# Go on... rape her... she won't report it... [UniLad magazine article]



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Uni-Lad Magazine is a 'lads mag' for uni students. It recently upped the ante in the 'how low can you go stakes...

In an article titled "Sexual Mathematics" it stated:​"If the girl you've taken for a drink... won't 'spread for your head', think about this mathematical statistic: 85% of rape cases go unreported.​"That seems to be fairly good odds."​The writer then adds at the bottom of the piece: "Uni Lad does not condone rape without saying 'surprise'."​
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...article-after-twitter-backlash_n_1244173.html

apologies if there is already a thread on it


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2012)

What's your opinion on this, Liam?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 2, 2012)

i've said it before and i'll say it again, students=cunts!!!


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 2, 2012)

Oi!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 2, 2012)

Uni-Lad. lol.

Not lolling at the 'jokes' 'Uni Lads' come out with.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Uni-Lad. lol.
> 
> Not lolling at the 'jokes' 'Uni Lads' come out with.



I would gladly send any cunt that self-identifies as a 'lad' straight to the gulag.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2012)

> One Twitter user, Sarah McAlpine (@sazza_jay) questioned the magazine over the comments, only to find she was asked "Are you a dyke?" by the publication's Twitter feed.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I would gladly send any cunt that self-identifies as a 'lad' straight to the gulag.



_Well_, I work with a few 'lads.'  They call me 'lad.'  We aint never been to yooneh though.

So we can't be Uni-Lads.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Santino said:


> What's your opinion on this, Liam?



What's _yours_, Santino?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

"Uni Lad does not condone rape without saying 'surprise'."​
ok that bit made me laugh.  but  in a 4chan kinda way  not  a  standard publication kind of way.​
​


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> What's _yours_, Santino?


we're not allowed to say before you

it's required by internet law


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I would gladly send any cunt that self-identifies as a 'lad' straight to the gulag.



Are you for moving the entire male population of northern england to Gulags then, soft lad?


----------



## love detective (Feb 2, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> _Well_, I work with a few 'lads.' They call me 'lad.' We aint never been to yooneh though.
> 
> So we can't be Uni-Lads.



uni-lads, all uni-lads


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> we're not allowed to say before you
> 
> it's required by internet law



Amazing. It does not say Santino where your name goes.


----------



## dessiato (Feb 2, 2012)

The greatest down side of the internet is the number of total dickheads who are able to access an audience of equal or greater dickheads, as evidenced by uni-lad.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 2, 2012)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i've said it before and i'll say it again, students=cunts!!!



I can tell you from the inside that it's worse than you can imagine.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

Let's face it, whoever came up with that name and logo needs to have their nutsack acquainted with my metal clad boots asap.


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> What's _yours_, Santino?


Why did you answer my question with another question?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Santino said:


> Why did you answer my question with another question?


Why did you answer mine with yet another?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Uh oh. Liam seems up for it today.


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Why did you answer mine with yet another?


Don't you even know that?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Amazing. It does not say Santino where your name goes.



I know the new board layout is confusing but you should really try and learn to distinguish threads  from conversations.


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 2, 2012)

had to be done


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

whoever wrote that article should be prosecuted for incitement to rape


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

it seems to have got worse since i left uni.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

no. should I?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> whoever wrote that article should be prosecuted for incitement to rape


It's a totally dickish article, but I'm sure they would say that they're being ironic. You sure the law should get involved in failed attempts at humour?


----------



## trashpony (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Uni-Lad Magazine is a lads mag for uni students. It recently upped the ante in the 'how low can you go stakes...
> 
> In an article titled "Sexual Mathematics" it stated:​"If the girl you've taken for a drink... won't 'spread for your head', think about this mathematical statistic: 85% of rape cases go unreported.​"That seems to be fairly good odds."​The writer then adds at the bottom of the piece: "Uni Lad does not condone rape without saying 'surprise'."​
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...article-after-twitter-backlash_n_1244173.html
> ...



Shouldn't the authors be convicted of incitement to assault? After all, if you can be prosecuted for incitement to riot, why not to rape?


----------



## trashpony (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a totally dickish article, but I'm sure they would say that they're being ironic. You sure the law should get involved in failed attempts at humour?


How about joking about beating people up for being black? Would that be okay?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 2, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> whoever wrote that article should be prosecuted for incitement to rape



You'd probably have to lock up most of 4chan first.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Let's face it, whoever came up with that name and logo needs to have their nutsack acquainted with my metal clad boots asap.



Die Pigs Die.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Shouldn't the authors be convicted of incitement to assault? After all, if you can be prosecuted for incitement to riot, why not to rape?



They should certainly be reported.

Stupid fucking cunts.


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> no.


Statement, 1-0 to me. Your serve.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

trashpony said:


> How about joking about beating people up for being black? Would that be okay?


Who said it was ok? I don't think it's ok. I think it's fucking horrible. But that doesn't necessarily mean I think it should be criminal.

Although if they were prosecuted, it would serve them right.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a totally dickish article, but I'm sure they would say that they're being ironic. You sure the law should get involved in failed attempts at humour?


because it's not funny.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> _Well_, I work with a few 'lads.' They call me 'lad.' We aint never been to yooneh though.
> 
> So we can't be Uni-Lads.



Must draw a distinction between lads and 'lads' - the latter are the ones with the Perfectly Quaffed Hair and Really Tight Jeans who read Nuts Magazine and are doing a degree in Marketing. Sorry if that wasn't initially clear.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> You'd probably have to lock up most of 4chan first.



join the queue


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a totally dickish article, but I'm sure they would say that they're being ironic. You sure the law should get involved in failed attempts at humour?


In this case, quite probaby. The appalling attitudes it reveals, and the casual talk about what is a serious crime, is utterly sickening. "I was being ironic" is a dickhead's cop-out for shit behaviour


----------



## grit (Feb 2, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> had to be done



Thats exactly what came to mind the minute I read the thread title. Then my stomach felt a bit sick.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Santino said:


> Statement, 1-0 to me. Your serve.



statement. 15-all. please go away and let this thread develop around the issue in hand, not about you being a smart-arse. Can you manage that?


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> statement. 15-all. please go away and let this thread develop around the issue in hand, not about you being a smart-arse. Can you manage that?


What's your opinion on the issue in hand?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

what's yours?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 2, 2012)

love detective said:


> uni-lads, all uni-lads



Lusty was a Uni-Lad. But he was a lad before he went to uni. His laddishness wasn't part of some glib appropriation of 'lad.'

That just isn't lad, imo.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 2, 2012)

I see the site is down for now! 



> We would like to make a public apology as it appears that some of the content previously published on this site has caused some distress.
> The content in question was un-called for and should in no way have been published, and we can assure you it will never happen again. Any grief this may have caused you, we apologise for. We took things too far.
> Any flippant comments that may have been said during discussions, I also apologise for, it will not happen again. We are certainly going to be cleaning up our act on unilad.com.
> We do appreciate where you are coming from with your points, hence forth, an immediate change in material.
> ...


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

i dunno.   what if the article was about bad house mates and they joked about unsolved murders?

admittedly date rape is probably far more of a actual problem than homicide  but  from a ethical stand point  how do they differ?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 2, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Lusty was a Uni-Lad. But he was a lad before he went to uni. His laddishness wasn't part of some glib appropriation of 'lad.'
> 
> That just isn't lad, imo.


anti lad


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Must draw a distinction between lads and 'lads' - the latter are the ones with the Perfectly Quaffed Hair and Really Tight Jeans who read Nuts Magazine and are doing a degree in Marketing. Sorry if that wasn't initially clear.



Well, of course. Surely we can differentiate between the use of 'lad' in a warm, affectionate manner among co-workers and friends, and the appropriation above, or the sneery way in which a whole load of ugly thinking and behaviour is erroneously inferred.


----------



## love detective (Feb 2, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Lusty was a Uni-Lad. But he was a lad before he went to uni. His laddishness wasn't part of some glib appropriation of 'lad.'
> 
> That just isn't lad, imo.



i just wanted to do a lads, all lads


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a totally dickish article, but I'm sure they would say that they're being ironic. You sure the law should get involved in failed attempts at humour?



I do.

If this were about the statistical likelihood of getting away with hanging blacks, and ended with "we don't condone lynchings unless you say "smile"", there'd be an outrage. If it were about burning down a mosque, they'd have 200 jihadis kicking their fucking doors down looking to make good on a fatwa.

People need to take responsibility for what they publish.

The fact that it's supposedly humorous is neither here nor there.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 2, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> anti lad



Uni-Lad.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

Fucking vile.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 2, 2012)

love detective said:


> i just wanted to do a lads, all lads



Davey.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Yeah, point taken, trashy and Spy. You're right.


----------



## love detective (Feb 2, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Davey.



Panegyric for Thompson, Bone, Hall, Ruggiero, Gramsci, Negri, Jackson, Linebaugh, Franks, Dave, Davey, Davey, Davey and Davey (TBHRGNJLFDDDDDDDDDD)


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 2, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I do.
> 
> If this were about the statistical likelihood of getting away with hanging blacks, and ended with "we don't condone lynchings unless you say "smile"", there'd be an outrage. If it were about burning down a mosque, they'd have 200 jihadis kicking their fucking doors down looking to make good on a fatwa.
> 
> ...



What if people are joking about killing Tories?


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 2, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Well, of course. Surely we can differentiate between the use of 'lad' in a warm, affectionate manner among co-workers and friends, and the appropriation above, or the sneery way in which a whole load of ugly thinking and behaviour is erroneously inferred.


Team seb


----------



## gabi (Feb 2, 2012)

the editorial team  

http://unilad.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/team.jpg


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 2, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> What if people are joking about killing Tories?


People _do_ joke about that. I think if they started with wanting to rape them there'd be some comeback tho.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 2, 2012)

Look at the lads.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

gabi said:


> the editorial team
> 
> http://unilad.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/team.jpg



Gas chambers.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Gas chambers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

It is the case that there are certain things that could be and were published in the past, such as the SCUM Manifesto, that would probably not be allowed today.

Not sure what to do about that. In the end it's as much an aesthetic choice as much as anything - this thing here is so crass and moronic that it's hard to defend its being allowed.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

love detective said:


> Panegyric for Thompson, Bone, Hall, Ruggiero, Gramsci, Negri, Jackson, Linebaugh, Franks, Dave, Davey, Davey, Davey and Davey (TBHRGNJLFDDDDDDDDDD)


Archer, Bryson, Cartland, Robins, Brown, Collins...


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Gas chambers.



Do you think you might be, y'know, over-reacting a little bit?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Do you think you might be, y'know, over-reacting a little bit?



no.


----------



## love detective (Feb 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Archer, Bryson, Cartland, Robins, Brown, Collins...



Against Affected Realism and Melancholic Worthiness


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 2, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Look at the lads.



Look at them all.

Shippy - I would see the key difference as being that there is no widespread cultural belief that murder victims are in some way "asking for it", or that murder is in some way a joke or a bit of fun.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure what to do about that. In the end it's as much an aesthetic choice as much as anything - this thing here is so crass and moronic that it's hard to defend its being allowed.



Who gets to decide what is crass and moronic though?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> Who gets to decide what is crass and moronic though?


Well, hence the problem... For instance, I was very worried about the woman who was prosecuted for publishing poetry in praise of suicide bombers. That was not right.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

love detective said:


> Against Affected Realism and Melancholic Worthiness


Kitchen sink lads go on a charabanc ride to the Frankfurt School


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> no.



Well we disagree.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Shippy - I would see the key difference as being that there is no widespread cultural belief that murder victims are in some way "asking for it", or that murder is in some way a joke or a bit of fun.



i can see why that makes it more uncomfortable from a social standpoint  but  not  why it would be legally different.  plus i'm not so sure about murder and "asking for it".

and in fact i'd really say it's the opposite in a way.  it's because there is a wide  use of murder  in a comedic fashion that people can get away with that kind of joke.

there are loads of dark comedies about murder


----------



## trashpony (Feb 2, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> i can see why that makes it more uncomfortable from a social standpoint but not why it would be legally different. plus i'm not so sure about murder and "asking for it".
> 
> and in fact i'd really say it's the opposite in a way. it's because there is a wide use of murder in a comedic fashion that people can get away with that kind of joke.
> 
> there are loads of dark comedies about murder


Murder isn't exactly a widespread problem with a really low conviction rate though is it?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> Well we disagree.



I'd say writing something on a message board is almost always an under-reaction to just about anything.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 2, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> i can see why that makes it more uncomfortable from a social standpoint but not why it would be legally different. plus i'm not so sure about murder and "asking for it".
> 
> and in fact i'd really say it's the opposite in a way. it's because there is a wide use of murder in a comedic fashion that people can get away with that kind of joke.
> 
> there are loads of dark comedies about murder



Genuine question - what dark comedies about murder can you name? Because off the top of my head I can't think of any.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Genuine question - what dark comedies about murder can you name? Because off the top of my head I can't think of any.


The Ladykillers?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Murder isn't exactly a widespread problem with a *really low conviction rate* though is it?



It's worse than that... a really low conviction rate, even though there is _already_ an 85% non-reporting rate


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Murder isn't exactly a widespread problem with a really low conviction rate though is it?



no but that's a slightly different issue isn't it?.  the ethics of  cracking a joke about a crime isn't  determined by  it's conviction rate is it?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Genuine question - what dark comedies about murder can you name? Because off the top of my head I can't think of any.


kind hearts and coronets is the top on my list


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Genuine question - what dark comedies about murder can you name? Because off the top of my head I can't think of any.



In fairness Idris there are loads of comedy films (both dark and mainstream) that include a murder or two... the getting rid of the body caper etc... nobody makes comedy films about rape.

Unless these cunts at Unilad are on a Media and Film-making Course.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Genuine question - what dark comedies about murder can you name? Because off the top of my head I can't think of any.



Psychoville?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> People _do_ joke about that. I think if they started with wanting to rape them there'd be some comeback tho.



it's because murder isn't a taboo subject or imply violence and power in the same way as rape does.murder is just murder and you see it in loads of comedies, action films, etc.

and there used to be posters here who would post up detailed scenarios about killing paedos and got a load of shit for it, not because people didn't think paedos were scum but because they thought it was disturbing as fuck.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

lots of people make jokes about killing tories, i've never seen anything about raping tories though. it's because it's different.


----------



## gabi (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Unless these cunts at Unilad are on a Media and Film-making Course.



nah, hes a web design student.

http://uni.jamiestreet.co.uk/website/about.html


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Gas chambers.



bit out of order there m8.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 2, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> kind hearts and coronets is the top on my list





Fedayn said:


> Psychoville?





LiamO said:


> In fairness Idris there are loads of comedy films (both dark and mainstream) that include a murder or two... the getting rid of the body caper etc... nobody makes comedy films about rape.
> 
> Unless these cunts at Unilad are on a Media and Film-making Course.



Yep, it's all coming back to me. Then you've got _Man Bites Dog, _which makes comedic usage of both serial killing and rape.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> lots of people make jokes about killing tories, i've never seen anything about raping tories though. it's because it's different.



You don't see the problem that legislating about what people can joke about, distasteful as it may be, could lead to then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Yep, it's all coming back to me. Then you've got _*Man Bites Dog*, _which makes comedic usage of both serial killing and rape.


The comedic usage is of the serial killing. The rape is what makes you question what you've been laughing at for the past hour. imo.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

it's also because murder is so qidespread in the culture even with very genteel and gentle stuff like Midsomer Murders or Miss Marple.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> You don't see the problem that legislating about what people can joke about, distasteful as it may be, could lead to then?



where have i said anything about legislating against anything? why do people always assume that if you don't like a thing you want to be the fucking thought police?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

people can die or be murdered in a funny way (at least in a film) you can never really be raped in a funny way though.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 2, 2012)

Weekend at Bernie's.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 2, 2012)

These choddish publication is read by the same sort of chods who think running around the campus naked and surrounding some random female acceptable behaviour.
   It's not it's not funny and if anybody advertising in this publication they should they be targeted  marketing really don't like when advertisers desert them


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> where have i said anything about legislating against anything? why do people always assume that if you don't like a thing you want to be the fucking thought police?



I assumed you following on from Spymasters post, because as far as I can see nobody on the thread is saying rape is funny.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is the case that there are certain things that could be and were published in the past, such as the SCUM Manifesto, that would probably not be allowed today.


I'd differentiate between the two, myself. The SCUM manifesto was funny, angry and made serious, politically radical points. This is just vile, and braindead


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)




----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The comedic usage is of the serial killing. The rape is what makes you question what you've been laughing at for the past hour. imo.



It's years since I saw it, and I have zero desire to see it. I'm not sure if they were using it in the way you suggest though. I think it may have been just another bit of exploitation for them. But your mileage may vary.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

i must say even anime  genrally doesn't use rape in it's comidies. just molestation.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 2, 2012)

They are relaunching in a fortnight I'm sure they will have toned it down unless they are as fucking stupid as they look.
 Then posting an article about how members of anyomonus make great cheap shags or something similar vein seems appropriate
  And watching the resultant storm that drops on them
  Oh fuck the Internet has arrived


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> It's years since I saw it, and I have zero desire to see it. I'm not sure if they were using it in the way you suggest though. I think it may have been just another bit of exploitation for them. But your mileage may vary.


Well, likewise, years since I saw it and no desire to see it again, but I thought the rape was used to make you stop up and feel uneasy about what had gone before - kind of illustrating the point being made here about rape.

Not a pleasant, nor a particularly clever, film though.


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2012)

I seem to recall From Dusk Till Dawn being a bit cavalier over the subject of rape.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2012)

Global Stoner said:


> What if people are joking about killing Tories?



Depends on how it's done, but if it's incitement the same applies. "Go and kill a tory/lefty/muslim .. etc" should have consequences, just as "go and rape a woman" should.

Sure, people say shit like that on here, but anonymous posts on the internet are one thing. I'll guarantee you that very few of these keyboard warriors would be voicing those same opinions/jokes if their names and addresses appeared beneath the posts.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


>


what's unclear or baffling about my post?
the manifesto was a sharp satire, but you could feel the anger beneath it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

The extent to which the SCUM manifesto was intended to be satire is debatable.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

gabi said:


> nah, hes a web design student.
> 
> (here is his website)



D'you think you could take that down gabi? He is a child. The silly little cunt is probably getting more than his share of grief already.


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> D'you think you could take that down gabi? He is a child. The silly little cunt is probably getting more than his share of grief already.



And now the University aurhorities lok as though they're seriously on his case, not that I blame them for that:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16852406


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 2, 2012)

Isn't the difference between using rape and murder as subjects for humour that rape is primarily done by one group to another(this being urban I have to point out that men get raped too but much less frequently and the assumption these people are making is certainly that rape is male on female) and here you have what's explicitly a site aimed at men making 'jokes' about it.

Edit: I blame posting by phone for the total lack of punctuation here. Sorry.


----------



## toggle (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> D'you think you could take that down gabi? He is a child. The silly little cunt is probably getting more than his share of grief already.



including plymouth uni announcing they are intending to take disciplinary action against him.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 2, 2012)

gabi said:


> nah, hes a web design student.
> 
> http://uni.jamiestreet.co.uk/website/about.html



The registered owner of the website is different. There's also a phone number.

[edit]
His name is on the BBC article.  His phone number isn't, but it's not hard to find.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

With any 'just a joke' defence you have to look at who is on the reciving end - if its groups of people without little or no power and/or whoa re systamatically shat on that defence is null and void because you are helping keep these people down.

Joking about getting away with rape is contributing to a widely held discourse which sees women as depersonalised sex objects whose only usefulness is as something to stick your dick into.
There is a huge problem with men who see rape as not that bad, and women 'wanting it really' and these utter cunts are tapping into that for a 'laugh'. And this problem is a serious one at universities.
Rape is massively under-reported and those that are reported are unlikely to result in a prosectuion.

Now 'tories' are targetted for 'lets kill the fuckers' jokes. But last time I looked they're was not a problem with murder of tories going unreported and/or failing to result in convictions or even happening very much at all (but we live in hope).

In addtion Tories are targetted for their political beliefs and tend to people who are very rich and powerful. And cunts.

Fair fucking game in other words.

If people really cant see the distinction or need this spelling out they really need to have a word with themselves.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> With any 'just a joke' defence you have to look at who is on the reciving end - if its groups of people without little or no power and/or whoa re systamatically shat on that defence is null and void because you are helping keep these people down.
> 
> Joking about getting away with rape is contributing to a widely held discourse which sees women as depersonalised sex objects whose only usefulness is as something to stick your dick into.
> There is a huge problem with men who see rape as not that bad, and women 'wanting it really' and these utter cunts are tapping into that for a 'laugh'. And this problem is a serious one at universities.
> ...



Exactly correct.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 2, 2012)

Jamie Street address removed

Is that the chap?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> The registered owner of the website is different. There's also a phone number.
> 
> [edit]
> His name is on the BBC article. His phone number isn't, but it's not hard to find.



Why would anyone want it? So they can join the pitchfork mob heading for his house?


----------



## toggle (Feb 2, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Is that the chap?


well, he's probably not living there atm if he's at plymouth uni.

bit of a commute


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> name & address.
> Is that the chap?



yes. That would be him. Is putting that up really necessary?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

That is the bloke who should be done, the site creator


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 2, 2012)

Not the most responsible idea, putting up someone's personal address under these circumstances, now is it?

I'm happy to condemn what he's been a party to, but not when it could put people at risk of potential reprisals and suchlike.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

Take down stuff linking to him, eh. The website is down now. No need.


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 2, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> Is that the chap?



Yeah! Fuck his parents house up! That's the spirit!


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> That is the bloke who should be done, the site creator



???

The site designer?

... and |I take it by 'done' you mean legally as opposed to lynched?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

toggle said:


> well, he's probably not living there atm if he's at plymouth uni.
> 
> bit of a commute


suggest you edit the bit you quoted


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Bakunin said:


> Not the most responsible idea, putting up someone's personal address under these circumstances, now is it?
> 
> I'm happy to condemn what he's been a party to, but not when it could put people at risk of potential reprisals and suchlike.



Now you need to edit your post so you are not compounding the situation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

_Everyone_ fucking edit. ffs.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> Yeah! Fuck his parents house up! That's the spirit!



indeed.


----------



## toggle (Feb 2, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> suggest you edit the bit you quoted



done.

it will be interesting to hear how much this has gone about the plymouth campus, I have lectures tomorrow.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> ???
> 
> The site designer?
> 
> ... and |I take it by 'done' you mean legally as opposed to lynched?


ahh no, the mr partridge, as mentioned in the Beeb piece, who is responsible for site content, and yes, I mean by legal means. t'other fellers just ye techie


----------



## gabi (Feb 2, 2012)

Er, his name's all over the papers, as well as the fact that he's a web design student at Plymouth. Not hard to track him down. dont see any need to edit links to his websites, altho yeh - his home address is OTT


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2012)

I think some people are missing the point here.

What may or may not be joked about runs to the issue of freedom of speech, which of course no country or legal system in the world allows absolutely, and rightly so.

Rape jokes _per se_, shouldn't necessarily be censured. Anyone who's seen the execrable Frankie Boyle live will know that he makes a living out of telling shit jokes about rape, child molestation and the like. Many of his gags are worthy of a smack in mouth imo, but not legal involvement.

The line is crossed when the statement seeks to influence the behaviour of others.

"I want to rape a woman" while disgusting, is someones viewpoint and shouldn't necessarily warrant legal involvement. However, "you should rape a woman", or as in the OP (paraphrasing) "next time she says no, think about doing it anyway because it won't be reported", is incitement, and should be actionable.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 2, 2012)

Sorry if you get cash from a website your responsible for its contents.
 Being traumatised by the contents of a  online magazine by chods for chods is a bit much.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 2, 2012)

likesfish said:


> Sorry if you get cash from a website your responsible for its contents.
> Being traumatised by the contents of a online magazine by chods for chods is a bit much.



Once again I am slightly baffled by the Fishese dialect.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 2, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> The line is crossed when the statement seeks to influence the behaviour of others.
> 
> "I want to rape a woman" while disgusting, is someones viewpoint and shouldn't necessarily warrant legal involvement. However, "you should rape a woman", or as in the OP (paraphrasing) "next time she says no, think about doing it anyway because it won't be reported", is incitement, and should be actionable.


yes, I think you've pretty much nailed it here.


----------



## gabi (Feb 2, 2012)

doesnt jimmy carr get away with very similar material about rape on stage?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> what's unclear or baffling about my post?
> the manifesto was a sharp satire, but you could feel the anger beneath it



i was talking about global stoner's post sorry not yours!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

> "I want to rape a woman" while disgusting, is someones viewpoint and shouldn't necessarily warrant legal involvement. However, "you should rape a woman", or as in the OP (paraphrasing) "next time she says no, think about doing it anyway because it won't be reported", is incitement, and should be actionable.



shouldn't it? what would you think if someone siad that "viewpoint" and then went out and did it ...


----------



## likesfish (Feb 2, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Once again I am slightly baffled by the Fishese dialect.


 Security is not a dirty word back adder 

But the poster on Facebook who claimed to be traumatised by the article was laying it on a bit thick.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> shouldn't it? what would you think if someone siad that "viewpoint" and then went out and did it ...


I'd think that he was a rapist.

Making _urges_ illegal really is a slippery slope, I think.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> shouldn't it? what would you think if someone siad that "viewpoint" and then went out and did it ...



I'd think that they should be prosecuted for doing, or attempting, or conspiring, or inciting, to do it. Not for saying that they want to.

This is where the line is.

We cannot and should not seek to imprison people for holding repugnant views.

Where do we stop? "I hate jews/blacks"?, "I'd like to kill jews/blacks"?, "I'd like to kill tories"? ...... "I'd like to kill communists"?

It becomes subjective doesn't it?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd think that he was a rapist.
> 
> Making _urges_ illegal really is a slippery slope, I think.



but if someone went around saying they wanted to rape people,while i don't think that should necc be illegal, would you not think the were a dodgy cunt and keep a close eye on them? you wouldn't treat them as you would anyone else would you? i'm not talking about making it illegal but surely if someone said that to you you wouldn't just treat him like any other person?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> but if someone went around saying they wanted to rape people,while i don't think that should necc be illegal, would you not think the were a dodgy cunt and keep a close eye on them? you wouldn't treat them as you would anyone else would you? i'm not talking about making it illegal but surely if someone said that to you you wouldn't just treat him like any other person?


Absolutely. Comes back to your earlier point that just because you don't think something should be criminal, that doesn't necessarily mean you think it is ok.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm not talking about the law sorry, I should have made it clearer. why do people always think everything is about the law? my point is that if someone said to you something on the lines of "I really want to rape that bitch over there" or even "I want to rape you", would you just carry on as though nothing had happened or would you be freaked out or angry or become violent?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

so what action should be taken if someone says that? it's not something normal people say, so even if the law doesn't get involved (it probably shouldn't) surely you can't for example think it's ok to treat them as you would anyone else? maybe some sort of medical/social work type body should be made aware that theres someone saying this shit before they go and act on it? I dunno.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not talking about the law sorry, I should have made it clearer. why do people always think everything is about the law? my point is that if someone said to you something on the lines of "I really want to rape that bitch over there" or even "I want to rape you", would you just carry on as though nothing had happened or would you be freaked out or angry or become violent?


all the illegal stuff -  'while i don't think that should be necc illegal [...] i'm not talking about making it illegal' - does suggest you are in fact talking about the law.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Feb 2, 2012)

err while the article was clearly in bad taste (think that was the point though?) imagine for a moment it was put together by women. I think then it could be seen as incitement to report rape. Just saying.

They are obviously just reaching the lighting of farts level of humour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

That's going to depend on the circumstances. I'd have thought action might vary from telling him to shut the fuck up to _making_ him shut the fuck up rather more forcefully.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 2, 2012)

I would gossip about him mercilessly.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's going to depend on the circumstances. I'd have thought action might vary from telling him to shut the fuck up to _making_ him shut the fuck up rather more forcefully.



well yeah ...


----------



## agricola (Feb 2, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I would gossip about them mercilessly.



This wins.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> all the illegal stuff - 'while i don't think that should be necc illegal [...] i'm not talking about making it illegal' - does suggest you are in fact talking about the law.



talking about it yeah, but not - ah fuck it you know what i mean.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> talking about it yeah, but not - ah fuck it you know what i mean.


i'm not sure i do.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

sorry for not making myself clearer.
i meant that i'm not talking about making what someone says illegal, but if someone said it to you you'd think they were a dodgy fucker, and also if they kept going on about wanting to do it you might consider alerting someone like a doctor or social services, not necessarily the cops, but try to make sure that they were kept an eye on so they didn't end up hurting anyone.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not talking about the law sorry, I should have made it clearer. why do people always think everything is about the law?



Well your post #134 was a direct response to mine regarding "legal involvement", tbf.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm not sure, as a matter of principle, if scumbags like this _should_ actually get prosecuted. However on grounds of schadenfreude alone, I'd be delighted if he _did_.


----------



## JHE (Feb 2, 2012)

It was a nasty tasteless rubbish joke from silly teenage boy, who seems already to have been convinced that he went too far.

It would be good if, following the outrage here, u75 became free from encouragement to 'kill' this that or the other person 'in the face' or to do other cruel acts of violence to people disapproved of by people here. It would be an improvement if people on u75 found other better ways of expressing their disapproval. What are the chances? Not good.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 2, 2012)

likesfish said:


> Security is not a dirty word back adder
> 
> But the poster on Facebook who claimed to be traumatised by the article was laying it on a bit thick.



Maybe . . . unless it was one of those cases where unwelcome memories were triggered. . .


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

JHE said:


> It was a nasty tasteless rubbish joke from silly teenage boy, who seems already to have been convinced that he went too far.
> 
> It's would be good if, following the outrage here, u75 became free from encouragement to 'kill' this that or the other person 'in the face' or to do other cruel acts of violence to people disapproved of by people here. It would be an improvement if people on u75 found other better ways of expressing their disapproval. What are the chances? Not good.



You say that like it's self-evident. Why would that be an improvement?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

JHE said:


> It was a nasty tasteless rubbish joke from silly teenage boy, who seems already to have been convinced that he went too far.
> 
> It's would be good if, following the outrage here, u75 became free from encouragement to 'kill' this that or the other person 'in the face' or to do other cruel acts of violence to people disapproved of by people here. It would be an improvement if people on u75 found other better ways of expressing their disapproval. What are the chances? Not good.


Does this mean we'll have to get rid of the Punch a Celeb thing?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

there's a difference between how we do it on urban75 though and joking about raping someone. or for that matter posting detailed plans of how you would kill someone. jokes about murder are everywhere in popular culture and murder, corpses etc are viewed as acceptable subjects for humour everywhere.

would you get a series on tv called "the midsomer rapes" exactly the same style and content as the midsomer murders apart from the crime? of course you wouldn't.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 2, 2012)

JHE said:


> It was a nasty tasteless rubbish joke from silly teenage boy, who seems already to have been convinced that he went too far.
> 
> It would be good if, following the outrage here, u75 became free from encouragement to 'kill' this that or the other person 'in the face' or to do other cruel acts of violence to people disapproved of by people here. It would be an improvement if people on u75 found other better ways of expressing their disapproval. What are the chances? Not good.









I think it's useful to compare the way people talk about "killing Tories" and the way they talk about the reality of political violence.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

JHE said:


> It was a nasty tasteless rubbish joke from silly teenage boy, who seems already to have been convinced that he went too far.
> 
> It would be good if, following the outrage here, u75 became free from encouragement to 'kill' this that or the other person 'in the face' or to do other cruel acts of violence to people disapproved of by people here. It would be an improvement if people on u75 found other better ways of expressing their disapproval. What are the chances? Not good.



Becasue they are not equivalent. See my earlier post. The rape shit is akin to 'jokingly' advocating acts of violent racism.

i.e. "David Lamey is full of shit and should be killed in the face"

would be harsh but wouldn't cross the line.

But

"David Lamey is full of shit should be lynched from the nearest tree" would be (rightly) unacceptable.

Ditto 'jokingly' advocating sexual violence agasint tory women.


----------



## past caring (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Uni-Lad Magazine is a 'lads mag' for uni students. *It recently upped the ante in the 'how low can you go stakes*...
> 
> In an article titled "Sexual Mathematics" it stated:​"If the girl you've taken for a drink... won't 'spread for your head', think about this mathematical statistic: 85% of rape cases go unreported.​"That seems to be fairly good odds."​The writer then adds at the bottom of the piece: "Uni Lad does not condone rape without saying 'surprise'."​
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...article-after-twitter-backlash_n_1244173.html
> ...





Santino said:


> What's your opinion on this, Liam?



Given your posts that followed, Santino, you really are a bit shit at this, aren't you?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Anyone who's seen the execrable Frankie Boyle live will know that he makes a living out of telling shit jokes about rape, child molestation and the like. Many of his gags are worthy of a smack in mouth imo, but not legal involvement.



Come to think of it... this could well be from Mr Boyle originally.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

well the way that people talk about killing tories or fash or whatever on here is very cartoon-like, nothing like the reality of violence as it really is but more like it is in South Park or whatever.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

i mean compare something like
"I'd love to go a wandering along the cliffs of dover and if i see a tory there i'll push the fucker over"(acceptable)

to someone saying something like "i'd love to torture, rape and then beat a tory into a pulp until he died of his injuries" (unacceptable) it's clear that the two are completely different.

one is like how it would happen in a cartoon, if the other was posted here it would be clear that it would have been written by someone who was serious about their intentions (and a bit of a cunt).


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Becasue they are not equivalent. See my earlier post. The rape shit is akin to 'jokingly' advocating acts of violent racism.
> 
> i.e. "David Lamey is full of shit and should be killed in the face"
> 
> ...



Really?

Where would these two lovable rogues fit in this scenario then?



Jeff Robinson said:


> Innit, that fucker needs to be butchered for writing that shit. Hack the cunt up with a meat cleaver.





Libertad said:


> I'd like to lace his eyes together with meat skewer and let him find his own way home.



from my reading of your post, Libertad would scrape by... whereas poor Jeffrey would be for the high-jump.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> well the way that people talk about killing tories or fash or whatever on here is very cartoon-like, nothing like the reality of violence as it really is but more like it is in South Park or whatever.



Whilst I agree with what you are saying... is that not the same rationale as these young students may offer?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

As is well known, we do live in a culture in which murder is common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone murder.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Whilst I agree with what you are saying... is that not the same rationale as these young students may offer?



rape is different though ... there's a reason why people here joke about killing tories but not raping them.


----------



## JHE (Feb 2, 2012)

I hadn't noticed those particular posts about meat cleavers and skewers, but posts of that sort are not rare on these boards.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Really?
> 
> Where would these two lovable rogues fit in this scenario then?
> 
> from my reading of your post, Libertad would scrape by... whereas poor Jeffrey would be for the high-jump.



Is this in realtion to David Lamey?

If so I cant see the overt racism reference that would cross the line.

Although it is stupidly over the top detailing that level of  extreme violence for an MP talking ignorant shite


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Where would these two lovable rogues fit in this scenario then?
> 
> from my reading of your post, Libertad would scrape by... whereas poor Jeffrey would be for the high-jump.



You may have left the Rod Liddle thread, but it looks like you carry bits of it round in heart.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

even then though it's not serious, it's on the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable but it's still sufficiently ridiculous enough to be ok because it's so over the top.


----------



## JHE (Feb 2, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Becasue they are not equivalent. See my earlier post. The rape shit is akin to 'jokingly' advocating acts of violent racism.
> 
> i.e. "David Lamey is full of shit and should be killed in the face"
> 
> ...



What about sexual violence against Lammy and lynching Tory women?  Would that be OK?


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> would you get a series on tv called "the midsomer rapes" exactly the same style and content as the midsomer murders apart from the crime? of course you wouldn't.



Interesting you say that froggy, because my Mum likes the Midsomer Murders series and we've argued about it. Some of those murders are very graphically depicted, and I find them too disturbing to watch comfortably; Mum thinks it doesn't matter because they are only fictional murders.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

Oh its liddle is it?

Fuck him. Only it should be a _rusty_ meat cleaver.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> rape is different though ... there's a reason why people here joke about killing tories but not raping them.



I am just saying I bet that's what the students will say. I'm not saying I agree with them.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

JHE said:


> What about sexual violence against Lammy and lynching Tory women? Would that be OK?



well if someone said they thought david cameron should be raped do you really think people on here would think it was ok?


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 2, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> As is well known, we do live in a culture in which murder is common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone murder.



David Starkey (that will kick people off  ) said fairly recently that he thinks we have a pornography of violence; violence is depicted as graphically as it is in order to titillate people whose lives are otherwise safe and comfortable and whose appetites have become jaded. I think he could have a point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> well if someone said they thought david cameron should be raped do you really think people on here would think it was ok?


*ponders ethical dilemma*


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Interesting you say that froggy, because my Mum likes the Midsomer Murders series and we've argued about it. Some of those murders are very graphically depicted, and I find them too disturbing to watch comfortably; Mum thinks it doesn't matter because they are only fictional murders.



i picked midsomer murders because it's an example of what everyone knows is light entertainment, a completely unrealistic and ludicrous "crime" series even if some of the murders are graphically depicted sometimes. The fact that such a programme is on the screen even though the murders are often quite violent says something about our attitude to it compared to our attitude to rape.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> well if someone said they thought david cameron should be raped do you really think people on here would think it was ok?



I don't think it's less OK than saying he should be killed. I don't condone incitement to murder anywhere though.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

JHE said:


> I hadn't noticed those particular posts about meat cleavers and skewers, but posts of that sort are not rare on these boards.



That thread is full of them... and if you could be arsed to look up Jeffrey's posts you would find many similar ones.


----------



## past caring (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> well if someone said they thought david cameron should be raped do you really think people on here would think it was ok?



Only if they killed him afterwards.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i picked midsomer murders because it's an example of what everyone knows is light entertainment, a completely unrealistic and ludicrous "crime" series even if some of the murders are graphically depicted sometimes. The fact that such a programme is on the screen even though the murders are often quite violent says something about our attitude to it compared to our attitude to rape.



You may be right, but if so I'm just wondering why that is; I don't really understand it.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

JHE said:


> What about sexual violence against Lammy and lynching Tory women? Would that be OK?



Obviously lynching tories is acceptable. Unless it was specifiacally advocated on the basis of their skin colour.

Advocating sexual violence agaisnt men is differnt to advocating against women - and there's a differnce as to wether the advocatee is suggesting it be carried out by women or men. And again when adovcating it against a gay man.

You have to put it into the context of power relations.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> well if someone said they thought david cameron should be raped do you really think people on here would think it was ok?



