Look, we keep talking about men being opressed. That was never really my issue. It's just becoming the focus of me and others bickering with one another. Tbf, I really do need to specify what my concerns actually are, and I will try to do that. I would say though, that I think your reference to Saudi is a bit misleading. We arent different to Saudi because we have a feminist movement and laws which stop us treating women like ****. We're different to Saudi in that respect because we have an entirely different culture. Women in the UK were never treated like women ae today in Saudi, well not simce long before the advent of a feminist movement anyway. If you repealed equality legislation to orrow, and somehow banned feminist speakers (neither of which i would advocate), we wouldnt turn into Saudi Arabia. Anyway, I really need to specify what my actual concerns are, so I will try to give some thought to that....
My concern is mainly over the actions of feminist pressure groups and their followers, and in particular the fact that : - they have substantial impact and influence on our society - they often exert that influence in an inconsidered, illogical, unreasonable and indeed vindictive way - the influence that they have, is such that a) assumptions are generally made that they are in the right when they are not b) for those who identify that they are not right, there is no avenue for objection due to the intimidation and control that they exert, and their disinterest in discussing matters in a rational and progressive manner - they impose their values upon all, irrespective of who agrees with them I consider that this has detrimental affects upon business, society and individuals, and can exposes individuals to unjustified fear, pressure and other negative consequences. In particular, my concerns relate to two separately identifiable issues : 1. The pressure exerted on companies to employ based on gender pay and numerical ratios, rather than on the ability of the available candidates. (I wrote about this in some detail on page 43 of this thread) 2. The 'fun' and personability being taken out of business for all and replaced with fear and dogma, due to the risks of being considered to have impinged upon pedantic interpretations of discrimination law, and the double standards faced by men in business in regards a) to women being able to 'flirt' with men and not vise versa, and b) the lack of certainty in this regard due to some women being happy to live by normal reasonable standards of behaviour, and others insisting upon reliance on a strict interpretation of the letter of the law, often in an arguably immoral and dishonest way. In both cases, I consider the influence and aggression of feminist movements, and the bias of the press and other institutions, to be detrimental to the behaviour, success and well being of both men and women. It's not a great description, but it's a framework that's a bit more representative of my concerns, than the focus of the last few pages.
LinkedIn profiles are all about your achievements and history as a professional. It's pretty obvious what his intentions are and what they are not, he loses any element of doubt when he recognised his comment "might not be PC". He claimed his comments were about the professional quality of the headshot yet even the most "PC gone mad" person wouldn't claim that political correctness has anything to do with a bloody headshot. It was a photo of her head an shoulders that he called "stunning", it's not like there was a mountain range behind her. He's lying, why on Earth would he lie if there's a perfectly innocent explanation. Your example of "banter" doesn't cut it either. She's not his colleague, they're not on friendly terms and it's clearly not banter. At best he's commenting on the professional quality of her picture and at worst he's a creep hitting on her. Maybe, he's bi and does this to men as well, I've no idea but it's unlikely, isn't it. Still does he do it to people he's not sexually attracted to? I highly doubt it and, if he did, he's incredibly unprofessional. You keep focusing on her "attack" on him as if he's some victim. That poor guy having his unprofessional and unwanted comments exposed. Did she overreact? I haven't been in her position so it's hard for me to say. What I will say is that I'm glad she did it. If people don't highlight underlying problems then there's little chance of it changing. Perhaps he'll think twice now about sending those kinds of messages, if he doesn't then maybe more people will feel comfortable speaking out about it(lots of women did respond with their similar stories). I think that's an excellent outcome for the cost of a little embarrassment to the guy.
You are wanting to confine your argument to the UK or at least the West which to me is to ignore the real issues and not addressing the reality. You think that we have not in past treated women as possessions as 'chattels' that we have not behaved like the Saudi's. Essentially we have, it's less than 100 years since women were not allowed to vote it is only in my lifetime that some equality legislation has been introduced. We have just had an example of primogeniture with the death of the Duke of Westminster his two eldest daughters do not inherit because the male line rules. We are far from being an equal country in many ways, in fact equality is an issue for the whole population not just the half who are female but we have little chance of redressing the whole while half of us have not even been granted equality by our Laws yet. Yes I agree Rob there are instances with PC that cause problems and that some 'feminists' behave in an over the top manner, perhaps if we stopped putting people into boxes we might make more progress. The feminist box contains a wide variety of views and positions just as the white middle aged male box does. Peoples views are individual and people need to be treated as individuals, regardless of any other accident of birth. To be discussing views based on the colour of skin or the type of genitalia should really be laughable, the fact that we are not laughing shows how far we still have to go. In the process of making an omelette you have to break eggs, in the process of making a civilised society you have to upset some people. When I grew up in London there were signs on doors saying no dogs, no Irish and no Blacks and people of divergent sexual proclivities had to keep it quiet for fear of arrest. We have advanced in some of these areas but at the same time a new puritan age has been launched and witch hunts have ensued. Human's have in so many ways changed little from the stone age we are not as enlightened or advanced as we think we are.We are in fact dangerous animals in clothes (usually) and the surprise is how many of us are gentle and co operative. This forum shows that we can conduct a civilised debate despite widely varying political views. I think Rob we have to put up with some of the PC nonsense because it get's the message over to some less thoughtful types and the message of sexual inequality still needs putting over. I have a daughter soon to be a Doctor of International Law, she doesn't need much help, she is more than capable of dealing with the world as it is, but others do still need the playing field levelling. We are in the process of the levelling, once that is achieved we can hopefully return to the more relaxed society we all like. When we can talk to strangers in a way closer to the way perhaps many of us talk to our friends THEN we will have a civilised society.
