Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Nothing prove she isn't religious though. Damn religious people, we can't enjoy our hobby without a goddamn religious person trying to make nerds socially unacceptable. Why do religious persons hate geeks so much?

Knockagh wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
How has there not been a famous C.S. Lewis quote appearance in this thread yet?!?

"Being in love is a good thing; but it is not the best thing."

If this is it Lewis was thinking about God not GW ffs!!

Yeah...no, not that one.

AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
How has there not been a famous C.S. Lewis quote appearance in this thread yet?!?

"Being in love is a good thing; but it is not the best thing."

If this is it Lewis was thinking about God not GW ffs!!

I assume he meant

“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

There it is!

How about all good things in excess are bad things? Fair?

 jreilly89 wrote:
How about all good things in excess are bad things? Fair?

Pffft, you can't trick me like that. Next you'll be telling me that any amount of sweet brown sugar is too much

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Yeah, see, what you've done there is confuse 'women with whom I disagree' and 'feminist'. Don't feel too bad, this is a common internet mistake, just please don't do it again.

Orlanth wrote:Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.
The comments section is thankfully accumulating a lot of well due scorn.

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

<WillFerrelThatEscalatedQuickly.gif>

Take a deep breath, friend. Having an irrational outburst like that is indicative that you are carrying too much stress in your life. It's bad for the heart.

sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Yeah, see, what you've done there is confuse 'women with whom I disagree' and 'feminist'. Don't feel too bad, this is a common internet mistake, just please don't do it again.

Sebster has the right of it.

When I moved my GF (now wife) into my place 15 years ago, she "casually" asked me when I was going to give up all the 'kid's stuff'. I basically told her not to ask me to choose between her and my hobby, as she likely wouldn't be pleased with my choice. I wish I had taken a picture as her face was priceless.

She's fine with it now, she even ordered me some Perry Hussars over the weekend as a "just because I love you".

So are we, as men, also supposed to run from women who buy "toys"? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.
The comments section is thankfully accumulating a lot of well due scorn.

What the feth?!? What does nerds being more socially acceptable have to do with feminism? Like what does that mean? Do you just throw in "buzzwords" with no context or understanding in hopes someone (maybe even a lady for once) will give you attention? You know some other poster

said you essentially came here to troll, at first I thought his/her statements were unfounded but now I'm starting to become more accepting to the idea.

 HunterEste wrote:
So are we, as men, also supposed to run from women who buy "toys"? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

Only if she expects you to be able to keep up with them or wants you to play in ways you aren't comfortable with!

Actually, I have encounter more rejection to the "geek culture" from Religious people that anything else.

They love to tell that videogames where satanic. And the media? Oh, years ago in Spain a teenager killed all of his family with a Katana.
The media spend like months talking about how he did that taking Sepiroth from FF7 as an Inspiration and for playing Roleplay games like Dungeons and Dragons.

 Galas wrote:
Actually, I have encounter more rejection to the "geek culture" from Religious people that anything else.

They love to tell that videogames where satanic. And the media? Oh, years ago in Spain a teenager killed all of his family with a Katana.
The media spend like months talking about how he did that taking Sepiroth from FF7 as an Inspiration and for playing Roleplay games like Dungeons and Dragons.

I'm old enough to remember when D&D came out and I played it like a fiend during the summers when I was in High School. The blowback from the religious fringe was very vocal as the game became popular. Hell, I remember a friend on my block couldn't join our group because his mother didn't want him to have anything to do with daemons. But that also happened with the advent of Rock 'n Roll...just as another example...in a very big way as well, so it's more of a comment on an ever-present intransigent subset of society than religion as a whole, methinks.

Face it, what we do is a bit "different"...vive la difference!...and a very niche past time, which makes us a minority. Criticism always gets hurled by pinheads at minorities whether because their skin color is different or whether how they find pleasure in their free time is somewhat unique. Who fething cares what anybody else thinks about what you do with in your leisure, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or break the law. Now where's my damn can of white primer...

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I'm old enough to remember when D&D came out and I played it like a fiend during the summers when I was in High School. The blowback from the religious fringe was very vocal as the game became popular.

I remember when a local gaming club opened up at a local rec centre. I was about 13 or so and a bunch of friends and I all said we'd go along. I was the first to get dropped off, and my mother and I were greeted at the door by a guy who welcomed us, and then lurched in to a long, pre-prepared speech about how the whole satanism thing was an urban myth and rpgs were just good fun where kids get to pretend to be heroes. To my Mum and I this came way out of leftfield, neither of us had ever heard of the American Christian right's crusade against satanism in D&D.