No but apparently Harry Redknapp deserves it




Daniel said:


>


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i picked midsomer murders because it's an example of what everyone knows is light entertainment, *a completely unrealistic and ludicrous "crime" series even if some of the murders are graphically depicted sometimes. *The fact that such a programme is on the screen even though the murders are often quite violent says something about our attitude to it compared to our attitude to rape.



Agreed. People getting killed week after week and nary a "For Sale" sign anywhere; you'd think at least some of them would have got the message that it isn't a very safe place to live


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> You may be right, but if so I'm just wondering why that is; I don't really understand it.



i am right. i don't know why it is either. something like "weekend at bernies" "kind hearts and coronets" and the other shows mentioned up the thread would not be possible if they were about rape, because nobody would laugh, nobody would consider rape light brainless entertainment in the way "Midsomer Murders" is where there are jokes about how the crime rate in such a small village is the highest in the country when people talk about the programme. People on here make jokes about margaret thatcher's death but they would never make jokes about raping her. it is not appropriate whereas there are circumstances in which death can be funny.

And the way people talk about this stuff is emotionally detatched, its like a cartoon. you can't make jokes about rape like that.

i don't find the darwin awards particularly funny tbh, (awards awarded to people who've died in stupid ways) but you would never get "the darwin rape awards". you just wouldn't because it is not funny and due to the trauma to the victim etc would be completely inappropriate. i don't know why that is, but i do know that it's just the way it is.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> David Starkey (that will kick people off  ) said fairly recently that he thinks we have a pornography of violence; violence is depicted as graphically as it is in order to titillate people whose lives are otherwise safe and comfortable and whose appetites have become jaded. I think he could have a point.


On the other hand (a) that argument is actually a different one, about a situation where murder is so uncommon in life that people are fine with graphic representations of it, as opposed to it happening and being excused, belittled and the victim blamed, and (b) David Starkey is a reactionary cunt.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> You may have left the Rod Liddle thread, but it looks like you carry bits of it round in heart.



nah.  It was just a handy, recent (and thus easily findable) example. There is plenty of it about on Urban.

FWIW I don't find it particularly offensive, although I did once object to lots of posters listing the violence they would like to inflict on a child who had bullied another child.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

Advocating rape agasint Thatcher would also indirectly threaten _all _women.

Adovcating her immediate death  would only threaten other vile, right wing meglomaniacs.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> No but apparently Harry Redknapp deserves it


Prison rape jokes aren't funny either tbh.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Prison rape jokes aren't funny either tbh.



I wasn't saying they were. But they are not uncommon on here.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 2, 2012)

Here's a charming screenshot of Unilad's supporters' posts on fb


----------



## Sue (Feb 2, 2012)

Fucking hell (at the screenshot). Doesn't seem to occur to them that rape also happens to men. Though to be honest, not a lot seems to have occured to them at all.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

As an aside, kind of puts paid (again) to the idea that using real names on the internet means people behave better.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Looking at the age of those posters, is there something of an age/generational thing going on here?

Some of the stuff I have seen on my nephew's facebook page made me wince and I am hardly a shrinking violet - but his mates (including lots of girls) LOL away at it and seem to think nothing of it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Looking at the age of those posters, is there something of an age/generational thing going on here?
> 
> Some of the stuff I have seen on my nephew's facebook page made me wince and I am hardly a shrinking violet - but his mates (including lots of girls) away at it and even join in.


Could be. The way young folk use the word 'gay' now puzzles me, slightly startles me, and makes me feel old.

It's all about context, though. tribal princess took me aback a little the first time she told me to fuck off on here (irrc, the first time she spoke to me ). If you're outside a culture peering in, you can misunderstand it quite easily.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

nah, its not a young people thing, it's a cunt thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2012)

tbf, it could be both.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> nah, its not a young people thing, it's a cunt thing.


Yes, there are plenty of men of all ages who will say things like that and think they're being funny. It's hardly just popped up because of the internet or something.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

nah, you wouldn't think that shit was funny if you weren't a cunt. some people do make jokes about rape, but even those that do generally don't advocate it like that tho.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

"those crazy kids, what will they think of next"


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> nah, its not a young people thing, it's a cunt thing.



No, seriously. I have seen and heard him and his mates trying to out gross each other and nothing seems taboo.

Most of his mates are in their first year at Uni. They are pretty much apolitical. Not racist. Not agressive. But definitely would give Frankie Boyle a run for his money.

Stuff like 'shut up or I'll come round and make you my bitch' leads to an escalation that ends up with all kinds of stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

even so i bet its different to what's seen on that page though. and the "come round and make you my bitch" thing - of course people say that sort of shit, they generally don't say the shit in the article though.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

Lame0 yet again utterly misses the point - when speech acts have a discernible nexus with physical acts they are judged to different standards from speech acts that are simply rhetorical flourish. Rod Liddle slandering disabled people when there are plans afoot to reduce their standard of living is directly complicit in that assault on disabled people. Frat boy vermin who trivialise rape and mock rape victims in a context where rape is a serious social problem (not to mention broader gender based oppression) are complicit in that oppression. Saying that 'lads' should be sent to gulags or that rightwing journalists should be hacked up is so disconnected to anything that happens beyond the confines of a message-board it is clearly just rhetoric. People might not like that rhetoric of course, but your comparision utterly fails to appreciate the difference.

p.s. the Uni-lad scum should all have their cocks blown off with dynamite.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 2, 2012)

iirc, frogwoman is 'young person' 

One of my friends explained it like this - her teenage daughter doesn't want to think that anything bad is ever going to happen to her, that the blokes she knows wouldn't do anything like that and so it's funny because it's so implausible. It's like an invisible shield. What is really horrible about that is that if you *do  *get raped by a friend or a fellow student, it makes it so much harder to tell anyone and report. Rape's funny, right? Who the hell is going to take you seriously?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> No, seriously. I have seen and heard him and his mates trying to out gross each other and nothing seems taboo.
> 
> Most of his mates are in their first year at Uni. They are pretty much apolitical. Not racist. Not agressive. But definitely would give Frankie Boyle a run for his money.
> 
> Stuff like 'shut up or I'll come round and make you my bitch' leads to an escalation that ends up with all kinds of stuff.


People used to say that sort of thing when I was in the first year, and I'm in my mid-thirties now.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm 23. yes, there are mostly young people (including myself) who've made jokes about rape which were pretty suss. that's being a twat, and i wouldn't do it now. then there are people who actually say you should go out and do it as they did in the article and people who make the sort of comments seen on the facebook page (which aren't "jokes"). I think trashpony nails it pretty well imo.


----------



## purenarcotic (Feb 2, 2012)

The use of 'gay' in a derogatory fashion by so many young people is primarily because it goes completely unchallenged (see Stonewall's 'The School Report'  and 'The Teachers Report' and also research by O'Higgens-Norman).  They aren't necessarily cunts, they simply are rarely challenged, either by their peers or teachers to think about why it might be offensive.  Many of those who use it will claim they have no issue with gay people and haven't made the association in their heads with the problem with doing so.  Not that it's right or okay, obviously, but that's what the research seems to say as the reason behind it.

As for the screenshot, they look like cunts to me. I don't think humour comes into it, they're just vile comments. 9/10 people enjoy rape? Girls who complained are probably closet lesbians?  I mean for fuck's sake how poor and unfunny can you be.

No wonder rape reports are so low if this is the attitude pervaded by young people.  I for one am ashamed to be a part of the same age bracket.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

trashpony said:


> iirc, frogwoman is 'young person'
> 
> One of my friends explained it like this - her teenage daughter doesn't want to think that anything bad is ever going to happen to her, that the blokes she knows wouldn't do anything like that and so it's funny because it's so implausible. It's like an invisible shield. What is really horrible about that is that if you *do *get raped by a friend or a fellow student, it makes it so much harder to tell anyone and report. Rape's funny, right? Who the hell is going to take you seriously?



Yep and those pricks that perpetuate that culture are responsible for at the very least their reckless indifference to those sort of consequences.


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Lame0


i haven't read the rest of your post, but this makes me want to stab you in the eye.

did you call our former prime minister tony bLIAR too?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Ok I'll 





trashpony said:


> iirc, frogwoman is 'young person'



I agree with most of your post.

I would point out though that FW is in her early 20's (which in terms of the facebook generation is ancient) and is also a political acivist of many years standing so is unlikely to have too mant 17/18 year old 'lad' mates.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

killer b said:


> i haven't read the rest of your post, but this makes me want to stab you in the eye.
> 
> did you call our former prime minister tony bLIAR too?



I believe he does actually.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Ok I'll
> 
> I agree with most of your post.
> 
> I would point out though that FW is in her early 20's (which in terms of the facebook generation is ancient) and is also a political acivist of many years standing so is unlikely to have too mant 17/18 year old 'lad' mates.


Oh I know she's a bit more mature than your average late teenager. But I don't think we should tar all 'young people' with the idiot brush


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 2, 2012)

killer b said:


> i haven't read the rest of your post, but this makes me want to stab you in the eye.



I'm totally down with the stab in the eye thing - your problem however is your prioritisation of form over content.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Lame0 yet again utterly misses the point - when speech acts have a discernible nexus with physical acts they are judged to different standards from speech acts that are simply rhetorical flourish. Rod Liddle slandering disabled people when there are plans afoot to reduce their standard of living is directly complicit in that assault on disabled people. Frat boy vermin who trivialise rape and mock rape victims in a context where rape is a serious social problem (not to mention broader gender based oppression) are complicit in that oppression. Saying that 'lads' should be sent to gulags or that rightwing journalists should be hacked up is so disconnected to anything that happens beyond the confines of a message-board it is clearly just rhetoric. People might not like that rhetoric of course, but your comparision utterly fails to appreciate the difference.
> 
> p.s. the Uni-lad scum should all have their cocks blown off with dynamite.



No. I have missed no point.

I am perfectly aware that your wont for a certain rhetorical flourish should not be taken seriously. Ironically Editor has taken me to task 2 or 3 times for just such 'flourishes' and worked himself into quite a froth about them. I was inviting Kaka tim to expand on this post...



Kaka Tim said:


> Becasue they are not equivalent. See my earlier post. The rape shit is akin to 'jokingly' advocating acts of violent racism.
> 
> i.e. "David Lamey is full of shit and should be killed in the face"
> 
> ...


 
I was not suggesting that the posts I quoted from you and Libertad was equivalent to the UniLad stuff. I was saying that is how how his (Kaka Tims) post could easily read.

btw are you two seperate posters? I find the language jumps from say 'discernible nexus' to 'fuckin kill every cunt' puzzling


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Oh I know she's a bit more mature than your average late teenager. But I don't think we should tar all 'young people' with the idiot brush



I'm not.

I don't consider my nephew or his mates idiots either. That is the way they carry on. I don't think a 'mate' ever said anything like... 'I ended up with a mouthful of your spunk last night. teach me not to rim your little sister lol'

but that kinda stuff on his facebook page would attract multiple 'likes' and LOLs - and strangest of all if he objected to anything HE would be told 'suck it up' , 'get a life', or 'if you can't take it don't give it'.

i am pretty sure he would call the UniLad stuff 'banter' the same way those on that screenshot do. His attitude would be that you should not inflict this on the general public, but anyone who went to that page and had previously 'like'd it should know what they were choosing to read.


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> I don't consider my nephew or his mates idiots either. That is the way they carry on. I don't think a 'mate' ever said anything like... 'I ended up with a mouthful of your spunk last night. teach me not to rim your little sister lol'


i remember saying those exact words to a mate when i was about 17. it isn't new (i'm 34).


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Ok I'll
> 
> I agree with most of your post.
> 
> I would point out though that FW is in her early 20's (which in terms of the facebook generation is ancient) and is also a political acivist of many years standing so is unlikely to have too mant 17/18 year old 'lad' mates.



i do know people who say/have said that sort of shit. bit twattish but i don't think it's the same. espcially when it's published in a magazine rather than being (dodgy) jokes with mates.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2012)

banter was a perfectly good word to describe ribaldry between friends until some wanker decided it could cover straight up cuntishness.

ironically enough I bet the author of that article is feeling extremely butthurt over the wrath of the internets


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i do know people who say/have said that sort of shit. bit twattish but i don't think it's the same. espcially when it's published in a magazine rather than being (dodgy) jokes with mates.



I know. I think they (UniLad) did not grasp the complexities. I bet they do now.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 2, 2012)

as he should be sick "humour" between mates is one thing.
 posting it on prattbook another.
  writing a long misagoyonic rant desguised as humour you have the right to write that probably shouldn't have been published by anyone with a functioning brain.
 You now have the consquences of letting the entire internet think your  a chod and everyone involved with the magazine is a chod of the highest order.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> btw are you two seperate posters? I find the language jumps from say 'discernible nexus' to 'fuckin kill every cunt' puzzling


 
 I dont recall using either phrase.
 I might use  'discourse' and 'cunt' in the same post I guess - but they are two of my favourite words.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I dont recall using either phrase.
> I might use 'discourse' and 'cunt' in the same post I guess - but they are two of my favourite words.



sorry mate. I was (still) talking to Jeffrey Pottymouth who turns into Jeffrey Erudite at the push of a button.


----------



## twentythreedom (Feb 2, 2012)

Unilad = "unlaid" (surprisingly enough)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 2, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> err while the article was clearly in bad taste (think that was the point though?) imagine for a moment it was put together by women. I think then it could be seen as incitement to report rape. Just saying.
> 
> They are obviously just reaching the lighting of farts level of humour.



Lighting farts can be funny IMO - I once set my PJs on fire doing it and while it didn't seem very funny from where I was sitting, there was a consensus among everyone else there that it was quite possibly the funniest thing that had ever happened in the whole world. Ever. On the other hand, I cannot think of any context in which I would find a rape "joke" funny.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Looking at the age of those posters, is there something of an age/generational thing going on here?



And? So what if it is?


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 2, 2012)

trashpony said:


> iirc, frogwoman is 'young person'
> 
> One of my friends explained it like this - her teenage daughter doesn't want to think that anything bad is ever going to happen to her, that the blokes she knows wouldn't do anything like that and so it's funny because it's so implausible. It's like an invisible shield. What is really horrible about that is that if you *do *get raped by a friend or a fellow student, it makes it so much harder to tell anyone and report. Rape's funny, right? Who the hell is going to take you seriously?



Haven't thought of it that way before. So, rape jokes for this younger generation are like the way people my age used to make jokes about leprosy when we were the same age in the '70s - we knew we weren't going to get leprosy ourselves so it was OK to find it funny? No matter that it _was _happening to somebody else?

That raises the question though; what has changed to make rape funny for this generation (OK, for some members of this generation) whereas it wasn't funny for earlier generations? I've heard more sick jokes over the years than I'd care to count but I can only remember one rape joke and that was in a student rag mag (and I'd rather not recount it here, I thought it was offensive).


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 2, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Unilad = "unlaid" (surprisingly enough)



Or "ulna id" - and if your instincts are in your forearm, you're bound to be a wanker.


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> rape jokes for this younger generation are like the way people my age used to make jokes about leprosy when we were the same age in the '70s - we knew we weren't going to get leprosy ourselves so it was OK to find it funny? No matter that it _was _happening to somebody else?


rape jokes were popular amongst mates when i was a teen too. people grow out of it. and friendship used to be more private than it is now.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 2, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> And? So what if it is?



?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

killer b said:


> rape jokes were popular amongst mates when i was a teen too. people grow out of it. and friendship used to be more private than it is now.


There only used to be a much smaller number of chortling cunts that would approve of your misogyny at any one time. Now, thanks to the magic of the internet, you can be validated by lots of other cunts within seconds.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Lighting farts can be funny IMO - I once set my PJs on fire doing it and while it didn't seem very funny from where I was sitting, there was a consensus among everyone else there that it was quite possibly the funniest thing that had ever happened in the whole world. Ever. On the other hand, I cannot think of any context in which I would find a rape "joke" funny.


 
Whats worse than finding a worm in your apple?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 2, 2012)

Oh bloody hell, you people are all so young and so stupid.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> ?



As in so what if the clowns laughing and defending/justifying the cunt who wrote the article/the article itself? Does it matter or excuse/justify it?


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 2, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh bloody hell, you people are all so young and so stupid.



No, I'm older than you are IIRC.


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There only used to be a much smaller number of chortling cunts that would approve of your misogyny at any one time. Now, thanks to the magic of the internet, you can be validated by lots of other cunts within seconds.


they'll probably grow out of it too. usually prompted by someone calling them on it, like how it was before web-based social networks.


----------



## Santino (Feb 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Whats worse than finding a worm in your apple?


Clegg


----------



## revol68 (Feb 2, 2012)

if these cretins were clever they'd claim they were satirising the prevalence of rape culture and extremely low conviction rates, as it is they were just being gobshites.

Also I've heard plenty of people make jokes about rape, racism, murder, incest (the taboo nature of them makes them ripe for black humour) difference is they tend to be more absurd than anything, I don't think it's useful to say "thou shall not makes jokes about [insert taboo]" rather they are much more context specific, this one is just crass and idiotic which can itself be funny enoug but not when it's a bunch of student rag wankers who've been watching too much Frankie Boyle.

4chan can actually be pretty hilarious in it's depravity.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Whats worse than finding a worm in your apple?



Either finding half of one or not finding the razor blade that's in your apple until it's too late.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 2, 2012)

also someone said something about people joking about killing tories (it's not murder!) but they wouldn't make one about raping them, of course not, who the fuck would admit to wanting to shag a tory.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 2, 2012)

killer b said:


> they'll probably grow out of it too. usually prompted by someone calling them on it, like how it was before web-based social networks.


Oh yes, and possibly even sooner on average, since they can more easily see a wide range of opinions. If they're at all inclined to.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> 4chan can actually be pretty hilarious in it's depravity.



gotta love the internet hate machine


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 2, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Let's face it, whoever came up with that name and logo needs to have their nutsack acquainted with my metal clad boots asap.



most likely their "oooh look at me im so trendy" shaved nutsack , fucking tossers


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> also someone said something about people joking about killing tories (it's not murder!) but they wouldn't make one about raping them, of course not, who the fuck would admit to wanting to shag a tory.



I'd quite like to shag Louis Mensch. And I don't mind admitting it.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> most likely their "oooh look at me in so trendy" shaved nutsack , fucking tossers



what an odd comment to make?


----------



## twentythreedom (Feb 2, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Or "ulna id" - and if your instincts are in your forearm, you're bound to be a wanker.



unilad.com - "Lucid moan" 

eta - "Odium clan"


----------



## revol68 (Feb 2, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'd quite like to shag Louis Mensch. And I don't mind admitting it.


Did you see here on Have I got News For You? She was awful, I felt bad just watching her!

Cameron's missus is pretty hot.

Anyway shame on you for turning a thread about the bad taste of rape jokes into a phwoar thread, I feel ashamed of my sex.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> also someone said something about people joking about killing tories (it's not murder!) but they wouldn't make one about raping them, of course not, who the fuck would admit to wanting to shag a tory.



Louis Mensch

just saying


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2012)

urgh, dirty minds think alike


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Cameron's missus is pretty hot.


i think she votes labour though.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 2, 2012)

CTR I'll shoot her in front of you, what you do in the last minutes of her bodily warmth are up to you.

That Unilad is how you do vile black humour.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Louis Mensch
> 
> just saying


----------



## revol68 (Feb 2, 2012)

killer b said:


> i think she votes labour though.



ah so more a cretin than a cunt.


----------



## bignose1 (Feb 2, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'd quite like to shag Louis Mensch. And I don't mind admitting it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

When this page tips over into laddism, could somebody ring a bell?  Tory hating is affecting my geiger counter.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

i've been thinking about this. i think one of the reasons why we find rape offensive more than jokes or comedy about murder is because of the "dangerousness" of the rapist as well. for example, when gaddafi was raped and then murdered by a mob, it attracted a huge amount of condemnation a lot more so than what it would if he had just been murdered. it's also because there is some scumbag out there who presumably got sexual pleasure from it and a sense of power.

with murder i think it's a very individual act and there are often good (or at least understandable) motives why someone would murder someone else, for political reasons for example or because they had done something inexcusable, for example if someone in your family died of a drug overdose and you found out your next door neighbour was a huge local player in the underworld and you murdered them in a fit of rage.

there's none of that with rape, there can never be any kind of valid reason behind raping someone and someone who does so (even to someone like gaddafi) becomes percieved as a dangerous scumbag.

in a weird way i also think that that's the reason why jokes about prison rapes become more acceptable - not only becasue it's a world most of us never get to see but because it's almost not seen as as actually being rape by a lot of people.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Feb 2, 2012)

Nice work, Liam.

Did anyone say that yet?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Haven't thought of it that way before. So, rape jokes for this younger generation are like the way people my age used to make jokes about leprosy when we were the same age in the '70s - we knew we weren't going to get leprosy ourselves so it was OK to find it funny? No matter that it _was _happening to somebody else?



no.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 2, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Haven't thought of it that way before. So, rape jokes for this younger generation are like the way people my age used to make jokes about leprosy when we were the same age in the '70s - we knew we weren't going to get leprosy ourselves so it was OK to find it funny? No matter that it _was _happening to somebody else?
> 
> .



yeah but i think the context is sort of important here. The fact of the matter is date rapes and the like do occur at venues like alcohol and drugs sodden university , and putting it in a magazine read by students is well off colour . It does certainly trivialise the shit out of it . Trivilasing the shit out of it in a publication priding itself on and encouraging others to engage in this type of "lad" fuckology is well overstepping the mark in my view . Its already encouraging a sort of mindset thats bad enough, overly mysoginistic, and then it comes out with this shit . Shit that does actually happen to female students at the hands of these wankers .

I'll point put here that among close freinds i do myself of occasion tell and also laugh at the odd rape joke . Im not some politically correct yoghurt knitter by any means.



> That raises the question though; what has changed to make rape funny for this generation (OK, for some members of this generation) whereas it wasn't funny for earlier generations? I've heard more sick jokes over the years than I'd care to count but I can only remember one rape joke and that was in a student rag mag (and I'd rather not recount it here, I thought it was offensive)



again its the context . Jail bum rape jokes may well sound funny when your in the pub , and often are , but id imagine theyre not quite as funny to hear when your in a shower block in jail surrounded by men who have a certain attitude to "fresh meat" . Which is precisely what "lads" are encouraged to view their fellow female students as .


----------



## romeo2001 (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i've been thinking about this. i think one of the reasons why we find rape offensive more than jokes or comedy about murder is because of the "dangerousness" of the rapist as well. for example, when gaddafi was raped and then murdered by a mob, it attracted a huge amount of condemnation a lot more so than what it would if he had just been murdered. it's also because there is some scumbag out there who presumably got sexual pleasure from it and a sense of power.
> 
> with murder i think it's a very individual act and there are often good (or at least understandable) motives why someone would murder someone else, for political reasons for example or because they had done something inexcusable, for example if someone in your family died of a drug overdose and you found out your next door neighbour was a huge local player in the underworld and you murdered them in a fit of rage.
> 
> ...



I think that one of the main reasons is that rape is seen as a crime against women - and lots see women as weak and to be protected - so rape is villified by lots who are desperate to protect or impress women.  Also explains why prison rape jokes are seen as acceptable as the target is always men

Because logically speaking surely murder is worse than rape - in the same way that people favour wrongful imprisonment over wrongful execution - at least your alive to be screwed up over it....


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 2, 2012)

Good post Casually Red. That from CR and the earlier post from Kaka Tim (sharp as always) pretty much sum up my view of this vile, horrendously immature shite.

Plus plenty of other RIGHTLY uncompromising posts as well -- there's no room for faffing about doing all the 'on the one hand this, on the other hand that' nonsense with this kind of unacceptable shit


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 2, 2012)

as much as they probably deserve a cold shower and a clip round the ear hole  would  any of you think the situation would be improved by jail time?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 2, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> as much as they probably deserve a cold shower and a clip round the ear hole would any of you think the situation would be improved by jail time?


 
They may find "non-consensual sex" not quite as funny as they initially thought, especially if another prisoner says "surprise"


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

i also think though that there are times where because something is so unimaginable the only way to imagine it is through jokes. by this i mean the chris morris stuff about paedos etc or the jokes about 9/11 or fred west. why is it acceptable to laugh about what chris morris says but not about rape? perhaps it is because what chris morris goes on about in "paedogeddon" or similar is actually _worse_. we know that paedos are scum, a lot of people believe that they are perhaps the only people deserving of death, and we can never imagine anyone we know being one. because we feel psychologically removed from something so unimaginable the only way we can imagine it is by watching or listening to jokes about it which remove all the horror from it and make it into something completely ridiculous. the same with some of the jokes about 9/11, the only way people can cope with something that evil is by laughing about it.i do think that's also why (some) people make jokes about rape espcially when they're young, because its the only way to process it inside their heads.

that's not IMO what was going on in that magazine though. twats.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 2, 2012)

LiamO said:


> ???
> 
> The site designer?
> 
> ... and |I take it by 'done' you mean legally as opposed to lynched?


Sexually.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'd quite like to shag Louis Mensch. And I don't mind admitting it.


and when you get sectioned for fucking a tory you won't feel so clever


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 2, 2012)

its not just that its a joke about rape . The blackest and grimmest situations are always targets for humour, sometimes funny , usually though just fucking tasteless for the sake of it.
But theres some wanker actually telling the type of wanker whos projected persona is "fuck any woman you like , when you like, regardless of feelings, theyre objects all there to be fucked" that he stands  a very good chance of getting away with raping a fellow student in a social situation at university . Which does happen quite a lot , and the rapists usually do get away with it .
To me thats not fucking funny . To me thats some cunt who thinks its actually funny his fellow "lads" regularly get away with rape .

I dont think theyre seriously encouraging anyone to rape anyone . Just that they think its funny theyd probably get away with it if they did . And that others do .


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> its not just that its a joke about rape . The blackest and grimmest situations are always targets for humour, sometimes funny , usually though just fucking tasteless for the sake of it.
> But theres some wanker actually telling the type of wanker whos projected persona is "fuck any woman you like , when you like, regardless of feelings, theyre objects all there to be fucked" that he stands a very good chance of getting away with raping a fellow student in a social situation at university . Which does happen quite a lot , and the rapists usually do get away with it .
> To me thats not fucking funny . To me thats some cunt who thinks its actually funny his fellow "lads" regularly get away with rape .
> 
> I dont think theyre seriously encouraging anyone to rape anyone . Just that they think its funny theyd probably get away with it if they did . And that others do .


well said


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 2, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and when you get sectioned for fucking a tory you won't feel so clever



I've done far, far worse in my time tbh


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 2, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i also think though that there are times where because something is so unimaginable the only way to imagine it is through jokes. by this i mean the chris morris stuff about paedos etc or the jokes about 9/11 or fred west. why is it acceptable to laugh about what chris morris says but not about rape? perhaps it is because what chris morris goes on about in "paedogeddon" or similar is actually _worse_. we know that paedos are scum, a lot of people believe that they are perhaps the only people deserving of death, and we can never imagine anyone we know being one. because we feel psychologically removed from something so unimaginable the only way we can imagine it is by watching or listening to jokes about it which remove all the horror from it and make it into something completely ridiculous. the same with some of the jokes about 9/11, the only way people can cope with something that evil is by laughing about it.i do think that's also why (some) people make jokes about rape espcially when they're young, because its the only way to process it inside their heads.
> 
> that's not IMO what was going on in that magazine though. twats.



whats wrong is though that horrific as people like fred west and Gary Glitter are they are rarities . They arent hiding behind every bush . And certainly we do tend to use humour as a release for the emotions monsters like that cetainly do stir in us. In an appropriate context thats healthy in my view .

Rape however is all too prevalent . And the vast majority of the time the rapist and victim know each other , work together , study together , socialise together..whatever . And the vast majority of the time its not even reported to police . Often because of a womans fears she let herself be compromised , possibly engaged in some light sexual activity she'd prefer not to discuss with strangers and a genuine fear she'd not be believed , have her character and sexual history/behaviour used to rip her to bits . Among other reasons .

So along comes Johnny student aiming his pitch precisely at the type of bollix who sees it as his entitlement to ride whoever he likes , whos dead set on getting female students into sexual situations regardless of how comfortable they might be with that , whos quite likely to see them as objects first , who takes a pride in not caring about their feelings as a lifestyle choice , who may well be the type whod ignore the first few "no's" anyway...and johnny student helpfully reminds aforesaid fuckwits that if they just went for it theyd most likely get clean away with it .

Johnny student responsible for this should have his collar felt by someone or other in authority . He might as well just put up a recipe for homemade rohypnol .


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2012)

exactly


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:
			
		

> He might as well just put up a recipe for homemade rohypnol .



Anyone going to try and argue that this is too extreme a point in this context??

Good luck with that one, apologists .....


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 2, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> as much as they probably deserve a cold shower and a clip round the ear hole would any of you think the situation would be improved by jail time?



Not necessarily, because by being sent down they might well attract some 'defend these martyrs against the evil forces of PC gone mad' loons, Daily Mail gone mad stuff, and the thing could become a stupidly vocal cause celebre (among morons, but possibly including morons who command a hearing and following). And for absolutely the wrong reasons.

But whether or not these twazzocks end up in jail isn't the main point IMO. More that if they get even just a verbal bollocking, even by having the site shut down and not much more, the website creators/editors/contributors will be forced to *think *????

Even if only reluctantly ....


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 2, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Not necessarily, because by being sent down they might well attract some 'defend these martyrs against the evil forces of PC gone mad' loons, Daily Mail gone mad stuff, and the thing could become a stupidly vocal cause celebre (among morons, but possibly including morons who command a hearing and following). And for absolutely the wrong reasons.
> 
> But whether or not these twazzocks end up in jail isn't the main point IMO. More that if they get even just a verbal bollocking, even by having the site shut down and not much more, the website creators/editors/contributors will be forced to *think *????
> 
> Even if only reluctantly ....



Would be interesting to hear what their female relatives think of their comments, but they'd probably defend them and say it's just been blown out of proportion and they're all lovely sensitive lads who wouldn't hurt a fly


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 2, 2012)

You gotta wonder what their mum's think about it.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 2, 2012)

i wouldnt advocate jail any more than id advocate it for that tram woman . But they shouldnt be let run any type of college website or publication again , be turfed off whatever SU committe or society theyre in . That would teach them a valuable lesson , and the point of going to college is supposedly to learn .

Grovelling public apology mightnt be amiss either.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 2, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You gotta wonder what their mum's think about it.



I'd imagine they'd defend them whatever their crime even if they're not happy about it.  Lots of mothers seem to do that


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> i wouldnt advocate jail any more than id advocate it for that tram woman . But they shouldnt be let run any type of college website or publication again , be turfed off whatever SU committe or society theyre in . That would teach them a valuable lesson , and the point of going to college is supposedly to learn .
> 
> Grovelling public apology mightnt be amiss either.


 
Nor would I, but one up the arse in prison would be a learning experience.  Of course I'm only joking


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 2, 2012)

Presumably he's in training to be the next Jeremy Clarkson or something?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Presumably he's in training to be the next Jeremy Clarkson or something?


I think nowadays they call it an _internship_.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 2, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Presumably he's in training to be the next Jeremy Clarkson or something?



or something , namely a student twat who probably thinks he's as funny but isnt . I'll confess i do actually find clarkson funny of occasion , in his way . Even though i probably shouldnt .


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 2, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Nor would I, but one up the arse in prison would be a learning experience.



2 in the arse and one in the mouth would be a veritable Phd .

Say "surprise" now fucko


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 2, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I'd imagine they'd defend them whatever their crime even if they're not happy about it. Lots of mothers seem to do that



I'm sure they will, but what they say in public and what they say to their sons will be different I suspect.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> 2 in the arse and one in the mouth would be a veritable Phd .
> 
> Say "surprise" now fucko



I don't find that funny.  Rape is not funny.

I may make an exception for these lads though


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Feb 2, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I'm sure they will, but what they say in public and what they say to their sons will be different I suspect.



They'll probably get a slapped wrist and then mummy will kiss it better


----------



## mauvais (Feb 2, 2012)

I've got* a great joke* about rape that I could send them*.

Q: What looks like a parcel but goes bang like a bomb*?

A: Banter! Surprise!

I guess you have to be there.

*No, not really. NOT REALLY*.* *NOT. REALLY.*


----------



## Wilf (Feb 2, 2012)

The poor little lamb must be railing against the iniquities of the universe - Clarkson gets a porche, Frankie Boyle sells out gigs, whilst our hero will be getting spat at in the street tomorrow.  It's not easy trying to make your way at the bottom of the sub-Nutz rapey foodchain.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 2, 2012)

so you're still behaving like a bit of a knob then will?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 3, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> As in so what if the clowns laughing and defending/justifying the cunt who wrote the article/the article itself? Does it matter or excuse/justify it?


 
I never suggested it justified or excused anything. I was looking for an explanation for why they thought this was funny/acceptable - something a little deeper than 'cos they are cunts'.

I was asking if there had been a cultural/social shift - where rape was now considered fair game for 'humour - amongst young people.

For example, I still can't get my head around the invention and wide use of the word 'Frape' (facebook rape - where someone else gets access to your computer while you are logged on and posts embarrassing shite which people will think you wrote yourself). If the word rape can be incorporated into a term for such trivial jests and wind-ups, without a murmur of concern AFAICS, then it is not _that_ much of a stretch for it to become 'legitimised' as a subject of mirth. Thus these young people may be victims of their own stupidity in thinking something they say to each other without a thought, can slip unnoticed into the public domain.

*I have to say that , as reprehensible as that article is, that I am glad they posted it. *_(and not just so I could reaffirm my suspicions/prejudices against wanky middle-class students)._

Why? Because if it's going on at all, it needs to be brought into the light.

I would imagine that at colleges, workplaces and schools all over britain yesterday conversations like this one were taking place - people were discussing and debating what is and what is not 'out of order' and lines were being clearly drawn where once there may have been a grey area - where young people (especially girls) felt unable to speak up for fear of being stigmatised as humourless.

I suspect people may feel more inclined to speak up today - and the promoters of this shite a little less arrogant and cocky than they were before yesterday. Of course I may just be 'a silly old cunt who can't take a bit of banter'.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2012)

I think that it's same as it ever was -- young people think they are invincible and invulnerable and make jokes accordingly.  Then they get older and something bad happens to them or somebody they know and they realise that it isn't so fucking funny after all.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

Indeed, a cosseted upbringing yet to be troubled by the big world.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and when you get sectioned for fucking a tory you won't feel so clever


 
A rare note of humanity in what has become a difficult discussion for all.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 3, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> its not just that its a joke about rape . The blackest and grimmest situations are always targets for humour, sometimes funny , usually though just fucking tasteless for the sake of it.
> But theres some wanker actually telling the type of wanker whos projected persona is "fuck any woman you like , when you like, regardless of feelings, theyre objects all there to be fucked" that he stands  a very good chance of getting away with raping a fellow student in a social situation at university . Which does happen quite a lot , and the rapists usually do get away with it .
> To me thats not fucking funny . To me thats some cunt who thinks its actually funny his fellow "lads" regularly get away with rape .
> 
> I dont think theyre seriously encouraging anyone to rape anyone . Just that *they think its funny theyd probably get away with it if they did . And that others do* .



Isn't that even worse though? People should be horrified by the fact that women are that unsafe in our society (I know I am). Fuck me I wouldn't know where to start if I was confronted by someone who found that fact "funny."


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 3, 2012)

LiamO said:


> I'm not.
> 
> I don't consider my nephew or his mates idiots either. That is the way they carry on. I don't think a 'mate' ever said anything like... 'I ended up with a mouthful of your spunk last night. teach me not to rim your little sister lol'
> 
> ...



Unilad wrote an article specifically design to provoke offence. They cant complain when people are actually offended. Personally, I believe we all have the right to offend. But there is also a "consequences" clause to that right, namely that other people have an equal right to take offence & the offender has to accept that theiir comments might make them very unpopuler.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Feb 3, 2012)

likesfish said:


> as he should be sick "humour" between mates is one thing.
> posting it on prattbook another.
> writing a long misagoyonic rant desguised as humour you have the right to write that probably shouldn't have been published by anyone with a functioning brain.
> You now have the consquences of letting the entire internet think your  a chod and everyone involved with the magazine is a chod of the highest order.



Wtf is a chod?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 3, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Wtf is a chod?


 
It's Fish-ese (© Idris) for something or other.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2012)

urban dictionary has it as 'a penis that is wider than it is long'


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Feb 3, 2012)

Bhan chod.   Maa chod.  And so forth


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i am right. i don't know why it is either. something like "weekend at bernies" "kind hearts and coronets" and the other shows mentioned up the thread would not be possible if they were about rape, because nobody would laugh, nobody would consider rape light brainless entertainment in the way "Midsomer Murders" is where there are jokes about how the crime rate in such a small village is the highest in the country when people talk about the programme. People on here make jokes about margaret thatcher's death but they would never make jokes about raping her. it is not appropriate whereas there are circumstances in which death can be funny.
> 
> And the way people talk about this stuff is emotionally detatched, its like a cartoon. you can't make jokes about rape like that.
> 
> i don't find the darwin awards particularly funny tbh, (awards awarded to people who've died in stupid ways) but you would never get "the darwin rape awards". you just wouldn't because it is not funny and due to the trauma to the victim etc would be completely inappropriate. i don't know why that is, but i do know that it's just the way it is.


I think comrade Kaka Tim actually nailed it; when viewed through the prism-context of power relations, it becomesapparent where the difference lies


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 3, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Wtf is a chod?


 
Pronounced 'chord' it's Hindi/Punjabi/Urdu for 'fuck' or 'fucking', though I doubt that Likesfish knows that.

When we were kids though we used it synonymously with 'shit'. Going for a chod was to take a dump.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 3, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> The use of 'gay' in a derogatory fashion by so many young people is primarily because it goes completely unchallenged (see Stonewall's 'The School Report' and 'The Teachers Report' and also research by O'Higgens-Norman). They aren't necessarily cunts, they simply are rarely challenged, either by their peers or teachers to think about why it might be offensive. Many of those who use it will claim they have no issue with gay people and haven't made the association in their heads with the problem with doing so. Not that it's right or okay, obviously, but that's what the research seems to say as the reason behind it.
> 
> As for the screenshot, they look like cunts to me. I don't think humour comes into it, they're just vile comments. 9/10 people enjoy rape? Girls who complained are probably closet lesbians? I mean for fuck's sake how poor and unfunny can you be.
> 
> No wonder rape reports are so low if this is the attitude pervaded by young people. I for one am ashamed to be a part of the same age bracket.


