Was Max Wrong

by confuzzled dude Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:34 pm

in calling out on a few posters. The way I see it, he was merely making a case for his earlier posts on violence in Northern India,

I'm in complete disagreement with Merlot's assertion that Max/TBT were playing moral police. I don't think they were trying to impose their rules/values on female posters, this was blown way out of proportion. Max was not trying to do a TS rather inquiring some of the posters (branded him bigot for his posts) opinion on the picture posted.

If someone genuinely believes that Bittu was being candid about his views/feelings on women then same is true with Max. He was/is as candid in expressing his views on North Indian culture or any other topic for that matter. He never tried to hide his feelings/emotions either. I don't always agree with him, like any other poster, he has his own biases but in this instance he has done no wrong.

by ashaNirasha Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:22 pm

No.

TBT did sound a bit like TS.

But the sub text of most of kinnera's posts, where she mentions ignoring Bittu's uncomfortable posts , not taking him seriously, having a light lelo attitide, is that she does find him offensive at times, but chooses to focus on the better aspects of his persona. Which is fair enough.

But I don't know why it's hard to even acknowledge that he is or was offensive to women.

I say that because the Bittu of today is a mere shadow of Bittu of 2003. I don't think VB or MD have seen the worst of him. Female posters routinely got the language that Honey Singh's lyrics alluded to. He tried to intimidate those that were not friendly with him with really crude language.

He has morphed into this likable, domesticated, milder version of himself in the past few years on sulekha, to the point where even JM sounds more obscene than him. I sometimes wonder if parenthood did that to him, made him more patient, tolerant, and cut out the crap- for as much as is possible.

I didn't find that particular chloroform picture offensive because, honestly, that's been around for so long, and one tends to get desensitized. It's like saying 'F u' on an online forum, and the other female posters might have felt the same way.

by confuzzled dude Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:52 pm

ashaNirasha wrote:
But I don't know why it's hard to even acknowledge that he is or was offensive to women.

Right on the money. Instead they came across as very defensive by explaining themselves away; they didn't help themselves with those long winded essays.

ashaNirasha wrote:
I say that because the Bittu of today is a mere shadow of Bittu of 2003. I don't think VB or MD have seen the worst of him. Female posters routinely got the language that Honey Singh's lyrics alluded to. He tried to intimidate those that were not friendly with him with really crude language.

I wasn't around in '03 either but you're right, he mellowed down even by '06 or '07 standards.

ashaNirasha wrote:
He has morphed into this likable, domesticated, milder version of himself in the past few years on sulekha, to the point where even JM sounds more obscene than him.

Couldn't have agreed more.

by Impedimenta Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:04 pm

We SIs are seldom wrong. just saying. how have you been?

by southindian Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:58 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:in calling out on a few posters. The way I see it, he was merely making a case for his earlier posts on violence in Northern India,

I'm in complete disagreement with Merlot's assertion that Max/TBT were playing moral police. I don't think they were trying to impose their rules/values on female posters, this was blown way out of proportion. Max was not trying to do a TS rather inquiring some of the posters (branded him bigot for his posts) opinion on the picture posted.

If someone genuinely believes that Bittu was being candid about his views/feelings on women then same is true with Max. He was/is as candid in expressing his views on North Indian culture or any other topic for that matter. He never tried to hide his feelings/emotions either. I don't always agree with him, like any other poster, he has his own biases but in this instance he has done no wrong.

Hahaha

Max is too focused reading about NorthIndian rapes, while TN is burning. Its disgusting to see child rapes doubling in TN in the last 5 years and women are not safe in small or big TN cities.

If Sexual harassment cases are not reported then doesn't mean southindian women are safe there.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:23 pm

ashaNirasha wrote:
I didn't find that particular chloroform picture offensive because, honestly, that's been around for so long, and one tends to get desensitized. It's like saying 'F u' on an online forum, and the other female posters might have felt the same way.

i had not seen it prior to this thread. i realize what you're saying, and it's sad that one gets inured to such things. it's like the same thing with these item songs in bombay cinema with men pawing at a woman dressed like a moghal harem girl and doing a pelvic thrust sequence. maybe we were shocked a long time ago, but then get desensitized. i was watching gangaajal over the holidays, and it has the pelvic thrusting woman - pawing men sequence. normally, truth be told, my reaction would have been somewhere between mild titillation to a yawn. but in light of recent events it forces you to think doesn't it? does this kind of depiction spawn violence, or is the item song merely a reflection of current societal norms?

