Monday, October 01, 2007

Disappointing

Last night I had dinner in Santa Monica with a friend. We were seated at a bar with empty chairs next to us and at one point during our get-together a thirty-something guy sat down near us and struck up a conversation. We chatted with him for a bit before I made the mistake of using the word "exploit" in a sentence and he pounced: "Are you a feminist?" Unfazed and unashamed, I smiled and answered that I was (my friend does not consider herself a feminist because "feminists think all women should have to work." Sigh). Then came the typical thinly veiled hostility, the ungentlemanly remarks about my and my friend's bodies (superficially complimentary, but completely rude and obviously meant to antagonize), the totally inappropriate topics of conversation. Etc., etc. Pretty much the same thing that happens every time I talk to a guy who comes to realize I'm not a typical pretty ditzy LA girl, but I actually have a brain and not only do I know how to use it, I will use it to run circles around them if they can't keep up. I found the conversation somewhat entertaining, because usually these guys end up digging their own holes. By the end of dinner, he was suggesting that my friend and I come to his place for a wine tasting, noting how "romantic" his place was. Riiiiight. Thanks but no thanks, buddy.

Anyway, we left and I was still giggling at the absurdity of the conversation. My friend was laughing a bit too, but she was decidedly more shocked than I was. As we drove away from the restaurant, she talked about how unbelievable this guy was, how he had seemed cool and normal at first but he had acted completely rude, etc., and she'd never seen a guy act so badly in so many different ways before. I shrugged -- it actually seemed to me like a fairly typical conversation with a random barfly who wasn't worth our time. I mean, this is why I almost never date -- they're virtually all like this*, so what's the point?

And then it hit me. I always figured guys responded a little bit differently to me because I'm smart and outspoken, etc. But my friend is smart too, and she's no wallflower, and yet this guy's behavior surprised her. The realization dawned on me that men treat me disrespectfully because I have the audacity to insist on equality. To these neanderthals, I'm not an equal they can have a beer with and shoot the shit with and complain about their jobs with. I'm a little girl insisting that she be allowed to drive Daddy's car. And when they realize I won't back down from my unreasonable demands, they get nasty. It's like they're challenging me, competing with me, trying to beat me for the sake of putting me in my place. Showing me that I'm different from them and therefore not equal. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting this is their conscious intent, since I don't think most of them are smart enough to consciously intend it.)

I never realized how very different I was treated from other, non-uppity women, until a non-uppity woman witnessed the rudeness with which I'm consistently greeted by men and expressed how unusual it seemed to her.

Man, talk about paradigm-shifting.

* There are, of course, exceptions. Like my boyfriend Andy Samberg.

Labels: , ,

49 Comments:

At October 1, 2007 at 4:15 PM, Blogger Gino said...

what wrong with being pleasant and cheerful, a joy to be with, like you'd expect from any guy?

he'll recognize intelligence, or lack of, on his own.
just as you would.


when i get hit with the "i am feminist" crap, i usually intentionally turn piggish, just to piss them off.
its what they want, afterall.

 
At October 1, 2007 at 5:35 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

I *was* being cheerful and pleasant, Gino. It's pretty assholish and beyond immature to assume "feminist" means "man-hater." And I didn't "hit" him with any feminist "crap." If you actually read the post, you'll see that HE brought it up, and I answered him honestly and pleasantly. Oh, but I'm a feminist, so clearly I was asking for disrespectful behavior just by, you know, not pretending that making rude comments about women is okay.

And you don't have a fucking clue what I want.

 
At October 1, 2007 at 5:49 PM, Blogger Gino said...

in my experience, 'feminist' means 'easily offended'.

thank the Lord i'm married, and dont have to deal with these 'meeting women' type issues anymore.

 
At October 1, 2007 at 6:04 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

lol, Gino. I love that. You admit that you intentionally act pig-headed to piss people off, and then when someone acts pissed off you say "gosh, you people get pissed off so easily."

It must be nice to feel so cock-sure of yourself that you don't bother thinking through the logical implications of your irrational actions.

 
At October 1, 2007 at 6:25 PM, Blogger Gino said...

now,now...
if i intentionally act a certain way, expecting a particular reaction in return, and i do indeed get the expected reaction, how does this make me anything but rational?

feminists seem to live for the express purpose of being rightously indignant (they know no other kind of indignation), or to refer to others of a different mindset in profane,degrading terms.

its not enough to just be in honest disagreement or unattracted to a type of person.

pardom me, if i've raise your hackles.