 
The saddest thing about that screengrab was that the 'closet lesbians' comment was made by a girl. Was probably a fail attempt at 'banter' like the rest of the knuckledraggers on there but it had more impact to me than the rest of the cretinous dribbling did


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Feb 3, 2012)

Apologies to all if this has been posted already, but this article from the Quietus I feel is a good rejoinder to anyone who's defending the reprehensbile actions of Uni Lad et al: http://thequietus.com/articles/07871-uni-lad-website-misogyny

Also:  A major fucking nail in the coffin for me about "writer" Jim Goad was finding out about the "Rape" issue of Answer Me! mag - full of pro-rape sentiments from the likes of Peter Sotos (.....) and Boyd Rice (ditto) - of course, Goad sees himself as a politically-incorrect "truther"...oh yeah, and Goad did time for beating the crap out of his then-girlfriend as well....


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 3, 2012)

I met Peter Sotos once. Greasy & furtive.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Feb 3, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I met Peter Sotos once. Greasy & furtive.


 
You poor guy


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2012)

gabi said:


> the editorial team


 
The blokes in that montage all look like they'd benefit from a nailgun to the ballbag.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 3, 2012)

> Unilad wrote an article specifically design to provoke offence. They can't complain when people are actually offended. *Personally, I believe we all have the right to offend. But there is also a "consequences" clause to that right, namely that other people have an equal right to take offence & the offender has to accept that theiir comments might make them very unpopular*


Spot on.

Crap, populist, Sun-headline influenced, stupidly opinionated bigotry-spouters in the bit of the office where I work, very much take advantage of their 'right' to 'freedom of speech'


----------



## machine cat (Feb 4, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is the case that there are certain things that could be and were published in the past, such as the* S**CUM Manifesto*, that would probably not be allowed today.


 
This is still published. I have a copy on my bookshelf.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Pronounced 'chord' it's Hindi/Punjabi/Urdu for 'fuck' or 'fucking', though I doubt that Likesfish knows that.
> 
> When we were kids though we used it synonymously with 'shit'. Going for a chod was to take a dump.


 
Or "fucker", tbf.

Bhen chod!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I met Peter Sotos once. Greasy & furtive.


 
Hopefully, once you were an adult!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2012)

machine cat said:


> This is still published. I have a copy on my bookshelf.


 
Cracking bit of hardline feminist literature, is the SCUM Manifesto.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 4, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Isn't that even worse though? People should be horrified by the fact that women are that unsafe in our society (I know I am). Fuck me I wouldn't know where to start if I was confronted by someone who found that fact "funny."


 
I fucking would . Somewhere round his ribcage . Lets face it , its some fucking jeremy/sebastian got a handy college gig from anoother cosseted twat . He needs his face kicked about 2 or 3 times .


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 6, 2012)

> In Canada, The Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre in conjunction with the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women and the Ottawa Police Service launched a new campaign against sexual assault last May. Entitled “Don’t be that guy”, according to the OCEVAW the campaign, “Instead of placing responsibility for preventing sexual assault in the hands of victims, the posters appeal to potential offenders—speaking directly to them in their language”.
> In Vancouver, In just six months after starting the campaign, Police have reported a fall of 10% in sexual assaults.  While this is just the beginning, an approach like the one seen in Canada would do well in Ireland and the UK. Since the campaigns are primarily aimed at students of university age, Students’ Unions should be actively driving these changes, even if it is just on their own campus.


 
http://stobserver.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/when-banter-just-isnt-a-valid-excuse/


----------



## steve0223 (Feb 6, 2012)

It pisses me off cos the articles on a website designed to make money and build brand loyalty - whereas kids being potty mouth on FB is not. When it crosses the line into 'what can i say to fit in with my online brands' image that's outrageous enough to appeal to our target audience?' it all gets a bit wierd and out of context


----------



## articul8 (Feb 6, 2012)

I blame Frankie Boyle


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2012)

I blame david baddiel


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I blame david baddiel


 
Why is that?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2012)

Ironic middle class 'lads' at university.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I blame david baddiel


I don't remember him making jokes about rape though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2012)

He didn't have to.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 6, 2012)

edit - too harsh


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 7, 2012)

In response to the suggestions as to how they could make amends/remorse or show a genuine commitment to tackling ignorance around their own behaviour - perhaps they should donate a years worth of revenue raised from the newly relaunched site (which will no doubt benefit from this publicity/notoriety) to a rape crisis centre or similar.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Feb 9, 2012)

I bet the uni lad chaps would have got on well with this lot




> Four high-flying former public schoolboys were left red-faced after an indiscreet list of rules for their rugby tour to Dubai were sent around the world.
> 
> The group of high-flying friends, who call themselves G4, devised the rules ahead of their trip to the Dubai 7s tournament in March and included obscene sexual practices, cheating on their girlfriends and chanting about "how rich we are".
> The tongue-in-cheek memo from the group, which boasts of their "capability to dominate social, political and economical spheres", also featured profiles of its four members.


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9069138/City-boys-rugby-tour-email-goes-viral.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 9, 2012)

> public school boy 10 minutes (collars must be up) at specified 10 minutes part the hour.


 
throw away the key


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He didn't have to.


 
There's a difference between being ironic or laddish, as Baddiel and Skinner were, and laughing about rape or playing it down. I can't imagine that they'd have had Dani Behr on their show if they'd done that, she wouldn't have stood for that nonsense.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Feb 9, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> > public school boy 10 minutes (collars must be up) at specified 10 minutes part the hour.
> 
> 
> throw away the key


 
I'm a former public school boy, and have no idea what this means. Clearly my alma mater wasn't all that.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Feb 9, 2012)

I just got forwarded the full text of that email from the torygraph article if anyone cares (which you probably shouldn't)



> James Hill
> James is a Terrorism and Political Violence Insurance Broker at Willis. His responsibilities focus on reviewing submissions, structuring, servicing and placing Terrorism insurance and reinsurance in the London, Singapore and overseas marketplaces. James attained First Class Honours at the University of Bristol where he was also an active member of the University of Bristol Rugby Club and University of Bristol Squash Club. James attended Tonbridge School where he played Rugby, Hockey, Cricket and Rackets to a very high standard.
> 
> He is a remarkably good looking individual who is permanently tanned and has an extremely muscular body. Due to his age and competency he will be President of the G4 and will be respected by his peers at all times – no one doubts his ability to stay strong throughout the tour.
> ...


----------



## Ted Striker (Feb 9, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> I just got forwarded the full text of that email from the torygraph article if anyone cares (which you probably shouldn't)


 
That's basically the Urban FAO Page isn't it?


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 11, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> In response to the suggestions as to how they could make amends/remorse or show a genuine commitment to tackling ignorance around their own behaviour - perhaps they should donate a years worth of revenue raised from the newly relaunched site (which will no doubt benefit from this publicity/notoriety) to a rape crisis centre or similar.


So apart from calling them chods etc. threatening to kill them in the face, looking down with liberal opprobrium and giving them more publicity what other suggestions are there for actually dealing with this?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 11, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> I bet the uni lad chaps would have got on well with this lot
> 
> 
> 
> ...


neckshots/gulag, the lot of them (and I'm an ex-publick skoolie too)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 11, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> So apart from calling them chods etc. threatening to kill them in the face, looking down with liberal opprobrium and giving them more publicity what other suggestions are there for actually dealing with this?


 
Get down off your highhorse you self-referential, self-aggrandising arse.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> So apart from calling them chods etc. threatening to kill them in the face, looking down with liberal opprobrium and giving them more publicity what other suggestions are there for actually dealing with this?


How is your suggestion dealing with it/them? It might be good but it's not 'dealing with this'.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 11, 2012)

so
crass article to garner free advertising/buzz by courting controversy gets 12 pages on urban
I guess it's a success then
well done unilads

Q: is unilads like unisex?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> neckshots/gulag, the lot of them (and I'm an ex-publick skoolie too)


 
Toff twats giving a bad name to all rugby players.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2012)

all rugby (union) players are toff twats


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> so
> crass article to garner free advertising/buzz by courting controversy gets 12 pages on urban
> I guess it's a success then
> well done unilads
> ...


 
Only if by "unisex", you mean that their readership masturbates a lot, I suspect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> all rugby (union) players are toff twats


 
Not true in these days of players swapping between the two versions.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2012)

hmm...I'll forgive ex-league players who go over.  But the rest are sub-human scum as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

articul8 said:
			
		

> hmm...I'll forgive ex-league players who go over.  But the rest are sub-human scum as far as I'm concerned.



Really polishing your prole medals recently. I wonder why.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 12, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> So apart from calling them chods etc. threatening to kill them in the face, looking down with liberal opprobrium and giving them more publicity what other suggestions are there for actually dealing with this?


 
..SO wtf do YOU think these rape promoting fuckjobs ought to do beyond some tokenistic financial donation then? Since you're sitting there judging the genuinely felt outrage on this thread; then please give us all a sense of direction miss!!!

Or fuck off, the choice is yours really


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Really polishing your prole medals recently. I wonder why.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Really polishing your prole medals recently. I wonder why.


u wot?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 12, 2012)

articul8 said:


> all rugby (union) players are toff twats


 

Not in Wales. Elsewhere, agreed


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2012)

yes fair enough - not the Welsh either.  English especially though


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 13, 2012)

Nylock said:


> ..SO wtf do YOU think these rape promoting fuckjobs ought to do beyond some tokenistic financial donation then? Since you're sitting there judging the genuinely felt outrage on this thread; then please give us all a sense of direction sir!!!
> 
> Or fuck off, the choice is yours really


Madam actually, I made a suggestion - more than I've seen coming from you and you're right the choice is mine, I'll fuck off and continue 20 years of working in underfunded support systems for rape victims.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 13, 2012)

Changed my post to reflect your gender...

You made a suggestion that effectively lets them off the hook with a financial donation... A financial contribution from Unilad mag isn't going to change the dire funding situation of rape support systems, and neither will it alter the sense of entitlement those type of 'lads' have. Maybe if all misogynistic and quasi-misogynistic publications were to do the same, then some SLIGHT change might be affected. Then again the fuckjobs that run such rags would then just use such donations as a figleaf for future shitty behavior citing the 'well we make a contribution to helping the victims of such crimes' argument without doing fuck-all in reality to try and change the attitudes that lead to such crimes in the first instance.


----------



## Sweetpea (Feb 13, 2012)

Nylock said:


> Changed my post to reflect your gender...
> 
> You made a suggestion that effectively lets them off the hook with a financial donation... A financial contribution from Unilad mag isn't going to change the dire funding situation of rape support systems, and neither will it alter the sense of entitlement those type of 'lads' have. Maybe if all misogynistic and quasi-misogynistic publications were to do the same, then some SLIGHT change might be affected. Then again the fuckjobs that run such rags would then just use such donations as a figleaf for future shitty behavior citing the 'well we make a contribution to helping the victims of such crimes' argument without doing fuck-all in reality to try and change the attitudes that lead to such crimes in the first instance.


However you didn't offer such an eloquent critique choosing rather to suggest that I fuck off, TBH making me feel somewhat offended. Maybe you could argue that's my problem or that it's only a bulletin board or par for the course around here - perhaps that's what the unilad 'lads' think when they post on the internet. 
You argued that my suggestion "effectively lets them of the hook with a financial donation" but the current situation may be that they are off the hook with a huge increase in publicity and revenue. 
Anyway I would like to hear your suggestions...


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Feb 13, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Not in Wales. Elsewhere, agreed


 
Or Devon and Cornwall (although there are quite a lot of posh people who play the game down there too).


----------



## Nylock (Feb 13, 2012)

Sweetpea said:


> However you didn't offer such an eloquent critique choosing rather to suggest that I fuck off, TBH making me feel somewhat offended. Maybe you could argue that's my problem or that it's only a bulletin board or par for the course around here - perhaps that's what the unilad 'lads' think when they post on the internet.
> You argued that my suggestion "effectively lets them of the hook with a financial donation" but the current situation may be that they are off the hook with a huge increase in publicity and revenue.
> Anyway I would like to hear your suggestions...


 
You're right, i wasn't very eloquent when i made that post. I was a dribbling cider fueled eidjit that evening (not that i'm excusing myself or anything so lame). So apols for the offensive language, it was bad form.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 14, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst...te-closure-banter?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2012)

Only just seen this thread. Loads of great posts, especially kaka tim who absolutely nails it, but I'm not sure this has been addressed:



LiamO said:


> I never suggested it justified or excused anything. I was looking for an explanation for why they thought this was funny/acceptable - something a little deeper than 'cos they are cunts'.
> 
> I was asking if there had been a cultural/social shift - where rape was now considered fair game for 'humour - amongst young people.
> 
> <snip>


I have definitely noticed a massive increase in the number of 'joke' comments made about sexual violence towards women. Talking about it with my partner, I speculated that this might just be because the internet can never provide an all-male space, so that what women rarely witnessed before is now there for all to read. He thinks it's more than that, and that there has been a definite increase in this kind of shit - which of course will be largely due young people because that's where and how trends start. That's not to say it wasn't highly prevalent before, of course. Just that it does seem to be getting worse.

I think he's right. I can't know much about real world lad's banter, but I've noticed it happening on urban too. I'm sure there weren't as many 'jokes' about strangling women/bundling them into car boots/abusive sexual practices etc when I first started reading these boards, which was a fair few years before I first posted. And I don't think it's just one or two posters either. I don't keep a list, but I know I've been really surprised at some of the names attached to the posts in question. And often at the lack of anyone calling them out on it.

We talked about how to tackle these attitudes, and I think that Canadian ad campaign Idris posted is bang on the money. Don't be _that_ guy. If people make it clear that this sort of banter is not socially acceptable and marks you out as a sex-case nonce, it will die out. This is primarily, I think, about insecure young (and not so young) men trying to impress their mates. And often about them desperately trying to prove how very heterosexual they are (pointing this out can also be an effective way of shutting them up very, very quickly).

My partner hates lad banter. He was physically shaking for a while after I showed him that article. He avoids it whenever possible, but when it's not possible, he says it is really hard to directly tackle it. You just get abuse for your trouble, and as a young, insecure male, it's not that easy to risk alienation from your mates. It would be easier for young uns to speak out if there was a stronger message from older men and wider society. As killer b said, they'll quit it when they get called out on it. More people need to call them out.

One point he made, and has made before, was the utter hypocrisy he encountered when he was active in left politics. His grouplet would have this incredibly sincere meeting about anti-sexism and inclusiveness, then go down the pub and start up the 'banter' and the 'horizontal recruiting' schtick. He gave one specific example of it happening after a meeting where they had proposed setting up a women's caucus to ensure they were more inclusive. That kind of strikes me as a symptom of their problematic attitudes - if women are feeling excluded, let's give them their own space rather than address our behaviour and attitudes in any meaningful way.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

articul8 said:


> hmm...I'll forgive ex-league players who go over. But the rest are sub-human scum as far as I'm concerned.


 
Just seen this shit, the fact you post this crap while hobnobbing with private school educated shadow frontbenchers really takes the fucking biscuit - across the south and west Union is the only type of rugby available and is played by people from all walks of life.


----------



## quinny518 (Mar 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I blame david baddiel



Him and his mate Skinner are misogynist arseholes. I had to turn the radio off in the car this morning as Skinner was giving his lads banter.

The sexual violence against women talk needs to be separated from talk about women you like or find attractive. It does worry me deeply that it is ok to move into degrading sexual language/violence and it be considered ironic or just for laughs. I noticed a change around mid 90s with the rise of the lad and ladette with associated magazines. It's systematic through all levels of society 'Blaire babes' and all that shite.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

quinny518 said:


> It's systematic through all levels of society 'Blaire babes' and all that shite.


 
The trot left can be just as guilty as wider society as well, I can think of a group of young women activists in the TU movement targetted on their age, gender, and appearance rather than making legitimate criticisms of their politics - surely they should have been made welcome and debated on politics rather than treated like that? The men doing the targetting where all 40+ ranting old lefties and would probably be shocked and disgusted by the jokes about sexual violence - but it's the attitudes they reflect that provide a solid base for this newer wave of lad jokes to build on.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> hobnobbing with private school educated shadow frontbenchers





> really takes the fucking biscuit - across the south and west Union is the only type of rugby available and is played by people from all walks of life.


three years at a uni full of pissed up private school arseholes who were always at their worst when England were playing rugby union has given me an ingrained loathing of the sport


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

articul8 said:


> three years at a uni full of pissed up private school arseholes who were always at their worst when England were playing rugby union has given me an ingrained loathing of the sport


 
Fair enough - as long as you admit that you were just being prejudiced


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2012)

is it prejudice when you have bloody good reason to be?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2012)

Never mind, at least you work for them now.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 3, 2012)

Er - no I don't, in fact very few of my current workmates are based in the UK.


----------



## quinny518 (Mar 3, 2012)

Rugby Union as a separate issue is for southern softies regardless of class


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

if we're talking about trivialisation of things like rape being the reason for an increase in rape jokes, then i gotta say i think it's actually the complete opposite. rape isn't being trivialised, it's vilified now more than it ever has been in history. to take a different slant on frogwoman's thesis (i.e. 'that there are times where because something is so unimaginable the only way to imagine it is through jokes') i think that the appeal of rape jokes does come partly through a morbid fascination with the taboo, but the taboo itself isn't created because people can't emotionally 'take' the subject matter. it's because now more than ever, in most modern Western societies, people are aware of how inappropriate and base such behaviours are. i don't have statistics to hand on this (and i think that all statistics on the issue are probably misleading) but tbh i wouldn't be surprised if rates of _actual_ sexual assaults had been pretty steadily on the _decrease_ since post-war. certainly the issue is no longer 'swept under the carpet' in the public debate anymore, nor is it shielded from view by communal and family hierarchies and structures in the same way.

so yeah i think that especially with some of the more detailed and vulgar of these jokes it's about breaching the rules of an indisputably 'serious' topic, on which sobriety is the socially expected norm. it's the natural reaction of 'youngsters' who, as some have noted, usually haven't known of such serious events in their own lives to want to break the rule. it's like the laughter-trap in the two minutes' silence.

it's more distasteful with the lot in question here mainly because they're at an age by which most people have actually had some life experience to tell them that some topics are no-go areas - FOR GOOD REASON... but there is a segment of cossetted middle-England suburbian type kids who never drank or had a girlfriend before university whose closest experience to anything 'dangerous' or 'real' in life is grotesque violence in gangland thriller films.

but that said i also think that there's a culture of indulgent frankness amongst would-be moral crusaders which is also to blame. people have already noted some of urban's ultra-violent diatribes and i think they're often a good representation of the morally righteous pyscho-sexual revenge fantasies which essentially 'up the ante'. to be frank, in some ways it has been the left which has encouraged a more gritty, detailed, brutal and honest account of sexual violence in public discourse - with good reason (thinking about social realist films from the 70s, feminist campaigns against being 'ashamed', etc). however, one of the side-effects of such traumatic personal experiences openly entering the mainstream discourse is that they have taken on a moralistic and pious tone. that's to say, it's Ok to account rape or general sexual violence as vividly and as sickeningly as you like, so long as you're condemning it, and you make a repeated and constant point about condemning it. obviously this attitude emerged to discourage exactly the kind of profusion of 'jokes' which we see today, but the whole process let the genie out of the bottle. once images and descriptions are out there they're in the public imagination - but then there's also the added factor that people are expected not to even think about them unless it's in a kosher political context - but the cultural images themselves are still everywhere, sometimes impossible to miss. when that's backed up by the likes of some posters on here, aggressively indulging themselves in violent fantasies about what they'd do to transgressors of these rules 'if only they were within arms reach' explains in part, i think, the contempt of the likes of those facebook defenders of 'Unilad' towards 'censorship'. tbh i can think of one poster one here whose recent obsession with violent castration of transgressors and pretty much everyone he violently disagrees with concerns me more in terms of underlying sexual aggression than unilad stuff. not that i'm actually concerned or anything, i'm not a fucking sissy or anything.

personally, as a 'youth' or whatever, i don't think a single one of the people on that board _actually_ think that rape is Ok, and without getting into too much simplistic pyscho-babble analysis i do think that in the context of such 'banter' actually the really risky sorts are more likely, in most circumstances, to opt for exaggerated offence around the issue. that's not to say that there isn't a complete absence of personal responsibility present amongst that crowd which could lead towards serious sexual assault, because there is and freshers weeks across the country and every year are choc-a-bloc with stories about dubious and questionable encounters. but often those involved probably wouldn't consider what they'd done to be 'rape', as they understand in linear terms that rape is 'bad' - which is why i think the 'don't be that guy' campaign is probably a good idea.

i also think that from what i know of the 1970s, in real terms there is no way in hell that things aren't better for women in pretty much every way now in attitudes towards pretty much everything (domestic violence, sexual violence, etc). i also think that the kids are, in their own way far more aware of the fact that such things are bad, even if they lack the emotional experience for them to want to avoid the topic in the realms of 'jokes'.

my two cents anyway


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> if we're talking about trivialisation of things like rape being the reason for an increase in rape jokes, then i gotta say i think it's actually the complete opposite. rape isn't being trivialised, it's vilified now more than it ever has been in history. to take a different slant on frogwoman's thesis (i.e. 'that there are times where because something is so unimaginable the only way to imagine it is through jokes') i think that the appeal of rape jokes does come partly through a morbid fascination with the taboo, but the taboo itself isn't created because people can't emotionally 'take' the subject matter. it's because now more than ever, in most modern Western societies, people are aware of how inappropriate and base such behaviours are. *i don't have statistics to hand on this (and i think that all statistics on the issue are probably misleading) but tbh i wouldn't be surprised if rates of actual sexual assaults had been pretty steadily on the decrease since post-war*. certainly the issue is no longer 'swept under the carpet' in the public debate anymore, nor is it shielded from view by communal and family hierarchies and structures in the same way. <snip>


Rape is one of the most underreported crimes there is, even today, so to make the statement above that you have made is staggering. How will you ever know this? You are aware that until 1991 a married woman couldn't legally be raped by her husband because the marital exemption was still in force?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

err well that would go somewhat further to give evidence to what i'm saying wouldn't it

ETA and for your info, i was aware about marital exemption though i didn't have the precise date, and it was exactly the kind of thing i was getting at.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> err well that would go somewhat further to give evidence to what i'm saying wouldn't it
> 
> ETA and for your info, i was aware about marital exemption though i didn't have the precise date, and it was exactly the kind of thing i was getting at.


But the only way to prove what you're saying is to look at the the statistics, which you've already said you don't trust.

Furthermore, removing the marital rape exemption would have lead to a potential increase in the number of rape cases being reported, not a decrease as you stated.

So no, I don't think it gives evidence to what you've said at all.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

i very specifically said 'i wouldn't be surprised', and i wouldn't. attitudes towards all these topics are becoming far more sensitive year on year, amongst all sections of society. the marital exemption laws are a case in point. up until the early 90s rape wasn't even legally recognised within marriage - now, 20 years on, it most certainly is. not only that but there's an increasing awareness of all forms of behaviour which are threatening and intimidatory.


an in the context of that movement there's also an increase in 'jokes' about it.

ETA and i wasn't talking about an increase or decrease in 'reporting', i was talking about actual happenings (which are incredibly difficult to catalogue, hence the statistics being misleading)


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

I think the 'joke' culture is responsible for a huge increase in the number of rapes. There is a huge amount of confusion about what rape actually is and that a lot of men rape women without thinking they're raping them. Certainly the bloke that raped me really didn't think he had. 

Yes, I think that it's talked about a lot more but I think there is a widening gap in the public consciousness between 'bad' rape and 'really not that bad' rape - which was pretty much what Ken Clarke was saying. A lot of people think that women who go out and get pissed or wear short skirts are asking for it or that they are at least accessories to their own rapes.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

i still think that attitude (i.e. 'she was asking for it') is demonstrably less prevalent now than in the past. and also, as others have pointed out, for whatever the stats are worth it's not normally after a night on the piss that it happens to people.. it's usually in the context of controlled family/social circle environments.

when you look back at 70s and 80s TV (some episodes of Topof the Pops are fucking appalling (check out the intro to The Strawbs here from Jimmy Saville, leching over teenage 'girlies' - eeeuurgh)... i just can't see the 'good rape'/'bad rape' being anywhere near as prominent today as the past


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> ETA and i wasn't talking about an increase or decrease in 'reporting', i was talking about actual happenings (which are incredibly difficult to catalogue, hence the statistics being misleading)


 
I know you weren't talking about reporting and I am aware of the difficulties but I don't think you can make such a sweeping statement about rape occurrences decreasing since the 1940s/1950s without providing some kind of substantiation - which will inevitably involving statistics.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

well ok i'll clarify, i said 'i wouldn't be surprised' and i wouldn't be surprised, from what i know about cultural progression, reading biographies and keeping an eye on popular culture throughout all the 20th C, you can really see massive changes in general attitudes which are still undergoing development and it would surprise me if that hadn't had an impact upon attacks


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

I still don't understand on what basis you think rape is decreasing.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

i said it wouldn't surprise me if there were fewer assaults today, based upon the fact that today's culture is far more aware of what constitutes sexual assault and behaviours which are predatory and intimidatory are also less prevalent and acceptable.

i only said it because there seems to be some kind of assumption that things are getting worse, which is the basis of this whole thread, and which i just don't think bares any correlation with reality


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

I really don't understand your logic. If 'today's culture' is far more aware of what constitutes sexual assault and predatory behaviours are less prevalent, then why are there 'joke rape' t-shirts and websites like this? I don't see any evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I think the 'joke' culture is responsible for a huge increase in the number of rapes. There is a huge amount of confusion about what rape actually is and that a lot of men rape women without thinking they're raping them. Certainly the bloke that raped me really didn't think he had.
> 
> Yes, I think that it's talked about a lot more but I think there is a widening gap in the public consciousness between 'bad' rape and 'really not that bad' rape - which was pretty much what Ken Clarke was saying. A lot of people think that women who go out and get pissed or wear short skirts are asking for it or that they are at least accessories to their own rapes.


'Like' does not seem appropriate here - but I certainly agree with what you are saying.

I think what has changed over the last 20 years is that the notion that 'stranger rape' is the only type of rape has been shown to be wrong.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

well that's the whole point, the jokes emerge _because_ it's less acceptable, because there's a huge social awareness of it hanging over people's heads and it makes people nervous... hence it being something which can summon an easy laugh. as i say, it's not completely unlike the laughter-trap you can caught in during a minutes' silence, or any situation where you're running the risk of getting a serious bollocking.

edit, to trashpony


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i said it wouldn't surprise me if there were fewer assaults today, based upon the fact that today's culture is far more aware of what constitutes sexual assault and behaviours which are predatory and intimidatory are also less prevalent and acceptable.
> 
> i only said it because there seems to be some kind of assumption that things are getting worse, which is the basis of this whole thread, and which i just don't think bares any correlation with reality


 
Today's culture may be far more aware of what constitutes rape but that doesn't mean that it happens less.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i said it wouldn't surprise me if there were fewer assaults today, based upon the fact that today's culture is far more aware of what constitutes sexual assault and behaviours which are predatory and intimidatory are also less prevalent and acceptable.
> 
> i only said it because there seems to be some kind of assumption that things are getting worse, which is the basis of this whole thread, and which i just don't think bares any correlation with reality


No, the thread assumes that some people's attitudes may be getting worse and that the increase in 'joking' about it may lead to a reversal of current attitudes towards rape - a sort of cultural rebound where some young men take the jokes as carte blanche to do reclaim the act itself, or summat like that.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

i think it's the nature of 'joking' and humour generally which runs opposite to social logic about acceptability


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think it's the nature of 'joking' and humour generally which runs opposite to social logic about acceptability


So you regularly joke about racist burnings and beating gays because that, by extension, should be the funniest thing ever.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i said it wouldn't surprise me if there were fewer assaults today, based upon the fact that today's culture is far more aware of what constitutes sexual assault and behaviours which are predatory and intimidatory are also less prevalent and acceptable.
> 
> i only said it because there seems to be some kind of assumption that things are getting worse, which is the basis of this whole thread, and which i just don't think bares any correlation with reality


Really don't think that is the case at all, as sadly this thread seems to bear out.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/murder-and-rape-on-moorlands-estate-somerleyton-road.289700/

There was a thread somewhere where female posters were discussing incidents of men shouting at them or behaving inappropriately on the street that plenty of male posters were amazed at just how common it was.
You probably won't see it though, as much.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Today's culture may be far more aware of what constitutes rape but that doesn't mean that it happens less.


 
no it doesn't necessarily, but i wouldn't be surprised if it did. for starters, even discounting cultural factors and awareness, it's probably a lot harder to get away with today than in the past where there was the whole issue of stifling communal morality operating against victims


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> well that's the whole point, the jokes emerge _because_ it's less acceptable, because there's a huge social awareness of it hanging over people's heads and it makes people nervous... hence it being something which can summon an easy laugh. as i say, it's not completely unlike the laughter-trap you can caught in during a minutes' silence, or any situation where you're running the risk of getting a serious bollocking.
> 
> edit, to trashpony


That doesn't really seem to follow. There is more of a "public" expectation that sexual assault is bad - and that certain things really _are_ sexual assault - than a few decades ago I'd say, but one could quite easily say that rape jokes etc are explicitly rejecting this, i.e. that it's still just as acceptable as it was for the people concerned and they are saying so.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i said it wouldn't surprise me if there were fewer assaults today, based upon the fact that today's culture is far more aware of what constitutes sexual assault and behaviours which are predatory and intimidatory are also less prevalent and acceptable.
> 
> i only said it because there seems to be some kind of assumption that things are getting worse, which is the basis of this whole thread, and which i just don't think bares any correlation with reality


 
From the NUS 'Hidden Marks Report:


1 in 7 survey respondents have experienced some kind of verbal or non-verbal harassment in and around their institution. This includes groping, flashing, unwanted sexual comments.
12% of respondents had been subject to stalking.
Over 1 in 10 had been a victim of serious physical violence.
7% have been subject to serious sexual assault.
In the majority of cases in all incident categories the perpetrator was known to the victim.
81% of victims of serious sexual assault knew their attacker.
89% of stalkers were men. 
73% of the perpetrators of physical violence were men.
Students were the majority of perpetrators in most categories, except for 'physical violence' where just under half were students (48%).
The report also revealed that of the students who were seriously sexually assaulted *only 4%*reported to their University and *only 10%* reported to the police. They gave the following reasons for not reporting it:​- ‘I didn’t think it was serious enough to report’: 45%​- ‘I didn’t think that what happended was a crime: 42%​- 'I thought I could handle it myself': 46%​- 'I felt ashamed or embarrassed': *50%*​- 'I thought I would be blamed for what happened': 43%​- 'I didn’t think I would feel comfortable talking to the police about it': 33%​- 'I didn’t want my parents/family to find out': 33%​- 'I didn’t think I would be believed': 33%​- 'I didn't want my friends to find out': 25%​​http://www.nus.org.uk/Global/NUS_hidden_marks_report_2nd_edition_web.pdf​​​​​​ 
I don't know about previous years, and I don't know about you, but I find that all pretty appalling.  That doesn't really suggest we've come along very far, does it.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> no it doesn't necessarily, but i wouldn't be surprised if it did. for starters, even discounting cultural factors and awareness, it's probably a lot harder to get away with today than in the past where there was the whole issue of stifling communal morality operating against victims


Not really, as not many get reported and the police are often worse than useless when it is.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> no it doesn't necessarily, but i wouldn't be surprised if it did. for starters, even discounting cultural factors and awareness, it's probably a lot harder to get away with today than in the past where there was the whole issue of stifling communal morality operating against victims


You realise that rape has the lowest prosecution rate of all crimes? That a conviction rate of less than 10% is common? Do you still stand by your statement that 'it's probably a lot harder to get away with'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2012)

I don't want to excuse this website at all - what they said was bang out of order - but it is possible that they were being stupid, ignorant young fools but not anything particularly more sinister, and even that they don't represent anything new, except that it's now possible to instantly publish stuff like this.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 3, 2012)

If could just as well be the case that rape was _less_ common pre WW2. Women were more  closely shaporaned, less likely to be in vunerbale situations. Those that did go to college were strictly segregated from males. A women alone in private space with a man who was not her husband or son would be seriously frowned upon.

In addition we have a far more sexualised culture, an idea that sex is not such a big deal and that men - especially young men -  may believe that women are more 'up for it' then was the case 50 years ago - and that if they're not then there's something wrong with them.
Put all that together with the attitudes displayed by the twats at Uni-Lad and you have a situation where young men can quite easily convince themselves that rape is ok -  and thats its only really rape if its a stranger dragging a women into the bushes at knifepoint etc.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> From the NUS 'Hidden Marks Report:
> 
> 
> 1 in 7 survey respondents have experienced some kind of verbal or non-verbal harassment in and around their institution. This includes groping, flashing, unwanted sexual comments.
> ...


I find those figures horrifying. Thanks for the research and posting them.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> no it doesn't necessarily, but i wouldn't be surprised if it did. for starters, even discounting cultural factors and awareness, it's probably a lot harder to get away with today than in the past where there was the whole issue of stifling communal morality operating against victims


You're assuming that women report it. They don't. See purenarcotic's post.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I find those figures horrifying. Thanks for the research and posting them.


They are horrifying. Sadly not surprising though. I would be surprised if it were anything new, although Kaka Tim may have a point about society in the past. Problem is that we can't really know. If reporting is a massive problem now, it was a far worse problem half a century ago.

Thinking about societal change, something I haven't heard for a while, but which I could never get my head around when I did hear it in the past, was men out on the pull referring to women as 'it'. There certainly used to be a particular kind of man who did that.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> You're assuming that women report it. They don't. See purenarcotic's post.


And given the low successful prosecution rate it's one of the factors why they don't.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

i don't know how my argument has got confused for saying that i don't think it's a big deal, or that it doesn't happen at all. even my statement that it wouldn't surprise me if attacks had reduced was actually a very small part of what i said.

the main point is that i think you're looking in the wrong direction if you think that these kids cracking the 'jokes' doing so because they don't think it's serious. what i'm saying is that it becomes a joke exactly BECAUSE it is serious


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> You're assuming that women report it. They don't. See purenarcotic's post.


I reported one rape, the police were sympathetic but fairly useless. The next time someone tried to rape me (I kicked their head in) I didn't bother to report it, couldn't really see the point. Could have landed myself with an assault charge if anything.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They are horrifying. Sadly not surprising though. I would be surprised if it were anything new, although Kaka Tim may have a point about society in the past. Problem is that we can't really know. If reporting is a massive problem now, it was a far worse problem half a century ago.


Or even 100 years ago. Rape was considered only to happen to lower class women of loose morals, and it certainly didn't happen within marriages (because a man couldn't legally rape his wife). I'd be surprised if it was reported at all.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> If could just as well be the case that rape was _less_ common pre WW2. Women were more closely shaporaned, less likely to be in vunerbale situations. Those that did go to college were strictly segregated from males. A women alone in private space with a man who was not her husband or son would be seriously frowned upon. <snip>


 
when you read accounts and biogs from the pre-WW2 period though, it's mad stuff. all the shared accomodation, roving bachelors, etc... in working class areas, especially in crowded urban areas, there was sordid and violent behaviour we can't even imagine today


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i don't know how my argument has got confused for saying that i don't think it's a big deal, or that it doesn't happen at all. even my statement that it wouldn't surprise me if attacks had reduced was actually a very small part of what i said.
> 
> the main point is that i think you're looking in the wrong direction if you think that these kids cracking the 'jokes' doing so because they don't think it's serious. what i'm saying is that it becomes a joke exactly BECAUSE it is serious


I still counter 'does that mean racist and homophobic jokes are ok too'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> what i'm saying is that it becomes a joke exactly BECAUSE it is serious


Don't think that works, though. For instance, you probably wouldn't hear such people joking about fucking their baby sister, or something. Why? Because they would suspect it would reflect badly on them. So to some extent, the man telling the rape joke is judging that his audience isn't going to think he's a creep because of it.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i don't know how my argument has got confused for saying that i don't think it's a big deal, or that it doesn't happen at all. even my statement that it wouldn't surprise me if attacks had reduced was actually a very small part of what i said.
> 
> the main point is that i think you're looking in the wrong direction if you think that these kids cracking the 'jokes' doing so because they don't think it's serious. what i'm saying is that it becomes a joke exactly BECAUSE it is serious


Well your argument was quite long to start with. what we're disputing is your assertion that a) rape occurrence is decreasing since WW2 and b) it's fully reported.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> when you read accounts and biogs from the pre-WW2 period though, it's mad stuff. all the shared accomodation, roving bachelors, etc... in working class areas, especially in crowded urban areas, there was sordid and violent behaviour we can't even imagine today


Um, there weren't blogs from the pre-WW2 period - unless the blogs are faithful literal versions of diaries.

What have you been reading? Do you have links to it? I'm intrigued?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I still counter 'does that mean racist and homophobic jokes are ok too'?


 
i think with all of these situations you have to know the people you're joking with very personally and know it's not going to be taken the wrong way.




			
				littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> Don't think that works, though. For instance, you probably wouldn't hear such people joking about fucking their baby sister, or something. Why? Because they would suspect it would reflect badly on them. So to some extent, the man telling the rape joke is judging that his audience isn't going to think he's a creep because of it.




actually, i think that happens a hell of a lot! incest and paedo jokes have been increasing in step with their growing social seriousness as well. all the dead baby stuff etc, it's all over sickipedia.




			
				equationgirl said:
			
		

> your assertion that a) rape occurrence is decreasing since WW2 and b) it's fully reported


 
i asserted neither of those two things


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Um, there weren't blogs from the pre-WW2 period - unless the blogs are faithful literal versions of diaries.
> 
> What have you been reading? Do you have links to it? I'm intrigued?


 i can't babysit you, just go read Down and Out in London and Paris or anything. i've just finished reading Joe Jacob's 'out of the ghetto' too, not too much specific detail in there but if you have some historical knowledge about the social context then you can figure things out, esp with relation to his siblings. also read Engels condition of the working class in England, what? loads of stuff. ffs


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i still think that attitude (i.e. 'she was asking for it') is demonstrably less prevalent now than in the past. and also, as others have pointed out, for whatever the stats are worth it's not normally after a night on the piss that it happens to people.. it's usually in the context of controlled family/social circle environments.
> 
> when you look back at 70s and 80s TV (some episodes of Topof the Pops are fucking appalling (check out the intro to The Strawbs here from Jimmy Saville, leching over teenage 'girlies' - eeeuurgh)... i just can't see the 'good rape'/'bad rape' being anywhere near as prominent today as the past


 




Das Uberdog said:


> no it doesn't necessarily, but i wouldn't be surprised if it did. for starters, even discounting cultural factors and awareness, it's probably a lot harder to get away with today than in the past where there was the whole issue of stifling communal morality operating against victims


 


Das Uberdog said:


> when you read accounts and biogs from the pre-WW2 period though, it's mad stuff. all the shared accomodation, roving bachelors, etc... in working class areas, especially in crowded urban areas, there was sordid and violent behaviour we can't even imagine today


 
It seems pretty clear to me your assertion is that things are considerably better today than they used to be.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

in terms of cultural attitudes, yes, and that has begrudgingly been accepted by several other people on the thread now too


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 3, 2012)

I don't think cultural attitudes are considerably better at all.  They are better, yes, but considerably?  God no. 

