No, because if theyd have ****ed off then, we could all be living in peace today, and I wouldnt have had to engage in this pointless ****ing conversation. As it is, we're stuck with their ****ing vision of the world now, so we might as well run with it. Now that we've decided to run with it, those ****s no longer serve any purpose. But like any good terrorist organisation, there comes a point where they realise they're no longer serving the cause they purport to serve, because that job's actually done, but they still need to keep going in order to justify their own continued existence. And that's when they put their head down and push even harder.
See I was going to ask, if you thought feminism was still a good thing producing good outcomes in the 80s/70s/60s, if you were alive and adult at those times. And how happy you were as equal pay legislation was signed or women were allowed into the armed forces etc. How delighted you were at the time when women's rights were expanding in a way that fitted your claimed desire for a fair, egalitarian society. Did you celebrate? But I guess that: "As it is we're stuck with their ****ing vision of the world, we might as well run with it" Tells us bucket loads. Either of how very confused and conflicted you are about how much you truly do want or enjoy living in a fairer society or how much you had to keep a lid on your latent anger and fear when you were writing your Treatise On The History Of Mankind (Mostly Entirely Made Up On The Spot By Thinking About The Flintstones). One good thing I'm sure any sane person can agree is a benefit of political correctness: when someone takes days writing the above treatise they at least feel the social and intellectual pressure to say things like fairness and freedom are good things. And by saying them, and understanding how alienated from reasonable society they would become if they *didn't* say that, they may eventually start to believe those things. Fake it til you make it. In many ways, Rob, the clear conflict between your rumbling hatred of fairness and minority rights and your desire to look like you approve makes you a poster-boy for Political Correctness. When you say what you have said about blacks being thick and all feminists being ****s who created a world which you hate I understand how difficult and scary and loathesome the world must be for you. But at least you try to fit in and a few decades ago I'm positive that someone of your intellectual and emotional habits would have literally been spitting at Asians on the streets and punching women. So there has been progress.
I'm just wondering, Rob: In what way was the (say) kind, very gentle and intelligent philosophy teacher of mine who made a conscious, feminists effort to use the female pronoun a terrorist? He always seemed so intellectually humble and indeed blood-and-thunder certainty such as you find in terrorists was anathema to him. Since your assertion that all modern feminist are mischievous man-haters is not down to confirmation bias I must assume that you calmly and intelligently decided that this man was yet another **** who was a terrorist. Which, for me, seems curious. Worth asking about.
Since 84% of (reported) sexual harassment is on women I'm struggling to think why most of the article being about only sexual harassment of women is so awful. Poor Rob. Once more a victim of the all-powerful feminist media! Do you think you could grade all British newspapers from "most militantly feminist" to "least militantly feminist"? It would give great clarity and authority to your claims about the overwhelmingly feminist slant that the media has.
Oh Rob. Oh dear Rob. If only you actually read things. How different the world might seem to you. You see *in the first couple of paragraphs* it makes it explicitly clear that this item is about the results of a survey of 1500 women. So the fact that the focus is on women is, er, not a sign of the BBC not being even-handed. And when one of the results of that survey is that we learn that over half of women have been sexually harassed in the work place you actually think it is unfair and a sign of the feminist-controlled media that they then don't add a bit at the bottom saying "Oh and by the way men get sexually assaulted too. We have no new data on this and nothing more or new to say about it but in the interests of keeping people who regret women's equality and call ALL feminists terrorist ****s we just want to remind you that men do indeed get sexually harassed at work"? Imagine Rob. Imagine how different all this could be, how differently the world might seem, if you took the time to read and think. You're not presenting a fantastic example of the superior white race here.
BTW Rob. If you actually want to understand more about the gender pay gap (and not fall back on a bizarre and almost totally uninformed theory of how human civilisation has evolved) then you could do a lot worse than listening to this: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the...der-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ Wouldn't it feel great to know that you got your facts from Harvard economics professors who have actually done studies on these things? Better than just passing on the last thing you heard some angry drunk ranting or spending years seething over a couple of newspaper stories and extrapolating a conception of the world from those couple of examples. See some people actually read about this stuff a lot. Some people actually learn about it and actually know about it and form rational opinions as a result. You could too if you tried.
The podcast actually broadly supports the views that I have been expressing, which is essentially that pay differences are not due to discrimination, but to various social factors, so your usual derisory tone is completely inappropriate. Out of interest by the way, would you consider your repeated posts framed around personal insults to amount to harrassment ?
Personally I think there is a lot of work to do for feminists while the Daily Mail exists in its current form. Most of the rest are stridently anti feminist with the exceptions of the I/Indy and the Mirror which are neutral and the Guardian which may be slightly pro
I think you are seeing some 'negative feedback' there Rob. If you must refer to people as terrorist ****s you are likely to rile other participants.
