Jami (a commenter on this blog) has a terrific way with words. She wrote the following in reply to an earlier post called Stereotypes: Are you yawning or laughing?
“Stereotypes should serve as negative examples of the thinking we need to overcome in order to begin perceiving others as human beings – not as stereotypes slotted into perceptual boxes.”
I think we all agree that putting people into boxes is a problem. So why do we do it? I am sure most of us pegged someone wrong based on one false belief we had of a certain demographic, at least once in our lives.
Does Stereotyping Provide a Function?
I know I have been embarrassed once or twice with my own preconceptions based on national stereotypes (especially when I lived abroad) and I soon realized that my judgment was incorrect and the opposite is indeed true. I also had experiences where people (mis)placed me into a box due to their preconceptions about my culture, that was a strange feeling too.
In those moments I am usually glad I kept those horrid “putting-human-beings-into-boxes” ideas within the privacy of my own thoughts. There must be some function behind the act of putting people into neat conceptual boxes, otherwise we wouldn’t do it. Is stereotyping always wrong?
From my perspective it is human nature to divide concepts, people, and things into categorical boxes in order to understand them in the shortest time possible. In some situations it serves a useful function.
Take for example your average blog directory. I have the biggest problem trying to list my blog into directories because I cannot decide what category my blog should come under. I tend to put it under “Relationships” although I know that this is not the only subject my blog deals with. I am concerned that when my blog is labeled “Relationships” potential readers will assume that this is a dating site.
In a way, I am expected to put my blog into a neat conceptual box labeled “Relationships” and unfortunately, my blog does not fit very easily into this category.
What is the function of a blog directory putting each blog under headings such as “Business; Leisure and Tourism; Hobbies or Relationships”? In short, they are there to give internet surfers a sense of what they will find in each category, so if they are looking for tips on gardening they are hardly going to go into the Business section looking for it. Quite useful, eh?
How about language? It appears fluid and spontaneous from a distance, but when linguists try to understand it, they divide the words up into smaller conceptual bits according to function. So out of all the words in all the languages most of them can be divided into nouns, verbs, adjectives, and so on.
The parallel between the dividing up of language to stereotyping groups of human beings is uncanny! Linguists really do bicker over which word is really an adjective or adverb in a given sentence. Which goes to prove that even the very words we use cannot be stereotyped into boxes all the time – like people, words do not always match the given criteria neatly enough to categorize them as well as we would like.
Stereotyping as a Blueprint
Did you know that the word, “Stereotype” also refers to a late 18th Century method of printing? The process involved type being cast in a single mould so that a printing plate can be made from it. From this mould, numerous copies of a document can be made. This method was used in letterpress, newspapers and other press runs that ran at high speeds. You can see some examples of Stereotypes here
What if we use stereotypes in life as a form of blueprint like the stereotype printing method? Dividing the world into smaller packages is our way of creating order out of chaos. We file information according to labeled boxes for later reference, or for relevance. When we use stereotypes for our perceptions of places, people or objects we are interpreting the world from a blueprint and adding bits as we go along.
Who can blame us? We live in a massive universe. It is a tapestry woven tightly with mysteries that human beings attempt to muddle through everyday! So much of our understanding of life is contradictory too! Anyone that has studied long enough into any subject will discover that the more you read, sometimes the less you really know! All this information is confusing, and human beings have so many varied experiences, opinions, and perceptions that it is no wonder we start trying to condense information into these boxes!
Is Stereotyping a Problem?
The problem is not that people apply these blueprints to people, ideas, and places – it is when we compare ourselves to the blueprints of others, or become so attached to our own blueprints that we are unwilling to change them when we are met with new information.
It is fascinating that the word “stereotype” was given the meaning in 1850 of, “image perpetuated without change” it is directly lifted from the aforementioned concept of the 18th Century printing method. The process occurs in the mind of people who refuse to adapt their blueprints to new information. Their “type” has been set in iron and will only replicate the same viewpoint over and over again. This is the mind of a mechanical robot, not a human being.
To be overly attached to the blueprints we hold of others will only lead to a person to have a mind that is rigid and inflexible, eventually this type of mind will shatter not bend to new ways of thinking. I think it is a shame for any human being to fence themselves in with this thought process. It is always sad to view a person with a decaying mind – for their mind has the potential to be a beautiful instrument if only they tweaked their blueprints a tad.
