“As a woman, I endorse this,” I told my newest massage therapist.
He was, of course, in the middle of describing to me the “hot versus crazy” x/y axes chart used to identify dateable women as he unleashed the week’s tension from my suboccipital lobe. I hadn’t heard of this one yet, so I made a point to come home and promptly look it up on Youtube after our session concluded. Right when I’d made the above statement, he had just finished describing how the man in question explained in the deadpan manner of a college professor, that “the ‘x’ axis of ‘hot’ goes from 0 to 10 while the ‘y’ axis of ‘crazy’ starts at 4 – because there’s no such thing as a woman who’s not at least a ‘4’ crazy.”
Mmmyes. This 101 is quite good.
However, I’d like him to mayhaps instruct a full semester on this. Ya know – a course that delves into the details for what to look for beyond unicorns or dudes in drag. Like that “Y” axis. I feel like each integer on that scale should be a chapter with an accompanying text book called “What kinda crazy are you working with? And is its corresponding hot level workable?” Ya know, define that whole range a bit to factor in the obvi cray level woman kind collectively sanguinely experiences for at least a fourth of the year they spent a alive (that’s the baseline of your “y” axis – and chapter one, I suppose). The rest of the chapters going up that scale would assume that’s already an issue, then build based on combos of any additional manifestations of madness (vanity, daddy, or any Prozac requiring issues in general)
It may seem a bit sexist, but this dude’s only describing what happens internally anyway – in mathematical form.
And, yeah, women do it too. So there’s no problem there.
I’d just like to see more of it.
My concession (since we like to see all sides here in MAPSland) is that we have to define what constitutes “crazy”. And we also have to admit that sometimes when you drop too far down the crazy scale, you either end up with someone boring and joyless with no sense of adventure… or just with a cold heartless bitch who’s apathetic about anything that doesn’t have to do with her basic priorities. Which is fine, I guess, if you’re a politician just looking for a beard.
But this guy’s my favorite sexism101 youtube video I’ve seen to date.
When it’s done in an entertaining, funny, subtle way like this – yes – sexism can be funny. Because there’s an obvious “it’s funny ‘cause it’s true” disparity with the sexes that we can all have a laugh at if we’re not pointlessly taking ourselves (and our natural facets that come with being human) too seriously. Case in point: that ridiculous Alfie-wannabe called Julien who tried to do the same thing came off seedy, ridiculous, attention-seeking, and unfunny (also, I’m pretty sure he went to jail for going too far). This guy, though?
I’d go to this class, take diligent notes, and stay after to learn more.
And then probably go Glenn Close on his family and pet rabbit within a month.