Magic.
That doesn't change the incoherence of the phrase in context.
Great story. *the phrase is 'couldn't care less'
In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same.
Juxtaposition?
McDahmers by Macabre
Hah. Already found an album on Jeffrey Dahmer to soothe my woes.
It's a gift. I really need a pick me up of some kind.
Hole by Anekdoten
It's a group effort. If Laurence is consistently shut down, as she has been on a number of occasions, she won't have much reason to come around. It gives one the impression of being shunned. On an individual level, there isn't much to be gained by telling someone that you don't care about their troubles. Even when criticizing them, it's important to empathize. If you can't empathize, you can only add to the stress by replying at all. As I said before, intent isn't so important. If you can't work around the actual impact your words have, you're just blindly saying whatever comes to your mind and shirking responsibility for the consequences.
In the future, be aware that you and others may have scared Laurence away from expressing their stresses here because you guys outspokenly want her to take it quietly. That's more than a disagreement. It's peer pressure.
It may not seem like it, but it is. If you are consistently reminded that you are not respected in a professional setting, it will make you feel under-appreciated and cause undue stress, leading to increased sensitivity to reminders of the lack of respect. These things build up over a life time. You're right about the particular instance. Even if I switched your sex, you wouldn't find it that offensive until years had passed. You're used to being able to move on with your day. You can tell yourself it was just one or two people on that particular day, that you're respected by most. But eventually, you would get very, very tired of the constant disrespect and inability to gain professional approval. You'd realize that it's not just an occasional thing. It's a society-wide standard and it's keeping you from advancing. Given time to notice all the little signs of it, you would become more upset every time they happened, knowing that they did it because they were biased and that you were being treated unfairly in a way that tangibly limited your ability to succeed in your profession. This frustration would get even worse if you managed to climb a professional ladder because you would internalize the fact that you got there in spite of the constant, all-pervading bias. The higher up the ladder you get, the more ruthless and unfriendly the women get. That is the stereotype of the executive bitch. That stereotype exists, and is accurate, because women have to be unforgiving, ruthless people who demand professionalism and professional respect to get it. If they don't call people out on the spot for infantalizing them, they will never get anywhere. These people are humorless because they have to be. If you use a pet name with them you will regret it. That's the price of succeeding in a male-dominated field. Try to get into someone else's head before judging what should or should not set them off. The victim is the one who is offended, not you; if you can't say you know where they are coming from then you can't say that you wouldn't feel the same way. What offends us often has a basis in our whole life. Imagine a more specific example. What would you say if someone said that the term 'Indian giving' is not offensive? While we have a rudimentary understanding of the offensiveness of the term 'Indian giving', we cannot begin to understand the offense that an actual Native American feels when they hear it used. If we can't imagine growing up as a Native American, then how can we say that it is not offensive to them? Beyond that, how offensive would it be that when a Native American said it was offensive, most of the people in the room said, 'That wasn't offensive at all.'? It's important to recognize the effect that your responses have on someone who has already been upset by it. That means all of you blaming Laurence for her complaint right now.[DOUBLEPOST=1412221038][/DOUBLEPOST] Terms of endearment. Did you edit that post? I don't remember compliments being in there when I first read it... Anyway, compliments weren't included in my comment. Terms of endearment is what I meant.
Have you considered that you might find those more infantalizing because they are used on you? Women face infantalization far more than men, to the point that most don't notice it. It's used on them constantly, mostly out of habit, on a daily basis. These things aren't offensive because they are meant as an insult. They are offensive because they consistently remind us that we are not respected as professional agents. That lack of respect is insulting whether they tell us they disrespect us outright or not.[DOUBLEPOST=1412218796][/DOUBLEPOST] They've been offensive for hundreds of years. Even in fiction, they are pretty much exclusively used as tools for teasing people. What rock have you been living under?
The intention isn't as important as the mindset that allowed it to exist. It's infantalizing. It is not a sign of professional respect. If these older men wanted to be nice to a male, they would not use pet names. They would show deference. Probably in a formal way such as a handshake or a nod of approval. If they did use pet names with a male, it would be taken as an insult or teasing. Why does that difference exist? The nice gesture towards males expresses professional respect; the nice gesture towards females expresses unprofessional respect. Put side by side, the gesture to females shows a lack of professional respect. Another kind of respect can't cover that lacking up. I suspect it's about territory. When these men are nice to fellow males, they make gestures that acknowledge them as professional competitors or worthy opponents. When they are nice to women, they make gestures that acknowledge they are pleasurable company. They do not acknowledge females as professional threats. These may seem like innocuous differences to the one making the gestures, but they can shape a work environment that treats women as little more than eye candy compared to other males. Much like the way male-dominated territorial predators treat females in their species.
I prefer s01e02; at least it uses consistent 0 substitution. The shorthand notation always bothered me... Along with lowercasing the entire filename.
In your example, you stated this: The statement that homosexuals are the only ones who have sex with people of the same sex is incorrect. It does not make sense to ignore that other sexualities exist when making this statement; homosexuality being an example has no bearing on that. When confronted with this, you stated that it was generally true, except for 'things like hetero-flexibility'. Furthermore, you directly implied that you had no obligation to think about these sexualities because what you said was 'generally true'. You are shrugging off the fact that we exist as a technicality that is not worth considering. That is offensive regardless of your intent, and it would be nice if you recognized that you made a mistake in doing it.
That is simply incorrect. It sounds as if you are implying that being bisexual without a qualifier is not a legitimate position and that someone must identify relative to hetero and homosexual in some way. That is a falsehood. Tale mentioned one sexuality that shows this well. Pansexual. Pansexuals are attracted not only to males and females, but to intersex individuals and transsexuals alike. I am one of them. I cannot be defined as 'hetero-flexible' or 'homo-flexible'. My sexuality covers things that neither of those do. Surely you can understand how limiting the spectrum to 'hetero-' or 'homo-' flexibility is insulting. These people are not part hetero and part homo; they are not on a sliding scale. They are their own standalone sexuality. He corrected you because your generalization was incorrect and outright ignored the existence of these other sexualities. It certainly shows that you don't think about the full spectrum when you think about this subject. The fact that you defended yourself by saying that it is generally true shows that you don't care to think of the full spectrum, either.
In that case, you understand that you stated a falsehood.
Tale's point is that not even having sex with the same sex is specific only to homosexuals. Your 'aside from' is inaccurate.
Hehe. No problem.
