Yes of course age, sex and race includes white, middle class men. Any victimisation of that group is as bad as any other. I didn't say that he deliberately caused offence, but it shows he went through some sort of thought process about whether to say it rather than did it as an off the cuff remark. I do have a tendency to support the underdog in arguments....
Thank you for confirming that. Appreciated. On the second matter : out of someone who has been told their photograph is "stunning", and someone who has been shamed, accused, humiliated and threatened in the national press and media, you regard the person who has been complimented on their picture to be the "underdog" ?
Jurassic World had Henry Wu from the first film. Racist! Seriously though, the characters in the Jurassic Park franchise have always been fluid. Nobody starred in all three of the original trilogy and various characters die, as have some of the actors, unfortunately. The dinosaurs tie it together, much as a villain from a horror film franchise would. The consistent character in something like Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th is the antagonist. Batman's had so many reboots now that everyone expects them and expects change. Bond himself has changed repeatedly and it's suggested that it's just a codename, so it's hardly a shock to see Q and M change. That's an easy one to reboot, as only the main character has any consistency and even that's debatable. Ghostbusters got stick because it felt like an unnecessary reboot, a change in direction and it had a director that made a fuss of it. The trailers then fed into everyone's worst fears of what it was going to be like. People enjoyed the old films and didn't really want a crossover with Bridesmaids, basically. They also had half of the old cast available and used them as cameos, rather than going for a sequel.
If she'd said "ugh, I wish men would stop hitting on me all the time" the general reaction would be that she was being conceited. Ideally, I guess she could have posted up a compilation of the kinds of things she gets but with the names removed but it was just an act of frustration after the straw that broke the camel's back. It's troubling because it shows that women are still being judged on looks in a professional environment. It's a business site for networking with other business people yet she's still being judged on her looks because of her profile picture, which is a peripheral part of any persons LinkedIn. How is that not devaluing to someone who's looking display their professional skills and interact with others on an industry level? It's not a social medium, if they weren't looking to interact with her in relation to a job, or industry-related networking then they shouldn't have been contacting her through LinkedIn If you reversed it and, as a Facebook user, all your "friends" ever contacted you about was to discuss work, and the only times people invited you to meet up with them was work related, how would you feel about how your friends view you? Would you feel valued by them on a social level, or would you feel like their interest in you is shallow, since they're only interacting you to gleen information off you?
I do not put my piccie on my linkedin profile. I also only have the initial of my first name on. Unless you have met me, or are acquainted with someone who has, you have no idea whatsoever of my gender ( *** ) , so can only judge me by what is written there. *** It makes the full horror for you of our first personal meeting so much more enjoyable to me.
I thought the remake of Battlestar Galactica integrated the genders pretty well. Before anyone watched it there were comments about 'how could they change Starbuck to a woman, but I haven't heard any complaints from anyone who actually watched it. There were a lot of very strong female characters in that series.
So people were simply giving Ghostbusters stick because they didn't like the change of direction? Rubbish, it wasn't even out when people started losing their **** so how could anyone know there was a drastic change? Even before the trailers were out people were calling it feminist propaganda(), saying their childhood was ruined and sending all manner of abuse to people over it. Ghostbusters was about a group of friends(some nerdier than others) fighting and catching ghosts with cool guns and funny jokes, just the sameway, as you say, Jurassic Park was about a dinosaur park going wrong and a family trying to survive as deadly dinasaurs roam freely. Both were faithful to that, even if I thought Jurassic World was pretty bad and Ghostbusters was just alright. Anyone that genuinly thinks it was similar to Bridesmaids is mad.
People started giving it stick when it was a mere speculation, before it had even been confirmed. Then they gave it more stick when Paul Feig was announced as a director and that it would be a reboot. The all-female cast, the casting itself, the trailers and the publicity each piled on more critics, for various reasons. The film itself has actually been reasonably well received, which suggests that the build-up was horribly managed, more than anything.
Well for a start, of my friends in facebook were just using me for work or even other things, i wouldn't consider them friends and i would ignore them. I wouldn't suddenly start naming and shaming these people in a public forum. No less, if this was a person i invited to be my friend who asked me about work stuff for the first time and wasn't a repeat offender, not sure i would have immediately judged them. As for judging her on her picture, you are equating judging her on her appearance = we don't care about your ability as a professional. These things are mutually exclusive and just because you think someone looks good, doesn't automatically mean you 1. want to shag them, 2. think they are bad at their job. Presentation should not be an end all to whether you want to hire someone but if there was a person you wanted to handle public events and they had a mugshot of them with long messy greasy hair or someone who made themselves look slick, that may factor on who you decide to hire. On a side note, looks may sometimes factor into whether someone is hired - this may considered wrong but you are not going to hire a grubby 18 year old who is spotty and ugly to promote your newest skincare range for men... whether we should even be advertising this sort of stuff and promoting a society on this is a different matter but this is the society we live in.