 
At October 1, 2007 at 6:39 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

No, Gino, it is irrational to intentionally provoke a reaction in someone and then suggest that this (logical, as you note!) reaction proves that the person in question is the type of person likely to react that particular way in *every* situation. If I call a big black guy a "stupid n****r" and he gets pissed off, that's hardly good evidence that big black men are all angry -- in fact, that's a ridiculously unfair leap of logic and is precisely the sort of thing that adds fuel to the fires of racism in this country.

Now, if you say feminists are likely to get upset about disrespect towards women, I'll absolutely agree with you, and your comment demonstrating disrespectful attitudes toward women did in fact upset me, a feminist. But it is a leap of logic to say that this demonstrates I "live for the express purpose" of being offended.

I could say that Catholics live for the "express purpose" of being offended because they didn't find Kathy Griffin's Emmy speech hilariously funny. But how fair would it be to use an isolated instance of someone successfully *intentionally provoking* another person as proof that the person in question is reactionary? If you bait me, yes, you can sit back and be entertained. But don't fool yourself into thinking you've made any other point than that you know how to be offensive, which, come on, any idiot can be offensive. That takes no skill at all.

And what do you deem "degrading terms" and why? Seems to me that only people who are easily offended would care about whether something is "degrading" or not.

And, again, READING MY POST the point was that I did NOTHING to antagonize this person other than not pretend to be someone I am not. I was nothing but pleasant to him, but there is NO SOCIAL OBLIGATION for me to pretend I am okay with disrespectful remarks. HE was rude to ME for no other reason than that I admitted to being a feminist WHEN HE ASKED ME. It's people like THIS GUY who go out looking for things to be offended at. All I went out looking for last night was an enjoyable dinner with my girlfriend, and, again, I was pleasant and polite and kept up conversation with this RUDE STRANGER who interrupted our dinner to make catty remarks at me. And you act like *I* have done something wrong. Frankly, I am disgusted, and I am SICK AND TIRED of having to defend my fucking existence to people who decide they're going to slap some demeaning label on me and act like I deserve whatever rudeness I get.

Btw, I think you meant to say "implicit purpose," unless you know a lot of feminists who go around saying "I live to be righteously indignant."

And don't apologize for doing precisely what you intended to do. It's disingenuous.

 
At October 1, 2007 at 7:17 PM, Blogger Gino said...

"And don't apologize for doing precisely what you intended to do. It's disingenuous."

actually, my begging your pardon was sincere.
take it or not.

but let me ponder out loud:
can today's feminism exist without anger?
is the cultural castration of men required for women to be equal?

50yrs ago, i would be called a feminist. and i havent changed. feminism has.
i adhere to a different but co-equal view of the sexes.
seems to me, today, the goal is to feminise men and promote the victimhood of women.

 
At October 1, 2007 at 8:09 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Okay, I'll play. So basically you're saying you would consider yourself a feminist if feminism hadn't changed so much in the past 50 years, and you believe in equality. Correct?

Assuming this is correct, do you think we have achieved equality of the sexes in today's world? How so or how not?

 
At October 1, 2007 at 8:26 PM, Blogger Gino said...

i dont believe in equality.
i DO believe in equal oppertunity.
equal pay for equal work...
equal protection under the law...
stuff that susan b anthony and her sisters fought for.

equality of the sexes in today's world, or any other day's world?
let me put it this way:
i dont believe we have equality. i dont believe equality exists for anybody.
but, equality of oppertunity i belive we have in greater mass than at any time previous, to the extent that any man or woman fails or succeeds in any endeavor on the basis, more or less, on their own merits.

but,equality under the law does not exist. in areas where the sexes conflict, women have it better, with more protections, due to their status as the weaker sex, a status promoted heavily, and mostly, by today's feminists.

 
At October 1, 2007 at 8:55 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

any man or woman fails or succeeds in any endeavor on the basis, more or less, on their own merits.

This would be ideal, yes. But it doesn't exist because of sexism. Study after study demonstrates the prevalence of sexism at our most basic, gut level. Men and women are evaluated differently based not on their qualifications or aptitude, but on their genitals. I'm sure you've read about the recent study by a Yale doctoral student demonstrating that women who display anger are judged not only more harshly than men who display anger, but also more harshly than women who display sadness, and more harshly than men who display sadness. Women do not receive equal pay for equal work, and each time we ask for it we're told we don't deserve it because our work isn't "equal" (by andronormative standards, of course). This is not equal opportunity. This is sexism. This is gender entrenchment. This is a denial of individuality.

