Guess what everyone? There’s a Facebook group called “the anti-popped collar club.” (APCC from here out). Now, I am not one to take sides on the popped collar debate. I myself am not a collar popper, but have considered the look from time to time, only to decide that it is just to risky/ aggressive a look for my demeanor. I was certainly swayed on the subject after I encountered the APCC while surfing on The Facebook/ procrastinating on an assignment. It appears that not only must collar poppers think they’re better than other people, but that they also wear their shirts “incorrectly.” Here is the group’s description of itself from www.thefacebook.com: “To all those who want to slap the shit out of a collar popper, this is for you. Wear the shirt the way it’s meant to. [sic] Just because you can pop a collar doesn’t mean you can be better.”
I must say, I was outraged and offended by the fascist and close-minded agenda of this group of collar-popper oppressors. Certainly, I took a mental note that should I ever decide to pop my collar, surely one of the members of this group would be required by internet law to follow the ethos of their group and “slap the shit out of me” for being so bold as to express myself via the popped collar.
All joking aside, Liz Coville, I ask that you look back at your rather drastic wespeak about a group that was obviously a joke, (albeit a lame joke, that may have unintentionally offended some) the Wesleyan Raise Your Standards Crusade (WRYSC). I have to admit, I am a card-carrying member of the WRYSC (read: signed up for it in response to an e-mail invite, got a chuckle out of it’s absurdity, and never thought about it again until your wespeak). The fundamental point to my argument is that I simply cannot find any grounds on which you can purport to take The Facebook or anything contained within it seriously. The “passionate” and “scathing” statements emblazoned on our group’s page are exactly what you mused they might be immediately prior in your article, namely: “tongue in cheek or [a] moderately exaggerated rant on sexual frustration.” The only difference between us and the hate-mongers at the APCC is that we choose a non-violent means of protest to our fake topic of outrage and do not use fear tactics to accomplish our laughable agenda. As someone who is a (proud?) member of groups with such non-offensive names as “bitches ’til we’re drunk” and “Hodge Cant Dunk!! Hodge Cant Dunk!!” ( the latter of which has this group description: “To Honor The Only Black Man Over Six Feet That Cannot Dunk!! Is That a Picture of Hodge? I Cant Even Tell the Difference!” with an accompanying picture of Michael Vick.)
I understand the point you were trying to make Liz, and I agree whole-heartedly that physical attractiveness is only one variable within quite a large set of variables that composes the equation of human attraction. I was amused by your assumption of our primitive mindsets regarding the opposite sex, as we probably did deserve some mockery based on our silly joke. I feel that The Facebook is neither the time nor the place for discussions/ arguments of any seriousness to be waged. I hate to risk a “generalized expression of belief” which may be “injurious”, but I would like to think that The Facebook is about as non-serious as it gets, and that people generally (oh no, that word again!) use it to kill time and look up some info on friends and acquaintances. I certainly take nothing on that site seriously, and perhaps am wrong in assuming that most students feel likewise. I urge you to pick your battles more wisely and judiciously lest you make light of a serious subject by coming across as severely offended by a joke obviously of benign intent, putting your cause and argument in a negative light over pettiness and boredom. Bottom line: lighten up. (APCC- apologies for jokingly negative sentiments on my part against you to convey a point).
Leave a Reply