Little Women... BIG SUVs
-
SothThe69th
- Redshirt
- Posts: 9622
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:16 am
- Location: Peeing off of the stairway to Heaven.
- Contact:
-
CorruptTiki
- Redshirt
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:09 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Tempe Arizona
I know what Miroku is talking about, I can't count the number of times I've been nearly run over by women drivers in big suvs. I'm talking about troop transport wannabies ie: Escalades and Excursions, vehicles that look like you've got Rhode Island in your backseat. I used to a fan of the smaller suvs like the s10 blazers, but this whole suv fad has pretty much turned me off of them altogether.
If I can get you to laugh with me, you like me better, which makes you more open to my ideas. And if I can persuade you to laugh at the particular point I make, by laughing at it you acknowledge its truth.
John Cleese
John Cleese
-
billf
- Pantless power
- Posts: 7052
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 8:27 pm
- Location: New York... The part with the cows
- Contact:
Your limiting yourself to women in SUVs? I've been more often nearly run over by assholes in riced out vehicles playing their stereos so that people a quarter mile away can hear them. SUVs are just as bad, but it isn't only women. Aound here people apparently don't understand that you are supposed to stop BEFORE the crosswalk, and not on it. I like to give them a nice scare every once in a while by walking out in front of them when they're still going 20+ mph and force them to stop before the crosswalk. The or if they are already stopped I always try to go in front of their vehicle and I'll always take my time while doing it.
"We spend the first year of their lives teaching them (children) to walk and talk, and the rest of their lives telling them to shut up and sit down."
[quote="Fixer";p="164369"]Hey? What happened to the page and a half of text?[/quote]
If you mean my original response, I decided there was a lot in there that just wasn't worth leaving in. Too much that might fuel additional beatings on an otherwise dead horse. Besides, why should I care if a couple of people think I'm sexist and stereotyping when I know otherwise. My taking that seriously is like them taking my original post seriously.
As for why we're singling out women in SUVs and not factoring in men, I think some of us are dismissing the man-factor because we know why guys want SUVs that never go anywhere. We're only slightly more evolved than apes and prone to being distracted by big, noisy, shiny things. But the whole idea of some, not all, but some women... especially those women* that aren't capable of handling a Yugo... wanting huge-ass SUVs as status symbols just seems counter-intuitive to everything society presents about their gender.... in my humble, limited opinion based on what I have observed within a 20-mile radius of the St. Louis area.
*PC Police addendum: The term "women," hereto refered to as "the term" does not imply direct readers of this post or family, friends, friends with fringe benefits, casual acquaintances, kissing cousins, one night stands, coworkers, chatroom cronies, online gaming partners, coven members, fellow inmates or victims of readers. The term may not be suitable for all ages. The term is void where prohibited, including MO, CA, AK, MT and FL. The term is not available to employees or family members of Pepsi-Cola. Offer ends December 31, 2003. No purchase necessary for game piece.
If you mean my original response, I decided there was a lot in there that just wasn't worth leaving in. Too much that might fuel additional beatings on an otherwise dead horse. Besides, why should I care if a couple of people think I'm sexist and stereotyping when I know otherwise. My taking that seriously is like them taking my original post seriously.
As for why we're singling out women in SUVs and not factoring in men, I think some of us are dismissing the man-factor because we know why guys want SUVs that never go anywhere. We're only slightly more evolved than apes and prone to being distracted by big, noisy, shiny things. But the whole idea of some, not all, but some women... especially those women* that aren't capable of handling a Yugo... wanting huge-ass SUVs as status symbols just seems counter-intuitive to everything society presents about their gender.... in my humble, limited opinion based on what I have observed within a 20-mile radius of the St. Louis area.
*PC Police addendum: The term "women," hereto refered to as "the term" does not imply direct readers of this post or family, friends, friends with fringe benefits, casual acquaintances, kissing cousins, one night stands, coworkers, chatroom cronies, online gaming partners, coven members, fellow inmates or victims of readers. The term may not be suitable for all ages. The term is void where prohibited, including MO, CA, AK, MT and FL. The term is not available to employees or family members of Pepsi-Cola. Offer ends December 31, 2003. No purchase necessary for game piece.
