Archive through August 21, 2003
TV ClubHouse: ARCHIVES: Big Brother USA 2003 General Discussions Part 1:
Once again Big Brother has set out to prove that nice guys finish last.:
Archive through August 21, 2003
Denecee | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 04:03 pm     Women bashing men don't like me. I never bash my husband, why would I? He's the kind of man that I wish all my female friends could find. Doesn't Robert only do the woman bashing thing around other guys? I don't think the women are hearing the bashing or there would be some fights. Maybe it's his strategy to get all the women out of the house. |
Wendo | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 04:06 pm     I'm not "shocked and outraged" Widowswalk. Only pointing out that Robert's attitude towards women, that he has displayed on the live feeds, is rather negative and degrading. Period. And, of course no one is going to force the Roberts of the world on me. However, this is a discussion board about Big Brother. Robert is a contestant ON Big Brother. Hence, we're going to talk about him, especially in light of his attitudes about women. So, Widowswalk, have a drink and chill. Sheesh. |
Chy | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 04:10 pm     MLT, have faith! I do not believe that all or even most male disrespect female behind their back and vise versa. Jut as "pack mentality" exists, so does self-control/self-respect. |
Widowswalk | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 04:30 pm     Thank you Wendo, I will, sheesh! lol |
Philamom | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 04:39 pm     I HOPE most men don't show the kind of disrespect towards women behind their backs as we've seen on BB. But we have some men on this board saying it does happen (and women who say it doesn't ... LOL, good point, Kellirippa, how would they know?). And, as a female, it's been my experience that women don't bash men like this. Truthfully, in 46 years I've never heard that kind of venom towards men come out of a female's mouth. I read Lancecrossfire's post about his female coworkers, but it begs the question ... since he obviously is in a both-sex work environment, is it possible that the women are bashing in retailiation to hearing the men bash? Possibly the women are trying to make a point ... just a thought. |
Penpoint | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 04:43 pm     Wendo said: I have to say, the argument that women speak the same way about men when alone just doesn't wash with me. Women don't speak about men in the same way that men speak about women. (Wendo gave some parallel examples that don't necessarily apply.) However, I'm sure that women speak differently about men when in a group of other women than they do when they speak in a mixed group. Of course, it depends on the mix of individual women just how different their conversation is. (The women HGs may be more conscious of the cameras and mikes.) This difference in "same group" vs. "mixed group" conversations applies not only to men and women, but also to gays, to teens, to blacks, to Christians, to Italians, to seniors, to doctors, to Asians, to lesbians, to ditch diggers, or to any other defined group. |
Boberg | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:24 pm     Cameras and mikes have nothing to do with how the female HG speak about men...The vast majority of women never generalize about men the way Robert viciously generalizes about women. Most women speak positively about their spouses also around other women as they see them as an extension of themselves, there is the occasional joking about not reading directions, toilet seats left up and refusing to ask for directions when lost. My experience (many years, not a spring chicken here) says women speak more viciously about other women than they do about men. |
Philamom | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:27 pm     It's interesting (for lack of a better word) to hear men give their opinions of how women talk when there are no men around. |
Sherri | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:34 pm     Oh, Boberg, I agree with you on that. I've always been uncomfortable around females who would speak viciously about other females. I had mostly male friends growing up through high school. Teenager females continue to reign supreme in this area. My daughter is 21 and I remember her coming home and telling me stuff her friends said about each other and thinking that things sure hadn't changed. Just incredible. |
Kellirippa | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:35 pm     Boberg says: "The vast majority of women never generalize about men the way Robert viciously generalizes about women. Most women speak positively about their spouses..." Wow, that sounds to me like a generalization! I'm just saying. |
Texasdeb | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:35 pm     From my 46 yr life, I find women degrade OTHER women more than they degrade men. However; if a woman feels wronged by any man - watch out! I have more men than women friends prob. for this reason. Men degrade a woman around a pak of their own - women will degrade another female to anyone that will listen. Men do it more often in a joking way then women do. I am hetro woman & I just speak from experience. |
Boberg | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 05:52 pm     Kellirippa, The Webster's Dictionary defines generalize as: Relating to,concerned with , or applicable to the Whole or to Every member of a class or category. The fact that I said "vast majority" and "Most women" keeps it from being a generalization. Also my screen name seems to confuse some as to my gender..Female since birth. |
Penpoint | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 09:42 pm     Boberg, interesting that you should respond so specifically to one sentence about cameras and mikes and how they may affect the female HGs, yet miss the whole point of my post. Perhaps the specific group that defines your experience is not women in general but married women of your age and social class. |
Boberg | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 09:53 pm     Penpoint sorry if I missed your point but my experience is not defined by a specific group. I have friends, co-workers, and aquaintances of all ages. I work in a profession that is mostly females and they vary in ages from 23 to 55. Could be my social class though..LOL It has definetely been an interesting day of conversation and strong opinions and I thank you all for the intercourse..(big smile on my face..pun intended) |
Penpoint | Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 09:58 pm     ;-) |
Prisonerno6 | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 07:27 am     I'm just curious. If Robert's trashing of women is de rigueur male behavior when socializing with other men, did other male BB houseguests do the same thing? When it was down to Eddie, Curtis and Josh in BB1, did they sit around calling women c*nts and wh*res? Did Mike, Will, and Hardy constantly talk about how women were good for only one thing, and one woman at a time was never enough for them? Did Jason call Dani a b*tch and blame her for his ouster from the house? Just checking... |
