Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Girl Quits On Dry Erase Board a Hoax

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the take-this-job-and-shove-it dept.

Idle 147

suraj.sun writes "It's the same old story: young woman quits, uses dry erase board and series of pictures to let entire office know the boss is a sexist pig, exposes his love of playing FarmVille during work hours." Story seem too good to be true? It probably is, at least according to writer Peter Kafka. Even so, Jay Leno and Good Morning America have already reached out to "Jenny."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Old, and fake (5, Informative)

Gruturo (141223) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214206)

Nice, story published hours after it was revealed to be a hoax / stunt: http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/11/elyse-porterfield/ [techcrunch.com]

Re:Old, and fake (4, Informative)

Slippery Pete (941650) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214478)

Re:Old, and fake (3, Insightful)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214980)

Holy! 15 minutes of fame with a hoax! Hot actress from LA name+lastname are very public now. Way to quickly boost your career!

Re:Old, and fake (3, Insightful)

BKX (5066) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214598)

The real question is who didn't immediately know it was fake? I mean, "The Chive"? That soundss aan aweful lot like The Onion to me.

Re:Old, and fake (2, Informative)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214760)

Well, the part about her being a hot piece of ass are true.

Re:Old, and fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33215862)

Plus, she's rockin the sexy, pent up aggression-librarian vibe. Rawr.

Re:Old, and fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33217044)

I still want to choke her for those stupid facial expressions.

Re:Old, and fake (1)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 4 years ago | (#33217146)

She likes being choked. Believe me.

Re:Old, and fake (2, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215006)

Wait a minute, an unemployed aspiring actress in L.A.???? Sounds fishy to me.

Re:Old, and fake (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33215382)

I posted this story yesterday and it was rejected. Interesting how I get MOST of my story submissions rejected, but later duplicated submissions by other posters get published, even though it is against Slashdot rules to accept duplicate story submissions.

And it's a FAKE story [thechive.com] (as posted by the hoaxsters). Too bad for the worthless editorial board at Slashdot.

Oh, and the stories that do get accepted by me get editorialized (i.e. the Slashdot editors only publicly acknowledge that I supplied them with a link, otherwise they completely re-write the submission with their poor English and verbal communication skills). Or maybe I'm just an idiot?

To summarize:
1) breaking (idle) "news" story gets submitted and rejected.
2) next day, hoax is confirmed, and story gets accepted as a (likely) true story.

Oh, and BTW, even though the story was proclaimed to be a hoax, it is actually true, only the names, faces and particular circumstances have changed; the same bullshit actually happens at most workplaces.

- Signed,

AWM (Angry White Man)

Re:Old, and fake (3, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215398)

I am astonished at the number of people who fell for this. It just proves that people have no operational critical thinking skills and just take anything they're fed as the truth. This is just a small example of how they treat more vital things like news of current events. If the AP wrote it or the local news anchor parroted it from a teleprompter, or a government organization released a statement, then it must all be true and taken at face value.

As for this particular incident, it was instantly obvious to everyone with a two digit IQ that it was fake (it didn't last long enough or fool enough people to properly call this an actual hoax).

What gave it away? Well, for one thing, are we supposed to believe that an HPOA like that was actually answering phones and doing some douchebag's dirty work in some great aspiration to be a stock broker? Hardly. In fact, I think my first sarcastic comment moments after this story first popped up in links from people I know was "Like a HPOA like that has to work as anything but a model".

The second give-away is the clearly fake office.

The third give-away is the quality of the photographs and the lighting.

The the second and third elements above, they combine to give you that very strong "reality porn shoot" vibe. You could tell people that these photos are actually from some new OfficeBangBus website and everyone would believe it, because it just has that "fake staged office, professional lighting, pro-sumer camera" look to it.

If the idiots behind this wanted the "hoax" to really succeed, they would have found a real office for her to stand in and snapped shots with a consumer point and click camera in whatever the real life office lighting was.