So if you find yourself putting people into boxes sometimes, don’t beat yourself up for attempting to create order out of chaos. Do update your blueprint to reflect the new information you have learnt – keeping your mind open to these adjustments will make you a more flexible human being that can roll with life’s punches.
Have you ever met someone who actually fits into a stereotype at all?
I am interested in your views, please leave a comment! 
15 Comments
March 3, 2008 at 2:51 am
I enjoyed that post, Luka, and the etymology was something I didn’t know, so interesting.
Personally I prefer the word ‘labelling’ to stereotyping. They are the same thing of course but the word stereotyping seems almost to have lost the negative connotation that can also be implied by rigid and inflexible thinking that is unable to accommodate any new or different information.
Obviously labeling is a human ability and for that reason alone it means it must have been valid in an evolutionary sense and is therefore a necessary funtion. Thinking about it, I can see that it is definately necessary for toddlers, as they learn to differentiate, identify and classify.
Also perhaps a necessary substitute for cognition in aged persons who no longer have the mental flexibility to reason but who still are capable of perceiving that an external world does exist. It definitely must help them to make sense of a world that is increasingly complex and alien to them.
My real concern with “fossilized” thinking is that it means aged persons are especially vulnerable to generalizations that politicians may like to send their way through the media channels that they tend to use…day time talk-back radio perhaps? I tend to think a lot of our institutions are going to become more conservative as our populations in the Western world age and our politicians tailor their rhetoric accordingly in order to get the support of the elderly.
March 3, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Yes, we label things for quick reference. It’s an evolutionary holdover from a time when animals (including humans) had to decide in a split second if something or someone was a potential threat. We are essentially hardwired to utilize that method of interaction. But like a lot of other hard-wiring we carry, we CAN overcome it.
In reading this, it struck me as ironic that our brains – possibly one of the most chaotic creations in existence – resort to categorization and labels to impose order on the chaos of the outside (the brain) world.
And have I ever met someone who fit a stereotype? Not completely, no. After all, we’re human!
March 4, 2008 at 5:52 am
I agree Jami, stereotyping, labelling, generalizing, or whatever you prefer to call it, when directed at a person as opposed to an intangible object or bulk information doesn’t reflect well developed thinking.
addendum: Erving Goffman wouldn’t like me for using the word ‘labelling’ and not emphasizing negative connotations, I guess. In case anyone else thinks I was implying that ‘labelling’ is unavoidable and A-okay, I wasn’t.
I personally prefer the word ‘labelling’ because I think ’stereotyping’ is overused and has lost potency. I also interpret ‘labelling’ from a health background that is aware of associated effects of depersonalisation, stigma, and marginalisation.
March 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Stereotyping in the media is a way of packaging information quickly for consumption. It’s part of moreselization, though nobody in the media rationalizes it that way (yet).
But the packaging that the media uses is often designed to reinforce stereotypes too, and then it almost always has a negative connotation.
But stereotypes or classification are useful to describe general traits. But the whole stereotyping thing has become a part of marketing speak too. Demographics are a way of grouping and stereotyping or labeling albeit far more sophisticated in terms of analysis and number of traits.
But a new trend (poorly defined by most atm) is towards intuitive marketing because the speed of culture change is now so fast that by the time you’ve measured and analyzed the market has changed and the stereotypes and demographics no longer apply.
The thing that is wrong with stereotypes though is that they create an artificial filter which prevents observation of what is.
Yesterday I was discussing discrimination and I told a writer/editor colleague and I explained: “I loathe discrimination…. There is perhaps only one form of discrimination I agree with…Character Discrimination.” She was puzzled. I explained, “I don’t care about color…I don’t care about nationality…I don’t care about economic status…I don’t care about political status…I don’t care about social status…I don’t care about gender…I just care that someone is of decent character and treats me and others with basic human dignity, compassion, equity and fairness while observing all human rights.”
March 14, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I love Jami.
You guys have said it all. I have nothing to add.
Weird word, though. Stereotype. Type in stereo.
March 15, 2008 at 12:24 pm
@Female – Thank you.
I am pleased to know that this post was enjoyed. Thankfully I quite enjoyed writing it too!
