Women are from Omicron Persei 7. Men are from Omicron Persei 9.

[on:]

Hello Peelers,

I am new to being an active participant of this fandom, despite faithfully watching the the show its first time around (I am a huge X-Phile, so clearly Futurama became a part of my Sunday night, lead-in routine.) and am in need of the expertise of the fans on this site to help my husband and I figure out who is the most correct.

See, over the holidays, my husband and I binge-watched the entire series to review the first run and finally watch the second (When Comedy Central brought it back I was working overseas, then we didn't have cable, and then we got married- so sad to know it could be over...again!). We both fell/re-fell so in love with the show and its characters, so much so that the show has become a frequent topic of conversation when we decide that discussing "adult" matters are boring and unnecessary...or when he is not watching any version of Dragon Ball. However, we had about an hour disagreement the other day, about character development, that I want to pick your brains on.

I believe that many of the characters are dynamic, changing and maturing throughout the show, even if their core is essentially the same. My husband believes that the characters are almost entirely static. He thinks I am reading into things too much, and I think he is only looking at the surface. So what do you all think?

Not that it really matters for us...

Well...

Perhaps a little. If I can't convince him to join my side, I guess there is always divorce.  

[Reply #1 on:]

I'd say characters seem to change as the show itself changes; earlier episodes may focus on one aspect of character and later episodes on other. We also learn more about characters as the show advances.

Changes are mainly characters' relationships and consequence of changes in "Futuramaverse" (like mutants being able to come to surface), so I think characters themselves don't change/mature much.

[Reply #2 on:]

Fry certainly has changed. He's gotten dumber, as the series has worn on. But he's also gotten better at handling his various misfortunes, and become more of an easygoing, charismatic character. Which is pretty natural. Somewhat parallel to this, he's developed a more mature attitude towards romantic partnership and his relationship with Leela has evolved.

Leela became a bit of a bitch, to be frank. Her character also developed flaws that weren't there in the beginning (such as the current addiction in Bender's Game and latent masochism that this implies), and she's generally gone in the opposite direction that one would expect a protagonist to.

Bender has changed dramatically, having begun as a depressed, chainsmoking, alcoholic, robot, and ended up as a chainsmoking, whoremongering, alcoholic, pornography-loving, obsessively co-dependant, narcissistic, manipulative, and yet lovable, robot with deep-seated phsychological issues that go far beyond simple depression.

Most of these changes are an artefact of the natural exploration of the characters over the lifetime of the show, and thus conceivqable could have been part of the expression of that character from the beginning, simply one that was unseen by the viewer.

These characters constitute the core cast, and are the most static, since their relationships and personalities dictate their responses to situations, and that's what drives a portion of the show. But other characters haven't remained as static, and have grown as they've been more fully explored. From one-note jokes like Hermes the obsessively anal bureaucrat, to more fully-fleshed characters like Hermes the obsessively anal bureaucrat with a drug habit and shady elements to his past, as well as a certain ability with the ladies (or at least, a consistent ability to woo LaBarbara away from Barbados Slim).

So you're both equally correct really, which is just another way of saying equally wrong in this context. You're both looking at things from one end of a spectrum which spans extremes, and need to look at the whole picture. In a nutshell, the whole picture is that the characters have remained relatively true to their natures as far as they were established (with one or two minor deviations, such as the depths of Leela's obsession in Mobius Dick), whilst becoming more well-rounded and explored as individuals as time progressed. This has created the effect of change, but as those changes were consistent with the characters as they were established or introduced to us, they have stayed true to their core personalities. They haven't really learned many lasting life lessons, and haven't had emotionally sobering experiences that have altered their outlooks significantly. In that respect, they are still who they began as (for the most part).

Instead of talking about Futurama with your husband, why not simply dress up as Fry and Leela (or Farnsworth and Mom if you're a little older), then have futuristic sex on your more robust pieces of furniture?

[Reply #3 on:]

I'd say Fry's intelligence has always varied depending on what the individual episode calls for, save from maybe season 1 when his stupidity was more realistic and he was a more relatable character. This also applies to most of the main characters - they do develop to some extent on an episode-by-episode basis, but the writers seem more than happy to put that aside for the sake of a specific joke.

Some people also complain that Fry is a lot whinier in the Comedy Central-era episodes, which I don't completely agree with (though there are definitely some moments where it's true)... Fry has certainly matured over the years though, and this was a large contributing factor to the progression of his relationship with Leela. Parasites Lost pretty much laid the seed that Fry could have Leela if he just grew up, and it seems the writers have been slowly gearing towards that ever since.

It is possible, though, that Fry maturing may have been the only conscious development on the writers' part, as most with most comedic character ensemble pieces like this, the way the characters are written will naturally change a little over time, anyway.

[Reply #4 on:]

Fry has become a little more mature, Leela has become a little more laidback. Those are the only two that I can think of as being deliberate instances of character growth, and can be largely attributed to the Freela relationship and their influence on each other.

There are definitely instances of characters becoming Flanderized though. Fry has become noticeably stupider in the new run and Bender has become "cuter" overall. Some of the voices have also really changed. (Hermes in particular sounds dramatically different. Phil has really softened his Jamaican accent.) Some character traits have been dropped in order to play up ones the audience liked more. Fry is currently written mostly as a loveable loser, for example, but he could be an insensitive jerk in earlier seasons. Conversely, we were given a much clearer look at Leela's internal reasoning in earlier seasons. Her motivation was always easy to make out then. Now . . . not so much.

Leela became a bit of a bitch, to be frank. Her character also developed flaws that weren't there in the beginning (such as the current addiction in Bender's Game and latent masochism that this implies), and she's generally gone in the opposite direction that one would expect a protagonist to.

I don't know . . . masochism made sense to me, for her character. She's always had massive insecurities about her appearance and her place in the world, she was brought up in a pretty stark government institution, and she can be very self-punishing. (Look at the way she drags out her relationship with Fry - something which obviously makes her happy - by overthinking it. Or the way she begs someone to teach her a lesson for taking advantage of the Humplings in Yo Leela Leela. And her relationships with Adlai and Alcazar can only be described as abusive, but she stays in them both far longer than she should.) It didn't seem so out of left-field to me.

Instead of talking about Futurama with your husband, why not simply dress up as Fry and Leela (or Farnsworth and Mom if you're a little older), then have futuristic sex on your more robust pieces of furniture?

I'm curious as to what this entails. Perhaps tnuk would be so kind as to elaborate for those of us who haven't pushed this final frontier. Does one do it hovering? Or do both partners plug their naughty bits into an Apple-branded product and go at it in HD?

[Reply #5 on:]

You do it whilst wrapped in tinfoil, with coathanger antennas, and making "beep, boop" noises.

[Reply #6 on:]

I think all of you bring up interesting points, and I know in the end either of us could be "correct" or "incorrect" because at the end of the day, every person brings a different set of variables to the table of interpretation. (It just was fun to debate. Really puts a girl in the mood, you know?)

For example, I completely cringed at and disagreed with the "bitch" comment because I am a woman, who is in a guy dominated career, and I have possibly reacted less than favorably in certain situations not because I am a "bitch" (I feel I am generally amiable and easy person to work with.), but because of harassment or my own insecurities making me feel like I need to overcompensate. Which I suppose can come off as bitchy at times, but as any 14 year old girl will tell you, there is difference between being "bitchy" and a "bitch."

So yeah, I never have felt like Leela is a bitch. I think she's actually an incredibly believable, respectable, female character, given her background and circumstances, and, depending on the day, she's my favorite character (Shocking to many, I am sure.). Hence why I have already started to put together  my Leela costume for sexy time with my Fry.

You do it whilst wrapped in tinfoil, with coathanger antennas, and making "beep, boop" noises.

However, this seems like a way cheaper and maybe even kinkier alternative that we should have a go with, so thanks for the idea.

Anyway, I feel like I have way digressed and gotten on some stupid soapbox. Sorry, guys. Thanks for your insights! Can't wait to explore more of the boards.

[Reply #7 on:]

For example, I completely cringed at and disagreed with the "bitch" comment because I am a woman, who is in a guy dominated career, and I have possibly reacted less than favorably in certain situations not because I am a "bitch" (I feel I am generally amiable and easy person to work with.), but because of harassment or my own insecurities making me feel like I need to overcompensate. Which I suppose can come off as bitchy at times, but as any 14 year old girl will tell you, there is difference between being "bitchy" and a "bitch."

There's a world of difference between being a strong, independant woman in a male-dominated environment (which is something that Leela has always been), and treating your friends cruelly and without regard to their feelings (which is something that Leela seems predisposed to do in the CC run, particularly 6B onwards).

The issue I take with Leela's characterisation in the CC run is not that she attempts to compensate for the various nonsenses perpetrated upon her by the denizens of the universe in which she lives (I don't consider becoming a Feminista to be "being a bitch", for example, as much as they tend towards being an unsympathetic and potentially damaging stereotype of feminists). It's her treatment of Fry - the more that they're shown to actually be in a relationship, the more harsh and uncaring it seems her treatment of him gets (and he's actually maturing somewhat at the same time, which would seem to merit at least a little more reciprocation of the obvious adoration that he has for her).

I think she's actually an incredibly believable, respectable, female character, given her background and circumstances

I can agree 100% with this, and yet still think that she treats Fry poorly over the course of the revived series (not so much in seasons 1-4. But it starts during the movies, I think, and gets worse from then on). Chalk it up to me expressing myself poorly when the only way that I seem to be able to describe her behaviour in that respect is "being a bitch", or chalk it up to the systemic repressory attitude displayed by societally accepted choices of language. But it's not meant to be simply a misogynistic put-down from an ignorant and uncaring member of the embedded patriarchy, or to imply that I don't see the character as a positive portrayal of a strong and independant, well-rounded, and believable woman.