You only have to watch one set of TV adverts to see that gender stereotyping and gender roles have gone nowhere, and women, especially 'sexy' women are used to sell products. 

I remember a few years back. Aero did an advert clearly aimed at women using a very well muscled / toned / attractive man dressed in nothing but a towel.  The advert had to be pulled because lots of men phoned OfCom and complained they didn't like men being objectified in this way.  Oh the irony, is all I can really say.

Yes, things really are considerably better, aren't they.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i asserted neither of those two things


Yes you did, in your post (#361) and after that:

Here is your assertion:

'it's because now more than ever, in most modern Western societies, people are aware of how inappropriate and base such behaviours are. i don't have statistics to hand on this (and i think that all statistics on the issue are probably misleading) but tbh* i wouldn't be surprised if rates of actual sexual assaults had been pretty steadily on the decrease since post-war.'*

And as for a request to links for source material, that's standard on urban, when people start making assertions that upon probing they can't back up. You're the one who hasn't bothered to understand anything about the topic not me.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 3, 2012)

But the trivilisation of rape by the likes of unilad show cultural attitudes going in precisely the opposite direction.

(repsonse to das uberdogs post above)


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I don't think cultural attitudes are considerably better at all. They are better, yes, but considerably? God no.
> 
> You only have to watch one set of TV adverts to see that gender stereotyping and gender roles have gone nowhere, and women, especially 'sexy' women are used to sell products.
> 
> ...


If I see one more air freshener advert where the woman receives approving glances from a man for having a nice smelling house, I may not be responsible for my actions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> But the trivilisation of rape by the likes of unilad show cultural attitudes going in precisely the opposite direction.


Not necessarily. That website was instantly pulled and they got into all kinds of trouble for it. The internet allows instant publishing, which is bound to lead to more ill-considered things being published, but I think we should be cautious about reading too much significance into this. Truth is - as unilad has found out to its cost - most cultural attitudes are firmly against them, hence it being almost instantly pulled.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not necessarily. That website was instantly pulled and they got into all kinds of trouble for it. The internet allows instant publishing, which is bound to lead to more ill-considered things being published, but I think we should be cautious about reading too much significance into this. Truth is - as unilad has found out to its cost - most cultural attitudes are firmly against them, it would seem.


Have you looked on that student forum?

TSR is a hotbed of massive RW cock-brained fail.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not necessarily. That website was instantly pulled and they got into all kinds of trouble for it. The internet allows instant publishing, which is bound to lead to more ill-considered things being published, but I think we should be cautious about reading too much significance into this. Truth is - as unilad has found out to its cost - most cultural attitudes are firmly against them, it would seem.


Except they published it in the first place. Even 10 years ago I'm not sure it would have been published.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> If I see one more air freshener advert where the woman receives approving glances from a man for having a nice smelling house, I may not be responsible for my actions.


 
Don't forget Mr Muscle, coming to save the poor, helpless dear.  And Calgon, where apparently only women do the laundry.  And Vax, and Maggi 'so juicy' range, and Philadelphia, where women only cook the family meals, and that alpha romeo ad where it goes 'I am julietta and I am sleek blah blah blah'.  You don't see the woman, but it's the sex appeal selling the car.

I could go on and on.  But like you, I may become incandescent with rage.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Have you looked on that student forum?
> 
> TSR is a hotbed of massive RW cock-brained fail.


Is it?  No I haven't looked. I'll take your word for it, if that's alright.

Maybe I'm wrong - but the reaction that caused this to be pulled at the very least means that there are plenty of people still who strongly object to this kind of thing. In that sense, I'm not sure so much has changed.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

I know this article is from another thread, but it gives a good oversight about how society has seen gender roles through the way they dress their children, or some such poncey shite: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html?c=y&page=2

I wouldn't say there have been any improvements.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Except they published it in the first place. Even 10 years ago I'm not sure it would have been published.


 
This - I'm sure student campuses were far more clued up on these sort of issues in the 80s. The fact that they felt it was fine to publish - and the reaction of their readers on the face book page - are very telling.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 3, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I know this article is from another thread, but it gives a good oversight about how society has seen gender roles through the way they dress their children, or some such poncey shite: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html?c=y&page=2
> 
> I wouldn't say there have been any improvements.


 
Stuff with kids happens frighteningly early.  Skelton's work is a good place to start on gender in the school, especially in relation to the myth of 'boys underachievement'.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Yes you did, in your post (#361) and after that:
> 
> Here is your assertion:
> 
> ...


 
yeah so i didn't assert that they had reduced did i, i said and i repeat for the umpteenth time that i wouldn't be surprised if they had

not that you're interested in actually discussing this


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> This - I'm sure student campuses were far more clued up on these sort of issues in the 80s. The fact that they felt it was fine to publish - and the reaction of their readers on the face book page - are very telling.


You might be right. tbh I'm not the best person to ask about the attitudes of the average 20-year-old, but I can say that back when I was a 20-year-old 20 years ago, there were plenty of men around whose attitude to women stank.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Except they published it in the first place. Even 10 years ago I'm not sure it would have been published.


if they had the internet and low budget 'publications' like this unilad thing back then then maybe it would have been


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 3, 2012)

Except we've posted evidence to suggest the situation is still remarkably grim and you don't seem to want to accept that.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Stuff with kids happens frighteningly early. Skelton's work is a good place to start on gender in the school, especially in relation to the myth of 'boys underachievement'.


My sister-in-law fought very hard to instill gender neutral attitudes in my nephews. All her hard work was undone the minute her eldest went to school. We've since had 'girls can't be engineers' - I'm one - 'pink is for girls' and 'girls are skanks'. He's 5.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Stuff with kids happens frighteningly early. Skelton's work is a good place to start on gender in the school, especially in relation to the *myth of 'boys underachievement'*.


 
Please can you elaborate? I'm interested (sorry that sounds a bit sarky - I really AM interested!)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> This - I'm sure student campuses were far more clued up on these sort of issues in the 80s. The fact that they felt it was fine to publish - and the reaction of their readers on the face book page - are very telling.


Even in the 90s when I was a student, during the lad resurgence, you wouldn't have thought you could get away with publishing that sort of thing publicly. However, I could see the backlash growing.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 3, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Even in the 90s when I was a student, during the lad resurgence, you wouldn't have thought you could get away with publishing that sort of thing publicly. However, I could see the backlash growing.


 
Yep, totally agree with this.

In some ways we see more progressive attitudes (openness and tolerance to sexualities, less direct discrimination), whilst we also see objectification and the pervasiveness of sex (by which I mean not some sort of prudish outlook on sex, but that despite whatever advances women have made, we seem to still be held up more than ever by standards of beauty/attractiveness to men) and then we've got a student generation entirely bought up and subsumed in consumerism and capitalism (which doesn't even seem to be clever in its trading in sexual imagery now, just overt/blatant). I think I preferred the 80s and 90s tbh.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> yeah so i didn't assert that they had reduced did i, i said and i repeat for the umpteenth time that i wouldn't be surprised if they had
> 
> not that you're interested in actually discussing this


Do you know what assertion means?

I am discussing this, several posters have discussed this, and backed up their statements with facts. You're the one that 'doesn't believe statistics', you're the one who's not interested oin discussing this, only in continually restating your own flawed statements when you've been shown to be wrong - and quite gently I must point out.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Except we've posted evidence to suggest the situation is still remarkably grim and you don't seem to want to accept that.


 
no, what we've established is that none of you want to have an actual discussion about this. i haven't denied any of the stats you've posted.

when my Mum was in school she wasn't allowed to take woodwork, she had to take home economics. in her first year at secondary, she was given a career aptitude test and told she should consider a career in typing or being an air-hostess. before she got a decent lecturer who encouraged her to go forward, no-one in the world had ever suggested to her that she, as a working class girl, should even consider going to university. she was sacked from one of her uni jobs as a waitress for refusing to abide by their 'no bras' policy. when she started as a nurse she still had to truss up like a pretty doll with those daft card bonnets nurses used to have to wear (and which she organised a boycott against)

all of these things are literally incomprehensible for kids of my generation to comprehend... for people to think that nothing has improved in general attitudes is seriously not correlated with reality


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> if they had the internet and low budget 'publications' like this unilad thing back then then maybe it would have been


They did. Attitudes were different.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Do you know what assertion means?
> 
> I am discussing this, several posters have discussed this, and backed up their statements with facts. You're the one that 'doesn't believe statistics', you're the one who's not interested oin discussing this, only in continually restating your own flawed statements when you've been shown to be wrong - and quite gently I must point out.


 
what on earth are you talking about? do i actually have to pull a definition of 'assertion'?

i never said the rates were going down, i said i wouldn't be surprised if they were, again. i know you've expressed being uncomfortable with 'long' paragraphs but can you actually read at all?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> no, what we've established is that none of you want to have an actual discussion about this. i haven't denied any of the stats you've posted.
> 
> when my Mum was in school she wasn't allowed to take woodwork, she had to take home economics. in her first year at secondary, she was given a career aptitude test and told she should consider a career in typing or being an air-hostess. before she got a decent lecturer who encouraged her to go forward, no-one in the world had ever suggested to her that she, as a working class girl, should even consider going to university. she was sacked from one of her uni jobs as a waitress for refusing to abide by their 'no bras' policy. when she started as a nurse she still had to truss up like a pretty doll with those daft card bonnets nurses used to have to wear (and which she organised a boycott against)
> 
> all of these things are literally incomprehensible for kids of my generation to comprehend... for people to think that nothing has improved in general attitudes is seriously not correlated with reality


 
How old you? It's a genuine question.

Only many posters on urban have experienced things like your mum did and in some cases still do, so perhaps that might encourage you to understand how many of us can post that things haven't always improved.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2012)

The closest to internet posts we had in the 80s and 90s was probably small press fanzines. I have to say that I never saw anything like this crap in any small press thing - and that includes all football fanzines, which wouldn't tolerate anything like that.

Hmm. Maybe things have got worse.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> what on earth are you talking about? do i actually have to pull a definition of 'assertion'?
> 
> i never said the rates were going down, i said i wouldn't be surprised if they were, again. i know you've expressed being uncomfortable with 'long' paragraphs but can you actually read at all?


There's no need to descend into personal attacks.

It's very difficult to read long paragraphs on a bulletin board, and many people with learning disabilities such as dyslexia find it easier to read shorter paragraphs.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

Yes, women have achieved a fair amount in terms of better treatment when we work but that doesn't mean that rapes have correspondingly reduced. You're suggesting a causal link which isn't there.

And I think you need to find out what assertion means


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 3, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> From the NUS 'Hidden Marks Report
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't know about previous years, and I don't know about you, but I find that all pretty appalling. That doesn't really suggest we've come along very far, does it.


 
Aye, that and most of the other research/reports I've seen the last 10 years still don't make for particularly positive reading - re. sexual violence, reporting and clear-up rates.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

stephj said:


> Aye, that and most of the other research/reports I've seen the last 10 years still don't make for particularly positive reading - re. sexual violence, reporting and clear-up rates.


I think it sends a clear message that whatever is supposedly being done to improve things isn't working, and part of that is public perception to the crime of rape.

I think the poster campaign in Canada that Idris talked about - Don't be _that_ guy - should be used over here. Cinemas, bus stop adverts, tube posters, half-time game advertising, the works.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You might be right. tbh I'm not the best person to ask about the attitudes of the average 20-year-old, but I can say that back when I was a 20-year-old 20 years ago, there were plenty of men around whose attitude to women stank.


 
Nor me!
And of course they;re were plenty of shit attitudes to women amongst students back in the 80s - but to come out with that sort of Unilad shit in a fanzine or similar would have probably have resulted in a public lynching.  

Maybe part of the trouble is that addressing the reality sexual violence doesn't fit easily into the post feminist/'ironic' 'new lad/laddette' world view/discourse/zietgiest malarky.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Please can you elaborate? I'm interested (sorry that sounds a bit sarky - I really AM interested!)


 
Sure.  This won't be in epic detail, purely because I can't squeeze an entire module's worth of work into a forum post, but hopefully it'll be a decent overview. 

For starters, when you actually break down the stats of GCSE results, you find that it is considerably more complex than a simple 'girls outdo boys'.  You have to take into account the differences in results between ethnic groups, socio-economic statuses and so on.  Although girls do outdo boys in most cases, your socio-economic status is far more likely to affect your ability to achieve well at GCSE level. 

You then have to look at the issue historically; this whole 'boys underachievement' thing seems to be quite new.  It's suddenly exploded over the last few years, with a real air of panic about it.  However, as early as the 1920's people said of boys: 'they're not slower than girls, it's just their age'.  In 1923, the Board of Education wrote 'it's well known that most boys, especially in the period of adolescence, have a habit of healthy idleness'.   In the 1940's again it was perceived that boys were behind girls and again, the excuse was made that it was 'just their age'.  Throughout the ages, this idea that boys are underachieving has existed; it is nothing 'new' whatsoever. 

From all the stuff over the ages, four main discoures have emerged relating to boys and education and underachievement:

1) 'poor boys' - notions that men have been victimised through feminist agenda (this has its theoretical basis in theories surrounding men's rights).

2) 'boys will be boys' - notions that psychological, and physical masculinity is something boys are born with, it is innate. This has led to theories of requiring more competitive sport and 'target setting' because these appeal to 'boys needs' and that also we need to give boys status to confirm their masculinity (this has its theoretical roots in evolutionary psychology).

3) 'Problem boys' - notions surrounding the 'laddish' culture and ideas that boys naturally adopt anti-social behaviours. 

4) 'At risk boys' - boys are somehow disconnected from society, they have low self esteem and feel alienated from education

(Both 3 and 4 have their theoretical basis in ideas surrounding individualism).

This has led people to believe that schools have become feminised and are feminising, and that strategies to improve this need to be about reparing the male agenda, by having targets, reward systems, male role models etc. 

But are boys brains really different to girls brains?  Do they really think in a completely different way, or is this a social construction?  Are there really different 'learning styles' for gender?  Well teachers certainly appear to think so, with comments from teachers saying that boys prefer the quick, active lessons, while girls are quiet and prefer group work.  But research by Coffield (2004) concluded that they could find absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that implementing these gender based learning styles made any difference whatsoever.  Sukhnadan (2000) believes that differing learning styles are more likely to be influenced by individual characteristics and abilities over gender. 

Schools where social constructions of gender are less accentuated, tend to have a much reduced gap between the achievements of girls and boys. 

It's also worth noting that despite all this moral panic, men still hold the majority of top exec positions, earn the highest wages etc etc. 

There is considerably more to this topic, this really is the very basic outline, but hopefully it gives you an idea into some of the ideas around it.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Nor me!
> And of course they;re were plenty of shit attitudes to women amongst students back in the 80s - but to come out with that sort of Unilad shit in a fanzine or similar would have probably have resulted in a public lynching.
> 
> Maybe part of the trouble is that addressing the reality sexual violence doesn't fit easily into the post feminist/'ironic' 'new lad/laddette' world view/discourse/zietgiest malarky.


Prodigy 'Slap my bitch up' video reactions exemplified this in my mind. Most of those that were outraged quite obviously hadn't seen the video all the way thought as they were rallying against 'male on female' violence. The video itself was depicting 'female on female' violence and certainly to me seemed to clearly asking the viewer to be examining their attitudes to violent behaviour against others regardless of gender.


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> if we're talking about trivialisation of things like rape being the reason for an increase in rape jokes, then i gotta say i think it's actually the complete opposite. rape isn't being trivialised, it's vilified now more than it ever has been in history. to take a different slant on frogwoman's thesis (i.e. 'that there are times where because something is so unimaginable the only way to imagine it is through jokes') i think that the appeal of rape jokes does come partly through a morbid fascination with the taboo, but the taboo itself isn't created because people can't emotionally 'take' the subject matter. it's because now more than ever, in most modern Western societies, people are aware of how inappropriate and base such behaviours are. i don't have statistics to hand on this (and i think that all statistics on the issue are probably misleading) but tbh *i wouldn't be surprised if rates of actual sexual assaults had been pretty steadily on the decrease since post-war*. certainly the issue is no longer 'swept under the carpet' in the public debate anymore, nor is it shielded from view by communal and family hierarchies and structures in the same way.
> 
> ...


I ignored the rest of your two cents because you haven't bothered to check your facts. Paddick is running on a 'make the police investigate rape properly' as his central policy. He was asked to do a review of how rape was handled - found that reports had increased by 18% over 5 years in the early 2000s, but that the proportion recorded as rape had fallen by the same amount because the simplest way to improve the clear up rate is to record the complaint as 'no crime'. He was made to tone dowh his report and then Fedorico buried it.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> I ignored the rest of your two cents because you haven't bothered to check your facts. Paddick is running on a 'make the police investigate rape properly' as his central policy. He was asked to do a review of how rape was handled - found that reports had increased by 18% over 5 years in the early 2000s, but that the proportion recorded as rape had fallen by the same amount because the simplest way to improve the clear up rate is to record the complaint as 'no crime'. He was made to tone dowh his report and then Fedorico buried it.


Good post ymu, thanks for info.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Yes, women have achieved a fair amount in terms of better treatment when we work but that doesn't mean that rapes have correspondingly reduced. You're suggesting a causal link which isn't there.
> 
> And I think you need to find out what assertion means


Also, rape is so much about power that actually I would expect the incidence of rape to increase as women gain economic power.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The closest to internet posts we had in the 80s and 90s was probably small press fanzines. I have to say that I never saw anything like this crap in any small press thing - and that includes all football fanzines, which wouldn't tolerate anything like that.
> 
> Hmm. Maybe things have got worse.


 
I'm glad you've come to that conclusion youself and without the arguments of the women on this thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

i also think that a lot of the time a lot of sexist/misogynist attitudes are so unthought about and so ingrained that you don't even notice it until you start looking for it.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> if they had the internet and low budget 'publications' like this unilad thing back then then maybe it would have been


I just wish to point out that the internet has been around since at least 1995 when it became commercialised. Various technical aspects were worked on before then, since packet switching and TCP/IP, but restrictions on commercial traffice carriage were lifted in 1995, thus making it available to the world.

So yes, the world had internet and internet publishing in 2001.


----------



## toggle (Mar 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> If could just as well be the case that rape was _less_ common pre WW2. Women were more closely shaporaned, less likely to be in vunerbale situations. Those that did go to college were strictly segregated from males. A women alone in private space with a man who was not her husband or son would be seriously frowned upon.


 
sorry, but bollocks.

i remember seeing a documentary about pre ww2 women farm workers and from the descriptions they gave, rape by the men they worked with was almost to be expected. few discussed it at the time because of the expectation they would be told it was their fault.

the idea that ordinary women were chapheroned is bizarre. you think working class young women were chapheroned on their way to work?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

i'd also say that this type of thing (rape and violence etc as "erotic") is quite widespread in goth/techno type subcultures ... very different from the people that unilad is appealing to (I think)? i got put off listening to that stuff recently as some of the videos (especially those made by fans) are often really fucking dodgy.


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Even in the 90s when I was a student, during the lad resurgence, you wouldn't have thought you could get away with publishing that sort of thing publicly. However, I could see the backlash growing.


Yes. My partner thinks this is all about the male psyche being under pressure. Girls doing better at school (according to the media, whatever the detail says), young women doing better in the workplace, and fewer decent jobs around to allow them to take a 'provider' role (43% of main breadwinners are women, according to one media report I read recently).

Patriarchy is as damaging to men as it is to women. Expected to be an alpha-male but living in a system which allows very few to be alphas, not allowed to show emotion or admit weakness. There are a lot of angry, frustrated men around, with their only power being their physical strength.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

And that chaperoning "for their own protection" could also imply a threat of violence and control/possession. And did.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

toggle said:


> sorry, but bollocks.
> 
> i remember seeing a documentary about pre ww2 women farm workers and from the descriptions they gave, rape by the men they worked with was almost to be expected. few discussed it at the time because of the expectation they would be told it was their fault.
> 
> the idea that ordinary women were chapheroned is bizarre. you think working class young women were chapheroned on their way to work?


 
there was some very dark stuff around class, violence, prostitution, misogyny etc in those times as well. the idea among the middle and upper classes that these women were different, that they weren't quite women, and that type of thing. not really sure what i was going to say with this but it links in with the common attitudes around the Jack the Ripper case etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

To come back to the culture issue,

I think that the cultural and social changes in the 70's and 80's re:gender and sexism (and racism and homophobia) in part contributed to the creation of a space where it seemed safe to perpetrate an ironic middle class 'mock' appropriation of a caricature of working class sexism (and racism etc) within wider society that is displayed by the success of comedians like Jimmy Carr etc and as successfully skewered by Nathan Barley with Sugar Ape and the episode where he shags the model he thinks is 13. Unfortunately this safe space and the attitude it has fostered has looped back to make the reality as bad as if not worse than before, also bolstered by a genuine conservative backlash against it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yes. My partner thinks this is all about the male psyche being under pressure. Girls doing better at school (according to the media, whatever the detail says), young women doing better in the workplace, and fewer decent jobs around to allow them to take a 'provider' role (43% of main breadwinners are women, according to one media report I read recently).
> 
> *Patriarchy is as damaging to men as it is to women.* Expected to be an alpha-male but living in a system which allows very few to be alphas, not allowed to show emotion or admit weakness. There are a lot of angry, frustrated men around, with their only power being their physical strength.


 
Abso-fucking-lutely. 

I see the so-called 'lad' culture that emerged in the late 80's/early 90's as a sort of violent backlash against all the hard work that was done in the 70's and 80's.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> To come back to the culture issue,
> 
> I think that the cultural and social changes in the 70's and 80's re:gender and sexism (and racism and homophobia) in part contributed to the creation of a space where it seemed safe to perpetrate an ironic middle class 'mock' appropriation of a caricature of working class sexism (and racism etc) within wider society that is displayed by the success of comedians like Jimmy Carr etc and as successfully skewered by Nathan Barley with Sugar Ape and the episode where he shags the model he thinks is 13. Unfortunately this safe space and the attitude it has fostered has looped back to make the reality as bad as if not worse than before, also bolstered by a genuine conservative backlash against it.


 
Not just Jimmy Carr but Frank Skinner and David Baddiel too. Both of them contributed to this 'new lad' bullshit back in the early 90's.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

For a lot of working class and lower middle class women in service, not only did they need good references, they also required a good 'character'. To be dismissed without a good character effectively meant the end of their ability to work in that sector. Any allegations of rape made by a servant against a man, whether of that household or not, would have been career suicide.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Not just Jimmy Carr but Frank Skinner and David Baddiel too. Both of them contributed to this 'new lad' bullshit back in the early 90's.


 
Absolutely, he was just the one to spring to the top of my mind.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2012)

"It's just a joke", doesn't cut any ice with me. A joke is a form of discourse and some jokes, particularly those told by the likes of Granada TV's _The Comedians_ and now those being told by younger performers, reinforce dominant power relations. 

Post-irony is a get out clause for bullies and scumbags.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Absolutely, he was just the one to spring to the top of my mind.


 
I hope I don't sound like some conspiraloon, but it's also interesting how celebrity culture and gangsta rap emerged at roughly the same time.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> And that chaperoning "for their own protection" could also imply a threat of violence and control/possession. And did.


There's still a real culture of 'needing to be careful' amongst normally sensible women. A mate and I had to walk either the long way around or diagonally across a fairly well lit park with a dodgy rep the other night and she still asked if we should take the short cut or not. 

I pointed out that as she knows kung fu and I kicked a rapist's head in on there a couple of years ago we were probably ok to cut across, but tbf a student lass on her own after a night out cut through the not very well lit bit at the other end a few months back and had her face slashed.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> "It's just a joke", doesn't cut any ice with me. A joke is a form of discourse and some jokes, particularly those told by the likes of Granada TV's _The Comedians_ and now those being told by younger performers, reinforce dominant power relations.
> 
> Post-irony is a get out clause for bullies and scumbags.


 
Broadly yes, until relatively recently I would have said actually it's OK to make otherwise offensive jokes if you're 100% sure of the company - and depending on context (not that I've ever found jokes about sexual violence funny mind), but then I found out someone I really wouldn't expect it of (which is a whole other issue, because I know you can never tell) is a victim of DV, and I know I've made jokes about that in front of her.

The trick is to think about what is simply an offensive joke, and what is a joke that reinforces oppression - they are and should be two seperate things, one can be used in certain situations and one frankly we should be making people feel very small for using.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> There's still a real culture of 'needing to be careful' amongst normally sensible women. A mate and I had to walk either the long way around or diagonally across a fairly well lit park with a dodgy rep the other night and she still asked if we should take the short cut or not.
> 
> I pointed out that as she knows kung fu and I kicked a rapist's head in on there a couple of years ago we were probably ok to cut across, but tbf a student lass on her own after a night out cut through the not very well lit bit at the other end a few months back and had her face slashed.


 
i get like that too sometimes to be fair. especially in areas i'm unfamiliar with.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 3, 2012)

toggle said:


> sorry, but bollocks.
> 
> i remember seeing a documentary about pre ww2 women farm workers and from the descriptions they gave, rape by the men they worked with was almost to be expected. few discussed it at the time because of the expectation they would be told it was their fault.
> 
> the idea that ordinary women were chapheroned is bizarre. you think working class young women were chapheroned on their way to work?


 
No. I was making a the point that you make a  simarly evidence free assumption to counter  Das Uberdogs one that he 'wouldn't be suprised if sexual violence had decreased since WW2'.   
Of course women were subject to sexual violence pre WW2, and working class women would likley  have been more vunerable.
But its probably true that in many circumstances (i.e. higher education) women were less likely to be in vunerable situations then they are today becasue of different attitudes to how single - or unaccompanied -  women should behave. (Simailar to how many muslim women are expected to behave by their community nowadays).

Its more that the circumstnaces in which sexual violence happens may be somewhat different today to what was the case 50odd years ago because society is different.


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> There's still a real culture of 'needing to be careful' amongst normally sensible women. A mate and I had to walk either the long way around or diagonally across a fairly well lit park with a dodgy rep the other night and she still asked if we should take the short cut or not.
> 
> I pointed out that as she knows kung fu and I kicked a rapist's head in on there a couple of years ago we were probably ok to cut across, but tbf a student lass on her own after a night out cut through the not very well lit bit at the other end a few months back and had her face slashed.


I read a really good blog article that I can't find now, but it was basically a guy talking about his 'lightbulb moment'. He was working late with a female colleague, and was surprised when she asked him to walk her to her car. He realised how little he understood, as a man, how threatening the world can be to women. His conclusion was good. "We need to just shut the fuck up and listen".

Lots of men on here could do with following that advice, tbh. As could others when the issue is racism or homophobia or disability. It is very hard for members of a group that has all the power to understand what the hell everyone else is going on about, especially if they start from the assumption that they already know.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i get like that too sometimes to be fair. especially in areas i'm unfamiliar with.


We've both lived round there on and off for years.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> We've both lived round there on and off for years.


 
i think i know where you mean. but i get like that too.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 3, 2012)

Just to pick up toggles/kaka's point, my mum has talked about this a few times. She grew up in a rough, working class environment, and whilst not ness. 'chaperoned' to/from work, she said that she and her peers were barely able to go anywhere without being under the watch of her father either directly of via her older brothers (who were often established to keep an eye on her 'safety', the 'boys she was with', etc.).

She often relays the story of being the age of 16-18 (which was the early-mid 60s), and dating my dad, her father would be standing outside by 10pm looking at his pocket watch repeatedly to make sure she was 'in' before going out to find her, she daren't not be in. By the end of the 60s she says women - perhaps 5-10 years younger than her, were already experiencing more freedom than her, and so the dynamic of experiencing and being at risk of sexual assault/violence had changed, even if the actual chances of being so didn't.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i think i know where you mean. but i get like that too.


TBF I wouldn't do the same short cut on my own if it was really late.


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Broadly yes, until relatively recently I would have said actually it's OK to make otherwise offensive jokes if you're 100% sure of the company - and depending on context (not that I've ever found jokes about sexual violence funny mind), but then I found out someone I really wouldn't expect it of (which is a whole other issue, because I know you can never tell) is a victim of DV, and I know I've made jokes about that in front of her.
> 
> The trick is to think about what is simply an offensive joke, and what is a joke that reinforces oppression - they are and should be two seperate things, one can be used in certain situations and one frankly we should be making people feel very small for using.


I think the only test is whether the joke is aimed at the victim or the perpetrator. We joke about sexism, racism and homophobia all the time - but the joke is always aimed at the bigot.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm taking their wallet if it happens again though.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 3, 2012)

Muslim women suffer from plenty of sexual abuse. In Saudia Arabia, rape is perceived as the woman's fault and she can actually be imprisoned for it while the man walks free, because she shamed her family.  I realise Saudi is an extreme example, but the Islamic community in the UK has just as many issues surrounding sexual abuse and rape as any other community.  They may not speak out about it as much, but that's to do with cultural issues, not because it happens any less.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> TBF I wouldn't do the same short cut on my own if it was really late.


 
yeah, i get like that too. i don't mind when it's well lit and there are people around. but i do get freaked out walking back from places at night.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, i get like that too. i don't mind when it's well lit and there are people around. but i do get freaked out walking back from places at night.


It freaks me out when I see women going about at night on their own with headphones in!


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Broadly yes, until relatively recently I would have said actually it's OK to make otherwise offensive jokes if you're 100% sure of the company - and depending on context (not that I've ever found jokes about sexual violence funny mind), but then I found out someone I really wouldn't expect it of (which is a whole other issue, because I know you can never tell) is a victim of DV, and I know I've made jokes about that in front of her.
> 
> The trick is to think about what is simply an offensive joke, and what is a joke that reinforces oppression - they are and should be two seperate things, one can be used in certain situations and one frankly we should be making people feel very small for using.


 
To use a comedy term: it's all about timing. But it's about good writing too. Hacks will have absolutely no idea of power relations (or will completely ignore them) and will do anything to get that all-important laughter.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

i don't mind going to places, it's coming back. i've lived in this area all my life so i'm pretty familiar with it but i still really panic whenever i hear, for example,footsteps behind me etc


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, i get like that too. i don't mind when it's well lit and there are people around. but i do get freaked out walking back from places at night.


 
We live on the towpath, so I don't get much choice about taking dodgy routes. The boy offers to come with me, but fuck that - I'm not giving up my autonomy just because there's some fucked-up arseholes out there. The only reasonable form of protection women need is a society that wholeheartedly condemns this behaviour.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i don't mind going to places, it's coming back. i've lived in this area all my life so i'm pretty familiar with it but i still really panic whenever i hear, for example,footsteps behind me etc


 
And now we have some local councils turning off street lights late at night but then rationalising their decision by hiding behind 'green' issues or 'efficiencies'.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> We live on the towpath, so I don't get much choice about taking dodgy routes. The boy offers to come with me, but fuck that - I'm not giving up my autonomy just because there's some fucked-up arseholes out there. The only reasonable form of protection women need is a society that wholeheartedly condemns this behaviour.





frogwoman said:


> i don't mind going to places, it's coming back. i've lived in this area all my life so i'm pretty familiar with it but i still really panic whenever i hear, for example,footsteps behind me etc


I normally just cunningly stay out with my mates until it's light.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

I must admit I was a bit suprised when my partner first asked me to meet her coming back from the pub, as we live in an area that is less than 20 minutes from town and not at all dodgy really and she is no shrinking violet, but she says all the same things frogwoman and stuffit are saying...

It's shit really isn't it?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> To come back to the culture issue,
> 
> I think that the cultural and social changes in the 70's and 80's re:gender and sexism (and racism and homophobia) in part contributed to the creation of a space where it seemed safe to perpetrate an ironic middle class 'mock' appropriation of a caricature of working class sexism (and racism etc) within wider society that is displayed by the success of comedians like Jimmy Carr etc and as successfully skewered by Nathan Barley with Sugar Ape and the episode where he shags the model he thinks is 13. Unfortunately this safe space and the attitude it has fostered has looped back to make the reality as bad as if not worse than before, also bolstered by a genuine conservative backlash against it.


The thing is that, in retrospect, it seems like there was only ever a tiny, tiny time and space where there was a slight cultural shift away from gross and accepted public sexism. There were dolly birds and page 3 and gleefully sexist celebs and films in the 70s and 80s galore, there was a short period when you could be publicly condemned in media circles for that and seen as a dinosaur, and then, wham, in the 90s the backlash hit. You can see directly where it came from by the retro culture that it idolised - from directly before the 80s.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

don't get me wrong, i'm fine with taking 20 minute walks back from train stations etc. but always on a main road, never anywhere really dark. don't mind so much if i'm with someone else though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is that, in retrospect, it seems like there was only ever a tiny, tiny time and space where there was a slight cultural shift away from gross and accepted public sexism. There were dolly birds and page 3 and gleefully sexist celebs and films in the 70s and 80s galore, there was a short period when you could be publicly condemned in media circles for that and seen as a dinosaur, and then, wham, in the 90s the backlash hit. You can see directly where it came from by the retro culture that it idolised - from directly before the 80s.


 
totally agree - that was part of the problem, mistaking this tiny backslapping self congratulatry space as symptomatic of wider society.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I must admit I was a bit suprised when my partner first asked me to meet her coming back from the pub, as we live in an area that is less than 20 minutes from town and not at all dodgy really and she is no shrinking violet, but she says all the same things frogwoman and stuffit are saying...
> 
> It's shit really isn't it?


My stepmother was quite clear to me when I was a teenager (a big six foot one in a leather jacket) and starting to go out late at night that I should not walk behind women on the street, and certainly not accelerate if I found myself behind them, and if I couldn't avoid that then I should actually cross the road and walk on the other side. Initially I was a bit outraged that I was being stereotyped as if I was a potentially violent thug - particularly given that I was pretty scared walking about late at night myself, at 13 or 14 - but then when you think about the situation and realise that it's not people being silly you realise how fucked up it is and how selfish whinging about how _awful_ it is being stereotyped as a man is as well.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> My stepmother was quite clear to me when I was a teenager (a big six foot one in a leather jacket) and starting to go out late at night that I should not walk behind women on the street, and certainly not accelerate if I found myself behind them, and if I couldn't avoid that then I should actually cross the road and walk on the other side. Initially I was a bit outraged that I was being stereotyped as if I was a potentially violent thug - particularly given that I was pretty scared walking about late at night myself, at 13 or 14 - but then when you think about the situation and realise that it's not people being silly you realise how fucked up it is and how selfish whinging about how _awful_ it is being stereotyped as a man is as well.


 
Now you mention it, my mum always told me the same - not that I'm 6 foot or would be seen dead in a leather jacket... I was never offended though, didn't think it through that much.


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2012)

I have a fuck off big bunch of keys on a short rope. If I have footsteps behind me, I stick my hand in my pocket and get ready to swing it if need be. If I ever need to go that far, the next step would be to try and incapacitate them via a well-aimed kick to the bollocks.

I've noticed that some men will cross the road before I have to, if they realise that it's intimidating them walking behind me. To all the men who do this, thanks!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> I've noticed that some men will cross the road before I have to, if they realise that it's intimidating them walking behind me. To all the men who do this, thanks!


 
Thank our mums.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> I have a fuck off big bunch of keys on a short rope. If I have footsteps behind me, I stick my hand in my pocket and get ready to swing it if need be. If I ever need to go that far, the next step would be to try and incapacitate them via a well-aimed kick to the bollocks.
> 
> I've noticed that some men will cross the road before I have to, if they realise that it's intimidating them walking behind me. To all the men who do this, thanks!


 
i was coming back from the pub or something about a month ago and there's this sort of footpath leading off the road which goes straight into some woods. A man came out (I don't know what the fuck he was doing going for a walk in the woods that late at night, perhaps he was trying to look at badgers or something) and i panicked and started running. he was really apologetic and a felt a bit stupid


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> he was really apologetic and a felt a bit stupid


 
I don't see why you should feel stupid, fair enough that he was totally innocent, and a bit shook up himself by your reaction - but that doesn't mean it wasn't a justified reaction.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> It freaks me out when I see women going about at night on their own with headphones in!


God yes, or on mobile phones.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i was coming back from the pub or something about a month ago and there's this sort of footpath leading off the road which goes straight into some woods. A man came out (I don't know what the fuck he was doing going for a walk in the woods that late at night, perhaps he was trying to look at badgers or something) and i panicked and started running. he was really apologetic and a felt a bit stupid


Be thankful your instinct was to run, even though the situation was innocent.

What if you'd have frozen?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i said it wouldn't surprise me if there were fewer assaults today, based upon the fact that today's culture is far more aware of what constitutes sexual assault and behaviours which are predatory and intimidatory are also less prevalent and acceptable.
> 
> i only said it because there seems to be some kind of assumption that things are getting worse, which is the basis of this whole thread, and which i just don't think bares any correlation with reality


 
To be frank, what we have today isn't a cultural evolution away from rape, it's an undermining and ignoring of the isue that's almost Victorian in it's repressive pointlessness.

Are things getting worse, with reference to rape specifically, and sexual assaults in general? If we're to believe the BCS, offences are pretty much static (although the BCS's current assessment base has only been in place for 3 consecutive surveys, so far). However, complaint and conviction rates are *both* falling.
So, in "holistic" terms, things *are* getting worse, for the victims, if not for the *number* of victims.


----------



## killer b (Mar 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> I've noticed that some men will cross the road before I have to, if they realise that it's intimidating them walking behind me. To all the men who do this, thanks!


i do this, with men as well as women. it's fearsome thinking someone's following you late at night.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be frank, what we have today isn't a cultural evolution away from rape, it's an undermining and ignoring of the isue that's almost Victorian in it's repressive pointlessness.
> 
> Are things getting worse, with reference to rape specifically, and sexual assaults in general? If we're to believe the BCS, offences are pretty much static (although the BCS's current assessment base has only been in place for 3 consecutive surveys, so far). However, complaint and conviction rates are *both* falling.
> So, in "holistic" terms, things *are* getting worse, for the victims, if not for the *number* of victims.


