John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)


Puzz

puzzlrr wrote:
>
> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>
> Puzz

I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)

I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.


Fred Ellis
--
Who do you serve. . . . And who do you trust?
(To e-mail me, remove the X from my address)

On Feb 17, 7:21 am, Fred Ellis <fkel...@sticxx.net> wrote:
> puzzlrr wrote:
>
> > John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>
> > Puzz
>
> I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
> there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
>
> I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
> upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.

I didn't say anything because I didn't see the episode, but neither is
really a good idea...unless they're trying to give John a personality
that's extremely unpleasant. As for why the outrage for one usage and
not another: usually it's history. Women have a history (in the West
at least) of being referred to explicitly as in the same category as
children and idiots in law. African American men have a similar
history, except that the word "boy" not only derived from assumptions
regarding their mental and emotional immaturity, but also from their
status as property and/or servants. John calling Ronon, who isn't
African American obviously (Satedan), but whose skin color and dreads
do have some general reference points, is really pretty iffy, and I
think they should stop it.

But in general, the answer is history. That white men don't usually
get upset at being called boys simply tells us that they don't have a
history of being stigmatised and oppressed in this particular way.
The others do. When white men continue to use such terminology after
being told not to (which, if they're Americans, they have been told,
repeatedly, loudly, and in public), they reveal their insensitivity
and ignorance on this point. History matters.

himiko

On Feb 17, 12:02 pm, "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 7:21 am, Fred Ellis <fkel...@sticxx.net> wrote:
>
> > puzzlrr wrote:
>
> > > John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>
> > > Puzz
>
> > I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
> > there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
>
> > I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
> > upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
>
> I didn't say anything because I didn't see the episode, but neither is
> really a good idea...unless they're trying to give John a personality
> that's extremely unpleasant. As for why the outrage for one usage and
> not another: usually it's history. Women have a history (in the West
> at least) of being referred to explicitly as in the same category as
> children and idiots in law. African American men have a similar
> history, except that the word "boy" not only derived from assumptions
> regarding their mental and emotional immaturity, but also from their
> status as property and/or servants. John calling Ronon, who isn't
> African American obviously (Satedan), but whose skin color and dreads
> do have some general reference points, is really pretty iffy, and I
> think they should stop it.
>
> But in general, the answer is history. That white men don't usually
> get upset at being called boys simply tells us that they don't have a
> history of being stigmatised and oppressed in this particular way.
> The others do. When white men continue to use such terminology after
> being told not to (which, if they're Americans, they have been told,
> repeatedly, loudly, and in public), they reveal their insensitivity
> and ignorance on this point. History matters.
>
> himiko

But it's OK for blacks to call blacks, "******".

Ron wrote:


> But it's OK for blacks to call blacks, "******".


I got that stopped, at a friends house. Me, him and our friend (them
two black, me... 'not so much') and one of 'em was slingin' the N word
around, like it was a washcloth.

I spoke up. I said "hey, you use that word a lot. You mind if I use
it, too?" That didn't get a positive response. So, I said "well, if
I'm going to remain in this conversation, then we 'all' need to adhere
to the same rules."

That settled it. No one was calling no one the 'N' word, again.

"himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in
news:6d7d7fba-3bf2-43d9-afa8-5d6b22bf0617
@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> I didn't say anything because I didn't see the episode,
but neither is
> really a good idea...unless they're trying to give John
a personality
> that's extremely unpleasant.

I didn't see the episode either so I can't judge it yet
but I doubt it was meant in a bad way. You explain below
why it is problematic for women and African Americans to
be called girl or boy as that implies they are children
or mentally immature. Thanks for your post!

> As for why the outrage for one usage and
> not another: usually it's history. Women have a
history (in the West
> at least) of being referred to explicitly as in the
same category as
> children and idiots in law. African American men have
a similar
> history, except that the word "boy" not only derived
from assumptions
> regarding their mental and emotional immaturity, but
also from their
> status as property and/or servants. John calling
Ronon, who isn't
> African American obviously (Satedan), but whose skin
color and dreads
> do have some general reference points, is really pretty
iffy, and I
> think they should stop it.
>
> But in general, the answer is history. That white men
don't usually
> get upset at being called boys simply tells us that
they don't have a
> history of being stigmatised and oppressed in this
particular way.
> The others do. When white men continue to use such
terminology after
> being told not to (which, if they're Americans, they
have been told,
> repeatedly, loudly, and in public), they reveal their
insensitivity
> and ignorance on this point. History matters.
>
> himiko
>

> But it's OK for blacks to call blacks, "******".

They use it as a way to *kill* the word and make its
usage a joke. My son is half-Black and he and his Black
friends (heck even the White ones) say they use it
sometimes to joke around with each other.

In the movie Rush Hour, Jackie Chan immitates his partner
(who is Black) and calls another Black "My nigga'". Of
course the Black guy gets mad yet a moment ago, Chan's
partner (who is Black, can't recall the name), had called
the same guy "My nigga'" too without a problem.

Gisele

On Feb 17, 12:27 pm, Justin Kase <n...@thanks.com> wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > But it's OK for blacks to call blacks, "******".
>
> I got that stopped, at a friends house. Me, him and our friend (them
> two black, me... 'not so much') and one of 'em was slingin' the N word
> around, like it was a washcloth.
>
> I spoke up. I said "hey, you use that word a lot. You mind if I use
> it, too?" That didn't get a positive response. So, I said "well, if
> I'm going to remain in this conversation, then we 'all' need to adhere
> to the same rules."
>
> That settled it. No one was calling no one the 'N' word, again.


Good move. Just hearing you say it probably reminded them of the
history of that particular word, which they do know even if they don't
think they do. Actually, a lot of African American groups do object
to the resurgence of the N word especially in rap lyrics, and are
attempting to discourage it mostly by noting its history, especially
its connection to lynching.

himiko

bc_gisele wrote:

> "himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in
> news:6d7d7fba-3bf2-43d9-afa8-5d6b22bf0617
> @s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>I didn't say anything because I didn't see the episode,
>
> but neither is
>
>>really a good idea...unless they're trying to give John
>
> a personality
>
>>that's extremely unpleasant.
>
>
> I didn't see the episode either so I can't judge it yet
> but I doubt it was meant in a bad way. You explain below
> why it is problematic for women and African Americans to
> be called girl or boy as that implies they are children
> or mentally immature. Thanks for your post!
>
>
>> As for why the outrage for one usage and
>>not another: usually it's history. Women have a
>
> history (in the West
>
>>at least) of being referred to explicitly as in the
>
> same category as
>
>>children and idiots in law. African American men have
>
> a similar
>
>>history, except that the word "boy" not only derived
>
> from assumptions
>
>>regarding their mental and emotional immaturity, but
>
> also from their
>
>>status as property and/or servants. John calling
>
> Ronon, who isn't
>
>>African American obviously (Satedan), but whose skin
>
> color and dreads
>
>>do have some general reference points, is really pretty
>
> iffy, and I
>
>>think they should stop it.
>>
>>But in general, the answer is history. That white men
>
> don't usually
>
>>get upset at being called boys simply tells us that
>
> they don't have a
>
>>history of being stigmatised and oppressed in this
>
> particular way.
>
>>The others do. When white men continue to use such
>
> terminology after
>
>>being told not to (which, if they're Americans, they
>
> have been told,
>
>>repeatedly, loudly, and in public), they reveal their
>
> insensitivity
>
>>and ignorance on this point. History matters.
>>
>>himiko
>>
>
>
****** is as ****** does!

himiko@animail.net wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:27 pm, Justin Kase <n...@thanks.com> wrote:
>> Ron wrote:
>>> But it's OK for blacks to call blacks, "******".

>> I got that stopped, at a friends house, in Dallas. Me, him and our friend (them
>> two black, me... 'not so much') and one of 'em was slingin' the N word
>> around, like it was a washcloth.
>>
>> I spoke up. I said "hey, you use that word a lot. You mind if I use
>> it, too?" That didn't get a positive response. So, I said "well, if
>> I'm going to remain in this conversation, then we 'all' need to adhere
>> to the same rules."
>>
>> That settled it. No one was calling no one the 'N' word, again.
>
>
> Good move. Just hearing you say it probably reminded them of the
> history of that particular word, which they do know even if they don't
> think they do. Actually, a lot of African American groups do object
> to the resurgence of the N word especially in rap lyrics, and are
> attempting to discourage it mostly by noting its history, especially
> its connection to lynching.

Ask most Africans about slavery and they'll say it was what the American
Civil War was fought over. However, the roots of Slavery didn't not
come from America. Indeed not. It started in Africa. Black sellers,
selling other black people to the highest bidder, regardless of skin color.

With that in mind, there's an email that's been going around needs to be
seen...