Also, this was the 90s, and mothers were now scared of something very different. My Mum was more interested in checking to make sure this club was full of lurking paedophiles. I'm not sure how peeking through the door at guys sitting around tables was enough for Mum to decide that one way or another, but that's mums for you

 sebster wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I'm old enough to remember when D&D came out and I played it like a fiend during the summers when I was in High School. The blowback from the religious fringe was very vocal as the game became popular.

I remember when a local gaming club opened up at a local rec centre. I was about 13 or so and a bunch of friends and I all said we'd go along. I was the first to get dropped off, and my mother and I were greeted at the door by a guy who welcomed us, and then lurched in to a long, pre-prepared speech about how the whole satanism thing was an urban myth and rpgs were just good fun where kids get to pretend to be heroes. To my Mum and I this came way out of leftfield, neither of us had ever heard of the American Christian right's crusade against satanism in D&D.

Also, this was the 90s, and mothers were now scared of something very different. My Mum was more interested in checking to make sure this club was full of lurking paedophiles. I'm not sure how peeking through the door at guys sitting around tables was enough for Mum to decide that one way or another, but that's mums for you

When I started wargaming my grandmother kept on asking whether I was doing drugs? I'm not entirely sure how she managed to associate wargames with drugs but I suppose it was thought of as odd at the time not to be going out every Saturday to a football game and get into a thuggery match up.

Still people do seem a lot more accepting of the variety of hobbies people have these days (or most of them anyway!).

 sebster wrote:
My Mum was more interested in checking to make sure this club was full of lurking paedophiles.

Well, this certainly paints an interesting picture of Sebs early home life

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
some bigoted feminists

Random attack on some group you don't like is (very) random.

First, don't personalise your argument.

Hardly random at all, and these types of articles appear frequently. 'Ostracise a man if x or y', and all too often x or y is something lawful and harmless. Today that means toys and a dizen other things, tomorrow it can mean something else.

What you are missing is that empowerment means that people should not accepted for who they are, however all too often this evidently this doesn't go both ways. We demand tolerance of who we are, but offer none in return is a hallmark of that sub-division of the feminist movement.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Lolwut? I know plenty of geeky feminists who buy toys as adults, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone make the argument that feminism means adults buying toys is wrong.

Different type of feminist. They arent all clones you know and feminism of itself is not a wrong.
The people you associate with are likely not the 'your rights end where my feelings begin type', or the 'don't judge me, but I will judge you type' - as seen here.

 Peregrine wrote:

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

Apparently the newspaper's "write shallow fluff pieces that nobody cares about" author.

A fair assessment so far..

 Peregrine wrote:

A quick look at the other articles she's written doesn't show anything that seems especially "feminist" to me.

On the contrary, from looking at the article list on Daily Telegraph she likes to think she writes the social rules, yet they one sidedly apply.

 Orlanth wrote:
First, don't personalise your argument.

 Orlanth wrote:
Hardly random at all, and these types of articles appear frequently.

Completely random. You didn't provide any proofs, or even hints, that this article from a devout religious person was written by a feminist.
It's obvious that religious people, not feminists, are trying to get us ostracized.
I know she is religious because of the same reasons you know she is feminist .

 Orlanth wrote:
What you are missing is that empowerment means that people should not accepted for who they are,

That's not what empowerment mean .
Empowerment means being more in power. It's also become a buzzword that some feminists throw around like candy, without any real meaning beside “I like doing this”, or “I think doing this is good”.
However, if you are trying to argue that men shouldn't be ostracized for playing wargames… well, yeah, I don't think you will find anyone trying to argue otherwise on a wargaming forum.

 Orlanth wrote:
We demand tolerance of who we are, but offer none in return is a hallmark of that sub-division of the feminist movement.

Oh, come one. What you should have written was “We demand tolerance of who we are, but offer none in return is a hallmark of that sub-division of the religious movements.”
You know, those people that actually do kill people for having different ideas. And we all know the author of that article was 100% motivated by religious reasons rather than feminism!

 Orlanth wrote:
On the contrary, from looking at the article list on Daily Telegraph she likes to think she writes the social rules, yet they one sidedly apply.

Like religious person often do. So it's yet one more proof she was religiously motivated. See, you are even further proving my point!

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

A quick look at the other articles she's written doesn't show anything that seems especially "feminist" to me.

On the contrary, from looking at the article list on Daily Telegraph she likes to think she writes the social rules, yet they one sidedly apply.