I was wondering when you'd pop in to the thread


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> well that's the whole point, the jokes emerge _because_ it's less acceptable, because there's a huge social awareness of it hanging over people's heads and it makes people nervous... hence it being something which can summon an easy laugh. as i say, it's not completely unlike the laughter-trap you can caught in during a minutes' silence, or any situation where you're running the risk of getting a serious bollocking.
> 
> edit, to trashpony


 
You're conflating the acceptibility of airing the subject with acceptibility of the act. The former finds narrower acceptance, but there's little evidence that the latter does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I was wondering when you'd pop in to the thread


 
Just got back to this thread after spending a couple of hours meandering around abebooks.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

i also think that with some subcultures it's more acceptable if it's presented in stylised terms. some of the pictures that people have put with some of the songs on youtube that i listen to are so awful (but clearly - ish presented as a fantasy type thing) are so disturbing that i actually stopped listening to the stuff, especially cos there seems to be little or no condemnation of it. whether its "exploring the concepts" or not


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> And given the low successful prosecution rate it's one of the factors why they don't.


 
It's almost as if every successive revision of law pertaining to what the p-t-b now refer to as "intimate violence" in the last 40 years has made it harder to secure conviction. Nowadays, there's even a fairly repulsive expectation on the part of police services that a victim not bathe until she's been to the rape suite. Now, intellectually I can see what the police are seeking to do - secure the best possible evidence, including DNA, but they're asking that in direct opposition to the primary psychological impulse in such situations - to cleanse/purge/purify oneself.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just got back to this thread after spending a couple of hours meandering around abebooks.


There was some argument dismantling earlier - made me think of you and butchersapron for some reason


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

Some really interesting posts on here 

On the subject of patriarchy being damaging to men as well as women, this TED talk by Tony Porter, who is an educationalist working to end violence against women,  is worth a watch (10 mins)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i can't babysit you, just go read Down and Out in London and Paris or anything. i've just finished reading Joe Jacob's 'out of the ghetto' too, not too much specific detail in there but if you have some historical knowledge about the social context then you can figure things out, esp with relation to his siblings. also read Engels condition of the working class in England, what? loads of stuff. ffs


 
That's pretty crap. A couple of books whose _raison d'etre_ was to shock about conditions, and one from at least a hundred years previous, all of which reflected *material* rather than moral conditions. Conflating the two is a bit stupid.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's almost as if every successive revision of law pertaining to what the p-t-b now refer to as "intimate violence" in the last 40 years has made it harder to secure conviction. Nowadays, there's even a fairly repulsive expectation on the part of police services that a victim not bathe until she's been to the rape suite. Now, intellectually I can see what the police are seeking to do - secure the best possible evidence, including DNA, but they're asking that in direct opposition to the primary psychological impulse in such situations - to cleanse/purge/purify oneself.


I think it adds to the trauma.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm glad you've come to that conclusion youself and without the arguments of the women on this thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> This - I'm sure student campuses were far more clued up on these sort of issues in the 80s.


 
Bear in mind how de-politicised the NUS has become since then, then add in the factionalism that identity politics caused to campus solidarities, and you can pretty much track the "clueing down".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Even in the 90s when I was a student, during the lad resurgence, you wouldn't have thought you could get away with publishing that sort of thing publicly. However, I could see the backlash growing.


 
I'd contend that the whole "lad" phenomenon wasn't a "resurgence" so much as a concentration of the least savoury aspects of post-war male behaviour into a loose subculture.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

obviously far too much for me to come back on but one more before i'm out. very little of what i said in my original point has been addressed by anyone (with the honourable exception of one or two) which was mainly about the manner in which jokes and social humour develop. it was also an observation (which pretty much everyone seems to accept in one form or another) that society has generally better standards of behaviour towards women today than in the past. the issue over rape jokes is premised in terms of them causing a regression in the prevailing cultural trends and norms, and i argued that actually it was a result of them. on all the substantial points about whether or not people believe that people making the jokes actually do individually believe that rape is Ok, no-body has challenged anything i said.

the issue of statistics isn't one i ever made a substantial point about. delving into the reasons for spikes, fluctuations and other such phenomena in them could warrant its own thread enitrely.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

Right. How mean we all are to pick up on the really holey bits of your post. Anyone would think we were marking your university essay. Are you studying 20th century history by any chance?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> I ignored the rest of your two cents because you haven't bothered to check your facts. Paddick is running on a 'make the police investigate rape properly' as his central policy. He was asked to do a review of how rape was handled - found that reports had increased by 18% over 5 years in the early 2000s, but that the proportion recorded as rape had fallen by the same amount because the simplest way to improve the clear up rate is to record the complaint as 'no crime'. He was made to tone dowh his report and then Fedorico buried it.


 
And in 2005/2006 the way the BCS (British Crime Survey) changed it's assessment procedure on sex crimes where, no doubt entirely coincidentally, there has now been no recorded growth in such crimes since then.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd contend that the whole "lad" phenomenon wasn't a "resurgence" so much as a concentration of the least savoury aspects of post-war male behaviour into a loose subculture.


Yah, there is truth to this, in that it wasn't a specific revival of anything but a reactionary, er, reaction, which grabbed a lot of different cultural items which weren't necessarily contemporary at all.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Right. How mean we all are to pick up on the really holey bits of your post. Anyone would think we were marking your university essay. Are you studying 20th century history by any chance?


 
you only picked apart your own minds


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> obviously far too much for me to come back on but one more before i'm out. very little of what i said in my original point has been addressed by anyone (with the honourable exception of one or two) which was mainly about the manner in which jokes and social humour develop. it was also an observation (which pretty much everyone seems to accept in one form or another) that society has generally better standards of behaviour towards women today than in the past. the issue over rape jokes is premised in terms of them causing a regression in the prevailing cultural trends and norms, and i argued that actually it was a result of them. on all the substantial points about whether or not people believe that people making the jokes actually do individually believe that rape is Ok, no-body has challenged anything i said.
> 
> the issue of statistics isn't one i ever made a substantial point about. delving into the reasons for spikes, fluctuations and other such phenomena in them could warrant its own thread enitrely.


When you participate in a discussion, that includes answering any questions posters make in an attempt to explore your arguments and points further, and not whinging or whining about things people haven't picked up on because you've stated them poorly. Your profile says you've been on urban for a few years, this is basic urban etiquette - for the politics forum in particular.

People have challenged your points - you just didn't like the answers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

toggle said:


> sorry, but bollocks.
> 
> i remember seeing a documentary about pre ww2 women farm workers and from the descriptions they gave, rape by the men they worked with was almost to be expected. few discussed it at the time because of the expectation they would be told it was their fault.
> 
> the idea that ordinary women were chapheroned is bizarre. you think working class young women were chapheroned on their way to work?


 
Oddly enough, I've read a few papers over the years (only a few, mind) that have made a case for there being quite a sharp divide in (higher) rural rape and sexual assault rates against (lower) urban ones, with the main contributory factor for a lower rate being presented as population density. I'm not sure that I absolutely buy it, though.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> you only picked apart your own minds


No, it was your arguments that were picked apart, and you didn't like it.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oddly enough, I've read a few papers over the years (only a few, mind) that have made a case for there being quite a sharp divide in (higher) rural rape and sexual assault rates against (lower) urban ones, with the main contributory factor for a lower rate being presented as population density. I'm not sure that I absolutely buy it, though.


Interesting.

Like you I'm not sure if population density is such a contributory factor, or if the divide is so marked.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> you only picked apart your own minds


 
I was sympathetic, until this. Grow up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> For a lot of working class and lower middle class women in service, not only did they need good references, they also required a good 'character'. To be dismissed without a good character effectively meant the end of their ability to work in that sector. Any allegations of rape made by a servant against a man, whether of that household or not, would have been career suicide.


 
One of my paternal great-grandmothers was a skivvie at a boarding school, and was raped by a pupil. For her pains she was sacked, nicked and had her virtue questioned.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I was sympathetic, until this. Grow up.


Ahh, let's be kind. He's only 22 and I can remember thinking that I was really, really *right* the entire time when I was that age. He's probably gone to drink lager and snap the tips off Gauloises in intense discussion


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> One of my paternal great-grandmothers was a skivvie at a boarding school, and was raped by a pupil. For her pains she was sacked, nicked and had her virtue questioned.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> One of my paternal great-grandmothers was a skivvie at a boarding school, and was raped by a pupil. For her pains she was sacked, nicked and had her virtue questioned.


 
People might sneer but there was actually a good Doctor Who two parter that explored this type of shit.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Ahh, let's be kind. He's only 22 and I can remember thinking that I was really, really *right* the entire time when I was that age. He's probably gone to drink lager and snap the tips off Gauloises in intense discussion


We _were_ kind, considering the eviscerations I've read in this forum. Nobody called him a dick. Nobody said he was a cock. Everybody was very patient and levelheaded.

He was the one that couldn't take people just asking him to back up his assertions/sweeping statements with facts and got a bit sulky/defensive.

He's been on urban for 6 years.

ETA: grammatical error.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> We _were_ kind, considering the eviscerations I've read in this forum. Nobody called him a dick. Nobody said he was a cock. Everybody was very patience and levelheaded.
> 
> He was the one that couldn't take people just asking him to back up his assertions/sweeping statements with facts and got a bit sulky/defensive.
> 
> He's been on urban for 6 years.


I was being very, very kind but yes, fair point. He's been on urban for six years?!?1? Fuck him. Throw him to the wolves


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I think it adds to the trauma.


 
That seems to be the conclusion being drawn in _academe_, from what I've read. Unfortunately neither the medical nor the police environment are conducive to eliminating trauma, just minimising it at best, making things a whole lot more horrible at worst.
None of it is helped, of course by the institutional settings and the institutionalisation of the staff. They learn a way to deal with victims/patients, and it's difficult to change focus away from that, especially as both medical staff and police have "canteen cultures" that reinforce certain ways of acting, behaviours that, when a victim is exposed to them can be extremely denigratory of their experience as well as traumatising.
What's worse, of course, is the possibility that reporting, the process of recall of the event, can actually encourage dissociative behaviour patterns, dissociation being something that perplexes judges and juries alike, who expect weeping and wailing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Ahh, let's be kind. He's only 22 and I can remember thinking that I was really, really *right* the entire time when I was that age. He's probably gone to drink lager and snap the tips off Gauloises in intense discussion


 
TBF, anyone who goes anywhere near a packet of _Gauloises_ between the ages of 17 and 50 (denizens of the Francophone world excepted), needs *their* tip(s) snapped off.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

I used to smoke Gauloises. But I was a denizen of the Francophone world at the time. They taste like the inside of my grandad's shoe


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That seems to be the conclusion being drawn in _academe_, from what I've read. Unfortunately neither the medical nor the police environment are conducive to eliminating trauma, just minimising it at best, making things a whole lot more horrible at worst.
> None of it is helped, of course by the institutional settings and the institutionalisation of the staff. They learn a way to deal with victims/patients, and it's difficult to change focus away from that, especially as both medical staff and police have "canteen cultures" that reinforce certain ways of acting, behaviours that, when a victim is exposed to them can be extremely denigratory of their experience as well as traumatising.
> What's worse, of course, is the possibility that reporting, the process of recall of the event, can actually encourage dissociative behaviour patterns, dissociation being something that perplexes judges and juries alike, who expect weeping and wailing.


It's a rationalisation used by some jury members - the victim wasn't upset enough, distraught enough, then she couldn't have been raped.

Never mind that to even sit in the same room as the rapist probably triggers that dissicuation just to get through the experience. Dissociation is the mind's way of protecting us from trauma until it can be processed, so in situations which the mind perceives as the samne as the original trauma, it's only natural that dissociation will happen again.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I used to smoke Gauloises. But I was a denizen of the Francophone world at the time. They taste like the inside of my grandad's shoe


 
aha now I remember, lol if Das_Uberdog moans about monothought cliques...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


>


 
My great-grandmother was "lucky" insofar as she had a _beau_ with an open mind, parents who adopted the child (my grandmother), and she wasn't so traumatised that it overly affected her relationship with my nan in later years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's a rationalisation used by some jury members - the victim wasn't upset enough, distraught enough, then she couldn't have been raped.
> 
> Never mind that to even sit in the same room as the rapist probably triggers that dissicuation just to get through the experience. Dissociation is the mind's way of protecting us from trauma until it can be processed, so in situations which the mind perceives as the samne as the original trauma, it's only natural that dissociation will happen again.


 
There's an interesting paper that investigates part of the issue (Hardy, A. Young, K and Holmes, E.A. 'Does trauma memory play a role in the experience of reporting sexual assault during police interviews? An exploratory study'. _Memory_. 2009. 17 (8). 783-788).


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's an interesting paper that investigates part of the issue (Hardy, A. Young, K and Holmes, E.A. 'Does trauma memory play a role in the experience of reporting sexual assault during police interviews? An exploratory study'. _Memory_. 2009. 17 (8). 783-788).


Cheers VP, will read that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> People might sneer but there was actually a good Doctor Who two parter that explored this type of shit.


 
I never sneer where Doctor Who is concerned, except maybe a teensy bit about Sylvester McCoy.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I never sneer where Doctor Who is concerned, except maybe a teensy bit about Sylvester McCoy.


 McCoy doesn't count


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I never sneer where Doctor Who is concerned, except maybe a teensy bit about Sylvester McCoy.


Who doesn't?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I used to smoke Gauloises. But I was a denizen of the Francophone world at the time. They taste like the inside of my grandad's shoe


 
My art teacher smoked 'em. You couldn't go in the darkroom after he'd been in there because the _Gauloises_ fug was so thick and smelly.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's a rationalisation used by some jury members - the victim wasn't upset enough, distraught enough, then she couldn't have been raped.
> 
> Never mind that to even sit in the same room as the rapist probably triggers that dissicuation just to get through the experience. Dissociation is the mind's way of protecting us from trauma until it can be processed, so in situations which the mind perceives as the samne as the original trauma, it's only natural that dissociation will happen again.


Slightly off topic but that's one of the reasons that Kate McCann and Lindy Chamberlain were so vilified by the press because they were totally disassociating.

Are there any cases of men being wrongfully convicted/having their cases thrown out because of not showing enough emotion?


----------



## toggle (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Slightly off topic but that's one of the reasons that Kate McCann and Lindy Chamberlain were so vilified by the press because they were totally disassociating.
> 
> Are there any cases of men being wrongfully convicted/having their cases thrown out because of not showing enough emotion?


 

it's a no win situation though. dissociate and you are obviously not traumatised and therefore not trustworthy. show emotion and you are obviously too emotionally unstable or hysterical to be trustworthy. or faking the emotion to try to garner sympathy and therefore not trustworthy. you need to learn that as a woman, you are simply wrong and there will be always some reason why you are not trusted.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Slightly off topic but that's one of the reasons that Kate McCann and Lindy Chamberlain were so vilified by the press because they were totally disassociating.
> 
> Are there any cases of men being wrongfully convicted/having their cases thrown out because of not showing enough emotion?


 
I suspect not, although if a man shows emotion no doubt the 'emotionally unstable' label gets stuck on them too.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 3, 2012)

There are times when I wish I had chosen a different user name, as every time I post on a thread like this I feel i need to point out that I am a man.

Others have more or less said this but I feel the rising acceptability of rape jokes is part of a shift in patriarchy to reassert itself following the advances made by women over the last 50 years. In particular I feel that as a reaction to the sexual freedoms women won, the extinct of sexual objectification was increased and that rape jokes are part of this. In the same way that while the pill was undoubtedly a hugh boon for women, some women found it made it harder for them to say no as they no longer had the get out clause of 'what if I get pregnant'.



equationgirl said:


> It's a rationalisation used by some jury members - the victim wasn't upset enough, distraught enough, then she couldn't have been raped.


 
This is the main thing I wont to mention, and to add a tiny bit of anecdotal evidence to the mix. I was on jury service last week and ended up on a rape case. Now I best not say too much on a public bulletin board but the result was a majority verdict of not guilty, I was one of those who felt he was guilty. It was a difficult experience for me (the deliberation was basically a 4 hour long argument that got very heated at times) and I haven't fully processed it or really finalised any conclusions yet.

To add some context, this was something that happened within an existing relationship. I felt that the police, prosecutor and judge all did reasonably well on the case, shure some things could have been better but I don't think they did anything to harm the case as such.

The main problem was the lack of any significant physical evidence, but this idea that she didn't behave like a rape victim or didn't seem like she had been raped was a big factor. This was despite the judge saying that any preconceived ideas of how a rape victim should behave should be left behind and there is not typical response. Also i felt in a number of cases she did behave exactly like a rape victim would be expected to behave.

One example is the medical examination. Again to give some context this would have taken place not long after the incident. When she was examined she refused to allow an examination of her vagina. Which to me while unfortunate also seems very understandable. But according to most of the jury it probably meant she was laying about the rape, oh the jury was mainly women.

Which is one of the problems with rape cases as the best time to gather the evidence is straight after but this of course is a terrible time for the victim. One, very unpleasant, question i was left with that maybe someone can answer. I assume that not all rapes leave behind physical evidence of the penetration being forced would I be right?

As I look back over the post, I'm not sure if I am adding anything to the debate but I've typed it so might as well post it, there is certainly a lot more about the case but I think this is a much as I want to say at the moment.

Oh, actually one more thing that may be of some interest. There was one other trial going on at the same time which was also a rape case and two of the people I was with had been on another rape case the week before. A tiny sample but i think it gives some idea of the number of rape cases.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 3, 2012)

thankyou oh merciful urban overlords, may you in future ignore what others say with just as much magnanimity


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

emanymton said:


> <snip>
> 
> Which is one of the problems with rape cases as the best time to gather the evidence is straight after but this of course is a terrible time for the victim. One, very unpleasant, question i was left with that maybe someone can answer. I assume that not all rapes leave behind physical evidence of the penetration being forced would I be right?
> 
> <snip>.


 
A tough question, but in essence I believe it is correct - not all rape leaves behind _unequivocal_ physical evidence of being raped. That is not to say the rape has not occurred. Sometimes the physical evidence may be inconclusive.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> thankyou oh merciful urban overlords, may you in future ignore what others say with just as much magnanimity


What do you mean?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> A tough question, but in essence I believe it is correct - not all rape leaves behind _unequivocal_ physical evidence of being raped. That is not to say the rape has not occurred. Sometimes the physical evidence may be inconclusive.


Which is what I assumed, thanks.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 3, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Slightly off topic but that's one of the reasons that Kate McCann and Lindy Chamberlain were so vilified by the press because they were totally disassociating.
> 
> Are there any cases of men being wrongfully convicted/having their cases thrown out because of not showing enough emotion?


After a number of attacks by dingoes on children recently, the viewpoint that dingos aren't the cute innocent animals they're thought to be is being changed. Better late than never, it's 30 years since the Lindy Chamberlain case.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's a rationalisation used by some jury members - the victim wasn't upset enough, distraught enough, then she couldn't have been raped.
> 
> Never mind that to even sit in the same room as the rapist probably triggers that dissicuation just to get through the experience. Dissociation is the mind's way of protecting us from trauma until it can be processed, so in situations which the mind perceives as the samne as the original trauma, it's only natural that dissociation will happen again.


 
Also not everyone wants to make a huge scene in front of strangers.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

if that sounds judgemental let me explain. its not meant to be. if i was in a courtroom, let alone something as emotional as a rape case, i wouldn't want to start crying, etc, in front of people i didn't know. i find it difficult enough to talk about my feelings at the best of times.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> thankyou oh merciful urban overlords, may you in future ignore what others say with just as much magnanimity


 
Do stop whining, there's a good self-pitying cunt.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2012)

Sadly not surprising ema 


emanymton said:


> .


 
edited


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2012)

That's a really useful post emanymton, thanks (edited out because it is in froggy's post above).

I wasn't aware that juries were allowed to go for majority verdicts after as little as four hours. Anyone know the legals on this?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 4, 2012)

A very interesting post emanymton, but I wonder if you should delete it - there might be too much info, especially with the breakdown of the jury and mention of some of the victim's actions.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 4, 2012)

I don't really thing there could be a problem but I have edited it to make some of the details a bit less specific.

I will leave it up to frogwomen if she want to edit the post she quoted it in.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 4, 2012)

ymu said:


> That's a really useful post emanymton, thanks (edited out because it is in froggy's post above).
> 
> I wasn't aware that juries were allowed to go for majority verdicts after as little as four hours. Anyone know the legals on this?


 
As far as I understood it, there is no minimum deliberation period required.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 4, 2012)

Must be very hard to secure convictions if it needs to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" - you'd need some criterion of secure objective evidence beyond the simply testimony of the plaintiff?  And since there won't normally be witnesses you're talking medical evidence or some kind of behavioural evidence - but if there are no typical post-rape behaviours then what would this be?

No wonder rape victims are deterred from reporting it, given the low prospect of a conviction and the traumatic nature of giving evidence


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 4, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Must be very hard to secure convictions if it needs to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" - you'd need some criterion of secure objective evidence beyond the simply testimony of the plaintiff? And since there won't normally be witnesses you're talking medical evidence or some kind of behavioural evidence - but if there are no typical post-rape behaviours then what would this be?
> 
> No wonder rape victims are deterred from reporting it, given the low prospect of a conviction and the traumatic nature of giving evidence


Many rape cases come down to 'he said she said' and without physical evidence that's all there is. If the CPS/fiscal declines to prosecute because of the lack of evidence, that's it.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 4, 2012)

Well, there are women in the past who have made false rape claims vexatiously.  So the simple fact of making the accusation can't be enough?  Would you want to change the burden of proof so the accused has to show that he *didn't* do it?   I'm not sure that that's the way to go either - how could you *prove* that you'd had consensual sex?

Maybe previous convictions for sexual assault should be declared to juries.  But it's all a bit of a minefield.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bear in mind how de-politicised the NUS has become since then, then add in the factionalism that identity politics caused to campus solidarities, and you can pretty much track the "clueing down".


 
Don't forget that the NUS was constantly under attack from the Thatcher government, which wanted all SU's to disaffiliate from the national body. After 1992, the NUS was a pale shadow of its former self. My current SU is absolutely hopeless.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2012)

edited


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd contend that the whole "lad" phenomenon wasn't a "resurgence" so much as a concentration of the least savoury aspects of post-war male behaviour into a loose subculture.


 
Yes it's what I would call "gross masculinity"precisely because it lacks any positive aspects and it's mediated by lad's mags like Loaded and Nuts.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 4, 2012)

Going back to the 'rape jokes' issue and wether this is indicative of unedrlying mysogyny.

if you look at any situation where racism, homophobia etc are given even the smallest breathing space the bigots rush in to fill their boots.
Look at the public comments on newpapare sights after the dale farm farago - 'these filthy pikies with their bollocks about ethnic cleansing and racism! They should be wiped out!' etc etc etc - absolulte open season. Give these cunts an inch ...

This - to me - is whats going on with rape jokes and this uni-lad shit. It opens up a space where all that festering hatred and resentment towards women can spew out under the cover of 'irony'. Again - the face book comments would seem to very much bear that out. As other have pointed out - rape is a tool of power and control and 'jokes' about the issue seem very much a way of putting them uppity bitches back in their place.

On another note - I think this thread has been useful in highlighting just how much sexual violence - and the threat of sexual violence - oppresses women. And that this oppression is so insidious and internalised its almost invisible. This is somehting I have learnt over the years from being close to women who have suffered from sexual violence and who have worked with  victims . But this oppression is an issue that many many men have no understadning of and that women accept as a normal state of affairs.

So for all the advances for women in terms of equal pay, education and legal rights - a huge iceberg of unversal and consistant oppression goes virtually unchallenged. Fuck 'glass ceilings' and women in the boardroom - this is the battle the should be being fought.

But how? Trying to improve conviction rates seems to get virtually nowhere and tinlering with the legal system is horrendourouly complex and could have all sorts of negative unintentded consequences.

The focus should be education - not for women who already all too aware what they are facing - but education aimed at men - and young men in particular. The issue need to dragged out into the open rather then swept under the carpet as it is now.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 4, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Well, there are women in the past who have made false rape claims vexatiously. So the simple fact of making the accusation can't be enough? Would you want to change the burden of proof so the accused has to show that he *didn't* do it? I'm not sure that that's the way to go either - how could you *prove* that you'd had consensual sex?
> 
> Maybe previous convictions for sexual assault should be declared to juries. But it's all a bit of a minefield.


I have nothing but contempt for anybody who makes a false accusation of rape. It makes it so much harder for other women to report genuine attacks as well as dragging an innocent man through an unneccessary trial.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 4, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Going back to the 'rape jokes' issue and wether this is indicative of unedrlying mysogyny.
> 
> if you look at any situation where racism, homophobia etc are given even the smallest breathing space the bigots rush in to fill their boots.
> Look at the public comments on newpapare sights after the dale farm farago - 'these filthy pikies with their bollocks about ethnic cleansing and racism! They should be wiped out!' etc etc etc - absolulte open season. Give these cunts an inch ...
> ...


 
Great post Kaka Tim, and I think you've hit the nail on the head with who to educate.

After all, is the general population educated not to become a murder victim? No. Rape and sexual assaults against women remain the only crimes where it's seen as the victim's fault, not the perpetrator's.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 4, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Going back to the 'rape jokes' issue and wether this is indicative of unedrlying mysogyny.
> 
> if you look at any situation where racism, homophobia etc are given even the smallest breathing space the bigots rush in to fill their boots.
> Look at the public comments on newpapare sights after the dale farm farago - 'these filthy pikies with their bollocks about ethnic cleansing and racism! They should be wiped out!' etc etc etc - absolulte open season. Give these cunts an inch ...
> ...


 
Well said and I would also like to add that jokes, whether they be about rape or race, often contain a good deal of verbal violence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Well, there are women in the past who have made false rape claims vexatiously.


 
Let's be under no illusions about the prevalence of this, though - proven cases are a less than one percent of all prosecuted cases. Even if you took a wild punt and said "real cases might be ten times that, you'd still be (on a wild flight of hyperbole) talking about less than 10% of all complaints.



> So the simple fact of making the accusation can't be enough? Would you want to change the burden of proof so the accused has to show that he *didn't* do it? I'm not sure that that's the way to go either - how could you *prove* that you'd had consensual sex?


 
Well, that's a fairly fraught issue. At the moment it's often incumbent on the complainant to prove that they *didn't* "consent" to sex, and for some juries, consent can be seen in non-resistance. If a woman can be damned as having consented to sex because she didn't violently repulse her attacker, in effect because she may have "frozen" with shock, what does *that* say about the current burden of proof?



> Maybe previous convictions for sexual assault should be declared to juries. But it's all a bit of a minefield.


 
They already can be, at judicial discretion.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> <snip>Well, that's a fairly fraught issue. At the moment it's often incumbent on the complainant to prove that they *didn't* "consent" to sex, and for some juries, consent can be seen in non-resistance. If a woman can be damned as having consented to sex because she didn't violently repulse her attacker, in effect because she may have "frozen" with shock, what does *that* say about the current burden of proof?
> <snip>


 
I think in many people's minds, non-consent is equated to _force_, which for example in date rape cases or those where a large amount of alcohol has been involved, may not have been used. Until the focus is removed from the victim's bahaviour in rape cases, this meshing of these two things (which are in fact separate) will still happen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I think in many people's minds, non-consent is equated to _force_, which for example in date rape cases or those where a large amount of alcohol has been involved, may not have been used. Until the focus is removed from the victim's bahaviour in rape cases, this meshing of these two things (which are in fact separate) will still happen.


 
Which effectively means that any movement away from a farcical model that equates non-resistance with consent will be very slow, and indeed very painful for any women subjected to that model.


----------



## Edie (Mar 4, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> On another note - I think this thread has been useful in highlighting just how much sexual violence - and the threat of sexual violence - oppresses women. And that this oppression is so insidious and internalised its almost invisible. This is somehting I have learnt over the years from being close to women who have suffered from sexual violence and who have worked with victims . But this oppression is an issue that many many men have no understadning of and that women accept as a normal state of affairs.
> 
> So for all the advances for women in terms of equal pay, education and legal rights - a huge iceberg of unversal and consistant oppression goes virtually unchallenged. Fuck 'glass ceilings' and women in the boardroom - this is the battle the should be being fought.


Nah.

Your not seriously gonna tell me that we're all sexually oppressed as women are you? That's just... bullshit. No offence. Women play this game as much as men, and we're not your victims lulz. Get yourself down Calls Lane and watch how it works  It's men who are the desperate ones, men who can't get a shag and end up lonely and women who work the bar and men to there advantage. 

I'm not scared of men just cos they have cocks ffs it's fists you have to watch.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 4, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I think in many people's minds, non-consent is equated to _force_, which for example in date rape cases or those where a large amount of alcohol has been involved, may not have been used. Until the focus is removed from the victim's bahaviour in rape cases, this meshing of these two things (which are in fact separate) will still happen.


Ironically enough I had far more injuries from being drugged and raped than I did from fighting off an attacker when sober-ish....


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Well, there are women in the past who have made false rape claims vexatiously. So the simple fact of making the accusation can't be enough? Would you want to change the burden of proof so the accused has to show that he *didn't* do it? I'm not sure that that's the way to go either - how could you *prove* that you'd had consensual sex?
> 
> Maybe previous convictions for sexual assault should be declared to juries. But it's all a bit of a minefield.


I think we all accept that rape is a difficult crime to prosecute and that it always will be. I think most women would be happy to know that a complaint will be taken seriously, will be investigated properly, and that her past sexual history, wardrobe or use of intoxicating substances will never be used to claim that she brought it on herself.

Abstract philosophising about the insoluble problems only serves to distract from the very real inadequacies of the system as it exists now. It's not good enough and there's no excuse for the ways in which it is not good enough.


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 4, 2012)

Maybe specially trained prosecutors for rape cases would help. I read an article in the Guardian a while back in which they described one in the US who gets a much higher conviction rate (around 80%) than prosecutors in rape cases do over here - because she's skilled at getting to the truth and behind all the excuses, evasions, rationalisations etc. that rapists will use after the event. I wish I had a link to the article.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 5, 2012)

This is a video from the HO's campaign to tackle teenage rape and sexual assault. It's quite good I think


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 5, 2012)

They did one on DV as well.  They were actually made by the groups of kids themselves; like they created the concept and help direct etc, which I think is encouraging as hopefully it'll really resonate with that age group.


----------



## rover07 (Mar 5, 2012)

Edie said:


> Nah.
> 
> Your not seriously gonna tell me that we're all sexually oppressed as women are you? That's just... bullshit. No offence. Women play this game as much as men, and we're not your victims lulz. Get yourself down Calls Lane and watch how it works  It's men who are the desperate ones, men who can't get a shag and end up lonely and women who work the bar and men to there advantage.
> 
> I'm not scared of men just cos they have cocks ffs it's fists you have to watch.



Oppressed not repressed.


----------



## Edie (Mar 5, 2012)

rover07 said:


> Oppressed not repressed.


Nah I know the difference.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 5, 2012)

> 1 in 2 boys and 1 in 3 girls believe that there are some circumstances when it is
> okay to hit a woman or force her to have sex.


http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen....nt_world_is_possible_report_email_version.pdf

50% of boys think rape or domestic violence are ok?  Really?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Mar 5, 2012)

TLDR

All about what those circumstances are though. I'd imagine many male urbanites would think it's ok to hit a women, if for example she was coming at with a knife and you feared for you life.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 5, 2012)

Are there ANY circumstances in which it's ok to force a woman to have sex (nb. rhetorical question)


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Mar 5, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Are there ANY circumstances in which it's ok to force a woman to have sex (nb. rhetorical question)


 
Well quite, mixing the two up is a bit silly really.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 5, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Are there ANY circumstances in which it's ok to force a woman to have sex (nb. rhetorical question)


 
no.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 5, 2012)

of course, that's why it was asked rhetorically - I guess it's no surprise that young people show these kinds of problem in 'literacy' when it comes  to emotions and intimacy in a culture satuated with overtly commodified sexuality/pornography.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 5, 2012)

mixing up a question in such a manner is pretty disgusting and really does the report no favours.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 5, 2012)

I guess it assumes that "rape" is just one subset of "violence against women" - but it obscures as much as it reveals, yes


----------



## revol68 (Mar 5, 2012)

it's pretty fucked up and if adults that are meant to know about this kind of shit are so intellectually confused is it any wonder if kids are.

obviously there are circumstances where it is fine and necessary to hit a women in self defense etc


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 5, 2012)

Meltingpot said:


> Maybe specially trained prosecutors for rape cases would help. I read an article in the Guardian a while back in which they described one in the US who gets a much higher conviction rate (around 80%) than prosecutors in rape cases do over here - because she's skilled at getting to the truth and behind all the excuses, evasions, rationalisations etc. that rapists will use after the event. I wish I had a link to the article.


 
I think this is the person I was talking about;

http://www.alicevachss.com/index.html

and here's an article about her in the Guardian;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jun/01/ukcrime.law

I've heard her husband Andrew speak on the radio (on Johnnie Walker's show on GLR if I remember rightly); he specialises in prosecuting crimes against children, especially abuse cases.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 5, 2012)

Thanks for that MP - really interesting


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 6, 2012)

Well here's an interesting one; Gina Ford has come out and said that women should have sex with their partner 4 to 6 weeks after giving birth and if they don't want to, they should just grin and bear it and do it anyway. 

So what she seems to be saying is your man can force you to have sex if we wants to, because apparently it helps to keep the relationship on track.  What a cunt of a woman.


----------



## Nylock (Mar 6, 2012)

wtf?!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 6, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Well here's an interesting one; Gina Ford has come out and said that women should have sex with their partner 4 to 6 weeks after giving birth and if they don't want to, they should just grin and bear it and do it anyway.
> 
> So what she seems to be saying is your man can force you to have sex if we wants to, because apparently it helps to keep the relationship on track. What a cunt of a woman.


 
There are always people who are overtly complicit with their oppression. Without knowing the individual it's impossible to know what lies behind her attitude. Obviously, if she believes in the whole "surrendered woman" thing, then she needs therapy, but *why* do people hold and/or voice these beliefs that aid in their own oppression? That's what interests me - why hobble yourself?


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There are always people who are overtly complicit with their oppression. Without knowing the individual it's impossible to know what lies behind her attitude. Obviously, if she believes in the whole "surrendered woman" thing, then she needs therapy, but *why* do people hold and/or voice these beliefs that aid in their own oppression? That's what interests me - why hobble yourself?


 
All I really know about her tbh is that she's written a couple of books about raising kids (interestingly she has never had any of her own, but has looked after loads) which have been very popular.  

I have always wondered why too, it seems such a bizarre thing to do.  I wonder whether some it comes down to beliefs in what gender is; innate vs social constructionism iyswim?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 6, 2012)

house rather than field iyswim?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 6, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Well here's an interesting one; Gina Ford has come out and said that women should have sex with their partner 4 to 6 weeks after giving birth and if they don't want to, they should just grin and bear it and do it anyway.
> 
> So what she seems to be saying is your man can force you to have sex if we wants to, because apparently it helps to keep the relationship on track.  What a cunt of a woman.


Her views on childcare are wack too.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 6, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Her views on childcare are wack too.


 
You can't view anything on her fucking website without signing up  but I've had a dig around of articles and clips and I agree, they do seem pretty awful.  The criticism it's like training animals is pretty spot on I'd say.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 7, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Well here's an interesting one; Gina Ford has come out and said that women should have sex with their partner 4 to 6 weeks after giving birth and if they don't want to, they should just grin and bear it and do it anyway.
> 
> So what she seems to be saying is your man can force you to have sex if we wants to, because apparently it helps to keep the relationship on track. What a cunt of a woman.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

> There are big questions for the justice professionals in the saga of "Sarah", whose conviction for perverting the course of justice by wrongly retracting a rape allegation was upheld on Tuesday by Lord Judge, the lord chief justice.
> 
> It would have been hard for the court of appeal to reverse a guilty plea, tendered at trial, by a woman of full age, legally represented and who, on Lord Judge's view, committed this crime. It might be said if you wanted to avoid that conviction you shouldn't be starting at the court of appeal.
> 
> ...


Another massive step backwards. I'm sure the media commentariat will manage to drag it all back to being a difficult crime to prosecute and/or the absolute necessity of charging those evil women who do make false accusations. And why can't women just make up their minds and stop saying no when they really mean yes, and all those other delightful diversionary tactics beloved of rapists everywhere.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There are always people who are overtly complicit with their oppression. Without knowing the individual it's impossible to know what lies behind her attitude. Obviously, if she believes in the whole "surrendered woman" thing, then she needs therapy, but *why* do people hold and/or voice these beliefs that aid in their own oppression? That's what interests me - why hobble yourself?


It is wrong of her to say that, but plenty of people, women and men, consent to sex when they don't want it out of a variety of motives aimed at keeping their relationship on track. That doesn't necessarily imply oppression.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is wrong of her to say that, but plenty of people, women and men, consent to sex when they don't want it out of a variety of motives aimed at keeping their relationship on track. That doesn't necessarily imply oppression.


 But she didn't consent


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

Who didn't?


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

trashpony said:


> But she didn't consent


An unfortunate Canucking occurred when the thread got bumped. Track back the post he is responding to, and it's about Gina Ford saying that new mums who don't want sex should just grin and bear it. The oppressed colluding in their own oppression, cf any female Daily Mail columnist.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> An unfortunate Canucking occurred when the thread got bumped. Track back the post he is responding to, and it's about Gina Ford saying that new mums who don't want sex should just grin and bear it. The oppressed colluding in their own oppression, cf any female Daily Mail columnist.


 @ Canucking

Ah right - my mistake, apols lbj


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2012)

trashpony said:


> @ Canucking
> 
> Ah right - my mistake, apols lbj


That's alright. Sorry for confusing you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is wrong of her to say that, but plenty of people, women and men, consent to sex when they don't want it out of a variety of motives aimed at keeping their relationship on track. That doesn't necessarily imply oppression.


 
It doesn't? That people might do something they really don't want to in order to "keep their relationship on track" doesn't imply oppression, even if of the social type rather than the physical?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It doesn't? That people might do something they really don't want to in order to "keep their relationship on track" doesn't imply oppression, even if of the social type rather than the physical?


I don't think so, no. Relationships can be complex beasts. We do things to keep our partners happy sometimes - because we calculate that doing it is better than not doing it. That may be because we're being put under pressure that could be considered oppression. Or it could simply be part of what we do when we care for someone. Or a mixture of the two.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think so, no. Relationships can be complex beasts. We do things to keep our partners happy sometimes - because we calculate that doing it is better than not doing it. That may be because we're being put under pressure that could be considered oppression. Or it could simply be part of what we do when we care for someone. Or a mixture of the two.