The most offensive part is that this wasn't even a successful internet hoax. Most people immediately called it out as a fake and it wasn't even more than a few hours before it was proven to be a fake. And yet, nobody gives a fuck and all sorts of media outlets are going to give it coverage. What is there to cover? It's a non-story, other than on a few websites like Slashdot where it actually has some minor relevance. How does this deserve any television play? And what will their angle be? "So, you were a chick that was hired to stand there and be photographed in a failed internet hoax... uh...". I mean, if you were going to talk to ANYONE about it, why would it be the person who was the least involved? It's not like that girl came up with the idea or executed it. She responded to an audition call and stood there holding a whiteboard for a couple hours.

I still believe this is far more than a mere "hoax" attempt. It seems clear to me that the guys behind it WANTED it to be known that it was a hoax as quickly as possible (if they had not admitted it so quickly, it would have dragged on a little longer). It sounds to me like they wanted to create a hoax AND get the attention for having created it all in one fell swoop. Either to get attention for themselves in some sort of "hey, we're a great media agency - hire us to promote your stuff!" attempt. . . . OR they were hired to do this by NBC or someone. Not as a "hoax" but as a "fake hoax" where the attempt wasn't to fool people, but to get everyone to pay attention to the girl so they could then announce that they're giving her a sit-com of her own and she's the star (which was already planned BEFORE the hoax was executed, surely).

It'd be a lot like saying "we're a helium company and to promote our product, we're going to manufacturer an event where a little kid gets stuck in his dad's blimp and floats across the country and is covered live on the news".

Re:Old, and fake (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215994)

Errr...you really don't have a lot to keep you busy, do you?

Re:Old, and fake (3, Insightful)

Cougar Town (1669754) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216102)

Wow. You seriously know how to take just about all the fun out of something that was pretty entertaining. Sometimes you just need to shut the fuck and have a good laugh and realize that it doesn't even matter if it was real or a hoax.

Enjoy life - don't analyze everything to the point that all meaning is lost.

Re:Old, and fake (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216698)

See, this is what I'm talking about. What fun and entertainment was there in a poor attempt at a lame and failed hoax? You're responding like this was some great piece of performance art that has merit or interest even when it fails. It's nothing of the sort. Sorry I didn't approach a lame attempt at a hoax with some sort of child-like wonder and glee.

And please do inform me as to what enlightened "meaning" I missed out on by not being reeled in by these lame-ass self-promoters?

Your comments seem very misplaced applied to such a shallow story as this one. You could almost apply them to that miserable "lonelygirl15" phenomenon from a few years ago, but certainly not to an afternoon-long flash in the pan like this.

Re:Old, and fake (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216820)

All the world's a stage and all that?

Re:Old, and fake (1)

Recovery1 (217499) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216294)

Thanks, Mr. Comic Book Guy.

Re:Old, and fake (1)

jemtallon (1125407) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216526)

That's Captain Sweatpants [hostoi.com] to you!

Re:Old, and fake (1)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33217040)

I mean, if you were going to talk to ANYONE about it, why would it be the person who was the least involved? It's not like that girl came up with the idea or executed it.

Because she's hot and would look good on TV, and therefore more people would watch. Nobody wants to see a couple of nerds talk about their hoax, but lots of people want to see a hot girl talk about just about anything.

I think you're right about the guys doing this primarily to get attention, but most things people post on the Internet are there to get attention. Even if someone never reveals who they are, the purpose of putting almost anything on the Internet is so that people will see it, giving the poster some measure of validation, even if they never actually reveal their true identities.

The idea of it being manufactured so NBC could give some unknown actress her own sitcom is a little too loopy for me to take seriously, though.

Re:Old, and fake (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215504)

Yeah, but she is quite the HPOA.

Re:Old, and fake (1)

raxhonp (136733) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215544)

I totally disagree, she is not too old, but I can't tell from here if they are fake or not.

Slashdot revisionism (1)

LambdaWolf (1561517) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216028)

When this story was first posted, the headline didn't say anything about a hoax; it had just the one line in the summary admitting it was "probably" fake. I can still see the original headline in my RSS feed. Now they've altered it as though they knew all along, which makes posts like yours look like pointless complaining. A little transparency would be nice, maybe an editor's note added to the bottom of the summary with a clear timestamp.