-
Rikku_Chan
- Redshirt
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:01 pm
- Real Name: Kiki
- Gender: Female
- Location: The Blood Gulch
Re: Little Women... BIG SUVs
Hey, I'm 4'11" and have driven humvees with heavy assault weapons mounted on top in just about every off-road condition short of vertical mountains. You wanna tell me that you don't trust me driving a crappy little SUV? Tsk tsk tsk. Generalizing is bad, mmkay? Size and sex has nothing to do with driving skill.
Ever try driving in open desert? It sux0rs.
Ever try driving in open desert? It sux0rs.
私はアメリカを愛する
-
Killer-Rabbit
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2395
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 2:46 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Traverse City, Michigan
Generalizing isnt bad. It gives you an idea of the majority. Its just when people turn those generalizations into stereotypes and thing the generalizations apply to everyone.
Example: Every time I have been driving and someone does something that almost causes an accident, I look and the person has a cell phone in their hand. Also many people I know that have been in accidents, the person at fault had a cell phone in their hand. Thus, I generalize that most accidents are caused by cell phone usage. However, I do not take that generalization and turn it into a stereotype by thinking that everyone that uses a cell phone while driving causes an accedent.
Example: Every time I have been driving and someone does something that almost causes an accident, I look and the person has a cell phone in their hand. Also many people I know that have been in accidents, the person at fault had a cell phone in their hand. Thus, I generalize that most accidents are caused by cell phone usage. However, I do not take that generalization and turn it into a stereotype by thinking that everyone that uses a cell phone while driving causes an accedent.
-
Rikku_Chan
- Redshirt
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:01 pm
- Real Name: Kiki
- Gender: Female
- Location: The Blood Gulch
^.-Smaointe
Saucy Wench
Lucky you. I'm just the stereotype of bad cycling.Lol, I guess I'm just the stereotype for bad driving. I'm really short, female, asian, and grew up in California (for a little while).
Tall, skinny, male and English, with a tendence to go through rather than around.
Skorpynekomimi [FGTL]
Nyaow!
What scares me? Mobile phones, bad driving, and brake lights.
(Spend some time drafting traffic on a bike and you'll understand the last one)
Nyaow!
What scares me? Mobile phones, bad driving, and brake lights.
(Spend some time drafting traffic on a bike and you'll understand the last one)
Re: Little Women... BIG SUVs
I agree with Rabbit, obviously. Generalizing itself isn't bad. Everyone generalizes.
I hate Mondays. (Even Labor Day? What if Christmas falls on a Monday?)
Kids these days are little monsters. (We know not ALL of them are.. especially if they're your own.)
I love shrimp! (Even burned shrimp?)
Asians kick our ass in the public schools. (I've known some pretty dumb Asians.)
Scotsmen and their sheep. (I can't say I've ever contemplated such an act.)
The list goes on.
As Rabbit so astutely pointed out, the problem comes when we hold a generalization to be inherently true, thus becoming a negative stereotype.
An example of a generalization might be if I see an Hummer swerving between traffic lanes, then see the driver is a woman applying makeup, or a guy in a Brooks Brothers suit chatting animatedly on a cell phone and think, "Pfft.. it figures." You might say a person fits a generalization by their actions that show they fit that generalization, rather than a generalization being immediately applied to them. (Incidentally, a study showed only 10% of all distracted-driving accidents are cell phone related.)
A case of a generalization turned negative stereotype would be if I saw a 5'2" woman heading for an SUV and immediatly assumed she's going to be incapable of handling it. That, of course, would be a ridiculous assumption.
This has demonstrated an interesting case of shooting the messenger for the messenger, rather than the message. Had someone like Conan O'Brien made a similar comment, or perhaps The Simpsons had a sight gag with a Short Women of America meeting letting out with every attendee heading for a Hummer... people would laugh their ass off. But, let someone just mention it casually, and suddenly the fur flies.
