Books and Intelligence

[MonkeyCatcher]

If homosexual men are discriminated against, the same goes for women.

Homosexual women are no way near as discriminated against as homosexual men. People generally accept homosexual women a lot more readily than they will ever accept homosexual men (lesbians are "hot", gays are just "gross and unnatural", ask any guy and most will give you this answer ). There are frequent assaults on homosexuals, females included, but I'd guess that the attacks on men outweighs the attack on women at least 20-1. Actaully I've only ever heard of one attack on a lesbian, yet there have been countless attacks on homosexual men.

Just because it happens to women, doesn't mean it's right for it to happen to men. Your defence seemed to imply "well, it happens to everyone, deal with it, women!" In no instance is discrimination right. But again, the issue is discrimination against women, and I'm a woman, so I put it that way round.

And I, also being a woman (glad we cleared that one up ) agree with the statement that you made. It's not right for it to happen to men just because it happens to women, nor to any other group that exists in the world. That's not what I meant to inply at all, I was just showing that there /are/ other people facing the same the type of ignorant assaults. Females are not alone in this and so their problem is just as big as everyone elses, but not more so IMO.

And I would dispute your statement that it happens just as much to men. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, no newspaper ran stories about his ability to cope, because he was male. Whereas every time Margaret Thatcher did something wrong (frequently, but that's beside the point) her gender became an issue.

I obviously don't know much about the tabloids and such in the UK, but I know that here we have had two female prime-ministers in a row. Gender has never been an issue while our current prime-minister has been in charge (I was too young when the other one was to remember..). Most people agree that she has done a great job for our country, and I'm pretty sure that she is up in the polls at the moment (elections here are going to be within the next two months). This just may be another difference between my country and yours to add to the growing pile.

Obviously there are many instances, and your example of homosexuality is a good one, but for women, it's routine. Being male, you may not understand this, but it is an everyday occurrence for most women that they will be told, or it will be implied, that they are worth less than men.

I don't find, as a woman, that this happens to me /at all/. I can't ever have pinpointed a time where I was told or someone implied that I was worth less than men (not counting jokes, of course). The only times are when we have different standards (with females' lower) to get the same mark in PE, but I don't think that's unjust at all. We are both the same age, so our experiences shouldn't really be that different, so again, I believe it may just be a difference between our two countries.

It will end when people stop saying that it's a problem too difficult to change. The same goes for other discrimination issues. I agree, as I said above, that there are probably more important things (the rabid feminist in me shrieks "no, nothing is more important!!"), but if people keep shifting the focus like this and saying "there are worse issues, deal with it" then nothing will ever get solved.

I don't think that people believe it to be a problem /too/ difficult to change, but it will be a tough one. You first must change the way that people think, which I'm not sure about you, but sounds like a tough job to me. I suppose that they could begin teaching children at a young age that we are equal, it they are not doing that already, but that will do nothing for the old traditionalists who pass their "knowledge" down the family line.

The fact is that there /are/ a lot more important issues to deal with. Helping the third-world countries, working towards world peace (and good ol' Geogre W. has really pushed our progression in this one back a few steps. Probably the only thing that he has, and will ever acheive), and of course discrimination upon other groups which /should/ take priority over that of women. As I have already stated, bias related to religon, race and sexuality is much more occurant than that of women. Women are not assualted purely for being women, which is sadly not the case for the groups that I listed above.

It's simple. Every single person in the world needs to realise that their gender, race, religion and age do not make them better than any other person. I may be young, foolish and idealistic, but that's what I want to see.

That's a /tad/ easier said than done. That is obviously the only way in which to slove the issue, but the problem is what steps do we take to get there?

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[Jennifer]

Not going to address all of this, because I don't have time, just the bits that struck me...

And I, also being a woman (glad we cleared that one up )

I obviously don't know much about the tabloids and such in the UK, but I know that here we have had two female prime-ministers in a row. Gender has never been an issue while our current prime-minister has been in charge (I was too young when the other one was to remember..). Most people agree that she has done a great job for our country, and I'm pretty sure that she is up in the polls at the moment (elections here are going to be within the next two months). This just may be another difference between my country and yours to add to the growing pile.

Yup. Evidently NZ is the enlightened place I've been looking for all my life. I just know that in the UK, female politicians have it far worse than men. There was this whole showing-off thing in 1997 when Blair got in about the high numbers of Labour women in the Commons (look at us, all equal oppotunities etc.) Not one of those women has been taken seriously since, because the media immediately christened them "Blair's Babes". So I may emigrate...