 
Self-oppression is still oppression, especially if you're doing it to conform to some norm of behaviour that says you must do a or b.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Kind of an unfortunate bump to unearth that ancient post on, lbj. Did it occur to you to read it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Self-oppression is still oppression, especially if you're doing it to conform to some norm of behaviour that says you must do a or b.


If you're doing it to conform to some norm that says you should, yes, which is why I said that the woman in that quote was wrong.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Kind of an unfortunate bump to unearth that ancient post on, lbj. Did it occur to you to read it?


Sorry? I was responding to a post originating in March 6.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

And the newly added context to your claims that social oppression is not the same as physical oppression is ... ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> And the newly added context to your claims that social oppression is not the same as physical oppression is ... ?


I might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. In which case, apologies to the thread. But you've certainly misunderstood me too.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Yeah. You're always misunderstood, never insensitive.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

Wut?


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Finding the (undoubtedly interesting) discussion about how people collude in their own oppression a little distasteful immediately after a report about a woman who was jailed for falsely retracting rape claims in a situation where the courts and police did rather more 'colluding' in her oppression than she did. Particularly when one poster is doubting that social oppression is as serious as violent oppression when the article states that one of the judge's reasons for turning down her appeal was that she was not under threat of physical violence.

Responsibility for rape always gets turned back on the victim somehow or another, even by those who believe themselves to be well-meaning. _"Just shut the fuck up and listen."_

This point has now been made to lbj on three separate occasions through the course of this thread, and not just by me. He does not mean to be offensive, but he really fucking is. And he will never acknowledge it. An _if I upset you_ 'apology' + you misunderstood me so I actually have nothing to apologise for or think about or anything new to learn about the world ever ... is the best you will get.

That's all.


----------



## Edie (Mar 14, 2012)

Ladies does anyone here actually FEEL oppressed? Cos I don't  This is bullshit, stop calling us bloody oppressed! We live in the UK in 2012, yes there might be a fair way to go before the playing field is level, but VP going round telling us we're all poor little oppressed victims is just fuckin annoying


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Finding the (undoubtedly interesting) discussion about how people collude in their own oppression a little distasteful immediately after a report about a woman who was jailed for falsely retracting rape claims in a situation where the courts and police did rather more 'colluding' in her oppression than she did. Particularly when one poster is doubting that social oppression is as serious as violent oppression when the article states that one of the judge's reasons for turning down her appeal was that she was not under threat of physical violence.
> 
> Responsibility for rape always gets turned back on the victim somehow or another, even by those who believe themselves to be well-meaning. _"Just shut the fuck up and listen."_
> 
> ...


I apologised to the thread in case I had put my foot in it. I didn't apologise to you specifically at all. I merely pointed out that you had misunderstood me. I knew this by the way you misrepresented what I had said back to me.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> Ladies does anyone here actually FEEL oppressed? Cos I don't  This is bullshit, stop calling us bloody oppressed! We live in the UK in 2012, yes there might be a fair way to go before the playing field is level, but VP going round telling us we're all poor little oppressed victims is just fuckin annoying


Three things:

1) You don't have to be conscious of your oppression to be oppressed
2) We are _all _oppressed in some way or other, merely by the fact of the institutional structures that exist around us. The question is simply one of the degree of that oppression and to what extent it can be mitigated.
3) You go very quickly from a personal claim to to be unoppressed to a general claim that no women are oppressed.

Oppression can be subtle and insidious or it can be overt and threatening. You seem to be of the belief that only the latter is oppression. You couldn't be more wrong. The most effective oppression is always that which is invisible without close inspection. Particularly if the oppressed can be persuaded to participate in their own oppression.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Finding the (undoubtedly interesting) discussion about how people collude in their own oppression a little distasteful immediately after a report about a woman who was jailed for falsely retracting rape claims in a situation where the courts and police did rather more 'colluding' in her oppression than she did. Particularly when one poster is doubting that social oppression is as serious as violent oppression when the article states that one of the judge's reasons for turning down her appeal was that she was not under threat of physical violence.
> 
> Responsibility for rape always gets turned back on the victim somehow or another, even by those who believe themselves to be well-meaning. _"Just shut the fuck up and listen."_
> 
> ...


 
It just reads that you're in the huff that your post wasn't responded to. There are often different threads of conversation running through one thread. LBJ was responding to one. It wasn't yours. Can't see anything insensitive about it from here.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> Ladies does anyone here actually FEEL oppressed? Cos I don't  This is bullshit, stop calling us bloody oppressed! We live in the UK in 2012, yes there might be a fair way to go before the playing field is level, but VP going round telling us we're all poor little oppressed victims is just fuckin annoying


 
The fact that we do not exist on a level playing field is surely proof enough that oppression on some level still occurs and is widely accepted without question. 

I don't feel oppressed in the sense that I am terrified that should I not play up to gender stereotypes then I will be beaten to death or whatever, but I feel oppressed in the sense that the expectation to conform to these norms is still very strong, and if I don't conform, and question why I should conform, I am seen as a minority and an annoyance to do so.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 14, 2012)

Women on average are paid 80% as much as men for doing the same job.  They represent half the workforce and yet less than 10% of board members and less than 5% of CEOs.  

And that's just the tip of the iceberg that is corporate oppression, let alone the great mass that is social oppression.

Ah yes -- remind a woman that she _is_ a woman before she does a maths test and her performance typically drops by 5%.  How's that for a textbook example of institutional, heavily internalised oppression?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 14, 2012)

*deleted

sorry!


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> Ladies does anyone here actually FEEL oppressed? Cos I don't  This is bullshit, stop calling us bloody oppressed! We live in the UK in 2012, yes there might be a fair way to go before the playing field is level, but VP going round telling us we're all poor little oppressed victims is just fuckin annoying


 
It's not about _you_, or _i_, as individuals, it's about how women are oppressed as a sex in society (and across societies, cultures). VP isn't saying 'we're all poor little oppressed victims' at all, he's saying that women as a sex are, from a political analysis, oppressed against in relation to men.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 14, 2012)

What I find frustrating, Edie, is that we have these conversations every three months or so.  It typically ends with you appearing to have a revelation that these issues are more complicated than you had previous appreciated and agreeing that there is something there to be seriously considered.

Then in three months, you come out with the same stuff all over again, as if none of the previous conversations had ever happened.


----------



## love detective (Mar 14, 2012)

kabbes said:


> as if none of the previous conversations had ever happened.


 
Should be a tagline for this site


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

kabbes said:


> What I find frustrating, Edie, is that we have these conversations every three months or so.  It typically ends with you appearing to have a revelation that these issues are more complicated than you had previous appreciated and agreeing that there is something there to be seriously considered.
> 
> Then in three months, you come out with the same stuff all over again, as if none of the previous conversations had ever happened.


You missed out the flounce.


----------



## Edie (Mar 14, 2012)

kabbes said:


> What I find frustrating, Edie, is that we have these conversations every three months or so. It typically ends with you appearing to have a revelation that these issues are more complicated than you had previous appreciated and agreeing that there is something there to be seriously considered.
> 
> Then in three months, you come out with the same stuff all over again, as if none of the previous conversations had ever happened.


Oppression is a big word. There are women in the world who really ARE oppressed. Who are not allowed to work, who are forced to cover themselves, who cannot leave the house without their husbands, who are stoned for having an affair. As far as I'm concerned, THAT is oppression.

What we have in this country, at least if you are white (Asian women get a shitter deal ime) is the remnants of sexism. A lot of income disparity comes from women taking career breaks to have and raise kids. Now, I'd like to see it made much easier for women to come back into the job market and earn as much as their male colleagues, but the fact is if you're working part time or haven't had as much experience as the man you are competing with, that aint gonna be the case. That is NOT oppression. To call that oppression is to downgrade the word.

kabbes, the views expressed on urban are (very) left wing, and they are rarely mine. Sometimes I can see the points being made, other times I just disagree *shrugs*


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2012)

*bangs head against desk*


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Does anyone have links to testimonies by transexuals at what an utter shock it was to find out how the other half got treated? Especially male to female. Loss of power and respect is a great deal more noticeable to the individual experiencing it than it is to those who have never known different.


----------



## Edie (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You missed out the flounce.


Fuck off, I did not flounce. I took a fuckin break cos some of you nobs were winding me up and being disrespectful. I always intended to come back and I did.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 14, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Women on average are paid 80% as much as men for doing the same job. They represent half the workforce and yet less than 10% of board members and less than 5% of CEOs.
> 
> And that's just the tip of the iceberg that is corporate oppression, let alone the great mass that is social oppression.
> 
> Ah yes -- remind a woman that she _is_ a woman before she does a maths test and her performance typically drops by 5%. How's that for a textbook example of institutional, heavily internalised oppression?


Sorry, puzzled by this last bit? How do you "remind a woman she is a woman"?  Eh?? Does anyone actually_ forget_?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Does anyone have links to testimonies by transexuals at what an utter shock it was to find out how the other half got treated? Especially male to female. Loss of power and respect is a great deal more noticeable to the individual experiencing it than it is to those who have never known different.


 
Yes, it's something that both friends who are trans, and those I work with talk about all the time. The difference in how they are perceived in society, what they are expected to be like and how to behave, society placing all manner of assumptions and expectations of them because of their change of gender. I'm aware of plenty of cases where both direct and indirect discrimination has occured also.

Its one of those (unique?) positionings where trans people see and experience first hand how society relates to men and women differently as genders.


None of which was applied to them when they were living as men.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 14, 2012)

are you allowed to do what you want when you want Edie?


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> Oppression is a big word. There are women in the world who really ARE oppressed. Who are not allowed to work, who are forced to cover themselves, who cannot leave the house without their husbands, who are stoned for having an affair. As far as I'm concerned, THAT is oppression.
> 
> What we have in this country, at least if you are white (Asian women get a shitter deal ime) is the remnants of sexism. A lot of income disparity comes from women taking career breaks to have and raise kids. Now, I'd like to see it made much easier for women to come back into the job market and earn as much as their male colleagues, but the fact is if you're working part time or haven't had as much experience as the man you are competing with, that aint gonna be the case. That is NOT oppression. To call that oppression is to downgrade the word.
> 
> kabbes, the views expressed on urban are (very) left wing, and they are rarely mine. Sometimes I can see the points being made, other times I just disagree *shrugs*


We have women who are forced to work for lower wages than men because that is the only way to make ends meet, who are forced to waste time and money on make-up and clothes and totter around in ridiculous heels and revealing clothing too cold to really go out in, who are routinely accused of being responsible for any sexual attacks against them, may have their faces cut or acid thrown over them if they have an affair or even just end a relationship, and until this year spousal infidelity was a valid defence to murder - but only if it was a hot-blooded murder done in a momentary loss of control - you know, the kind of murder a vengeful husband can generally pull off a lot more easily than his probably less physically powerful wife.

Yeah, them Muslims are just bloody terrible, the way they treat women, eh?


----------



## Edie (Mar 14, 2012)

stephj said:


> Yes, it's something that both friends who are trans, and those I work with talk about all the time. The difference in how they are perceived in society, what they are expected to be like and how to behave, others placing all manner of assumptions and expectations of them because of their change of gender. Know plenty of cases where both direct and indirect discrimination has occured also.
> 
> None of which was applied to them when they were living as men.


But surely men are under just as many assumptions? That they are strong, capable, breadwinners, fighters, unemotional, career driven, pissheads, brave etc etc. Are THEY oppressed?


----------



## Edie (Mar 14, 2012)

ddraig said:


> are you allowed to do what you want when you want Edie?


Can you fuck off please. We are talking about society.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> Fuck off, I did not flounce. I took a fuckin break cos some of you nobs were winding me up and being disrespectful. I always intended to come back and I did.


Kabbes is right though. It gets a bit tedious going over the same arguments again and again.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> But surely men are under just as many assumptions? That they are strong, capable, breadwinners, fighters, unemotional, career driven, pissheads, brave etc etc. Are THEY oppressed?


 
In some ways men are oppressed - race, class, sexuality.

Men are certainly negatively impacted by expectations and norms placed onto them because of their gender, but they are not oppressed against as a gender when analysing the relative power relation between men and women.

You've got to take this out of the context of the individual. For example, a woman can have a wield power over a man in a particular relationship, of course many women certainly have more power than men (because of class, race, etc). That doesn't change the fact that in society from a political analysis, women are oppressed as a gender, and men aren't.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> Can you fuck off please. We are talking about society.


 you claimed women in this country aren't oppressed and that you don't feel you are.
apologies if my post points out the stark contradiction with that and your previous postings


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> But surely men are under just as many assumptions? That they are strong, capable, breadwinners, fighters, unemotional, career driven, pissheads, brave etc etc. Are THEY oppressed?


There are undoubtedly gendered pressures on men, but in addition to the specific female oppressions listed by ymu, whenever this comparison thing comes up I wonder whether the pressures on men, the social stereotypes, are a bit more "active", i.e. men are expected to be individually and actively in control of their own destiny. Where with women, the pressures and expectations are more passive and other people focused. On the level of a whole gender, that leads to greater oppression in one direction compared to the other.

Hopefully that makes sense...


----------



## kabbes (Mar 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Sorry, puzzled by this last bit? How do you "remind a woman she is a woman"?  Eh?? Does anyone actually_ forget_?


You include a box on the front of the test that asks the person taking it to fill out their sex.

Merely doing this drops the average female result on a maths test by 5%.


----------



## Edie (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Kabbes is right though. It gets a bit tedious going over the same arguments again and again.


Have you EVER noticed that urban75 is like a very small in-club where there is incredibly little variety of political opinion? There seems to be this assumption that the rest of right-minded folk in this country all hold far-left views like those expressed here. When in fact the reality is that almost NO ONE holds far left views out there, I don't know a single person (other than 2 people who also post here who I know irl) who is far-left.

Your all living in a bubble, but instead of wanting to discuss the views you hold, or look at it from a different angle, if anyone comes along and goes wtf or sees shit from a pov that isn't pretty far commie-left, they are told they are talking shit and pretty much slagged off straight away. Personally I'd like to see far more different views on here, more right wing views or just 'centre' views, so that stuff can be discussed and the whole debate can be seen.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2012)

It's not some sort of urban bubble Eids, this sort of analysis (oppressed/oppressor and power relations) is commonly accepted across the majority of political and social science discourse. And because its based in reality - the relations of man/women, straight/gay, working class/middle class, white/black, etc.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 14, 2012)

what has being against oppression and sexism got to do with being left wing??
why is it radical and loony and far fetched and in a bubble to want equality??
who benefits from keeping some people unequal?

why is it ok to go about asian women being abused but not about white women??
come on!


----------



## toggle (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> Oppression is a big word. There are women in the world who really ARE oppressed. Who are not allowed to work, who are forced to cover themselves, who cannot leave the house without their husbands, who are stoned for having an affair. As far as I'm concerned, THAT is oppression.
> 
> What we have in this country, at least if you are white (Asian women get a shitter deal ime) is the remnants of sexism. A lot of income disparity comes from women taking career breaks to have and raise kids. Now, I'd like to see it made much easier for women to come back into the job market and earn as much as their male colleagues, but the fact is if you're working part time or haven't had as much experience as the man you are competing with, that aint gonna be the case. That is NOT oppression. To call that oppression is to downgrade the word.
> 
> kabbes, the views expressed on urban are (very) left wing, and they are rarely mine. Sometimes I can see the points being made, other times I just disagree *shrugs*


 
i'd call it oppression that someone could rape me and they would most likely get away with it.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Mar 14, 2012)

kabbes said:


> You include a box on the front of the test that asks the person taking it to fill out their sex.
> 
> Merely doing this drops the average female result on a maths test by 5%.


Blimey!  I don't suppose you remember the authors so I can search for the study? (not disbelieving you, just interested)


----------



## Edie (Mar 14, 2012)

stephj said:


> It's not some sort of urban bubble Eids, this sort of analysis (oppressed/oppressor class) is commonly accepted across all political and social science discourse.


Ok, well as you were then. Maybe I'm just wrong. I said I was gonna keep out of shit like this anyway


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Blimey!  I don't suppose you remember the authors so I can search for the study? (not disbelieving you, just interested)


 
Similar when black people think their performance will be compared to white people. And when white men have to do some PE which they think will be compared to a black man.

No links. Can't remember where I read/saw it.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 14, 2012)

kabbes said:


> You include a box on the front of the test that asks the person taking it to fill out their sex.
> 
> Merely doing this drops the average female result on a maths test by 5%.


Bizarre. But I don't think ticking a box would make me more aware of not being a man!


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 14, 2012)

Would this apply to any test or just a Maths one. Just wondering why they felt the need then to make the pass mark for 11 plus 5% higher for girls than boys, if all they had to do was to get people to tick gender box.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 14, 2012)

Math test paper. Steele 1997



> When women perform math, unlike men, they risk being judged by the negative
> stereotype that women have weaker math ability. We call this predicament stereotype
> threat and hypothesize that the apprehension it causes may disrupt women’s math
> performance. In Study 1 we demonstrated that the pattern observed in the literature that
> ...


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Mar 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Bizarre. But I don't think ticking a box would make me more aware of not being a man!


I guess it works by making your "womaness" a little bit more of a significant issue, than it would have otherwise been in that particular situation.

Cheers 5t3lla!


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie, that just isn't true. The most intense discussions here are between posters who have broadly left views. The reason some posts get short shrift is that they're interfering with a much more detailed debate and forcing it to return to basics rather than explore differences in broadly similar outlooks.

There's been loads of times I'm in a raging argument with someone and we're liking each other's posts in a different thread where we do agree.

You miss the nuances because of the simplistic crap that bombastic husband of yours drones into you.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

stephj said:


> It's not some sort of urban bubble Eids, this sort of analysis (oppressed/oppressor class) is commonly accepted across the majority of political and social science discourse.


 

Really?

Oh, did you edit in 'science'?

I'm not sure Edie is talking about political or social science graduates. Most people aren't political or social science graduates. I think she's talking about mates, the local newsagent, workmates, anyone who watches loose women or reads tabloids, family etc.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> I'm not sure Edie is talking about political or social science graduates. Most people aren't political or social science graduates. I think she's talking about mates, the local newsagent, workmates, anyone who watches loose women or reads tabloids, family etc.


 
But those sorts of relationships are precisely what is not being talked about when we talk about oppressor/oppression. So jumping on VP saying 'he's calling us women oppressed victims' when relating it to an individual or yourself, when we're talking about oppression in regards to societal power relations is missing the point entirely.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

stephj said:


> But those sorts of relationships are precisely what is not being talked about when we talk about oppressor/oppression. So jumping on VP saying 'he's calling us oppressed victims' is missing the point entirely.


 
Wut? 


I think I must have missed a vital post somewhere. Maybe I should concentrate on work instead of half'n'half...

I thought we were talking about discourse between social scientists v discourse between 'normal' people.


----------



## Edie (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Edie, that just isn't true. The most intense discussions here are between posters who have broadly left views. The reason some posts get short shrift is that they're interfering with a much more detailed debate and forcing it to return to basics rather than explore differences in broadly similar outlooks.


Funnily enough this IS exactly what I meant, what I find frustrating. I don't want to explore differences in broadly similar far-left outlook, when I don't even know if I _agree_ with the broadly similar outlook, or even if a significant number of other people in society do.

But, hey, I do now understand that is what people _want_ to do. And why it's frustrating if they can't and get interrupted. And I'm not menna be discussing politics this time round anyway, so knock yourselves out.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Wut?
> 
> 
> I think I must have missed a vital post somewhere. Maybe I should concentrate on work instead of half'n'half...
> ...


 
Well, admittedly because of the political savviness of a lot of posters on here, that's how most stuff gets framed.

But I was responding to what Edie said:



			
				Edie said:
			
		

> Ladies does anyone here actually FEEL oppressed? Cos I don't  This is bullshit, stop calling us bloody oppressed! We live in the UK in 2012, yes there might be a fair way to go before the playing field is level, but VP going round telling us we're all poor little oppressed victims is just fuckin annoying


 
And that's precisely not what VP is saying at all, because he's not talking about whether individuals of us _as women_ feel oppressed, but power relations/oppression based on gender. So its no good having a go at VP for saying what he actually didn't say. And its a little frustrating because this sort of discussion has been had so many times and it has been explained. But regardless, I was trying to explain how this stuff works/what VP is saying/not!

But even so, I've got a lot of friends/family/acquantances who don't know any political or social science but are able to see that women as a gender are oppressed against, even if in they're own lives they're not.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie - you think its normal for men to use prostitutes. Just goes to show how "normal" can vary eh.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 14, 2012)

> Oppression is a big word.


 
No, it isn't. It's only 4 syllables. It's smaller than "antidisestablishmentarianism".


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Edie - you think its normal for men to use prostitutes. Just goes to show how "normal" can vary eh.


Depends if you define "normal" as a very large majority attribute to the point where deviance is, erm, deviant - or simply as common enough that it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that it happens.

The former definition isn't terribly useful, as it happens. Is it abnormal to meet a British-Asian person, for example?


----------



## Edie (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Edie - you think its normal for men to use prostitutes. Just goes to show how "normal" can vary eh.


See ya. Prick.

(edit: it is absolutely PATHETIC that I can't discuss shit on here without this being thrown in my face and I REALLY can't be fucked no more).


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2012)

Anyways, I found out this morning that I am being discriminated against at work, so I am feeling pretty fucking oppressed right now as it goes


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

stephj said:


> Well, admittedly because of the political savviness of a lot of posters on here, that's how most stuff gets framed.
> 
> 
> But even so, I've got a lot of friends/family/acquantances who don't know any political or social science but are able to see that women as a gender are oppressed against, even if in they're own lives they're not.


 
Me too.  But loads of my friends are from here and the sector I work in means my discourse there is very similar.  If I compare it to other places I've worked or people I encounter outside of that the discourse is more Edie's style.    So in that sense I'd agree there is a bubble. 


Anyway, another diversion.  I'm going to do some work.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> See ya. Prick.
> 
> (edit: it is absolutely PATHETIC that I can't discuss shit on here without this being thrown in my face and I REALLY can't be fucked no more).


Edie - you post stuff that you think in public, its fair game. If you don't want stuff that you write repeated back to you, don't write it.

The point I was making is that our perceptions of what is "normal" is subjective. You think that we all live in a bubble - I think you live in your own bubble.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Depends if you define "normal" as a very large majority attribute to the point where deviance is, erm, deviant - or simply as common enough that it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that it happens.
> 
> The former definition isn't terribly useful, as it happens. Is it abnormal to meet a British-Asian person, for example?


This is my point - our perceptions of "normal" are subjective. For Edie, men using prostitutes is "normal". For me it isn't, but meeting British-Asians is. If you live in a rural village it probably isn't.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

stephj said:


> Anyways, I found out this morning that I am being discriminated against at work, so I am feeling pretty fucking oppressed right now as it goes


A few years after I started a job and the consultants I worked with regularly had worked out that I wasn't there to pour their tea or sort out their expense claims, we had to go to a review committee that was chaired by a doctor who didn't know me. I was the only woman in a room with eight men, and I was over a decade (or two) younger than any of them.

He completely ignored me the whole meeting. I had plenty to add, but no opportunity to speak. Then he asked the lead oncologist why we had chosen that particular chemotherapy dose schedule for the control arm. He couldn't answer. None of the medics could, so it came to my boss. I knew that he knew because he made the decision and explained it to me originally, but he shrugged and said he had no idea. And looked at me. The look on the chair's face when I answered makes up for a lot of shit like this. 

Kick some arse at work though, yeah?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> Ladies does anyone here actually FEEL oppressed? Cos I don't  This is bullshit, stop calling us bloody oppressed! We live in the UK in 2012, yes there might be a fair way to go before the playing field is level, but VP going round telling us we're all poor little oppressed victims is just fuckin annoying


 
Except that's not what I said, Edie.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie posted a very personal, honest and moving account that added considerable value to the thread it was on. She requested that nobody quote it so that she could change her mind and delete it later. Everybody respected that.

But there seem to be a handful of people who think it's OK to throw it back in her face every time they disagree with her about sexual politics.

Pure cuntery, IMO.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Kick some arse at work though, yeah?


 
Ta. Worst of all when you find out its some of those you trusted that have been helping in the shafting


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Edie, that just isn't true. The most intense discussions here are between posters who have broadly left views. The reason some posts get short shrift is that they're interfering with a much more detailed debate and forcing it to return to basics rather than explore differences in broadly similar outlooks.


 
Patronising bollocks.

Oh yes, the intellectual debates on Urban mustn't be disturbed by thickos who don't have similarly lefty views and who need to have *basic* things explained to them!


----------



## trashpony (Mar 14, 2012)

When I used to manage a team which included a number of men in it, on at least two occasions it was assumed by salespeople that the older of the two was in charge. And I've been paid less than male colleagues for doing the same job long before I had children. I was told once that it was 'fair' because I wouldn't have to support a family on my income. 

They got that wrong


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Edie posted a very personal, honest and moving account that added considerable value to the thread it was on. She requested that nobody quote it so that she could change her mind and delete it later. Everybody respected that.
> 
> But there seem to be a handful of people who think it's OK to throw it back in her face every time they disagree with her about sexual politics.
> 
> Pure cuntery, IMO.


Bollocks. Edie was very insistent that prostitution was normal. It may well be for her. It's not for others. I make no value judgements on that.

Are we supposed to treat everything some people say with kid gloves? How are we supposed to know what is ok to refer to and what isn't? If you don't want stuff referred to, don't post it on the internet.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Patronising bollocks.
> 
> Oh yes, the intellectual debates on Urban mustn't be disturbed by thickos who don't have similarly lefty views and who need to have *basic* things explained to them!


That is not what I said, although I see the ambiguity. Basics as in the broad left/right division rather than the intra-left (or intra-right) divisions - discussion of which has always been one of the  main sustaining features of this board. It started as a protest forum, it became very important over a decade ago as a place for left activists of all stripes to meet and continues to play that role to a much lesser extent since it, inevitably, started to attract a broader audience as the place grew.

There's no beef with the broadening of the site - there are plenty of forums. But you can still expect a lot of debates to come from a left vs left perspective because the vast majority of people posting here are to varying degrees left of centre.

There are plenty of right vs left threads. Sometimes left vs left needs to be allowed to have the discussions they want too.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Bollocks. Edie was very insistent that prostitution was normal. It may well be for her. It's not for others. I make no value judgements on that.
> 
> Are we supposed to treat everything some people say with kid gloves? How are we supposed to know what is ok to refer to and what isn't? If you don't want stuff referred to, don't post it on the internet.


Cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> But surely men are under just as many assumptions? That they are strong, capable, breadwinners, fighters, unemotional, career driven, pissheads, brave etc etc. Are THEY oppressed?


 
Of course men are too, but the weight of oppression is very different - the weight of expectations are different. We've had a patriarchal society for at least 2,000 years now, and that means 2,000+ years of law and social convention valuing men over women, taking the man's part over the woman, and for most of those 2,000 years of women being legally viewed as a legally-owned chattel of their father, surviving male relative or husband.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Cunt.




Maybe you could engage with what I say?


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

When Edie claims that she isn't oppressed, she is jumped on for generalising her own feelings to a social group.

When Blagsta claims prostitution isn't normal, he means not normal for him because that's the important thing.

He's never wrong, you see. Even someone as gracious as Edie in accepting criticism must be mercilessly attacked in defence of Blagsta's overly fragile ego.

Cunt.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> When Edie claims that she isn't oppressed, she is jumped on for generalising her own feelings to a social group.
> 
> When blagsta claims prostitution isn't normal, he means not normal for him because that's the important thing.
> 
> Cunt.



I didn't "jump" on Edie for anything. Try differentiating between posters?


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Nah, you just joined in with the pack.

Cunt.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Nah, you just joined in with the pack.
> 
> Cunt.



Where?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2012)

Agent Sparrow said:


> There are undoubtedly gendered pressures on men, but in addition to the specific female oppressions listed by ymu, whenever this comparison thing comes up I wonder whether the pressures on men, the social stereotypes, are a bit more "active", i.e. men are expected to be individually and actively in control of their own destiny. Where with women, the pressures and expectations are more passive and other people focused. On the level of a whole gender, that leads to greater oppression in one direction compared to the other.
> 
> Hopefully that makes sense...


 
Total sense. It's the whole "woman as carer" _schtick_ that's been used for millennia, and still gets rolled out, when actually we can be fairly sure, for example,, that female and child hunter-gatherers caught more of the game that went in the daily pot than the males, who hunted large game in a ritual rather than everyday manner.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Where?


You are so unaware of your role as oppressor?

Faux innocent cunt.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> You are so unaware of your role as oppressor?
> 
> Faux innocent cunt.


What? You're one of the ones lecturing her about how she is wrong, yet I'm joining in with the pack?

I made no comment about her experience of oppression or otherwise. I made the point that our normality is subjective. You lectured her about how she's wrong, and I'm the oppressor? You're being mental.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

You're so morally superior. Prostitution is not normal for you, so you are better than Edie. Because prostitution (the oldest profession) is not normal. In your morally superior and peculiarly semantic world.

Edie and I can disagree without attacking each other in shitty ways - and when we overstep the mark, we can apologise and still love each other. Because we're grown-up human beings who are secure enough to admit that we can get it wrong sometimes.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 14, 2012)

I think it's unfair to equate criticism of pricks who buy sex with criticism of sex workers.

I don't like the word normal though.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 14, 2012)

and by any statistical use of the term normal, prostitution isn't, which is not a value judgement on sex workers at all, though it might be of the clients.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 14, 2012)

god sake ymu is it lonely up there on the oh so knowledgeable high horse?


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

It is.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 14, 2012)

Forget prostitution, it's not the point of this debate at all.  

As regards women scoring lower on maths tests if they are first reminded that they are a woman:

* thanks Stella for posting the study
* the "reminding" bit is called "priming" and is a common trick in psychological experiments.  It demonstrates the multiplicity of personalities (for want of a better word) that we carry inside us
* specifically, it shows how internalised gender expectations are.  Even women believe that women are worse at maths.  This is true even when the experiment is carried out with *women who hold maths doctorates*.  This belief is not a conscious, rationally held view.  It is built into us, layered in with years and years and years of expectation, images, stories, media, jokes, converrsations and every other social structure.

How's *that* for oppression?  Oppression of your own fucking psyche.  At such a deep level that you don't even realise it's there.  So deep that we are *shocked* when we find out the result of the experiment.

And then I got told that women aren't oppressed.  Give me a fucking break.


----------



## love detective (Mar 14, 2012)

kabbes said:


> As regards women scoring lower on maths tests if they are first reminded that they are a woman:


kabbes - i'm not sure if your description of those tests is accurate - from a brief scan of that paper the difference in results wasn't between

i) women doing a test and having to tick a box saying they are a woman, and
ii) women doing a test and not having to answer any gender questions

it was more a case of if they were told that the test they were doing had shown gender differences in the past in terms of outcome then those differing male/female outcomes were more likely to arise again than if they weren't told the results of previous tests in relation to gender differences

clearly this is still priming, but it's a bit different to what you describe - it's not some internal thing that says purely because i've reminded myself that i am a woman i will end up doing worse in this test than men of equivalent intelligence, but a response to a very specific of priming - which i would imagine may well arise if say two sets of men (or women) with different attributes done a test and they were primed with information that said one set of them usually did better or worse


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> kabbes - i'm not sure if your description of those tests is accurate - from a brief scan of that paper the difference in results wasn't between
> 
> i) women doing a test and having to tick a box saying they are a woman, and
> ii) women doing a test and not having to answer any gender questions
> ...


 
Did they do a set of tests where they told the men that men had previously done worse?


----------



## love detective (Mar 14, 2012)

no that's the thing (or at least not from what i read about it) - would have thought that would have been the obvious thing to do though

so if they had, and men actually did worse in those tests then that would just show that this kind of priming can work in any direction with any set of people (and therefore not really related to the type of deep oppression that kabbes refers to above - not saying that that doesn't exist though)

but if they did do those tests and men didn't do worse - would that just mean that women are shite at maths?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> but if they did do those tests and men didn't do worse - would that just mean that women are shite at maths?


 
I don't think so, because 'worse' is in comparison to the women who weren't primed, not the men. 

It does seem odd that they wouldn't do the reverse as that would tell you a lot more about the experiment as you say.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 14, 2012)

Edie said:


> <snip
> What we have in this country, at least if you are white (Asian women get a shitter deal ime) is the remnants of sexism. A lot of income disparity comes from women taking career breaks to have and raise kids. Now, I'd like to see it made much easier for women to come back into the job market and earn as much as their male colleagues, but the fact is if you're working part time or haven't had as much experience as the man you are competing with, that aint gonna be the case. That is NOT oppression. To call that oppression is to downgrade the word.
> <snip>


 
Some income disparity comes from career breaks, for sure, but does it make up the bulk of that disparity? Not in my mind. Not all women take career breaks for a start, not all women work part-time and many women are as or more experienced than their male counterparts. Yet women still earn, as kabbes pointed out, 1/5 less than a man doing the exact same job. Is this oppression? According to the wikipedia article on oppression, yes it is:
'*Oppression* is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.[1] It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression


----------



## love detective (Mar 14, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't think so, because 'worse' is in comparison to the women who weren't primed, not the men


yeah it was actually a joke


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

stephj said:


> Ta. Worst of all when you find out its some of those you trusted that have been helping in the shafting


 
sorry to hear that mate  x


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> yeah it was actually a joke


 
The internet does deadpan very well.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Mar 14, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't think so, because 'worse' is in comparison to the women who weren't primed, not the men.
> 
> It does seem odd that they wouldn't do the reverse as that would tell you a lot more about the experiment as you say.


I think that would say something about science, particularly social science, not being performed in an impartial, societal vacuum.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 14, 2012)

stephj said:


> Ta. Worst of all when you find out its some of those you trusted that have been helping in the shafting


That sucks - a lot. It's amazing to find out who your real friends/supporters are when something like that happens.

I hope you are ok. Keep a diary of everything that happens (dates, times, facts).


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 14, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Forget prostitution, it's not the point of this debate at all.
> 
> As regards women scoring lower on maths tests if they are first reminded that they are a woman:
> 
> ...


 
Fuck. I have a PhD in mathematics. I know I'm good at maths. It's scary that even though I work hard against gender expectations it could still not be enough to overcome what's built into my psyche.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> You're so morally superior. Prostitution is not normal for you, so you are better than Edie. Because prostitution (the oldest profession) is not normal. In your morally superior and peculiarly semantic world.
> 
> Edie and I can disagree without attacking each other in shitty ways - and when we overstep the mark, we can apologise and still love each other. Because we're grown-up human beings who are secure enough to admit that we can get it wrong sometimes.


Wow, you are projecting so much of your own shit here. Take a fucking break from urban or something.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Edie and I can disagree without attacking each other in shitty ways - and when we overstep the mark, we can apologise and still love each other. Because we're grown-up human beings who are secure enough to admit that we can get it wrong sometimes.



Which of you does the apologising?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 14, 2012)

Originally by Peggy McIntosh I believe, I have a few little problems with it, but mostly accurate I think

I can be confident that my fellow workers won't think I got my job because I used my sexuality - even though that might be true. 
If I'm ever promoted, again it's not often regarded as because of my gender. Though that I got the promotion in the first place _is_ usually because of my gender, as people of my gender hold most positions of power. 
I don’t have to face the daily possibility of street harassment simply because of my gender from people of the opposite gender. 
I don't face comments on the size of my balls in the street on a daily basis. 
People of the opposite gender don't tend to talk to my crotch. 
If I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in general public spaces. 
I am not warned that any subsequent attack may be viewed as my fault. 
If I am ever violently attacked I am not usually blamed as encouraging such violence. 
If I am a victim of such violence I will not have to face interrogation about my past and present relationships, lifestyle and dress, concepts of morality, in police stations and courts and be prompted to believe this was a contributory factor. 
If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting even if I'm marginally competent. 
If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home. 
I can be sure the media, law and all institutions will 90% of the time work in my favour due to my gender and the positions of power/influence my sex holds within such institutions. 
If I fail in my job I can feel sure this won't be seen as against my sex's capabilities. 
I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organisation the person is, the surer I can be. 
As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. 
As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring active/talented/capable heroes of my own sex. 
As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
 As an adult it is likely I’ll speak more and be heard most in group situations. 
The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible. 
Problems for my own gender don’t have the same historical, cultural, economic, social institutionalised weight of misandry behind them. 
Usually and historically in any comparable job I’ll get paid more for it than someone of the opposite sex. 
I’m not encouraged by society, the media, the law, pornography to view my gender as an object for the use and gratification of the opposite gender.I do not therefore have to deal with the aftermath of this belief on a daily basis.
 With members of the opposite gender I’ll be listened to and given automatic authority. 
Although fashion of body shapes does have an effect on me, I do not have the same pressures from childhood through adulthood, to have an ever changing specific body-shape, wear make up and be judged solely on how I look. My wardrobe and grooming can be very cheap and consume little time/effort and I will still look acceptably presentable because of this. I don’t have to put much effort into how I look because it’s my personality that counts. 
I can tell people what to do with no fear of being called a nag. 
I can be loud/aggressive with no fear of being viewed as a bitch. 
If I have sex with a lot of people, it won't make me an object of contempt or derision, I will never be viewed as a slut or whore. I will be patted on the back for my sexual conquests and often congratulated for my dismissal and lack of respect for people of the opposite gender. 
If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be raped or killed by a female partner, date, neighbour, female friend or female stranger. 
If I have a female partner, chances are we'll divide up household chores so that she does most of the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. In terms of household tasks and/or child rearing most career sacrifices will be expected to be hers. Most sacrifices for my own work, hobbies, leisure time,pub, activism, health activities, will be hers almost without thought. 
Time for myself is not viewed as selfishness but my right. She will do the bulk of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing. 
God in most major religions, is usually pictured as being the same sex as me. 
My gender is by far least likely to be trafficked, raped, suffer domestic violence, partner homicide, sexual violence, sexual harrassment......... 
I have the privilege of being unaware of these privileges………..


----------



## kabbes (Mar 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> kabbes - i'm not sure if your description of those tests is accurate - from a brief scan of that paper the difference in results wasn't between
> 
> i) women doing a test and having to tick a box saying they are a woman, and
> ii) women doing a test and not having to answer any gender questions
> ...


There have been a lot more tests than those described in Stella's link though.  Your (i) and (ii) tests are described in studies in my old favourite _Delusions of Gender_ by Cordelia Fine.