@Jami – Yes, it is funny that our minds are so chaotic and yet demand to make things ordered and neat. I think if anything we are chaotically neat
@NDK – I see your point, but can you honestly say that you have never in your life stereotyped someone based on an assumption you had of their demographic or background or even how they dress or carry themselves?
You say you don’t care about colour, race, creed, whatever – I’m sure you may think you don’t, but does that mean you don’t have any preconceived ideas about groups of people at all? If you have managed to rise above all this completely then perhaps you are far more evolved than I am!
I am also tired of hearing people always blaming the media for everything. I see that the media have a lot to answer for with respect to stereotyping, but they are not independent of how we think as human beings either. If anything I often view the media as a reflection of our thinking as much as they influence it. It aint always pretty either!
@Teri – Tis a strange word indeed!
March 22, 2008 at 2:29 am
A good point Emm, I grok why you make such a challenge.
You said, “You say you don’t care about colour, race, creed, whatever – I’m sure you may think you don’t, but does that mean you don’t have any preconceived ideas about groups of people at all?”
The only preconceived ideas I have are those others gave me, and those are stereotypes. I identify those as “not mine.” I do it the moment they are stated to me. I recognize them as a stereotype, and therefore not necessarily indicative of anything about the person I’m talking to or the topic under discussion. If their statements later turn out to have some basis in fact based on my own observation then I will reclassify as characterization.
“Do I not have any pre-conceived ideas about groups of people at all?”
Yeah. I’ve pretty much labeled every idea another has offered me as “suspect” because, and I’ll characterize here (note: not stereotype) I know that this world we live in, this civilization does strange things with truth and communication. So one has to label everything with a Big Fat Question Mark (BFQM) before accepting it as truth, and “everything” includes “everyone.”
I question any idea I am given by another that has a label which appears to be prejudicial towards that which is so-labeled. I reject it, either privately, or in debate depending on the character of the person/people who I am communicating with and my judgment as to whether or not they have sufficient intellectual rigor to engage in a debate about the idea or not. I won’t engage in a debate with a person whose capacity for debate will quickly turn personal as they discover they are losing ground intellectually, because I know they’re going to make-it-personal.
Stereotyping and Characterizing are for me two very different things. I know they’re not for most everybody else, which is why stereotyping is so popular, people are fastened in on that one idea and don’t have an appositive to balance the practice of stereotyping with something sane i.e. balanced. So yes, I have risen above stereotyping because I know what it is not, and what it is not is characterization. Characterization, for me, involves close observation. Though no doubt, those who lay in such words as ’stereotyping’ on society will now seek to term characterization as simply another type of stereotyping. It’s not. But it usually takes about 50 years before people finally catch up to these notions.
This is what I was getting at when I made my remarks about having “risen above stereotyping.” But let’s define what I mean by stereotyping (somewhat for it is a vast subject with many perspectives).
At the moment: Stereotyping, for me, is the act of accepting or creating a generalization about others that is prejudicial, discriminatory, and without any basis or foundation in personal or general experience. Stereotyping is a ‘tar brush’ that indiscriminately paints an entire group, or an individual with one or more characteristics that are not in fact theirs and which they give no consistent substantive evidence of when you inspect. The motive of stereotyping is usually driven by propaganda and agenda.
I realize that my description may be not have been as clear nor as understandable as you may prefer. But I have experienced discrimination based on a few different things and that gives one quite a different perspective that is not always understood nor given credibility by those who have not had the same experience, or who consistently involve in discriminatory practices. But when you have had that experience, it changes your perspective in very deep and profound ways and gives one cause to question such mechanisms of marginalization and disempowerment. And stereotyping is such a mechanism or device in communication, a technique or method, if you like.
I’m not saying and did not say “I’ve never had any stereotypes.” I did say “I have risen above them.” I realize that opens me to a challenge, as it puts up an ‘absolute’ and any person who may wish to exploit such an idea or notion of perfection for we all know and accept that humans are not perfect, may well perceive it as a weakness and endeavor to do so.
Or so we “sort of” accept. It depends on the motive of the person as to how true and to what degree of acceptance is in fact in existence within them.
I know that I am not perfect. But I strive to be the best human being I can be. I often get it wrong. Show me someone who does not. That’s not a statement in my defense. Nor is this reply in any way defensive.
