At 04:33 PM 9/9/02 -0700, joanna bujes wrote:
>At 06:45 PM 09/09/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>> >Yeah, what I was thinking of was definitely NOT physically violent "macho"
>> >men -- I could always see throught that. I think I meant something more
>> >like "jerks" -- the kind your mother can see coming a mile away. So,
>> >something more like, self-centered, immature, inconsiderate, and
>> >aggressive in the sense of very confident (given their immaturity).
>> >
>>
>>
>>In a word, a jock. Difficult to describe but you know exactly who they are
>>when you see them. They are always popular with high school girls and
>>women who do not advance beyond that mental stage. Which further supports
>>my "sheeple" behavioral model (i.e. people doing what is conventionally
>>expected). Jocks epitomize the conventional gender roles, as opposed to
>>nerds and others outcasts and weirdos. That explains the choice made by
>>most HS girls - as teenage behavior is driven mostly by following the herd
>>and conformity to conventional rules of the herd.
>
>Nah. Jocks are stupid. Stupidity is not dangerous except in doctors,
>pilots, and government officials. To further narrow the definition, I had
>in mind very smart jerks.
>
>Joanna
>