What's out of bounds at one time and place can and does change. This isn't the Awakening, and what worked then can be and often is counterproductive now. As the 4T approaches, 'counterproductive' could easily shade into 'suicidal', if things go badly.

The "shock troops" ... so to speak ... of any movement are always followed by the calmer, more rational people. That's part of the cycle as well. But once the envelope has been pushed it has been pushed.

A perception has been growing among the straight community (for want of a better phrase) that they've been asked to feel guiltier than they need to be. In other contexts, it's called 'compassion fatigue', in this it might be called 'sensitivity fatigue'. It matters less whether it's deserved or not than that it exists.

Yeah, this is why anti-political correctness is such a thrill to some people. People will say and do things that their momma would wash their mouths out for, but it's okay because they're showing how not politically correct they are.

I have little patience with "sympathy fatigue" because it so often translates into a justification for bad behavior. Bad anytime to anyone behavior, not just bad to minority-group behavior.

And usually again those oppressed by compassion claim that aggressive calls attention to blatant injustice were the same as fighting for your right to insist that you shouldn't have to feel guilty. I think they doth protest too much.

What-evah.

But the 'in your face' groups also include the fringe that shows up for gay rights events in skirts, or leather S&M gear, etc.

:lol:

This amuses me ... that it might be okay for people to have sex with the same sex as long as they dress normal. No slam on you, I know exactly what you're describing, but it's still kinda silly, innit? :smile:

Again. What-evah.

Whatever their intentions, the results do not help their cause.

I disagree. They are necessary. They put issues on the table. They can't be the only people working on the issue, but the idea that any group, be they poor people fighting a corporation, racial minorities fighting for civil rights, women fighting for basic freedoms ... even evangelical chuches fighting for their own religious freedom ... the idea that any group can get anywhere by being ladies and gentlemen, and asking for justice timidly and politely is inutterably absurd. An object at rest tends to remain at rest.

And bring on the backlashes, they are the friction, they slow things down so the object in motion doesn't remain in motion until it slams into a wall. Don't you see the beauty of it, HC? This is the essence of our country. This is why we never became communist or facist. This is why, despite all our manifold injustices, we are struggling along to do right be the descendants of the people we harmed settling this continent. This is why instead of violent slave uprisings and armed revolution, we have heated discussions about reparations and affirmative action instead.

I'm not convinced that the victories won by the gay rights movement have deep roots. Certainly the tolerance level is not as high as the media sometimes portrays.

If a gay friend asked me, today, if I thought is safe for him/her to come 'out of the closet', I'd probably advise that he/she play it safe and wait a while yet. I just don't trust the apparent calm out there.

Ah, but a gay friend 30 years ago wouldn't even be asking the question. Much less asking *you*, a Christian, a conservative. A gay friend would have spent a lifetime hiding his or her sexuality, lived a lie.

Florence King wrote about risking her life to have a Lesbian affair in the 1950s, knowing that by loving this woman in the eyes of the world around her, she was just like a Satanist or communist. Today she'd be worried about being harrassed or fired, not murdered. That's change, real change.

Whether the law recognizes gay marriages, more and more churches are performing them. That's change, real change. Are we all the way there yet? No. Of course not. That doesn't mean something isn't moving. If some people are really angry, even as you hint homicidally angry about it, you know its real. Real change is scary and infuriating.

The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2002-06-20 10:25 ]</font>

Real genius is a good movie.

Hmmm.

You know ... I don't think people hit on me ... men *or* women?!?!? Which is not to say they don't tell me I'm attractive or ask me out or flirt with me, so it's not just that I'm too unattractive to be hit upon. But hit on in an icky way, hmmm, not in a long while. Not that I remember, not since high school.

Maybe I scare people?

Didn't you used to be goth?
It's ok Angeli, I think you're an angel.
:lol:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin on 2002-06-20 13:04 ]</font>

There you go Justin, keep it up Bud, one of these ladies is bound to fall for your charm, or at least your optimism.