It's a well-trodden path, basically, psychological experiment-wise.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't think so, because 'worse' is in comparison to the women who weren't primed, not the men.
> 
> It does seem odd that they wouldn't do the reverse as that would tell you a lot more about the experiment as you say.


Yes, I think that's right.

Although Stella's study won't be the only one. A literature search would come up with tens of thousands of hits and probably several hundred studies, all doing slightly different things. Psychologists turn these things out by the bucketload, and their approach to analysis and meta-analysis is still pretty primitive.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Some income disparity comes from career breaks, for sure, but does it make up the bulk of that disparity? Not in my mind. Not all women take career breaks for a start, not all women work part-time and many women are as or more experienced than their male counterparts. Yet women still earn, as kabbes pointed out, 1/5 less than a man doing the exact same job. Is this oppression? According to the wikipedia article on oppression, yes it is:
> '*Oppression* is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.[1] It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.'
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression


The CRE published a study recently that had the overall paygap at 16%. Middle-class women who had had kids lost 4% of their lifetime earnings, compared to working-class women who lost 58% of their lifetime earnings if they had kids.

It's about career breaks. If you earn enough to afford childcare, you lose fuck all (unless your partner refuses to share childcare costs, or you have no partner to share childcare costs). If you don't, you are screwed.

I believe the problem is that women are now expected to do paid work as much as men are, but there is still no assumption that the male partner might therefore be equally responsible for childcare. That's changing as more women become the higher earner in a relationship, which is now a small majority in the twenty-somethings, I think, but the lack of affordable childcare, and the preponderance of dual income families making it difficult for single income families to match their purchasing power on rents etc, is the key feminist issue at the moment. IMO.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

Also men's paternity leave in the UK is a joke, 2 weeks paid at about £130 quid and 4 weeks unpaid if you've been in a job more than a year.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> Have you EVER noticed that urban75 is like a very small in-club where there is incredibly little variety of political opinion? There seems to be this assumption that the rest of right-minded folk in this country all hold far-left views like those expressed here. When in fact the reality is that almost NO ONE holds far left views out there, I don't know a single person (other than 2 people who also post here who I know irl) who is far-left.
> 
> Your all living in a bubble, but instead of wanting to discuss the views you hold, or look at it from a different angle, if anyone comes along and goes wtf or sees shit from a pov that isn't pretty far commie-left, they are told they are talking shit and pretty much slagged off straight away. Personally I'd like to see far more different views on here, more right wing views or just 'centre' views, so that stuff can be discussed and the whole debate can be seen.


 
Problem is, we get those 'debates' on a daily basis elsewhere in our lives be it at work or through family or whatever. Or at least I do, can't speak for anyone else I suppose. I actually find it pretty frustrating that left wing views, especially the more radical ones, can be seen as almost a niche subject at times. But I don't share the view that like *everybody* outside of urban75 is on the political right and that somehow validates that right wing thinking is the 'correct' view. Yes, lots of people are right of centre. I'd say most of my RL mates aren't though, they range from centre left to hard left. None of them post here. And it isn't difficult to see why they're to the left. You grow up in the NE of England and be shat on continually. The Tories will always be wankers for the bankers. The Far right are a little bit weird and fancy themselves as nutters. So what are you left with? Labour. New Labour let you down and then what? You move further left or you don't bother your brain with what's going on and blame immigrants instead. Which is precisely what the Tories want you to do.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Problem is, we get those 'debates' on a daily basis elsewhere in our lives be it at work or through family or whatever. Or at least I do, can't speak for anyone else I suppose. I actually find it pretty frustrating that left wing views, especially the more radical ones, can be seen as almost a niche subject at times. But I don't share the view that like *everybody* outside of urban75 is on the political right and that somehow validates that right wing thinking is the 'correct' view. <snip>The Tories will always be wankers for the bankers. The Far right are a little bit weird and fancy themselves as nutters. So what are you left with? Labour. New Labour let you down and then what? You move further left or you don't bother your brain with what's going on and blame immigrants instead. Which is precisely what the Tories want you to do.


Word.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Lots of people express left wing ideas in everyday life. Like wanting utility companies to be run for the benefit of the people, to defending the NHS etc.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

What the fuck is "everyday life" anyway?

I'm not sure many people here proclaiming the everydayness of their everyday lives would recognise much from my everyday life.  We all have different everyday lives, which makes them rather less than everyday in their everdayness.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Edie - you think its normal for men to use prostitutes. Just goes to show how "normal" can vary eh.


 
I've been thinking about this and I have to add to what ymu has already said.

This is a textbook  (_literally_ textbook, see cites of Steele 1997) example of oppression. You know you can shut down Edie by reminding her she was a whore. 

 I would seriously suggest you get some counselling to help you work through this. Doubly so if you're still in any kind of service provision for vulnerable people


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> I've been thinking about this and I have to add to what ymu has already said.
> 
> This is a textbook  (_literally_ textbook, see cites of Steele 1997) example of oppression. You know you can shut down Edie by reminding her she was a whore.
> 
> I would seriously suggest you get some counselling to help you work through this. Doubly so if you're still in any kind of service provision for vulnerable people


I didn't say anything about her being a "whore" - the only person that has mentioned that is *you*. I suggest you take your own suggestion on board and take a long hard look at yourself and your need to stir shit up - wasn't it you who started a hate campaign on Facebook about a poster here?

For the record - me and Edie are cool, we have discussed things via PM.

You on the other hand are a nasty piece of work.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I didn't say anything about her being a "whore" - the only person that has mentioned that is *you*. I suggest you take your own suggestion on board and take a long hard look at yourself and your need to stir shit up - wasn't it you who started a hate campaign on Facebook about a poster here?
> 
> For the record - me and Edie are cool, we have discussed things via PM.
> 
> You on the other hand are a nasty piece of work.


 
You're angry because you know I'm right


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> You're angry because you know I'm right


You have some serious issues. The only person mentioning Edie's past is you. You are one spiteful fuck up of a person.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 15, 2012)

out of order 5t3lla
and not needed


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

jesus fuck, it seemed obvious to me that the point was a general one about the subjectiveness of normal - what a weird thread


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You have some serious issues. The only person mentioning Edie's past is you. You are one spiteful fuck up of a person.


 
Uh? Have you forgotten the exchange? She mentioned normal, you said she had no idea of normal because of her views on prostitution. SLAM. Shut down.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 15, 2012)

'views on' not what you are banging on about and blowing up


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> Uh? Have you forgotten the exchange? She mentioned normal, you said she had no idea of normal because of her views on prostitution. SLAM. Shut down.


 
Go back and read what I actually wrote.  Not what your twisted spiteful brain thinks I wrote.

You're the one outing Edie.  You are one fucked up excuse for a human being.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

Look there's no need to go here. Blags is right, we've sorted this out via PM. I know that I've posted stuff in the past that I'm touchy as fuck about people now bringing up (cos I instantly see it as a put down) and that is both stupid and unfair to other people. No one needs to out me btw, everyone fuckin knows  I know I lack ANY kind of objectivity (find it impossible to know where my experiences end and opinions begin). So for me it's best to just _read_ these kinds of threads in the future. Which I'll do.



ymu said:


> The CRE published a study recently that had the overall paygap at 16%. Middle-class women who had had kids lost 4% of their lifetime earnings, compared to working-class women who lost 58% of their lifetime earnings if they had kids.
> 
> It's about career breaks. If you earn enough to afford childcare, you lose fuck all (unless your partner refuses to share childcare costs, or you have no partner to share childcare costs). If you don't, you are screwed.
> 
> I believe the problem is that women are now expected to do paid work as much as men are, but there is still no assumption that the male partner might therefore be equally responsible for childcare. That's changing as more women become the higher earner in a relationship, which is now a small majority in the twenty-somethings, I think, but the lack of affordable childcare, and the preponderance of dual income families making it difficult for single income families to match their purchasing power on rents etc, is the key feminist issue at the moment. IMO.


^^ THIS is where it's at.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Go back and read what I actually wrote. Not what your twisted spiteful brain thinks I wrote.
> 
> You're the one outing Edie. You are one fucked up excuse for a human being.


 
Now you're trying to shut me down by saying I'm 'spiteful'? You're doing precisely what I'm saying you're doing, instead of considering _THAT IS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM _


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

It's not just about career breaks. It's also about the _perception of possible_ career breaks -- and specifically _childcaring _career breaks and the fact that this childcaring is disproportionately shouldered by women. It's also about the deeply embedded attitudes to women that are layered into us long before we have the rational capacity to reason these things out that creates well-established biases, such as the fact that 70% of citizens in 34 counties in an IAT test of 4.5 million people notably associated science with men rather than women (see introduction to the interesting "Wilful Blindness" by Margaret Hefferman).

The paygap mentioned is only on the basis of like-for-like jobs. But women are systematically passed over for promotions and managerial positions, as evidenced by the fact that about 8% of board positions are occupied by women, despite the organisations being 50/50 at the front line. That's not just a career break thing (I know plenty of men on the corporate latter that are taking or have taken career breaks in the form of sabbaticals without it affecting them at all). It's not even a working-class thing, since we are talking about middle-class positions. It's a systemic problem.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

ddraig said:


> 'views on' not what you are banging on about and blowing up



'views on' and 'personal experiences' arent somehow divorced from each other. In fact, one can inform the other.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Edie - you think its normal for men to use prostitutes. Just goes to show how "normal" can vary eh.


 
Seeing how many prostitutes there are in the world, it would seem that it is entirely normal for men to use their services.

Nice oppressive dig though.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

I've never met a prostitute, so I'm pretty sure that their existence is actually just a rumour to be honest.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

I dont think we can go down the avenue of % of people doing something = benchmark for normal. Isnt that what the far right do in regards to homosexualty etc?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I dont think we can go down the avenue of % of people doing something = benchmark for normal. Isnt that what the far right do in regards to homosexualty etc?


 
I would imagine the word normal has something to do with the norm, which a kabbes type person could formulate scientifically for us...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I've never met a prostitute, so I'm pretty sure that their existence is actually just a rumour to be honest.


 
They're mythical, like Eskimos.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> They're mythical, like Eskimos.


I used to be an Eskimo, but now I'm just not Inuit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I would imagine the word normal has something to do with the norm, which a kabbes type person could formulate scientifically for us...


It is 'normal' for any given population of human beings to contain significant diversity.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is 'normal' for any given population of human beings to contain significant diversity.


 
See? It's shit like this that stopped my ambitions to be an actuary dead in their tracks.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

I define "Normal" as follows:


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I define "Normal" as follows:


Flawed assumptions.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

This spat has raised an interesting point about how we treat people who are perceived as "vulnerable" in some way. Do we treat with kid gloves and walk on egg shells around certain subjects? Treat them as poor little victims? See, I don't think the person concerned here is a passive victim. I think she is actually robust enough to deal with people raising stuff that she herself has volunteered. The fact that certain people want to pile in to defend this person from Blagsta the big bad male oppressor speaks volumes. She's perfectly capable of dealing with this and defending herself.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Flawed assumptions.


No, it's a definition.  

Not that I would blame anybody for not immediately recognising the formula.  It hardly rolls off the tongue.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I define "Normal" as follows:


 
Aw, beat me to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> No, it's a definition.
> 
> Not that I would blame anybody for not immediately recognising the formula. It hardly rolls off the tongue.


Bugger.  It was a stab in the dark. Assumptions are normally flawed.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Seeing how many prostitutes there are in the world, it would seem that it is entirely normal for men to use their services.
> 
> Nice oppressive dig though.



Another one who spectacularly misses the point and in the process paints people as victims.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

My assumptions are always flawed, but fortunately I also provide three pages of caveats explaining why they are flawed, why this isn't my fault and why nobody can sue me for the fact that the answer is consequently meaningless.

They teach you that at actuary school.

(Recognise the formula now, by the way?)


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I dont think we can go down the avenue of % of people doing something = benchmark for normal. Isnt that what the far right do in regards to homosexualty etc?


Which is not the point being made anyway!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

It's normal distribution, isn't it. Should have recognised it, but I didn't.

The flawed assumption normally is that something is a normal distribution.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> This spat has raised an interesting point about how we treat people who are perceived as "vulnerable" in some way. Do we treat with kid gloves and walk on egg shells around certain subjects? Treat them as poor little victims? See, I don't think the person concerned here is a passive victim. I think she is actually robust enough to deal with people raising stuff that she herself has volunteered. The fact that certain people want to pile in to defend this person from Blagsta the big bad male oppressor speaks volumes. She's perfectly capable of dealing with this and defending herself.


 
You're missing the point entirely. I already addressed why I posted and what I consider to be your problem.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> You're missing the point entirely. I already addressed why I posted and what I consider to be your problem.


You're engaging in exactly the shit you accuse me of. Far easier to sling mud than to think innit.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's normal distribution, isn't it. Should have recognised it, but I didn't.
> 
> The flawed assumption normally is that something is a normal distribution.


Indeed, although if you are aggregating enough distributions, the central limit theorem becomes your friend.  

Not that I ever, ever, ever use it in professional life, mind.  It's totally useless for anything financial.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

These two concurrent conversations don't have much overlap, do they?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> This spat has raised an interesting point about how we treat people who are perceived as "vulnerable" in some way. Do we treat with kid gloves and walk on egg shells around certain subjects? Treat them as poor little victims? See, I don't think the person concerned here is a passive victim. I think she is actually robust enough to deal with people raising stuff that she herself has volunteered. The fact that certain people want to pile in to defend this person from Blagsta the big bad male oppressor speaks volumes. She's perfectly capable of dealing with this and defending herself.


 
Not saying that Eds needs defending, she's tuff enough to look after herself; more a comment on the frankly appalling stance you chose to take back there. Tis all.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not saying that Eds needs defending, she's tuff enough to look after herself; more a comment on the frankly appalling stance you chose to take back there. Tis all.


Same to you - you're shit slinging to score points.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You're engaging in exactly the shit you accuse me of. Far easier to sling mud than to think innit.


 
I told you - I thought about this a lot and my conclusion is that you're the type of person who thinks nothing of shutting a woman down by reminding her that she's a woman. That she's done stereotypically female things; been a whore, been spiteful, been a bitch. 

I don't understand why you can't see it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Not that I ever, ever, ever use it in professional life, mind. It's totally useless for anything financial.


I wish everyone thought that. I was reading the other day about various economic theories that were in use right up to 2008 that assumed normal distribution of risk on financial instruments. Mandlebrot back in the 1960s warned that this was not the case, and that extreme events were in fact more likely than in a normal distribution. He was largely ignored.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> I told you - I thought about this a lot and my conclusion is that you're the type of person who thinks nothing of shutting a woman down by reminding her that she's a woman. That she's done stereotypically female things; been a whore, been spiteful, been a bitch.
> 
> I don't understand why you can't see it.


You're doing exactly that - accusing me of misogyny to shut down debate.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> This spat has raised an interesting point about how we treat people who are perceived as "vulnerable" in some way. Do we treat with kid gloves and walk on egg shells around certain subjects? Treat them as poor little victims? See, I don't think the person concerned here is a passive victim. I think she is actually robust enough to deal with people raising stuff that she herself has volunteered. The fact that certain people want to pile in to defend this person from Blagsta the big bad male oppressor speaks volumes. She's perfectly capable of dealing with this and defending herself.


 
Pretty much the liberal left in a nutshell - people are passive objects that are there to either be used by capital or the left, to be pitied, patronised, spoken for, unable to play a role in their own fightback - anything but the active subject that they actually are (as that would rob the liberal left of its role in life)


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You're doing exactly that - accusing me of misogyny to shut down debate.


 
Yep. Accusing a man of misogyny. That well known argument winner. You going to accuse me of being hysterical next?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> These two concurrent conversations don't have much overlap, do they?


I'd rather talk about maths, tbh.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> Yep. Accusing a man of misogyny. That well known argument winner. You going to accuse me of being hysterical next?


Far easier to sling mud as I said. God forbid that anyone could actually think about why the person concerned is ok with me, yet her self appointed defenders are having me lynched as woman hater of the year.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

i think you are being hysterical to be honest


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Far easier to sling mud as I said.


 
What mud?  I am pointing out to you what you don't seem to realise. You're textbook, and it's also textbook to jump up and down calling me spiteful instead of going away and having a little think about what you've done.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> What mud?  I am pointing out to you what you don't seem to realise. You're textbook, and it's also textbook to jump up and down calling me spiteful instead of going away and having a little think about what you've done.



Now you're being hysterical. Go back to conducting hate campaigns on Facebook. It suits your personality.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Now you're being hysterical. Go back to conducting hate campaigns on Facebook. It suits your personality.


Oh HOLD up. That's way out of line.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Mar 15, 2012)

The last two pages.  WTF.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Now you're being hysterical. Go back to conducting hate campaigns on Facebook. It suits your personality.


 
And the cunt shines through. Again.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Now you're being hysterical. Go back to conducting hate campaigns on Facebook. It suits your personality.


 
Why insult me instead of considering the slightest possibility I might be right? I'm not insulting you, I'm trying to help you.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> Oh HOLD up. That's way out of line.


It's clearly a response to how stella operates. She accuses me of wanting to call her hysterical, so I thought I'd oblige. There's only so much abuse I'm gonna take before I sling some back. Don't forget, it was Stella who started a hate foxy red group on Facebook. Hardly the feminist she's painting herself to be here.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> Why insult me instead of considering the slightest possibility I might be right? I'm not insulting you, *I'm trying to help you.*


Classic line


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And the cunt shines through. Again.


Oh look, the whole gang is here


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

If I can break in to all the maths and misery:

Edie, do you have any further thoughts on the institutional and systemic oppression of women now that you have seen the various responses to you on the subject?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Classic line


 
You're a dumb thug. Hope it works out for you


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 15, 2012)

Alotta beef up in huuuur.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

I cant get my head round this at all. If you mention prostitution (in the context of this thread) then youre pulling gender rank on a woman and putting her in her place. So that then leaves some topics off bounds. If some topics are off bounds to have with women then surely that in itself is also sexist as it creates an unequal playing field regarding discussion. The mind boggles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Problem is, we get those 'debates' on a daily basis elsewhere in our lives be it at work or through family or whatever. Or at least I do, can't speak for anyone else I suppose. I actually find it pretty frustrating that left wing views, especially the more radical ones, can be seen as almost a niche subject at times. But I don't share the view that like *everybody* outside of urban75 is on the political right and that somehow validates that right wing thinking is the 'correct' view. Yes, lots of people are right of centre. I'd say most of my RL mates aren't though, they range from centre left to hard left. None of them post here. And it isn't difficult to see why they're to the left. You grow up in the NE of England and be shat on continually. The Tories will always be wankers for the bankers. The Far right are a little bit weird and fancy themselves as nutters. So what are you left with? Labour. New Labour let you down and then what? You move further left or you don't bother your brain with what's going on and blame immigrants instead. Which is precisely what the Tories want you to do.


 
IMO part of the reason why "leftism" of any sort appears niche "out there" is because a form of centrist rightism has been normalised over the last 30 years so that many people have grown up not only in a political environment that has indoctrinated them about values _vis a vis_ "right" and "left", but also hasn't really exposed them to the same depth of "leftism" as it has to centrist rightism, and this does seem to have had an effect on how people who may not consider themselves "political" choose to describe themselves in public and see themselves in private. It's not "brainwashing" by any means, but the narrowing of choice mixed with the feeling of helplessness our current party politics has instilled in many who still be believe in parliamentary democracy, has had the effect of making leftists feel isolated from "normal" politics, as if there's something wrong or sordid about not being on the right, not toeing the majority line, so to speak.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I cant get my head round this at all. If you mention prostitution then youre pulling gender rank on a woman and putting her in her place. So that then leaves some topics off bounds. If some topics are off bounds to have with women then surely that in itself is also sexist as it creates an unequal playing field regarding discussion. The mind boggles.


 
It doesn't leave a topic out of bounds. It leaves bringing it up to shut someone up out of bounds.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> It doesn't leave a topic out of bounds. It leaves bringing it up to shut someone up out of bounds.



For the record i dont think he was doing that. But it was the worst example he could have chosen to make his point, as the aftermath demonstrates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> I told you - I thought about this a lot and my conclusion is that you're the type of person who thinks nothing of shutting a woman down by reminding her that she's a woman. That she's done stereotypically female things; been a whore, been spiteful, been a bitch.
> 
> I don't understand why you can't see it.


 
Being a whore is "stereotypically female"?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Being a whore is "stereotypically female"?


 
In this precise context, yes that's what I meant.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Problem is, we get those 'debates' on a daily basis elsewhere in our lives be it at work or through family or whatever. Or at least I do, can't speak for anyone else I suppose. I actually find it pretty frustrating that left wing views, especially the more radical ones, can be seen as almost a niche subject at times. But I don't share the view that like *everybody* outside of urban75 is on the political right and that somehow validates that right wing thinking is the 'correct' view. Yes, lots of people are right of centre. I'd say most of my RL mates aren't though, they range from centre left to hard left. None of them post here. And it isn't difficult to see why they're to the left. You grow up in the NE of England and be shat on continually. The Tories will always be wankers for the bankers. The Far right are a little bit weird and fancy themselves as nutters. So what are you left with? Labour. New Labour let you down and then what? You move further left or you don't bother your brain with what's going on and blame immigrants instead. Which is precisely what the Tories want you to do.


 
good post


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Being a whore is "stereotypically female"?



I think she means from the pov of a misogynist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wish everyone thought that. I was reading the other day about various economic theories that were in use right up to 2008 that assumed normal distribution of risk on financial instruments. Mandlebrot back in the 1960s warned that this was not the case, and that extreme events were in fact more likely than in a normal distribution. He was largely ignored.


 
You're confusing acceptance of Mandelbrot's very well-reasoned formulae (widely accepted fairly quickly in the academic community) with the imperatives of capitalism to keep on keeping on with the same old ideas in  order to justify keeping the money rolling in. The former was/is entirely disconnected from the latter.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> In this precise context, yes that's what I meant.


 
yep, gotta say i agree with you here although i don't think blagsta was intentionally doing that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> In this precise context, yes that's what I meant.


 
Right. It comes across as generalising, which is why I asked.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I think she means from the pov of a misogynist.


 
Don't oppress Stella with your masculine interpretations of what she meant, you bounder!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yep, gotta say i agree with you here although i don't think blagsta was intentionally doing that.


 
He does it a lot and it's been noted.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

I dont think blagsta is sexist. He doesnt like being disagreed with by either gender.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> He does it a lot and it's been noted.


 
Where?  On your facebook page?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yep, gotta say i agree with you here although i don't think blagsta was intentionally doing that.


The only person who has done that is Stella. I made a comment on what someone perceives as "normal", not on what they may or may not have done. It was others than then brought the rest of it into it. The only one calling someone else a whore here is Stella. Then they blame me.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> The only person who has done that is Stella. I made a comment on what someone perceives as "normal", not on what they may or may not have done. It was others than then brought the rest of it. Then they blame me.


 
It was exactly what 'they' may or may not have done. You reminded them of it in order to stop them disagreeing with you. Oppressor.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

i reckon you could just have apologised.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i reckon you could just have apologised.


 
He could have, but never does, just slinks off.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 15, 2012)

Blimey, this thread went well.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i reckon you could just have apologised.


Who, me? Me and Edie have sorted things out via PM.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Who, me? Me and Edie have sorted things out via PM.


 
As mentioned above, she's a very gracious woman. So you've got away with it again and learnt nothing.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I cant get my head round this at all. If you mention prostitution (in the context of this thread) then youre pulling gender rank on a woman and putting her in her place. So that then leaves some topics off bounds. If some topics are off bounds to have with women then surely that in itself is also sexist as it creates an unequal playing field regarding discussion. The mind boggles.


It was not the mention of prostitution, it was the way it was mentioned.

Context, innit. Blags is trying to make out that it was a perfectly reasonable point to make in the context it was made. I see nothing but a snidey comment aimed at an individual which added nothing to the thread.

If I missed the context and meaning of his original "my normality is normal, yours isn't" comment, he's welcome to explain the context and thought processes behind that post instead of slinging out more snidey self-justification.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

I already did explain it, you chose to ignore that in favour of slinging abuse. The fact that me and Edie are fine while you and stella continue to conduct a witch hunt speaks volumes about your attitude. Instead of seeing Edie as someone who can sort their own disagreements out, you continue to see her as a helpless victim of male oppression, after lecturing her about why she is oppressed!  Hypocrites.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I already did explain it, you chose to ignore that in favour of slinging abuse. The fact that me and Edie are fine while you and stella continue to conduct a witch hunt speaks volumes about your attitude. Instead of seeing Edie as someone who can sort their own disagreements out, you continue to see her as a helpless victim of male oppression, after lecturing her about why she is oppressed! Hypocrites.


You have not explained.

You made your peace with Edie after I called you a cunt. I wouldn't have posted again after your post about that if you weren't _still_ self-justifying something that I still have seen no credible justification for.

There was no post quoted in this post of yours, and it does not follow on from the one above it or the one that Edie made shortly before it:



Blagsta said:


> Edie - you think its normal for men to use prostitutes. Just goes to show how "normal" can vary eh.


 
Can you point us to the post which provided the context for this comment, and how you thought you were moving the discussion on with it? Show your working please, because I can't follow your abstract hand-waving. Parse it for me.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 15, 2012)

can't it be as simple as blags saying 'you think it is normal for men to use prostitutes, i disagree so, imo normal varies' and not think or insinuate or mention the other things some are bringing into it? 
ffs


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> It was not the mention of prostitution, it was the way it was mentioned.
> 
> Context, innit. Blags is trying to make out that it was a perfectly reasonable point to make in the context it was made. I see nothing but a snidey comment aimed at an individual which added nothing to the thread.
> 
> If I missed the context and meaning of his original "my normality is normal, yours isn't" comment, he's welcome to explain the context and thought processes behind that post instead of slinging out more snidey self-justification.



Yes, im not disagreeing that what he said wasnt wrong. Look, theres a number of posters, past and present, who when they have beef with someone think its fine to jump on an entirely unrelated thread for a pop and usually drag some long forgotten personal relic out for public consumption. Its always happened on here. Thats why im saying it isnt misogyny. Because the protagonists dont tend to care about the gender of who they do it to. Its just that you and stella have happened to notice it on this occasion because it is a sensitive issue and was aimed at a woman.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 15, 2012)

At Ymu:

Blagsta doesn't judge Edie and made the comment because he assumed that she knew that. I live with him so I should know. He can fight his own battles but you're pissing me off you're so wrong.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

> Look there's no need to go here. Blags is right, we've sorted this out via PM.


 
This was three pages ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This was three pages ago.


 yes: but sometimes ymu doesn't do comprehension.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> At Ymu:
> 
> Blagsta doesn't judge Edie and made the comment because he assumed that she knew that. I live with him so I should know. *He can fight his own battles* but you're pissing me off you're so wrong.


 
So fuck off out of it.

Blagsta could have said, "You think Leeds is a nice place to live...", but no, he chose to sling prostitution out there in order to put Eds down, using her history to invalidate anything she has to say. Those who took the glib cunt up on his nasty little ways weren't doing it to defend Edie, we all know she can handle herself, more having the tossrag up on the general cuntishness of his debating style and the irony of using it in this particular thread.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

This is like 2002 urbans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> This is like 2002 urbans.


 retrothread


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

The beef has ruined what was previously quite a constructive dialogue


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Ymu, You really are quite patronising. You can join stella on my ignore list.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

<edited: question answered>


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So fuck off out of it.
> 
> Blagsta could have said, "You think Leeds is a nice place to live...", but no, he chose to sling prostitution out there in order to put Eds down, using her history to invalidate anything she has to say. Those who took the glib cunt up on his nasty little ways weren't doing it to defend Edie, we all know she can handle herself, more having the tossrag up on the general cuntishness of his debating style and the irony of using it in this particular thread.


 
look another one who thinks that the poor little victim needs a hero.  Fuck off.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So fuck off out of it.


 
You're one of the nastiest people on here you fucking cunt. Telling me to fuck off when I haven't been abusive to anyone.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> You're one of the nastiest people on here you fucking cunt. Telling me to fuck off when I haven't been abusive to anyone.


 
He is, he's always jumping into other people's beef to be a cunt.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> retrothread



The Steelgate trial.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> look another one who thinks that the poor little victim needs a hero. Fuck off.


 
Try reading what's in the post, not what you're sordid little mind wishes there to be in the post thicko.



> Those who took the glib cunt up on his nasty little ways weren't doing it to defend Edie, we all know she can handle herself, more having the tossrag up on the general cuntishness of his debating style and the irony of using it in this particular thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> look another one who thinks that the poor little victim needs a hero. Fuck off.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> You're one of the nastiest people on here you fucking cunt. Telling me to fuck off when I haven't been abusive to anyone.


 
You live with blagsta? Figures.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> The beef has ruined what was previously quite a constructive dialogue



And you. This isnt beef as you can clearly see.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> And you. This isnt beef as you can clearly see.


 well spotted


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

edit: on phone. Dropped it


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> well spotted


 
Exactly, shitty move by Blagsta.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes, im not disagreeing that what he said wasnt wrong. Look, theres a number of posters, past and present, who when they have beef with someone think its fine to jump on an entirely unrelated thread for a pop and usually drag some long forgotten personal relic out for public consumption. Its always happened on here. Thats why im saying it isnt misogyny. Because the protagonists dont tend to care about the gender of who they do it to. Its just that you and stella have happened to notice it on this occasion because it is a sensitive issue and was aimed at a woman.


I don't think it's misogyny, I think it's Blagsta. Doesn't mean it's not out of order, nor that it isn't a particularly distasteful approach to take on this thread.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 15, 2012)

can it be left now then?
as requested by Edie


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> And you. This isnt beef as you can clearly see.


Regardless of the rights and wrongs of each case, it *is* beef because it concerns historic conversations, observations and interpretations.  

Basically, it would be impossible to understand who is right and who is wrong without a long understanding of the patricipants.


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> It was not the mention of prostitution, it was the way it was mentioned.
> 
> *Context, innit.* Blags is trying to make out that it was a perfectly reasonable point to make in the context it was made. I see nothing but a snidey comment aimed at an individual which added nothing to the thread.
> 
> If I missed the context and meaning of his original "my normality is normal, yours isn't" comment, he's welcome to explain the context and thought processes behind that post instead of slinging out more snidey self-justification.


 
I am fairly sure that context in this case, though, is that blagsta was referring back to the last thread around prostitution (one where you were, iirc, away from the boards and didn't post) rather than to other threads that have gone before where Edie has talked about her experiences when working. That last thread did very much deal with the "normality" of prostitution  and whether it was normal/acceptable/ok for blokes to use prostitutes.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Regardless of the rights and wrongs of each case, it *is* beef because it concerns historic conversations, observations and interpretations.
> 
> Basically, it would be impossible to understand who is right and who is wrong without a long understanding of the patricipants.


 
It's easy as long as you agree that I'm right, every other fucker is wrong. What could be easier?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Exactly, shitty move by Blagsta.


by no means, i was referring to the unfortunate turn this thread's taken since 3pm.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> I am fairly sure that context in this case, though, is that blagsta was referring back to the last thread around prostitution (one where you were, iirc, away from the boards and didn't post) rather than to other threads that have gone before where Edie has talked about her experiences when working. That last thread did very much deal with the "normality" of prostitution and whether it was normal/acceptable/ok for blokes to use prostitutes.


And what context in this thread justified him making that post? Because I have looked and I still can't find any point it is making other than a snide putdown which suggests that anything she has to say is worthless.

I've quoted the post and invited Blagsta to explain what he meant by it. If he wants to, he can.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means, i was referring to the unfortunate turn this thread's taken since 3pm.


 
Quite. Blagsta's nasty ways have a habit of being found out and his inability to fess up and move oft derails. Such is life.


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So fuck off out of it.
> 
> Blagsta could have said, "You think Leeds is a nice place to live...", but no, he chose to sling prostitution out there in order to put Eds down, *using her history* to invalidate anything she has to say. Those who took the glib cunt up on his nasty little ways weren't doing it to defend Edie, we all know she can handle herself, more having the tossrag up on the general cuntishness of his debating style and the irony of using it in this particular thread.


 
No - he used what she said in a discussion about prostitution, specifically in respect of whether it was "normal" for blokes to use prostitutes/pay for sex. She very specifically argued that point. That doesn't really have a great deal to do with her history (someone who had never worked could have argued the same point).


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Quite. Blagsta's nasty ways have a habit of being found out and his inability to fess up and move oft derails. Such is life.


alright, i was trying to dance around it - but the shitty bit's got quite a bit to do with you and your posts since three.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.

So just leave it.

Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> And what context in this thread justified him making that post? Because I have looked and I still can't find any point it is making other than a snide putdown which suggests that anything she has to say is worthless.
> 
> I've quoted the post and invited Blagsta to explain what he meant by it. If he wants to, he can.


 
He's already done so - that different individuals have different conceptions of what normaility is. Precisely what was being discussed on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I've quoted the post and invited Blagsta to explain what he meant by it. If he wants to, he can.


change the record, it's been bloody answered


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.
> 
> So just leave it.
> 
> Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.


Was great to see you and will be great to see you back. Take care.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.
> 
> So just leave it.
> 
> Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.


taters  have a good one


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Regardless of the rights and wrongs of each case, it *is* beef because it concerns historic conversations, observations and interpretations.
> 
> Basically, it would be impossible to understand who is right and who is wrong without a long understanding of the patricipants.



It is *not* beef and I'll come back to why when I'm not posting from my phone.


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.
> 
> So just leave it.
> 
> Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.


 
FFS - how long's he been gone?

The missus went travelling for a year and she was glad to see me when she returned and everything, but I was back to being sat in my skivvies and posting shit at one in the morning within the fortnight.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.
> 
> So just leave it.
> 
> Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.


I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.

If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.

Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.
> 
> If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.
> 
> Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.


this sounds to me to be a cross between saying edie doesn't know what she's on about and detective-boy's famous 'cunts collective' redux.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

That's because you have piss poor reading comprehension. I've mentioned it before. Try a bit harder.


----------



## love detective (Mar 15, 2012)

i don't think blagsta owes anyone an explanation - it seemed fairly clear to me what his point was and that wasn't a personal attack but a general point

as this thread is in UK Politics and I don't really read much outside of politics maybe there is something i've missed/not aware off that goes on there, but based on what has been said here I can't understand why he's getting so much grief


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> That's because you have piss poor reading comprehension. I've mentioned it before. Try a bit harder.


no, it's because you say 'i don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point scoring' and then damn edie when you say 'if you're ok with blagsta's explanation, that's fine' but immediately say that it isn't good enough for you: giving the impression that you know oh so much better than her. and as for the 'cunts collective', it's from your claim that 'it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again'. it's not my reading comprehension, it's what you post.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

pretty much my take on it too.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie, I have to admit that I am disappoint that you have repeatedly taken the time to address the bunfight but haven't offered one word about the thoughtful and sincere responses to you about structural oppression.


Still, stay well until we see you next.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.
> 
> If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.
> 
> Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.


could you point out where i am allegedly misunderstanding you?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.
> 
> If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.
> 
> Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.


 
sorry but if this argument is whether sex work is exploitative, well it is, it's not patronising to say that regardless of what particular individuals think about their relationship to it.

reducing arguments to a level of "well you are oppressing me by saying i'm exploited and I don't think I'm exploited" is rather pathetic, whether it's to do with working in ASDA, a restaurant or prostitution.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes how the fuck CAN I say anything about oppression. I said my piece. I acknowledged that ymu made some good points (as did you fwiw). But if I say fuck all now it'll sound wrong. I think there is still a lot of sexism. But oppression infers fear to me. Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

@ blagsta - fair enough


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> kabbes how the fuck CAN I say anything about oppression. I said my piece. I acknowledged that ymu made some good points (as did you fwiw). But if I say fuck all now it'll sound wrong. I think there is still a lot of sexism. But oppression infers fear to me. Maybe I'm wrong.


How can oppression imply fear if it is so endemic that many people don't even realise it is there, and even collude with their own oppression as a consequence?

You're still conflating personal, one-on-one oppression with structural, impersonal, systemic oppression.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> no, it's because you say 'i don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point scoring' and then damn edie when you say 'if you're ok with blagsta's explanation, that's fine' but immediately say that it isn't good enough for you: giving the impression that you know oh so much better than her. and as for the 'cunts collective', it's from your claim that 'it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again'. it's not my reading comprehension, it's what you post.


Yeah, as I said, piss poor reading comprehension.


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> kabbes how the fuck CAN I say anything about oppression. I said my piece. I acknowledged that ymu made some good points (as did you fwiw). But if I say fuck all now it'll sound wrong. I think there is still a lot of sexism. But oppression infers fear to me. Maybe I'm wrong.


 
But what sort of fear? Fear doesn't have to be physical/fear of violence - it can be fear for your job security, fear of being judged on factors (your sex, how you look) that have nothing to do with your capacity to perform a particular role (there is of course, much more to oppression than simple fear, but that'll do for now).


----------



## trashpony (Mar 15, 2012)

Collating? Conflating, surely?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Collating? Conflating, surely?


Don't know what you mean


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> could you point out where i am allegedly misunderstanding you?


You really that slow?

The first line is me pointing out that Edie does not need to apologise for reading his post in that way.

The second line is acknowledging that she has every right to forgive him, but his failure to simply apologise on the thread instead of repeated self-justifying means that I think it's reasonable to ask him to provide an explanation for that post on the thread.

The final paragraph is pointing out the irony. This started because Edie objected to being told she was oppressed and this led to a discussion about internalisation of oppression. Yet when a bloke makes a comment that several posters interpreted as oppressive, they're simply wrong because he's not like that. Women internalise oppression but men don't internalise oppressiveness? I'd love to see a thread on that ...


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> But what sort of fear? Fear doesn't have to be physical/fear of violence - it can be fear for your job security, fear of being judged on factors (your sex, how you look) that have nothing to do with your capacity to perform a particular role (there is of course, much more to oppression than simple fear, but that'll do for now).


Fear of some arsehole having a cheap dig about your views on prostitution should you dare to contribute to a thread on rape and sexual oppression, perhaps?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> You really that slow?
> 
> The first line is me pointing out that Edie does not need to apologise for reading his post in that way.
> 
> ...


 
relativist crap I'm afraid.

How on earth is it oppressive to say someone is oppressed/exploited even if the individual doesn't think they are?

The irony being that a man who lives off the exploitation of sex workers would not be oppressive by agreeing with a woman who says she doesn't feel exploited or oppressed but a man who argues it is exploitative is actually the oppressor?

The stupidity of such relativist identity politics crap should be all too obvious in such a situation.