by Petrichor Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:40 pm

Media is a perfect reflection of the global society - At some point, I could write an essay but for now, all I have are some keywords:

The Thing (as Vee calls it) Economics - Demand and Supply
Media saturation and soaking in The Thing (movies, TV, songs, radio, online etc.)
Reality of demand for The Thing far outstripping supply
Materialist/Consumerist/Hedonist focus at global scale
Gender Politics - Games people with The Thing play to achieve parity and social status
Male emasculation and impotent fury at The Thing

World.Going.To.Hell.in.a.handbasket!

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:44 pm

atcg wrote:Media is a perfect reflection of the global society - At some point, I could write an essay but for now, all I have are some keywords:

The Thing (as Vee calls it) Economics - Demand and Supply
Media saturation and soaking in The Thing (movies, TV, songs, radio, online etc.)
Reality of demand for The Thing far outstripping supply
Materialist/Consumerist/Hedonist focus at global scale
Gender Politics - Games people with The Thing play to achieve parity and social status
Male emasculation and impotent fury at The Thing

World.Going.To.Hell.in.a.handbasket!

and The Thing having a brain attached to it with a will of its own.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:25 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
ashaNirasha wrote:
I didn't find that particular chloroform picture offensive because, honestly, that's been around for so long, and one tends to get desensitized. It's like saying 'F u' on an online forum, and the other female posters might have felt the same way.

i had not seen it prior to this thread. i realize what you're saying, and it's sad that one gets inured to such things. it's like the same thing with these item songs in bombay cinema with men pawing at a woman dressed like a moghal harem girl and doing a pelvic thrust sequence. maybe we were shocked a long time ago, but then get desensitized. i was watching gangaajal over the holidays, and it has the pelvic thrusting woman - pawing men sequence. normally, truth be told, my reaction would have been somewhere between mild titillation to a yawn. but in light of recent events it forces you to think doesn't it? does this kind of depiction spawn violence, or is the item song merely a reflection of current societal norms?

what is your position on advertising?

------
The agitation is led by the educated youth, which has grown up in an era of the market economy boom. Is it not ironical that this youth is so angry with a government which authored this era?

The vehicle for this economy is advertising. Carefully watch the ads between overs in any primetime cricket match. A girl in a see-through lingerie sits on a commode, which is what the ad is promoting. Virat Kohli, the cricketer, says “main ladki pataane ke do tareeqe janta hoon” (I know two tricks to seduce girls). He is promoting a mobile phone. A young hostess is so violently turned on by the perfume wafting from her elderly guest that she tears his suite off, leaving him in his underwear. A girl in black bras and panties, swoons on a particular condom even as she approaches a man in bed….. and so on.

Should someone not be agitating outside the ad giants and media houses which vend this ware? Is it wrong to assume that a surfeit of this stuff titillates hundreds of thousands cast in the image of the six in that ill fated bus and who must repeatedly be brought into focus as bleak and shoddy villains of history?

http://naqvijournal.blogspot.com/2013/01/nothing-in-recent-history-has-gripped.html

by Petrichor Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:32 pm

Having said that, my first initial reaction to Bittu was one of amusement. Like Colbert I thought Bittu had created a persona, safe and anonymous, to spoof a "dirty" mind - in fact, I thought it was very clever ruse to pretend just like a circus clown to exaggerate that which makes women fear into an object of parody. It was his masterful act of knowing precisely when to jump in the fray and drop an intelligent, humorous, witty and xxx-rated comment that appealed to the audience/fellow chatters. It was definitely interesting to watch the self-selecting categories to which women would retreat in the face of such an obvioues and crude attempt by Bittu to engage them. I used to see it as a form of hazing ritual before the women are admitted into the inner circle of his confidants/friends. Not that that made them safer from such occasional remarks.