Stro27 | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 07:45 am     Your taking the words they says far too seriously. What they say is not always going to be what they believe. It's macho guy talk. Robert, in particular, gets carried away very easily and in the heat of the moment will say a few extreme things he may not mean. I'm positive they don't really mean a lot of what they say or at least not to the degree that they act like they do. They're actions would indicate this since when they're around the women, they seem to treat them with a lot of respect. Also, the words Robert uses for women are derogatory but are in no way the same as calling a black man the N word or an asian man a "chink". Men call each other b!tches and c*nts all the time. To men, those are just derogatory words, not derogatory words aimed only at females. It's like the equivalent of women calling all men pigs. Sure, it's a little more vulgur, but men are usually going to talk using more foul language. |
Kellirippa | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:00 am     Boberg, why do you think I thought you were a man?? Penpoint said: "Perhaps the specific group that defines your experience is not women in general but married women of your age and social class." Exactly Penpoint!! I would suspect that the VAST majority of divorced, single parent, women who've been cheated on, would USUALLY generalize about men and MOST of them would NOT speak in a positive manner about men. But, of course I'm saying only 99.9% of them would, not all, so I'm not generalizing. |
Willsbills | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:15 am     I didn't read every post so forgive me if this has been discussed already. TexasDeb I agree. Single women do bash men. I have never met a single woman who isn't in a loving relationship that didn't bash men. It seems like phrases like "men are dogs" "all men think about is sex" have been forgotten. it happens. Perhaps they don't use the same language that Robert does, but that is personal choice and has nothing to do with whether it is male or female. Men bash women, women bash men, but I don't hear alot of guy bashing guys comments, unless it's something so typical of them making fun of a celebrity that their girlfriend/wife has the hots for, but actually that's not my point. Has anyone explored the thought of Robert having short man syndrome? I mean he shows all the classic signs. I like him alot better than some of the houseguests. He may not be great but he beats the heck out of some of these morons. |
Bohawkins | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:19 am     Prisoner06... the points that were previously made in this thread about "men behaving badly" addressed this phenomenon from a standpoint that such exchanges happen ordinarily only when men are in the protected company of other men and they know that they are in total privacy. Statements made about Robert's ramblings about women were accompanied by observations that in his guy on guy sessions he seemed to oddly let his guard down. He acted like he was only with his male buddies without regard for the camera. It really proves nothing about whether this is truly "de rigueur male behavior" to illustrate that other guys on camera didn't resort to it. |
Boberg | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 09:25 am     Kellirippa I did not think you thought I was a man..I was responding to more than just your post. Congradulations...you are correct, you are not generalizing..but you did state earlier that I was and that was incorrect. Just my attempt to clarify. |
Beruthiel | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 05:29 pm     Happily for me, real life had to take precedence since I wrote my last comment in this thread, so I've just now caught up on the thread, and would like to thank those who caught my point about being here to exchange ideas. I'd also like to respond to Widowswalk's post directed to me. If you had read my last post carefully, Widowswalk, you'd have noted that I refer to George Orwell, and of how I believe that the producers of the show have turned his concept to dross. You told me that Big Brother is an old reference to the unseen eyes of government, and that AS resurrected the idea. On the contrary, Big Brother is not an old idea, but was invented by George Orwell in his novel "Nineteen Eighty Four" written in 1949, four years after I was born, and describes a horrific totalitarian world where Britain "is ruled by the Party, under the aegis of the possibly non-existent Big Brother, whose image is ever present." (NOT unseen!) "The party's agents constantly rewrite history, and are redesigning the language, with the aim of controlling men's thought's absolutely." This is a description of the concept of the novel from a literary guide. There is more however. In the world of the book, there are "thought-crimes", and the protagonist, Winston Smith, falls foul of Big Brother by keeping a secret diary, and loving a woman. He is taken to a torture chamber, Room 101, where those who have failed to love Big Brother (which means believe everything they are told, and do everything they are told to do without question) are tortured with their worst nightmares. He ends up so broken that he "surrenders his identity to the state and learns to love Big Brother". Big Brother is not a reference to government, but to the 'idea' of a brutal totalitarian government, which doesn't even allow its citizens to think their own thoughts. Perhaps if you'd read the book, or had seen one of the versions of it made into movies, you might have understood my point more clearly:- AS stole the idea of Big Brother and made a mockery of the concept invented by George Orwell, which is acknowledged by the producers of the show, because they now have a disclaimer. The original 'Big Brother' was not only the hero's worst nightmare, but would also be ours, since we're lucky enough to live in a democratic society. The only things left of the original Big Brother in AS's show are the name, and the constantly filming cameras. Everything else is the butchered Hollywood version. |
Widowswalk | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 08:21 pm     Ok Ber- slowly back away from the computer, you are on over load, hon. Believe it or not I'm older than you, have read the book, and need to clarify my own statement. I stand by what I said because I heard an interview a few years ago on tv with the guy that came up with the show title. He stated he came up with the title from the saying "big brother is watching you". Now the saying may have come from G,O.'s book but the guy said he used it referring to big government getting to the point of watching everything we do someday soon, even in our own homes. He also said it did not refer to the plot of G.O.'s book. Okay hon? Okay |
Cangaroo | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 08:25 pm     Gee, everything Widowswalk pointed out I thought was what G.O.'s book was about...in the book the government was watching everything everyone did, in and out of their homes...right down to how many razor blades a guy used to shave...so that would mean the guy DID get the name from G.O.'s book, wouldn't it? I mean...the saying DID come from the book first, LOL |
Widowswalk | Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 08:30 pm     He explained the torture and the book itself had little to do with the title of the show. I believed him. As bad as I think the show is, there hasn't been any real torture yet, except putting up with a few alpha type wannabe leaders. There's always that. |
|