I don't want to castrate anyone. I'd just like to be treated with the same respect a man in my situation would be treated, which really should not be such a tall order.

but,equality under the law does not exist. in areas where the sexes conflict, women have it better, with more protections, due to their status as the weaker sex, a status promoted heavily, and mostly, by today's feminists.

I think I need more specifics before I can really evaluate this claim. "in areas where the sexes conflict"? If you're talking about child support/custody, I'll be the first to agree there's an unfair bias against men. I've certainly never pretended otherwise, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that "feminists" perpetuate these things. Or where you get the idea that "feminists" say women are the weaker sex (!) I mean, have you ever, EVER heard me even so much as HINT at this? If so, please tell me where and I'll retract it with profuse thanks for pointing out my egregious error. Weaker my ass.

 
At October 2, 2007 at 5:54 PM, Blogger Gino said...

does sexism exist? well, yes, but you and i may not agree as to the extent.
but i dont think/beleive it holds anybody down. if you dont like your sexist boss, you can change jobs.
there are lots of firms looking for competant help. my wife works for a woman lawyer, and her last two were women also. three respected and quite sucessful all women firms. the man boss she worked for was a failure as a lawyer.

there are lots of options for somebody who is good at what they do.
i dont know how good you are at what you do, but just how, in a sexist society, did you manage to get the income level i think i heard you claim, and at such a young age? hard work,effort i'm sure. it doesnt look like the ovaries have held you down all that much.
equal pay for equal work, i guess, needs to be defined because i suspect you and i dont mean the same thing when we use the term.

very few women can do the work that i do. and if i need to help the gal lift something, when no other guy needs this same help, then she is not doing equal work.
but she gets away with it, beacuse she's a gal, and gets the same $$ as the guys do. sexism works wrong in both directions. would you agree she should get less, to make it fair?

as for pt 2:
reproductive issues. we both agree child support issues are weighed against the man.
but, in our law, any woman can decide to reject reproduction through abortion. if she chooses to spawn, the man has no choice but to be required to pay.
fairness, equality under the law, would allow the man the same opt- out. do you agree? or not?
i've nver heard a feminist say a man should be given equal rights to refuse parenthood.
do you remember loren bobbit? feminist rallied to her cause after she attacked her sleeping husband. the defense was along the lines of the battered wife syndrom, she was incapable(too weak) to just leave the home while he was passed out drunk.

in the high schools, girls are encouraged to be weak toward piggish boys: cry to the authority at the slightest offense.
i handled it differently. i taught my daughter to strike back. to be strong. she wasnt harrased (bra snapped/butt slapped) in the halls anymore after she turned and hit the bastard you-know-where. as a guy, i can you, embarassing him in the halls is much more effective.

these things are discouraged. now, some kid harrases a girl, the girl is told to run and cry to the admin, and the kid is given 'sensitivity' training, and bullcrap like that, while the girl is given a shoulder to cry on.

my way, is the most effective.

women need to stand up to pig men, in a way that men fear. not cry in victimhood. get some guts, learn karate, carry a gun, know how to use a knife.
as for crime: women, being physically weaker, have more to gain from the 2nd amendment than any other group. but the feminist leadership in this country opposes gun ownership. why?
maybe because the more that women are victimized, the more feminist leaders are needed to defend them?
job security for the self-annointed maybe?
VAS, a true feminist if i ever knew one, has a grip on that.

 
At October 2, 2007 at 7:39 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Dude, there are just too many "off" assumptions in your comment for me to put the energy into composing a full response. It's a great example of truthiness. You have made up your mind, so there's no point in arguing about it. No matter what the facts are, you're going to believe that feminists want women to be victims because SOCIETY teaches women to act weaker (if you knew ANYTHING about feminism you would understand that it stands for the opposite of what you've been misled into thinking it stands for).

Further, pointing to examples of outliers does not make an argument. Does the existence of Barack Obama disprove racism? And throwing in non sequitors like the second amendment only obfuscates the real issue.

 
At October 2, 2007 at 7:44 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Also... if VAS is a feminist... and you agree with VAS a lot of the time... then you agree with the feminists. Right?

(Or is it perhaps the case that "feminism" is not so monolithic as you like to pretend it is?)

