RoR: Forum

George challenged:

I got 20 bucks she whoops Setzer within 3 minutes, any takers?

Since January 2, I have been doing my P90X program which includes a weekly Kenpo workout if that helps the gamblers. I originally started in October 2003 with Power 90, then upgraded to P90X at the beginning of 2005. My improvements include a total cholesterol drop from 207 to 171, a weight drop from 196 to 184, and a percent body fat drop from 26% to 12%.

However, whether either of us wins a physical competition proves nothing. Force and mind are opposites. I have no interest in such an exchange.

Incidentally, Hong, I have no idea why you got annoyed with Post 12. I only shared it to show how far women have come since 1955. Comparisons with today's standards make it laughable. Therein lies the humor.

Post 41

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:19pm

Hong, I think this is an intriguing discussion for a thread of its own (perhaps on the Parenting board).

I tend to think women feel that way because it is impossible to be a master of all those things simultaneously. Something has got to give.

I once had a boss who was, and is, a fantastic, rational woman -- she was an expert in her profession. When she had children, she also wanted to be a good mother. One day she said to me, "I'm tired of trying to give 100% to both tasks and netting 60% on each at best. It's time to stop working." She is devoting these earlier years to her children instead, and the kids are magnificent. I realize not all mothers are able to do this, but I believe it does make a difference in the end.

If you want to explore this on your board, let's rock.

Post 42

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:23pm

Whatever you do, don't place the bet with the people from the "Iannolo Family" - if you're late with the money even five minutes - they'll be finding Newnham body parts all over the city. said George.

Too late! Oh shit...

Post 43

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:29pm

Luke says: However, whether either of us wins a physical competition proves nothing. Force and mind are opposites. I have no interest in such an exchange.

Hey Luke, relax a little bit.

Try to remember that this is the thread to the *HUMOR* article, posted by *Luke Setzer*

When you submit the article on Pol Pot's genocide, I'll try to keep myself in check.

George

Post 44

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:34pm

Steven asked:

Luke, if you are totally responsible for your emotional state, completely able to make yourself happy, does that mean that a mate would only make things worse? That there is nothing to be gained from an intimate relationship that you can't provide for yourself?

Excellent question! This brings to mind the article "JOE versus SAM" I published earlier this year. Recall this key passage:

When pursuing happiness, Joe believes, "A woman will make me happy." Sam understands, "My happiness is my own personal responsibility."

In other words, responsibility for my own happiness falls ultimately on my shoulders. A relationship only serves as a means value to that end for both parties.

The extra value that relationship adds above and beyond the happiness a person can achieve on his own serves as the rational motive for pursuing such relationships. This process demands great care and judicious reasoning to assure

that you have properly cultivated yourself into a fully functional and independent adult, and
that your partner has cultivated those same qualities in himself or herself.

Failing at either or both of these tests results in the horrors of codependent relationships which can destroy one or both partners.

So, yes, I think a happy person can become more happy in the right kind of relationship or less happy in the wrong one. Likewise, an unhappy person needs to work first on learning how to be happy being alone before attempting to form an intimate relationship.

Post 45

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:44pm

Jennifer,
Yes, I think if Objectivism is to attract more women, it has to address some of these issues that are pertinent to women's happiness and well-being in a empathetic light.

Post 46

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:51pm

I haven't participated in this thread for fairly similar reasons as Marcus gave, though in all honesty I do see some degree of humour in both sets of rules. That said, I've tried to look at this from Hong and Kat's perspective to try and understand why they're upset, and while I obviously can't relate to the exact situation, I guess anti-Welsh jokes are a very loose analogy. I'm one of a probably very small percentage of Welsh people who find most anti-Welsh humour hilarious. But, there does come a point where it gets just f***ing irritating.

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 4/09, 4:46pm)

Post 47

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:52pm

Geez, guys, I haven't been to a gym for nearly 15 years, and have no idea what is my cholesterol level...
(Now have to make that appointment with my doctor).

And no, unfortunately I will not go to SOLO4.

Luke,
Robert M. said everything I want to say on this topic in his post here.

Post 48

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 3:58pm

Jennifer,

(sigh)

I sure didn't want to get involved in a discussion of why some women are thick-skinned - others are just plain normal - and others are overly sensitive about being baited with female stereotyping.

And I HATE anything that even smacks of censorship - so I am a little reluctant to talk about PC. Hell, I am irreverent by nature.

But I do respect Hong and Kat - they are not dingbats. If they went off about this, they must have had a good reason. I am not a woman. I have my own irritations to deal with in life.

Well, I tried to imagine their context - which is as working mothers. That is not yours or mine. Child rearing does entail a great deal of patience, day after day. A person's patience level has a limit. Also, the very ones who poke fun at women out in the real world are men who usually do not have these responsibilities. One hell of a good reason to get pissed about joke overkill.

Seems obvious to me.

That is what I mean.

(But I do not limit "woman reality" problems to women's child-bearing capacity/reality either. That hormonal thing, for example, requires much patience.)

I ain't no feminazi lackey (Kat's terminology). I just stopped by to see what was wrong and think about it a little. I think Luke misfired this time and said so.

Actually, I am engaged in building my own empire, so I really don't "see" many of the things that bother others around me on the playing field of my profession - there is no time and I can't afford the loss in focus.

