The Politics Thread

[PleaseNotPoll]

No intelligent feminist thinks it's a question of women being victims, men being perpetrators. This is a myth. Any kind of feminist analysis of history and society will clearly uncover the disadvantages that men and women suffer through an unnecessary clinging on to Patriachal ways of doing things that are outmoded. Men should be allowed to be nurses and play netball and cry. Men are the main victims of a society that values male aggression.

I'm only playing down the negstives of being a man because there's been this mood-music on this thread of poor old men being oppressed by women. I just think that white middle class men in Btitsin bitching about how society has done them wrong is, literally, laughable. Like a toddler complaining to their mum that their mum never does anything for them because she won't put CBeebies on for another hour.

And do you *really* want a list of the effects of patriarchy were/are? I'd google that if I were you cos I'm not gonna have the time. Try googling "What happened in all of history and has it had any effect on today's society "

No True Scotsman? Really?
You can't handwave away extremist on one side, while opposing the views of extremists (MRAs, for example) on the other.
Sorry.

Should men be allowed to be nurses, play netball and cry? Of course.
Should women be allowed to take dangerous jobs, go down mines and become refuse collectors? Definitely.
I don't see anyone introducing quotas for either side, though.

The idea that men have nothing to complain about in modern, British society is laughable.
It appears to focus on rich ones in advantaged positions to ignore any other issues, playing them down as kids whining, as you have.
You point out male oppression by the system yourself, then say that it shouldn't be brought up. Why?

 

[remembercolinlee]

It's pointless arguing with him Bobby. He is not here to have a discussion, but to advertise his racist and sexist beliefs.

Think this is unnecessary mate.
I have read through this debate and disagree with most of what you've said but would not think it was right to say you have racist or sexist beliefs. If you made racist or sexist comments ( ie derogatory generalisations or comments about people of a certain race or sex) then fair enough. I have not read comments like that so think your post is a bit OTT tbh.

 

[lennypops]

Firstly, this is a very Anglocentric view of names and naming practices.
Scandinavians didn't adopt this practice until fairly recently and it's still not used in Iceland.
Portuguese and Spanish speaking countries use alternative systems and that's just in Europe.
Don't be racist.

Secondly, you're suggesting that women are forced to change their identity by altering their surname.
I don't buy the premise, as many choose not to or want to change it, while others don't see it as effecting their identity at all.
The act of marriage itself could be said to do that anyway, regardless of any name change.
You also seem to be conflating marriage with the Abrahamic ceremony and it's not the only type.

Lastly, I think that everyone accepted that society isn't perfect. I've explicitly stated that it isn't on several occasions.
Changes still need to be made, but people can freely oppose some of the suggested changes.
Shutting them down by saying that they're privileged, white men is not the way to go.

Civil marriages performed by registrars became legal in 1836, by the way. Nothing to do with Thatcher.
They were only made an issue a little less than a hundred years before that, though.
People were free to marry however they liked before that.

Sure it Anglocentric and Abrahamic-centric. Bloody hell! Give me a break! You want a full dissection of all human civilisation?!

Don't you have any time at all for the idea of societal pressure making "free" choices less than totally free in the way that a dice is free to come down on any number 1-6?

I'm sorry if it feels like I'm shutting you and others down by being a sarcy sod about us all being white, male blah de blah. That must seem a bit **** and childish. I'm doing that unfortunate message-board thing of addressing one poster/a perceived mood of the board instead of the person I'm actually addressing. Again, sorry.

Interesting fact about the civil ceremonies. But more of an interesting curio than something that reflected society or had a real role. I bet most people in the 19th or 20th century didn't even know they didn't have to get married by a vicar in a church, never mind feel so strongly that they would fly in the face of tradition and do something other than the Proper Thing (with a male God and a male vicar and adopt the male name and have only male people speak...just to bore you with all that again).

Also talking about Abrshamic traditions: isn't it Jewish tradition for the child to take the mother's name? That makes much more sense to me. I mean after all the mum is definitely the mum. The dad however...