 
At October 2, 2007 at 7:59 PM, Blogger Gino said...

actually, what i was trying to do was offer examples of what i am trying to convey to you.
no, i dont think one example demonstrates the full reality, but, as an example, i thought it helpful.
either i was wrong, or i do a poor job of illustrating through the typed word.

as for the 2nd amendment: are you saying the majority of the fem leadership support gun ownership rights as stated in the constitution? thats not what i see.
i see the opposite.
the fem leaders are almost as strong against gun rights as they are for abortion. as a result, it IS a feminist issue. there is no way they can claim nuetrality or even being lukewarm on the topic after seeing their unanimous and vocal-enough position on it.

but i ask: if sexism was eliminated tomorrow, would some of these leaders still have people to buy their books?
they trade in woman's victimhood. that is their livlihood.
no matter how good it gets, they will always behave as if nothing has much changed.
they have to.

am i wrong for having a mind that you say is made up?
isnt your's made up also?

does that mean we cant talk to/or learn something each other?

please,send me an email. :)
its in my profile.

 
At October 2, 2007 at 8:02 PM, Blogger Gino said...

"Also... if VAS is a feminist... and you agree with VAS a lot of the time... then you agree with the feminists. Right?"

i think you've already heard from vas on her take of modern day feminism.
like her, i am with some feminists. the very slim unheard from minority of them.

 
At October 2, 2007 at 8:07 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Gino, I think we're having a major miscommunication here. You think we're having a spirited conversation. I think you have completely mis-read and misinterpreted my post, which I made on my blog, to talk about my feelings and discuss how a stranger was completely rude to me and have used it as an excuse to derail the entire point of what I said and threadjack my blog into an all-out attack on feminism. I have no interest in continuing this "conversation" over email.

 
At October 2, 2007 at 8:38 PM, Blogger Gino said...

"I think you have completely mis-read and misinterpreted my post, "

yes, i realized that at about response #4.

but stuff had already got started, and i like talking to you anyway. :)

i didnt want to continue this over email.
i wanted to ask about something different and unrelated, but thats ok.
its up to you.

 
At October 3, 2007 at 6:24 PM, Anonymous Male Law Professor said...

Gino, oh Gino... Your inability to see the reality of sex inequality is highly troubling. Have you not heard of the wage gap? The glass ceiling? Social phenomena such as implicit bias and stereotype threat? Please do your homework before making your arguments.

 
At October 3, 2007 at 7:30 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

mlp... do I know you, by any chance? ;)

 
At October 6, 2007 at 7:28 AM, Blogger Bianca Reagan said...

Oh no. Last night I left a really cool comment about Andy Samberg, Adam Levine's hair on the SNL "I ran" video, my own insane debate about women on my blog, and the importance of "loren bobbit" to feminists. There were links to everything, too. :(

Anyway, come see the conversation on my blog under the post "White Hot."

Also, Andy is my boyfriend. I called dibs months ago.

 
At October 6, 2007 at 2:20 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Back off, Bianca.

>>:-0

 
At October 6, 2007 at 7:19 PM, Blogger Bianca Reagan said...

It's all good, lf. I've got Penn Badgley to satisfy my needs. He seems like he'd be amenable to becoming a feminist too. Well, at least his character on Gossip Girl does.

 
At October 7, 2007 at 9:13 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Okay, deal :D

 
At October 7, 2007 at 7:58 PM, Blogger LawSchoolBlogger said...

See, when you say..."To be clear, I'm not suggesting this is their conscious intent, since I don't think most of them are smart enough to consciously intend it."
...there's not much I can say in response...because you'll just tell me "Well, that's your conscious mind talking, but your subconscious mind would say..."

 
At October 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

lsb, that's only the case if you identify with the asshats I wrote about, which I certainly hope you don't.

 
At October 7, 2007 at 8:40 PM, Anonymous knights13 said...

"The realization dawned on me that men treat me disrespectfully because I have the audacity to insist on equality."

How dare you insist on a thing that is hard to achieve? We could argue that it is impossible to achieve or with almost zero odds. Yeah, yeah, we are equal in spirit but that's for another universe.

What feminist should mean is for women to overcome burdens by KNOWLEDGE and hard work. That's what you, LF, are implying to here?;) Yes, there are feminists that think all women should work and they should be like the men. Because all men work and they have it all good. Lol It’s like hating something but would love to be what you hate. Oh boy, that’s just strange in itself. There are these types of women. Not only they are a disaster to themselves, a lot of times they manage to take down the surroundings.



"I could say that Catholics live for the "express purpose" of being offended because they didn't find Kathy Griffin's Emmy speech hilariously funny."

