Why I just Hate Nurturing Guys...
(Fabulana applies her incisive wit to annotate an email exchange from
yet another male who thinks he knows what's best for women and HBI... remember the
"How to be a complete dweebus..." segment?)
>To: "Natalie" <email@example.com>
>Date sent: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:38:37 -0700
>Fist let me preface by saying, I do not verbally assault every website
>which publishes something I do not agree with. This is personal.
Egads! What an admission! So it isn't intellectual integrity that is at
stake, but mere neural nepotism! I'll bet he totally misunderstands the
message "the personal is political," as well. I just HATE a guy who
thinks he can think with her ovaries.
> you have a member who is also a friend of mine. ( I will not embarass her
> by using her neme
How about giving us a faux-neme? ;-)
(Hey...does spelling stuff without spellcheck make me a bitch?)
> youll have to trust me
I guess you are every woman's best friend.
>for the mutual connection) She also happens to be
>one of the most courageous and perservering individuals I have ever
what does that tell us about you? She can't even fight her own battles in
cyberspace, for chrikey.
>so when I see unnecessary stress being put on her
Tell her to LOG OFF! RED ALARM! Unnecessary stress being put on user!
And by the way...I hear there's a website for that.
>over what is
>already a difficult decision,
Anyone coming to us for advice could do worse, frankly, but I don't see
how they can call us...
>the individual(s) responsible
...for their behavior in cyberspace, let alone their *own*
>are going to explain
>themselves or do battle.
So you want to do battle (for her), but you can't say exactly about what.
You wallflowers really stick together.
>Not because she's "frail" or needs "a man to protect
>her", but because she's my friend.
Is this friend of yours a double amputee, or can she stand on her own two
>Besides, anyone who makes the mistake
>of thinking that woman is weak is fucking on their own.
You're leaving us on our own, then? Oh, darn.
I just knew you were the King of False Promises.
><<laughing I dont
>disagree with what your saying, just how your saying it. It's wrong for
>a man to use intimidation and pyschological tactics to lower a womans self
>esteem so that he can bend her to his will. Over enough time when your
>told enough times that your lazy, stupid, worthless you begin to accept
>"Are you sick of lazy women"
>[No. You a stoopid bitch.]
>[In what galaxy is this even remotely clever?]
>"That A LOT is TWO words
>The THERE, THEIR, THEY'RE bug.
>The intricate difference between TO, TOO and TWO.
>Cre-8-tiv spelling...(this means U)
>The home of the "capslock" key. (1) You can debate and win, nothing
changes. you gain exposure and credibility."
>Sound familiar? You havent originated a thing,
Well that's a relief. I thought proofreading had been around for quite
>you simply renamed
>misogyny and added a monosexual theme.
Yes, I preferred misogyny the way it was before, kind of ambient and
clothed in human universals. What the hell is the alternative to
"monosexual" misogyny, whatever that means?
I also was not aware that bad writing was limited to any one gender.
This missive is certainly a case in point.
>As bad as the original concept
>was, it's even uglier when practiced on women by women.
Yes, of course. He's saying that we should look at her gender and not the
content of her character, let alone her actual accomplishments.
How "ugly" it is (we herewith blush shamefully, feeling the full heat of
male disapproval!) for a woman to recognize incompetence, let alone bring
it to someone else's attention!
>When some poor girl
Poor girl! I couldn't have condescended better myself.
>writes you trying desperately to find someplace she can fit in,
Might I suggest a hatbox?
>dont slam her down because she misselled (get it) a word, or because her
>interpretation of the message is off.
Hm. But I thought the message was at the heart of the issue, not just the
nemes and faux-nemes. Surely disputatious debate would then be
>Heres a clue for you. That's more than
>likely not her true feelings anyway,
Oh I get it, she's pulling our chain! Stringing us along! Setting up
straw men, playing devil's advocate, being disingenuous, in other words.
Here's a clue for you. MAYBE THAT'S WHY her wonderful crap got shot down
in the first place.
>she's just fucking trying to belong somewhere.
Maybe she should try to belong somewhere where insincerity is
>And those offhanded, casual barbs you so generously hand out
Hey, at least free advice comes with a money-back guarantee.
>might be just enough to start her downhill towards another wasted life,
I'd imagine it would be dangerous for someone so impressionable just to
walk down the street. A stranger might look at her cock-eyed.
>stuck with some asshole who tells her the same thing night after night,
Well, she's already got YOU, what would she need him for?
>when if she had gotten acceptance and understanding and
>guidance from you,
Oh, she got guidance all right; she just didn't like it.
