Yep, the jehovah's mob all got together in Trafalgar Square on, I think it was New Year's Eve 1975 - their latest, and last I can remember Armageddon date, must have been a bugger trying to get home after midnight carrying all that disappointment that you're still here!...
Yet again, you wrongly deduce what I think by not bothering to read what I actually wrote. Your first point is irrelevant and I would never hold today's men to account for historical actions. I would put your third point slightly differently: it's not only women who have and will benefit from the feminist movement. There is no point in any further debate. I don't have time to explain each point three times and it still not to get past your prejudices.
I've done a quick list of the positives and negatives of being a man/woman in the past, if this is of any use to anyone ? : MAN Advantages Could give surname to wife Could walk daughter down the aisle Disadvantages Had to fight dinosaurs, tigers etc Had to hunt for food Had to fight wars Inbetween wars, generally down a mine or at sea for months on end in terrible conditions WOMAN Advantages Stayed at home with the kids (better than fighting dinosaurs or people trying to kill you) Able to use husband's surname (to show she had someone to protect her) Disadvantages Limited career prospects Usually responsible for cooking dinner when/if man returns from war/mine/sea Sweet jesus. No wonder there's a feminist backlash
But you wrote, " often in the past there have been classes of people in the world where the people in powerful positions (usually white, older men) have ignored this simple rule and we are now all feeling the backlash." and have in no way condemned the "backlash", but appeared to support/defend it. And, " The box (white men) you are being put in is the group that has historically wielded power in the world and has often wielded it to the major disadvantage of some groups. It is just an example of negative feedback." You also leant support to Lennypops who wrote, " 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. " You do therefore appear to be supporting arguments in favour of taking historical matters into account, when assessing how people should be treated today. Which is obviously wrong.
One last try. I wrote that there is a 'backlash' that doesn't tell you anything about whether I support it. Dembele gouged Costa in the face. Does writing that tell you if I approve or not?
No satire, would be this, "Did you hear what happened to Smithy ?" "Killed by an axe wasnt it ?" "Nah, he got leave last week after 6 months in battle. Went home, walked in the door, only to get accosted by his wife who was screaming at him calling him a sexist this and that because she had decided it was prejudice that she'd taken his surname when they married." "That's gratitude for you" "Tell me about it. Poor bloke spent his whole weekend doing the washing up" "Blimey. Where is he now ?" "well...his Mrs complained to the General that he'd harmed her career prospects by marrying her, and accused the army of discrimination or something because he's still not lost any limbs, and she hasnt got compensation" "So he was dismissed ?" "Nah, firing squad job" "What did his wife say ?" "I wasnt there, but I heard she said 'fat load of ****ing use to me this surname is now'" "Poor Smithy" "RIP Smithy"
I assume that Rob's not entirely serious, but he does highlight one of the issues with feminists' patriarchy theory. All of the backlash that PS was talking about is directed at men and specifically white ones. It seems to miss out on a number of things, most notably that the patriarchy didn't benefit men, but patriarchs. There's a reason that the Duke of Westminster isn't paying any death tax on the wealth that his family's been hoarding since 1066. The BLM group suffer from a similar problem, grouping together all white people as horrific oppressors. My ancestry is all Irish. Who the **** were they oppressing?
I stated that the box that I had been put into by feminsts - that of the white male - was being "opressed". You stated that this was because of historical perceptions of injuctices, and that the opression today that I referred to was the "backlash". Rather than taking the opportunity to say that such a "backlash" was inappropriate - which you did in no way whatseover - you said that it was just an example of negative feedback. So not only did you not condemn the "backlash", but you appeared to tacitly approve it on the basis that it was, "just....negative feedback". That feedback could only be feedback given to my "box" ie the labellin of me as a white male, and the reference to feedback - which you tacitly approved - can only be construed as being feedback to me as a white male, in respect of the actions and roles of previous white males. Your comment therefore can be taken as evidence that you advocated support - or - at the very least - acceptance of it. I note however that you have now accepted / clarified that any such movement is without foundation. This should enable us to move to other areas of he conversation, because now having established and agreed that there is no historical justification for a feminist movement to assert themselves in a negative way upon individuals (of any gender) or organisations, we can now focus on what those negative effects of their actions are, without trying to excuse or justify them in an inappropriate manner.
Yes Rob is right feminists are oppressing certain men just as other groups are suppressing racists, and having seen what happens when they are not oppressed and allowed unfettered freedom to express themselves that oppression is very much needed. We can see men who are unhindered by feminism in countries like Saudi Arabia look at the rights they extend to women. We can see racism in action in the NYPD where power is abused by racist cops to such an extent that black mothers have to teach their children how to behave in order not to risk getting killed by policemen. In many parts of the world sexism and racism still rule the roost, the argument here takes place in the relative comfort of the western world where it has been suppressed to some extent. It is not however defeated and if we wish to live in a civilised society we must always remember that these forces have not gone away they are just being held in check a little in some parts of the world.
People don't need to be oppressed and suppressed, Spurf. I'm surprised that you'd advocate such a thing. If people support stupid ideals, like racism and sexism, then they need to be allowed to voice those ideas and they need to be challenged. Acts of discrimination need to be legislated against. Poor ideas need to be defeated rationally.
To anyone with an open mind who read my comments in context, the reference to negative feedback would have been understood using this OED definition of feedback: "The modification or control of a process or system by its results or effects, for example in a biochemical pathway or behavioural response." The feedback is just there as a matter of fact. If your experience of the world is bad then you will act badly towards the world. For about the the fifth time: you can't determine my views on whether I approve or not from me stating facts. The actions Dembele took were a direct behavioural consequence of what Costa had previously done and since both Costa's and Dembele's actions were unacceptable its called negative feedback. There really is no point in debating anything of consequence with someone who doesn't understand the basic meaning of words.
Semantics PNP legislation is oppression. The law that says murder is wrong is suppressing the right to murder that the state expresses quite often. Yes I agree that we need to hear them and we need to challenge them but rational argument has to be backed by the rule of law because human beings are not rational. The rule of law is oppression by another name. I tell you not to steal because IMO it is wrong and I (law) am stronger than you and I will punish you if you ignore me. That is suppression of behavior.
If a person makes deliberate racist, sexist or homophobic comments in most workplaces they would face some kind of disciplinary action. That is a form of suppression and to be honest I am in favour of that. If some one makes a comment through ignorance (I don't use that word as an insult because there are things I am ignorant about) and inadvertently cause offence then that can be discussed. Poor ideas are generally born of ignorance so are a different issue to deliberate acts. The example Spurf used were NYPD officers and Saudi society and imho they are deliberate acts rather than being examples of ignorance
Preventing someone from oppressing or suppressing someone else is not oppression or suppression itself, in my opinion. Defending someone from attack is not attacking. I think that my reply to Spurf covers this, too. Just laws are there to prevent harm. I think that calling that oppression or suppression is wrong.