 

[RobSpur]

No intelligent feminist thinks it's a question of women being victims, men being perpetrators. This is a myth. Any kind of feminist analysis of history and society will clearly uncover the disadvantages that men and women suffer through an unnecessary clinging on to Patriachal ways of doing things that are outmoded. Men should be allowed to be nurses and play netball and cry. Men are the main victims of a society that values male aggression.

I'm only playing down the negstives of being a man because there's been this mood-music on this thread of poor old men being oppressed by women. I just think that white middle class men in Btitsin bitching about how society has done them wrong is, literally, laughable. Like a toddler complaining to their mum that their mum never does anything for them because she won't put CBeebies on for another hour.

And do you *really* want a list of the effects of patriarchy were/are? I'd google that if I were you cos I'm not gonna have the time. Try googling "What happened in all of history and has it had any effect on today's society "

The biggest irony here - and the movement that you support is essentially a jumble of ironies, contradictions and double standards - is that whilst attempting to portray yourself and the feminist movement as all things modern, it is actually you who is livig in the past.

You make constant references to history, suggesting that the white man can not complain because historically he has held the advantage. Not only is his inaccurate, because roles throughout history have developed for the mutual benefit of both sexes - but it is completely irrelevant.

I'm delighted that i was not a man in the early 20h century, or the 19th century, or the 18th century, or any century going back to and beyond the stone age, because if i was, the chances are that i wouldnt be sitting in an office lording it over female secretaries, but rather i would be in the trenches facing german guns as my friends explode around me, or being bayonneted, or garotted, or having to bayonnet or garotte someone else. Or perhaps i would be on a ship, spending months at sea, or dieing from scurvy, or working all hours of the day in terrible conditions down a mine.

Who knows ?

But whatever i would have been doing, I wasnt. Because i wasnt alive.

I am alive today. What my male forebearerers, and female froebearers were doing is irrelevant. It is TOTALLY irrelvant, to how I am treated today.

So please, when I point out the aggresion of female advocacy movement today, and the bias and discrimination against males, and the pressure and restrictions imposed on them by this movement - as well as all the other harmful aspects of this immoral and misguided movement - can you please try to remember that your argument about this being nothing compared to historical treatment of women (about which, you are also wrong) holds no water whatsoever.

So that when you write things such as, "I just think that white middle class men in Btitsin bitching about how society has done them wrong is, literally, laughable.", it is not because the comments that you are responding to merit such a response, it is because you are living in tthe past, and as well as invalidly trying to impose today's values on yesterday's society, you are at the same time, trying to evaluate today's society by considering matters which have literally no bearing on any meaningful assessment whatseover.

 

[lennypops]

No True Scotsman? Really?
You can't handwave away extremist on one side, while opposing the views of extremists (MRAs, for example) on the other.
Sorry.

Should men be allowed to be nurses, play netball and cry? Of course.
Should women be allowed to take dangerous jobs, go down mines and become refuse collectors? Definitely.
I don't see anyone introducing quotas for either side, though.

The idea that men have nothing to complain about in modern, British society is laughable.
It appears to focus on rich ones in advantaged positions to ignore any other issues, playing them down as kids whining, as you have.
You point out male oppression by the system yourself, then say that it shouldn't be brought up. Why?

**** me. This is bad enough without getting the Scots involved!

Actually maybe that would make it simpler: "MRAs, ignorant feminists, white men, black lesbians - you're all a bunch of English ****s!"

 

[No Kane No Gain]

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.

I was just giving a hypothetical so that you might get a glimpse of how you might feel in a similar situation. It wasn't meant to be all encompassing, there is added historical context in terms in terms of objectifying women at work, for example.

"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." I didn't say that though. He wasn't judging her as he would a male peer when he made those comments and that's a real problem.

What would you deem to be the intentions of the man, given he recognises his comments may make her feel uncomfortable, yet still makes them anyway? I'd certainly say his intentions weren't to treat a fellow professional as such, nor were his intetnions to respect her feelings. He just simply had to tell her that he thought she was stunning and that he ranked her picture as the best he'd seen. What an honour for her! Of course he's sexually attracted to her and of course it's devaluing to interact with someone on LinkedIn solely to comment on their beauty. It's not a dating site, she's not his friend and there's absolutely no reason to feel so compelled to tell her what went through his mind when he saw her picture.