You're either unaware of how long feminism has been around for or are unaware of all the change that has happened since. Marital rape was made legally rape in the early 60s, equal pay and the first sexual harassment laws was in the early 70s, full voting rights in the 30s. As you say, take away the laws that protect equality and it will not send the whole of the UK backwards during a day. Put those laws in place and things don't change overnight either. Sexual harassment still exists as does marital rape, decades after the laws were passed. There's this weird idea these days that feminism has done enough. As if things have improved so there's no reason to do any more. Imagine if the civil rights movement in America said "yeah there's still open and systemic racism but black kids are now allowed to go to the same schools as white kids. Lets pack it up, lads, we've done enough". Or imagine if police here went "murders have been going down so that's good enough, no need to carry on with this". The pursuit of equality and justice doesn't just end with the change of a law, or some societal improvement.
Good point about primogeniture, Spurf. One of the more astounding facts raised in this debate was how "What you on about, you feminists?! There's a bleedin queen and a bleedin woman prime minister?!". Thought-provoking stuff. And entirely ignoring the fact that there is only a queen because she had literally zero brothers. Oh that's all in the dim and distant past though isn't it? That's all changed now. Yeah. When did the law of male primacy change for the British throne? 2013. 2013. And in 2016 men are on message boards saying that there wouldn't be feminism if only all those birds were as fit as each other and that a woman making friend requests on professional networking sites is tacitly looking for comments on how ****able she is. (Which pales in comparison to what the same person says about blacks - did anyone bother to read that BLM thread?!)
Don't you think that this is rather an extreme example, Spurf? What percentage of the population do the titled nobility make up? It's not like Lady Tamara Grosvenor and Lady Edwina Grosvenor are oppressed, it it? They're literally royalty with access to hundreds of millions, possibly billions of pounds. This hardly compares with the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, does it? Only one way though, unfortunately. Women still can't be convicted of raping a man, unless they use an object to do so. Equality in this country still isn't perfect and we need to keep on top of things to make sure that it doesn't backslide. There are issues on both sides of the line, though.
PNP I am not in the business of supporting the aristocracy as you may have gathered in the past and sure the two ladies in question are hardly struggling, however the fact remains that their younger brother is recognised in law and they are not and it does matter. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that we should not worry about discrimination if the people concerned are well heeled, would you? The oppression of women in Saudi compares with our oppression of women in the past, and that was my point. You can't dismiss this fact because it is in the past, it was women we burnt as witches it was women who had no rights and were merely possesions and as NKNG just pointed out marital rape was ok in my lifetime. Great Britain does compare very much with Saudi Arabia in fact we set them up and continue to keep them in power by selling them weapons. We are supporting one of the most despicable regimes in the world and therefore are part of the oppression to woman going on now. On top of that Saudis come to the UK buy property and have slaves to look after them IN London. My comparison with Saudi was very gentle and let them and us off the hook. I have just put them back on it.
Do you really think that the ways in which things are done at the very top of society are irrelevant to the society as a whole? That it will barely have a bearing on the values, customs and ideals of a wider society?! That would be a pretty extreme conclusion to come to. And whatever goes is fine for that lot cos they're all rich anyway?! I'm amazed.
I'm thinking of a list of things that are basically okay if those involved are all rich enough. So far I've come up with: - theft - ABH (but not GBH, that seems a bit much) - anal rape - defamation - having measles - **** broadband Anyone else got any more suggestions?
We're literally talking about inherited titles. That doesn't have any bearing on the vast majority of the public. Is there anything in British law or even in British culture that replicates or resembles this that affects the rest of the population? It's not an extreme conclusion to come to at all and the suggestion that it is is laughable, frankly. How is he recognised in law? He inherited a title and so did his sisters. The division of property is entirely up to the deceased and he chose to do it via trusts to avoid tax, so we don't even know who got what. We're talking about roughly 1,000 people here, I believe, so this effects a tiny percentage of the country's population. Should it be changed? Yes. Does it deserve comparison to the way that roughly half of the Saudi people are treated? I don't think so. I don't like the Saudi dictatorship and I don't think that they should be a major partner to the UK and US. Their society is appalling, they fund terrorism and extremism around the world and oppress the crap out of their own people. Does this have anything to do with some billionaires getting slightly less privileged titles over here? I can't see it, myself. What next? Is Prince Philip being oppressed, as he's not allowed to become king?
No it hasnt dont "enough". In some ways it has already done too much, because it is out of control and doing harm not good. That's the problem. And for your information, Britain in the 1920s was not a colder version of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a culture based on Wahabiism. Britain is not, and never has been.
No doubt you are going to go on to explain how 21st century british society is dictated by those with hereditary titles...
They won't be convicted of rape but they will be convicted under one of its sister laws. It's a bit misleading to suggest women can't be convicted or raping a man as, in general, the definition of rape to the general public is different to what it is in law. I'd consider any sexual activity without consent as rape yet much of it will fall under sexual assault laws. I do agree that rape should either be applied as a term in law to refer to a wider spectrum of sexual assaults, or else removed to avoid its unbalanced appearance. The laws themselves are very well put together though and cover the spectrum of a complex cases that can arise, allowing escalation of sentences to cover the most extreme rapes, no matter whether they fall under rape law, or sexual assault laws.