==========
There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab
Americans, Native Americans, etc. and then there are
just Americans.

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.

You call me "White boy," "Cracker," "Honkey," "Whitey," "Caveman" and
that's OK.

But when I call you, ******, Kike, Towelhead, Sand-******, camel
Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink you call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are
the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Yom Hashoah
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi
You have the NAACP.
You have BET.

If we had WET(White Entertainment Television) we'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to "advance" our lives,
we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce,
and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships,
you know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US, yet if
there were "White colleges" that would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your
race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not
afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police
officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black
drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you
call him a racist.

I am proud. But, you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists?
==========


Personally, I don't give a damn if someone is pink, yellow, red, black,
purple or green and blue with bright-white polkda-dots on their
ear-lobes from the planet Medrona in the Andromeda galaxy, I take people
as they come along... one-at-a-time.

Treat me with respect, and you'll get it back.
Disrespect me, and you are no longer worthy of my time.

I simply can not afford the time to be bothered by such a trivial thing
as 'what color someone's skin color is'. That said, re-read between the
===='s again. And then ask yourself, why don't other people feel the
same way?

"Justin Kase" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:47b8b947$0$16670$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

<snip>

> Ask most Africans about slavery and they'll say it was what the American
> Civil War was fought over. However, the roots of Slavery didn't not come
> from America. Indeed not. It started in Africa. Black sellers, selling
> other black people to the highest bidder, regardless of skin color.

You realise, of course, that slavery has been around for thousands of years,
rather than hundreds? ;-)

Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30516

"Ceremonies have killed religions for they provide the masked comforts to
delusionals..."

On Feb 17, 3:25 pm, "Eva" <eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> You realise, of course, that slavery has been around for thousands of years,
> rather than hundreds? ;-)

And has taken many forms. The slavery that existed in the Americas
was particularly nasty, a mix of African and Middle Eastern forms
(which had many more limits including, often, time limits) and
European ideas regarding the absolute nature and sanctity of
property. Seriously unpleasant, and the fact that the slaves in
question were visibly identifiable made matters much worse. Not a
proud achievement in the history of any of the nations involved.

Has nothing to do with SGA or even the "boy" usage, but your post was
interesting so I'm responding anyway.

himiko

Eva wrote:
> "Justin Kase" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:47b8b947$0$16670$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Ask most Africans about slavery and they'll say it was what the
>> American Civil War was fought over. However, the roots of Slavery
>> didn't not come from America. Indeed not. It started in Africa.
>> Black sellers, selling other black people to the highest bidder,
>> regardless of skin color.
>
> You realise, of course, that slavery has been around for thousands of
> years, rather than hundreds? ;-)

Yes, of course. THOUSANDS of years ago, when Ra was on earth, the
Egyptians were slaves to those whip-wielding bastards that made them
move those big blacks of rock into the shape of a pyramid, THOUSANDS of
millennia ago!

;-)

No, seriously, *this* kind of slavery, that prompted every non-white
race to call the white race "racists" starting in Africa, with some
black kick-*** person who rounded up a bunch of his country-folk and put
collars on their neck, and led 'em around in chains... only be to sold,
like a common commodity, to the highest bidder.

Yet, somehow, the current population must pay for transgressions that
happened hundreds of years ago, and who knows if -their- particular
family was among those that -were- on some old plantation, 25
generations ago?

Why -are- only white people considered to be racists?

<himiko@animail.net> wrote in message
news:a9358232-c904-4f5e-8edf-26e3169f4500@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 3:25 pm, "Eva" <eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You realise, of course, that slavery has been around for thousands of
>> years,
>> rather than hundreds? ;-)
>
> And has taken many forms. The slavery that existed in the Americas
> was particularly nasty, a mix of African and Middle Eastern forms
> (which had many more limits including, often, time limits) and
> European ideas regarding the absolute nature and sanctity of
> property. Seriously unpleasant, and the fact that the slaves in
> question were visibly identifiable made matters much worse. Not a
> proud achievement in the history of any of the nations involved.

And not all slavery was based on race, but often as punishment (criminals)
or more often based on class. Royals vs peasants, upper class vs lower
class, old money vs nouveau riche, educated vs uneducated, Bears fans vs
cheeseheads-erm, ahem, etc.

> Has nothing to do with SGA or even the "boy" usage, but your post was
> interesting so I'm responding anyway.
>
> himiko

I think "boy" was used back in the Old World to refer to slaves or even
servants. Often combined with "house-", "cabin-", etc.

-- Ken from Chicago

"Justin Kase" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:47b929a8$0$16669$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Eva wrote:
>> "Justin Kase" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:47b8b947$0$16670$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Ask most Africans about slavery and they'll say it was what the American
>>> Civil War was fought over. However, the roots of Slavery didn't not
>>> come from America. Indeed not. It started in Africa. Black sellers,
>>> selling other black people to the highest bidder, regardless of skin
>>> color.
>>
>> You realise, of course, that slavery has been around for thousands of
>> years, rather than hundreds? ;-)
>
> Yes, of course. THOUSANDS of years ago, when Ra was on earth, the
> Egyptians were slaves to those whip-wielding bastards that made them move
> those big blacks of rock into the shape of a pyramid, THOUSANDS of
> millennia ago!

"Several" millennia or thousands of "years", but not both. The Egyptians are
not millions of years old.

> ;-)
>
> No, seriously, *this* kind of slavery, that prompted every non-white race
> to call the white race "racists" starting in Africa, with some black
> kick-*** person who rounded up a bunch of his country-folk and put collars
> on their neck, and led 'em around in chains... only be to sold, like a
> common commodity, to the highest bidder.
>
> Yet, somehow, the current population must pay for transgressions that
> happened hundreds of years ago, and who knows if -their- particular family
> was among those that -were- on some old plantation, 25 generations ago?

Actually official legal discrimination is only a few decades old. "Whites
only" bathrooms and fountains, etc. were still common in the 1960s.

> Why -are- only white people considered to be racists?

Racism is truly equal opportunity. It's not limited to only one race.
There's racism of all stripes amongst all races. European Americans get
criticized with it more because of being in power--in this country. Go to
other countries where people of paleness are the minority and you'll see the
tables turned.

However some people have a very specific definition of "racism" that goes
beyond being "merely" biased or discriminatory but also having the authority
to enforce their bias. At least that's the argument some have for saying
only people of European descent are "racist", while other ethnicities can't
be, but at worst be "prejudiced". Tho that conveniently ignore people of
color who are in power, cops, teachers, doctors, landlords, politicians, et
al., who do have the authority to enforce their views, if not nationally
then locally.

-- Ken from Chicago

"bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A47A865B365Agiselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
> "himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in
> news:6d7d7fba-3bf2-43d9-afa8-5d6b22bf0617
> @s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I didn't say anything because I didn't see the episode,
> but neither is
>> really a good idea...unless they're trying to give John
> a personality
>> that's extremely unpleasant.
>
> I didn't see the episode either so I can't judge it yet
> but I doubt it was meant in a bad way. You explain below
> why it is problematic for women and African Americans to
> be called girl or boy as that implies they are children
> or mentally immature. Thanks for your post!

<snip>

"Girl", "baby", "babe", "doll", etc., are similar.

A variation is describing a woman as "bright" which is often used to
describe kids or young adults but rarely adult males.

Yet another variation is "articulate", because one definition is the ability
to speak clearly, as opposed to "inarticulate", and considered condescending
because there's an implication / inference (depending on one's POV) that one
is surprised at someone being articulate:
--Used about kids there's no uproar because many kids are learning how to
speak or speak clearly.
--Used about athletes, models or celebrities and again there's no uproar
because a significant percentage are popular without having the ability to
speak clearly (as demonstrated in interviews).
--Used about actors, singers and politicians and there's less of an uproar
because they may seem articulate, even eloquent, when speaking someone
else's words, but having to give an impromptu interview and have to speak
for themselves ... many stumble.
--Used about writers, and there's also less of an uproar because writing
clearly and speaking clearly, while related, are significantly different
enough that one can by quite skilled at writing and truly awful at speaking.

The confusion comes of course because "articulate" ALSO is used to mean
"eloquent". The difference is highlighted when one considers an ineloquent
speaker vs an inarticulate speaker. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald
Reagan, Newt Gingrich, et al. are eloquent speakers. Hillary Clinton is not,
tho she is not an inarticulate speaker. George W. Bush and Richard M. Daley
can be quite inarticulate when speaking. Long before the nation knew of
"Bushisms", Chicagoans had long know a list of "Daleyisms":

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:URpY0pktfxoJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060724/ai_n16642447+daleyisms&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

-- Ken from Chicago

"Fred Ellis" <fkellis@sticxx.net> wrote in message
news:47B850F0.21D8@sticxx.net...
> puzzlrr wrote:
>>
>> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>>
>> Puzz
>
> I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
> there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
>
> I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
> upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
>
>

No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman, 'girl', said, he would
never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which is why I brought it up. I
wanted to see if there would be the same level of outrage as before. And if
Ronon is considered Satedan before being considered black, then why bring up
John not getting away with calling him 'boy'? Because its obvious that we
think of him as a black man from Sateda.