XoE, I figured you were messing back with us, since any hitting on you was done in fun and not creepy like. Unless maybe you don't like younger guys. Better than Old men giving you the 'perv stare'... :wink:

On more serious issues, I don't agree Angel that the "In your face" tactics simply MUST be. More subtle tactics have worked at various times. Also, I am not sure there is a moral right to do so. let's pick on the right wing for just a minute. Radical Pro-life groups have a plane fly over a beach with a banner with dead featus pictures on it... Does their right to free speech include the right to assult me with graphic pictures? On the PC side, does a radical feminist group have the right to preach that all men are scum? I suppose, but do they have the right to make ME feel like scum, just because my skin is termed 'white' and I have hair on my chest? The idea of the political correct was to make people not feel bad about themselves just for being who they are. That is Good, and some sensitivity was learned by the general public. But then does it not follow that I should NOT be made to feel like some cro-magnon scumbag just because of how I look and the fact that I like women? Lumping all "white men" into a group and putting a label on that group is just as wrong as anything else. What if I told you I looked white but my grandmother was black, would it make a differance then?
The problem with the PC movement is that it had inherant hypocracy within it, and was open to abuse. It was a good thing in theory, but failed in practice because the people 'in charge' of it fell prey to all too human emotions and temptations and twisted it into an object of opression - just the thing it was supposed to help counter.

Some day we will all realize that these bodies we inhabit, and the way they look, ain't shiest. MLK had it right. :sad:

On 2002-06-20 14:57, Earthshine wrote:

On more serious issues, I don't agree Angeli that the "In your face" tactics simply MUST be. More subtle tactics have worked at various times. Also, I am not sure there is a moral right to do so. let's pick on the right wing for just a minute. Radical Pro-life groups have a plane fly over a beach with a banner with dead featus pictures on it... Does their right to free speech include the right to assult me with graphic pictures? On the PC side, does a radical feminist group have the right to preach that all men are scum? I suppose, but do they have the right to make ME feel like scum, just because my skin is termed 'white' and I have hair on my chest? The idea of the political correct was to make people not feel bad about themselves just for being who they are. That is Good, and some sensitivity was learned by the general public. But then does it not follow that I should NOT be made to feel like some cro-magnon scumbag just because of how I look and the fact that I like women? Lumping all "white men" into a group and putting a label on that group is just as wrong as anything else. What if I told you I looked white but my grandmother was black, would it make a differance then?
The problem with the PC movement is that it had inherant hypocracy within it, and was open to abuse. It was a good thing in theory, but failed in practice because the people 'in charge' of it fell prey to all too human emotions and temptations and twisted it into an object of opression - just the thing it was supposed to help counter.

Some day we will all realize that these bodies we inhabit, and the way they look, ain't shiest. MLK had it right. :sad:

Bravo, Earthshine. Thank you for putting my thoughts more succinctly than I can at the moment.

One point of clarification, however: If someone (either you, or anyone else) "looks" white and "but" has a black grandmother, do they not have the right to think of themselves in any way they see fit, either as white, black, both, or neither???

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-20 19:00 ]</font>

One point of clarification, however: If someone (either you, or anyone else) "looks" white and "but" has a black grandmother, do they not have the right to think of themselves in any way they see fit, either as white, black, both, or neither???

I see no earthly reason why not. You are whatever you think of yourself as, no matter what anyone else thinks.

On 2002-06-19 22:57, Xer of Evil wrote:
I disagree that we need more rules. I think we need less rules, and everyone should just be themselves. This includes women smacking the hell out of men if and when they deserve it.

I didn't say we needed more rules, I said we need common societal rules. Without some common (if often unspoken) rules, the man that got smacked may not even know why he was, since the last woman he tried that approach on liked it, and one before was indifferent.

Works the same in reverse, too.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-06-20 19:52 ]</font>

On 2002-06-20 10:19, angeli wrote:

What's out of bounds at one time and place can and does change. This isn't the Awakening, and what worked then can be and often is counterproductive now. As the 4T approaches, 'counterproductive' could easily shade into 'suicidal', if things go badly.

The "shock troops" ... so to speak ... of any movement are always followed by the calmer, more rational people. That's part of the cycle as well. But once the envelope has been pushed it has been pushed.

The phrase 'pushing the envelope' is a good one, derived from test-pilot jargon if I am not mistaken. If you push too far too fast, the envelope tears.

A perception has been growing among the straight community (for want of a better phrase) that they've been asked to feel guiltier than they need to be. In other contexts, it's called 'compassion fatigue', in this it might be called 'sensitivity fatigue'. It matters less whether it's deserved or not than that it exists.

I have little patience with "sympathy fatigue" because it so often translates into a justification for bad behavior. Bad anytime to anyone behavior, not just bad to minority-group behavior.