I don't find, as a woman, that this happens to me /at all/. I can't ever have pinpointed a time where I was told or someone implied that I was worth less than men (not counting jokes, of course). The only times are when we have different standards (with females' lower) to get the same mark in PE, but I don't think that's unjust at all. We are both the same age, so our experiences shouldn't really be that different, so again, I believe it may just be a difference between our two countries.

I'm beginning to feel like I should be picketing my area and throwing myself under horses... Let's take PE as a standard then. At my school, the rugby team is everything. They even get to stay on without the required grades that the rest of us have. The boys have a better choice of sports and first choice on the facilities. What do we get? Netball. And the team is rarely mentioned and gets no privileges. I could be paranoid, but it stinks...

Women are not assualted purely for being women, which is sadly not the case for the groups that I listed above.

Ok, I give in on the rest. But this I have to question. Look at female circumcision. (Urgh. Don't look at it literally). Women who can feel are dangerous and must be punished. Or the fact that in many countries male adultery is not a crime, but a woman might even be put to death for it. In our cosy "civilised" world I think we tend to forget that just because we have come a long way since women's suffrage doesn't mean the rest of the world has. Dammit all.

That's a /tad/ easier said than done. That is obviously the only way in which to slove the issue, but the problem is what steps do we take to get there?

Hush! Our generation will change the world! We will have peace (I'm feeling like Miss World here) and equality and justice! No nay-sayers on my bandwagon!
Seriously though, I think we need to stop seeing discrimination as a legal issue, over which people can be sued and imprisoned, and start seeing the end of injustice as a social issue, one that needs to be addressed for the benefit of all. We've turned ourselves into desperately PC people and corporations out of fear of the lawsuit; and, interestingly, it's often the most rapidly PC who nurse secret bigotry and prejudice. It's a matter of education. I don't pretend to have all the answers (what am I saying, I'm a human search engine...), but I do believe in the inherent ability of everyone to be peaceful and harmonious. Like, everyone should just, you know, get along, dude! (If I didn't sound like enough of a hippy already.) It will be hard, but isn't it worth it? Now excuse me, I have a political coup to stage. Blair, your days are numbered.

Peace and love, Jennifer

Well, considering 'tits' isn't that hard to spell and nobody actually knows how to spell 'Phwoarr!' it's not the best claim The Sun can make.

I just wanted to snort at this. At least the Guardian attempts words of over one syllable.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Not one of those women has been taken seriously since, because the media immediately christened them "Blair's Babes". So I may emigrate...

I have noticed the British tabloids to be /extremely/ harsh. Things are reported in our magazines about the harsh comments made about celebrities and their battles with weight and drugs etc.. here, being PC, the only comments you will see is "[insert name here] has finally gained some much-needed weight" or "[insert name here] has finally gained some womanly curves", which I think is a lot healthier for the teenagers here.

At my school, the rugby team is everything. They even get to stay on without the required grades that the rest of us have. The boys have a better choice of sports and first choice on the facilities. What do we get? Netball. And the team is rarely mentioned and gets no privileges. I could be paranoid, but it stinks...

That really does stink! We don't have scholarships purely for sport at our schools.. you must get the grades to stay at school, boys and girls have the same options in terms of sport, the girl's facilities are just the same, if not better than the boys' (eg seperate cubicles for showers), and the members of the girl's rugby team are currently the honoured sportsmen (or should I say "sportspeople" ) at our school. Very, very different

Ok, I give in on the rest. But this I have to question. Look at female circumcision. (Urgh. Don't look at it literally). Women who can feel are dangerous and must be punished. Or the fact that in many countries male adultery is not a crime, but a woman might even be put to death for it. In our cosy "civilised" world I think we tend to forget that just because we have come a long way since women's suffrage doesn't mean the rest of the world has. Dammit all.

Yes, in these countries it is still a major problem and something that should be attended to.

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[jay]

As my bi-line for this thread was „The Death of Literacy“ I figured this would be an ok thread to keep alive.

I’ve recently had a few different thoughts on this corpse-like state that Literacy is in.
Now I’m dating myself (no, that’s not a masturbation reference…) here but there may be a few of us that remember the old kiddie television show Electric Company. On this program, I’d guess it was on in the 1970s, there was a cool, Superfly, Pimp’esque characters called Easy Reader (now officially hangin’ on my avatar). I don’t remember much, aside from a catch-phrase was, “this book is easy to read!” and his savvy dress style.
So, aside from gifting/damaging us with other barely lingering images; live-action Spider-Man, women hanging out with gorillas…maybe this was the guide for the last generation of readers?

Easy Reader retires=Death of Literacy.

Maybe.

Oh yeah, Easy Reader was portrayed by nun other than Mister Morgan Freeman.
j

 

[novella]

As my bi-line for this thread was „The Death of Literacy“ I figured this would be an ok thread to keep alive.