Puzz

puzzlrr wrote:
>
> "Fred Ellis" <fkellis@sticxx.net> wrote in message
> news:47B850F0.21D8@sticxx.net...
> > puzzlrr wrote:
> >>
> >> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
> >>
> >> Puzz
> >
> > I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
> > there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
> >
> > I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
> > upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
> >
> >
>
> No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman, 'girl', said, he would
> never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which is why I brought it up. I
> wanted to see if there would be the same level of outrage as before. And if
> Ronon is considered Satedan before being considered black, then why bring up
> John not getting away with calling him 'boy'? Because its obvious that we
> think of him as a black man from Sateda.
>
> Puzz

Yaaa, I get what you're saying. Now I understand the point you're
trying to make. Personally it's much ado about nothing. I think there
are too many thin skin people in the world. It's PC run amok.


Fred Ellis
--
Who do you serve. . . . And who do you trust?
(To e-mail me, remove the X from my address)

On Feb 17, 5:48 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>
> Puzz


I think you're reading something into this that's not there.

Remember, these are TV writers, not Toni Morrison or Ernest Hemingway.

These TV writers have nothing to say beyond the episode of the week.
They're not smart enough to make a statement or advance an agenda.
It's just bad writing and bad dialogue, nothing more.

Tom

On Feb 18, 1:45 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> <him...@animail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a9358232-c904-4f5e-8edf-26e3169f4500@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 17, 3:25 pm, "Eva" <eva1removet...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> You realise, of course, that slavery has been around for thousands of
> >> years,
> >> rather than hundreds? ;-)
>
> > And has taken many forms. The slavery that existed in the Americas
> > was particularly nasty, a mix of African and Middle Eastern forms
> > (which had many more limits including, often, time limits) and
> > European ideas regarding the absolute nature and sanctity of
> > property. Seriously unpleasant, and the fact that the slaves in
> > question were visibly identifiable made matters much worse. Not a
> > proud achievement in the history of any of the nations involved.
>
> And not all slavery was based on race, but often as punishment (criminals)
> or more often based on class. Royals vs peasants, upper class vs lower
> class, old money vs nouveau riche, educated vs uneducated, Bears fans vs
> cheeseheads-erm, ahem, etc.

Ken, you crack me up. Just thought I'd mention that.
>
> > Has nothing to do with SGA or even the "boy" usage, but your post was
> > interesting so I'm responding anyway.
>
> > himiko
>
> I think "boy" was used back in the Old World to refer to slaves or even
> servants. Often combined with "house-", "cabin-", etc.

Well, cabinboys often were literally boys, but yeah. In the New
World, houseboy was routinely applied to Asian servants who might have
been called valets, butlers or cooks if they had been white.

himiko

On Feb 18, 2:01 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Justin Kase" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message

> Actually official legal discrimination is only a few decades old. "Whites
> only" bathrooms and fountains, etc. were still common in the 1960s.

Yep. I still remember those signs. I don't think you saw them much
in the North, but in the South (US south), they were pretty routine.
>
> > Why -are- only white people considered to be racists?
>
> Racism is truly equal opportunity. It's not limited to only one race.
> There's racism of all stripes amongst all races. European Americans get
> criticized with it more because of being in power--in this country. Go to
> other countries where people of paleness are the minority and you'll see the
> tables turned.
>
> However some people have a very specific definition of "racism" that goes
> beyond being "merely" biased or discriminatory but also having the authority
> to enforce their bias. At least that's the argument some have for saying
> only people of European descent are "racist", while other ethnicities can't
> be, but at worst be "prejudiced".

It's even got an equation: P + P = D or Power plus Prejudice equals
Discrinination.

> Tho that conveniently ignore people of
> color who are in power, cops, teachers, doctors, landlords, politicians, et
> al., who do have the authority to enforce their views, if not nationally
> then locally.
>
Actually, P + P = D works fine with them too. The fact that you see
enough non-whites in such positions to constitute any kind of
discussion of possible discrimination is pretty new. Funny how whites
suddenly notice it's unfair when that happens! ;)

himiko

On Feb 18, 3:01 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Fred Ellis" <fkel...@sticxx.net> wrote in message
>
> news:47B850F0.21D8@sticxx.net...
>
> > puzzlrr wrote:
>
> >> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>
> >> Puzz
>
> > I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
> > there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
>
> > I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
> > upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
>
> No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman, 'girl', said, he would
> never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which is why I brought it up. I
> wanted to see if there would be the same level of outrage as before. And if
> Ronon is considered Satedan before being considered black, then why bring up
> John not getting away with calling him 'boy'? Because its obvious that we
> think of him as a black man from Sateda.

That was me and I specifically noted that Ronon is not actually
African American within the context of the show, but that he could
easily be seen as such by an American audience.

himiko

Briton Spears?


"puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qaVtj.810$pl4.396@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net. ..
> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>
>
> Puzz
>
>

"puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:EAduj.915$pl4.835@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net. ..
:
: "Fred Ellis" <fkellis@sticxx.net> wrote in message
: news:47B850F0.21D8@sticxx.net...
: > puzzlrr wrote:
: >>
: >> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
: >>
: >> Puzz
: >
: > I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
: > there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
: >
: > I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
: > upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
: >
: >
:
: No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman, 'girl', said, he
would
: never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which is why I brought it up. I
: wanted to see if there would be the same level of outrage as before. And
if
: Ronon is considered Satedan before being considered black, then why bring
up
: John not getting away with calling him 'boy'? Because its obvious that we
: think of him as a black man from Sateda.
:
: Puzz

I disagree

I think that the fact that specifically Ronan was brought up was because
Ronan would knock John on his buttocks, rather than be called "a boy" -
whereas if you called anyone else that, they might look at you oddly, but
you wouldn't be taking your life in your hands - and it wouldn't be as funny
to make that point....

Lisa

<himiko@animail.net> wrote in message
news:6d111d90-4f0a-4be4-b849-b561060a42f1@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 2:01 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> "Justin Kase" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message
>
>> Actually official legal discrimination is only a few decades old. "Whites
>> only" bathrooms and fountains, etc. were still common in the 1960s.
>
> Yep. I still remember those signs. I don't think you saw them much
> in the North, but in the South (US south), they were pretty routine.
>>
>> > Why -are- only white people considered to be racists?
>>
>> Racism is truly equal opportunity. It's not limited to only one race.
>> There's racism of all stripes amongst all races. European Americans get
>> criticized with it more because of being in power--in this country. Go to
>> other countries where people of paleness are the minority and you'll see
>> the
>> tables turned.
>>
>> However some people have a very specific definition of "racism" that goes
>> beyond being "merely" biased or discriminatory but also having the
>> authority
>> to enforce their bias. At least that's the argument some have for saying
>> only people of European descent are "racist", while other ethnicities
>> can't
>> be, but at worst be "prejudiced".
>
> It's even got an equation: P + P = D or Power plus Prejudice equals
> Discrinination.
>
>> Tho that conveniently ignore people of
>> color who are in power, cops, teachers, doctors, landlords, politicians,
>> et
>> al., who do have the authority to enforce their views, if not nationally
>> then locally.
>>
> Actually, P + P = D works fine with them too. The fact that you see
> enough non-whites in such positions to constitute any kind of
> discussion of possible discrimination is pretty new. Funny how whites
> suddenly notice it's unfair when that happens! ;)
>
> himiko

It's all fun and games--until it's your ox being gored.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Then again many who were decrying racial profiling against people of
African descent or Latin descent were suddenly okay with it for people of
Middle Eastern descent following 9-11.

"puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:EAduj.915$pl4.835@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:

> No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman,
'girl', said, he
> would never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which
is why I brought
> it up. I wanted to see if there would be the same
level of outrage as
> before.

First of all, it was me who said something like the
above. However, I wasn't *outraged*, I just found it odd
and out-of-date to be calling women "girls".

I just saw the episode and frankly, it's not the same
thing at all. The way Sheppard calls Ronon boy is not
used in the same way. He is talking directly to him and
it is with a sort of affection. When Sheppard said "What
about the girl?", he was talking about the woman, not
*to* her. So he was *referring* to her as a girl and
that is what I found dated.

