I try my best to be as concise as possible when I post. Even then, I sometimes worry about whether I am making my point clearly to my readers. But, here is a blog that worries about nothing: not good writing, not logic, not sensible opinions, nothing. I came across this site when I was reading old posts on Boiling Blood. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that I came across the link to the author’s profile.
Before I began this post, I wondered if it was worth commenting upon, and prompting my readers to read total crap like this. But then, I decided that I had a lot to say on it and I could not hold back for fear of popularising the blog. When I read the first post ranting about lazy women and echal and pathu, I thought this guy was being sarcastic. But no, I had over-estimated his intelligence. A brief reading of other posts proved to me that he was, indeed, the chauvinist I thought he was. What else do you call a man who says America’s low savings rate is because women don’t go dhooram during their periods and dare to eat before the esteemed men of the family have had their fill? Anyway, there it is, male chauvinism at its worst. Or best as you may call it. Do the world’s feminists have advice to render about handling such men? Honestly, if I knew the guy, I would probably advise all my female friends to stay the hell away from him. Whoever would want to marry him and be treated like an unpaid maid?
That said, I have a serious grudge against people who write in SMS-talk on their blogs. Why the hell can’t people take the time to dot their i’s and cross their t’s? And yes, capitalise their I’s?? Ok ok…I am ranting…but please…follow the basics of English grammar…for the sake of your poor readers.
Linked you right back.
Are you sure you read the post fully? Your rant sounds like much ado about nothing.
i guess someone will have to explain the (non existent) difference between Nita and Amrutha’s profiling of the author of the linked post.
I guess, Hawkeye, I’ll respond to both profilings, to seek out the difference.
It is not true that I worry about “nothing.” I worry greatly about spelling, grammar, style, structure and the crisp factor. A look at my archives will confirm that.
“Bullshitter” is a very vague term and I am not sure I can respond to that intelligently.
I wish this blog is more popular. I got a total of 3 hits from this reference.
No. I guess I didnt make myself clear.
Person A : Nita
Person B: Person who fits Amrutha’s profiling of a chauvenist (in this specific instance person B is a “male chauvenist”).
I see no difference between Person A (caste chauvenist who stereotypes caste) and person B (male chauvenist who stereo types women).
I did not compare Nita’s profiling of you as a brahmin and Amrutha’s profiling of you as a chauvenist.
I compared you (or Amrutha’s description of you) to Nita, the person – directly.
Did I just visu, or do you understand me?
p.s: is a chauvenist, who knows he is a chauvenist, better than a chauvenist who does not know she is a chauvenist? Just curious.
Perhaps Mr. Hawkeye needs to look up the “rich” thesaurus offered by Microsoft Word to obtain the correct spelling of chauvinist. Its C-H-A-U-V-I-N-I-S-T.
oh yeah, I understand. Nita is as guilty, if not more, as I of projecting a bias.
Making absurd random statements is one thing. But making an absurd argument based on absurd premises, in total seriousness, is another. Microsoft Word would hardly help in this case.
thats right nita! we should prioritize and focus on the most important point here. the big picture.
spelling is the focus here. thats constructive criticism. way to go!