As much as I'm sympathetic towards Leela though, the CC run showed that whilst she can care for Nibbler with something like total blind devotion, she's capable of being pretty horrible to her boyfriend. Often for the purposes of a joke, it's true (her not visiting him when hospitalised in L&O springs to mind here), but I feel that in these instances it would have been better to have her at least not participate in such "the universe hates Fry!" moments, and if not to prop him up a little, to do nothing.

It's really a failure on the part of the writers, rather than an intrinsic flaw on behalf of the character, but the characterisation that she's given by this flaw resonates as slightly unpleasant in this respect.

I have already started to put together  my Leela costume for sexy time with my Fry.

You do it whilst wrapped in tinfoil, with coathanger antennas, and making "beep, boop" noises.

However, this seems like a way cheaper and maybe even kinkier alternative that we should have a go with, so thanks for the idea.

You could also dress up as an Eloi and a Morlock (that actually sounds like it could be really kinky if you're into light bondage or a little S&M), build a spaceship out of cardboard boxes and duct tape to have sex in, or even attempt to build an actual rocket which will take you into a zero-gravity environment where you can attempt to be the first two people officially recorded as having had sex.

Finally, I'd probably be remiss if I didn't point out that a little green body paint and the right t-shirt would be perfect for having a "Kirk and Orion Slave Girl" night in. Hm. That one could also be kinky, if you get one of these (don't click that link whilst at work), one of these, and something like this (probably best not to click that one whilst at work, either).

Interestingly, Amazon noticed what I was looking for, and started offering various sex toys as suggestions. In and amongst those recommendations, were this machete, this pet leash, and fifty feet of rope. They all seem like items that Leela would have in her inventory, and you could probably think of a few ways to be pretty kinky with them (even if it's not very "futuristic").

masochism made sense to me, for her character

I've thought a little about this, and I concede that it makes a certain amount of sense, and actually mitigates to a certain extent one of the issues I had with Mobius Dick's treatment of her character as hyper-obsessive. Overthinking, self-punishing, and competitive behaviours are present in a lot of Leela's characterisation and it makes the jump to that level of obsession somewhat more believable. Thanks, SSI.

[Reply #8 on:]

Finally, I'd probably be remiss if I didn't point out that a little green body paint and the right t-shirt would be perfect for having a "Kirk and Orion Slave Girl" night in.

Make it a pink t-shirt and they could do an 'Amy & Kif' night.

[Reply #9 on:]

Could Leela's self-punishing side and being so hard on herself for messing up or even just showing emotion, (As in Leela's Homeworld, where she apologizes to Fry for having " seen that,") be because of her childhood? We don't really see a lot of her past in the orphanarium, but based on the line from Leela's Homeworld, (" You're worthless and no one will ever love you,) they might have really been hard on her. Maybe insecurity could also contribute to her self-punishing trait. Possibly, dare I say it, paranoia that people will think less of her if she ever screws up.

[Reply #10 on:]

No doubt that's at least a part of it, yeah.

[Reply #11 on:]

The issue I take with Leela's characterisation in the CC run is not that she attempts to compensate for the various nonsenses perpetrated upon her by the denizens of the universe in which she lives (I don't consider becoming a Feminista to be "being a bitch", for example, as much as they tend towards being an unsympathetic and potentially damaging stereotype of feminists). It's her treatment of Fry - the more that they're shown to actually be in a relationship, the more harsh and uncaring it seems her treatment of him gets (and he's actually maturing somewhat at the same time, which would seem to merit at least a little more reciprocation of the obvious adoration that he has for her).

I can agree 100% with this, and yet still think that she treats Fry poorly over the course of the revived series (not so much in seasons 1-4. But it starts during the movies, I think, and gets worse from then on). Chalk it up to me expressing myself poorly when the only way that I seem to be able to describe her behaviour in that respect is "being a bitch", or chalk it up to the systemic repressory attitude displayed by societally accepted choices of language. But it's not meant to be simply a misogynistic put-down from an ignorant and uncaring member of the embedded patriarchy, or to imply that I don't see the character as a positive portrayal of a strong and independant, well-rounded, and believable woman.

As much as I'm sympathetic towards Leela though, the CC run showed that whilst she can care for Nibbler with something like total blind devotion, she's capable of being pretty horrible to her boyfriend. Often for the purposes of a joke, it's true (her not visiting him when hospitalised in L&O springs to mind here), but I feel that in these instances it would have been better to have her at least not participate in such "the universe hates Fry!" moments, and if not to prop him up a little, to do nothing.

What?! That's not how a woman should treat a man who clearly cares about her?! Crap. I feel so led astray by media. Who would have thought?

Anyway, I have only watched the CC run once through -with the exception of a few episodes that I really enjoyed- so, to be fair, I can't entirely say much for her character in regards to those episodes. This is a great excuse to sit down, rewatch, and further dissect them. I am sure there are plenty of incidents of Leela being irrationally unpleasant.

I am not sure "irrationally unpleasant" is a better and equally suited phrase than "bitch," but I guess that's the best way I could describe one without using the word. However, you are correct in its societal acceptance (Hell, Bitch Magazine put Leela on their "Pop Pedestal."), and I know you weren't being misogynistic in its use. I was just reacting off my feels from your first post.

Finally, in regards to all the role playing ideas. What will be the most cringe worthy when we tell our child how they were conceived? That's the one I want to do.

Finally, I'd probably be remiss if I didn't point out that a little green body paint and the right t-shirt would be perfect for having a "Kirk and Orion Slave Girl" night in.

Make it a pink t-shirt and they could do an 'Amy & Kif' night.

I would maybe be persuaded to do Kif and Amy Wong, if "Amy Wong" wasn't what we called our dog. I don't need to give her anymore reason to interrupt/sabotage our sexy time. She'll take any mention of her name as an excuse to come sniff our crotches, and we aren't that weird.
 

[Reply #12 on:]

What will be the most cringe worthy when we tell our child how they were conceived? That's the one I want to do.

Conceive your child in front of a mixed and diverse audience of intelligent primates, for their amusement and entertainment, a la Fry and Leela's getaway in F&LBF. Don't forget to make sure that somebody films it and sends you a copy!

This might just be slightly more embarrasing to you and your partner than your child though. He or she will be known at school as "the kid whose parents made that sex tape with the monkeys", and may enjoy minor celebrity status amongst their peers as a result.

Anyway, I have only watched the CC run once through -with the exception of a few episodes that I really enjoyed- so, to be fair, I can't entirely say much for her character in regards to those episodes. This is a great excuse to sit down, rewatch, and further dissect them. I am sure there are plenty of incidents of Leela being irrationally unpleasant.

I am not sure "irrationally unpleasant" is a better and equally suited phrase than "bitch," but I guess that's the best way I could describe one without using the word. However, you are correct in its societal acceptance (Hell, Bitch Magazine put Leela on their "Pop Pedestal."), and I know you weren't being misogynistic in its use. I was just reacting off my feels from your first post.

I wish that there was a gender-neutral version of "bitch" that didn't sound incredibly contrived, since many people assume that the use of it equates to a man not knowing the difference between an irrationally unpleasant woman and a woman who refuses to be defined by the preconceptions of the men around her.

In addition, I wish that there weren't so many people accepting "bitch" as an epithet to embrace as a part of one's personality. If you're self-identifying as "a bitch", you're actually wearing irrational unpleasantness as a badge of feminine pride, which is more damaging to the cause of feminism overall than every single stereotype of "what a woman should be" from the 1950s.

I decided to explain my usage of the word (and I'm reluctant to say "defend it", as I regret not having been able to find a better alternative and feel that it's not really something I can defend in good conscience), since your comment about cringing at it due to identifying somewhat with Leela actually made me feel like I'd been pretty fucking horrible in saying it.

As much as I might not like the way that she's treated Fry in a few of the CC episodes, Leela is still a very positive female character overall and is somebody with whom many people identify strongly. Having considered my comment more carefully, I can understand why some might cringe at it, and I don't think it was entirely the right word. "Less sympathetic" might have been better than "a bitch".

A strong, independant, and intelligent woman, she does have her flaws but so do we all. One of mine, for example, is not choosing the right word all the time and occasionally describing somebody as a bitch based on one action or trait without considering what this might imply given the context of the individual as a whole person.

So whilst my use of the word might not have been intended to be misogynistic, I feel that it nevertheless represents a moment in which I had the opportunity to not be unconsciously misogynistic, and failed.

That's the reason that I expanded on what I'd said, and also the reason that I made note of the fact that it's really a flaw in the way that the character has been handled by the writing staff, rather than an intrinsic fault with Leela herself.

I would maybe be persuaded to do Kif and Amy Wong, if "Amy Wong" wasn't what we called our dog. I don't need to give her anymore reason to interrupt/sabotage our sexy time. She'll take any mention of her name as an excuse to come sniff our crotches, and we aren't that weird.

How about Kif and Zapp? Some green body paint, a couple of velour uniforms with no underwear, a little champagne, a "lovenasium" full of candles, and BAM! You've got everything that you need for what could either be an incredibly tender scene or a full-on domination fantasy, depending on which direction your personal preferences lean toward.

For extra points, do that one in front of a bunch of monkeys.

[Reply #13 on:]

So whilst my use of the word might not have been intended to be misogynistic, I feel that it nevertheless represents a moment in which I had the opportunity to not be unconsciously misogynistic, and failed.

Well...people had no problems with Zapp being called an asshole, Kif a pussy, Fry a moron, etc... . So there is de facto no reason to declare Leela some sacred cow who is beyond being given an equal phrase voicing dislikes regarding her behavioral traits

[Reply #14 on:]

Are you trying to appease KurtPikachu in case he comes back to rant about Leela being singled out again?