Whatever. It doesnt bother me. It's just absoloutely pathetic. There's been a discussion. I've written an article. I'm happy that the article is well written, coherent and makes balanced points, with a conclusion and focus that I am happy with. Why someone would want to act like a child having a tantrum and repeatedly try to troll me complaining about the contents, and views I expressed, I honestly have no idea. I think it's laughable. If he or you want to write something yourself, go ahead. If you want to put it on here, i'll read it. I might even comment on it. What I won't do, is stay up all hours of the day, making trolly, snide little remarks, over and over again, like some kind of obsessed child. Thanks for discussing the issue with me though
Oh. Social factors? Not biological ones? Might the social factors which make women more likely to be expected to do more domestic chores, take on more of the child-care, less likely to want to negotiate pay or make men less likely to ask for paternity leave have anything to do with inherited patriarchal attitudes? Not blaming anyone. Just - it's interesting isn't it? It's interesting how these attitudes and ideas permeate around a culture and become so invisible that people would say "What? People have a choice to stay home and look after the kid or not". No I would not consider reminding you (and anyone reading this) of the fact that you have called all feminists (including some of the nicest, most intelligent and thoughtful people I know) ****s and that all black people are thick, harassment. If this happened at work I could just picture it: Rob: "Look this guy keeps repeating the fact that I said all black people were thick and all feminists are terrorist ****s and that a very ****able woman sending a friend request on Linkd In is clearly soliciting compliments so she can ruin mens' lives and that I deeply regret the progress that has been made in womens' rights over the last century or so (even though I sort of have to pretend now and again like I like I don't so people don't think I'm horrible)" HR person: "Did you say those things" Rob: "Well yeah." Poor Rob. So bullied in this hostile world. If only he was black and female, riding the opulent wave of entitlement and advantage. Those ****ing ****s. Those vindictive, terrorist, entrapping evil bitches, eh, Rob? What do they deserve, Rob? What should their punishment be? Do you ever fantasise about that?
I'm guessing you've got some kind of purpose for these comments ? To me it looks like you are wasting quite a lot of time, writing repeatedly to somebody who clearly has no interest in your views or opinions. ????? It's a bit bizzare !!!!
Can I just remind everybody that we do not allow personal insults. I have no wish to intervene in what has been a thoughtful and deep debate however it is now, understandably, getting a little heated so I would ask all participants to take a step back and consider the personal abuse angle. Thanks guys.
I'll just clarify this post btw. The comment wasn't made with a completely straight face. I do think that the revolution that has taken place is beneficial to all. I have no idea how responsibility for it, should be allocated between lobbysists, changed attitudes in society, lead from business itself, and other factors making the previous gender segregation less relevant. What I would say though, is that I suspect that highly publicised abuse and (as i see it) ill considered, illogical and bias prejudice in favour of polotically correct arguements, werent a factor in the changes that have been made, because as far as I'm aware, this is a phenomenon that did not exisr until very recently. Indeed, it is only recent technoligical advancements, that's made much of it possible. It's these new developments, as much as anything that I consider unhelpful and detrimental, and I don't consider that they applied at all during the 80s. What femi ist activists were doing - if anything - during the 80s I don't know, but if they played a part in effecting the positive changes we have seen today, then on the basis that the harmful actions of today's lobbying groups were not a part of whatever it was that they were doing, then yes, I would be happy to lend support and approval to the work that they did. For the avoidance of doubt, this comment clarifies my views on the matter entirely, and whilst I respect the right of others to express contrary views, I don't consider it necessary for me to make any further comment in order to make my own opinion (which was solicited) clear.
I held my nose and had a look at the Daily Mail site. This article shows why we have much more to do in all areas of discrimination and prejudice - its not enough to pass laws, we need to do more education too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3739425/Bake-s-Nadiya-Hussain-reveals-racist-abuse-life.html Nadiya has been on Desert Island Discs: she said: She says: ‘I’ve had things thrown at me and been pushed and jabbed. It sounds really silly because I feel that it’s just become a part of my life now. ‘I expect it. I absolutely expect to be shoved or pushed or verbally abused because it happens. It’s been happening for years.’ She believes the best way to deal with such abuse is to refuse to react and instead instil a love of Britain in her own family. ‘I don’t retaliate. I just feel like there is a dignity in silence. I think if I retaliate to negativity with negativity then we’ve evened out.' Its hard to imagine that anyone could tale offence at any of that. But look at some of the comments (i've only chosen ones that have hundreds more likes than dislikes): "She only won because of the PC BBC, she wasn't even the best baker. Just look at the horrid Queens birthday cake offering! Crooked to say the very least!" "Handy that she comes put with this when a new programme is on the horizon" "I don't care. That's life . Rise above it and stop being so hypersensitive." "The British Bolshevik Collective just had to promote her and fix it so she would win Bake Off - it's all part of the policy in their little Red Book of Rules." "whats the matter with these sensetive people,i am only 5 foot 6 high and have been teased for years about my height,at school and work,get over yourself and stop complaining" The usual pattern of prejudiced people, media bias, over-reaction, self promotion, lies. Everyone is against them.
When someone claims that the media is overwhelmingly pro-PC- militancy you know they've stopped actually looking at the world. Fair enough they might say "Yeah but you've picked The Mail" but honestly out of the Nationals I only find it difficult to imagine stuff like that in The Guardian. And even then there will be a few commentators leaving their wisdom about how unfair it is that this article doesn't even mention the fact that white people get intimidated and assaulted. It's like when we hear about the left-wing bias in the British press. I have literally no idea what to say to that. It would obviously not help to discuss, you know, what the papers say or what they do or which parties they support. It's like these people need more fundamental help in their very epistemological tools and habits. Hence my suggestion before that it's a good idea to keeps an eye out for confirmation bias in your everyday thinking. Oh well. People are "sick of experts" right now so, well, good luck us...