I am saying I’ve traveled a lot, and I’ve learned that people, taken individually, do not usually answer up to stereotypes and that my experience is that stereotypes are not very useful when it comes to individuals.
“Stereotypes” can be quite useful to make a general point or observation. I can and do for example characterize America as a war mongering nation, and the facts support that notion, as does that nation’s excessive military budget. Does that make every American a warmonger? No. And I know this. So, I’m very careful about how I characterize anything, and if I do characterize it in some apparently “stereotypical fashion,” I’m going to be able to back that up with appropriate information. While others may label what I do as “attaching a stereotype” that’s their being ’stereotypical’ in terms of intellectual endeavor if they fail to recognize the weight of evidence I attach to, or bring forth upon demand or challenge to my statements.
I have also ‘labeled’ the art & entertainment industry as corrupt.
Quite frankly, it’s not a new label and I was not the first to apply it. But it’s not the only corrupt industry either. But it’s one I choose to focus on. Lawrence Lessig has labeled the American Congress as corrupt, and he’s working to do something about it. Is he right? Is there any evidence to support that? Yes. Far too much, going on for far too long. So the label of corruption in American government is substantive and substantially true, if one just cares enough to look and be informed.
When I have applied the label of corrupt to the art & entertainment industry I can substantiate it, with decades of evidence from independent sources. So I can and will say with confidence that I have not applied a label such as one might just put a sticker on a product in some mindless fashion without consideration. “Is this the right label?” “Do I have overwhelming evidence that warrants such a label?” If the evidence justifies the application of the label, then I’m going to put the label on that thing and say “there it is.” And I always ask myself those questions about any topic to avoid being a Stereotyper. I consider very carefully the labels and names and so on I apply to anything, or any one.
I know this is odd in such a corrupt civilization.
***Interlude***
Oh dear, did he just say the civilization we live in is corrupt?
Yes, I did.
Is there any evidence to support such a claim?
Heaps. But don’t look, focus on me, it’s far more important than looking to yourself.
EXPLANATION
Statement: “Civilization is *&%$!.”
Civilization: “Did you just stereotype me?”
***Interlude Over***
In other words, I do not buy into a general characteristic without I have personally checked it out. Then I won’t assign “a stereotype,” I’ll make an observation which will describe a characteristic that’s been observed.
If someone else decides, without any further consideration, that I have just “stereotyped” someone that’s their application of the label stereotype to me. In other words, they didn’t bother to find out. I do bother, so yes, I can honestly say to the best extent possible I have risen above stereotyping and I could detail the many events I’ve had and experienced that have lead me to challenge any stereotype, or the process by which stereotyping is “laid in.” It’s laid in by acceptance of an idea without challenge, without looking, without consideration.
And that’s something I never do. I don’t accept anything I’m told by anybody without I have gone and checked it out myself. I know that to do otherwise is to commit an injustice. There is an exception, and it’s a natural one. When someone has over time established with me a high degree of trust, I am quite likely to accept something they say as having greater weight and value. Doesn’t mean I’ll get lazy and not verify what they have said. Just means they have credibility with me.
Others may then take the label I’ve applied and use it in stereotypical fashion. That’s not my problem. That’s their problem. They have free will. Perhaps they have checked out what I have to say, or know that what I’m saying is true enough to warrant any label I apply. But then they now know that my statements are based in facts.
I do hope I have not given you the impression that I am as you say “one of those who blame the media for everything.” My original remark (comment) about stereotyping was simply meant as a back up to your own original article. My media studies covered stereotyping in the media extensively over several lectures and tutorials and all I was doing was stating that the media use stereotypes deliberately to package information for consumption. It’s just a fact, that this is what they do. They know they do it. They do it deliberately. I simply observed that this leads to another form of morselization.
I did not say “The media is to blame for everything that’s wrong.”
I would never say that. It would be incorrect. If I’ve given you that impression, then I apologize and will endeavor to provide a more balanced perspective in future. Shall we delve into religion? Politics? Industrialization? Economics? My hobby horse is art & entertainment and media, but I am well aware it is just one of the problems this world needs to deal with if it is to survive, and well aware it is a personal interest. And why not? It’s under tremendous pressure at the moment with its very infrastructure collapsing and when it collapses my dreams, hopes and aspirations along with those of so many others go with it. And then what do we do? The financial support of the public for our work is evaporating with every free/pirated download. The public wants free everything. But they want to be paid for what they produce and deliver. Hmmm…how does that work?