What's really interesting is that the people that seem to bitch loudest about stereotypes are the ones that often fit them the best. I'm not saying this is the case here, however.
So, no, generalizing is not bad. It is quite useful, in fact. Negative stereotyping is bad, however. The only time a casual generalization is bad (assuming it does not qualify in its use by the speaker as a negative stereotype or something hateful) is if the person reacting to it takes themselves so seriously that they cannot rationalize that the statement being made doesn't apply to them. Neil Boortz has some wonderful rants on this from when people call in, trying to prove themselves an exception to a generalization.
If you take a broad cross-section of people and offer them a generalization they might fit, but don't... and some get upset, trying to assert they don't fit, and some pay it no mind.. perhaps even laughing at themselves for resembling the generalization... then that really says more about the listeners than the statement made.
Likewise, make a generalization in jest that applies to none of your listeners, and they'll laugh. Make one that might hit a little close to home for some of them and they get pissy. Hmmmm.... interesting double-standard. "I'll make fun of other folks all I want, but nobody better do anything that could even be slightly construed as making fun of me!"
Case in point:
Now, I never said "Rikku Chan is short and female and therefore can't drive." But, yet, she makes a post, as several others have, trying to demonstrate they're the exception to the rule. I don't know her. I've never seen her drive. How could I possibly think such an idea would inherently apply to her? Even of I did.. I'm one person. Who the hell cares what one person thinks?
I'm not sure why when even the most innocent of generaliztions are made you get people crawling out of the woodwork to say "Not me!" It'd be understandable if they were trying to show how the generalization was unfair to anyone and everyone that might fit it for the good of everyone.. but it's always folks focusing on themselves and trying to prove how they alone don't fit the generalzation. There's a big difference between trying to dispell someone's misconception.. like a racist viewpoint... and trying to prove you alone don't fit the generalization. So far, I've only seen people attempting the latter.
And have we really become so insecure that we cannot laugh at ourselves for even faintly resembling a stereotype (assuming it's not hateful)?
Take two generalizations that I might fall victim to... being of Scottish descent and being bald. There's the comedic generalization that Scotsment are sheep-shaggers. There's also the common generalization that bald men are obsessed with doing anything they can to restore their hair. Personally, I shave my head every other night, love it, and wouldn't take some miracle cure if it existed. So when I hear those generalizations.. even stereotypes... I don't pay them any mind, because I know they don't apply to me. Even if the speaker was serious, why should I worry what one person thinks?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get my toupee cleaned and see if the Dimoxinil is starting to kick in. I want to look good for my date with Farmer MacGreggor's prize ewe.
Rikku.. sorry to single you out there, but your post was a good example of my point. I also assumed.. hopefully correctly... by your post after that that you weren't taking yourself too seriously, were able to laugh at yourself and realize that, yeah, you fit the description of shorter person driving larger vehicle.. but that did not mean the statement applied to you. The comments regarding your post were not directed at you, but were to illustrate how other people (not including yourself or other posters here) genuinely do feel the compulsion to respond in that fashion because such broad statements eat away at their ego, even if it does not apply to them.
I hate Mondays. (Even Labor Day? What if Christmas falls on a Monday?)
Kids these days are little monsters. (We know not ALL of them are.. especially if they're your own.)
I love shrimp! (Even burned shrimp?)
Asians kick our ass in the public schools. (I've known some pretty dumb Asians.)
Scotsmen and their sheep. (I can't say I've ever contemplated such an act.)
The list goes on.
As Rabbit so astutely pointed out, the problem comes when we hold a generalization to be inherently true, thus becoming a negative stereotype.
An example of a generalization might be if I see an Hummer swerving between traffic lanes, then see the driver is a woman applying makeup, or a guy in a Brooks Brothers suit chatting animatedly on a cell phone and think, "Pfft.. it figures." You might say a person fits a generalization by their actions that show they fit that generalization, rather than a generalization being immediately applied to them. (Incidentally, a study showed only 10% of all distracted-driving accidents are cell phone related.)