I never said that he thought she was bad at her job. It's an extreme example but imagine a female Olympian was being interviewed after competing and the interviewer said "well you won silver but you win gold for sexiness, in my book". Is the interviewer saying she's a bad athelete? No. Is he devaluing and belittling her acheivements? Of course!

You know what I meant by "looks". Appearances are, of course, important in the legal industry as they are in many others. Beauty, however is not. It's an easy distinction to make.

 

[RobSpur]

Think this is unnecessary mate.
I have read through this debate and disagree with most of what you've said but would not think it was right to say you have racist or sexist beliefs. If you made racist or sexist comments ( ie derogatory generalisations or comments about people of a certain race or sex) then fair enough. I have not read comments like that so think your post is a bit OTT tbh.

This was adressed subsequently.

Powerspurs asked me to identify comments where he had appeared to condone prejudice against white males.

I posted comments that i considered to fall within in this description.

I asked him further to confirm and clarify that he condemns prejudice against white males, and after initially avoiding the question, he did confirm that.

Since then he has made no further comments of the nature that I identified, and we have moved on.

 

[Spur of the Moment]

Changing the subject.......

On the day that the potential future Leader of the Free World accuses the present incumbent of being as the "founder" of Islamic State, it seems that the BBC appear to consider a 40 year old English woman coming 2nd in a boat race is a more newsworthy headline item!

Not sure if this says more about how anaethetised the world is becoming to the rantings of this redneck maniac or just an example of the BBC's diminishing reputation for news editorial.

Well done, Kath, by the way!!

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Sure it Anglocentric and Abrahamic-centric. Bloody hell! Give me a break! You want a full dissection of all human civilisation?!

Don't you have any time at all for the idea of societal pressure making "free" choices less than totally free in the way that a dice is free to come down on any number 1-6?

I'm sorry if it feels like I'm shutting you and others down by being a sarcy sod about us all being white, male blah de blah. That must seem a bit **** and childish. I'm doing that unfortunate message-board thing of addressing one poster/a perceived mood of the board instead of the person I'm actually addressing. Again, sorry.

Interesting fact about the civil ceremonies. But more of an interesting curio than something that reflected society or had a real role. I bet most people in the 19th or 20th century didn't even know they didn't have to get married by a vicar in a church, never mind feel so strongly that they would fly in the face of tradition and do something other than the Proper Thing (with a male God and a male vicar and adopt the male name and have only male people speak...just to bore you with all that again).

Also talking about Abrshamic traditions: isn't it Jewish tradition for the child to take the mother's name? That makes much more sense to me. I mean after all the mum is definitely the mum. The dad however...

I only pulled you up on the Anglocentric thing because you generalised about 99.999% of women in the previous post.
It's also something that I've seen brought up before and it doesn't have any basis in reality.
It's a totally unnecessary point too, as women used to be basically used as property in a trade with regards to marriage.
You were essentially buying them in a lot of cultures, but that's no longer the case in most countries, I believe.

Your argument about societal pressures is fine, but there are contrasting opinions on what those are.
Some women want to change their names. Others don't.
Time will take care of the pressure, as more people choose one or the other, as long as those choices are allowed.
There's lots of pressure against gay marriage. Gays are still getting married, now that they can.

Most people in the 19th and 20th century in the UK were religious, so they wanted to get married in churches.
I doubt that it was actually much of a problem, to be honest.

Your point about Jewish matrilineality is an interesting one, but it does bring up a clear issue for men in modern society, ironically.
Men paying child support for children that aren't theirs or being prevented from seeing those that are is a serious problem.
It's ridiculed as some sort of MRA crusade though, just as the increased work mortality figures are.
French men aren't allowed to DNA test their kids, in the interest of family cohesion, bizarrely.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Changing the subject.......