This was all a while ago, and the shelf-life of Bittu-esque persona started wearing thin over time. I had a sneaking suspicion that this was a form of self-therapy for Bittu. As someone else commented and I observed, he is definitely mellow these days - I was happy to see that he had other dimensions most notably his photography and culinary skills. I consider myself fairly neutral when it comes to gender fights and I did not see a persistent pattern of his bad behavior towards any specific individual.

Most women we interact with here in such and chat are mature, age-wise and ability to deal with masculine brashness, so it does not look like anyone took serious offense - most of the ones who do, have general philosophical disagreement with Bittu creating a context of discomfort for "proper" women. Given the gratis nature of chat facility and the overall site, I do not see this complaint as very valid. Caveat emptor.

It feels funny to write a lengthy streamofconscious flow re. someone I consider a friend - to the extent the term can be applied to a stranger online. I just felt the need since many vile things have been written about him - like someone said...I may disagree with many things Bittu says but I will defend his right to exist and speak his mind.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
ashaNirasha wrote:
I didn't find that particular chloroform picture offensive because, honestly, that's been around for so long, and one tends to get desensitized. It's like saying 'F u' on an online forum, and the other female posters might have felt the same way.

i had not seen it prior to this thread. i realize what you're saying, and it's sad that one gets inured to such things. it's like the same thing with these item songs in bombay cinema with men pawing at a woman dressed like a moghal harem girl and doing a pelvic thrust sequence. maybe we were shocked a long time ago, but then get desensitized. i was watching gangaajal over the holidays, and it has the pelvic thrusting woman - pawing men sequence. normally, truth be told, my reaction would have been somewhere between mild titillation to a yawn. but in light of recent events it forces you to think doesn't it? does this kind of depiction spawn violence, or is the item song merely a reflection of current societal norms?

what is your position on advertising?

------
The agitation is led by the educated youth, which has grown up in an era of the market economy boom. Is it not ironical that this youth is so angry with a government which authored this era?

The vehicle for this economy is advertising. Carefully watch the ads between overs in any primetime cricket match. A girl in a see-through lingerie sits on a commode, which is what the ad is promoting. Virat Kohli, the cricketer, says “main ladki pataane ke do tareeqe janta hoon” (I know two tricks to seduce girls). He is promoting a mobile phone. A young hostess is so violently turned on by the perfume wafting from her elderly guest that she tears his suite off, leaving him in his underwear. A girl in black bras and panties, swoons on a particular condom even as she approaches a man in bed….. and so on.

Should someone not be agitating outside the ad giants and media houses which vend this ware? Is it wrong to assume that a surfeit of this stuff titillates hundreds of thousands cast in the image of the six in that ill fated bus and who must repeatedly be brought into focus as bleak and shoddy villains of history?

http://naqvijournal.blogspot.com/2013/01/nothing-in-recent-history-has-gripped.html

with respect to your question, the answer in my opinion is 'both'.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:48 pm

it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Rashmun wrote:
what is your position on advertising?

the only kind of pernicious adverts that bother me are the ones directed at children. the simplest solution to that is to turn the box off.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:18 pm

i also find the relative amount of energy and bandwidth devoted to psychoanalyzing an individual versus opining on a particular photograph that spawned the discussion interesting.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:26 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

You can easily show your distaste and keep on showing it. But in that thread with that particular picture, you ended your post with a comment on the women who 'routinely get hot under the collar about some things you say in your posts are better off getting upset about this instead'. That was quickly followed by bw's sarcasm on 'these' women's opinion of bittu.

And that's the reason why I think some posters got on your case, including myself. Me mostly 'coz I wanted you to be more direct regarding 'these' women, instead of insinuating.

Later, you called PN a moron for her opinion, and later hoped that her views are just 'an aberration that could be rectified after some reconsideration'.

Later again, you insisted that you are not asking anyone to curtail their friendship, or change their responses.

And later you defended your rights to show your disgust or blithe at such posters who support bittu or bittu's chloroform/rape posts.

Somewhere in between you attributed all this to 'outbursts of frustration', and you mentioned how it's harder for you take it as a parent [of girls].

Now you have somehow restricted yourself to just saying that it struck you harder more coz of current events in the back of your head. You also reasoned that if you found it disgusting, you have the right to say so without needing anyone's permission to show the disgust.