Wait, a woman who writes for The Telegraph, section Lifestyle, subsection Women wrote an article directed entirely at women? Shocking, truly.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Yeah, see, what you've done there is confuse 'women with whom I disagree' and 'feminist'. Don't feel too bad, this is a common internet mistake, just please don't do it again.

 feeder wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.
The comments section is thankfully accumulating a lot of well due scorn.

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

<WillFerrelThatEscalatedQuickly.gif>

Take a deep breath, friend. Having an irrational outburst like that is indicative that you are carrying too much stress in your life. It's bad for the heart.

Ok you two. It might be better of you looked at causality rather than just resort to making patronising remarks. I know what I was writing about. Do you?

Try and think about it. We live in an age where people are expected to show tolerance, however protection and tolerance are one sided.

1. What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?
2. What prevents them from seeing that this is wrong?

Shane Watson's article is hardly unique and unusual, there is a casual discrimination going on. Articles such as these are very common in women's magazines, I assume no hate from most of them, just ignorance of actual equality.
However calling for ostracism, even casually and in ignorance ought to be properly challenged, and equally importantly its root should be understood..
One of the problems with the feminist movement is it makes female rights and female tolerance a protected class, an article calling for women to be ostracised for blanket social reasons similar to he article in the OP would be seen as misogynist and sexist, and rightly so. However the opposite is not seen as true because our society has yet to replace feminist agendas with actual equality agendas.

Social engineering is a work in progress, I am not overly alarmed by this, and not surprised that people here do not see the issues properly. Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

 Orlanth wrote:

One of the problems with the feminist movement is it makes female rights and female tolerance a protected class, an article calling for women to be ostracised for blanket social reasons similar to he article in the OP would be seen as misogynist and sexist, and rightly so. However the opposite is not seen as true because our society has yet to replace feminist agendas with actual equality agendas.

Social engineering is a work in progress, I am not overly alarmed by this, and not surprised that people here do not see the issues properly. Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

You're going to have to spin very hard to get feminism to an ideology that is unconcerned with gender roles that are harmful towards men. It's simply not true. It's true that there are double standards at play that make men acceptable targets where they really should not be. It is not true that feminism as an ideology does not care that these double standards exist.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
First, don't personalise your argument.

 Orlanth wrote:
Hardly random at all, and these types of articles appear frequently.

Completely random. You didn't provide any proofs, or even hints, that this article from a devout religious person was written by a feminist.
It's obvious that religious people, not feminists, are trying to get us ostracized.
I know she is religious because of the same reasons you know she is feminist .

First don't personalise your arguement. That is to say don't flatly assume a comment is 'random' without investigation.
"I don't understand your arguments so I will handwave it away as random' is hardly a valid reply.

The article is clearly feminist, jreilly sort of gets it:

jreilly89 wrote:
Wait, a woman who writes for The Telegraph, section Lifestyle, subsection Women wrote an article directed entirely at women? Shocking, truly.

Its a simple logical chain.
1. Blanket ostacising of people groups is wrong, its generally considered 'bigoted', with a watchword of 'tolerance' to be highlighted as the opposite and desired societal virtue.
2. However casual blanket ostracism is propagated by certain groups, one of those groups is the womens magazines.
3. Why? We must assume that the writers of womens articles and womens magazines are equal opportunities aware, however they dont consider that tolerance applies in these cases.
4. Casual selective tolerance occurs because rights are selectively applied. In the case there the selective rights are sourced by feminism, which is because feminism at its core is a female empowerment movment rather than an absolute equal rights movement.

Note that this is casual discrimination not a female conspiracy.

Also note that feminism also raises a (selective) banner against casual discrimination, a good example of this is the 'male dominated workforce' and similar memes. Proof of such is oftimes taken from comments raised, and thereby casual discrimatory articles such as Shane Watson's are an equal standard of proof. Besides there is evidence of a trend.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
What you are missing is that empowerment means that people should not accepted for who they are,

That's not what empowerment mean.
Empowerment means being more in power. It's also become a buzzword that some feminists throw around like candy, without any real meaning beside “I like doing this”, or “I think doing this is good”.

Ok, as this is a UK article a UK definition applies. If empowerment means something else in France so be it.
In the UK empowerment has a social connotation, formal government Equal Opportunities training as undertaken by the UK Civil Service uses this as a standpoint.

