While some people understood the point of the original post, in that the humor of an old cartoon was so blatantly sexist that it was funny because of its flagrant sexism, it has offended others and that was never its purpose. So, it’s best that I remove it and apologize to those who were offended.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh you’re going to get so much sh*t for this.
Hmmm. I like you, Scott, so I’ll bite my tongue on this one… But, suffice to say, (and, given my chromosonal make up, not surprisingly)I fail to see the humor in this.
I think it’s a hilarious example of how sexism and stupidity go hand-in-hand. Look at how the sexist makes assumptions (Tracey is female) based upon stereotypes and appearances (thick eyelashes and bobbed hair). Notice also the illiteracy of the average sexist. Just as the sexist idiot doesn’t know assumption from fact, he doesn’t know (what he believes to be) fact (Tracey is a woman) from an example (in this case, a mathematical equation that would disprove Tracey’s statement that irrational numbers squared always result in rational numbers).
Like watching Archie Bunker in All in the Family reruns unwittingly reveal his hatred of everyone except white males to be based in his ignorance and lack of intelligence, this one is a real side-splitter, too.
If this is funny, then I assume you instantly knew the real answer to this math question.
Do you always take yourselves this seriously? Of course it’s sexist, you idiots. That’s the point. It’s funny because it’s so over the top.
Hi Niki,
I was afraid that some people would take this the wrong way. It was sent to me BECAUSE it was so blatantly sexist, and I posted it for that reason. That was the humor in it, not the obvious. I see that even the Feminist Law Professors have linked to it. I’m frankly a little disappointed that they didn’t get it.
I apologize to those who thought that it was there because of the surface joke and were offended, as that was not the reason it was posted or the reason it is funny.
SHG
abyss,
(sqrt(2)+sqrt(10))^2.
That’s impressive. I haven’t a clue whether it’s right, but I’m certainly impressed.
Don’t sweat this one. If it had been taken for the purpose for which it was intended, then it would have been better understood. But since some were offended, it’s just not worth pursuing. Apparently, it required a great deal more explanation of why I posted it, but I doubt that some people would have understood no matter what I wrote.
Please. He just wrote some random numbers and squared them. He’s from Texas remember? They make stuff up all the time.
The joke “If a man is in the forest alone, is he still wrong?” gets reliable laughs from female lawyers — and a ton of hits if you search it on Google. I like Eric’s point, commenting on today’s post and tying this fray to the problem of jury presentation. One lesson may be how difficult it is to talk to strangers not only about gender and race, but even about sexism and racism, without triggering anger.
Very true, and as you and Eric correctly note, it does tie in to what we do. Of course, with a jury panel we have some information about them and deal with a more discrete group. Here, we have no idea who is or will be reading a post, making it virtually impossible to address everyone’s sensibility unless we eliminate any potential for controversy. But then, why bother?
Good to hear from you Anne.