And you still are trying to convey that fine line, regarding your views on all the posters, to every one here. Somewhere in the process, you are trying to find that fine line yourself, methinks.

by bw Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:51 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

You can easily show your distaste and keep on showing it. But in that thread with that particular picture, you ended your post with a comment on the women who 'routinely get hot under the collar about some things you say in your posts are better off getting upset about this instead'. That was quickly followed by bw's sarcasm on 'these' women's opinion of bittu.

eh? what does my post on "some women" have to do with all this?

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:14 pm

bw wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

You can easily show your distaste and keep on showing it. But in that thread with that particular picture, you ended your post with a comment on the women who 'routinely get hot under the collar about some things you say in your posts are better off getting upset about this instead'. That was quickly followed by bw's sarcasm on 'these' women's opinion of bittu.

eh? what does my post on "some women" have to do with all this?

Am giving the timeline.

Max was talking about getting upset about 'this'. Not sure if he was commenting about the picture, or about Bittu posting the picture or about Bittu wanting to rape women. And you said some women say such 'men' are honest. You were talking about rapists in all probability, but it looked more like you were talking about Bittu. Correct me if I am wrong.

The two comments were next to each other. Most likely you were replying to Damini, not Max, but your post was right after his. The thread was about Bittu's (and DUT's) obscenities and their women supporters to begin with, and whether Max meant it or not, the whole thing got combined when people reacted. And Max is still trying to explain himself, coz he was more vocal through it all and did hint about women too.

phew, this is getting tiring now.

by bw Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:29 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
bw wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

You can easily show your distaste and keep on showing it. But in that thread with that particular picture, you ended your post with a comment on the women who 'routinely get hot under the collar about some things you say in your posts are better off getting upset about this instead'. That was quickly followed by bw's sarcasm on 'these' women's opinion of bittu.

eh? what does my post on "some women" have to do with all this?

Am giving the timeline.

Max was talking about getting upset about 'this'. Not sure if he was commenting about the picture, or about Bittu posting the picture or about Bittu wanting to rape women. And you said some women say such 'men' are honest. You were talking about rapists in all probability, but it looked more like you were talking about Bittu. Correct me if I am wrong.

The two comments were next to each other. Most likely you were replying to Damini, not Max, but your post was right after his. The thread was about Bittu's (and DUT's) obscenities and their women supporters to begin with, and whether Max meant it or not, the whole thing got combined when people reacted. And Max is still trying to explain himself, coz he was more vocal through it all and did hint about women too.

phew, this is getting tiring now.

there have always been women on sulekha who have defended the crude and offensive talk dished out by bittu and other wannabe bittus by stating that all other men also think so but don't say it and that these men are more honest. i find that rather disgusting and dishonest. why not just accept that they simply don't mind the crude/lewd/creepy aspects of these people instead of justifying and defending it.

by the way, this is nothing new and i have pointed this out several times over the years.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:33 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

Ok, here's where the basic misunderstanding is. Nobody is stopping you from getting offended and expressing your disapproval. CH's best discussions take place because someone takes offence at something or the other.

It was your unreasonable expectation that everyone should also get offended and toe your line, juxtaposed with the moronic if-you're-friends-with-Bittu-you're-women's-worst-enemy noise in the background, which was different in this thread. Of course, the background noise is not very different from the if-you-don't-condemn-terrorism-you're-a-terrrorist nonsense that Uppili routinely uses here. All par for the course when it comes from certain posters.

But you, prof, are held to a much higher bar. You hold level-headed positions (on most topics). You're ever logical and never uncivil. Even your prejudices are entertaining. Quite a few have an obvious crush on you. So when you pick on two women for not getting hot under the collar at Bittu's statements or ask Pravalika to reconsider her friendliness with Bittu because you find his statements highly inappropriate, that rankles. It smacks of the same daddy-knows-best attitude that patriarchy is build on. Hence the non-minimalistic, emotion-laden justifications.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:39 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

Ok, here's where the basic misunderstanding is. Nobody is stopping you from getting offended and expressing your disapproval. CH's best discussions take place because someone takes offence at something or the other.

It was your unreasonable expectation that everyone should also get offended and toe your line, juxtaposed with the moronic if-you're-friends-with-Bittu-you're-women's-worst-enemy noise in the background, which was different in this thread. Of course, the background noise is not very different from the if-you-don't-condemn-terrorism-you're-a-terrrorist nonsense that Uppili routinely uses here. All par for the course when it comes from certain posters.