The outcome doesn't affect their relative status. He is a senior partner at a solicitors, she is a junior barrister. He has much more ability to affect her career than she has his. In practice nothing seems to have happened to him and she is being vilified all over the place.
I think i'm going to have to stop you right there.... That's very blind of you, you are not even comparing them on the same criteria: 1. nothing seems to have happened to either of them in terms of what they were doing. He is still a senior partner and she is still a barrister. 2. She is being vilified all over over the place. Now if being vilified means abuse on twitter, then i will agree with this. In the media, she is generally the victim. As for the senior partner, he has been vilified in the media, there are several opinion pieces on him. As for twitter, i have no idea but i wouldn't put it past him getting trolled by trolls or other feminists if he has a running account. As for why more isn't made out of whats happened to him, i think the general view is that what he said was maybe incorrect, but the situation has been blown out of proportion. If indeed the view is that what he did was big faux pas, i'm sure the law firm would have removed him as the company reputation would have been damaged.
Most of the newspaper articles are not sympathetic to her. And almost all the comments posted underneath them are very anti her. The Mail had a front page headline calling her a Feminazi! I'm not sure how extreme you have to be to call it vilification. As for him the worst I can find on a google search is https://www.theguardian.com/comment...arter-silk-charlotte-proudman-sexism-facebook
By the way, if this discussion was about whether she over-reacted I would not be bothering to post. If it was a one-off thing, she almost certainly did. But Robspur posted it (with a whole lot of inaccurate facts that made her actions look worse than they were) saying "It's plain and simple bullying, and an attempt to make men subservient to women." This was so over the top it needed to be challenged. He has since equated it to terrorism and an attack on society.
I agree, Robspur might be a bit over the top, and it's conjecture which he has put together. To address these points: 1. To be honest, i didn't do too much research into the media view of her although i came across a few articles in the guardian that backed her and took robspurs take on it... i did a quick search and there are some for and against but most remained neutral. I quick look at the comments laid out in the guardian (i suspect the mail is even worse) and they are vehemently against her. In my opinion, i think it's because people think she was overtop and i tend to agree with this. 2. his view that it was plain and simple bullying was him putting 2 and 2 together with her background and with how overblown it was. Nobody will know except her about why she did that, whether she was annoyed at all the comments. I probably wouldn't make that statement or agree that she deliberately did it as entrapment but i can understand why he could come to that conclusion because i would hazard a guess most people do not understand why such a casual statement could become a massive sexism talking point!.
Another day toiling under the hateful, bullying, omnipotent power of feminism. Really hope you're all okay. Remember: this time will pass and you'll finally be able to walk proud and free again as middle-class, white men from one of the richest countries on Earth once society stops absolutely ruining everything for you. Be strong. Some good news from the front: The Chicago Tribune had a fantastic Twitter headline a day or two ago over a photo of a pretty little woman-thing. The headline read "Wife Of Bears Line-Man Wins Medal At Rio". Thank God there was no bullying mention of the fact that she was a triple-Olympian. And no bragging, vicious mention that this was her second Olympic medal. Certainly no nasty, aggressive mention of what her actual ****ing name was. Just a very appropriate mention of what her husband did for a living. Of course since she was married to him there's a good chance that she actually followed the social norm and actually changed her name to his anyway to show that she didn't need her own identity any more. At a ceremony presided over by definitely-a-man (in most religions still) in a special magic place which was built to worship the man who created the universe. Afterwards there would have been funny, touching speeches by the best man, the groom and the father of the bride. All hard-done by men and not a female voice in ear-shot. At last! Still I bet all those speeches by all those men remembered to mention how very pretty the bride was! So once again more special privileges for women! We'll get there guys. One day at a time. Stay strong during these dark days.
Lenny, she is from Alaska. The only connection to Chicago is her husband's job. Isn't the reference to her husband simply to make the story relevant to a Chicago newspaper, however much some might like to read something else into this?
Agree with most of that. But not that using the term "entrapment" was understandable. That was 100% fictitious, paranoid and frankly very creepy.
The actual fact of women's identity being literally subsumed by their husband's is not limited to this headline. As I hinted at: it is still a central part of one of society's most important ceremonies and structures. Stay strong.