Fake (2, Informative)

Swanktastic (109747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214222)

This is known to be fake.

Re:Fake (3, Funny)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214246)

Why let the fact that it is fake stop it being promoted as the truth on Slashdot? ;)

Re:Fake (1)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214406)

i'm surprised it's not from kdawson

Re:Fake (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214758)

There was a time when it wasn't this way, but samzenpus is the "new" kdawson. You could probably tell samzenpus to eat a bowl of boogers, and he would do it after telling you that it's gross. He's just that stupid.

Re:Fake (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216352)

Reminds me of the dumbest guy in the office back when I was working in a drafting shop. The draftsmen were always playing tricks on each other and setting up Rube Goldberg-type booby traps. One of the guys was clearly not the sharpest stick in the bundle so on a day we knew he'd be the last one back from lunch we hung a cup filled with confetti from the ceiling with a string attached to a sign that said "Pull me." He did.

I think he's now a /. editor.

Re:Fake (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214770)

I'm surprised that "theChive.com" didn't give it away as being somewhat similar to TheOnion - that well know source of entirely truthful reports - and so probably not a trustworthy source of much!

Re:Fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214328)

But my erection is real, so who cares?

Re:Fake (3, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214580)

No, your erection is also a hoax.

Re:Fake (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215308)

This is one of the few times on /. where I DON'T want to see any sources for that one way or the other...

Re:Fake (1)

Speedcraver (868818) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214716)

Yes, but I can't wait to see her on Tosh.0 in a few weeks. That may make it worth it, fake or not!

Re:Fake (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33215046)

It is also known to not be interesting, even if it was real.

Re:Fake (1)

mlush (620447) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215570)

This is known to be fake.

But the headline says its a Hoax.... do you mean its a fake hoax?

Re:Fake (1)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216842)

Your post is fake? Looks pretty real to me!

Fake Scripted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214228)

Come on /. this is so obviously fake...

Already admitted to be fake (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214270)

All's well, except she already admitted it to be fake:

http://thechive.com/2010/08/11/a-word-from-jenny-16-photos/ [thechive.com]

Time to head to home depot... (2, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214278)

That whiteboard is surprisingly clean, no smudges, no ghost lines of previous half-erased messages. Even the marker lines themselves are so clean you could swear they were drawn in mspaint rather than with an old dying black marker. But there's no way the internet would ever publish a HOAX, is there?

Re:Time to head to home depot... (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214490)

I wouldn't think that the whiteboard itself is a hoax. Folks occasionally use a new whiteboard, and new marker. It happens once in the life of a whiteboard. :)

    Smudges on whiteboards are frequently from "ink" that has dried on. It wipes off fine not long after you put it on, but not so great months later. I've had boards where particular notes were written months or years before, and when that information finally does change, it doesn't come off gracefully. But that's why they have whiteboard cleaner (isopropyl alcohol) and paper towels.

    I guess what is worse is when someone thinks they're using a dry erase marker, and they use a permanent one instead. Try taking *that* off years later. Carburetor or brake cleaner is just about the only thing that'll make a dent in it.

    Looking at the photos, it was obvious that there was a problem with it. Thankfully she did admit it, or this would be a long running argument.

    Unfortunately, I'm sure I'll be getting this in as chain letters for years to come. {sigh} Isn't there already enough crap floating around that places like Snopes have to say "no, it's still not real."?

Re:Time to head to home depot... (1)

JayJay.br (206867) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214946)

Unfortunately, I'm sure I'll be getting this in as chain letters for years to come.

What are these "letters" you talk about? Is this some new social network, or a new kind of e-mail?

(Yeah I know, off-topic, mod me down to hell, I can burn some...)

Re:Time to head to home depot... (2, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215126)

Just for future reference for you – the difference between permanent marker and dry wipe pen is that the dry wipe pens have a solvent in them to disolve the previous "ink". You can easily clean off permanent marker simply by drawing over it with dry wipe pen and immediately rubbing it out.

