Why blacks were freed and women received equal rights?

[MMMark]

Mon. 12/07/02 23:55 EDT
.post #195
[url=Why blacks were freed and women received equal rights? - #28 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]I don’t think Carolla is saying women should learn more about history because it would make them more “masculine”.

I also don’t think Carolla is saying that.

@John James

(In fact I’ve never before in my life heard anyone suggest knowledge of any kind of history was a “masculine” trait. That actually sounds incredibly dumb to me.)

Okay…I’m glad that’s not what I suggested. I certainly did not write those words. You seem to imply here that I did. Perhaps, by changing my wording, you misconstrued my meaning?

@John James

I think Carolla was simply suggesting that women should take it upon themselves to become more knowledgeable…hence “pick up a textbook every once in a while”…as opposed to one of the “279” women’s magazines that all feature the “same junk” that “really just breeds envy.”

Mmmm…well, I think he’s saying a bit more than that. He mentions “a textbook” once, at the beginning of his rhetorical questioning, but then he gets more specific: World War II. That subject of study is then suggested eight times. Some of the knowledge he disparages as “the same junk” and “nonsense” includes learning to “grow your own gourds with Martha Stewart.” But all this tells us is that Carolla is interested in different knowledge than the women he “complains about.”

Would Carolla really be happier if “women” took more of an interest in World War II, as opposed to learning how to grow gourds, or sunny beaches, or any of the other things that “women,” according to Carolla, are typically interested in?

Is that the kind of woman Adam married? Here’s an interview with his sexy wife, Lynettte:

Lynette Carolla Interview on The Paul Leslie Hour

Lynette Carolla Interview on The Paul Leslie Hour

“The real Lynette Carolla,” straight from the horse’s mouth, spends her typical Saturday “in the kitchen with the kids; I just made them lunch, … I’m pouring myself a cup of coffee, and we’re about to go take our blind dog Molly for a walk, and then we’re gonna go run some errands … and I’m gonna stay up and watch my reality TV.”

Lynette co-hosts a “women’s issues” show For Crying Out Loud. Here’s a description of the June 21, 2012 show:

The show opens with a re-cap of Lynette’s gross green drink & Stefanie laments a problem preventing her from getting a new dishwasher. Stefanie then goes into a description of how she’s been trying to motivate her daughters (who are in studio for today’s show) to behave using a degree of bribery. Lynette agrees that some degree of bribery, or in her case reverse bribery, is almost a necessity and recounts how dogged Natalia especially can be if she wants something.

Now, do I disparage this as “junk” and “nonsense,” just because it’s not, typically, what men are interested in? Not in the least. She is a sexy, intelligent, ambitious, hard-working, successful woman. She’s involved in things that, typically, women are more interested in than men.

So, Adam Carolla’s “complaining” strikes me as not only inconsistent with his earlier lip-service to the virtues of diversity, but also as hypocritical, given that he seems to have married the very type of woman he “complains” about.

But hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Adam and Lynette have really great discussions on the sofa about World War II, and what he really loves about her is her knowledge of history, especially war history.

@John James

I find it strange that you could miss that point.

As I said and have now elaborated, I think he’s saying a bit more than what you infer as “that point.”

I don’t necessarily believe his rant represents what he personally believes. For example, he could be either “playing to his audience,” or perhaps he’s even ridiculing these very attitudes by pretending, using caricature, to espouse them.

@John James

(Unless of course you were simply looking for a way to refute Carolla/ take him down a notch. Then it would be understandable as to how you might reach so far to mischaracterize his suggestion that way.

John, I very much enjoy your energy and enthusiasm, both as a promoter of libertarianism, and also as the “forum pit bull” when you suspect your values are (either directly or subtly) under attack. I think you sometimes overreact, but I also understand that this is “part and parcel” of who you are.

You think I’m “reaching so far” and “mischaracteriz(ing) his suggestion,” possibly because I’m “looking for a way to … take Carolla down a notch.”

None of those allegations, which pertain to my intentions, are true.
I think you’re overreacting here.

@John James

You wouldn’t happen to be one of the women he’s talking about, would you?)

haha! Nooo (not last time I checked, anyway)!

I had not, before seeing your post, even heard of Adam Carolla. I did a bit of listening via YouTube. He seems funny and entertaining. Wasn’t offended by anything he said. I enjoyed his performances. I see that he hosted “The Man Show” and has authored a book entitled In Fifty Years We’ll All Be Chicks: . . . And Other Complaints from an Angry Middle-Aged White Guy, which I’ve just requested from my local library. From my limited exposure, I gather his “shtick” is to portray the “manly man with a vulgar bent” persona. Sort of a modern Archie Bunker. He also reminds me a bit of Doug Stanhope, although Carolla is no libertarian; from his wikipedia page:

he is also in favor of … some progressive causes such as “… [being] against semi-automatic and automatic weapons. I’m not an NRA guy by any stretch of the imagination.”

And then, inconsistently,

“My feeling is this whole country is founded on the principle of ‘if you are not hurting anyone, and you’re not fucking with someone else’s shit, and you are paying your taxes, you should be able to just do what you want to do.’ It’s the freedom and the independence.”

Except, apparently, to keep and bear semi-automatic and automatic weapons.