I’ve recently had a few different thoughts on this corpse-like state that Literacy is in.
Now I’m dating myself (no, that’s not a masturbation reference…) here but there may be a few of us that remember the old kiddie television show Electric Company. On this program, I’d guess it was on in the 1970s, there was a cool, Superfly, Pimp’esque characters called Easy Reader (now officially hangin’ on my avatar). I don’t remember much, aside from a catch-phrase was, “this book is easy to read!” and his savvy dress style.
So, aside from gifting/damaging us with other barely lingering images; live-action Spider-Man, women hanging out with gorillas…maybe this was the guide for the last generation of readers?

Easy Reader retires=Death of Literacy.

Maybe.

Oh yeah, Easy Reader was portrayed by nun other than Mister Morgan Freeman.
j

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
--John Donne

 

[jay]

Hmmm. Blisteringly overrated, as they say.

I prefer to be an „island“, for this „continent“ is farrrrrrrrr too scary and the more and more I see I prefer to remain UN”involved”.

Although “clod”, in the R. Crumb use of the word, is fitting…

Tone-deaf to unharmonious bells,
j

 

[jay]

While I’m ignoring more and more work I might as well close something I left open, not that anyone gives a gawdamn:

At this juncture I'd like to point out something jay said in the "required reading" thread, which suggests he may not be as tyrannical over low-brow literature as we might have thought...

I previously left 2 things in the air for those that love to defend children’s book.
I once mentioned “ruby slippers” and once mentioned the “Lollipop Guild”, which I even on purpose first called the Lollipop *Kids* to draw attention to it.
The astute children’s’ book reader would have been able to point out those *not* being literary references, but solely movie references.
Ahhhhh, but no one has read the sodding book.

Anyway, in the book the shoes are silver and there are no guilds of munchkins, just a council. No lollipops.
Incidentally, one of the great things about the book is how even more devious Oz is [than in the movie], as the Emerald City is not really glamorous nor emerald. Upon entering the gates one has to put on emerald tinted glasses to ‘protect’ one from the wonderful shine.
The art of deception.

Oh well.

This also had me thinking about, it may have been Shade who stated he believed Stephen King would have a shelf life, at least his earlier work.
I was trying to think, in light of my Oz thinking, of any book that has survived well under the pressure of huge Hollywood success. The Oz movie has far outclipsed (this should be a word, as some of my OBVIOUS plays with words, dear Novella [love, try laying down a little font (like, more than the cute little one-lined nonsense), you know, “conversation” and you’ll undoubtedly be tripping all over yourself, as always. And when quoting, them thar quotation marks (i.e. “”) are generally considered to be aptly named and therefore used.]) the book. Mitchell’s _Gone With the Wind_, while still in print, is not widely read.
So I wonder if such vivid (if not appalling) imagery of Jack Nicholsuck’s “Here’s Johnny’ and the like, doesn’t just prove, in the end, damaging.
And I think King’s never-ending output could also be impeding.
Consistency to suck should never be rewarded.

For those that give a care, the Oz books are still in print, although probably hard to find. L. Frank Baum, the creator, wrote 14 of them (since some of you really seem to think a continuing series of books is the bee’s knees) and then a Ruth Plumly Thompson continues it until number 29 (I’m not sure if those are still in-print).

Maybe the “dating myself” thing _was_ a masturbation reference…
j
[late edit: saw I didn't close the Jennifer quote properly]

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I previously left 2 things in the air for those that love to defend children’s book.
I once mentioned “ruby slippers” and once mentioned the “Lollipop Guild”, which I even on purpose first called the Lollipop *Kids* to draw attention to it.
The astute children’s’ book reader would have been able to point out those *not* being literary references, but solely movie references.
Ahhhhh, but no one has read the sodding book.

Ahh, I was wondering what you were talking about in your earlier post. Thanks for clearing that up

MonkeyCatcher

 

[novella]

I own and have read the original Wizard of Oz, which I bought secondhand on a whim. It's a TERRIBLE book, jay. One of your literary treasures?

 

[Ya Krunk'd Floo]

I don't forshitchristsakes know if it has already been stated, but I would hold anyone who has read AND enjoyed a book by Clive Cussler in the dimest possible light - not quite black, because that is mysterious, but a definite gray, dirge of a light. Agreed?

 

[jay]

I own and have read the original Wizard of Oz, which I bought secondhand on a whim. It's a TERRIBLE book, jay. One of your literary treasures?

…sigh…
Novella, dear heart, you’re quickly approaching post number 2’500.
Please, try to write *something* with _some_ value before then.
I don’t have my money on it, but I’m on the sidelines cheering you on.