There is a stereotype about stereotyping among human beings, and it is this: we think as a people that we all do not think and that we are the only one who does. And so long as we buy into stereotypes as defined herein, then that will continue to be the case.
I know better. I know that if I can get someone to break out of the collective thinking mechanisms (culturally programmed ideas) that are laid into society (See the documentaries at http://freedocumentaries.org/index.php?ct=5 titled Century of Self parts 1 – 4 so you grok what I’m talking about) then we can get some real conscious intellect working in society. When we talk about people or the world “waking up” that’s what we’re talking about – waking up to the notion that some of the fundamental ideas we’ve bought into are no longer useful and with increasing frequency are demonstrating themselves as inimical to life.
Engender Truth capitalizes upon and exists upon this very notion to some extent and it provides a welcome balance to an otherwise polarized gender culture.
I can quite ‘happily’ characterize the human race as a singularly unintelligent species as it is the only one that destroys the world it lives in, while pretending it has nothing to do with that destruction. I will so characterize the human race until it demonstrates that it no longer has such a characteristic, and until it realizes that having an intellect and the ability to invent and mold nature does not mean that to do so indiscriminately is right, responsible or intelligent.
The very notion that “humans are the superior species on earth” is part of the stupidity that creates the disaster we find ourselves in. “We know best…therefore whatever we say/do is right.” That’s crap-thinking. But it’s a stereotype and it’s false. Wrong. An incorrect assumption totally outweighed by the evidence of our destructive follies: pollution, inhumanity, economic injustice, political, military and other corruptions, which for their cleverness, if not the ultimate resultant fact of their folly, demonstrate our potential to have a decent civilization.
It’s my right to make such a characterization when I present evidence which substantiates my conclusion and utterance. If someone then wishes to show me the error of my conclusion, and label, by providing refutation, then I will be glad to be wrong, and learn the lesson they have to offer me.
Furthermore, as a writer, my job is in large part spent understanding the viewpoints of others. I consider what I say and/or write at great length, or have considered it at great length prior to any utterance.
I encourage people to freely articulate, and I often guide them to ask broader questions, in order to avoid stereotypical thinking (which I would label: non-thinking/blind acceptance).
So, overall, I would say my perspective and knowledge of stereotyping and how it works as a mechanism substantiates an argument and an answer in the affirmative to your question, “Yes,” I have risen above it. Does that mean I’ve evolved to a greater degree than you? In that particular area and topic? I don’t know. Only you can answer that.
March 22, 2008 at 3:42 am
To be fair… you are older than me, so you do have a head start as far as evolving is concerned
March 22, 2008 at 7:24 am
Can anyone remember when they first learned about prejudice? I ask because I can recall first learning not to judge others in infant school (age 5 – 7), which I started when I was 4, lucky me.
It was drilled into us seemingly once a day that we weren’t to think that people who had different skin colours to ours are any different to us. They framed this by saying that white people, red people, brown people and yellow people were all the same. I was endlessly confused. I spent about 3 years looking for yellow and red people, and never found them.
Just a bit of levity.
March 22, 2008 at 4:59 pm
@Emm: Heh. Ageism, for me, is another form of discrimination and stereotyping, Emm. And the notion that because we are older we are smarter is frankly, dumb. Age does not equal smart, clever nor intelligent. It just means one has lived longer and may have more experience of life. It is no measure of intellect nor ability to reason. That people buy into age as meaning smarter, wiser, more intelligent belies much. It’s another fallacious stereotypical idea that some elders often wish to perpetuate in order to maintain a tenuous social status quo.
Personally, I know people who are far older, with less smarts than those many years younger. So age has nothing to do with evolution of the intellect.
For me, you are one such smart young woman. The questions I asked at the end of my reply to yours, are honest questions. But you are under no obligation to answer.
Neither does educational level evolve the intellect. Only a person can evolve their intellect. I know people with degrees who cannot reason their way out of a soggy wet paper bag; present company excepted. I know others with degrees whose ability to accept a new idea is a remarkable testament to the youthful nature of their mature years. They are, unfortunately, an exception.
One’s evolution in the subject and area of stereotyping is entirely dependent upon the ability to examine the subject, and come to alternative methods. One can undo the work of cultural programming. It’s not easy, but it is possible. One has to first adopt this position: I disagree.