Now empowerment can be political, and a topical example would be encouraging people to vote, in the Uk there are movement to 'empower' Moslem women to vote as that demographic is often culturally isolated from the democratic process.
However most empowerment is social, and normally refers to what is essential confidence building. So for example 'female empowerment' means educating and encouraging women to be who they want to be. Evidence of this social emphasis in government policy has long been commonplace in the UK. Now in the Uk at least and on an official level it has been understood that selective empowerment is unhealthy. So for example telling teenage girls they can be who they want to be is a valid emnpowerment goal, and it has done much to imporove the career prospects of women, however highlighting only female empowerment had a detrimental effect on male development of the same age ranges, which is why the policy was modified to provide actual equal opportunities empowerment.
Now government can see the need to shioft from one sided empowerment to universal empowerment, however partisan pressure groups rarely think this clearly. Now a lot of feminists do, and don't want to leave mean behind while empowering women, others dont care too much about that.
Casual feminist discrimination, in the open media, whereupon a mans value can be openly and flatly categorised is an example that parts of the feminist movment have yet to catch up with actual equal opportunities. Whan they haver these types of articles will disappear.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

However, if you are trying to argue that men shouldn't be ostracized for playing wargames… well, yeah, I don't think you will find anyone trying to argue otherwise on a wargaming forum.

This also implies that a women's page artical has a different audience, which is does. However discrimination aimed at a receptive target audience doesnt make discrimination acceptable. It just makers it potentially more dangerous.

This does mean that more people *here* should recognise that blanket ostracism of gamers is unfair and discriminatory and has no place in the mass media of a modern and progressive society.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

You know, those people that actually do kill people for having different ideas. And we all know the author of that article was 100% motivated by religious reasons rather than feminism!.

I don't know if Shane Watson is religious, I haven't read any of here religious articles, but I will just accept the argument that she is.
If the article was about 13 sinful things that a woman should recogjnise a man as unholy for, then you would have a solid argument to claim the discrimination is religious based.
However it isn't, its about actioning stereotypes, and blanket social judgement of people based on their hobby choices, with in a milieu of gender differences.

 Orlanth wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.

Yeah, see, what you've done there is confuse 'women with whom I disagree' and 'feminist'. Don't feel too bad, this is a common internet mistake, just please don't do it again.

 feeder wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Nerds are now socially acceptible, but there are always some bigoted feminists who want to turn the clocks back.
The comments section is thankfully accumulating a lot of well due scorn.

Who is this 'Shane Watson' to encourage an ostracism of people for having legally acceptable hobbies she doesn't like.

<WillFerrelThatEscalatedQuickly.gif>

Take a deep breath, friend. Having an irrational outburst like that is indicative that you are carrying too much stress in your life. It's bad for the heart.

Ok you two. It might be better of you looked at causality rather than just resort to making patronising remarks. I know what I was writing about. Do you?

Try and think about it. We live in an age where people are expected to show tolerance, however protection and tolerance are one sided.

1. What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?
2. What prevents them from seeing that this is wrong?

Shane Watson's article is hardly unique and unusual, there is a casual discrimination going on. Articles such as these are very common in women's magazines, I assume no hate from most of them, just ignorance of actual equality.
However calling for ostracism, even casually and in ignorance ought to be properly challenged, and equally importantly its root should be understood..
One of the problems with the feminist movement is it makes female rights and female tolerance a protected class, an article calling for women to be ostracised for blanket social reasons similar to he article in the OP would be seen as misogynist and sexist, and rightly so. However the opposite is not seen as true because our society has yet to replace feminist agendas with actual equality agendas.

Social engineering is a work in progress, I am not overly alarmed by this, and not surprised that people here do not see the issues properly. Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

Women's magazines exist to break down the reader's confidence and then sell them products to get that confidence back.

There is no vast feminist conspiracy to socially engineer a generation of emasculated men. That's part of the right's ridiculous persecution complex. (I'm not casting this net on you, I don't know your particular views)

There is a number of underemployed women with liberal arts degrees who will type any old dross in order to pay the rent. You are giving them a veneer of legitimacy by taking it so seriously.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

One of the problems with the feminist movement is it makes female rights and female tolerance a protected class, an article calling for women to be ostracised for blanket social reasons similar to he article in the OP would be seen as misogynist and sexist, and rightly so. However the opposite is not seen as true because our society has yet to replace feminist agendas with actual equality agendas.

Social engineering is a work in progress, I am not overly alarmed by this, and not surprised that people here do not see the issues properly. Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

You're going to have to spin very hard to get feminism to an ideology that is unconcerned with gender roles that are harmful towards men. It's simply not true. It's true that there are double standards at play that make men acceptable targets where they really should not be. It is not true that feminism as an ideology does not care that these double standards exist.