But you, prof, are held to a much higher bar. You hold level-headed positions (on most topics). You're ever logical and never uncivil. Even your prejudices are entertaining. Quite a few have an obvious crush on you. So when you pick on two women for not getting hot under the collar at Bittu's statements or ask Pravalika to reconsider her friendliness with Bittu because you find his statements highly inappropriate, that rankles. It smacks of the same daddy-knows-best attitude that patriarchy is build on. Hence the non-minimalistic, emotion-laden justifications.

The fundamental objection is to women encouraging directly or indirectly the advances of a man who claims he wants to rape them after making them unconscious using chloroform.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:40 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Quite a few have an obvious crush on you.

who who?

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:41 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Quite a few have an obvious crush on you.

who who?

I never tell.

by bw Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:41 pm

current status:

max admires MD.
MD admires max.

they have let each other down.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:47 pm

bw wrote:current status:

max admires MD.
MD admires max.

they have let each other down.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:47 pm

bw wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
bw wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

You can easily show your distaste and keep on showing it. But in that thread with that particular picture, you ended your post with a comment on the women who 'routinely get hot under the collar about some things you say in your posts are better off getting upset about this instead'. That was quickly followed by bw's sarcasm on 'these' women's opinion of bittu.

eh? what does my post on "some women" have to do with all this?

Am giving the timeline.

Max was talking about getting upset about 'this'. Not sure if he was commenting about the picture, or about Bittu posting the picture or about Bittu wanting to rape women. And you said some women say such 'men' are honest. You were talking about rapists in all probability, but it looked more like you were talking about Bittu. Correct me if I am wrong.

The two comments were next to each other. Most likely you were replying to Damini, not Max, but your post was right after his. The thread was about Bittu's (and DUT's) obscenities and their women supporters to begin with, and whether Max meant it or not, the whole thing got combined when people reacted. And Max is still trying to explain himself, coz he was more vocal through it all and did hint about women too.

phew, this is getting tiring now.

there have always been women on sulekha who have defended the crude and offensive talk dished out by bittu and other wannabe bittus by stating that all other men also think so but don't say it and that these men are more honest. i find that rather disgusting and dishonest. why not just accept that they simply don't mind the crude/lewd/creepy aspects of these people instead of justifying and defending it.

by the way, this is nothing new and i have pointed this out several times over the years.

I go one step further. They don't need to publicly accept/deny/justify/defend their anything, if they don't want to. Much can be deduced from two posters' interactions, so one really doesn't need to prompt them to say anything or to take a stand. Specially in matters like these. Half of the CH interactions are tamasha anyway. So enjoy, or ignore.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:51 pm

i could have been more circumspect in my response yesterday to PN. that's about the only thing i'd change, were i to do a do-over. in any case, i wasn't asking her to reconsider her friendship with bittu (or any other woman's), but just the reaction to the photograph.

yes in my mind i had juxtaposed that reaction, or the lack thereof, with the frequent rants about my perceived prejudices. i honestly wasn't doing a TS. if i came across that way, i'd like to correct the record in this post.

by Propagandhi711 Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:54 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

Ok, here's where the basic misunderstanding is. Nobody is stopping you from getting offended and expressing your disapproval. CH's best discussions take place because someone takes offence at something or the other.

It was your unreasonable expectation that everyone should also get offended and toe your line, juxtaposed with the moronic if-you're-friends-with-Bittu-you're-women's-worst-enemy noise in the background, which was different in this thread. Of course, the background noise is not very different from the if-you-don't-condemn-terrorism-you're-a-terrrorist nonsense that Uppili routinely uses here. All par for the course when it comes from certain posters.

But you, prof, are held to a much higher bar. You hold level-headed positions (on most topics). You're ever logical and never uncivil. Even your prejudices are entertaining. Quite a few have an obvious crush on you. So when you pick on two women for not getting hot under the collar at Bittu's statements or ask Pravalika to reconsider her friendliness with Bittu because you find his statements highly inappropriate, that rankles. It smacks of the same daddy-knows-best attitude that patriarchy is build on. Hence the non-minimalistic, emotion-laden justifications.