Michael

Post 49

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 4:11pm

Luke - when I read your sexist remarks I wanted to puke
I thought such unkind words coming from you had to have been a fluke

I have great admiration for you as a friend and toastmaster
As of late you have shown your true colors as an off-color female blaster

And that snide little remark about lunch at Hooters
Proved that you have not outgrown your childhood scooters

You almost redeemed yourself with that lovely poem about Lillian Reardon
But please remember we still have issues I don't think we're clear on

I tried to tell you tactfully that I don't find those jokes to be the least bit funny
You have also heard similar words from Hong and my honey

If you choose to blank-out the obvious recourse
I see no reason to continue this discourse

Our Mexican stand-off has become quite the chuck-off
So I bid you good day and you can go ___________.

(Edited by katdaddy on 4/09, 4:15pm)

Post 50

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 4:17pm

Okay, this has gone way too far. For these hackneyed, self-deprecating 1950s-controversial jokes to garner such controversy shows that Humor needs once again to be defended from the forces of prudery. And for so many males to sacrifice their integrity so they can increase their chances with the women here is truly disgusting and disheartening. To the extent that we've got Objectivist men now lamenting the sexism of American society???!!! Yuck.

I won't mention the fact that I grew up in a female-dominated environment -- my house -- but I will mention a certain person I knew: my dearly beloved Grandmother. She came to this country in 1967 a single mother with three sons. She managed to raise them by holding two jobs and going to night school -- never making more than minimum-wage, never getting a penny from the government, never getting a penny from her ex-husband -- all while being a brilliant cook and feeding more-than-weekly gatherings of twenty-plus people, immigrants and leeches, at her apartment. She also helped a number of immigrants in a considerable way when they came to America, and was betrayed by a number of them afterwards. I am yet to know anyone who dragged a greater load. (And keep in mind, once again, the time period.)

She would've laughed hysterically at these jokes. Indeed, her view of modern women was very similar to Jennifer's.

Hers is a dead and dying breed. The do-everything-except-complain breed.

So please excuse me if my annoyance at all this bullshit has given me a slight pain in the abdomen.

And while I can understand a man's romantic interests superceding his principles, don't expect me to be so easily forgiving.

Alec

Post 51

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 4:19pm

Cheers, Kat - you tell 'im... sounds like you've stuffed his diagrams up his ___________ :o

Post 52

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 4:21pm

Hong, Robert Malcolm's post addressed this article, not the Housekeeping Monthly post I made on March 10 that you said made you lose your sense of humor for reasons you still have not explained. Nevertheless, clearly neither you and I intend to budge on this topic, so I will simply let it drop with you.

MSK, I do not recall saying that I "misfired" beyond simply setting the context by adding the original "Rules for Women" that drove the equally satirical "Rules for Men."

Kat, I make no apologies whatsoever for satisfying my desires as a man. I enjoy Hooters and appreciate living in a country where entrepreneurs are still free to create such an establishment. Yes, I really did have lunch there today. Incidentally, exactly what do you consider an "obvious recourse"?

Robert, no one has ever shoved anything up my backside and no one ever will short of a surgeon should I ever have the misfortune to develop a bowel disease. Do you need me to help you to develop a cash flow diagram some time? I guarantee you will appreciate that coming from my mind and not my backside.

Incidentally, I saw no complaints regarding posts in the Web directory for "Body in Mind" and "Super Beauty." Perhaps that comes next?

For those who still have a sense of humor and found this article entertaining, thank you for your support.

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 4/09, 4:41pm)

Post 53

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 4:27pm

Luke:

Me:

I think Luke misfired this time...

You:

MSK, I do not recall saying that I "misfired"

Whazzat?

Michael

Post 54

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 4:35pm

MSK said:

I think Luke misfired this time and said so.

No, I never said that.

Post 55

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 4:43pm

Incidentally, I saw no complaints regarding posts in the Web directory for "Body in Mind" and "Super Beauty." Perhaps that comes next?

Luke,

I frequently visit both of those sites and if memory serves I added the link for one to the directory. Both of those sites are firmly pro-female.

Btw, Michael means that he thinks you misfired and that he has "said so" to you....

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 4/09, 4:44pm)

Post 56

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 5:18pm

Well, I tried to imagine their context - which is as working mothers. That is not yours or mine. Child rearing does entail a great deal of patience, day after day.

Sorry, Michael, but there was not one joke in the "Rules for Men" about this. Context.

And while I can appreciate your sigh, you opened this can of worms. :)

Also:

(But I do not limit "woman reality" problems to women's child-bearing capacity/reality either. That hormonal thing, for example, requires much patience.)

Ok, if that is the case, then one would expect me to get upset at this collection of jokes because of my "woman reality," as I experience it, too. But I didn't.

Actually, I am engaged in building my own empire, so I really don't "see" many of the things that bother others around me on the playing field of my profession - there is no time and I can't afford the loss in focus.

My point exactly. I'm glad we found something to agree on. :)

Post 57

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 5:56pm

Luke:

MSK said:

I think Luke misfired this time and said so.
No, I never said that.

I said that I said that, not that you said that, so now you say that you never said that I said that, but you did say that, so I must say that I really did not say what you said.

Michael

Post 58

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 6:08pm

MSK, Matthew Humphreys has already set me straight on your meaning, i.e. you meant to say, "I think Luke misfired this time and [I] said so."

The wording and context of the sentence led me to interpret it as, "I think Luke misfired this time and [he] said so."

I will not attempt to untangle your latest post.

Post 59

Saturday, April 9, 2005 - 6:41pm