Scylla Rhiadra

Oh, I think about it all the time, Sid. I'd have thought my rather overly-long responses might make that clear? And I don't dislike "thinking about it" -- I dislike that it's an issue that I still, in 2023, have to wrestle with. You're right. It kinda is . . . because I'm a woman, and being subjected to your generalization. Which is why I am arguing with you about it. Making a broad, sweeping, and negative generalization about 50% of the population, and then doubling down on it when called on it, offended people?!?! No, really? How can you not "intend" to offend people when you have consciously and deliberately insulted them, Sid. And then defended the insult?

Sure, but the really important difference is that I can now buy mine with my own credit card. Before the mid-70s (1974 in the US, and 1975 in the UK), I wouldn't even have been allowed to own one! Ain't progress grand?

Right. This is a generalization . . . sort of the same as "blacks be like . . ." or, "Well, you know how the gays are . . ." or "after all, he is Jewish . . ." Two quick observations. The first is that women and men have been subjected to social conditioning. And for literal millennia, that conditioning has been about objectifying women and turning them into passive objects of admiration. Women "succeeded" when they kept the house relatively well organized, produced and raised children, and functioned as decorative trophies for their husbands. We've come a long way, baby, as they used to say during what Love calls the "women's liberation" movement, but there are residual effects of that remaining among those who've resisted or been unable to grasp change. And that includes both some women who may still unfortunately see themselves as adornments for men, and some men who seem to be unable to grasp that most women now possess different expectations and roles for themselves. I'd like to submit that you seem to fall into that latter category, Sid. I and most women no more expect compliments than men do. Maybe you need move on from the 50s and 60s, and become a bit more attuned to modern gender relations? My second observation is about generalizations such as yours. We all naturally tend to use generalizations: they are a heuristic that helps us to organize our experience of the world around us. And they can be useful. But the moment you start applying generalizations in an uncritical way, you're no longer using it; it is using you. It's called "critical thinking," Sid, and it's what we use to recognize the difference between arbitrary categories we've inherited or apply, and the actual concrete reality of those with whom we engage. And now I'm going to end with a back-handed compliment! You're better than this Sid. You really are. Critical. Thinking. I know you're capable of it: I've seen it from you before. Where'd it go?

Oh pish posh. No. Homophobic, racist, or sexist jokes aren't "funny" because they're "true," or say something that has "some truth in it." They're funny because they reinforce prevailing homophobic, racist, or sexist attitudes and stereotypes. And they perpetuate those attitudes through shared, and generally rather unpleasant, laughter. A joke about women not taking compliments well tells one nothing about women. But it can tell me a great deal about the joker-teller, or their intended audience.

Bought a new hair. Thought I looked freakin' hawt. Will probably plaster it everywhere I can.

ETA: Oh nvm. I can't get TikTok to link the one I wanted. Trying again:

It's kind of amazing that Youngman did! (Apparently, actually, he and his wife had a very close and loving relationship, so that is nice!) Oh yes. To be clear, I'm very fond of Sid, and my comments are at least half in jest. (As I am pretty sure are his!)

In every possible sense!

Oh come on, Sid. That's nonsense. Women respond to normal compliments that don't have obvious subtexts in exactly the same way that men do. Stop with the Henny Youngman impersonation!

I actually see it!

On the one hand, the "you should smile more" etc. thing isn't really about backhanded compliments -- it's about control. At the same time, of course, it is insulting to tell a woman that, while you think she is attractive, she's not really "womaning" in the way that the person saying it thinks is "correct" or "proper" or "appropriate" or, of course, "attractive." But even that is about control: it's about trying to make women conform to a particular individual, or socialized, notion of "women." Whereas, simply saying something like "You look great," or "I like your shoes" or "Cool makeup" not only makes a woman feel good about herself, but is an affirmation of a woman's right to choose how she looks, independent of anyone else's preconceptions. And it's a hell of a lot more likely to get a "smile" in response. So, it's a win-win really.

How about just say "Gosh, you look lovely!" I know that's asking a lot, but . . .

Personally? These days? No. When I was younger, yes, occasionally. And of course I am such a joyful and positive person that I'm always smiling anyway! It's actually a sort of cliche, though, and yeah women do hear it. One sort of related that went the rounds of my school a few years back was complaints from male students that women students were wearing large sunglasses that obscured how "pretty" they were -- in other words, interfered with ogling. That one got a lot of attention in the student press at the time.

She married Jonah Hill in SL?

"You're a very pretty girl. Why do you hide it under so much makeup?" "You look so pretty when you smile. Why don't you smile more?"

lol, well, that was cringy! I loved the nod to Fragonard's "The Swing" at the end!

Fifteen . . . no, maybe sixteen years ago.

So, this is what I did with that test shot I posted above. This is Cressida again. "See, we fools! Why have I blabbed? Who shall be true to us When we are so unsecret to ourselves?"

You look justifiably horrified! it would be cute . . . probably . . . if it had eyes and a mouth? Maybe? Eeek.

Wow. They're both great, but I love love love the top one!

Minus the "Pretending to be an ally" thing. Mostly. But yeah.

Maybe? I've never been a fan, although there have been occasional moments of brilliance. and this one: Or this:

I didn't love the SNL clip -- I think the basic idea, that there is a kind of unbridled brutality just beneath the surface of British "primness" and class-consciousness, is a good one (although not exactly novel, either), but the execution was predictably and repetitively slapstick. Everyone has different tastes, and that's of course entirely valid, but I personally think Emma Thompson is a pretty amazing woman. She's probably best known, I suppose, for her more recent appearances in blockbusters like the Harry Potter series, but she's a superb Shakespearean actress, and her work in things like Howard's End and Sense and Sensibility is simply wonderful. I think she is also very funny (watch her as Beatrice in Branagh's version of Much Ado about Nothing), but not in a Hugh Laurie / Stephen Frye kind-of-way. She's best at a sort of understated, thin-lipped irony -- which is why I think she's so good in adaptations of Austen. She's also an accomplished writer (she won Academy Awards for both her acting and her screenplay of Sense and Sensibility) and a philanthropist who has championed environmentalism and other progressive causes, both things I also value. I haven't seen Leslie Jones in a lot of things, but what I have seen I certainly didn't hate. She exudes a likeable personality, anyway. But, as I say, YMMV.

Another test shot -- looking in a mirror. (I have a sneaking suspicion my "test shots" may actually be better than my final ones, but if so, please don't tell me!)