Xlation: alamelu and bibi nancharamma are chafing under the patriarchial hegemony being imposed on them and are becoming 7 paras emotional. Yeahhhhhh

by pravalika nanda Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:27 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i could have been more circumspect in my response yesterday to PN. that's about the only thing i'd change, were i to do a do-over. in any case, i wasn't asking her to reconsider her friendship with bittu (or any other woman's), but just the reaction to the photograph.

yes in my mind i had juxtaposed that reaction, or the lack thereof, with the frequent rants about my perceived prejudices. i honestly wasn't doing a TS. if i came across that way, i'd like to correct the record in this post.

** aww, max, don't worry about it.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:29 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i could have been more circumspect in my response yesterday to PN. that's about the only thing i'd change, were i to do a do-over. in any case, i wasn't asking her to reconsider her friendship with bittu (or any other woman's), but just the reaction to the photograph.

yes in my mind i had juxtaposed that reaction, or the lack thereof, with the frequent rants about my perceived prejudices. i honestly wasn't doing a TS. if i came across that way, i'd like to correct the record in this post.

** aww, max, don't worry about it.

Are you telling us whether you got a Christmas gift from Bittu? We know he is or was staying close to you and at one time considered you his favorite.

by Propagandhi711 Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i could have been more circumspect in my response yesterday to PN. that's about the only thing i'd change, were i to do a do-over. in any case, i wasn't asking her to reconsider her friendship with bittu (or any other woman's), but just the reaction to the photograph.

yes in my mind i had juxtaposed that reaction, or the lack thereof, with the frequent rants about my perceived prejudices. i honestly wasn't doing a TS. if i came across that way, i'd like to correct the record in this post.

** aww, max, don't worry about it.

Are you telling us whether you got a Christmas gift from Bittu? We know he is or was staying close to you and at one time considered you his favorite.

This is another construct of the patriarchy called slut shaming. Very Uttar pradesh village dwellerish mentality

by pravalika nanda Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:35 pm

bw wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
bw wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it is possible to get offended by the chloroform-rape photograph as a man without feeling the need to spring to the defense of women here or anywhere. it seems in this instance, stating the obvious may provide some extra clarification - one doesn't need the female population's permission to get offended. having a sense of decency is sufficient. people have a right to post whatever they want, but they have no right to expect that what they say will go without comment.

You can easily show your distaste and keep on showing it. But in that thread with that particular picture, you ended your post with a comment on the women who 'routinely get hot under the collar about some things you say in your posts are better off getting upset about this instead'. That was quickly followed by bw's sarcasm on 'these' women's opinion of bittu.

eh? what does my post on "some women" have to do with all this?

Am giving the timeline.

Max was talking about getting upset about 'this'. Not sure if he was commenting about the picture, or about Bittu posting the picture or about Bittu wanting to rape women. And you said some women say such 'men' are honest. You were talking about rapists in all probability, but it looked more like you were talking about Bittu. Correct me if I am wrong.

The two comments were next to each other. Most likely you were replying to Damini, not Max, but your post was right after his. The thread was about Bittu's (and DUT's) obscenities and their women supporters to begin with, and whether Max meant it or not, the whole thing got combined when people reacted. And Max is still trying to explain himself, coz he was more vocal through it all and did hint about women too.

phew, this is getting tiring now.

there have always been women on sulekha who have defended the crude and offensive talk dished out by bittu and other wannabe bittus by stating that all other men also think so but don't say it and that these men are more honest. i find that rather disgusting and dishonest. why not just accept that they simply don't mind the crude/lewd/creepy aspects of these people instead of justifying and defending it.

by the way, this is nothing new and i have pointed this out several times over the years.

** bittu has not said lewd things to me, that's not how our conversations went. i think few people like such vulgarity but to label him and say that he is sexually harrassing people is not appropriate since all one has to do is avoid his posts.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:35 pm

Rashmun wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i could have been more circumspect in my response yesterday to PN. that's about the only thing i'd change, were i to do a do-over. in any case, i wasn't asking her to reconsider her friendship with bittu (or any other woman's), but just the reaction to the photograph.

yes in my mind i had juxtaposed that reaction, or the lack thereof, with the frequent rants about my perceived prejudices. i honestly wasn't doing a TS. if i came across that way, i'd like to correct the record in this post.