And usually again those oppressed by compassion claim that aggressive calls attention to blatant injustice were the same as fighting for your right to insist that you shouldn't have to feel guilty. I think they doth protest too much.

What-evah.

As I said, it doesn't matter whether they're right or not, on a practical level. When a society has reached its saturation point regarding social change, then it stops yielding, for good or bad or both. Then there's nothing to be done but wait a while, because any further pushing right then is futile at best.

I suspect America is reaching saturation point, or at least that it's not far over the horizon. That's part of the definition of a 4T, and even more the 1T that follows.

But the 'in your face' groups also include the fringe that shows up for gay rights events in skirts, or leather S&M gear, etc.

:lol:

This amuses me ... that it might be okay for people to have sex with the same sex as long as they dress normal. No slam on you, I know exactly what you're describing, but it's still kinda silly, innit? :smile:

Again. What-evah.

I'm not even commenting on the morality of it. It's tactically foolish. People who would otherwise have been sympathetic or neutral are alienated. In a late 3T, the people who are going to be readily sympathetic, that can be reached by shock tactics, are already aboard.

Whatever their intentions, the results do not help their cause.

I disagree. They are necessary. They put issues on the table.

In late 1T, and in an Awakening, yes. But the issues are already on the table now, in mid-late 3T. The shock tactics have accomplished nothing for 20 years, but they still keep attempting them.

I'm not convinced that the victories won by the gay rights movement have deep roots. Certainly the tolerance level is not as high as the media sometimes portrays.

If a gay friend asked me, today, if I thought is safe for him/her to come 'out of the closet', I'd probably advise that he/she play it safe and wait a while yet. I just don't trust the apparent calm out there.

Ah, but a gay friend 30 years ago wouldn't even be asking the question. Much less asking *you*, a Christian, a conservative. A gay friend would have spent a lifetime hiding his or her sexuality, lived a lie.

And quite wisely, like it or not, during a 1T. You have to choose your time carefully, like it or not. If you chose the time poorly, your attempt at making a change will be useless at best, and can actually make things much worse.

Florence King wrote about risking her life to have a Lesbian affair in the 1950s, knowing that by loving this woman in the eyes of the world around her, she was just like a Satanist or communist. Today she'd be worried about being harrassed or fired, not murdered. That's change, real change.

Matthew Sheppard.

Yes, things have changed. The risk of death is lower, especially for lesbians, but it does still exist. Even the people who strive to be 'enlightened' tend to revert to the former patterns under pressure. I've seen it happen.

Nice posts people, some good thoughts on here! More about that below.

One point of clarification, however: If someone (either you, or anyone else) "looks" white and "but" has a black grandmother, do they not have the right to think of themselves in any way they see fit, either as white, black, both, or neither???

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-20 19:00 ]</font>

That was part of my point :smile: - I don't think about where my ancestors came from, or what they looked like and how those genetics for appearance define me. They don't. They don't define anyone, for good or for bad. We are who we are and what skin color we have has nothing to do with it, unless we let it. The world has no right to judge us by our looks alone. Color is a matter of how light falls upon and object. Isn't how light falls on an object a pretty silly way to judge who someone is? Louis Armstrong was looked at by some as an Uncle Tom because he smiled all the time and was kind to 'white folks'. Only now 100 years after his birth, and about 30 after his death, are we beginning to understand what a talent we was, and how influential he was on Jazz. Tony Bennett once called him a 'National Treasure'. That's a long way from being called Uncle Tom or whatever other stupid name people put on others in order to make themselves feel good.

Thanks also for the 'Bravo'. All we can do is try to express ourselves with thoughtfulness, courage and compassion, and the let the rest fall where it will. If I wrote something that echoes how you or anyone else feels, it's just another example of how this forum is a good way for people to exchange some ideas. No matter what we look like in the flesh, we are all just words here on the site. :grin:





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-20 20:34 ]</font>

I did not say that "shock tactics" are the only way or that they aren't sometimes misapplied. I said they are necessary. They are part of the process of change. They are only one part of that process.

Its funny though, HC. You say that people who risk death by being who they are and in this way are suicidal and unwise. What you don't say is that the people who would, wish to, do hurt them for being different are homicidal and evil. Yes, evil. That's a heavy word, but a better one than "homophobic" IMHO.

The "foolishness" you speak of is really honesty and bravery in the face of evil and occasional mortal peril. And even many conservatives see the truth of that now. Matthew Shepard. Who didn't die anonymous and unspoken as so many had before him. Whose killers got the death penalty because the people of Laramie believed that torturing and killing a homosexual is wrong, even if they believed homosexuality is also wrong.