The kiddie pool is on your left…
j

 

[bobbyburns]

jay, I hope you realize that you're a nazi.

 

[jay]

jay, I hope you realize that you're a nazi.

What I *do* realize is that some really dimwitted people that hang around a Book Forum but rarely talk about books may “think” so.
As with everything, I consider the source.

Thanks for your ever-so vacant input.
j

 

[novella]

…sigh…
Novella, dear heart, you’re quickly approaching post number 2’500.
Please, try to write *something* with _some_ value before then.
I don’t have my money on it, but I’m on the sidelines cheering you on.

The kiddie pool is on your left…
j

As usual, if you can't say something on point, just throw out a lame personal insult. You refer below to a terrible book, implying that it ought to be read. Just pointing out that it's a waste of time, terriblly written, a bore, and one case in which the filmmaker created something fantastic and original out of tripe.

 

[Erica]

Jay
Nearly Everywhere you go on this forum, it seems to turn into a personal insult zone!
Using Personal insults are a sign of not being very bright!

 

[jay]

As usual, if you can't say something on point,

Ohhhhh there’s a point there. “As usual”, you’re seeing what you want to see.

You refer below to a terrible book, implying that it ought to be read.

Not terrible in the least, most certainly by bloody children’s books standards. The proper title, which you failed to use, is pretty silly though.
Nor did I in any way “imply” it should be read. There are a great many people here that defend kiddie literature but no very little about it.
You know some of the books I push, and you know ‘Oz’ aint on it.

Just pointing out that it's a waste of time, terriblly written, a bore, and one case in which the filmmaker created something fantastic and original out of tripe.

Sure, Novella. Lest us all start to work under the blind criteria in which you judge (and edit!) things.
Waste of time indeed.

You’re a tired old girl who really loves a lil’ smack on the rump, eh? The sick thing is, deep down you seem to agree with me on most of the underlying factors I bring up. I’m not sure if you were thought of –or thought yourself being the ‘really smart person on the board’ and I seemingly stole your cookies. Hell, I mean you no harm, but am kind of sick of handing you your ass.
Please, find someone else to play your little game.

Jay Nearly Everywhere you go on this forum, it seems to turn into a personal insult zone!

My apologies for pointing out occasional (if not frequent) stupidity. Idiotic behavior seems to be held in high esteem here.
I chose to rally against it.

Using Personal insults are a sign of not being very bright!

While this is arguable, I’ve never claimed to be “very bright”.

As I’ve said before, chose create a poll and vote me off. Until then, there _are_ a handful of people here that can formulate some thoughts and don’t mind talking about some books.

Terriblly, apparently,
j
who really wishes people clearly having no interest in the conversation at hand (granted this thread has gotten chaotic) wouldn’t read it let alone piss on the hydrants placed so carefully on each page corner…

 

[Ya Krunk'd Floo]

[late edit: saw I didn't close the Jennifer quote properly]

Not only that, but I'd wager a tidy sum on you having made numerous mistakes of the grammatical kind that repulsed your pedantic nature to the point where your one free hand (The other not masturbating/masturbating) started behaving like you were painting, except you had neither paint nor a paint-brush in your hand. Phew.

Smart literature = Stuff by Conrad
Stupid books = All that Austen crap

Also, stupid people can read smart books, just as smart people can read stupid books. However, the smart people who read stupid books are stupid.

Fin.

 

[SFG75]

Don't mind me, I'm just on the sidelines munching on popcorn and watching the action.

 

[Delta_doh!]

Don't mind me, I'm just on the sidelines munching on popcorn and watching the action.

Pass the Popcorn Please x

 

[jay]

Not only that, but I'd wager a tidy sum on you having made numerous mistakes of the grammatical kind that repulsed your pedantic nature…

Not that time. Tidy sum lost.
I’m ok to let some stuff slip. I do try to make vaguely readable posts, not out of ‘look how composing I can be’ but it’s just a simple respect to those that do choose to read what I put up.

Again, I’ve never claimed to be perfect at anything, let alone grammar/spelling - let alone while dealing with another language entirely different all day.
The only time (aside from my last post) I bitch or comment about others’ mistakes is when they are trying to make a point and slip up on their own (i.e: “you’re grammer sucks!” – which, I kid you not, happened once)

I was truthful in the edit, but I think any edit is fair game if done *before* some else follows up with a post. Or at least a post commenting on the edited post. Although, needless to say, some beloved members here have gone for an edit even a day after they posted and it’s been commented on…

If you feel I’ve ‘personally attacked’ you at any time during this post, feel free to pretend I am holding your hand and caressing it.
You know, with my free hand…
j
(move along, kids...nothing to see here)