Re:Time to head to home depot... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215766)

You can easily clean off permanent marker simply by drawing over it with dry wipe pen and immediately rubbing it out.

Yes, but that leaves an entirely new type of stain. :(

Re:Time to head to home depot... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214506)

Wait what? Someone has gone to the effort of taking all these individual pictures and poses, and you think they had the patience to screw around with paint / photoshop to draw the lines on the board? People on the whole a lazy. That alone should give you an indication that the pictures are real.

That said the rest of the story is a hoax. The only people this was emailed to is half the internet via the usual spam chain mail.

Re:Time to head to home depot... (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214684)

Wait what? Someone has gone to the effort of taking all these individual pictures and poses, and you think they had the patience to screw around with paint / photoshop to draw the lines on the board? People on the whole a lazy. That alone should give you an indication that the pictures are real.

I'm thinking some ad company took the pictures of a model with an empty whiteboard as a template for ads where they could write whatever discount of the week they planned on advertizing later. Then someone got a hold of these after seeing the Jet Blue quitting story and thought "hey, quitting stories are hot right now, let's make up a story of our own!"

Re:Time to head to home depot... (1)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214816)

I had a white board at my office that looked perfect a year after I got it. Because I never let ink stay on for more than about 48 hours.

Hoax! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214316)

Way to post this after it's already been called a hoax.

"Story seem too good to be true? Well it probably is[...]" - uh no...it IS too good to be true.

She's an actress (5, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214342)

But still an HPOA.

As Teal'c would say (4, Funny)

PmanAce (1679902) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214400)

Indeed.

Re:She's an actress (1)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214556)

[scruffy]Second[/scruffy]

Re:She's an actress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214774)

The headline should read: HOPA Quits On Dry Erase Board, Emails Entire Office

Re:She's an actress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33215020)

Hot Piece of Actress...

Re:She's an actress (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215692)

Or was it HOPA? I'm confused.

Re:She's an actress (0)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215842)

Hot Piece Of Ass. Aka tart, trollop, strumpet, floozy or hussy.

Leno? Who cares about him (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214374)

Leno is a short insecure chin-knife. Nobody cares about him, not even his mother.

I got hooked (1)

krzysz00 (1842280) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214410)

When this story was in the submission bin I read it and fell for it. WHo knew it was fake?

Re:I got hooked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214438)

If you fell for it, that simply means that your powers of observation are extremely poor. Just browsing through the first 5 images should be enough to indicate how fake it is.

Re:I got hooked (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214522)

Eh, not necessarily, I basically did something similar to that when I walked out of my job a while back. I wasn't about to get myself killed because the manager was a corrupt, dangerously incompetent prick with no relevant knowledge and a general jackass psychopath. Most of what I've read indicating it's a hoax, other than the admission, is pretty much bullshit. If you're that angry about a work site this sequence of images is hardly that implausible. A new whiteboard that size isn't really that expensive and at some point quitting in a spectacular way becomes worth it.

Re:I got hooked (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214914)

... and at some point quitting in a spectacular way becomes worth it.

No matter how much you hate your job you should never burn a bridge. Even if you hate the job with every fiber of your being and it goes against all your morals you should still try to quit on the best terms possible because there is always a chance how you handled yourself in that situation will come back to you. You don't have to be friends with everyone when you walk out the door but you need to take the emotion out of it. Just say you can't handle the work and be ready to explain why at your next interview.

A few years ago we had someone "quit" (get fired) in a spectacular fashion. At no point did my boss say a single bad word about the person, even during the incident or well after he had left, but word still got around that he fired him. Several months later this person applied for a job at a completely different company where the owner happened to know my boss and he wouldn't hire the guy just on the fact that my boss had fired him because he must have done something bad and this guy didn't want to find out what.

Re:I got hooked (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215416)

And did someone photograph you doing that, using a high quality prosumer camera and professional lighting work in a clearly staged office environment? And do you look like a super model who spends her days going to auditions rather than answering phones and dealing with a douchey boss?

Re:I got hooked (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214902)

First I'm hearing of it, but it's obviously faked. The poses are too staged for somebody upset with a job enough to be quitting. The emotional reactions are all wrong.