On the day that the potential future Leader of the Free World accuses the present incumbent of being as the "founder" of Islamic State, it seems that the BBC appear to consider a 40 year old English woman coming 2nd in a boat race is a more newsworthy headline item!

Not sure if this says more about how anaethetised the world is becoming to the rantings of this redneck maniac or just an example of the BBC's diminishing reputation for news editorial.

Well done, Kath, by the way!!

Trump suggested that 2nd amendment advocates should do something about Clinton, yesterday.
If anything, he's toning it down!

 

[lennypops]

Rob: seriously, Google "What happened in all of human history and did it have any effect on the world today?". See if it has any bearing on why I might say that you, today, right now (not some mythical man from the past) that bitching about how society and women have overwhelmingly done you wrong is, literally, laughable.

I wonder if any analysis of history has *ever* come to the conclusion that today's society has nothing to do with it. As a history enthusiast myself I'd be fascinated to hear which school this is.

Tell you what. You can keep pretending that everything I say is part of a unified, extreme, no-brain movement where everyone agrees with whatever the least intelligent Tweeter who cries "sexist" which saves you the time of reading what I write and thinking about it if you let me assume that you're part of an organized, unified bunch of mysogynistic MRAs who whine like children, spout vile fantasies about women and high-five one another as they talk about which dumb bitch they'd most like to rape next.

 

[remembercolinlee]

In my view...
Many jobs with mainly women workers have a massively disproportionate amount of male managers.
I work in a school...I am the only male teaching assistant and there is only one male teacher. All the other staff are female apart from the head teacher who is male. The same is true in the 2 previous schools I worked in and in my daughters current school and their primary school.
In my role as a union rep I regularly saw so called "male" jobs such as park workers and bin workers being much higher graded than so called "female" jobs such as cleaners and catering staff.
Male cooks tend to be called chefs whereas female cooks tend to be called cooks or (in schools) mid day meals staff...the pay difference is very big as a result.
My council once did an audit and found pay differences between men and women in comparable jobs...and promptly down graded the men ... apart from in management positions where they upgraded women.
My disagreement with feminism is that I do not believe all men benefit from sexism.
And some women are happy enough to keep the pay gap as long as they are doing OK themselves.
I do not benefit from my partner earning less and will not benefit from my daughters being paid less.
To my mind the issue is more about those with and those without.
On the issue of the woman...I do not get why a bloke in work would comment on the way someone looks unless they were personal mates. At best you'll come across as a sad twat and at worse as a ****ing creepy letch.
Sorry it's so long

 

[RobSpur]

Rob: seriously, Google "What happened in all of human history and did it have any effect on the world today?". See if it has any bearing on why I might say that you, today, right now (not some mythical man from the past) that bitching about how society and women have overwhelmingly done you wrong is, literally, laughable.

I wonder if any analysis of history has *ever* come to the conclusion that today's society has nothing to do with it. As a history enthusiast myself I'd be fascinated to hear which school this is.

Tell you what. You can keep pretending that everything I say is part of a unified, extreme, no-brain movement where everyone agrees with whatever the least intelligent Tweeter who cries "sexist" which saves you the time of reading what I write and thinking about it if you let me assume that you're part of an organized, unified bunch of mysogynistic MRAs who whine like children, spout vile fantasies about women and high-five one another as they talk about which dumb bitch they'd most like to rape next.

No. You are missing the point.

I am not claiming in any way that the past does not affect, and has not played a part in moulding, the present.

I recognise, that some of your points refer to the fact that the past affects, and has played a part in moulding the present.

But that is very clearly not what I pulling you up on.

What I am pulling you up on, is your seperate continued reference to the roles of men and women somehow offsetting any negative impact of today's society caused to men, and indeed caused generally by the feminist movement.

As I have pointed out above, such an argument is - on two seperate counts - 100 percent misguided.

If I have miscontrued you, and you have no such seperate arguement, then I am happy to close out that apparant gap between us.