** aww, max, don't worry about it.

Are you telling us whether you got a Christmas gift from Bittu? We know he is or was staying close to you and at one time considered you his favorite.

Rashmun, this is low conduct, unbecoming of a morally upstanding crusader against misogyny and debasement of women.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:37 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i could have been more circumspect in my response yesterday to PN. that's about the only thing i'd change, were i to do a do-over. in any case, i wasn't asking her to reconsider her friendship with bittu (or any other woman's), but just the reaction to the photograph.

yes in my mind i had juxtaposed that reaction, or the lack thereof, with the frequent rants about my perceived prejudices. i honestly wasn't doing a TS. if i came across that way, i'd like to correct the record in this post.

** aww, max, don't worry about it.

Are you telling us whether you got a Christmas gift from Bittu? We know he is or was staying close to you and at one time considered you his favorite.

This is another construct of the patriarchy called slut shaming. Very Uttar pradesh village dwellerish mentality

There was no such intention. I only wanted to enquire about whether her defense of Bittu sprang from some bias like Bittu taking her out for lunch and giving her gifts. I know she lives or lived near him based on their exchanges on sulekha.

by pravalika nanda Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i could have been more circumspect in my response yesterday to PN. that's about the only thing i'd change, were i to do a do-over. in any case, i wasn't asking her to reconsider her friendship with bittu (or any other woman's), but just the reaction to the photograph.

yes in my mind i had juxtaposed that reaction, or the lack thereof, with the frequent rants about my perceived prejudices. i honestly wasn't doing a TS. if i came across that way, i'd like to correct the record in this post.

** aww, max, don't worry about it.

Are you telling us whether you got a Christmas gift from Bittu? We know he is or was staying close to you and at one time considered you his favorite.

This is another construct of the patriarchy called slut shaming. Very Uttar pradesh village dwellerish mentality

There was no such intention. I only wanted to enquire about whether her defense of Bittu sprang from some bias like Bittu taking her out for lunch and giving her gifts. I know she lives or lived near him based on their exchanges on sulekha.

** ha ha ha. i'm feeling really sad today cuz i lost my iphone in a cab....but ha ha ha ha.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:41 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i could have been more circumspect in my response yesterday to PN. that's about the only thing i'd change, were i to do a do-over. in any case, i wasn't asking her to reconsider her friendship with bittu (or any other woman's), but just the reaction to the photograph.

yes in my mind i had juxtaposed that reaction, or the lack thereof, with the frequent rants about my perceived prejudices. i honestly wasn't doing a TS. if i came across that way, i'd like to correct the record in this post.

** aww, max, don't worry about it.

Are you telling us whether you got a Christmas gift from Bittu? We know he is or was staying close to you and at one time considered you his favorite.

Rashmun, this is low conduct, unbecoming of a morally upstanding crusader against misogyny and debasement of women.

I am only enquiring from the point of view of knowing whether her view on this issue is detached and impartial or whether it is biased because Bittu has wined and dined her. It seems surprising that she very rarely posts on this forum and all of a sudden she has become a regular.

by Guest Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:48 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:

** aww, max, don't worry about it.

Are you telling us whether you got a Christmas gift from Bittu? We know he is or was staying close to you and at one time considered you his favorite.

This is another construct of the patriarchy called slut shaming. Very Uttar pradesh village dwellerish mentality

There was no such intention. I only wanted to enquire about whether her defense of Bittu sprang from some bias like Bittu taking her out for lunch and giving her gifts. I know she lives or lived near him based on their exchanges on sulekha.

** ha ha ha. i'm feeling really sad today cuz i lost my iphone in a cab....but ha ha ha ha.

Try calling your number again and again. You might get lucky.

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:02 am

pravalika nanda wrote:
** bittu has not said lewd things to me, that's not how our conversations went.

Hmmm.. going by this logic, Uppili always behaved with me he must be Super Secularist.

pravalika nanda wrote:
i think few people like such vulgarity but to label him and say that he is sexually harrassing people is not appropriate since all one has to do is avoid his posts.

Would "indelicate" fit the bill, anyway here is the definition of sexual harassment per thefreedictionary.com.