[Reply #15 on:]

Hm...I guess those complaints would rather go the direction of Leela being the only one called a bitch, and ignoring those instances where lots of other swearwords were bestowed upon other characters.

[Reply #16 on:]

First off,  I think the title of this thread should be changed to "'Women are from Omicron Persei 7, men are from Omicron Persei 9,' the Mutant Mystique, and Snu-Snu: a Futurama Gender Study."

I wish that there was a gender-neutral version of "bitch" that didn't sound incredibly contrived, since many people assume that the use of it equates to a man not knowing the difference between an irrationally unpleasant woman and a woman who refuses to be defined by the preconceptions of the men around her.

In addition, I wish that there weren't so many people accepting "bitch" as an epithet to embrace as a part of one's personality. If you're self-identifying as "a bitch", you're actually wearing irrational unpleasantness as a badge of feminine pride, which is more damaging to the cause of feminism overall than every single stereotype of "what a woman should be" from the 1950s.

I could not agree with you more, and unfortunately, I, just like many others, have been guilty of its use. Not often, but I have done it, and I definitely don't feel good about it.

I also believe lot of girls/women take on the feeling that we can call each other that, but if a guy says it, it is completely inappropriate. Not the gleaming example of fairness and equality at all, and you are correct, in only further feeds into unflattering female stereotypes.

I decided to explain my usage of the word (and I'm reluctant to say "defend it", as I regret not having been able to find a better alternative and feel that it's not really something I can defend in good conscience), since your comment about cringing at it due to identifying somewhat with Leela actually made me feel like I'd been pretty fucking horrible in saying it.
...
So whilst my use of the word might not have been intended to be misogynistic, I feel that it nevertheless represents a moment in which I had the opportunity to not be unconsciously misogynistic, and failed. frown

Once again, don't feel too bad. I may have cringed, but I didn't feel nearly as offended as I did when an old friend told me I was "funny for a girl."

Thanks, dude.

As Inquisitor pointed out, it definitely goes both ways, and not even in the case of the male characters on the show. I think many women make insensitive remarks and assumptions about men in real life, but are more than willing to call those same men on the carpet when the coin if flipped. This is not me saying that gross gender inequalities don't still exist in certain places/circumstance; however, sometimes I find my gender to be incredibly hypocritical in their quest to equality. Perhaps this is why I don't have a lot of female friends, and therefore, have always been drawn to seemingly lonely (in the sense of girl camaraderie), female characters like Leela.

How about Kif and Zapp? Some green body paint, a couple of velour uniforms with no underwear, a little champagne, a "lovenasium" full of candles, and BAM! You've got everything that you need for what could either be an incredibly tender scene or a full-on domination fantasy, depending on which direction your personal preferences lean toward.

For extra points, do that one in front of a bunch of monkeys.

This is the best idea yet. If my husband tries to fight me for Zapp though, I might have to consider divorce. I love doing terrible Brannigan impressions.

[Reply #17 on:]

How about Kif and Zapp? Some green body paint, a couple of velour uniforms with no underwear, a little champagne, a "lovenasium" full of candles, and BAM! You've got everything that you need for what could either be an incredibly tender scene or a full-on domination fantasy, depending on which direction your personal preferences lean toward.

For extra points, do that one in front of a bunch of monkeys.

This is the best idea yet. If my husband tries to fight me for Zapp though, I might have to consider divorce. I love doing terrible Brannigan impressions.

Toss a coin to see who gets to be Zapp this week, and then the other one can be Zapp next week. Just make sure that when it's your turn to be Kif, you utter his trademark exasperated sigh once "Zapp" has achieved climax.

[Reply #18 on:]

Toss a coin to see who gets to be Zapp this week, and then the other one can be Zapp next week. Just make sure that when it's your turn to be Kif, you utter his trademark exasperated sigh once "Zapp" has achieved climax.

I am rigging the coin so I am Zapp every week. Besides, he's way better at the sigh, and he kind of has an alien shaped head.

[Reply #19 on:]

Oh my, this escalated.

Yes, I agree on the "bitch" points. It is often (and overwhelmingly) used as a lazy, misogynistic way to "critique" female characters without bothering to examine their motivations at all. Sansa Stark and Skyler White are two characters who fall victim to this big time. Most of the hate seems to come from the fact that they have genuine human emotions (Sansa has the audacity to cry when one misery after another is heaped on her head, Skyler is briefly seduced by the prospect of financial freedom) or because they spoil the fun for favored male characters (Sansa cannot love Tyrion, or trust him after his family destroyed her life, while Skyler calls Walt out on his lies and the excesses of his ego).

I agree with tnuk that Leela is quite often written, especially in later seasons, as a "bitch", supposedly for comedy purposes. And I feel it's unnecessary, as I would prefer not to trade established character traits for cheap laughs. Futurama is usually better than that.

First off,  I think the title of this thread should be changed to "'Women are from Omicron Persei 7, men are from Omicron Persei 9,' the Mutant Mystique, and Snu-Snu: a Futurama Gender Study."

This pleases me.

I wish that there was a gender-neutral version of "bitch" that didn't sound incredibly contrived, since many people assume that the use of it equates to a man not knowing the difference between an irrationally unpleasant woman and a woman who refuses to be defined by the preconceptions of the men around her.

In addition, I wish that there weren't so many people accepting "bitch" as an epithet to embrace as a part of one's personality. If you're self-identifying as "a bitch", you're actually wearing irrational unpleasantness as a badge of feminine pride, which is more damaging to the cause of feminism overall than every single stereotype of "what a woman should be" from the 1950s.

I don't think reclaiming the word "bitch" is damaging to feminism, because women who use it aren't self-identifying as irrationally unpleasant. What they're actually doing is pushing back against the people (usually men, let's be honest) who view them as irrational or unpleasant for unfounded, misogynistic reasons. A woman who won't be silenced gets called a bitch, a woman who forces someone to address their own privileged worldview gets called a bitch, a woman who puts her own happiness above society's idea of what she should be gets called . . . yup . . . a bitch. From that perspective, being happy to call oneself a bitch isn't regressive or counter-progressive. It's a badge of honor. A way of saying, I suppose, that you fought these battles, you stood up and got called a bitch, but it didn't hurt you - that a word meant to belittle you has no power to silence you now. That's extremely powerful.

Well...people had no problems with Zapp being called an asshole, Kif a pussy, Fry a moron, etc... . So there is de facto no reason to declare Leela some sacred cow who is beyond being given an equal phrase voicing dislikes regarding her behavioral traits

I think the problem here is that Zapp has always been depicted as an asshole. That's been his character from day one. It's not as if he was ever a more rounded, human character who suddenly began slipping into reductive sexist tropes.

Fry has definitely been Flanderized but was always sold to us as a dunce, so I don't see that insult as being massively out of order either.

Kif being called a pussy I do actually take issue with. Kif started off as shy and exasperated, but became increasingly feminine (again, for "comedy" reasons) as the series went on. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't. Watch 'Where The Buggalo Roam' right after 'A Flight To Remember' and you'll see what I mean - there's major retconning of both his and the Wongs' characters. Eventually it takes over his character completely and he becomes so submissive you don't really see how he made it to Lieutenant in the first place. We also rarely see him as cowardly, not until the later run. He can be effeminate and overly eager to please, but he doesn't run from a fight, so calling him a "pussy" is basically saying he's feminine, and being feminine is bad. Which makes it a sexist insult right on par with "bitch".

How about Kif and Zapp? Some green body paint, a couple of velour uniforms with no underwear, a little champagne, a "lovenasium" full of candles, and BAM! You've got everything that you need for what could either be an incredibly tender scene or a full-on domination fantasy, depending on which direction your personal preferences lean toward.

For extra points, do that one in front of a bunch of monkeys.

This is the best idea yet. If my husband tries to fight me for Zapp though, I might have to consider divorce. I love doing terrible Brannigan impressions.

Toss a coin to see who gets to be Zapp this week, and then the other one can be Zapp next week. Just make sure that when it's your turn to be Kif, you utter his trademark exasperated sigh once "Zapp" has achieved climax.

Why not both be Zapp? (You know this would be Brannigan's biggest fantasy.)

You could re-enact your wedding vows in full DOOP regalia, and then food-play with ice-cream cake. A night of passion you'll never forget.

[Reply #20 on:]

I am glad you are pleased, Sophisticated Shut In. To the best of my sad abilities, I have changed the thread name in your honor.

As for dressing up as Zapp and Kif, I was shot down by my husband. Leela was also shot down. He said Amy is fine though, but then there goes the dog again.

Finally, I think you have swayed my opinions on the word "bitch." I feel the need to listen to some Meredith Brooks now.

[Reply #21 on:]

I think you should surprise your husband with a pink sweatsuit and a wig one night. After all, he never said you had to be Amy.

[Reply #22 on:]

Oh my, this escalated.

I wish that there was a gender-neutral version of "bitch" that didn't sound incredibly contrived, since many people assume that the use of it equates to a man not knowing the difference between an irrationally unpleasant woman and a woman who refuses to be defined by the preconceptions of the men around her.

In addition, I wish that there weren't so many people accepting "bitch" as an epithet to embrace as a part of one's personality. If you're self-identifying as "a bitch", you're actually wearing irrational unpleasantness as a badge of feminine pride, which is more damaging to the cause of feminism overall than every single stereotype of "what a woman should be" from the 1950s.

I don't think reclaiming the word "bitch" is damaging to feminism, because women who use it aren't self-identifying as irrationally unpleasant. What they're actually doing is pushing back against the people (usually men, let's be honest) who view them as irrational or unpleasant for unfounded, misogynistic reasons. A woman who won't be silenced gets called a bitch, a woman who forces someone to address their own privileged worldview gets called a bitch, a woman who puts her own happiness above society's idea of what she should be gets called . . . yup . . . a bitch. From that perspective, being happy to call oneself a bitch isn't regressive or counter-progressive. It's a badge of honor. A way of saying, I suppose, that you fought these battles, you stood up and got called a bitch, but it didn't hurt you - that a word meant to belittle you has no power to silence you now. That's extremely powerful.

Firstly, the quote regarding the word bitch was not originally posted by Luna, but by me. You appear to have quoted her quoting me though. so I can see where the mix-up occurred. With that minor nitpick out of the way...

...secondly, I'm not sure if you quite got what I was trying to say, so I'm going to build on what we've both said and have another go. I mean, I see exactly where you're coming from (and can agree to a certain extent), but I do think that there's another factor here that potentially outweighs the positive impact of the sort of reclamation that you're describing.

I think that it's damaging precisely because the women you have described are not "bitches", and their self-identification as such in order to blunt the power of the word as an insult does nothing to change the mindset of those who have unfairly and misogynistically labelled them so. In describing herself as "a bitch", a woman who has refused to be silenced, or has forced somebody to address their own worldview has effectively said "yes, you're right" to the misogynistic man who has mentally labelled her "a bitch".

In addition, there are plenty of women who use the idea of "empowerment" as an excuse to actually be unpleasant without thinking about the consequences or their impact on others (and yes, I'm thinking of a specific type of undereducated person that seems to proliferate around my area and is outbreeding the less awful variety of person). That's also reinforcing what "bitch" means to men who are unable to separate the word from the person using it and the context in which they are doing so (as well as analysing the situation to see whether that context is misplaced or not). I frequently see and hear the word "bitch" used in this way, and have heard women encouraging each other to "be a bitch" in this sense.

This damages the message that the legitimate reclamation of the word has, and helps to ensure that it will always retain negative connotations rather than be seen as a positive example of empowerment. It's possible to be self-empowered without being unpleasant, but the use of the word "bitch" is societally poisoned and does not reflect this. That's why I don't see it as a positive thing, and feel that it isn't a particularly good idea to wear it as a badge of honour. It's because it's so easily corrupted to serve either viewpoint - all it takes is one prominent actual bitch self-identifying as such in the name of empowerment to make it seem as though all women who actually embrace the term in order to combat inherent gender prejudices in society are simply unpleasant harridans.

In my view, a strong and empowered woman is not a bitch, and by embracing the term in order to further her empowerment, she is inadvertently sending the wrong message. Similarly, an unpleasant woman who is happy to be described as a bitch and sees this as merely reinforcing her own personal empowerment without ever realising that she is being called a bitch not for being strong or empowered but because she is actually just unpleasant is incredibly damaging to actual feminine empowerment. Which is rather unfortunate, because there seem to be a lot of the latter around to taint the image of the former.

It's only in the last three years or so that I've really thought about any of this - for a long time, I was quite blind to the privilege that I have as a straight white male in a world dominated by straight white males. Now that I am aware of it, many of the things that reinforce the domination of straight white males over society are not only painfully obvious, but cause me to be ashamed as a straight white male who has played his part in unconsciously perpetuating discrimination of one form or another within society.

This is why I cringe inwardly when I see hear a woman who is obviously not a bitch identifying herself as one.

As always, your mileage may vary. If you still disagree with what I was trying to say, that's fine. But I feel better now that I've further explained myself.

As far as Skyler White goes, I think that she's normally labelled a bitch because she's not fully on Walter's side, and Breaking Bad does a great job of making him a sympathetic villain protagonist right up until the point when the audience realise he's no longer in need of the money but is continuing to be Heisenberg because he enjoys it. She's certainly a complex character (and rewatching the series has given me a new appreciation for her. I'm still not an enormous Skyler fan, but I can sympathise a lot more with her now than I could the first time through), and doesn't really deserve to be reduced to a single-word description.

But the audience doesn't really know this, or truly get what she's going through, until in many cases they've already made up their minds. I know that I initially made up my mind early on that I didn't like her. It wasn't any single moment that swayed me, but an accumulation of things from the first two episodes (in which she's made to seem somewhat controlling, somewhat self-involved, and somewhat indifferent to her husband's needs and desires, as well as the type of person who doesn't see anything wrong with "veggie bacon"). By the time it's clear that Skyler is horrified by what she sees in Walt, rather than simply out to be difficult, she's already established for many people as simply "a bitch".

Sansa Stark, I've never thought of as a bitch. Since she watched her father beheaded, she's undergone a little growth (I should probably mention that as somebody who is up to date on the books, I'm talking about further on in the timeline than the TV series has reached). But from early on in the first book she was established as a silly, stupid, sheltered, girl. She's given various unsympathetic traits. Useful to the Seven Kingdoms only as breeding stock, and without a personality to call her own (as women were viewed in Tudor England, which is the period that served as one of the series' initial inspirations), she doesn't see that Joffrey is a prize turd, she betrays her sister, she betrays her father, she's completely blind to her own position and that of her family, and she's too weak and frightened to even attempt to do anything about it once she's realised the dangers that she's ensnared herself in.

So whilst I've never seen her as a bitch, I've always seen her as a perennial victim who lacks the strength to be anything else, and therefore as somewhat deserving of some kind of shocking event that would shake her out of her passivity and give her the drive to become more proactive and take a hand in shaping her own destiny rather than simply being a spectator to her own life. You'd have maybe thought that her father's execution would have served as that event, but we don't even see the first glimmerings of this until much later on (and she's still not there yet, but at least she's on her way).

It is a very lazy way to sum up either of these characters to simply call them bitches. Both of them are complex, and deserving of a far more detailed analysis. Neither of them really fit the word when examined in detail.

This is yet another reason that I wish there were a non-perjorative and gender-unbiased word or phrase that could be substituted for "bitch" without sounding incredibly contrived or without being a blatantly obvious substitution for it. I mean, there probably is such a word, but I really can't think of it. 

[Reply #23 on:]

I used to use the word prick in those cases, irrespective of my target's gender.  Some women used to get rather upset with me for it, though.  Now I just use asshole,

[Reply #24 on:]

Oh no, I realized that was you tnuk. PEEL is just messing with me.

Reclaiming a slur is always difficult, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be done, or that to do so risks setting one's cause back, so to speak. I think it just means that as ever, there are parameters of acceptable use. Sometimes it's only okay if you belong to the persecuted group, sometimes it's about your intent. Most people can tell the difference instinctively. Most white people, for example, know it's never okay to use the word "n*gga". Those who do use it are generally considered pretty ignorant. Just look at Madonna for a recent example. I don't know anyone who thought she had a legitimate excuse to use it, or who understood her apparent confusion and comments about "haters" afterwards. It's just accepted as a word white people don't get to use, with good reason. When a history of discrimination exists, it doesn't matter how nice you are as an individual - you don't get to use the word. End of. Black people reclaiming the word use it in their own community, but it's not unanimous and different people have different feelings about it. If you don't belong in that community it's best to butt out, in my opinion.

There are obviously some cases where the word is reclaimed to such an extent that it is totally transformed and does become acceptable to use, even by an outsider. "Queer" would be a good example. You can talk about queer rights, queer characters, and the queer community, and it's acknowledged as simply a descriptive term. In the mouth of a homophobe, however, it's a slur. Intent dictates perception.

In addition, there are plenty of women who use the idea of "empowerment" as an excuse to actually be unpleasant without thinking about the consequences or their impact on others (and yes, I'm thinking of a specific type of undereducated person that seems to proliferate around my area and is outbreeding the less awful variety of person). That's also reinforcing what "bitch" means to men who are unable to separate the word from the person using it and the context in which they are doing so (as well as analysing the situation to see whether that context is misplaced or not). I frequently see and hear the word "bitch" used in this way, and have heard women encouraging each other to "be a bitch" in this sense

 

You don't say if this kind of thing is something you overhear women saying or something women you know well have said, but this sounds like it's actually reclamation of another sort. Women are placed under enormous societal pressure to be "nice" - to be quiet, modest, unassuming. To let men down nicely even when their advances are unwarranted, not to make demands, not to push too hard in a career or a relationship, because what is lauded as bravery and ambition in a man becomes one of a thousand unflattering stereotypes when found in a woman. It can be liberating to put that aside and be as blunt as a man would be sometimes. Bear in mind that a woman's life is often filled with incidents like the following :

Man: Want to dance?
Woman: No, thanks.
Man: Bitch. I was trying to be nice.

The woman above is not obligated to find the man attractive. She's not obligated to dance with him, nor does she have to offer him some excuse to soothe his ego, eg; "I have a boyfriend" (I belong to another man, respect him), "I'm gay" (I don't like any men, it's not just you), "I'm on a girls' night out" (you'll just ignore this won't you) or "Maybe later" (now you'll harangue me all night). As you can see, the excuses often don't work, and even a polite rejection prompts an aggressive response. Faced with a lifetime of this schtick, a woman often winds up feeling she can't win. Faced with the above situation, she can either feel hurt, or she can turn around and say "Yeah, I'm a bitch. Now fuck off." Watching a friend quietly take this shit can certainly lead to telling her to be more of a bitch - in this case meaning "worry less about hurting men's feelings and put yours first for once, even if it means being harsh".

I'm not saying women can't be cruel. Of course they can, the same as men can. But in my experience, when a woman encourages another to be a bitch, it is almost always for her own good, and with this context in mind.

This damages the message that the legitimate reclamation of the word has, and helps to ensure that it will always retain negative connotations rather than be seen as a positive example of empowerment. It's possible to be self-empowered without being unpleasant, but the use of the word "bitch" is societally poisoned and does not reflect this. That's why I don't see it as a positive thing, and feel that it isn't a particularly good idea to wear it as a badge of honour. It's because it's so easily corrupted to serve either viewpoint - all it takes is one prominent actual bitch self-identifying as such in the name of empowerment to make it seem as though all women who actually embrace the term in order to combat inherent gender prejudices in society are simply unpleasant harridans.

I don't know. To me it depends on the context and the person using it - anything can be corrupted to serve an opposing viewpoint, after all. But I think people are generally smart enough to discern context, and anyone who would judge all women by the actions of one they don't particularly like probably isn't going to be swayed to rational thinking anyway.

It's only in the last three years or so that I've really thought about any of this - for a long time, I was quite blind to the privilege that I have as a straight white male in a world dominated by straight white males. Now that I am aware of it, many of the things that reinforce the domination of straight white males over society are not only painfully obvious, but cause me to be ashamed as a straight white male who has played his part in unconsciously perpetuating discrimination of one form or another within society.

Well, you're doing pretty well and are at least willing to admit you have privilege (which makes you one of about 5% of straight white men) so kudos. I would be wary of telling an oppressed group what will and will not damage their movement though - it comes close to tone policing, and there's almost always an angle you haven't considered, for obvious reasons.

As far as Skyler White goes, I think that she's normally labelled a bitch because she's not fully on Walter's side, and Breaking Bad does a great job of making him a sympathetic villain protagonist right up until the point when the audience realise he's no longer in need of the money but is continuing to be Heisenberg because he enjoys it. She's certainly a complex character (and rewatching the series has given me a new appreciation for her. I'm still not an enormous Skyler fan, but I can sympathise a lot more with her now than I could the first time through), and doesn't really deserve to be reduced to a single-word description.

But the audience doesn't really know this, or truly get what she's going through, until in many cases they've already made up their minds. I know that I initially made up my mind early on that I didn't like her. It wasn't any single moment that swayed me, but an accumulation of things from the first two episodes (in which she's made to seem somewhat controlling, somewhat self-involved, and somewhat indifferent to her husband's needs and desires, as well as the type of person who doesn't see anything wrong with "veggie bacon"). By the time it's clear that Skyler is horrified by what she sees in Walt, rather than simply out to be difficult, she's already established for many people as simply "a bitch".

What I find interesting about Breaking Bad is that the audience often feels completely differently about Skyler when rewatching the series. I think tv viewers are so used to making snap judgements that simplify characters, and so adept at recognizing tropes, that we often simply fill in the blanks and don't really look at what's being given to us. If you look back on Skyler's actions again, and really put yourself in her shoes, you see what a jerk Walt was much earlier. For instance :

• He lies. Continually. To his heavily pregnant wife who is worried sick about him because he's terminally ill and she is facing raising their children alone, and who has also returned to work while heavily pregnant to support them financially - because Walt loses not one but two jobs when his pride leads him to behave inappropriately to his boss. (He insults Bogden and cracks onto Carmen.)
  
  He misses a sonogram of their baby (being in her 40s Skyler would likely be extremely worried about conditions like Down's Syndrome) because he was smoking pot. This is his lie and the truth. He later misses the birth of said child.
  
  Skyler - as one of her "nagging wife" tendencies - repeatedly asks him to paint the baby's nursery like he promised. Walt never does. We later see the heavily-pregnant Skyler up a ladder, doing it herself.
  
  Walt borderline sexually assaults his wife at one stage, and seems deaf to her asking him to stop. She eventually has to get physical and push him off.
  
  He utterly disrespects her request for him to leave. The scene where she calls the cops is just a small-scale version of the video he later makes for Hank and Marie. The seeds of that moment were right there.
  
  He frequently tries to emotionally manipulate Skyler. Just because she's smart enough to see it doesn't mean he isn't doing it. ("I just wonder what Walt Jr will say when we tell him the car has to go back" / "Oh, once again he'll blame his bitch mom for taking away what his loving father has provided")

Sansa Stark, I've never thought of as a bitch. Since she watched her father beheaded, she's undergone a little growth (I should probably mention that as somebody who is up to date on the books, I'm talking about further on in the timeline than the TV series has reached). But from early on in the first book she was established as a silly, stupid, sheltered, girl. She's given various unsympathetic traits. Useful to the Seven Kingdoms only as breeding stock, and without a personality to call her own (as women were viewed in Tudor England, which is the period that served as one of the series' initial inspirations), she doesn't see that Joffrey is a prize turd, she betrays her sister, she betrays her father, she's completely blind to her own position and that of her family, and she's too weak and frightened to even attempt to do anything about it once she's realised the dangers that she's ensnared herself in.

So whilst I've never seen her as a bitch, I've always seen her as a perennial victim who lacks the strength to be anything else, and therefore as somewhat deserving of some kind of shocking event that would shake her out of her passivity and give her the drive to become more proactive and take a hand in shaping her own destiny rather than simply being a spectator to her own life. You'd have maybe thought that her father's execution would have served as that event, but we don't even see the first glimmerings of this until much later on (and she's still not there yet, but at least she's on her way)

Sansa is initially naive and she suffers by comparison to Arya, but the plain fact is that Arya wouldn't last five minutes in Sansa's shoes. She couldn't hold her tongue the way Sansa does. She wouldn't humble her pride enough to get down on her knees in front of Joffrey and Cersei and beg for her father's life. She couldn't handle Joffrey's abuse, she couldn't calm the people when the Red Keep is under siege, and she probably wouldn't befriend someone as traditionally feminine as Margaery Tyrell. (Bear in mind that if the Lannisters hadn't forced her to marry Tyrion, Sansa would actually have married Willas. Her likeability would hence have earned her her freedom.)

Sansa may seem passive, but it's a survival strategy which has kept her alive in King's Landing. Some of the things she thinks about Joffrey wouldn't seem out of place in Arya's head - she can be just as angry as Arya and just as snarky as Jon, in the privacy of her own head. For a sheltered child who grew up on fairytales though, she has proved surprisingly adaptable. She learns to manage Joffrey, learns to hide her true feelings, and plays any role she's given seamlessly, without any Faceless Men to tutor her. Joffrey's betrothed, Tyrion's wife, Alayne Stone . . . she even gains the trust of the horrible Sweetrobin and he's insufferable. And though she is currently dependent on Littlefinger, she is definitely wise to him.

"Littlefinger was no friend of hers. When Joff had her beaten, the Imp defended her, not Littlefinger. When the mob sought to rape her, the Hound carried her to safety, not Littlefinger. When the Lannisters wed her to Tyrion against her will, Ser Garlan the Gallant gave her comfort, not Littlefinger. Littlefinger never lifted so much as his little finger for her. / He was serving her lies as well"

I think Sansa is proactive within considerable confinements and I'm looking forward to seeing her arc progress. I actually find it one of the most intriguing in the series. (My money is on Sansa ending up with Winterfell.)

I used to use the word prick in those cases, irrespective of my target's gender.  Some women used to get rather upset with me for it, though.  Now I just use asshole,

Truly asshole is the way of the enlightened. 

[Reply #25 on:]

It's only in the last three years or so that I've really thought about any of this - for a long time, I was quite blind to the privilege that I have as a straight white male in a world dominated by straight white males. Now that I am aware of it, many of the things that reinforce the domination of straight white males over society are not only painfully obvious, but cause me to be ashamed as a straight white male who has played his part in unconsciously perpetuating discrimination of one form or another within society.

Well, you're doing pretty well and are at least willing to admit you have privilege (which makes you one of about 5% of straight white men) so kudos. I would be wary of telling an oppressed group what will and will not damage their movement though - it comes close to tone policing, and there's almost always an angle you haven't considered, for obvious reasons.

- Women make the majority of college students, yet they are the only group being supported.
- Pay gap? By now, for the same job, same qualification, same working hours, women do get paid more.
- Having drunk sex: Man = Sexual Offender, Woman = Poor victim.
- My male/female coworker gets paid more for the some job as I? Bad luck, my problem. A female coworker gets paid less than me? Discrimination lawsuit.
- Accusation of sexual harassment? Bad luck, it's "In Dubio Contra Reo" in that case.
- My partner beats me in my house, and calls the police. I will get arrested and taken away.

"Does not sound so fair". "Shut up. You got white male privilege"

[Reply #26 on:]

Yeah, that sounds pretty tough, Hein. Maybe you should move to the universe that the rest of us live in so you don't have to live under the boot of the Femnazi Regime in whatever parallel universe it is you're posting from.

[Reply #27 on:]

Jezzem, my dear little friend.
You are really bad at trying to give someone the business.

I remember when I pointed out in SaS that the plot and present writing would have hinted in Marianne acting in a bitchy way. Lots of logical points were given why this is an expected plot flow, and why this lead to a surprising happy end.

Unfortunately, you were unable to counter a single one of those points, but just shouted out "HE JUST SAYS SO BECAUSE HE HATES WOMEN".

Which lines you up with those pityful "Ideology over brain" individuals.
"Any criticism of the Israelian foreign policy is Antisemitism",
"Any criticism of women is sexism"
"Any cristicism of integration policy is racism"
etc, etc, etc...

I always feel so in appropriatelly mentally overdressed when trying to talk to that kind of individuals. Sqawking out those phrases is something even a parrot can be trained to do.

Also, your whole rethrorical shtick is usually being unable to come up with counter arguments. But rather squawking in a primitive way, trying to imply the initial post was primitive to begin with. A trick that old I am shocked someone still tries to use it.

Of course it does not show that the initial post was primitive. It just shows your lack of intellect to understand the post/come up with counter arguments, so you try to pull others on
your level.

So, I suggest you go somewhere where you can constantly squabble "Let XY become of cop", or whatever.  And let people who give serious thought answer to that post, e.g. by finding counter points.(Which would e.g. be in the last case trying to find a government program against domestic violence that actually takes the 40% of female violence into consideration).

So, anyone beyond uttering mere phrases: Feel free to come up with numbers countering any of my examples. But my point remains: There are also injustices affecting the group "White male".

Also, at SSI:
About the inacceptability of "Bitch" and "Pussy".
Futurama considered in AWITM a man being raped/killed acceptable humor, but immediatelly drew a line when someone uttered "Pfff.. a female leader". Now...that was basically a public refusal to be an equal opportunity offender. I do not mind black/violent humor. But "Death By Snu Snu" scenes should rather be written by equal opportunity offenders, who also occasionally dare to add some "Dear Diary...JACKPOT" Quagmire scenes

Also, early Leela often made use of the "It's okay when a woman does it" double standard.
While comlaining that SHE is acutally the one being discriminated against.

Therefore, I consider a female exclusive swearword in the context of Futurama, and ESPECIALLY Leela, fitting.

A more positive case for a strong, female character would be Deunan from "Appleseed".
She just does her job, it's never made a big deal -or given special praise- that she is female, and does not complain about discrimination should things go wrong.

For that character, I would consider "Bitch" inappropriate. But for someone who frequenty used to ride double standards like Leela, a more "heartitly" term seems okay

[Reply #28 on:]

Okay, then.

- Women make the majority of college students, yet they are the only group being supported.

I don't know which country we're talking about here, but where I live (Australia) all the support available to women (scholarships, financial aid, counselling, tutoring, etc.) is available to men as well.

- Pay gap? By now, for the same job, same qualification, same working hours, women do get paid more.
- My male/female coworker gets paid more for the some job as I? Bad luck, my problem. A female coworker gets paid less than me? Discrimination lawsuit.

According to the National Center for Social and Economic Modelling, "if the effects of being female were removed, the average wage of an Australian woman would increase by $1.87 per hour, equating to an additional $65 per week or $3,394 annually, based on a 35 hour week."

That doesn't sound like they're getting paid more to me.

- Having drunk sex: Man = Sexual Offender, Woman = Poor victim.
- Accusation of sexual harassment? Bad luck, it's "In Dubio Contra Reo" in that case.

These are basically the same point: that a woman can claim she was raped by a man and everyone will believe her and the man will be convicted without an further evidence or investigation because women are all evil manipulators who play the victim in order to get what they want.

However, only 2.1% of rape allegations in Victoria between 2000 and 2003 were found to be false, while the cases that were most likely to end with a conviction were cases in which the victim was a male. Bad luck for whoever he was falsely accusing. Oh, wait, a male wouldn't falsely accuse someone!

- My partner beats me in my house, and calls the police. I will get arrested and taken away.

Or you could be a woman and get murdered in your own house because the police will just have you get a restraining order on the partner that beats you that doesn't actually stop him from braking in and stabbing you with a window-shard. Of course, in your case scenario, you're the guy who's had the restraining order taken out on but without the urge to kill, so...

Again, most of this is based on my own country. For all I know you actually do live under an oppressive matriarchy where males are killed by a partner/ex-partner every week and male rape victims are told it's their fault, which I guess is too bad but at least you can empathise with females from my country.

Sure the group "white male" suffers "injustices", but to respond to a post about white male privilege with a list of (mostly inaccurate) reasons why you're apparently worse off in society than women is just plain ridiculous.

To be fair though, the fact that I've gone to the effort of responding to it twice is pretty ridiculous too.

[Reply #29 on:]

After a ten hour day with amped up preteens I lost all will to argue anything.

However, I feel all disputes could be settles over free taco bar and pitcher of margaritas. Who doesn't feel better after Taco Tuesday? Or at least after they barf it up Wednesday morning?

Well, I am off to put on a pink tracksuit and black wig, have some slightly buzzed sex, and fall asleep. Who's with me?!

[Reply #30 on:]

It's only in the last three years or so that I've really thought about any of this - for a long time, I was quite blind to the privilege that I have as a straight white male in a world dominated by straight white males. Now that I am aware of it, many of the things that reinforce the domination of straight white males over society are not only painfully obvious, but cause me to be ashamed as a straight white male who has played his part in unconsciously perpetuating discrimination of one form or another within society.

Well, you're doing pretty well and are at least willing to admit you have privilege (which makes you one of about 5% of straight white men) so kudos. I would be wary of telling an oppressed group what will and will not damage their movement though - it comes close to tone policing, and there's almost always an angle you haven't considered, for obvious reasons.

- Women make the majority of college students, yet they are the only group being supported.
- Pay gap? By now, for the same job, same qualification, same working hours, women do get paid more.
- Having drunk sex: Man = Sexual Offender, Woman = Poor victim.
- My male/female coworker gets paid more for the some job as I? Bad luck, my problem. A female coworker gets paid less than me? Discrimination lawsuit.
- Accusation of sexual harassment? Bad luck, it's "In Dubio Contra Reo" in that case.
- My partner beats me in my house, and calls the police. I will get arrested and taken away.

"Does not sound so fair". "Shut up. You got white male privilege"

. . . . And this would be the other 95%.

"Women make the majority of college students" - in private colleges, the ratio is about 60: 40, but then most all-female colleges are private, which obviously skews the figures somewhat. In public colleges the female: male ratio is 56: 44. That's pretty even.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female-ratio-in-college/

Worldwide, only thirty per cent of girls are even enrolled in school. Less than a third of university students are women, and of the world's 792 million illiterate people? Two thirds are women.

Women are also not the only ones to receive education supports. Supports are awarded to minority students, students with disabilities, and students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and they're awarded for good reason. These groups have traditionally had their access to higher education blocked and need the support. Unless men belong to one of these groups, I don't see the case you're making for more male support. If you want more supports for everyone, you're really talking about free education, which is a whole other debate. I'm in favor though, if that's what you want to do.

Pay gap? By now, for the same job, same qualification, same working hours, women do get paid more

No, they don't. Here's Forbes magazine breaking down last year's figures.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2013/09/19/the-geography-of-the-gender-pay-gap-womens-earnings-by-state/

And do I even need to mention the fact that over 80% of CEOs at the world's top companies are men. It's almost like there's some kind of glass ceiling in operation there . . .

Having drunk sex: Man = Sexual Offender, Woman = Poor victim.

If she's drunk and not in a position to consent, yes. If she's passed out, yes. Look up Steubenville and Maryville. And I don't know what's so implausible about the idea of a  man committing rape while drunk. Statistics show one in three men were intoxicated when they committed the offense, does that somehow let them off the hook? Alcohol doesn't turn ordinary people into rapists. So a rape that occurs while one or both parties are drunk is still a rape.

I think what you're referring to is the imaginary bugbear of the false rape allegation, which is actually a risk so minimal it barely warrants discussion, let alone discussion on the same level as actual rape. Your chances of even being accused of rape are 2.7 million to one. Some perspective: You are 11x more likely to be hit by a comet. You are 631x more likely to become an NFL player. And you are 82,000 times more likely to be raped yourself.

My male/female coworker gets paid more for the some job as I? Bad luck, my problem. A female coworker gets paid less than me? Discrimination lawsuit.

Because co-workers totally do all the hiring, and Joe Shlub in the office is definitely the one who gets slapped with the discrimination suit.  

If you're an employer and you pay a woman less for doing the same job as a man, that is discrimination. If things get to the stage where you're facing legal action over it, chances are you're an asshole employer who has provided said employee with plenty of ammo.

Accusation of sexual harassment? Bad luck, it's "In Dubio Contra Reo" in that case.

60% of sexual assaults will never be reported. 97% of rapists will never spend a day in jail.

Say a hundred rapes happen. 40 get reported to the police. 10 of these lead to an arrest. 8 get prosecuted. 4 are convicted. 3 rapists spend even a day in prison. The other 97 walk free. (Department of Justice statistics compiled between 1999 and 2012. They're easily available if you want to double check that.)

My partner beats me in my house, and calls the police. I will get arrested and taken away.

So the (most likely male) police officers called to your house and decided your partner is too weak, because she's a woman, to have beaten you. I think you'll find that's an instance of patriarchal expectations of men backfiring on other men, not the result of some large scale conspiracy. If only there was a movement that worked to break down such patriarchal standards . . . oh wait, that's feminism. Sorry, what was your point again?

Also worth throwing these out there: 90-95% of domestic violence victims are women. (How many of the remaining 5-10% are kids, and how many are men, I wonder? Given that 40-60% of men who abuse women also abuse children?) Meanwhile domestic violence is the single largest cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 - more than car accidents, cancer, and muggings combined.

Your one hypothetical incident absolutely compares though, Hein.

Futurama considered in AWITM a man being raped/killed acceptable humor, but immediatelly drew a line when someone uttered "Pfff.. a female leader". Now...that was basically a public refusal to be an equal opportunity offender.

Fry and Zapp are both happy to have sex in that scenario. The mind is willing, the body not so much, as Zapp says. And that episode has plenty of jokes about a female-only society, from the implication the women are sex-starved to the crack at their basketball league.

Business is now closed.

(I tip my hat to Jezzem, though.)

[Reply #31 on:]

Women are also not the only ones to receive education supports. Supports are awarded to minority students, students with disabilities, and students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and they're awarded for good reason. These groups have traditionally had their access to higher education blocked and need the support. Unless men belong to one of these groups, I don't see the case you're making for more male support. If you want more supports for everyone, you're really talking about free education, which is a whole other debate. I'm in favor though, if that's what you want to do.