Gisele

"himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in
news:5fd3a1dd-4e27-4b54-8c32-
b20d9ab9428f@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>> No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman,
'girl', said,
>> he would never get away with calling Ronon "boy".
Which is why I
>> brought it up. I wanted to see if there would be the
same level of
>> outrage as before. And if Ronon is considered Satedan
before being
>> considered black, then why bring up John not getting
away with
>> calling him 'boy'? Because its obvious that we think
of him as a
>> black man from Sateda.
>
> That was me and I specifically noted that Ronon is not
actually
> African American within the context of the show, but
that he could
> easily be seen as such by an American audience.

Lol... Well, I was the one who brought up the subject
but I couldn't remember if I said anything about
Ronon....<g> Thanks for clearing that up. Anyhow, I
think this whole thing has been blown way out of
proportion. There was no *outrage*. It was just that I
found it out of place to be calling a woman *girl* in
this day and age.

Gisele

"Fred Ellis" <fkellis@sticxx.net> wrote in message
news:47B99E3E.953@sticxx.net...
> puzzlrr wrote:
>>
>> "Fred Ellis" <fkellis@sticxx.net> wrote in message
>> news:47B850F0.21D8@sticxx.net...
>> > puzzlrr wrote:
>> >>
>> >> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Puzz
>> >
>> > I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
>> > there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
>> >
>> > I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
>> > upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman, 'girl', said, he
>> would
>> never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which is why I brought it up.
>> I
>> wanted to see if there would be the same level of outrage as before. And
>> if
>> Ronon is considered Satedan before being considered black, then why bring
>> up
>> John not getting away with calling him 'boy'? Because its obvious that
>> we
>> think of him as a black man from Sateda.
>>
>> Puzz
>
> Yaaa, I get what you're saying. Now I understand the point you're
> trying to make. Personally it's much ado about nothing. I think there
> are too many thin skin people in the world. It's PC run amok.



Thanks. I didn't understand why the we had so many posts on the 'girl'
thing, in the first place. Perhaps its the lackluster 4th season that is
diverting our attention?

Puzz

"bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A48EA3C8EC43giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
> "puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:EAduj.915$pl4.835@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman,
> 'girl', said, he
>> would never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which
> is why I brought
>> it up. I wanted to see if there would be the same
> level of outrage as
>> before.
>
> First of all, it was me who said something like the
> above. However, I wasn't *outraged*, I just found it odd
> and out-of-date to be calling women "girls".
>
> I just saw the episode and frankly, it's not the same
> thing at all. The way Sheppard calls Ronon boy is not
> used in the same way. He is talking directly to him and
> it is with a sort of affection. When Sheppard said "What
> about the girl?", he was talking about the woman, not
> *to* her. So he was *referring* to her as a girl and
> that is what I found dated.
>
> Gisele

I disagree. It is the same, whether he's saying it to his face or behind
his back. You can't call a brotha that! I was just waiting on either the
excuse "he didn't mean it that way" or the outrage "he's done it again.
what a racist bastard'. When neither came, I thought I'd bring it up, just
because, well.... I'm Puzzla, that's what I do. I think we can agree that
the character John is not sexist (he has a female as one of his leads and
who can kick his ***) and his treatment of Ford. I mean, come on!

Puzz

"Tom" <drsoong@aol.com> wrote in message
news:21f9bc71-dea5-4b99-aa90-47420c4c17ca@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 5:48 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>>
>> Puzz
>
>
> I think you're reading something into this that's not there.
>
> Remember, these are TV writers, not Toni Morrison or Ernest Hemingway.
>
> These TV writers have nothing to say beyond the episode of the week.
> They're not smart enough to make a statement or advance an agenda.
> It's just bad writing and bad dialogue, nothing more.
>
> Tom

Yep, it's entirely possible no one noticed it--especially considering much
of the criticism of this season overall.

-- Ken from Chicago

On Feb 18, 8:01 pm, "bc_gisele" <giselelaro...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:EAduj.915$pl4.835@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t:
>
>
>
> > No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman,
> 'girl', said, he
> > would never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which
> is why I brought
> > it up. I wanted to see if there would be the same
> level of outrage as
> > before.
>
> First of all, it was me who said something like the
> above. However, I wasn't *outraged*, I just found it odd
> and out-of-date to be calling women "girls".

It's always hard to determine tone in print, but I don't think any of
us are outraged...at least, not those of us who objected to the term
"girl." I read some of the anti-PC posts as moderate expressions of
outrage, but I may be misinterpreting that too. Regardless, it's not
the point. The point is why the hell are the writers doing this?
They clearly want us to like and admire John, and to indicate that he
is egalitarian (not racist, not sexist), so why give him a vocabulary
that's so problematic? Personally, I am more outraged by their
failure to develop his character...it's always easier to like a
character who's a person...but this is just another glitch. It's so
systematic, that I sometimes wonder if it's deliberate. Do the
writers just hate John Sheppard? (Writers sometimes do come to hate a
character, particularly if they're getting pressure to develop him/her
in particular ways.) Or did Joe Flanigan offend them in some way? Or
is it just that they have no idea who this guy is either, and so they
give him cutesy, jokey dialogue without thinking of the implications?
I'm popping for the latter.

himiko

<himiko@animail.net> wrote in message
news:f85546a7-2b5e-4517-98d6-539172b624a2@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 8:01 pm, "bc_gisele" <giselelaro...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>> "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> innews:EAduj.915$pl4.835@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t:
>>
>>
>>
>> > No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman,
>> 'girl', said, he
>> > would never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which
>> is why I brought
>> > it up. I wanted to see if there would be the same
>> level of outrage as
>> > before.
>>
>> First of all, it was me who said something like the
>> above. However, I wasn't *outraged*, I just found it odd
>> and out-of-date to be calling women "girls".
>
> It's always hard to determine tone in print, but I don't think any of
> us are outraged...at least, not those of us who objected to the term
> "girl." I read some of the anti-PC posts as moderate expressions of
> outrage, but I may be misinterpreting that too. Regardless, it's not
> the point. The point is why the hell are the writers doing this?

No I think the point is that you guys were making too much of his 'girl'
comment, so I decided to see if you would do the same for the 'boy' comment.
This is a fictional character who in nearly 4 seasons, hasn't shown a racist
or sexist bone in his fictional body. For a time, the majority of the
messages were discussing his use of 'girl'. And while not necessarily
proving 'outrage', does show a level (compared with actual discussions about
the episode) that was out of whack, to me.

Snippage, because you're still doing it.

Puzz

<himiko@animail.net> wrote in message
news:5fd3a1dd-4e27-4b54-8c32-b20d9ab9428f@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 3:01 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "Fred Ellis" <fkel...@sticxx.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:47B850F0.21D8@sticxx.net...
>>
>> > puzzlrr wrote:
>>
>> >> John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>>
>> >> Puzz
>>
>> > I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
>> > there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
>>
>> > I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
>> > upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
>>
>> No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman, 'girl', said, he
>> would
>> never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which is why I brought it up.
>> I
>> wanted to see if there would be the same level of outrage as before. And
>> if
>> Ronon is considered Satedan before being considered black, then why bring
>> up
>> John not getting away with calling him 'boy'? Because its obvious that
>> we
>> think of him as a black man from Sateda.
>
> That was me and I specifically noted that Ronon is not actually
> African American within the context of the show, but that he could
> easily be seen as such by an American audience.
>
> himiko

Even tho Ronon is no more African, American or African American than SGA's
Teyla, SG1's Teal'c, ST:VOY's Tuvok or BSG's Anastasia Dualla--which is to
say, not at all.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Now the *actors* portraying the characters, respectively, Jason Momoa
is Hawaiian American, Rachel Luttrell is African Canadian, Christopher Judge
is African American, Tim Russ is African American and Kandyse McClure is
African Canadian.

"bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A48EA3C8EC43giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
> "puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:EAduj.915$pl4.835@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman,
> 'girl', said, he
>> would never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which
> is why I brought
>> it up. I wanted to see if there would be the same
> level of outrage as
>> before.
>
> First of all, it was me who said something like the
> above. However, I wasn't *outraged*, I just found it odd
> and out-of-date to be calling women "girls".

It's that "post-feminism", where females have "enough" parity in society
that the name "girl" no longer matter. Or that it's "okay" if women exploit
themselves sexually. Akin to it being "okay" if members of a group use the
derogatory name themselves to refer to each other--altho not everyone
agrees.