A case of a generalization turned negative stereotype would be if I saw a 5'2" woman heading for an SUV and immediatly assumed she's going to be incapable of handling it. That, of course, would be a ridiculous assumption.
This has demonstrated an interesting case of shooting the messenger for the messenger, rather than the message. Had someone like Conan O'Brien made a similar comment, or perhaps The Simpsons had a sight gag with a Short Women of America meeting letting out with every attendee heading for a Hummer... people would laugh their ass off. But, let someone just mention it casually, and suddenly the fur flies.
What's really interesting is that the people that seem to bitch loudest about stereotypes are the ones that often fit them the best. I'm not saying this is the case here, however.
So, no, generalizing is not bad. It is quite useful, in fact. Negative stereotyping is bad, however. The only time a casual generalization is bad (assuming it does not qualify in its use by the speaker as a negative stereotype or something hateful) is if the person reacting to it takes themselves so seriously that they cannot rationalize that the statement being made doesn't apply to them. Neil Boortz has some wonderful rants on this from when people call in, trying to prove themselves an exception to a generalization.
If you take a broad cross-section of people and offer them a generalization they might fit, but don't... and some get upset, trying to assert they don't fit, and some pay it no mind.. perhaps even laughing at themselves for resembling the generalization... then that really says more about the listeners than the statement made.
Likewise, make a generalization in jest that applies to none of your listeners, and they'll laugh. Make one that might hit a little close to home for some of them and they get pissy. Hmmmm.... interesting double-standard. "I'll make fun of other folks all I want, but nobody better do anything that could even be slightly construed as making fun of me!"
Case in point:
(Before I start this next part, see the end of this post, Rikku.)Hey, I'm 4'11" and have driven humvees with heavy assault weapons mounted on top in just about every off-road condition short of vertical mountains. You wanna tell me that you don't trust me driving a crappy little SUV? Tsk tsk tsk. Generalizing is bad, mmkay? Size and sex has nothing to do with driving skill.
Now, I never said "Rikku Chan is short and female and therefore can't drive." But, yet, she makes a post, as several others have, trying to demonstrate they're the exception to the rule. I don't know her. I've never seen her drive. How could I possibly think such an idea would inherently apply to her? Even of I did.. I'm one person. Who the hell cares what one person thinks?
I'm not sure why when even the most innocent of generaliztions are made you get people crawling out of the woodwork to say "Not me!" It'd be understandable if they were trying to show how the generalization was unfair to anyone and everyone that might fit it for the good of everyone.. but it's always folks focusing on themselves and trying to prove how they alone don't fit the generalzation. There's a big difference between trying to dispell someone's misconception.. like a racist viewpoint... and trying to prove you alone don't fit the generalization. So far, I've only seen people attempting the latter.
And have we really become so insecure that we cannot laugh at ourselves for even faintly resembling a stereotype (assuming it's not hateful)?
Take two generalizations that I might fall victim to... being of Scottish descent and being bald. There's the comedic generalization that Scotsment are sheep-shaggers. There's also the common generalization that bald men are obsessed with doing anything they can to restore their hair. Personally, I shave my head every other night, love it, and wouldn't take some miracle cure if it existed. So when I hear those generalizations.. even stereotypes... I don't pay them any mind, because I know they don't apply to me. Even if the speaker was serious, why should I worry what one person thinks?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get my toupee cleaned and see if the Dimoxinil is starting to kick in. I want to look good for my date with Farmer MacGreggor's prize ewe.
Rikku.. sorry to single you out there, but your post was a good example of my point. I also assumed.. hopefully correctly... by your post after that that you weren't taking yourself too seriously, were able to laugh at yourself and realize that, yeah, you fit the description of shorter person driving larger vehicle.. but that did not mean the statement applied to you. The comments regarding your post were not directed at you, but were to illustrate how other people (not including yourself or other posters here) genuinely do feel the compulsion to respond in that fashion because such broad statements eat away at their ego, even if it does not apply to them.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest