Before I go to bed, I'll throw Lenny a bone. So he can come back and have another look at our slightly unsterilised UK without hating himself And this won't be very structured, but i'll just throw a few points together. - most of the people ive worked with in my professional days are men - most of them are ****ing ****, and ****ing stupid - ive worked with a few women (younger ones in particular) who ive found very talented, and - like me - could probably out perform most of the 30 year experience guys after about 12 months, and imwould happily see them replace those guys. - ( ive also found btw that generally women are given far more respect at work, and be far more likely to be treated as human beings, than men) - imo, the best boss ive ever had was a woman. The best lawyer ive ever worked with was a woman. The political leader i have the most admiration for was a woman. None of them gave a **** about feminism or political correctness, or gave any thought to their gender or anyome else's whatseover (apart from guys they fancied). - i worked with a woman once who started at a new firm at the same time as me. Let's call her Carla. Whereas I was brilliant at the job, Carla was pretty **** at it. Because i was a ****ing miracle worker, i got given a lot of responsibility very quickly. Because carla was ****, she didnt. Very early, she started playing the sexism card. She started coming in dressed in mens' suits. She comstantly flicked her eyes and turned her nose up, scoffing at the ridiculous sexual discrimination she was being the victim of, for not being given extra responsibility. Within a few months, whilst still coming in in mens' suits, still turning her eyes up in disgust, she was ****ing the biggest sleazebag director ive ever worked with. - i dont really give a **** whether people in senior positions in firms are men or women. I care that they are the best people. Id be quite happy if most senior managers were women. So long as they were good. So long as they arent like Carla. The feminist movement on the other hand, would be delighted if every single senior manager in the world, was just like Carla. And theyll scream and shout and bully until it happens.
Dont think i could disagree more with that. Firstly, we are comstantly challenged about the beliefs and behaviours you have identified, pretty much in all aspects of our lives. Secondly, if there's one arena where we can escape it, and take some time out to be be real human beings, it's with (particularly stand up) comedy.
I know that you're half-joking with this Lenny, but I think it points out two problems with modern feminism. The first and easiest to deal with is that you've literally ignored the third presenter on Countdown. Who is it? The longest serving person on the show, lexicographer Susie Dent: please log in to view this image Over 2,500 shows, only missing some to take maternity leave and still going after 24 years. Intelligent, articulate, not particularly good looking and over 50. So that's two bright women on the show as regulars and one not particularly smart bloke. Is that a sexist format? I'm struggling to see it. The other issue is that surely the likes of Carol Vorderman and Rachel Riley are good role models for women? Aren't they presenting a positive image on an extremely long-running show? They're attractive, true, but they do the difficult part of the quiz and they do it live. Susie Dent does the other tricky part, while the male presenter plays the fool and defers to them for the intelligent stuff.
Great points PNP (although ive not done it as well as you, i have already challenged him about this angle). I'd bang the ass out of suzie dent though.
The maths part requires some skill, but most competent GCSE students can get the answers without too much difficulty Suzie Dent's job is a fair bit more taxing - especially given the time constraints There is no doubt that Carol and Rachel are intelligent women - there is equally no doubt that they were chosen from the many others eligible for the role because of factors wholly unrelated to their intellect
If you think most gsce students are either as intellectually capable as rachael riley, or have the presenter skills (or ever will) of rachael riley, then.....that's probably worse than powerspurs assessment of that barrister imo. Aside from that, on what basis does their physical appearance contributing to them getting the jobs, discriminate against women ?
True for Rachel Riley, but apparently not for Carol Vorderman. She wasn't the only person in her role originally and the advert said that intellect was more important than looks. The tile placement was done by other women, who were the standard game show types. Vorderman alternated her role with Dr. Linda Barrett, neither of whom were massive lookers at the time, frankly: please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
We only need to assess their ability to do the maths puzzle - that's the only requirement for the quiz. The numbers are relatively simple. I've no issue with the prettiest woman getting the job, but isn't the problem with this is that it's seen as discrimination against the less pretty who might be equally as capable of doing the job, if not more so? TV picks the prettiest face when it comes to female presenters. We've been there. The fact that Rachel Riley is clever too is incidental.
Carol Vorderman initially looked very typical of a young, fashionable '80s woman. As time progressed, she herself appears to have sought to make appearance central to how she was viewed in public (posing for rear of the year etc). Does anyone doubt that her popularity in TV circles was down to her willingness to cultivate her image as clever totty?
Oh Rob - this laryngitis is gonna clear up eventually so we'll have to end this little bromance soon anyway. I'm English, btw - just live in the US. So your racial stereotyping of Americans can fu...(just kidding - Americans certainly do tend to love their stuff sterilized. A trait I can't stand actually). I do despair a bit, though when I read you repeatedly saying that I have said that to be on TV you need to be either female, young and pretty or male, old and ugly. I mean I have explicitly (if you go back and read what I wrote) said nothing of the sort. In one post I spent several sentence listing all the options for men that are not old and ugly. My point is only that to be on TV and be a woman then being young and good-looking is almost a pre-requisite in the main. Come on - how can you argue against that? And why can't you see that this is clearly a block for women? Whatever - I'm not going to change your mind. Those awful feminists who control the world (or is it the Jews? Maybe its Soweto orphans. Yeah - I think Soweto orphans probably rule the world. I bet the ginger lesbian ones are the worst) need to be watched. Best of luck. Stay safe. I do worry about all those men in the UK under constant attack, absolutely without power in a frightening and hostile world. Look out for the paraplegics. Once the feminists have had their way the paraplegics will be next. Bastards lording it over everyone with their wheelchair ramps that are in some but not many places. Also: steady on PNP - Susie Dent is clearly quite cute.
I despair. BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE CASE FOR MEN! You are absolutely dead-set on never seeing any single disadvantage that women have. In the solicitor/barrister example one was pure victim, one was evil, vindictive, appalling harpie. I've seen it again and again in your remarks. You concede that there was discrimination 100 years ago, 50 years ago, maybe 30 years ago but seem intent on saying that somehow, through our gigantic wisdom, it's all been totally 100% sorted out. That women are not routinely objectified in pretty much every single media that there is (not that I have an inherent problem with objectifying people, just that it is so much more prevalent for women and girls), that women are always judged in exactly the same way men are - that really, really established and understood phenomenon (the age ceiling for female TV presenters, that women's behaviour in authority is routinely perceived differently to men's behaviour in authority) just...don't exist! You have also built a gigantic straw (or should I say brick - it's pretty damn solid) man of what feminism is, what its aims are (the aims are many and sometime contradicting btw) and repeatedly attack this fictional misrepresentation. Whatever. I really did enjoy chatting with you Rob - let's just make it more about football in the future!
I think the US woimen would give our national team a good game.Could just see Morgan making eyes at Joe Hart and saying "Get that one out of your net Big Boy!"
I sort of agree with old pops on the women needing to be pretty pre requisite of the job. There are two thoughts of this in my view (i havent read anything on feminism): - It is sexism as you are sexualising and making women an object - my thought is is that its just another advantage and if you had to hire a 50 year old and a 20 year old who were exactly the same and who you both liked as much on the same pay, who would you choose? A business person would obviously choose the younger longer term person. Unfortunately the media is a business and in an ever increasing shallow world, people will go for the hot clever girl than the fat ugly one. Just as you would not hire the dumb ugly girl over the clever ugly girl, beauty is an attribute that is judged on how hirable you are. Now is the demand for hot women on tv due to us being ingrained in society thays what we want or is it because society demands this. The phrase sex sells is highly used and i think their is an element where analysts show that hot young women sell more than old women. As for young hot men, i think most actors nowadays are pretty much all handsome and for the older ones its because they were young and handsome at one point and have lots of networks... or they are in some sort of joke role. Does hollywood choose to be sexist or are they trying to create the safist products and not take risks in order to be as profitable as possible. I agree there could be more older women in more lead positions but is that down to there being less females around from 30 years ago when sexism was rampant (so less young females back then) or because there is sexism around now
Wow! Publishing a factual statement on Twitter is 'terrorism'. I can see now why we are not getting anywhere: words obviously mean different things in your world.
Only if he was hitting on her which is exactly what she is complaining about! And she didn't refer to the picture as 'erotic' she referred to him responding as if the picture was. All the media reports I can find explicitly say this was the picture. You've made up the fact that the other one was being used either through a faulty memory or to suit your story. In doing so you've libelled the woman as entrapping the bloke. I hope for your sake she doesn't read Not606
Everybody agrees that all political movements contain people who have extreme views and go about things the wrong way. I'd have to say the feminism is one of the least problematical in this respect. They don't plant bombs etc. The woman in question has been hounded off Linked-In and Twitter by death threats etc.
@PowerSpurs do you think she overreacted because the man complimented her picture/was hitting on her? Are we to think that everytime someone makes a pass at a girl that this is sexist behaviour and should be plastered all over the media? You have to remember, there was no transaction, no boss trying to undermine an employee, no someone trying to get the upper hand.
I think most people think she over-reacted. But I don't like judging people on the basis of incomplete information. She is clearly a very extreme feminist and is probably very sensitive to this sort of thing. She is on record as saying that she often got asked for dates by LinkedIn users and didn't react in this way. But it seems that a very senior solicitor responding in this unacceptable way pushed her into this reaction. As I said in an earlier post, making bullying behaviour public is usually the right thing to do. Incidentally sexual harassment at work is defined so as to include this sort of thing and is a criminal offence so it is a very serious matter for a senior lawyer; she might have been better to report it rather than publicise it.
And i totally agree, bullying is wrong and making it public is probably one way to stop it. However, in this instance, i don't see how or where there is any bullying at all. It wasn't even an outright fancy a shag/want to go on a date. This is literally what he wrote (or so is reported)... - What the male lawyer wrote "Charlotte, delighted to connect, I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture!!! "You definitely win the prize for the best LinkedIn picture I have ever seen." "Always interest [sic] to understant [sic] people's skills and how we might work together." How in anyway can that be bullying at all? She is obviously not too sensitive to this sort of thing if she uses it to other males and calls them hot. The fact that she does that sort of thing on social apps rather than linkedin doesn't really absolve her of overreacting