Is this the woman that said: "Suck it Jesus"? If so, I spoke to Jesus a couple of weeks ago and he told me this woman needs to stop calling his name every time she gets forked hard!!

Come to think of it; if she sucked it more then she wouldn't mention his name that often. Actually, she should just keep sucking it.

 
At October 7, 2007 at 9:16 PM, Blogger Linnaeus said...

I hear you on this one, TLF, but I have a slightly different take.

Now, maybe this guy is "naturally" like this in his interactions with women, but what you've described sounds very much like some of the manipulative pick-up techniques that have been circulating in some of the trashier men's media.

These methods are based on two basic premises: 1. An attractive woman is accustomed to men being intimidated by her appearance, and 2. The same kind of woman is also quite used to serious compliments on her appearance and therefore doesn't find it noteworthy when a man compliments her.

So, if this man was indeed applying these techniques, the idea was to catch you off guard by using the vague insults about you and your friend's appearance. The idea is to create in you the sense that this man is confident (by not being intimidated by you) and manipulate you into seeking his approval and prove your attractiveness to him. The provocative conversation, challenging your feminism, etc. were all part of that as well. You're supposed to think that this guy's strong, confident, not "easy" and therefore worth some further interest.

In that context, it's not surprising that this man, after all that rudeness, asked you and your friend to go back to his place. He was thinking that perhaps you'd see him as different from other men with whom you've interacted. Call it an intellectualized, slicker version of the bad boy.

Of course, this is mere speculation on my part, but were I a fly on the wall, that's what I'd be thinking.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 6:06 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

knights, I love how you tell me I should work hard if I want to be respected, and yet the fact that I work hard and don't sit around hoping some big strong man will save me from everything in the world is PRECISELY what seems to earn me disrespect. You, too, seem to have missed the entire point of my post. There seems to be a disturbing trend here...

I talked to Jesus yesterday at church and he most certainly didn't make such rude remarks about Kathy Griffin. Either you're lying, or you talk to a different Jesus, because my Jesus is not a catty bitch.

linnaeus, interesting thought, you may be onto something. However, I still think this is inherently anti-feminist (though I'm not suggesting you disagree) in that it reduces me, like he reduces all women, as some "prize" to "win" or "conquer." Seriously, it really is not all that hard to impress me. I know a guy I'd love to go out with PRECISELY because he's extremely low-key, easy-going, good-humored, and he doesn't feel the need to one-up every stupid thing anyone says. Sadly, if my life experiences are at all indicative of social trends, there are maybe 37 guys like this on the planet.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 6:43 AM, Blogger Linnaeus said...

Well, I'm probably making it more complex than it really was. The method I described certainly has sexism embedded in it, but as you say there was probably a lot of unalloyed garden-variety sexism at work here.

Your story reminded me of articles I've read that described this pick-up method, and this guy pretty much did exactly what the method recommends a man should do, so I thought I'd throw that out there.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 7:39 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

linnaeus, wow. Thanks for the info -- I had no idea there were people out there stupid enough to think this is a good way to impress women. Once again, I seem to have set my expectations too high :P

 
At October 8, 2007 at 9:43 AM, Anonymous knights13 said...

Well, if you want to get somewhere then you use knowledge to make it easier but you still have to work hard. Now, I didn't say anything about being respected. Not everyone will respect you. For what ever the reasons. You seem to be too concerned with having everyone act a certain way. Realistically, that is just wishful thinking. I didn't see a trend going on from your post. That is one occuracne in many. We would have to have more of the same reactions to say it is a trend. There are people that respect you, I'm sure.

That wasn't Jesus talking to you at church. That was some wolf in sheep's clothing. If it is ok to insult Jesus then it sure as heck is more than OK to make rude comments about some putz. So, she can keep sucking it and not mention his name.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 10:48 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

I didn't see a trend going on from your post.

It wasn't in the post. It's in the comments.

That wasn't Jesus talking to you at church. That was some wolf in sheep's clothing.

... my church is a wolf in sheep's clothing? ::is confused::

If it is ok to insult Jesus then it sure as heck is more than OK to make rude comments about some putz.

Who ever said it was okay to insult Jesus? Even if someone did, *Jesus'* response would not be to call anyone names right back. It would be to sacrifice himself on the cross, see, e.g., The Gospels.

Nice try, though.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 11:25 AM, Anonymous knights13 said...

"Who ever said it was okay to insult Jesus? Even if someone did, *Jesus'* response would not be to call anyone names right back. It would be to sacrifice himself on the cross, see, e.g., The Gospels."