"They had it difficult to get higher education".
Now, to what was that difficulty linked, what proved that difficulty?
Ah yes, a lower percentage of female students.

Okay, than the rule is:
"Lower percentage" means "Disadvantaged group" means "Deserves more support".
Okay, I can let that rule stand.
Yet, for some reason, I am a fairness fanatic.
If that rule is to be introduced, it should apply to ANYONE.

Now, for a certain time, it allowed a special female support.
Now, suddenly the men are the lower percentage.
So, the rule consequence "Deserve special support" should trigger.

Hm...wait? It suddenly no longer counts? Strange.

Futurama considered in AWITM a man being raped/killed acceptable humor, but immediatelly drew a line when someone uttered "Pfff.. a female leader". Now...that was basically a public refusal to be an equal opportunity offender.

Fry and Zapp are both happy to have sex in that scenario. The mind is willing, the body not so much, as Zapp says. And that episode has plenty of jokes about a female-only society, from the implication the women are sex-starved to the crack at their basketball league.

Okay, fair enough. So, you would have also accepted a scene in which a woman gets raped, she gets to enjoy it, and with the "She wanted to, too, and besides, she did provoke me", the case is settled?

Another funny thing is, as you brought up "Actual rape" cases.
Did anyone object to that being a prosecuteable crime?
Did anyone object to other crimes against woman being prosecuted?

Not really.
But you insisted that there are only misdeeds only affect women. So, your whole post reads:
"Crimes/injustices against men do not exist, and therefore do not even have to be taken into consideration".Which sums up as "Women are the only group deserving fair treatment"

Also, your example about the domestic violence is exemplary. A man being arrested for domestic violence accusations is the patriarchy's fault because women are considered weaker? Really? No, it's not the Patriarchy's fault. IT IS THE FAULT OF THE PERSON MAKING THE WRONG ACCUSATION!

(Will answer the rest later).

[Reply #32 on:]

Oh no, I realized that was you tnuk. PEEL is just messing with me.

You have to give PEEL a firm hand, show it who's boss. It's like a cat, really. It'll take any liberties that it thinks it can get away with.

Reclaiming a slur is always difficult, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be done, or that to do so risks setting one's cause back, so to speak. I think it just means that as ever, there are parameters of acceptable use. Sometimes it's only okay if you belong to the persecuted group, sometimes it's about your intent.

I've always disagreed with the idea that a word should be reserved for members of a particular group to use. Either it's okay to use with the right intent by anybody, or nobody can use it regardless of their intent, because it is a bad word that can only do harm.

I lean towards the former. I'm of the opinion that most words do have their place in language (although certain words have such a narrow place that they may as well be discarded save for historical context - "nigger" seems like an appropriate example here, and I'll talk about that in a moment since you brought it up - due to the harm and ill-feeling that they have the potential to engender).

To "reclaim" a slur is to adjust the context and the place that these words occupy in language, and my issue with it is that there are always people who do not recognise the adjusted meaning and see the negative aspects denoted by that word as the definition, regardless of the societal changes that may have rendered these meaningless.

With "bitch", the use of it to indicate that a woman is not a pushover rather than is simply unpleasant remains relatively rare. In most instances, a man will use the word to denote that a woman is unpleasant, and women who are simply unpleasant will simply embrace the label as a potential means to escape the need to develop a more worthwhile or likeable character. For the record, I know a few of these and have known more of them - this is partially what colours my thinking here. In my experience, it is often used to justify selfishness. "I'm a bitch" being intended to convey not that the individual will not back down in the face of discrimination or oppression, but to mean and somehow to justify something more like "fuck you. The world owes me every convenience, and I don't care who suffers for my convenience and amusement."

Men who act in this manner would usually be called "bastard", "arsehole", or something else that doesn't necessarily imply gender. Applying the feminine perjorative is an attempt to disguise unpleasantness as something that is more noble. It generally doesn't work as well at disguising unpleasantness as nobility so much as it does at making the actual virtue of refusing to accept inequality seem like unpleasantness by association.

Most people can tell the difference instinctively. Most white people, for example, know it's never okay to use the word "n*gga"... Black people reclaiming the word use it in their own community, but it's not unanimous and different people have different feelings about it. If you don't belong in that community it's best to butt out, in my opinion.

Most of the black people I know are as uncomfortable using that word as white people. It's accquired a particular charge and carries an implication of both hatred and the mentality that perpetuated racism and racial divides within society for a long time. I don't think that it's a word which will ever be fully reclaimed, meaning that although I think anybody should be able to use it, there is an incredibly narrow range of parameters defining the use of it as acceptable in any given circumstance (and these also vary according to the race of those using it. I think that as a white person, the discussion of the word itself and the acceptability of using it is perhaps the one place where I can do so. Even then, I've used it once so as to define what I'm talking about and don't intend to type it again within this post). Which really means that nobody ought to use it when there's an alternative.

Intent dictates perception.

In the case of "queer", "fag", "gay" and other words previously used as homosexual slurs but now either mutated in meaning or accepted within a particular context, this holds up quite well. With regard to "bitch", I'm still not convinced, since prejudice on the part of the listener will often colour their perception as to the meaning or intent of the speaker.

You don't say if this kind of thing is something you overhear women saying or something women you know well have said...

The latter. I was actually referring to a specific incident, in which a friend was advised by another friend to "be a bitch" in the context of revenge. The whole thing turned out badly.

but this sounds like it's actually reclamation of another sort. Women are placed under enormous societal pressure to be "nice"... ...Faced with a lifetime of this schtick, a woman often winds up feeling she can't win. Faced with the above situation, she can either feel hurt, or she can turn around and say "Yeah, I'm a bitch. Now fuck off."

Yeah, I get that. I can see where it might be appropriate but my complaint is not with such a situation. It's with the situation where somebody can be proud of being "a bitch", when this actually means being unpleasant rather than empowered. If it were only embraced as a label by women taking charge of a situation in which another party's expectations of them are unfair, I wouldn't be saying that it can be a damaging label.

But it's also embraced by people who just want to be unpleasant for the sake of it, or who put the pettiest of their own conveniences above common courtesy. For example, I recently saw an unpleasant young woman shoving her way down the stairs at the train station. She pushed an obviously elderly woman out of her way and was (rather gently, really) reproached by the elderly woman. Upon being told to watch where she was going, she stopped and replied that she was "a bitch" and "proud of it", before continuing to shove people out of her way so that she could get to the station exit faster.

This is what I mean when I say that it can be a damaging label when people are allowed to embrace it and wear it as a badge of honour when it is not in fact a badge earned by honourable actions. In this case, the young woman was simply unpleasant rather than resisting male-driven privilege.

I'm not saying women can't be cruel. Of course they can, the same as men can. But in my experience, when a woman encourages another to be a bitch, it is almost always for her own good, and with this context in mind.

In the example I alluded to with two of my friends, "being a bitch" wasn't to anybody's good. I can accept and agree that pushing against the expectations or demands that society makes of women would be for somebody's own good, and could be described as "being more of a bitch". But the context of my example was one of pure cruelty and unpleasantness. I'm no longer friends with either of them, in part due to the sides of their characters they revealed.

But I think people are generally smart enough to discern context,

You have more faith in humanity and the intelligence of the general population than I.

and anyone who would judge all women by the actions of one they don't particularly like probably isn't going to be swayed to rational thinking anyway.

This is another point I agree with entirely, and unfortunately I know plenty of people who fit that description. Perhaps I've been exposed to a greater variety of unpleasant people in general. God knows, I've encountered more than enough generally unpleasant people during my life to find the ones who are not generally unpleasant an exception and a refreshing change.

Well, you're... ...willing to admit you have privilege (which makes you one of about 5% of straight white men) so kudos. I would be wary of telling an oppressed group what will and will not damage their movement though - it comes close to tone policing, and there's almost always an angle you haven't considered, for obvious reasons.

Yeah, I realise that I'm probably not the person who gets to decide what's considered "damaging to feminism", but I do feel that societal perception of the word "bitch" is poisoned, and this is what I think is potentially damaging to the movement when the word is embraced. Which I don't think I made properly clear. I'm not the best at communicating my meaning on the first pass. At least not without using a lot more words than might be necessary. Such brevity as I've been able to manage so far in this discussion comes at the expense of clarity.  

What I find interesting about Breaking Bad is that the audience often feels completely differently about Skyler when rewatching the series. I think tv viewers are so used to making snap judgements that simplify characters, and so adept at recognizing tropes, that we often simply fill in the blanks

That's part of the genius of the series, I think. It's completely different when you watch it again, with the full foreknowledge that Walt is a shamelessly manipulative, selfish, controlling, monster. Rather than viewing Walt as a magnificent bastard triumphing over his circumstances (as he seemed to be when Season One drew to a close), and Skyler as the bitch who insisted on exacerbating his trials, you can see more clearly that Walter has always been a bastard, and that most of his triumphs come over circumstances that he's the engineer of - he brings many of the troubles he faces on himself. As you've pointed out, the driving force for this is his pride.

Only when we see Walt for who he really is can we evaluate Skyler without bias, and become sympathetic to her (really, she's Walt's biggest victim overall. Not only does she suffer more than most, she's also dragged into complicity with him and must shoulder some of the responsibility for what happened to Hank).

Sansa is initially naive and she suffers by comparison to Arya, but the plain fact is that Arya wouldn't last five minutes in Sansa's shoes.

If Sansa had been more like Arya, she'd have been repulsed by Joffrey from the beginning, wouldn't have gone to Cersei to betray Ned, and would probably have gone down the same road in life as Brienne of Tarth. With that said, you make a good point in that Sansa has coped with life following Ned's execution much more ably by being passive than Arya would have by refusing to accept her lot.