Whaa? (1)

Skellbasher (896203) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214500)

Slashdot isn't always the most timely place to see things, but it's usually at least accurate. Too bad this made it through today.

Of course it's a hoax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214538)

Who could spend 5.3 hours/week on TechCrunchy? That wouldn't leave enough time for /.

The jetblue guy did a better job then this! (3, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214624)

The jetblue guy did a better job then this!

Re:The jetblue guy did a better job then this! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214666)

THAN this. FFS.

Re:The jetblue guy did a better job then this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33215596)

No, no, the JetBlue guy not only did a better job, but he THEN went on to do this too. HPOA is JetBlue Guy. The hoax is to advertise sex change operations.

Re:The jetblue guy did a better job then this! (1)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214936)

I was thinking something along the same line.

Re:The jetblue guy did a better job then this! (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215898)

It was grabbing the beer on the way out that was the stroke of genius.

Re:The jetblue guy did a better job then this! (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216518)

It was grabbing the beer on the way out that was the stroke of genius.

That, and when the cops came to his house to arrest him he was allegedly "engaged in sexual activities."

As a friend said yesterday, I like to think that he was yelling, "Fuuuuuccckk youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu" on the way down the slide, beer in hand.

I would have fired her too (-1, Troll)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214630)

I would have fired her too because she doesn't know english: You can't combine "Being your assistant has been" as "Being your assistant's been" [wordpress.com]

--The Grammer Nazi

Re:I would have fired her too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214752)

Yes you can you idiot.

Re:I would have fired her too (4, Funny)

darkitecture (627408) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214798)

G-R-A-M-M-A-R

grammar

--The Spelling Nazi

Re:I would have fired her too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214808)

I'm sure you are a big fan of "America's got talent".

Re:I would have fired her too (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214822)

I would have fired you because you don't know English. Grammar is spelled with an A. Also, your signature is missing proper capitalization and punctuation.

-- The Spelling Nazi

Re:I would have fired her too (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215108)

dam u spelin' nazi!!

-- The Grammaer Nazi

Re:I would have fired her too (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214840)

Grammar does goes wonky around pretty girls

Re:I would have fired her too (1)

xwizbt (513040) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214872)

You can; it's clumsy but it's quite correct, in the same way that it's is a perfectly acceptable contraction of 'it has'.

Re:I would have fired her too (2, Insightful)

quitte (1098453) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215160)

Could someone please come up with sources?
I looked it up in my school's grammar book and wikipedia. Both explicitly allow the combination of pronouns with contracted auxiliary verbs. But neither forbid the use of contracted auxiliary verbs with real nouns.
I'm not a native speaker - but it definately doesn't sound clumsy to me. And this obviously is a situation where informal use of a language is quite appropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_(grammar)#English [wikipedia.org]

Re:I would have fired her too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33217138)

Here here, cetacean needed!

This kind of stuff (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214694)

Is just making it harder for anyone to believe that my penis can sing Lady GaGa tunes.

I was going to post it on YouTube but now everyone will just think it's fake. Goddamn internet.

Re:This kind of stuff (0, Offtopic)

Miseph (979059) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215322)

If it makes you feel better: I have no problem believing that your penis super-duper-fabulously gay, and I congratulate you on having the courage to tell everyone about it... it takes a big, burly, hairy, leather-clad man to tell the world something that personal and socially stigmatized.

You're welcome.

"Probably"? (1)

frist (1441971) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214812)

Probably too good to be true?

thechive is just a tracker whore site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214854)

Fire up fiddler on that page and all will be revealed; I counted no less than 180 separate tracker requests. This was my first and last time I visit that site.

bleh (-1, Troll)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 4 years ago | (#33214942)

Just another piece of meat trying to get by on nothing but looks. Tired of pretty parasites, try being productive rather then a just another HPOA. You are a dime a dozen on the Internet, way to march towards being furniture (see Soylent Green for reference).

American women have become nothing but pop-tart wanna-be divas who's only asset appears to be their ass. They bitch about being treated like objects but these attention whores are the two steps backwards for progress. Can't stand them anymore. Hope it doesn't bleed into Canada.