> I just saw the episode and frankly, it's not the same
> thing at all. The way Sheppard calls Ronon boy is not
> used in the same way. He is talking directly to him and
> it is with a sort of affection. When Sheppard said "What
> about the girl?", he was talking about the woman, not
> *to* her. So he was *referring* to her as a girl and
> that is what I found dated.
>
> Gisele

-- Ken from Chicago (child of the 70s and ERA and NOW and Helen Reddy)

On Feb 19, 11:29 pm, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <him...@animail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f85546a7-2b5e-4517-98d6-539172b624a2@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:01 pm, "bc_gisele" <giselelaro...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >> innews:EAduj.915$pl4.835@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne t:
>
> >> > No. Someone who disagreed with John calling a woman,
> >> 'girl', said, he
> >> > would never get away with calling Ronon "boy". Which
> >> is why I brought
> >> > it up. I wanted to see if there would be the same
> >> level of outrage as
> >> > before.
>
> >> First of all, it was me who said something like the
> >> above. However, I wasn't *outraged*, I just found it odd
> >> and out-of-date to be calling women "girls".
>
> > It's always hard to determine tone in print, but I don't think any of
> > us are outraged...at least, not those of us who objected to the term
> > "girl." I read some of the anti-PC posts as moderate expressions of
> > outrage, but I may be misinterpreting that too. Regardless, it's not
> > the point. The point is why the hell are the writers doing this?
>
> No I think the point is that you guys were making too much of his 'girl'
> comment, so I decided to see if you would do the same for the 'boy' comment.

And it got discussed too.

> This is a fictional character who in nearly 4 seasons, hasn't shown a racist
> or sexist bone in his fictional body.

I agree, and have mentioned this several times as has Gisele.
Dialogue should be character specific. This line wasn't. It was
wrong for John. It would have been fine for Rodney whose attitudes
towards women (multiple and often self-contradictory) are even more
twisted than the other bones in his fictional body. John hasn't shown
much of any kind of bone in his fictional body, and it's a far more
major objection which I no longer even bother to mention because it's
clear he's never going to be developed. But if they're going to make
him Mr. Perfect, they should stick to that..

> For a time, the majority of the
> messages were discussing his use of 'girl'. And while not necessarily
> proving 'outrage', does show a level (compared with actual discussions about
> the episode)

Well, I haven't seen either episode yet and am fighting hard not to
give in and watch them out of order. I'm going through S4 pretty
slowly due to RL situations, and am only up to ep. 5 as yet. By the
time I get to this, the whole discussion will no doubt be over. It
was interesting though. Even as a theoretical discussion.

> that was out of whack, to me.

So what do you want to talk about?

himiko

On Feb 20, 3:05 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> It's that "post-feminism", where females have "enough" parity in society
> that the name "girl" no longer matter. Or that it's "okay" if women exploit
> themselves sexually. Akin to it being "okay" if members of a group use the
> derogatory name themselves to refer to each other--altho not everyone
> agrees.

Two steps forward and one step back. I think you're right. Sigh.

himiko

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:02:30 -0800 (PST), "himiko@animail.net"
<himiko@animail.net> wrote:

>On Feb 17, 7:21 am, Fred Ellis <fkel...@sticxx.net> wrote:
>> puzzlrr wrote:
>>
>> > John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)

>> I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
>> there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
>>
>> I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
>> upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
>
>I didn't say anything because I didn't see the episode, but neither is
>really a good idea...unless they're trying to give John a personality
>that's extremely unpleasant. As for why the outrage for one usage and
>not another: usually it's history. Women have a history (in the West
>at least) of being referred to explicitly as in the same category as
>children and idiots in law. African American men have a similar
>history, except that the word "boy" not only derived from assumptions
>regarding their mental and emotional immaturity, but also from their
>status as property and/or servants. John calling Ronon, who isn't
>African American obviously (Satedan), but whose skin color and dreads
>do have some general reference points, is really pretty iffy, and I
>think they should stop it.

Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half Hawaiian, WTF
are you babbling about?

If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun Francks, you
might have some kind of point.

>But in general, the answer is history. That white men don't usually
>get upset at being called boys simply tells us that they don't have a
>history of being stigmatised and oppressed in this particular way.
>The others do. When white men continue to use such terminology after
>being told not to (which, if they're Americans, they have been told,
>repeatedly, loudly, and in public), they reveal their insensitivity
>and ignorance on this point. History matters.
--
"My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four.
Unless there are three other people."
- Orson Welles

On Feb 20, 11:54 am, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:02:30 -0800 (PST), "him...@animail.net"
>
>
>
> <him...@animail.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 17, 7:21 am, Fred Ellis <fkel...@sticxx.net> wrote:
> >> puzzlrr wrote:
>
> >> > John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
> >> I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
> >> there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
>
> >> I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
> >> upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
>
> >I didn't say anything because I didn't see the episode, but neither is
> >really a good idea...unless they're trying to give John a personality
> >that's extremely unpleasant. As for why the outrage for one usage and
> >not another: usually it's history. Women have a history (in the West
> >at least) of being referred to explicitly as in the same category as
> >children and idiots in law. African American men have a similar
> >history, except that the word "boy" not only derived from assumptions
> >regarding their mental and emotional immaturity, but also from their
> >status as property and/or servants. John calling Ronon, who isn't
> >African American obviously (Satedan), but whose skin color and dreads
> >do have some general reference points, is really pretty iffy, and I
> >think they should stop it.
>
> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half Hawaiian, WTF
> are you babbling about?
>
> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun Francks, you
> might have some kind of point.

Please read OP. I covered these points.

himiko
>
> >But in general, the answer is history. That white men don't usually
> >get upset at being called boys simply tells us that they don't have a
> >history of being stigmatised and oppressed in this particular way.
> >The others do. When white men continue to use such terminology after
> >being told not to (which, if they're Americans, they have been told,
> >repeatedly, loudly, and in public), they reveal their insensitivity
> >and ignorance on this point. History matters.
>
> --
> "My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four.
> Unless there are three other people."
> - Orson Welles

"himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in
news:2bb03864-ff42-42de-9a77-c66d1f194481
@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

>> This is a fictional character who in nearly 4 seasons, hasn't
shown a
>> racist or sexist bone in his fictional body.
>
> I agree, and have mentioned this several times as has Gisele.
> Dialogue should be character specific. This line wasn't. It
was
> wrong for John. It would have been fine for Rodney whose
attitudes
> towards women (multiple and often self-contradictory) are even
more
> twisted than the other bones in his fictional body. John
hasn't shown
> much of any kind of bone in his fictional body, and it's a far
more
> major objection which I no longer even bother to mention
because it's
> clear he's never going to be developed. But if they're going
to make
> him Mr. Perfect, they should stick to that..

Yep, well, one of the eps this year did develop his character a
bit but it was so little that it's hardly worth mentioning.

> Well, I haven't seen either episode yet and am fighting hard
not to
> give in and watch them out of order. I'm going through S4
pretty
> slowly due to RL situations, and am only up to ep. 5 as yet.
By the
> time I get to this, the whole discussion will no doubt be over.
It
> was interesting though. Even as a theoretical discussion.
>
>> that was out of whack, to me.
>
> So what do you want to talk about?

Good point. We are on topic........:o)

Gisele

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:25:36 -0800 (PST), "himiko@animail.net"
<himiko@animail.net> wrote:

>On Feb 20, 11:54 am, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:02:30 -0800 (PST), "him...@animail.net"
>> <him...@animail.net> wrote:
>> >On Feb 17, 7:21 am, Fred Ellis <fkel...@sticxx.net> wrote:
>> >> puzzlrr wrote:
>>
>> >> > John called Ronon 'boy'. Where's the outrage!!! ;-)
>> >> I think you got it backwards. If Carter had called Ronon 'boy' and
>> >> there was no outrage, then you would have a reason to complain. ;-)
>>
>> >> I can never understand this, a man calls a woman 'girl', everybody is
>> >> upset. If a woman calls a man 'boy', nobody says a thing.
>>
>> >I didn't say anything because I didn't see the episode, but neither is
>> >really a good idea...unless they're trying to give John a personality
>> >that's extremely unpleasant. As for why the outrage for one usage and
>> >not another: usually it's history. Women have a history (in the West
>> >at least) of being referred to explicitly as in the same category as
>> >children and idiots in law. African American men have a similar
>> >history, except that the word "boy" not only derived from assumptions
>> >regarding their mental and emotional immaturity, but also from their
>> >status as property and/or servants. John calling Ronon, who isn't
>> >African American obviously (Satedan), but whose skin color and dreads
>> >do have some general reference points, is really pretty iffy, and I
>> >think they should stop it.
>>
>> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half Hawaiian, WTF
>> are you babbling about?
>>
>> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun Francks, you
>> might have some kind of point.
>
>Please read OP. I covered these points.

My younger brother occasionally calls me "boy." I don't get your
point.

Neither Ronon or Momoa are black. The skin color is, therefore, a
non-starter. The dreads are a surfer thing.

It's like you and the OP are looking for things to be offended about.