With this in mind, would you be happy to agree with me the following statement :

"To the extent that women have been hard done by by men throughout history, or have suffered because of men throughout history, or been disadvantaged by them or in relation to them, that fact would have and does have no bearing whatseover on comsiderstion of today's gender roles, and the advantages and disadvantages of being a man or a woman, or how they are or should be regarded, evaluated or treated, whatsoever. I will not attempt to argue that any negative impact upon men today, or upon women, business or society, that the feminist movement or any other movement or factor or influence has, should be viewed or evaluated by reference to or in relation to, the historical treatment of men or women,mand that should I attempt to do so, I acknowledge that such an argument is entirely without merit."

?

 

[BobbyD]

I was just giving a hypothetical so that you might get a glimpse of how you might feel in a similar situation. It wasn't meant to be all encompassing, there is added historical context in terms in terms of objectifying women at work, for example.

"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." I didn't say that though. He wasn't judging her as he would a male peer when he made those comments and that's a real problem.

What would you deem to be the intentions of the man, given he recognises his comments may make her feel uncomfortable, yet still makes them anyway? I'd certainly say his intentions weren't to treat a fellow professional as such, nor were his intetnions to respect her feelings. He just simply had to tell her that he thought she was stunning and that he ranked her picture as the best he'd seen. What an honour for her! Of course he's sexually attracted to her and of course it's devaluing to interact with someone on LinkedIn solely to comment on their beauty. It's not a dating site, she's not his friend and there's absolutely no reason to feel so compelled to tell her what went through his mind when he saw her picture.

I never said that he thought she was bad at her job. It's an extreme example but imagine a female Olympian was being interviewed after competing and the interviewer said "well you won silver but you win gold for sexiness, in my book". Is the interviewer saying she's a bad athelete? No. Is he devaluing and belittling her acheivements? Of course!

You know what I meant by "looks". Appearances are, of course, important in the legal industry as they are in many others. Beauty, however is not. It's an easy distinction to make.

Woth the olympian i totally agree first things first it would be in front of an audience and 2ndly it is alongside her achievement.

In this instance it was private and there was no other achievement. Yes he complimented her picture and you could say he was a bit slimy but it wasnt 100% clear cut. How do you know he does not do that to males. Whereas he might not say the guys fit i know i have said to colleague in "banter" you are looking hench today or your looking smarter than usual. In this instance she's taken it public to deliberately attack the man in question after she has had other people approaching her. Whether she did this because she overreacted and was in a bad mood or because she wanted to further a particular cause is only something she knows. If you dont think she overreacted and went about it in a sensible manner at the very least then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Even powerspurs has conceded she overreacted.

I do not consider calling her fit to be demeaning as there was no condescending comment or any relevance to her ability on the job and wasnt used to demean her in front of her colleagues or used as a negotiating tool. At worse a guy being slimy and hitting on her and at best giving her a compliment

 

[lennypops]

I only pulled you up on the Anglocentric thing because you generalised about 99.999% of women in the previous post.
It's also something that I've seen brought up before and it doesn't have any basis in reality.
It's a totally unnecessary point too, as women used to be basically used as property in a trade with regards to marriage.
You were essentially buying them in a lot of cultures, but that's no longer the case in most countries, I believe.

Your argument about societal pressures is fine, but there are contrasting opinions on what those are.
Some women want to change their names. Others don't.
Time will take care of the pressure, as more people choose one or the other, as long as those choices are allowed.
There's lots of pressure against gay marriage. Gays are still getting married, now that they can.

Most people in the 19th and 20th century in the UK were religious, so they wanted to get married in churches.
I doubt that it was actually much of a problem, to be honest.

Your point about Jewish matrilineality is an interesting one, but it does bring up a clear issue for men in modern society, ironically.
Men paying child support for children that aren't theirs or being prevented from seeing those that are is a serious problem.
It's ridiculed as some sort of MRA crusade though, just as the increased work mortality figures are.
French men aren't allowed to DNA test their kids, in the interest of family cohesion, bizarrely.

