From: wing@pegasus.com (Wing Ng)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: WEIRD SCIENCE
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:58:28 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

In  <1992Oct6.193943.20254@cmcl2.nyu.edu> <memco@cns.nyu.edu> writes:
> In  private  correspondence,  I've  been assured  that  the  male
> posters to this group are just joking in many of their references
> to women, and their "otherness".
 
No, I am not joking, not entirely.
 
> Then I find this:
>
> In article 23222@pegasus.com, wing@pegasus.com (Wing Ng) writes:
>
> > Maybe she likes you but not love you.  It still is no excuse for
> > her to treat you cruel.  Maybe it is is Chinese cultural trait, or
                     ^^^^^
> > maybe it is a genetic female problem ... .  If she decides to act
> > conceited, mean and insensitive, maybe it is her character flaw.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Emphasis mine.
 
I think I put in those words pretty conspicuously.  Now I find memco
apparently asserting and defending females' God-given right to being
"cruel, conceited, mean and insensitive".
 
I don't know about other people, in my book, being "cruel, conceited,
mean and insensitive" is definitely AT LEAST a character flaw.
 
>         For  those who don't recall,  he is discussing a girl who
> started  ignoring  a near-stranger after he blurted out  that  he
 
Who knows if the story is true or not.  Whether it is fictional,
we can still discuss the character manifested.
 
> loved her.  I had thought that perhaps this woman was put off  by
> having this person she barely knew,  who took a class just to get
> close  to her,  announce that he loved her.  That perhaps she was
 
I think someone posts an analysis that the two knew each other for
4 months already (?).
 
> scared  of  this obsessive behavior (With all  the  male  stalker
> loons out there,  such as that "color wolf ?", women have a right
> to be concerned when near strangers declare undying love. Morgues
> and  hospitals  are filled with women who resisted that  sort  of
> love.).
 
I hope whoever posted the original is not upset by this withering
attack on his character and criminal inclinations :-).
 
Like memco, I went to N.Y.U. too (looong time ago).  If you find
someone approaching you on a dark street in the East Village
professing eternal love, you have probably cause for alarm.  But
I don't think the original poster even lives in New York :-).
 
Like I said before, this fictional or not character is a HK girl
growing up in the '90s.  Did she watch HK TV ?  Doesn't she know
that boys chase girls ?
 
The sky will not fall.
 
>         But  now we know that it is either some intrinsic flaw in
> Chinese  culture  or  women as a whole have  some  great  genetic
> malfunction,  some  mangling  of the DNA (maybe  that  part  that
> causes  that  monthly mess),  that causes them to reject crys  of
> true  love  just because ....  they don't know the  guy  or  they
> aren't   interested   or  they  don't  find  him  attractive   or
> interesting or they're scared of him.
 
I never said a female has to accept ALL amorous proposals from any
male.  Not at all.  Gosh, that would make humans so busy ... .
 
>         Now  that the problems have been identified,  we can  get
> the  greatest  geneticists  and  social  anthropologists   (male,
> obviously) to work rectifiying this intolerable situation. I mean
> if  women are allowed to freely assert who they do or don't  like
> and to reject people for whatever reason they want,  well... they
> might start believing they were equally human or  something.
>
>         AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
 
Of course, whether male / female, they all have right to reject
amorous proposals from anyone male / female, (and permutations :-) ).
 
>         You might not know it, but this was a great effort not to
> turn this into a complete flame.  Despite the overflow of sarcasm
> above,   I   will  keep  trying  to  break  through  this  insane
> preoccupation  of  males on this group that women  are  something
> other.
 
Well, I don't know who is claiming women are "something other".
Seems that memco is saying women, and women only, have the intrinsic
right to act, upon reasons of their own unfounded paranoia, in ways
that are "cruel, conceited, mean and insensitive".
 
>         I knew a guy who never dates high-haired girls (hates the
> look).  I  know  a  women who won't date guys  who  wear  loafers
> (thinks  they're jerks).  People reject people for  whatever  the
> hell reason they want. Nobody in this world has a right to impose
> on somebody elses life. Friendship is a gift. You offer it. It is
> accepted or rejected.  If it is rejected, you don't start jamming
> it in their face screaming "Hey I Bought This For You!".  You get
> on with your life.
 
I don't remember the original story-teller saying that he jammed
ANYTHING in the girl's face.  He said he became sad and depressed
and so forth.  I certainly would defend the right of the unrequited
lover to being sad and depressed, and other people's right to soothe
and comfort him.  And, sure, he should withdraw that gift.
 
Wing
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong