Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!oddjob!apak
From: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent)
Newsgroups: net.jokes.d
Subject: Re: traditional values
Message-ID: <1145@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 14:37:41 EST
Article-I.D.: oddjob.1145
Posted: Tue Jan 28 14:37:41 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jan-86 00:49:40 EST
References: <263@galbp.UUCP> <418@cisden.UUCP> <1124@oddjob.UUCP> <451@cisden.UUCP> <1142@oddjob.UUCP> <424@mmm.UUCP>
Reply-To: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent)
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 65

In article <424@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross) writes:
>In article <1142@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes:
>>In article <451@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes:
>>>I recently posted (to net.jokes) what still strikes me as a very funny
>>>joke that depended for its effect on a sudden realization of the previous
>>>history of one of the characters, i.e. that she'd obtained the money she
>>>was depositing by prostitution.  
>>
>>That *isn't* the point of the 'joke': if you think it is then you don't 
>>understand what you wrote. 
>
>Are you related to Doug Alan? :-)
  In the next sentences, which you carefully omit, I explain exactly why
Fr. Woolley's interpretation doesn't hold up.                 
>
>>>
>>>"Sexist" as I understand it means something like "characterised by a
>>>belief that women are in some way inferior to men". 
>> 
>>I was using the word in the wider sense of "reinforcing a world-view which
>>sustains the unequal treatment of men and women". Sorry if that was too loose.
>>
> 
> And how does the joke do that?
   Hey, you seem to have discovered a good game here, no? Excise all the
arguments from a posting, criticise the posting as though they never existed,
and you can make the article seem ridiculous. Have fun. 
I'm just curious about why you started with mine.
>
>>>Is a sense of humour incompatible with a respect for women?
>>Absolutely. It is well known that all feminists (and especially male feminists)
>>are dour, humourless puritans. (:-))
>
>Well, judging from your reaction to the joke, I would say that that last remark
>was right on, excluding the smiley face. As a matter of fact, most of the women
>I know who call themselves "feminists" *are* rather lacking in a sense of humor.
>Most of the women I know who really ARE feminists (or liberated, whatever you
>want to call it - PRACTICING feminists rather than BITCHING-AND-MOANING
>feminists) don't even think about it much - they're too busy doing the things
>that self-proclaimed "feminists" claim they aren't allowed to do. 
>
>For example, once I was on a first date with a woman and throughout the evening
>we had discussed the things we had done in our lives, and I was very pleasantly 
>impressed - she had done a lot of interesting things (worked with Ralph Nader,
>traveled the world, etc.), and I LIKE women who are not afraid of going out
>and doing things women are "not supposed to do". Anyway, I made the comment
>to her to the effect that there wasn't much that I could tell her about, she
>seemed to know about a wide variety of things - then I thought for a minute
>and said, "Well, there is one thing I have done that I bet you haven't."
>She said, "What?", to which I responded, "Peed on the side of a building."
>Well, I thought it was funny, but that basically marked the end of fun
>for that evening. Oh well.
  Oh, now I understand why you chose my posting for your game. I sympathize.
All these women annoying you by calling themselves feminists, when you actually
have a supernatural ability to detect true feminists. And they don't like it
when you tell them they're fake feminists. Worse still, they don't find your
jokes funny. 
  I'm sorry to have recalled these unhappy memories for you.
>I have a question for Adrian, though. In all seriousness, the woman in the 
>joke was clearly a prostitute (at least part-time :-)). She provided sex
>for money, and the john did not pay her for her services. The question
>is - do you consider that rape?
>		-MKR
  No. Happy now?
                     ak