Its all very well to talk about being wise and picking your timing and all that, and there is something to be said for not taking foolish risks. But when the foolish risk is living your life honestly, I can see how the game is worth the candle for many people.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2002-06-20 20:33 ]</font>

On 2002-06-20 23:54, Xer of Evil wrote:
Kevin, when I first started thinking about this, I also thought that I have been getting hit on less as I get older. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that it still happens a lot, but I just handle it better.

And angeli, I would think that being "hit on" has a wide range of meanings. It can be anything from a stare to physical contact to "hey let's screw." I think that I would include flirtation too, because this is really just a guys way of trying to follow women's rules to achieve the same end.

HC, when I was talking about getting smacked, I was saying that a guy would learn pretty soon what resulted in a smack and what didn't. Experience would shape behavior, not rules.

By the way, men are also free to smack horny women if needed, but I've never heard of a straight guy turning DOWN a woman who wanted to have sex.

Oh, almost forgot the "younger man" question. I sort of beat this topic to death with William a while back, but basically I said that the larger the age difference the more difficult it is to have an equal relationship. But if we're just talking about having sex, bring it on baby!

XoE

To be honest, I think I am more attractive to women now than I ever have been, based on the amount of eye contact that I seem to get from the ladies. Face it, back in college I was a scrawny geek too smart for my own good! Not so, anymore.

I was out at the swimming pool this afternoon, and no less that three very attractive mid-to-late-wave Xer women waved goodbye to me as either they, or I, left the area. However, I really cannot tell whether they were just being friendly or if following up on such innocent flirtations might be worth my while. Years of being dismissed out-of-hand as a hopeless nerd have rendered me very cautious in making such fine distinctions. But at least I am often given the time of day, unlike say fifteen years ago. Perhaps I look and feel more successful, stable and reliable today than ever before, just as many young women are finally figuring out that "bad boys" are overrated. That would be a good thing. We shall see.

About straight men turning down women for sex, believe it or not it really does happen XoE (though not exactly by choice). Sometimes, due to a feeling a incredible disbelief (as in "I just CAN'T believe that such a gorgeous dame actually wants to sleep with ME!), a man's "equipment" won't believe it either and will simply refuse to function in the usual manner, and nothing happens. In other circumstances, a man might even panic and bolt for the door. Reasons for that might be a sudden (and probably very real) fear that one is being "lured" into either unwed parenthood, getting sick, or humiliation of some other form. In these situations, it is like God is screaming in one's ear: "Get OUT!!!".

It happens. Albeit infrequently. Mostly when you're young and inexperienced.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-21 01:15 ]</font>

On 2002-06-20 14:57, Earthshine wrote:

I suppose, but do they have the right to make ME feel like scum, just because my skin is termed 'white' and I have hair on my chest? The idea of the political correct was to make people not feel bad about themselves just for being who they are.

How can someone "make" you feel like scum? Aren't you in control of how you feel?

The idea of politically correct has *nothing* to do with making people feeling not bad about themselves (at least orignally), as far as I can tell.

Here's an example of a non-PC behavior. When I was a teenager I would often make references to to "men and ladies" or when writing a high school paper I would refer to men by their last names and women by their first names. In a paper on the Civil War, for example, I would refer to Abraham Lincoln as "Lincoln", but I would refer to Clara Barton as "Clara" rather than "Barton".

Obviously, Barton is dead, so how I refer to her can have no impact on how she feels. Similarly refering to men and ladies is not, on the face of it, insulting. What it does do is insert a subtext of which I was concretely unaware, and about which my first response was "oh c'mon! that is SO stupid!". But it is quite real none-the-less. PC (at least origninally) was about calling attention to and eliminating the subtexts.

On 2002-06-21 05:21, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-20 14:57, Earthshine wrote:

I suppose, but do they have the right to make ME feel like scum, just because my skin is termed 'white' and I have hair on my chest? The idea of the political correct was to make people not feel bad about themselves just for being who they are.

How can someone "make" you feel like scum? Aren't you in control of how you feel?

The idea of politically correct has *nothing* to do with making people feeling not bad about themselves (at least orignally), as far as I can tell.