>> >But in general, the answer is history. That white men don't usually
>> >get upset at being called boys simply tells us that they don't have a
>> >history of being stigmatised and oppressed in this particular way.
>> >The others do. When white men continue to use such terminology after
>> >being told not to (which, if they're Americans, they have been told,
>> >repeatedly, loudly, and in public), they reveal their insensitivity
>> >and ignorance on this point. History matters.
--
"ue o muite arukou
namida ga kobore naiyouni
omoidasu harunohi
hitoribotchi no yoru"
Rokusuke Ei

On Feb 20, 4:18 pm, "bc_gisele" <giselelaro...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> "him...@animail.net" <him...@animail.net> wrote in

> Yep, well, one of the eps this year did develop his character a
> bit but it was so little that it's hardly worth mentioning.

Sigh. I figured they wouldn't. I don't know why they think he needs
to be a non-person, but they're clearly committed to it.
>
> Good point. We are on topic........:o)
>
Yes we are, but we do seem to have raised some major hackles with what
began as a simple comment on word usage.

himiko

"himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in news:649e6898-
8504-4b9b-a13b-9c5b63eaad89@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:

>> Yep, well, one of the eps this year did develop his character
a
>> bit but it was so little that it's hardly worth mentioning.
>
> Sigh. I figured they wouldn't. I don't know why they think he
needs
> to be a non-person, but they're clearly committed to it.


Maybe we'll get more this season.


>> Good point. We are on topic........:o)
>>
> Yes we are, but we do seem to have raised some major hackles
with what
> began as a simple comment on word usage.

Heh, yep.

Gisele

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote in
news:m3ipr3d2g4hs52e0kfb59jq76ii2eca4pj@4ax.com:

>>> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half
Hawaiian,
>>> WTF are you babbling about?
>>>
>>> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun
Francks,
>>> you might have some kind of point.
>>
>>Please read OP. I covered these points.
>
> My younger brother occasionally calls me "boy." I don't get
your
> point.
>
> Neither Ronon or Momoa are black. The skin color is,
therefore, a
> non-starter. The dreads are a surfer thing.
>
> It's like you and the OP are looking for things to be offended
about.

No, the OP was just connecting what was previously discussed
about Sheppard referring to the scientist's assistant as a
"girl" in a previous episode and in this one calling "Ronon" boy.
Himiko was going by what he said. I saw the episode now and it
is not the same situation. Himiko hadn't seen the ep so she had
only the OP to go by.

Gisele

From the Collected Witterings of bc_gisele, volume 23:
>> But it's OK for blacks to call blacks, "******".
>
> They use it as a way to *kill* the word and make its
> usage a joke. My son is half-Black and he and his Black
> friends (heck even the White ones) say they use it
> sometimes to joke around with each other.

I've heard it used between white people as well. If anything, that's better
than "taking it back". Instead of making "******" a cult word for your
clan, it redefines it entirely. Imagine a world where "******" meant
"friend".

Gays, OTOH, should be persecuted until they cede all territorial claims to
the rainbow.

"bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4AE2EE161Bgiselelarochenospamy@194.177.9 6.26...
> "himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in news:649e6898-
> 8504-4b9b-a13b-9c5b63eaad89@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Yep, well, one of the eps this year did develop his character
> a
>>> bit but it was so little that it's hardly worth mentioning.
>>
>> Sigh. I figured they wouldn't. I don't know why they think he
> needs
>> to be a non-person, but they're clearly committed to it.
>
>
> Maybe we'll get more this season.
>
>
>>> Good point. We are on topic........:o)
>>>
>> Yes we are, but we do seem to have raised some major hackles
> with what
>> began as a simple comment on word usage.
>
> Heh, yep.
>

No you haven't. You seem to be mistaking discussing this to the nth degree
with being right. You can't have it both ways. Either the use of 'boy' was
offensive as was 'girl' or they should both be allowed to slide. Since you
two only want to give him leeway on the use of 'boy', but not 'girl' shows
how you're PC only when it suits you. Sheesh.

Puzz

"bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4AE561ACB61giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote in
> news:m3ipr3d2g4hs52e0kfb59jq76ii2eca4pj@4ax.com:
>
>>>> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half
> Hawaiian,
>>>> WTF are you babbling about?
>>>>
>>>> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun
> Francks,
>>>> you might have some kind of point.
>>>
>>>Please read OP. I covered these points.
>>
>> My younger brother occasionally calls me "boy." I don't get
> your
>> point.
>>
>> Neither Ronon or Momoa are black. The skin color is,
> therefore, a
>> non-starter. The dreads are a surfer thing.
>>
>> It's like you and the OP are looking for things to be offended
> about.
>
> No, the OP was just connecting what was previously discussed
> about Sheppard referring to the scientist's assistant as a
> "girl" in a previous episode and in this one calling "Ronon" boy.
> Himiko was going by what he said. I saw the episode now and it
> is not the same situation. Himiko hadn't seen the ep so she had
> only the OP to go by.


I am the original poster and I'm a woman who didn't get offended by his use
of 'girl'. I didn't read too many of your posts, because I thought it was
a non-starter. But when 'John' called Ronon a 'boy', I figured you would,
at the very least comment on it much the same way you did for the 'girl'
comment. When nothing happened, I thought I'd point out the discrepancy.
You can't seem to see your hypocrisy on this matter. Oh, well. Have a
great day.

Puzz

On Feb 21, 4:39 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "bc_gisele" <giselelaro...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A4AE561ACB61giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
>
>
>
> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote in
> >news:m3ipr3d2g4hs52e0kfb59jq76ii2eca4pj@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half
> > Hawaiian,
> >>>> WTF are you babbling about?
>
> >>>> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun
> > Francks,
> >>>> you might have some kind of point.
>
> >>>Please read OP. I covered these points.
>
> >> My younger brother occasionally calls me "boy." I don't get
> > your
> >> point.
>
> >> Neither Ronon or Momoa are black. The skin color is,
> > therefore, a
> >> non-starter. The dreads are a surfer thing.
>
> >> It's like you and the OP are looking for things to be offended
> > about.
>
> > No, the OP was just connecting what was previously discussed
> > about Sheppard referring to the scientist's assistant as a
> > "girl" in a previous episode and in this one calling "Ronon" boy.
> > Himiko was going by what he said. I saw the episode now and it
> > is not the same situation. Himiko hadn't seen the ep so she had
> > only the OP to go by.
>
> I am the original poster and I'm a woman who didn't get offended by his use
> of 'girl'. I didn't read too many of your posts, because I thought it was
> a non-starter. But when 'John' called Ronon a 'boy', I figured you would,
> at the very least comment on it much the same way you did for the 'girl'
> comment. When nothing happened, I thought I'd point out the discrepancy.
> You can't seem to see your hypocrisy on this matter. Oh, well. Have a
> great day.
>
The use of girl for women and boy for non-white men have different
histories. They are similar IMO, but they are not the same thing even
in the abstract. I can't comment on the episode and the usage there
in each case, but context is important for both. It is perfectly
possible to find one use of girl or boy offensive without finding
another so, and we have both pointed this out at length with
examples. It is not hypocritical, it is a recognition of complexity.

Also, when name-calling and personal attacks start, I stop bothering.
So this will be my last post on the topic.

himiko

"David Chapman" <jeditojanen@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:fpjsls$ojt$5$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk:

> From the Collected Witterings of bc_gisele, volume 23:
>>> But it's OK for blacks to call blacks, "******".
>>
>> They use it as a way to *kill* the word and make its
>> usage a joke. My son is half-Black and he and his Black
>> friends (heck even the White ones) say they use it
>> sometimes to joke around with each other.
>
> I've heard it used between white people as well. If anything,
that's
> better than "taking it back". Instead of making "******" a
cult word
> for your clan, it redefines it entirely. Imagine a world where
> "******" meant "friend".
>
> Gays, OTOH, should be persecuted until they cede all
territorial
> claims to the rainbow.

Lol...

Gisele

"puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:fievj.3034$tW.2462@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:

>
> "bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A4AE561ACB61giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote in
>> news:m3ipr3d2g4hs52e0kfb59jq76ii2eca4pj@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half
>> Hawaiian,
>>>>> WTF are you babbling about?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun
>> Francks,
>>>>> you might have some kind of point.
>>>>
>>>>Please read OP. I covered these points.
>>>
>>> My younger brother occasionally calls me "boy." I don't get
>> your
>>> point.
>>>
>>> Neither Ronon or Momoa are black. The skin color is,
>> therefore, a
>>> non-starter. The dreads are a surfer thing.
>>>
>>> It's like you and the OP are looking for things to be
offended
>> about.
>>
>> No, the OP was just connecting what was previously discussed
>> about Sheppard referring to the scientist's assistant as a
>> "girl" in a previous episode and in this one calling "Ronon"
boy.
>> Himiko was going by what he said. I saw the episode now and
it
>> is not the same situation. Himiko hadn't seen the ep so she
had
>> only the OP to go by.
>
>
> I am the original poster and I'm a woman who didn't get
offended by
> his use of 'girl'. I didn't read too many of your posts,
because I
> thought it was a non-starter. But when 'John' called Ronon a
'boy', I
> figured you would, at the very least comment on it much the
same way
> you did for the 'girl' comment. When nothing happened, I
thought I'd
> point out the discrepancy. You can't seem to see your hypocrisy
on
> this matter. Oh, well. Have a great day.