"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment."

by Propagandhi711 Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:26 am

That's it..after the particularly splendid display of his sensitive nature and progressive ideals befitting the modern urban male on this thread, Merlot's gonna get more middle aged female e-ass than a portapotty at the reading at vagina monologues.

by Guest Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:22 am

ashaNirasha wrote:I say that because the Bittu of today is a mere shadow of Bittu of 2003. I don't think VB or MD have seen the worst of him. Female posters routinely got the language that Honey Singh's lyrics alluded to. He tried to intimidate those that were not friendly with him with really crude language.

i remember those days. good post ashaNirasha. i have to agree with you. bittu should be a case study in some school. however, let me see if i can argue that his conduct is not entirely comparable with that of yoyo singh. a lot of women take offense to bittu because he uses coarse language with them. he talks about beating them with a leather belt. it's not important if he really means it but let us say his words have an effect of encouraging others to beat women with leather belts apart from traumatizing the women the barbs are directed at. quite like what yoyo singh does. the exception is that bittu is coarse with men too! he has threatened to cut their testicles. he has abused their mummy papas and khandaan. in other words, his shrill pitch is directed at everyone. that is an important aberration or difference from what yoyo singh is. yoyosingh is a classic male chauvinist and misogynist. bittu's is a cultivated (as i'd like to think) persona that is loud and vulgar, to -- as hellsangel said --shock people and seek attention. bittu is funny too -- another very important departure. yoyosingh is NOT funny. he is damn serious! but yes, it takes a while to understand all this about bittu and which is why the mediums are also important. bittu is playing out in a medium that affords study while yoyo singh is on prized bandwith, a medium where exposure is limited but powerful (thus you should be careful about what you say) with little room to backtrack.

anyway, it is good that bittu has sobered down. but i hear his quitting booze has mysteriously spiked his libido. so we should not make hasty pronouncements just yet. a day a time -- baby steps. let us both be on guard meanwhile.

by truthbetold Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:27 pm

Now that every amaturish psychologist expressed their expert opinion i will exhibit my ignorance and throw out some useless expert opinion.
1. i do not agree with the analysis that the women (handles) follow around the macho bittu because of their dissatisfied sexual desires. most individuals come across various types of people in life and make choices based on multiple factors in most cases make what they think is an optimal choice. reducing the decision making to some hidden sexual urge is sexy itself but does not explain everything. my experience suggests it is more complex than that.
2. comment that max and i are protecting some one also does not make sense. in my case i am cynical about the gender of all so called women(handles). i just preted like others that they are females and go from there.
3. I believe any community should have norms. while i cannot impose them on such community can express them strongly. i opposed jobless's lewd posts and disruptive behaviour. i am particularly opposed to his posting third party pictures( non public figures).
4. bittu's expressed desire to rape a poster using chloroform crossed a line if decorum that community has to observe.

by truthbetold Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:39 pm

Let me also repeat my assessment of bittu's posts. i think this guy is sexually deprived due to his inadequacies and he is making up his weakness by being publicly vulgar in a relatively safe place. if he behaves this way in a real human company he will have his ass kicked.

I consider him a degenerate because he bad mouths his wife.

that should be enough fodder for any defenders of the sicko .

by Guest Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 pm

that's the one thing i like in you, tbt. you never struggle while determining the right, wrong, and the balance between the two. 'this is my word, and i have spoken it, damn you all'.

gotta appreciate this attitude. Smile

by confuzzled dude Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:03 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:that's the one thing i like in you, tbt. you never struggle while determining the right, wrong, and the balance between the two. 'this is my word, and i have spoken it, damn you all'.

gotta appreciate this attitude.

On flip side, whole world is suffering from an overdose of political correctness, huge shortage of honesty and straight talk and surplus of spin doctors Smile

by truthbetold Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:11 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:that's the one thing i like in you, tbt. you never struggle while determining the right, wrong, and the balance between the two. 'this is my word, and i have spoken it, damn you all'.

gotta appreciate this attitude.

On flip side, whole world is suffering from an overdose of political correctness, huge shortage of honesty and straight talk and surplus of spin doctors

cd,
why don't you be honest and tell us who is.pc?

by Sponsored content