Here's an example of a non-PC behavior. When I was a teenager I would often make references to to "men and ladies" or when writing a high school paper I would refer to men by their last names and women by their first names. In a paper on the Civil War, for example, I would refer to Abraham Lincoln as "Lincoln", but I would refer to Clara Barton as "Clara" rather than "Barton".

Obviously, Barton is dead, so how I refer to her can have no impact on how she feels. Similarly refering to men and ladies is not, on the face of it, insulting. What it does do is insert a subtext of which I was concretely unaware, and about which my first response was "oh c'mon! that is SO stupid!". But it is quite real none-the-less. PC (at least origninally) was about calling attention to and eliminating the subtexts.

PC may have started innocently enough, but eventually it became about not hurting peoples feelings, at least in theory. That's why all Black people became "African Americas" (something that no one asked the Jamaicans about apparently, because when you do, they will tell you they are not African),
"Fat" people became "Oversized" and "short" people became "vertically challenged". Hillary Clinton and her ilk were the type pushing this thing, and Bill went along with it (for whatever reason. pick the one you like best).

This was a defining part of the feel of the Clinton years and felt a little over the top even to a lot of the moderates among us.
That is what I was referencing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-21 08:10 ]</font>

On 2002-06-20 23:54, Xer of Evil wrote:

HC, when I was talking about getting smacked, I was saying that a guy would learn pretty soon what resulted in a smack and what didn't. Experience would shape behavior, not rules.

Oh, almost forgot the "younger man" question. I sort of beat this topic to death with William a while back, but basically I said that the larger the age difference the more difficult it is to have an equal relationship. But if we're just talking about having sex, bring it on baby!

XoE

There was an Arlo and Janis cartoon once that went like this: Janis asks Arlo if younger women look better and better to him as he gets older. Arlo being at least somewhat intelligent tells his wife the truth. "No, that's not true at all". The last panel shows him walking away with a thought bubble over his head that says "older women start looking better and better"

There is a lot of truth in this I think. The first 40 year old woman I was really attracted to was one I met when I was 27. Before that it just never occurred to me.

Of course, some 50+ year olds *cough - Clinton - *cough*cough* will still chase people half their age, but in general most will be looking for more than just sex and so will be looking for someone more their age.

And hey X, I am not *that* much younger than you, but whatever you are up for, I can deal with *innocent look*. :wink:

peace

[/quote]


"Fat" people became "Oversized" and "short" people became "vertically challenged". Hillary Clinton and her ilk were the type pushing this thing, and Bill went along with it (for whatever reason. pick the one you like best).


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-21 08:10 ]</font>
[/quote]

Huh? Did I miss this during the Clinton years? I don't recall Hillary Clinton or anyone in the Clinton White House ever taking a stand on what terms we should use to reference short people! :smile:

Huh? Did I miss this during the Clinton years? I don't recall Hillary Clinton or anyone in the Clinton White House ever taking a stand on what terms we should use to reference short people! :smile:

There wasn't a direct memo I don't think :wink:
She was part of all of that though. I took your question and worked a search on the web and found some interesting links. Notice I call them "interesting" not necessarily right or diplomatic (What site is, right?) It is a tough search, as most of the stuff left on the net about it these days is satire.

"definitions"
http://www.contumacy.org/2PC101.html

Site with links about PC news stories
http://pages.prodigy.net/geoffc/otherhate.htm

Here's one more about Billy Boy
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/Cele...n/clntgate.htm

Rush might have some stuff on his site too, but I won't go as far as to search in there for it. :razz:

I'm taking a trip this weekend, will try and get back here before I leave to see what gets posted, but may not be on again for a few days.

Peace

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-21 11:52 ]</font>

Yeah, well I'm short and I vote -- where's my memo!

Seriously, though, you can't blame the Clintons for the fact that this 3T looks like a 3T. They're a by-product, not a root cause.

On 2002-06-21 13:18, Neisha '67 wrote:
Yeah, well I'm short and I vote -- where's my memo!

Seriously, though, you can't blame the Clintons for the fact that this 3T looks like a 3T. They're a by-product, not a root cause.

Agreed. We get the president we deserve. "We" let them in, so they got in.
Billy got in the second term supposedly on the strength of the "Soccer Mom" vote -
I'd like to see some stats to show us if they were mainly late Boomers or Early/Mid Xers.
The biggest relief though is that He and She didn't do more damage than they did while in office :smile:

And as for being short, here's a good quote for that....
"Judge me by my size do you?" - Yoda
(Yo kicked butt in the last one. It was worth the price of admission just to see a muppet with a lightsaber! :lol:

Didn't you call for more smilies N? I think this post has beat my usual record for them.