Despite the bizarre conclusions being assumed by others (my fault for saying I was a feminist I guess - it encourages others to not really listen and instead project whatever distorted ideas they have about feminism onto you) I absolutely agree and acknowledge that men have particular, unique disadvantages in society. Sure. (That, I repeat once again, is entirely part of any cohesive feminist thinking). And family law, partly due to traditional but now irrelevant gender roles, is certainly an area where men can be hugely disadvantaged.

Is it not still the case that unless you were married when the kid was born the father has zero automatic access rights? It was until recently.

 

[RobSpur]

let me assume that you're part of an organized, unified bunch of mysogynistic MRAs who whine like children, spout vile fantasies about women and high-five one another as they talk about which dumb bitch they'd most like to rape next.

You can assume that if you like. It would have no bearing on the issues that I have raised and sought to discuss.

Whether you assume thst or not, would you clarify your reasoning for writing,

"I just think that white middle class men in Britain bitching about how society has done them wrong is just laughable"

if it is not on the basis that I have set out, and demomstrated to be baseless and completely invalid.

 

[RobSpur]

It's fairly typical of the feminist movement actually, to assume that because I stood up for a man who had been victimised by a woman, that I am part of a society of serial rapists

This is exactly the kind of problem that some of us identified earlier in the discussion. If you seek to point out the harm done by the feminist movement, and by those who follow and believe in its extreme aspects, then you will receive abuse of the kind suggested by Lenny.

Granted, I wouldnt normally expect them to label those who dare to debate with them rapists, but it's helpful of Lenny to have demonstrated that this is in fact the case.

 

[lennypops]

PNP:"You point out male oppression by the system yourself, then say that it shouldn't be brought up. Why?"

Well here's the thing: it's not that it logically should not be brought up or is irrelevant. It's just bloody tedious that so often when a conversation about sexism/patriarchy whatever comes up some bro or other starts jumping up and down like it's not fair that we're not all talking about *his* pain and *men's* rights.

It's like those idiots who respond to Black Lives Matter with "Well *all* lives matter!". ****'s sake. As if there's just no good reason at all to emphasize the word "black". As if being black was just totally neutral in society.

And lo and behold almost everyone who wants to move the conversation those ways turns out to be gigantically racist or says stuff like "feminists just aren't fit enough" and that invitations to Linkd In are entrapment because the bird in the photo is fit and obviously asking for it. Proper dodgy stuff. It's almost the equivalent of "I'm not racist but..." When people immediately want to talk about men's rights as soon as a conversation about feminism or sexism or whatever starts up.

If I was running a marathon on behalf of luekemia it would be ****ing weird if everyone with lung cancer started wanting to talk about lung cancer and asking why am I fixated with one type of cancer and not their type.

 

[RobSpur]

Anyway, regardless of Lenny's assertions, I have not sought to, "bitch about how society has done (men) wrong".

The general point that I originally raised, was to criticise the modern feminist movement, particularly in light of the Saatchi and Saatchi case, and to point out :

- the various detrminental affects that it has on business, society and individuals
- the misguided nature of it and its arguments
- the bias given to it in the media, and the fear factor that it generates, and the power in society that it holds to prevent people speaking out against it
- the contradictory nature of it, the immoral results of its actions, and its double standards, aggresiveness and vindictiveness


Ive still not had chance to set those points out yet, due to other issues cropping up,mand the various side discussions / distractions etc raised largely by lenny and powerspurs.


Althoguh during the course of the disccusion, I sought to defend a man who had clesrly been outrageously treated by a woman, and to criticse her appropriately in that process, my general point, and conern is not as framed above by lenny.

In spite of it being suggested that I am a rapist, for raising views such as those above, it is my intention to explain the issues properly as originally intended, which I hope to do tomorrow !

 

[RobSpur]

And lo and behold almost everyone who wants to move the conversation those ways turns out to be gigantically racist or says stuff like "feminists just aren't fit enough" and that invitations to Linkd In are entrapment because the bird in the photo is fit and obviously asking for it. Proper dodgy stuff.

Absoloutttely typical feminst behaviour this is

Thanks again for the continued demonstration