Having adopted that position, with respect of a particular subject, you can begin to justify and explain your disagreement. One may find that in the process of such an honest examination, that one ends up dissuading oneself of the position, and reaffirming the notion one initially disagreed with.
@Female: My introduction to racial prejudice (racism) happened like this: I was about 5 years old. I was living in the South Island of New Zealand. I had made friends with a boy my own age. His name was Paul and he was a Maori. We were the best of mates and had endless fun playing in the grounds of the hospital across the road. One day I took him home to meet my parents. When my father opened the door he ‘hit the roof’ called my friend all sorts of despicable names and forbade me to ever see my only and first friend again. Boy, was I embarrassed, confused, and hurt for my friend, my father, myself and my family. I discovered my father was a cruel, hard man and a bigoted racist. I lost my friend. I lost the hours of priceless fun spent in his company from that day forward. We might have been friends for life.
For me, people are people they always have been and I just accept them, for the most part, as being who they are, and who they are for me is beyond everything except their character. Paul was a good boy, and we were good friends. I remember him fondly. He had a brilliant dazzling smile and he accepted me just as I was, and I did the same by him. Though I’m “much older” I’m still that little boy, who learned well the heartless nature of racism and vowed never to hurt another in that way and I have endeavored to live my life by that vow, where I never let discrimination take hold and never condone it, racial or otherwise from any pole position of age, intellect, disability, social status, or anything else.
Your story is amusing though and I too ‘tried to find the colored people’ the truth is: there are none. The truth about gender is we are one.
One species. Two genders. But we are One, first. All else is secondary. Of lesser importance. We are human beings. We have rights. They are equal.
I wish my stories in this vein at this time were more amusing, but they are not. Stereotyping is a hurtful thing to do to others, it often violates human rights. But stereotyping is always used as a propaganda tool to create fear and justify the humiliation, degradation, torture, and death of human beings.
It’s at the heart of Engender Truth’s mission to understand this mechanism and find ways to combat it so we all can rise above this insidious communication device/mechanism that ruins relationships and pits us as members of the same species and race, one against the other.
It’s not a light subject, though I do wish it were, and oft admire the levity that Emm (and now you) bring to it. Cheers!
March 23, 2008 at 12:26 am
March 23, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Thank you, for your kind words, Female, I’m glad to know you appreciate what I have offered.
May 5, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I cannot say honestly that I have endeavoured to trace down everyone who has ever been subject to stereotype. However, it has always been a personal mission of mine to ‘break the stereotype.’
In high school, I was the kid who hung out with all the ‘goths’. Yes, I wore black clothing. Yes, I wore chains, metallic jewelry, etc. And yes, I dyed my hair. But the one’s who perceive the ‘gothic culture’ as evil, twisted, satanic cultists always found themselves mistaken when I deliberately wormed my way into their social group.
My dean in high school disliked me to such a great degree, that the school paid for a counselor to try and determine what was wrong with me during the weekends. I laughed and stated “There’s nothing wrong with me. What’s wrong with them?”
Of course he found himself taken aback by this. I explained to him that there was no devilish intent or maniacal thought process to my character. I was simply making a ’social statement’.
My dean was intimidated by me; and why not? Columbine had not happened but a year or so before. But does that make every trench coat wearing kid a killer? I knew that these thoughts were crossing people’s minds and that I was inevitably taunting the stereotype. There was no doubt in my mind that there would be consequences to my actions, but if I could just change one person’s perception; there way of looking at people — not as a whole but as an individual — then I felt my actions justified.
For three years my dean tried to rid himself of me. I let him think he won. I dropped out of hich school; yes, but I knew that I could get education elsewhere. My primary focus was on altering the culturally induced inhibition of individual thought.
I must say that I relished the day I left. In that day alone; several people I knew that did not hang out in my social clique came to that day with a hug and thank you. Not for being a friend, but for opening their eyes to a new way of seeing the world. As a good friend of mine has said, “If you change the way you see things, the things you see will change.”
Words to remember.
May 7, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Here ya go, Brandon. From the wisdom of Woody Allen.
“My education was dismal. I went to a series of schools for mentally disturbed teachers.”
May 28, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Check out my humorous battle of the sexes video at