It's not the same thing. In the ep where he says: "What about
the girl", he's referring to the woman as *BEING* a girl. In
this instance, he's jokingly telling Ronon to be a good boy.
It's not the same thing. If you can't see that, then too bad. I
see the difference even if you can't.

Gisele

"himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in
news:dffef77c-b510-471f-a0f4-
18a958ab1cba@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 21, 4:39 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "bc_gisele" <giselelaro...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9A4AE561ACB61giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote in
>> >news:m3ipr3d2g4hs52e0kfb59jq76ii2eca4pj@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>>> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half
>> > Hawaiian,
>> >>>> WTF are you babbling about?
>>
>> >>>> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun
>> > Francks,
>> >>>> you might have some kind of point.
>>
>> >>>Please read OP. I covered these points.
>>
>> >> My younger brother occasionally calls me "boy." I don't
get
>> > your
>> >> point.
>>
>> >> Neither Ronon or Momoa are black. The skin color is,
>> > therefore, a
>> >> non-starter. The dreads are a surfer thing.
>>
>> >> It's like you and the OP are looking for things to be
offended
>> > about.
>>
>> > No, the OP was just connecting what was previously discussed
>> > about Sheppard referring to the scientist's assistant as a
>> > "girl" in a previous episode and in this one calling
"Ronon" boy.
>> > Himiko was going by what he said. I saw the episode now and
it
>> > is not the same situation. Himiko hadn't seen the ep so she
had
>> > only the OP to go by.
>>
>> I am the original poster and I'm a woman who didn't get
offended by
>> his use of 'girl'. I didn't read too many of your posts,
because I
>> thought it was a non-starter. But when 'John' called Ronon a
'boy',
>> I figured you would, at the very least comment on it much the
same
>> way you did for the 'girl' comment. When nothing happened, I
thought
>> I'd point out the discrepancy. You can't seem to see your
hypocrisy
>> on this matter. Oh, well. Have a great day.
>>
> The use of girl for women and boy for non-white men have
different
> histories. They are similar IMO, but they are not the same
thing even
> in the abstract. I can't comment on the episode and the usage
there
> in each case, but context is important for both. It is
perfectly
> possible to find one use of girl or boy offensive without
finding
> another so, and we have both pointed this out at length with
> examples. It is not hypocritical, it is a recognition of
complexity.
>
> Also, when name-calling and personal attacks start, I stop
bothering.
> So this will be my last post on the topic.

Yep, it's getting boring now. You've cleared this up (thanks)
and I've added another explanation. If that's not enough, then
so be it.

Gisele

"puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:Vgevj.3033$tW.1497@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:

>
> "bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A4AE2EE161Bgiselelarochenospamy@194.177.9 6.26...
>> "himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in
news:649e6898-
>> 8504-4b9b-a13b-9c5b63eaad89@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> Yep, well, one of the eps this year did develop his
character
>> a
>>>> bit but it was so little that it's hardly worth mentioning.
>>>
>>> Sigh. I figured they wouldn't. I don't know why they think
he
>> needs
>>> to be a non-person, but they're clearly committed to it.
>>
>>
>> Maybe we'll get more this season.
>>
>>
>>>> Good point. We are on topic........:o)
>>>>
>>> Yes we are, but we do seem to have raised some major hackles
>> with what
>>> began as a simple comment on word usage.
>>
>> Heh, yep.
>>
>
> No you haven't. You seem to be mistaking discussing this to
the nth
> degree with being right. You can't have it both ways. Either
the use
> of 'boy' was offensive as was 'girl' or they should both be
allowed to
> slide. Since you two only want to give him leeway on the use
of
> 'boy', but not 'girl' shows how you're PC only when it suits
you.
> Sheesh.

We've already tried to explain the difference between the two.
If you can't see it, then let it go. Getting personal and
calling me names (as in your other post) is not what I am here to
discuss.

Gisele

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:36:37 -0800 (PST), "himiko@animail.net"
<himiko@animail.net> wrote:

>On Feb 21, 4:39 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "bc_gisele" <giselelaro...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half
>> >>>> Hawaiian, WTF are you babbling about?
>>
>> >>>> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun
>> >>>> Francks, you might have some kind of point.
>>
>> >>>Please read OP. I covered these points.
>>
>> >> My younger brother occasionally calls me "boy." I don't get
>> >> your point.
>>
>> >> Neither Ronon or Momoa are black. The skin color is,
>> >> therefore, a non-starter. The dreads are a surfer thing.
>>
>> >> It's like you and the OP are looking for things to be offended
>> >> about.
>>
>> > No, the OP was just connecting what was previously discussed
>> > about Sheppard referring to the scientist's assistant as a
>> > "girl" in a previous episode and in this one calling "Ronon" boy.
>> > Himiko was going by what he said. I saw the episode now and it
>> > is not the same situation. Himiko hadn't seen the ep so she had
>> > only the OP to go by.
>>
>> I am the original poster and I'm a woman who didn't get offended by his use
>> of 'girl'. I didn't read too many of your posts, because I thought it was
>> a non-starter. But when 'John' called Ronon a 'boy', I figured you would,
>> at the very least comment on it much the same way you did for the 'girl'
>> comment. When nothing happened, I thought I'd point out the discrepancy.
>> You can't seem to see your hypocrisy on this matter. Oh, well. Have a
>> great day.
>>
>The use of girl for women and boy for non-white men

Ronon is a white boy. So is Momoa (more or less - the one thing he
*isn't* is black). Just like Antonio Banderas.

>have different
>histories. They are similar IMO, but they are not the same thing even
>in the abstract. I can't comment on the episode and the usage there
>in each case, but context is important for both. It is perfectly
>possible to find one use of girl or boy offensive without finding
>another so, and we have both pointed this out at length with
>examples. It is not hypocritical, it is a recognition of complexity.
>
>Also, when name-calling and personal attacks start, I stop bothering.
>So this will be my last post on the topic.

Now you're being rather overly sensitive.
--
"Doctor, Doctor, help me please, I know you'll understand
There's a time device inside of me, I'm a self-destructin' man."
Raymond Douglas Davies

<himiko@animail.net> wrote in message
news:dffef77c-b510-471f-a0f4-18a958ab1cba@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 4:39 am, "puzzlrr" <puzzzl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> "bc_gisele" <giselelaro...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9A4AE561ACB61giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote in
>> >news:m3ipr3d2g4hs52e0kfb59jq76ii2eca4pj@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>>> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half
>> > Hawaiian,
>> >>>> WTF are you babbling about?
>>
>> >>>> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun
>> > Francks,
>> >>>> you might have some kind of point.
>>
>> >>>Please read OP. I covered these points.
>>
>> >> My younger brother occasionally calls me "boy." I don't get
>> > your
>> >> point.
>>
>> >> Neither Ronon or Momoa are black. The skin color is,
>> > therefore, a
>> >> non-starter. The dreads are a surfer thing.
>>
>> >> It's like you and the OP are looking for things to be offended
>> > about.
>>
>> > No, the OP was just connecting what was previously discussed
>> > about Sheppard referring to the scientist's assistant as a
>> > "girl" in a previous episode and in this one calling "Ronon" boy.
>> > Himiko was going by what he said. I saw the episode now and it
>> > is not the same situation. Himiko hadn't seen the ep so she had
>> > only the OP to go by.
>>
>> I am the original poster and I'm a woman who didn't get offended by his
>> use
>> of 'girl'. I didn't read too many of your posts, because I thought it
>> was
>> a non-starter. But when 'John' called Ronon a 'boy', I figured you
>> would,
>> at the very least comment on it much the same way you did for the 'girl'
>> comment. When nothing happened, I thought I'd point out the discrepancy.
>> You can't seem to see your hypocrisy on this matter. Oh, well. Have a
>> great day.
>>
> The use of girl for women and boy for non-white men have different
> histories. They are similar IMO, but they are not the same thing even
> in the abstract. I can't comment on the episode and the usage there
> in each case, but context is important for both. It is perfectly
> possible to find one use of girl or boy offensive without finding
> another so, and we have both pointed this out at length with
> examples. It is not hypocritical, it is a recognition of complexity.
>
> Also, when name-calling and personal attacks start, I stop bothering.
> So this will be my last post on the topic.
>

What did I call you? A hypocrite? Wow. Can't justify your double
standard, so you're quitting. Whatever.