"I'd rather be pretty for a living rather then contribute something to the world." A nice view doesn't cut it as a contribution. Shit even Barbie the Doll has been a doctor, lawyer, fire fighter, but oddly there isn't a HOPA edition. What the hell is wrong with people. No one wants to work hard and earn anything in life anymore.

Never thought I'd see a generation of women who's goal in life is "I want to be a Trophy Wife when I grow up then get dumped and replaced by my wealthy husband for a younger trophy wife..."

In all that the human condition offers, in all the experiences out there, her aspiration is Playboy? What a wasted life...

An entitled mindset + shallow values + looks obsessed society = What? I don't know but does that look like a recipe for success?

I'm glad I am married, I sure as hell have no interest in fame obsessed, looks obsessed, trash.

Maybe I am an old curmudgeon. But by God I want more 'women' and less 'chicks' please....

Re:bleh (1)

swb (14022) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215124)

I think you're mostly right but I also think you're arguing against human nature at the same time.

It's in a woman's nature to want to be physically attractive, to compete against other women to be "most" attractive -- this has been going on far longer than just our very recent contemporary mass-media society and represents part of the biological imperative for reproduction.

That being said, I think deliberate sexual manipulation by women is kind of pathetic and usually very short-sighted; a hot piece of ass is like cut flowers -- it has a very short shelf life and after the bloom fades they usually end up in the trash.

It would do men good to not allow themselves to be so easily manipulated by it, too, but I think men's inability to control themselves is largely what's behind repressive social rules and laws that hinder women.

Re:bleh (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215142)

but.... but.... she's an aspiring actress!! You can't expect her to do anything more than smile for the camera

Re:bleh (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215224)

Never thought I'd see a generation of women who's goal in life is "I want to be a Trophy Wife when I grow up then get dumped and replaced by my wealthy husband for a younger trophy wife..."

Actually, that seems like a good deal for the Trophy Wife, provided she takes him to the cleaners at the divorce. Then she's financially well-off and free of her asshole ex-husband.

Shit even Barbie the Doll has been a doctor, lawyer, fire fighter, but oddly there isn't a HOPA edition.

All Barbies are HOPAs. At least if you're about a foot tall anyway.

I'm feeding a troll aren't i? (0, Troll)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215538)

Are you upset because you think that only unattractive women should complain about sexual harassment, or do you just think that people should only comment on particular instances of harassment that happened to themselves rather than discussing it in the abstract?

You've gone from "someone posed in some pictures that weren't 100% depictions of an actual event" to condemning every "young" female american in existence.

Never thought I'd see a generation of women who's goal in life is 'I want to be a Trophy Wife when I grow up then get dumped and replaced by my wealthy husband for a younger trophy wife...'"

Are you sexist, out of touch with reality, or just trolling? Totally aside from the issue that no one actually has "then get dumped and replaced by my wealthy husband" as a goal, i can look around my office right now and see plenty of women "working hard and earning something in life." (Arguably more so than you or i, since i suspect that most of them aren't posting on Slashdot right now *cough*) I suggest you go compare the _reality_ of life today to that of just about all of history prior to the 20th century. Men spent several thousand years telling women that they mattered for nothing in life except for who they married and how many children they had. Do you really want to be the one bitching about how since we were finally gracious enough to start telling them they were equal a couple generations ago that it's unreasonable that some fraction (and _only_ a fraction) of them haven't gotten over that mindset yet? Despite the fact that a lot of men still treat them like they don't matter except for what's on their chest or between their legs?

"Maybe I am an old curmudgeon. But by God I want more 'women' and less 'chicks' please...."

If you look around and all you see is "chicks," then i suspect that you _are_ an old curmudgeon, and a sexist one at that, and are a bigger part of the problem than any woman who complains about being mistreated because of her gender, regardless of whether it's in a "fake" photoshoot or not. Either that, or you need to go outside and meet some real people living real lives and working at real jobs, rather than assuming that everything is just like what you see on TV or the internet.

