On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:26:47 GMT, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2005 10:26:24 -0800, "Hyerdahl"
 wrote:
>
>>
>>bluesmama wrote:
>>> howldog wrote:
>>> > Sandra Bullock to Matt Laurer this morning:
>>> >
>>> > "I needed you to play a guy who was man enough to
let a woman beat
>>> him > up".
>>> >
>>> > gag. no more of your movies, ever, Sandra.
>>> >
>>> > Shame on you.
>>>
>>> What a truly disrespectful thing to say.
>>
>>Why?  She was talking about the other male actors in the film she just
>>made where she and another actress play FBI folks.  I don't see where
>>Bullock was inciting violence against men.  Are you also against films
>>where male FBI agents end up killing or beating up women criminals, or
>>are you only offended when a woman beats up a man in films?  Because
>>most films out there are about male violence on women and other men.
>>
>>> Another name to add to the list beside Jennifer Lopez.
>>
>>What did she do?  She did provide a film where  a woman could defend
>>herself against an abusive asshole.
>
>
> Lock and load, hon.
>


Are we shocked that Pargie cannot see anything wrong with Bullocks
definition of "man enough" as someone who would "let himself
get beaten up
by a woman"?

I'm not. I dont know any men who would let themselves get beaten up by
ANYBODY, and it was pathetic that Bullock suggested that being "man enough"
involves submission like that. Even if it was a joke, and maybe it was.

I'm not sure how Pargie defines what "man enough" is, and I dont think I
want to know. Probly involves lips sewn shut and shackled and chained so
they cannot protest or defend themselves against torture inflicted by
gestating female superior-ists. And their wallets are always open. And
full.








--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/29/05 4:47:32 PM ---