>she would have gone on to write great novels, or paint, or
>anyone of a thousand other things.
That talented, huh? What's stopping her?
Natalie>>Assuming responsibility for one's actions does not imply assuming
Natalie>>responsibility for another's "reaction" or behavior in response.
Natalie>>That is classic manipulator behavior. i.e.
Natalie>> "You made me hit you because your behavior got me upset..."
>I just wrote an apology in which I remarked that the person would have
>been justified if he had knocked me on my ass. And he would have. Does
>what I'm saying give him the right to hit me? No. BUT THE WAY I WAS I
>WAS SAYING IT DID. The same thing applies here.
Ah, what utter bullshit. I thought it was the message that counts, not
the grammar. Now you're telling us HER insincerity is all right, 'cause
she just wants to belong, but we're not allowed to call it like we see
it--which, apparently, was right on the money.
>If you presented in essay
>form, and somewhat took the concept and created the Fourth Reich, then
>of course you are not responsible. But as illustrated in the above
>example,if an abused girl who has never been given the chance to
>reach her potential
How the hell are we stopping her? Why are you two wasting all her
precious potential on criticizing a website, anyway? I thought she had
novels to write, Mona Lisas to paint, etc.
>reaches out thniking she has finally found a group she can relate to,
>and receives another smack across the mouth instead, then you are
If she wrote something pandering and insincere, then she deserved every
smack she got. Nobody ever wrote a great novel that way. If what she
needs is a team of editors, HBI is THE place. If what she needs is
therapy and acceptance, she needs a therapist and a support group. Don't
mistake the two.
>For what ever talents or gifts that girl will never add to the world.
Oh, boo hoo. I suggest she log off, get to work, and YOU stop whining on
her behalf. Tell her to come back when she's got a first draft, we'd love
to read it. I'm pretty sure she doesn't need you to defend her talents
and gifts, those things tend to speak for themselves.
>One other occasion in recent memory where this applies and I will have
>to apologize to that individual tomorrow. That time I did get popped in
A regular hothead, are you? That'll teach you to meddle.
><<laughing The point, (which I have a better understanding of myself now
>and I thank you ) is that maybe the response was more for how I was
>speaking rather than what I was saying.
I have a feeling both were equally odious.
Amazingly, intelligent people seem to recognize that BOTH the mode and
the message are important, and in fact display a complex interdependence.
Which is WHY imprecise wording and incorrect grammar hinder clear
expression. Pass that along to the budding writer.
>I deal with people publishing
>information under the same heading, "This information is for educational
>use and we do not assume ant responsibility for it's use" . Well the
>information was used to attack my home, cause the woman I love to almost
>have a nervous breakdown, and at least indirectly cause irreversible
>terminal health issues,
Most "terminal" illnesses are irreversible. Or perhaps you meant
she is sitting too close to the screen?
>and those fuckers who published the information are just as
>responsible as the ones who used it.
More cryptic accusations of slander? Perhaps you should get a lawyer.
That should really make life a lot less stressful...*grin*
>>and son I'm offering you the chance to do just that. If you truly
> << looking at shoes again Typo. (Shit only two people in
> the world cause the "standing on a soapbox with your fly open" effect in me,
>my Father and Her
Natalie>>I have already been on Internet radio. I don't see it as the ultimate
Natalie>>forum for public debate.
>Then you choose the forum
Natalie>>And *you* do not hold the definitive rights to declaring
Natalie>>what anything is or isn't based on your particular perception about
Natalie>>what constitutes a "legitimate philosopy".
>Of course not. That's why the debate. I'm willing to stand or fall by
>any panel you select.
How about the Bitchboard? Why can't this "friend" live by your creed, as
well, and stand up like a Bitch and say what's eating her?
Natalie>>Nor do I feel the need to debate HBI's philosophies as a response to
Natalie>>someone's misguided views on personal responsibility.
>Now thats weak.
You're just not that important, Hector Protector. Tough blow, huh?
Natalie>>I hope you realize the high horse you are perched upon
Natalie>>is little more than a shetland pony.
>Of course, I have no inadequacy issues to overcome.
Then again, shooting for mere "adequacy" is too low for some people.
>Besides, he eats less
Yes, but the stuff pumping out the other end smells remarkably similar.
>and I dont smush my halo when I go through doors<<smiling
>P.S. I'm glad you answered
Aw...he really *is* a nurturing guy! ;-)
Copyright© Heartless Bitches International (heartless-bitches.com) 2000