Re:bleh (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216062)

I shouldn't bother, as you clearly haven't even tried to be sympathetic to the women whose characters you so denigrate, but in the interest of the wider humanity I'm going to try to reach you.

Have you ever watched a woman be introduced on stage? I mean, really watched and payed attention to the context? "And now the beautiful Jane Doe will perform X..." or "And now the lovely Jane Doe is here to talk to you about Y..." Men rarely are introduced in the context of their appearance, usually only if it is their career like male modeling; however women who may have spent decades as office workers of some kind or educators or what-have-you are still introduced this way. The people doing it think of it as polite flattery, but it is an indicator of an element in human society. Women are expected to look good regardless of what they do or how well they do it. Whatever their talents or their careers, they must also be pseudo-models on top of that. And those that actually manage to both do something well and look good doing it are, in general, more highly regarded than those limited by capacity or nature to one or the other primarily.

I do think it is irrational for women to complain about being objectified, if for no other reason than the people we don't know are objects. You don't see a total stranger, say, passing you on an escalator and can then rationally think 'wow they sure are generous/honest/loyal/smart' etc. You can't know people's character or intellect just by looking at them, but you can know of course whether they are attractive or not. If, after getting to know a person one still treats them like no more than an object, then you have a real cause for complaint. In any case, you should learn this lesson yourself. Each person deserves to be judged individually based on known qualities, not caught up in some broad brush antagonism based solely on assumptions drawn from appearances. Doing that makes you worse than a curmudgeon, it makes you a prejudiced asshole.

going to wake up to a MILLION facebook friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33214972)

...that you don't want.

999,000 will be pervs on the 'net

is she a snog teeshirt girl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33215154)

does she look like a snog teeshirt girl? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-qF6CbJo2vY/R5SEm2iC6yI/AAAAAAAABv0/_bfFDVJcavM/s400/snorg+girl.jpg

Just call Jenny up and ask... (5, Funny)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215418)

867-5309

stop calling be and fusing the toilet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33215740)

stop calling be and fusing the toilet before I come to your house and stick the phone up your a** like I to the guy at the house where Stewart Stevenson lives.

So then... (1)

clo1_2000 (1790952) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215658)

the white board is a lie?

/., you're trying too hard (5, Informative)

dsoltesz (563978) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215702)

Dear /.,

Please stop trying to be Digg/Reddit. It's really quite embarrassing. You post these stories way past their expiration date and provide no meaningful content to contribute enlightenment or lolz. We've already seen the story. We've already read the comments. Don't fall into the trap of pandering mainstream drivel to drive traffic. If my grandma knows about it, it doesn't belong on /. Even in "Idle" your readers expect more.

Lovingly yours,
#563978

Re:/., you're trying too hard (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215972)

I think it would be amazing if slashdot would simply do away with editors and begin work on letting users vote directly on what makes the frontpage.

Having humans sit there and sift through submissions is ridiculous and is looking more and more antiquated as time goes by. It might be worth it if the eds were true journalism professionals (with a specialty in technology) but they aren't. As best I can tell they're no different from what you'd get if you went to any Tier 2 school in the US and randomly picked out a few guys to be editors.

Re:/., you're trying too hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33216476)

Expiration date on "news"? (sorry, hard to call this news)

That kind of retarded statement is exactly why this obvious hoax made it onto several "real" news sites without any fact checking whatsoever. Who gives a shit if some worthless site like Digg had the story 3 hours (or even 3 days) before Slashdot?

Re:/., you're trying too hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33216730)

makes me think of this post by CmdrTaco [slashdot.org]

Be sure to check the parent post as well.

Obvious (0)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#33215716)

For one thing, she's NOT AT WORK.

I'm usually at work when I quit, though this has not always been true. But a whiteboard from the fridge, a moment of feeling unappreciated, what the heck, post this. The gang at work will get a Kick out of it.

So, without encouraging this by actually RTFA, did her boss accept her resignation?

Was obvious from the beginning (1)

Artifex (18308) | more than 4 years ago | (#33216036)

Come on, the site's called "The Chive." You know, like "The Onion?"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?