"Fat" people became "Oversized" and "short" people became "vertically challenged". Hillary Clinton and her ilk were the type pushing this thing, and Bill went along with it (for whatever reason. pick the one you like best).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-21 08:10 ]</font>

In my office, the term "vertically challenged" was used as a joke back in 1990 because there were so many short people in my office (my Division Director is 5 foot 6 and a lot of hires around 1989 and 1990 were under 5 foot 5. Our Under Secretary back in 1990 was 5 foot 1 Catherine Bertini. The joke was that if you wanted a job with the Food and Nutrition Service, you had to be shorter than Catherine Bertini.

I am 5 foot 2 so I am legitimately "vertically challenged" (short). Its a term I've thrown around a lot as a joke. Sometimes I've used it or heard it used as a humorous euphemism for a child. I've never heard it as a serious term for run-of-the-mill normal short people.

However, I can't speak for the preferred term for those whose shortness is not "normal", such as dwarves and normally-proportioned but extremely short people. I think they prefer the term "little people", which is also a term for small children.

On 2002-06-21 13:30, Earthshine wrote:

Didn't you call for more smilies N? I think this post has beat my usual record for them.

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

On 2002-06-21 14:24, Neisha '67 wrote:

On 2002-06-21 13:30, Earthshine wrote:

Didn't you call for more smilies N? I think this post has beat my usual record for them.

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I do believe that it was Xer of Evil who called for more smilies-- or, rather, stated that she would use more smilies so that people would know when she was joking.

I'm also confusing "Earthshine" with another poster who calls himself "earthbound." Luckily I went back to the members list and checked before I said something dumb. :smile:

If there is a sexual backlash in the Oughts (and being a single GenXer, I'm not any more enthusiastic about that than you are), it will be because the Nineties went too far in the other direction. Throughout the decade, it was hard to get away from the "sex, sex, sex" culture. I remember a cogent essay by Howard Rosenberg (hardly a right-wing conservative--I once had him for a prof, by the way) in which he castigated the major TV networks for putting sexual innuendos in virtually every TV show, including some that had previously been "family friendly." And this was in the early years of the decade--it got much, much worse. I don't want to seem like a prude, since I certainly haven't lived like one. But come on, people--there are actually other aspects of life than this one!

Another problem with Nineties sex culture was its obsession with overdoing it. It wasn't just sex, but the most perverse forms of sex that were popular. My sister and brother-in-law were obsessive swingers, straight out of Jerry Springer. I'm sorry, but I don't find Jack and Jill Doe dressing up as Hitler and Stalin and flatulating in each other's faces to be sex, let alone sexy.

A final problem was the underlying nastiness of Nineties sex. "Blue state" liberals often saw sex not as a normal human urge, but as the proof of their cultural superiority to all those idiot rednecks. "Those morons in Idaho--look at them. Snicker, snicker! They have a lot of guns--guess they're trying to make up for something! Snicker snicker! Let's send out the ATF to shoot Vicki Weaver, just for having such poor taste! And call Larry Flint about the orgy next weekend."

OK, so that was a cheap shot. :smile:

On 2002-06-21 14:14, Jenny Genser wrote:

"Fat" people became "Oversized" and "short" people became "vertically challenged". Hillary Clinton and her ilk were the type pushing this thing, and Bill went along with it (for whatever reason. pick the one you like best).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-21 08:10 ]</font>

In my office, the term "vertically challenged" was used as a joke back in 1990 because there were so many short people in my office (my Division Director is 5 foot 6 and a lot of hires around 1989 and 1990 were under 5 foot 5. Our Under Secretary back in 1990 was 5 foot 1 Catherine Bertini. The joke was that if you wanted a job with the Food and Nutrition Service, you had to be shorter than Catherine Bertini.

I am 5 foot 2 so I am legitimately "vertically challenged" (short). Its a term I've thrown around a lot as a joke. Sometimes I've used it or heard it used as a humorous euphemism for a child. I've never heard it as a serious term for run-of-the-mill normal short people.

However, I can't speak for the preferred term for those whose shortness is not "normal", such as dwarves and normally-proportioned but extremely short people. I think they prefer the term "little people", which is also a term for small children.

Is 5'4 3/4" "vertically challenged" or not? I feel like I am more short than tall, even though I know that's really average for a woman.