Really, Just lay donw and get slaughtered? I don't think so.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 11:36 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Really, Just lay donw and get slaughtered? I don't think so.

Um, dude. Have you even READ the Bible??

 
At October 8, 2007 at 11:41 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

(If you're looking for specific passages, I'd check out Luke 23)

 
At October 8, 2007 at 12:32 PM, Anonymous knights13 said...

"(If you're looking for specific passages, I'd check out Luke 23)"

Oh please don't kid yourself.

You are starting to attack my intelligence and when you do that you expect people to respect you. Why is that? I don't need to read a passage and make it the whole bible or life itself. Half of it is not what Jesus said anyway!!!!!! There are portions where it would just be fables. Like the book of genesis for example.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 1:42 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

You are starting to attack my intelligence

What on earth are you talking about? Offering backup for my assertions counts as insulting your intelligence??? If you don't want to read the Bible, fine, make up your own fake Jesus in your head. Whatever.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 2:13 PM, Anonymous knights13 said...

Great, you offered a passage from Luke. This is supposed to explain to me that I'm wrong about something. One passage describes what Jesus would do in a situation that suits person x better than person y. Wow, brilliant!!!

If you get screwed over then you should use the same logic. If someone is attacking you then you should reffer to this passage.

Whatever indeed.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 4:02 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Actually, knights, I think you're supposed to refer to the Sermon on the Mount. I won't insult you by telling you where in the Bible that is.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 4:11 PM, Anonymous knighst13 said...

Actually, you are not making your point by using snippets from a book that I can just look up on the internets.

What's your point? You can use your own words. You are a lawyer and enlish is my fourth language!!!

So, go ahead and tell me how I was wrong to be rude to someone that is rude towards Jesus?

 
At October 8, 2007 at 9:25 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

You can act however you want. What I said was that JESUS would not act that way. If you have a better way to figure out how Jesus would act than the Bible, by all means share.

 
At October 8, 2007 at 10:50 PM, Anonymous knights13 said...

First of all, I said that Jesus told me she shouldn't call his name every time she was doing her act.

The rest was just additional attacks installed by me.

So, let's go by the bible. Doing the act of replication is a private matter. I'm sure Jesus doesn't want to be called and walk into something private.

My statement ends there according to the bible.

As for telling Jesus to suck it; he most likely would reply with an offer of some sort of food or drink and tell you to enjoy it. Eating and drinking are "needed" for the continuous cycle of life.

If she was influencing people into doing irregular acts and not of good purpose then he could have a harsher reaction. Something like the reaction to the money changers.

The whole thing is not linear to one passage though.

 
At October 9, 2007 at 5:34 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

*deep sigh*

(is done with pedantic arguments with someone who refuses to admit when he's talked himself into a corner)

 
At October 9, 2007 at 9:35 AM, Anonymous knights13 said...

At least I tell you how I got to my answer. :P

She can still suck it though. lol The day is mine!!!

 
At October 12, 2007 at 10:23 PM, Blogger Bianca Reagan said...

I talked to Jesus yesterday at church and he most certainly didn't make such rude remarks about Kathy Griffin.

If you talk to him this weekend, tell him I say, "Hey".

 
At October 16, 2007 at 2:49 PM, Anonymous roonie said...

Men. Pffft.

 
At October 20, 2007 at 12:48 PM, Blogger RMislander said...

"You're a lawyer and english is my fourth language!"

That's hilarious, good for you bud. And Jesus talked to you about Kathy Griffin? Really?

I've read about the same thing Linnaeus is talking about; the "be a dick and they'll be drawn to your sense of confidence and charisma" apparently does work with some girls as I have seen it happen, but I gotta say that might be the dumbest plan I've ever heard. Sounds like you just met a guy who was uncomfortable with what you were talking about, so he reverted to insults and his mental stock image of the man-hating feminist. Not too smooth. I'm surprised you remained so pleasant towards him.

 
At October 22, 2007 at 10:15 AM, Anonymous Sarah Powers said...

I'm ready for a new blog entry, LF. And please make it about Stephen Colbert. :D

 
At October 22, 2007 at 4:24 PM, Anonymous knights13 said...

"That's hilarious, good for you bud. And Jesus talked to you about Kathy Griffin? Really?"

Not really but it was turned into a really which in turn is hard to prove if it's really or not really. So then I play along because I like to get on the nerves of LF for some reason.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home