Don’t tell me you weren’t crying out in your sleep for news of today’s retarded study. Conducted, surprise, by a dude. You’ll never guess what it says. OK, I’ll tell you. It reaffirms misogynist stereotypes!
Check it: When women text-message (a term I only reluctantly use as a verb) they blather on and on and on, their messages "brimming with personality and affection," whereas "long-suffering" men "stick to brief, no-nonsense texts."
That’s right. In the world of the Blackberry, just like in real life, personality and affection are nonsense. Unlike the "sarcasm, sexual humour and swearing" preferred by dudely text-messagers. That stuff is GOLD, full of gravitas and deep socio-political implication. Not since Horace’s Epistles have human communcations achieved so glorious a zenith as when dudes text-message.
The "study" focused on 18-to-30 year olds at some university in, I think, India. The fucktard researcher noted that men "alter their strategy" by suddenly exhibiting textual nelliness–presumably they inexplicably begin to brim with atypical personality and affection–when they’re trying to text some hottie into the sack.
UPDATE: Reader Alison alerts me that Sheffield Hallam’s is a university, not in India, but in Sheffield, England, which just shows to go you that When In Doubt, Google.
15 comments
asilon
November 15, 2005 at 3:43 am (UTC -6)
Sheffield Hallam’s in Sheffield, England.
What a bitter, twisted and woman-hating article; the Times of India writer is clearly a git.
It was reported in a rather more gender-neutral fashion in the two British papers I looked at: The Guardian (liberal broadsheet) and The Mirror (tabloid).
TimT
November 15, 2005 at 5:27 am (UTC -6)
The fucktard researcher noted that men “alter their strategy” by suddenly exhibiting textual nelliness–presumably they inexplicably begin to brim with atypical personality and affection–when they’re trying to text some hottie into the sack.
0 TWSTY, I <3 U, WLD U MK OUT WTH M3?
u + me 4va!
Twisty
November 15, 2005 at 6:05 am (UTC -6)
Alison, I note that the Guardian article observes that male texting behavior, i.e. “a man is more likely to text than phone his partner when he is out with friends” allows him to type his sweet nothings rather than expose his swearing, sarcastic, no-nonsense self to his beloved.
TimT
November 15, 2005 at 6:22 am (UTC -6)
:`-(
*sniff*
asilon
November 15, 2005 at 6:25 am (UTC -6)
Hey, I didn’t say they were perfect, just a bit more sane than the Indian article! I thought that bit about men preferring to text their partner when with other men showed what arses they can be when a group of them get together – the swearing sarcastic persona isn’t necessarily their true self (hopefully). The patriarchy’s still to blame for that too isn’t it?
Nia
November 15, 2005 at 6:26 am (UTC -6)
And reading between lines, what the study seems to suggest is that women tend to be more polite and articulate than men when sending text messages. Something as condensed as “how r u?” takes up 8 characters out of the 14 that makes the average woman’s text message longer; adding a “C U, bye” adds nine. That’s mere politeness!
asilon
November 15, 2005 at 6:38 am (UTC -6)
* not that I think there’s anything wrong with swearing and sarcasm – I love them both – I was just hoping that it’s not the full extent of their personalities.
MsKate
November 15, 2005 at 10:41 am (UTC -6)
I blame it all on the war against boys in school and gender inequities on the SAT. Men are traumatized because girls get better writing and English grades, so they are rendered inexpressive in text messaging too. Damn feminist conspiracy interfering with stereotypical enjoyment of male-dominated electronic telecommunications modes!
I blame the matriarchy.
Orange
November 15, 2005 at 10:49 am (UTC -6)
This post was way too long-winded. Couldn’t you have used shorter words and less of that extraneous thinking?
Hattie
November 15, 2005 at 10:59 am (UTC -6)
Well, the women I text with are mostly terse to the point of being enigmatic. Just shows what mysterious creatures we women are. The men I know, on the other hand, go on and on, oblivious to audience, trying to pound their argument home. Point? You choose your sample and make your huge generalizations, and behold, you have an opinion article.
Twisty
November 15, 2005 at 11:34 am (UTC -6)
:`-(
What is this thing?
Chris Clarke
November 15, 2005 at 3:56 pm (UTC -6)
TIMT’s comment had DirecTV installed this morning.
TimT
November 15, 2005 at 4:43 pm (UTC -6)
Got it from here.
Means ‘crying’. My <3 is
TimT
November 15, 2005 at 5:07 pm (UTC -6)
… broken. Stupid html
Sane Aussie
November 16, 2005 at 3:29 am (UTC -6)
How odd. One guy I know messages using abbreviations to the point of incomprehensibility, to keep the messages short. On the other hand, he usually has to send about 3 before anyone can figure out what he means. Another guy I know uses proper english, with correct grammer, and is far easier to understand.
Would it have anything to do with the topics that people were texting about? Asking how your day went requires more words than an ‘are you turning up’ question. After all, a proper study would have the people text others about the same topic – organising a get together, for example.
(PS – long time lurker. Just posted on the Australian idiot topic).