Sansa may seem passive, but it's a survival strategy which has kept her alive in King's Landing. Some of the things she thinks about Joffrey wouldn't seem out of place in Arya's head - she can be just as angry as Arya and just as snarky as Jon, in the privacy of her own head. ...[She] learns to hide her true feelings, and plays any role she's given seamlessly, without any Faceless Men to tutor her. Joffrey's betrothed, Tyrion's wife, Alayne Stone . . . she even gains the trust of the horrible Sweetrobin and he's insufferable. And though she is currently dependent on Littlefinger, she is definitely wise to him.

It's taken her time to get to the place where she's begun to craft friendships that will prove useful to her, but I do think that at last she's beginning to show the steel and fire that were in her parents. Even if she's only showing them to the reader, I do have hopes that she'll stop being quite such a meek little thing, and end up taking charge of her own destiny.

If there's anybody in fiction that I'd describe as a real bitch, somebody who is callous and unpleasant and focused entirely on her own ends to the point where the very lives of other people are meaningless, it's the Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam.

Oh my, this escalated.

Boy, did it ever.

I'm not even going to touch the other argument that's developing here right now... maybe later, when I've had the chance to turn a few pieces of it over in my head and see from what positions people are approaching it...

[Reply #33 on:]

Hein, in all seriousness . . . what the fuck are you talking about? You're trolling worse than Unmentionable here.

You made a bunch of unfounded, hypothetical statements about the injustices suffered by straight white dudes, and challenged anyone else to provide the facts and stats that proved you wrong. I've done it. Jezzem has done it. You couldn't challenge either of us on plain fact, so now you're doing . . . well, what it is you're doing I don't know. Your rebuttal is a load of incoherent gobbledegook.

You're a "fairness fanatic" who only sees fairness if you can make it fit yourself.

I provided you with proof women worldwide are at an educational disadvantage. Because their college attendance in America now fractionally outweighs that of their male counterparts, you think we should whisk away all supports. Do you know what a STEM subject is? It stands for science, technology, engineering and math. Women occupy less than a quarter of the jobs in this area. Offering supports and incentives to female students who take up degrees in these subjects makes perfect sense.

You have also yet to provide me with any statistical evidence women receive more support than men in college. I might take you more seriously if I thought you actually knew what you were talking about.

[/quote]Okay, fair enough. So, you would have also accepted a scene in which a woman gets raped, she gets to enjoy it, and with the "She wanted to, too, and besides, she did provoke me", the case is settled?[/quote]

No-one in history has ever enjoyed being raped. Even if you force someone to physically climax, you cannot force them to feel pleased you are raping them. It seems like you don't even know what rape is. Get thee to a dictionary, this is absurd.

[/quote]Another funny thing is, as you brought up "Actual rape" cases.
Did anyone object to that being a prosecuteable crime?
Did anyone object to other crimes against woman being prosecuted?

Not really.[/quote]

That's not a solid "no" I'm seeing. You set up a few hypothetical, exceedingly rare  sample situations, unsupported by any evidence, and tried to use them to prove men are just as oppressed as women, only in different ways! They're not. Get over it.

I used the words "actual rape" because you brought up false rape allegations. (One is a real issue and the other is not. You seemed to need reminding.)

You said that if two people have, I quote "drunk sex", the man is labelled "a sex offender" and the woman "a poor victim". But in order for these roles to be assigned to either party, someone has to come forward and say they were raped. Consenting adults don't wake up after nookie and flip a coin to see who gets to be the victim and who gets to be the rapist. These labels only come into play at all in the presence of a crime. So what's unfair about them?  We have a culture of blaming, shaming, and disbelieving the victims of rape, even though - as I proved to you - the balance of probability is overwhelmingly in favor of the allegation being true.

[/quote]But you insisted that there are only misdeeds only affect women. So, your whole post reads:
"Crimes/injustices against men do not exist, and therefore do not even have to be taken into consideration".Which sums up as "Women are the only group deserving fair treatment"[/quote]

You made a bunch of untrue statements and I disproved them. That's what my post reads as because that, my friend, is what it is.

Let's look at your post, on the other hand. You essentially jumped into a perfectly polite conversation between two other people and provided a list of "ways men are oppressed too". They were bullshit arguments and now you're sulking.

Crimes against straight white men do exist but they are anomalies. You cannot compare them to the systematic oppression experienced for centuries by women, black people, queer people, etc. The fact that you can't even see others discuss this very real discrimination without jumping in to say "BUT STRAIGHT WHITE MEN HAVE FEELINGS TOOO!!11!!" says it all really.

[Reply #34 on:]

Answer to follow...

[Reply #35 on:]

People, people, please...

Let's all have some cake!

[Reply #36 on:]

Leela became a bit of a bitch, to be frank. Her character also developed flaws that weren't there in the beginning (such as the current addiction in Bender's Game and latent masochism that this implies), and she's generally gone in the opposite direction that one would expect a protagonist to.

Damnit tnuk, you have released the Kurt-ken.

[Reply #37 on:]

You know what disappoints me most about what happened to this thread? The fact that in the last fourteenish posts made, nobody has concluded their pointed arguments with Futurama, cosplay sexgestions.  She, he, or shkle, I think we all can agree this is a major problem.

[Reply #38 on:]

You know what disappoints me most about what happened to this thread? The fact that in the last fourteenish posts made, nobody has concluded their pointed arguments with Futurama, cosplay sexgestions.  She, he, or shkle, I think we all can agree this is a major problem.

Okay. You should disguise as an Amazon.
For that, you obviously need to grow to at least 10 feet (okay...let's be generous and go to 9).
Obviously, a requirement that can be fulfilled very easily, so you will not get any more suggestions until this suggestion is met


Of course, to give an hilarous answer to that obviously impossible suggestion, you could stretch yourself via photoshop to that size. Which admittedly will not look THAT spontenous after I gave that counter suggestion. But it still would count for somewhat

[Reply #39 on:]

Alright, now that I have actually had time to sit and properly read this thread on something that isn't phone screen, I feel a little embarrassed about my terribly inappropriate, jocular comments, but sometimes a girl just needs to create a little levity for herself. Appropriateness be damned.

That being said, I do have my own two cents to add. However, I am not even going to attempt anything to the multitude of what the rest of you have done. The idea of weeding out quotes to counter-point, support, or comment on sounds like a tremendously time consuming task, and I have a pile of tests to grade before tomorrow. Also, an actual bitch, our dog Amy Wong, ate more of our living room furniture during the work day, so I have a shit ton of foam and fabric to clean up, but kudos to you all on your astounding efforts, even if our opinions don't quite line up.

Luna lets out a long sigh.

So, first off, Hein, I am going to tell you what I tell my students when they start to squawk, "But so and so got this...or did this...or said this..." or whatever other comparison, bologna sausage they are going to spew out of their not so innocent mouths...

MRS. LASER-CAPTAIN
(feigned seriousness/excitement)
Oh my God! When did you become "so and so?" Please tell me more about how you have managed to body swap with "so and so." There are so many people I would like to try this technique with.

STUDENT
(Clearly confused and/or annoyed.)
What?! No, we didn't switch bodies! It's not fair, Mrs. L.

MRS. LASER-CAPATIN
(Mock sympathy.)
Well, what's fair isn't always right, and what's right isn't always fair.
(Student scowls. Mrs. L makes a sad, yet understanding smile.)
See, now we are both feeling letdown.

Mrs. Laser-Captain then turns and walks away ignoring whatever noises student is making.

Now, I know that line could be taken many ways, and I am sure that there have been many unsavory people who have used it to justify doing dastardly things. However, my point in using it here (and in my classroom) is that, the human race really can't pull off fair AND equal. Though, we do a damn good job confusing the two.

To try and generalize groups of people based on outward appearances, gender, culture, religion, handicaps, and so on, is something we all want to do, but within those groups the individual cases, personalities, and human experiences are so greatly varied, that to reach equality, you can't always conform to one group's perception of "fairness." (This last sentiment will even holds true when you smash the individuals back into their groups because of differences in cultural norms, but I digress.) I mean if you can do that, well done, you are better person than me, but I find it highly improbable.

This sentiment I feel also applies to the whole "bitch" conversation. I have an incredibly close friend who would probably be perceived as being of the "unpleasant bitch" category. She treats her husband and other men, in ways that I definitely don't always agree with and definitely would rub many people the wrong way, but I know why she does it. It's because she grew up in household where her father was abusive to her, her sisters, and her mother, so treating men in a "bitchy" way is almost a subconscious coping mechanism of feeling safe and in control. She finds the idea of me being all nice and buddy-buddy with males bizarre because that wasn't the type of relationship with men she was brought up with. It's not a part of her programming, but I don't think she's a bad person because of it. I am not even sure she could change it if she wanted to. She's just a different person with a different set of circumstances. For her, it was eat or be eaten. And to be fair, the men in her life put up with it because of their own psychological, mommy issues, I am sure.

I bring that anecdote up because, yes, you may be right Hein, this kind of "bitch" might be a suitable for a character like Leela. However, when you look at her past, can you really blame her, and is it necessarily a bad thing? I think it was a very smart and honest portrait of a strong woman, with a lot of baggage. It's accurate. It's truthful. It's also pretty spot on that a guy like Fry -who clearly seemed to be vying for his mother's attention- would go for a girl like that. And once again, at the end of the day, is that a bad thing?
...
I am actually asking that because I don't really know how most of you feel about that.  

So, that all being said -surely with grammatical errors, run-ons, and other no-no's galore- I am off to grade tests before the husband gets home, so I can put on some stilts, tease up my hair, and snu-snu like an Amazon woman should.

Answer to follow...

Hein, I am waiting with bated breath for those "answer to follow..."

I expected answers days ago. It's not like you should have a life or anything!