Puzz

"bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4B6D0AAF543giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
> "puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:fievj.3034$tW.2462@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>>
>> "bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A4AE561ACB61giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
>>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote in
>>> news:m3ipr3d2g4hs52e0kfb59jq76ii2eca4pj@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>>> Considering that Jason Momoa is half Caucasian and half
>>> Hawaiian,
>>>>>> WTF are you babbling about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the sidekick was still Lt. Ford, played by Rainbow Sun
>>> Francks,
>>>>>> you might have some kind of point.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please read OP. I covered these points.
>>>>
>>>> My younger brother occasionally calls me "boy." I don't get
>>> your
>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>> Neither Ronon or Momoa are black. The skin color is,
>>> therefore, a
>>>> non-starter. The dreads are a surfer thing.
>>>>
>>>> It's like you and the OP are looking for things to be
> offended
>>> about.
>>>
>>> No, the OP was just connecting what was previously discussed
>>> about Sheppard referring to the scientist's assistant as a
>>> "girl" in a previous episode and in this one calling "Ronon"
> boy.
>>> Himiko was going by what he said. I saw the episode now and
> it
>>> is not the same situation. Himiko hadn't seen the ep so she
> had
>>> only the OP to go by.
>>
>>
>> I am the original poster and I'm a woman who didn't get
> offended by
>> his use of 'girl'. I didn't read too many of your posts,
> because I
>> thought it was a non-starter. But when 'John' called Ronon a
> 'boy', I
>> figured you would, at the very least comment on it much the
> same way
>> you did for the 'girl' comment. When nothing happened, I
> thought I'd
>> point out the discrepancy. You can't seem to see your hypocrisy
> on
>> this matter. Oh, well. Have a great day.
>
> It's not the same thing. In the ep where he says: "What about
> the girl", he's referring to the woman as *BEING* a girl. In
> this instance, he's jokingly telling Ronon to be a good boy.
> It's not the same thing. If you can't see that, then too bad. I
> see the difference even if you can't.
>
> Gisele

You can't see the difference because you don't want to see the difference.
You guys went on and on about his calling her 'girl' and how he wouldn't get
away with calling Ronon a 'boy' whatever the context or if Jason/Ronon is
or isn't black. When he did the same thing, you guys are saying its okay,
because (insert hypocritical reason here*). Either this fictional character
is racist/sexist or he is not.

Puzz


*how its used.
*historical context
*he didn't mean it with Ronan
*he meant it in a demeaning way with the 'girl'
*he didn't mean 'good boy', like talking to a dog, but rather....

"bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4B6DC5026FCgiselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
> "puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:Vgevj.3033$tW.1497@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>>
>> "bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A4AE2EE161Bgiselelarochenospamy@194.177.9 6.26...
>>> "himiko@animail.net" <himiko@animail.net> wrote in
> news:649e6898-
>>> 8504-4b9b-a13b-9c5b63eaad89@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>> Yep, well, one of the eps this year did develop his
> character
>>> a
>>>>> bit but it was so little that it's hardly worth mentioning.
>>>>
>>>> Sigh. I figured they wouldn't. I don't know why they think
> he
>>> needs
>>>> to be a non-person, but they're clearly committed to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we'll get more this season.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Good point. We are on topic........:o)
>>>>>
>>>> Yes we are, but we do seem to have raised some major hackles
>>> with what
>>>> began as a simple comment on word usage.
>>>
>>> Heh, yep.
>>>
>>
>> No you haven't. You seem to be mistaking discussing this to
> the nth
>> degree with being right. You can't have it both ways. Either
> the use
>> of 'boy' was offensive as was 'girl' or they should both be
> allowed to
>> slide. Since you two only want to give him leeway on the use
> of
>> 'boy', but not 'girl' shows how you're PC only when it suits
> you.
>> Sheesh.
>
> We've already tried to explain the difference between the two.
> If you can't see it, then let it go. Getting personal and
> calling me names (as in your other post) is not what I am here to
> discuss.
>
> Gisele

Again, what name did I call you? You 'girls' sure are thin skinned.

Puzz ~ oops!

"puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:78tvj.2435
$pl4.2217@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>> We've already tried to explain the difference between the two.
>> If you can't see it, then let it go. Getting personal and
>> calling me names (as in your other post) is not what I am here
to
>> discuss.
>>
>> Gisele
>
> Again, what name did I call you? You 'girls' sure are thin
skinned.
>
> Puzz ~ oops!

Don't want to be bothered with someone who calls me hypocrite
because I don't agree with them. Sorry, but *to me* the two
situations are different. If you see them as the same, then so
be it. I'm not going to call you a name for it. But I will stop
discussing this as there's no point in going on. We don't agree
on this. Let's move on.

Gisele

"bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4CB6A72A7D0giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
> "puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:78tvj.2435
> $pl4.2217@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>>> We've already tried to explain the difference between the two.
>>> If you can't see it, then let it go. Getting personal and
>>> calling me names (as in your other post) is not what I am here
> to
>>> discuss.
>>>
>>> Gisele
>>
>> Again, what name did I call you? You 'girls' sure are thin
> skinned.
>>
>> Puzz ~ oops!
>
> Don't want to be bothered with someone who calls me hypocrite
> because I don't agree with them. Sorry, but *to me* the two
> situations are different. If you see them as the same, then so
> be it. I'm not going to call you a name for it. But I will stop
> discussing this as there's no point in going on. We don't agree
> on this. Let's move on.
>

NO!! NEVER, I TELLS YA!!!

Puzz ~ and they are the same (especially if you're black and female). if
you're going to be pc about something, ya might as well go all the way!


*should I have added a one to my !? As in !!!1? :-)

"puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:i8Pvj.2555$pl4.590@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net :

>
> "bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A4CB6A72A7D0giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
>> "puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:78tvj.2435
>> $pl4.2217@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>>>> We've already tried to explain the difference between the
two.
>>>> If you can't see it, then let it go. Getting personal and
>>>> calling me names (as in your other post) is not what I am
here
>> to
>>>> discuss.
>>>>
>>>> Gisele
>>>
>>> Again, what name did I call you? You 'girls' sure are thin
>> skinned.
>>>
>>> Puzz ~ oops!
>>
>> Don't want to be bothered with someone who calls me hypocrite
>> because I don't agree with them. Sorry, but *to me* the two
>> situations are different. If you see them as the same, then
so
>> be it. I'm not going to call you a name for it. But I will
stop
>> discussing this as there's no point in going on. We don't
agree
>> on this. Let's move on.
>>
>
> NO!! NEVER, I TELLS YA!!!
>
> Puzz ~ and they are the same (especially if you're black and
female).
> if you're going to be pc about something, ya might as well go
all the
> way!
>
>
> *should I have added a one to my !? As in !!!1? :-)

Lol... You are funny! I'm glad you brought up the point though
as it was a valid one. Thanks for a good discussion.

Gisele

"bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4D8F201799Agiselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
> "puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:i8Pvj.2555$pl4.590@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net :
>
>>
>> "bc_gisele" <giselelaroche@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A4CB6A72A7D0giselelarochenospamy@194.177. 96.26...
>>> "puzzlrr" <puzzzlrrr@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:78tvj.2435
>>> $pl4.2217@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>>>>> We've already tried to explain the difference between the
> two.
>>>>> If you can't see it, then let it go. Getting personal and
>>>>> calling me names (as in your other post) is not what I am
> here
>>> to
>>>>> discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gisele
>>>>
>>>> Again, what name did I call you? You 'girls' sure are thin
>>> skinned.
>>>>
>>>> Puzz ~ oops!
>>>
>>> Don't want to be bothered with someone who calls me hypocrite
>>> because I don't agree with them. Sorry, but *to me* the two
>>> situations are different. If you see them as the same, then
> so
>>> be it. I'm not going to call you a name for it. But I will
> stop
>>> discussing this as there's no point in going on. We don't
> agree
>>> on this. Let's move on.
>>>
>>
>> NO!! NEVER, I TELLS YA!!!
>>
>> Puzz ~ and they are the same (especially if you're black and
> female).
>> if you're going to be pc about something, ya might as well go
> all the
>> way!
>>
>>
>> *should I have added a one to my !? As in !!!1? :-)
>
> Lol... You are funny! I'm glad you brought up the point though
> as it was a valid one. Thanks for a good discussion.
>
> Gisele

Not a problem. Its just a pet peeve of mine. And fwiw, 'hypocrite' isn't
really name calling, especially on the web.

Puzz