This is why I was careful to point out that the feminist movement as a whole is not guilty of this. Many feminists are aware of the issues. Also in my reply to Hybrid above I indicated how 'feminist' political policy in the UK evolved when the unwelcome side effects of one suided empowerment became apparent.
However it is also clear that there are portions of the feminist movement that are disinterested in equality in favour of one sided empowerment, or misandry, and many more are caught along by this with casual discrimination and are yet unaware of the causality of casual feminist discrimination. It is a phenomena that is yet to be properly challenged in society as a whole.

You're going to have to spin very hard to get feminism to an ideology that is unconcerned with gender roles that are harmful towards men.

That is indeed, your opinion. There are other opinions, including from older mainstream feminists, that that is not the case, that are now strains of Feminism not interested in equality.

Do I agree, not necessarily, but thought it should be pointed out.

Women's magazines exist to break down the reader's confidence and then sell them products to get that confidence back.

This for the win. Both the wife a AHEM AHEM generation feminist and GC hate them with the white hot passion of a thousand burning suns.

 feeder wrote:

Women's magazines exist to break down the reader's confidence and then sell them products to get that confidence back.

A decent observation. Yes these types of articles do have the break down and build up dynamic, this isn't even necessarily unhealthy. However as you point out the rebuildijng is often portioned to create dependency.
The Modus Operandi of womens magazines is not at issue here, the casual discrimination is, and I provide argument that such open discrimination in the mass media is only possibly in todays society due to seelctive empowerment, and feminism is the only tool available that is relevant to this media.

 feeder wrote:

There is no vast feminist conspiracy to socially engineer a generation of emasculated men. That's part of the right's ridiculous persecution complex. (I'm not casting this net on you, I don't know your particular views)

While there are justified major conspiracy angles to political correctness, and I hold with some of them, this isn't one of them, and thank you for not casting that net on me.
As a general rule though selective empowerment is a very powerful political tool, and always has been.

 feeder wrote:

There is a number of underemployed women with liberal arts degrees who will type any old dross in order to pay the rent. You are giving them a veneer of legitimacy by taking it so seriously.

Sadly I have to disagree. First these articles are not to be mistaken for shock media. Your strategem of ignoring shock media to help starve it of attention and credibility has merit, but not here. Womens articles of this mature are mainstream, and while shock media is there propogate outrage these articles have a different. These articles aren't there to shock women, but to achieve a guru status while guiding women to lifestyle choices, often at the expense of third parties who are blanket discriminated against. Today the groups being targeted include gamers.
The most dangerous part is that the blanket discrimination, open bigotry in fact is not detected as such. Yes I do think this media needs to be labeled as unacceptable challenged and cleaned up and reformed by society at large. In time it will.

 Orlanth wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Women's magazines exist to break down the reader's confidence and then sell them products to get that confidence back.

A decent observation. Yes these types of articles do have the break down and build up dynamic, this isn't even necessarily unhealthy. However as you point out the rebuildijng is often portioned to create dependency.
The Modus Operandi of womens magazines is not at issue here, the casual discrimination is, and I provide argument that such open discrimination in the mass media is only possibly in todays society due to seelctive empowerment, and feminism is the only tool available that is relevant to this media.

From my point of view you're accusing an ideology concerned with illuminating the social construction of gender as being responsible for what it is criticizing. I'm assuming that's not the argument you're making, could you elaborate a bit?

I realize the feminist angle is probably derailing the thread, but it did strike me as a pretty odd thing to blame this article on. Isn't it better for women if men can comfortably be nerds instead of macho chauvinist pigs? Or am I missing something?

As for the article itself I see this sort of list as entertainment or a diversion targeted at the audience the paper wants. If many of the female readers are 45+ and maybe single it makes sense to give them something to read.

Saying that this article is fault of somet kind of toxic feminism is as absurd as saying that all sexism is machism. Many times is just low standart marketing.

 Galas wrote:
Saying that this article is fault of somet kind of toxic feminism is as absurd as saying that all sexism is machism. Many times is just low standart marketing.

This. $5 next month is "Why guys who play with toys make good fathers".

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Saying that this article is fault of somet kind of toxic feminism is as absurd as saying that all sexism is machism. Many times is just low standart marketing.

This. $5 next month is "Why guys who play with toys make good fathers".

"... and six ways you can improve yourself to get one!"