If people want to think that I oppress women and the working class in general for arguing that sex work and work in general is exploitative, regardless of what particular workers believe, they can go for it.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> But what sort of fear? Fear doesn't have to be physical/fear of violence - it can be fear for your job security, fear of being judged on factors (your sex, how you look) that have nothing to do with your capacity to perform a particular role (there is of course, much more to oppression than simple fear, but that'll do for now).


I'll tell you what I do find quite oppressive actually is the inability to now talk about sex on here without someone bringing up whoring. It's the one thing I had no intention of discussing when I come back, yet both Maurice and Blags have brought it up. Now like Blags said, it's out there, why shouldn't it be discussed? And I can't think of a good reason to be truthful other then I'm tired of it coming up.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> I'll tell you what I do find quite oppressive actually is the inability to now talk about sex on here without someone bringing up whoring. It's the one thing I had no intention of discussing when I come back, yet both Maurice and Blags have brought it up. Now like Blags said, it's out there, why shouldn't it be discussed? And I can't think of a good reason to be truthful other then I'm tired of it coming up.


I wonder if women ever mention it. I suspect not


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> relativist crap I'm afraid.
> 
> How on earth is it oppressive to say someone is oppressed/exploited even if the individual doesn't think they are?
> 
> ...


You appear to have read some book that told you what to disagree with. Try reading the thread.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> You appear to have read some book that told you what to disagree with. Try reading the thread.


 
I've read the thread, more importantly I read your post that made the ridiculous assertion that a man telling a women she is oppressed is oppressive itself, which like I said is relativist crap.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

I didn't say that. I was one of those who pointed out the internalisation of oppression to Edie.

Which is why it's obvious that you haven't read the thread, you've just matched up some key words with a book you read once. When you grow up a bit, you'll learn how to formulate your own arguments.

I was pointing out the irony that so many posters can point out (correctly) to Edie that she doesn't have to be aware of her own oppression to experience it, yet Blagsta is being defended on the grounds that he is not a misogynist therefore his comment cannot have been oppressive.

But things always seem to get a bit touchy around here whenever we touch on male responsibility for oppression.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I didn't say that. I was one of those who pointed out the internalisation of oppression to Edie.
> 
> Which is why it's obvious that you haven't read the thread, you've just matched up some key words with a book you read once. When you grow up a bit, you'll learn how to formulate your own arguments.
> 
> ...


 
It was this I was taking issue with.



> The final paragraph is pointing out the irony. This started because Edie objected to being told she was oppressed and this led to a discussion about internalisation of oppression. Yet when a bloke makes a comment that several posters interpreted as oppressive, they're simply wrong because he's not like that. Women internalise oppression but men don't internalise oppressiveness? I'd love to see a thread on that ...


 

This is my point it doesn't prove shit that some people think it's oppressive, likewise it doesn't matter that some people think sex work and wage labour in general aren't exploitative. You have to make an argument and frankly I can't see one that suggests Blagsta has internalised oppressiveness.

And whilst I'm pretty certain I have many flaws formulating my own arguments isn't one so please find another angle.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

Things get touchy when people reduce oppression to a stupid subjective individualist level, yes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Things get touchy when people reduce oppression to a stupid subjective individualist level, yes.


A lot of oppression is experienced at that level, though, is it not? In particular, sexist oppression is experienced on a day-to-day level by women in their individual dealings with the world. Yes, some oppression, such as that often experienced in jobs, is systemic and impersonal in nature, but some isn't.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A lot of oppression is experienced at that level, though, is it not? In particular, sexist oppression is experienced on a day-to-day level by women in their individual dealings with the world. Yes, some oppression, such as that often experienced in jobs, is systemic and impersonal in nature, but some isn't.


 
of course but I haven't seen any evidence of this from Blagsta whose only sin seems to be for arguing that sex work is exploitative.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> I am fairly sure that context in this case, though, is that blagsta was referring back to the last thread around prostitution (one where you were, iirc, away from the boards and didn't post) rather than to other threads that have gone before where Edie has talked about her experiences when working. That last thread did very much deal with the "normality" of prostitution and whether it was normal/acceptable/ok for blokes to use prostitutes.


 
Yes.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> No - he used what she said in a discussion about prostitution, specifically in respect of whether it was "normal" for blokes to use prostitutes/pay for sex. She very specifically argued that point. That doesn't really have a great deal to do with her history (someone who had never worked could have argued the same point).


 
Again, yes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> of course but I haven't seen any evidence of this from Blagsta whose only sin seems to be for arguing that sex work is exploitative.


Ah ok.

As a more general point, to go back to something kabbes said earlier, I think there's a danger in over-extending the definition of oppression. If it ends up that we're all oppressed in some way, that's not too useful, imo. If we're all oppressed, that's kind of the same as saying that none of us is oppressed. Shouldn't there be a point where we distinguish between the compromises we choose or are forced to make in order to function in a society and oppression. There's a value judgement to oppression, isn't there - restrictions enforced upon us that are unnecessary and bad.

I'm not so sure the problem here isn't with the fact that different people are defining the word differently. It's a hard one to define, I think, because the same societal restriction may be interpreted by one person as oppression, and by another as simply 'how things are', or even 'how I like things to be'.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> Listen, you all know I don't need no fucker to fight my corner. For the record, I initially thought blags was using the 'your a whore so what the fuck do you know about normal sexuality' line. But he wasn't. He explained via PM. Saying that I do feel really despairing that I can't seem to get involved in a thread on here without it being brought up. I never mentioned it for 9 years on here and I'd of been best off keeping quiet. Not cos I'm ashamed or fuckin shit like that, just cos people just can't get fuckin PAST it sometimes.
> 
> So just leave it.
> 
> Btw I'm fucking off again tonight for a coupla months. This has nothing to do with this. My other halfs back off his trip is all.


 
Take care


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> This is my point it doesn't prove shit that some people think it's oppressive, likewise it doesn't matter that some people think sex work and wage labour in general aren't exploitative. You have to make an argument and frankly I can't see one that suggests Blagsta has internalised oppressiveness.


Do you know what internalising means?

Do you not see the problem? People who understand that women are not always aware of the ways in which they are oppressed simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that men are not always aware of the ways in which they oppress?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> I'll tell you what I do find quite oppressive actually is the inability to now talk about sex on here without someone bringing up whoring. It's the one thing I had no intention of discussing when I come back, yet both Maurice and Blags have brought it up. Now like Blags said, it's out there, why shouldn't it be discussed? And I can't think of a good reason to be truthful other then I'm tired of it coming up.


 
Thing is, I didn't bring up anything to do with anyone in particular whoring.  That was stella and ymu.  As past caring gets, I was referring to a discussion about the normality or otherwise of men using prostitutes.  Again, as past caring points out, that does not necessarily have to have anything to do with what you may or may not have done.  In fact, I'm aware that not everyone knows about your past, so I was careful not to refer to it.  You have stella and ymu to thank for dragging that up.


----------



## PlaidDragon (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie wants people to stop talking about it, so people continue to go on about it. Makes sense. Can't we get back to the topic at hand?


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I was pointing out the irony that so many posters can point out (correctly) to Edie that she doesn't have to be aware of her own oppression to experience it, yet Blagsta is being defended on the grounds that he is not a misogynist therefore his comment cannot have been oppressive.


 
Well, I think I was the only one who made anything approaching that defence in that mine was based on knowing him and his thoughts about edie rather than discussing his argument. But I didn't say anything like you've suggested.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Do you know what internalising means?
> 
> Do you not see the problem? People who understand that women are not always aware of the ways in which they are oppressed simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that men are not always aware of the ways in which they oppress?


 
No, nobody understands anything ymu. Nothing at all.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Thing is, I didn't bring up anything to do with anyone in particular whoring. That was stella and ymu. As past caring gets, I was referring to a discussion about the normality or otherwise of men using prostitutes. Again, as past caring points out, that does not necessarily have to have anything to do with what you may or may not have done. In fact, I'm aware that not everyone knows about your past, so I was careful not to refer to it. You have stella and ymu to thank for dragging that up.


 
What did your post add? Why did it have to dismiss Edie's views as worthless in order to make whatever obscure point it was making about the semantic definition of 'normal'?

You still haven't explained this, and I would like to know. You could have just acknowledged that it could easily be misread and apologised, but you've chosen the usual self-justification approach, so explain your choice of words and what you intended to achieve by them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> alright, i was trying to dance around it - but the shitty bit's got quite a bit to do with you and your posts since three.


 
I quite understand, I don't know why, but simpletons like Blagsta seem to get riled by my presence and get all unnecessary.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Thing is, I didn't bring up anything to do with anyone in particular whoring. That was stella and ymu. As past caring gets, I was referring to a discussion about the normality or otherwise of men using prostitutes. Again, as past caring points out, that does not necessarily have to have anything to do with what you may or may not have done. In fact, I'm aware that not everyone knows about your past, so I was careful not to refer to it. You have stella and ymu to thank for dragging that up.


 
lamest.wiggle.evah


----------



## PlaidDragon (Mar 15, 2012)

Ffs


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> No, nobody understands anything ymu. Nothing at all.


Was the point being made too difficult to address then?


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> You still haven't explained this, and I would like to know. You could have just acknowledged that it could easily be misread and apologised, but you've chosen the usual self-justification approach, so explain your choice of words and what you intended to achieve by them.


 
After you repeatedly called him a cunt?


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Was the point being made too difficult to address then?


 
For all other than you oh most intelligent being *bows down*


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Do you know what internalising means?
> 
> Do you not see the problem? People who understand that women are not always aware of the ways in which they are oppressed simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that men are not always aware of the ways in which they oppress?


 
No I'm well aware of that, what I'm wary of is claims that this is oppressive or isn't based on subjective claims, so that what it becomes reduced to tallying up opinions.

I mean the implication I was picking up on was that Blagsta is somehow being oppressive but I can't see any evidence for this in this thread alone, all I've seen is assertion, if someone wants to make an argument as how he or anyone else is being oppressive then fair enough, we can then engage in a discussion around that but I just as I don't take simply accept claims that sex work isn't exploitative because some sex workers don't think it is, neither do I accept that someone is being oppressive just because someone says they are.

Now maybe I'm missing some long standing history or beef but on this thread I simply can't see evidence of oppression though I have seen some people posting quite manipulative things to make out that Blagsta is victimising Edie, mostly the posts by 5tella that were to my mind completely out of order.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> After you repeatedly called him a cunt?


Every time he self-justified instead of making a simple apology, yes.



Red Cat said:


> For all other than you most intelligent being *bows down*


There are plenty of people who understand the point perfectly well. There are others who are studiously ignoring it, for reasons they probably can't explain, it being internalised and all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.
> 
> If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.
> 
> Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.


 
I only have one issue with your post, ymu: Aren't you the person who was bellyaching about the trotting out of stereotypes, yesterday? If so, do you really think it's wise to deploy stereotypes to back up your argument?


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> No I'm well aware of that, what I'm wary of is claims that this is oppressive or isn't based on subjective claims, so that what it becomes reduced to tallying up opinions.
> 
> I mean the implication I was picking up on was that Blagsta is somehow being oppressive but I can't see any evidence for this in this thread alone, all I've seen is assertion, if someone wants to make an argument as how he or anyone else is being oppressive then fair enough, we can then engage in a discussion around that but I just as I don't take simply accept claims that sex work isn't exploitative because some sex workers don't think it is, neither do I accept that someone is being oppressive just because someone says they are.
> 
> Now maybe I'm missing some long standing history or beef but on this thread I simply can't see evidence of oppression though I have seen some people posting quite manipulative things to make out that Blagsta is victimising Edie, mostly the posts by 5tella that were to my mind completely out of order.


Edie has explained exactly what she found oppressive about it. Do you need a bloke to explain it before you take it seriously?



Edie said:


> I'll tell you what I do find quite oppressive actually is the inability to now talk about sex on here without someone bringing up whoring. It's the one thing I had no intention of discussing when I come back, yet both Maurice and Blags have brought it up. Now like Blags said, it's out there, why shouldn't it be discussed? And I can't think of a good reason to be truthful other then I'm tired of it coming up.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> I have seen some people posting quite manipulative things to make out that Blagsta is victimising Edie, mostly the posts by 5tella that were to my mind completely out of order.


 
Indeed. Which is why I jumped in. Really fucking nasty.

Now jumping out again.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I only have one issue with your post, ymu: Aren't you the person who was bellyaching about the trotting out of stereotypes, yesterday? If so, do you really think it's wise to deploy stereotypes to back up your argument?


What stereotypes am I deploying?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> What stereotypes am I deploying?


 
You said "a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read...".[/quote]
Man as all-powerful. That's a stereotype.


> "...I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types...".


 
Woman as weak-minded is a stereotype.



> ...If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing."


 
Last verse, same as the first. A stereotype.

And yes, everyone knows you're deploying these stereotypes ironically.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Edie has explained exactly what she found oppressive about it. Do you need a bloke to explain it before you take it seriously?


 
Nice, that's exactly the snidey sort of implication I was talking about, way to try and shut down any serious discussion about sexism and gender.

It has fuck all to do with peoples genders, it's to do with their arguments and behaviour, I don't see anything oppressive in this thread, I don't think somene feeling oppressed because discussions on thread lead onto ones on prostitution (not much of a fan of the phrase "whoring") makes the person bringing up prostitution oppressive especially when the poster in question is actually challenging the exploitation and oppression in the sex industry. I will say that the term uncomfortable would probably be better suited than oppressive regarding Edie's feelings, unless there is evidence people are actually trying to attack her by talking about such issues.

Frankly I couldn't care less about Edie's history, it's nothing to do with me and I wish it wouldn't get brought up because I don't think it helps discussion, instead it personalises the issue and leads to overly emotional crap like we are seeing now, where Edie doesn't feel comfortable and neither do people arguing against her as they are wary of being accused of using it to attack her.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> lamest.wiggle.evah


 
You're acting like a little kid poking a wasp nest with a stick.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You said "a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read...".
> Man as all-powerful. That's a stereotype.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm taking the piss out of those stereotypes, not relying on them to support my argument.

You say you know that, so why did you bother with that post?

Don't you think it's strange that a bloke who can write articulately about women internalising oppression can't recognise that he himself may have internalised the means of oppression? Can't even acknowledge that it's possible, rather than repeatedly insisting that he's simply been misinterpreted and there's nothing to apologise for?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> No I'm well aware of that, what I'm wary of is claims that this is oppressive or isn't based on subjective claims, so that what it becomes reduced to tallying up opinions.
> 
> I mean the implication I was picking up on was that Blagsta is somehow being oppressive but I can't see any evidence for this in this thread alone, all I've seen is assertion, if someone wants to make an argument as how he or anyone else is being oppressive then fair enough, we can then engage in a discussion around that but I just as I don't take simply accept claims that sex work isn't exploitative because some sex workers don't think it is, neither do I accept that someone is being oppressive just because someone says they are.
> 
> *Now maybe I'm missing some long standing history or beef* but on this thread I simply can't see evidence of oppression though I have seen some people posting quite manipulative things to make out that Blagsta is victimising Edie, mostly the posts by 5tella that were to my mind completely out of order.


 
No.  Ymu was palling up to me a few months ago via PM and I've never really interacted much with stella before.  Me and Edie have a good board relationship going back over 10 years.  Which makes ymu and stella's actions on here even more batshit.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I'm taking the piss out of those stereotypes, not relying on them to support my argument.
> 
> You say you know that, so why did you bother with that post?
> 
> Don't you think it's strange that a bloke who can write articulately about women internalising oppression can't recognise that he himself may have internalised the means of oppression? Can't even acknowledge that it's possible, rather than repeatedly insisting that he's simply been misinterpreted and there's nothing to apologise for?


 
oh come off it, of course everyone could internalise the means of oppression (men and women btw!) but you raising this issue in this thread isn't some innocent question, it was clearly meant to imply they had internalised it and were oppressing women. you might as well claim you asking me if I needed a bloke to say it before I took it seriously was just an innocent question with no subtext.

In short you and quite a few others are being underhand pricks and should wise up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Every time he self-justified instead of making a simple apology, yes.


 
"Self-justified". Interesting phrase, because it shows you representing him as, in effect, "guilty". If you did indeed call him a cunt because of the above, then you were doing so without giving him the benefit of an opportunity to explain himself, because you'd already decided, with that first "cunt", that there was nothing he could say that could explain himself or put his case that would satisfy you.

I hate discourse analysis, don't you?


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> No. Ymu was palling up to me a few months ago via PM and I've never really interacted much with stella before. Me and Edie have a good board relationship going back over 10 years. Which makes ymu and stella's actions on here even more batshit.


I was palling up to you by PM? I don't even remember a PM exchange with you, but if there was one, you seem to have taken it as meaning that I'm not allowed to call you out when you act like a shit.

Is it all mates who can't be criticised and enemies who can't be agreed with for you? Would explain a lot, tbh. But I don't operate like that. I'll say what I think regardless of who is saying it. I have a lot of respect for what you say sometimes, and I despair of the way you say it a lot of the time.

I think the way you have hounded Edie across threads is beyond disgusting, and it's time you knew it. That's all.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

I like Blagsta.  I think he generally has a good heart and he comes from the right place in his approach.  I don't think he _meant_ any harm whatsoever in his comment.

I have to admit, though, that I think ymu's and stella's basic point is right, even though I reserve the right to tut disapprovingly at their method of delivery of that point.  It _is_ nonsense to talk about internalisation of being the oppressed with recognising that the flip side of that is an internalisation of being the oppressor.  And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam.

It's unintentional, yes.  But that's what internalisation means -- something unintentional.  

I earnestly wish this hadn't become such a bunfight though, because it has sorely divided some of the posters whose contributions I admire the most.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

Maybe if ymu or 5tella came out and said exactly what it was that Blagsta has done to be oppressive instead of dancing around it and engaging in snidey innuendo we'd be able to move on.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Self-justified". Interesting phrase, because it shows you representing him as, in effect, "guilty". If you did indeed call him a cunt because of the above, then you were doing so without giving him the benefit of an opportunity to explain himself, because you'd already decided, with that first "cunt", that there was nothing he could say that could explain himself or put his case that would satisfy you.
> 
> I hate discourse analysis, don't you?


I think it's pretty easy, if something you have said has offended someone, to acknowledge that offence has been caused and move on, ideally having thought a bit about what it was that caused offence when you did not intend it to.

I called him a cunt each time he self-justified instead of providing an explanation. I am still waiting for the explanation, because all I can see is a one-liner intended to undermine Edie.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I like Blagsta. I think he generally has a good heart and he comes from the right place in his approach. I don't think he _meant_ any harm whatsoever in his comment.
> 
> I have to admit, though, that I think ymu's and stella's basic point is right, even though I reserve the right to tut disapprovingly at their method of delivery of that point. It _is_ nonsense to talk about internalisation of being the oppressed with recognising that the flip side of that is an internalisation of being the oppressor. And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam.
> 
> ...


 
But what exactly did Blagsta do that manifested this apparent internalisation?

That's what inquiring minds want to know!


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I think it's pretty easy, if something you have said has offended someone, to acknowledge that offence has been caused and move on, ideally having thought a bit about what it was that caused offence when you did not intend it to.
> 
> I called him a cunt each time he self-justified instead of providing an explanation. I am still waiting for the explanation, because all


 
what did he say that was offensive, just because someone says you offended them doesn't mean you should have to apologise for offending them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I'm taking the piss out of those stereotypes, not relying on them to support my argument.
> 
> You say you know that, so why did you bother with that post?


 
To make a point, the point being it's hypocritical to rail against the use of stereotypes, and then to use them when it suits you.



> Don't you think it's strange that a bloke who can write articulately about women internalising oppression can't recognise that he himself may have internalised the means of oppression?


 
See, you're pulling a flanker there. Your responses to Blagsta show that you believe he *has* done so, but you've constructed your question in such a way as to imply that there's room for doubt, that he "may have internalised the means of oppression".
In answer to your question, though, I *don't* find it strange that *any* male (or indeed any female) might internalise some means of oppression without realising. People aren't deeply reflexive through all their waking hours, and a lot depends on what their "triggers" are.



> Can't even acknowledge that it's possible, rather than repeatedly insisting that he's simply been misinterpreted and there's nothing to apologise for?


 
You weren't asking him to acknowledge that such an act was possible, though, you were calling him a cunt because you'd found him guilty of committing such an act. No-one is likely to acknowledge or apologise anything if they're being cunted all over the shop.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> But what exactly did Blagsta do that manifested this apparent internalisation?
> 
> That's what inquiring minds want to know!


The choice of analogy.  That choice carries with it a weight of past conversations, as well as the condemnation of social morality.

The thing is that I am super-sensitive to this stuff and I have to admit that I didn't notice it straight away either.  I thought, "yeah, fair point, good demonstration that one man's 'normal' is another man's 'odd'".  But once the weight of context had been pointed out, I had to admit that it was more complicated than it first appeared.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Maybe if ymu or 5tella came out and said exactly what it was that Blagsta has done to be oppressive instead of dancing around it and engaging in snidey innuendo we'd be able to move on.


I think we've both explained it very clearly, several times, and I think others have made the point well too. kabbes has parsed it all for you above.

The responses have largely ignored the point we are making in favour of saying that no one had a right to feel offended by his comment, for some reason that may or may not be connected with them viewing Blagsta as a non-oppressive type.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> The choice of analogy. That choice carries with it a weight of past conversations, as well as the condemnation of social morality.
> 
> The thing is that I am super-sensitive to this stuff and I have to admit that I didn't notice it straight away either. I thought, "yeah, fair point, good demonstration that one man's 'normal' is another man's 'odd'". But once the weight of context had been pointed out, I had to admit that it was more complicated than it first appeared.


 
And yet you still can't lay it out for me, jesus h, I feel like I got myself involved in an Umberto Ecco novel.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> What did your post add? Why did it have to dismiss Edie's views as worthless in order to make whatever obscure point it was making about the semantic definition of 'normal'?
> 
> You still haven't explained this, and I would like to know. You could have just acknowledged that it could easily be misread and apologised, but you've chosen the usual self-justification approach, so explain your choice of words and what you intended to achieve by them.



The first paragraph ^ is my point. Thanks for putting it so succinctly, ymu. 

Blagsta did it, Blagsta said it. Could have been anyone. He says this and gets made an example of. Oh dear. 

I fail to see what is batshit about it. The implication seems to be ymu and I are being hysterical lol.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I think we've both explained it very clearly, several times, and I think others have made the point well too. kabbes has parsed it all for you above.
> 
> The responses have largely ignored the point we are making in favour of saying that no one had a right to feel offended by his comment, for some reason that may or may not be connected with them viewing Blagsta as a non-oppressive type.


 
No you haven't, and neither has kabbes he's hinted round it in vague terms.

You on the otherhand have really done little more than be a snidey prick insinuating that I will only take a "bloke" seriously, whilst dodging the substance of my posts.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> But what exactly did Blagsta do that manifested this apparent internalisation?
> 
> That's what inquiring minds want to know!


What is it that you're not getting. kabbes said it very clearly in the post you are replying to: _"And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam."_

That is what Blagsta did, and repeatedly does, to Edie, whether he recognises it or not (and I am 100% certain he doesn't because he's a decent bloke). He needs to recognise it, that's all.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> What is it that you're not getting. kabbes said it very clearly in the post you are replying to: _"And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam."_
> 
> That is what Blagsta did, and repeatedly does, to Edie, whether he recognises it or not (and I am 100% certain he doesn't because he's a decent bloke). He needs to recognise it, that's all. Then he be decenterer.



I said the SLAM thing earlier and was ignored. Perhaps kabbes' identical version will get some recognition? 

I honestly don't understand why no one is getting this


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> What is it that you're not getting. kabbes said it very clearly in the post you are replying to: _"And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam."_
> 
> That is what Blagsta did, and repeatedly does, to Edie, whether he recognises it or not (and I am 100% certain he doesn't because he's a decent bloke). He needs to recognise it, that's all.


 
No, no one has actually fucking quoted me the comment in question, nor given me any background to it.

And are you going to address or apologise for your own snidey behaviour, quite clearly meant to slam the door shut on my views on the grounds that I have a penis?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

Can't we just move back to the discussion we were having before all this kicked off? It's getting a bit tedious and has completely derailed a really interesting discussion.

When I was doing my PhD, it was interesting to note the gender split within the mathematics department. At undergraduate level it was pretty much 50:50. Surprisingly, at MSc and PhD student level it was also around 50:50. But for post-docs, there was a dramatic change - the number of women dropped to 5-10%, and they were pretty much all short-term contracts so were never around for more than a year or so. There were no female lecturing or professorial staff. the only full-time female staff were the 3 administrators.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Can't we just move back to the discussion we were having before all this kicked off? It's getting a bit tedious and has completely derailed a really interesting discussion.
> 
> When I was doing my PhD, it was interesting to note the gender split within the mathematics department. At undergraduate level it was pretty much 50:50. Surprisingly, at MSc and PhD student level it was also around 50:50. But for post-docs, there was a dramatic change - the number of women dropped to 5-10%, and they were pretty much all short-term contracts so were never around for more than a year or so. There were no female lecturing or professorial staff. the only full-time female staff were the 3 administrators.


That is a dramatic change! Why do you think that is?


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You weren't asking him to acknowledge that such an act was possible, though, you were calling him a cunt because you'd found him guilty of committing such an act. No-one is likely to acknowledge or apologise anything if they're being cunted all over the shop.


It wasn't the best choice of approach, no. But in those 'cunt' posts I was also pointing out why his latest attempt at self-justfication wasn't good enough and inviting him to try again. He was free to prove he wasn't a cunt by just accepting that he'd made an error and acknowledging it. But he didn't, he just kept on explaining how there was nothing offensive or unreasonable in what he said, whilst ignoring the hugely offensive way he said it. So I kept calling him a cunt.

Childish, I know. But it's interesting how the way the point was made is now being used as an excuse to avoid addressing the point. Curious how often that happens on these threads.

Believing yourself to be non-sexist, non-racist, non-homophobic does not make it true. It is impossible to grow up in a bigoted society and not absorb elements of that bigotry. When someone tells you you have offended them, going off at the deep end on the grounds that you're not a bigot is missing the point by a country mile.


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> I like Blagsta. I think he generally has a good heart and he comes from the right place in his approach. I don't think he _meant_ any harm whatsoever in his comment.
> 
> I have to admit, though, that I think ymu's and stella's basic point is right, even though I reserve the right to tut disapprovingly at their method of delivery of that point. It _is_ nonsense to talk about internalisation of being the oppressed with recognising that the flip side of that is an internalisation of being the oppressor. * And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam.*
> 
> ...


 
It's more difficult/complicated than that, though, I think. Sometimes there's a subtext here that really does go unoticed (though one that was hinted at by revol, above) which is that sometimes people can be blunt (which is what I think Blagsta was being) _precisely_ because you respect the poster. From stuff I've observed, I think Edie is one of the genuinely warmest, most generous, decent human beings on here - but she also posts some fucking awful crap at times in the politics threads. And I think she does get genuinely upset (not just the prostitution stuff) with some of the disagreements - how to deal with that when it's just words on a message board and there aren't the other ways that the meaning of what is _said_ gets modulated with face-to-face communication...


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> No, no one has actually fucking quoted me the comment in question, nor given me any background to it.
> 
> And are you going to address or apologise for your own snidey behaviour, quite clearly meant to slam the door shut on my views on the grounds that I have a penis?


I reposted it since you joined. Perhaps you would do better if you read the threads you were posting on?


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I think the way you have hounded Edie across threads is beyond disgusting, and it's time you knew it. That's all.


 
That's a fucking outrageous slur, in all honesty, though hardly untypical of some of your hyperbole.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 15, 2012)

Is maths a particularly fast moving discipline, in which you're left at a huge disadvantage should you take a couple of years out for childcare? I thought that most of it had already been invented.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> It wasn't the best choice of approach, no. But in those 'cunt' posts I was also pointing out why his latest attempt at self-justfication wasn't good enough and inviting him to try again. He was free to prove he wasn't a cunt by just accepting that he'd made an error and acknowledging it. But he didn't, he just kept on explaining how there was nothing offensive or unreasonable in what he said, whilst ignoring the hugely offensive way he said it. So I kept calling him a cunt.
> 
> Childish, I know. But it's interesting how the way the point was made is now being used as an excuse to avoid addressing the point. Curious how often that happens on these threads.
> 
> Believing yourself to be non-sexist, non-racist, non-homophobic does not make it true. It is impossible to grow up in a bigoted society and not absorb elements of that bigotry. When someone tells you you have offended them, going off at the deep end on the grounds that you're not a bigot is missing the point by a country mile.


 
Right so if someone says you offended them then yeah of course you did and more to the point were being offensive?

Just because someone takes offense or feels uncomfortable doesn't mean either person is in the wrong, which I think is what both Edie and Blagsta settled on, so I don't see why it needed you coming in and stirring shit in your underhand way.

So are you going to hold your hands up for being a snidey dick to me, insinuating that I only take blokes seriously?


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Right so if someone says you offended them then yeah of course you did?
> 
> So are you going to hold your hands up for being a snidey dick to me, insinuating that I only take blokes seriously?
> 
> Just because someone takes offense or feels uncomfortable doesn't mean either person is in the wrong, which I think is what both Edie and Blagsta settled on, so I don't see why it needed you coming in and stirring shit in your underhand way.


If you had read the thread from the beginning, you'll notice a number of posts sarcatically congratulating men for reaching a conclusion that women had already posted several times but been ignored on.

It wasn't a personal dig at you, you over-sensitive little kitten.

Still, kind of me to make a point that you could take exaggerated offence at instead of engaging with the main issue. I'm nice like that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> It's more difficult/complicated than that, though, I think. Sometimes there's a subtext here that really does go unoticed (though one that was hinted at by revol, above) which is that sometimes people can be blunt (which is what I think Blagsta was being) _precisely_ because you respect the poster. From stuff I've observed, I think Edie is one of the genuinely warmest, most generous, decent human beings on here - but she also posts some fucking awful crap at times in the politics threads. And I think she does get genuinely upset (not just the prostitution stuff) with some of the disagreements - how to deal with that when *it's just words on a message board and there aren't the other ways that the meaning of what is said gets modulated with face-to-face communication*...


This is a point I think most of us forget sometimes. This is a message board. People get taken the wrong way for exactly this reason. It's the same reason why irony is such a dangerous thing on here, and all of us miss the irony half the time. Not only is it just words on a message board, but it's also just words on a message board that a lot of us are banging out very quickly when we should be doing something else.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is a dramatic change! Why do you think that is?


I honestly don't know. It's too big a gap to put it down to child raising career breaks, in my opinion. I think it's down to whether or not female PhD students are encouraged to pursue an academic career - my supervisor didn't really encourage me, for example, as he said he wouldn't support any application for a post-doc at the same department, and when I started to investigate post-doc options elsewhere he wasn't supportive at all. Yet my brother who did a PhD in the same department was heavily supported and had a post-doc there for at least a year. I know I wasn't the only student that experienced this, there were at least two other female students at the same time who had similar experiences.

Also, whilst Phd funding has increased significantly, funding for post-docs hasn't increased at the same rate so there is even more competition for post-doc positions. I think many women are discoutaged by this point and choose other careers.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> The choice of analogy. That choice carries with it a weight of past conversations, as well as the condemnation of social morality.
> 
> The thing is that I am super-sensitive to this stuff and I have to admit that I didn't notice it straight away either. I thought, "yeah, fair point, good demonstration that one man's 'normal' is another man's 'odd'". But once the weight of context had been pointed out, I had to admit that it was more complicated than it first appeared.


 
This is bollocks though. Edie is not offended, once she understood the intention. The only people being offended here are the frankly increasingly twisted ymu and stella.

As I said earlier - this brings up a more general point about working with "vulnerable" people. Stella (and others) seem to think that this involves patting them on the head and saying "poor you" while walking on eggshells. It doesn't. It involves establishing a good relationship and then maybe discussing difficult and challenging topics - its a judgement call as to when and how to do this. Sometimes your client will react angrily - that's not a bad thing. Anger is a normal and healthy emotion. Hopefully if the relationship is good enough, the anger will go and the actual substance of whatever it is can be thought about. Working with vulnerable people does not mean avoiding certain topics for fear of upset.

Now, obviously I'm not implying that was what I was doing here, 'cos I'm not in any kind of professional relationship with Edie (and I'm only referring to it cos of what stella said about me working with vulnerable people), but it sheds light on a general point about discussing stuff on here. I think I have a good enough relationship with Edie to say what I said - as has been pointed out, I was referring to an earlier discussion on the normality (or otherwise) of prostitution. Now, either referring to points made in previous threads is out of bounds or it isn't. It's really patronising to expect that certain things are not referred to because that person is perceived to be "vulnerable". If I'd made a direct comment about Edie sex working, that would have been out of order - but I didn't. I referred to a more general discussion about prostitution. The only people dragging up Edie's sex work is stella and ymu - the ones making out they are defending her. That's twisted and head fucky and borderline abusive.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

to be honest blagsta has apologised and edie said she is ok with his apology so can we all move on now.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> It's more difficult/complicated than that, though, I think. Sometimes there's a subtext here that really does go unoticed (though one that was hinted at by revol, above) which is that *sometimes people can be blunt (which is what I think Blagsta was being) precisely because you respect the poster*. From stuff I've observed, I think Edie is one of the genuinely warmest, most generous, decent human beings on here - but she also posts some fucking awful crap at times in the politics threads. And I think she does get genuinely upset (not just the prostitution stuff) with some of the disagreements - how to deal with that when it's just words on a message board and there aren't the other ways that the meaning of what is _said_ gets modulated with face-to-face communication...


 
I'm glad you get this - it's what I was getting at in my previous post.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> If you had read the thread from the beginning, you'll notice a number of posts sarcatically congratulating men for reaching a conclusion that women had already posted several times but been ignored on.
> 
> It wasn't a personal dig at you, you over-sensitive little kitten.
> 
> Still, kind of me to make a point that you could take exaggerated offence at instead of engaging with the main issue. I'm nice like that.


 
I'm not at all offended at the innuendo so much as the fact you think your shit isn't pathetically transparent.

I also take offense that instead of having the guts to actually outright say that Blagsta was being oppressive you danced around it and tried to make out you were only asking an innocent question about whether or not people could internalise oppressive behaviour as well as internalising their own oppression.

As it is I think Blagsta's comment was fair enough, I also understand why Edie might feel uncomfortable with it, that's life and both of them seemed quite capable of sorting out the misunderstanding between them without idiotic recourse to painting either of themselves as the poor oppressed and the mean oppressor.

So I'm lost as to why you feel the need to intervene with your not so subtle shit stirring.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Is maths a particularly fast moving discipline, in which you're left at a huge disadvantage should you take a couple of years out for childcare? I thought that most of it had already been invented.


To be fair, there are fellowships aimed at encouraging women back into academia, particularly in the sciences, but they are few and far between.

It's not that the maths or techniques aren't new, it's that if you take a couple of years out for childcare, you aren't publishing papers or doing research or any of the other things that you're required to have on your CV to even meet job selection criteria, let alone get the job.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

FOR THE LOVE OF [INSERT DEITY/THING/WHATEVER HERE] CAN WE JUST MOVE THE FUCK ON???????????

THANKS.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> To be fair, there are fellowships aimed at encouraging women back into academia, particularly in the sciences, but they are few and far between.
> 
> It's not that the maths or techniques aren't new, it's that if you take a couple of years out for childcare, you aren't publishing papers or doing research or any of the other things that you're required to have on your CV to even meet job selection criteria, let alone get the job.


Yeah, I get the impression that is a general problem across academia - that there is a somewhat 'macho' publishing culture. (It's often to the detriment of the subject too - slow development of an idea over many years in a way that doesn't allow interim papers simply can't be done.)


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Fucks sake I wish I had a keyboard


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> To be fair, there are fellowships aimed at encouraging women back into academia, particularly in the sciences, but they are few and far between.
> 
> It's not that the maths or techniques aren't new, it's that if you take a couple of years out for childcare, you aren't publishing papers or doing research or any of the other things that you're required to have on your CV to even meet job selection criteria, let alone get the job.


 
I know a couple of scientists who've quit due to not being able to compete because they've had kids and won't devote their life to their work, work part-time etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> You really that slow?
> 
> The first line is me pointing out that Edie does not need to apologise for reading his post in that way.
> 
> ...


you're talking shit, as revol's pointed out. there's the executive summary, more when i'm in front of a computer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> FOR THE LOVE OF [INSERT DEITY/THING/WHATEVER HERE] CAN WE JUST MOVE THE FUCK ON???????????
> 
> THANKS.


I think that's the angriest I've ever seen you.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> Fucks sake I wish I had a keyboard




Yes, then perhaps you could be reprogrammed.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest blagsta has apologised and edie said she is ok with his apology so can we all move on now.



No. Why? There's a wider point and I'm not talking about them specifically, I'm talking about what they represent.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> No. Why? There's a wider point and I'm not talking about them specifically, I'm talking about what they represent.


 
a chance for you to project your own issues?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think that's the angriest I've ever seen you.


Sorry 

I have been somewhat frustrated latelt


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> a chance for you to project your own issues?



Yeah. It's all due to issues when women get frustrated when they're not being listened to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Sorry
> 
> I have been somewhat frustrated latelt


It needed saying.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> Yeah. It's all due to issues when women get frustrated when they're not being listened to.


 
you are a woman, not women.

thank fuck.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> you are a woman, not women.
> 
> thank fuck.



Wow.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> I know a couple of scientists who've quit due to not being able to compete because they've had kids and won't devote their life to their work, work part-time etc.


The expectations these days are unrealistic. I've known of cases where post-docs have been expected to work for free because the permanent academic they report to has not sorted out the contract paperwork with HR, not to mention the pressures to publish, to get funding of their own, to supervise project students, to teach, to manage large multi-institute research programs with no support or training. Given all the extra work and hours involved, I'm not surprised many opt out of the system


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It needed saying.


 
For all the good it's done, grumble grumble


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> The expectations these days are unrealistic. I've known of cases where post-docs have been expected to work for free because the permanent academic they report to has not sorted out the contract paperwork with HR, not to mention the pressures to publish, to get funding of their own, to supervise project students, to teach, to manage large multi-institute research programs with no support or training. Given all the extra work and hours involved, I'm not surprised many opt out of the system


tbh, I can see how that particularly discriminates against women, but it's also a mad way to do things for everyone. It discriminates against a lot of sane men too. A good example of how changing a culture as a result of pressure to specifically make it not discriminate against women ends up benefiting everyone.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I honestly don't know. It's too big a gap to put it down to child raising career breaks, in my opinion. I think it's down to whether or not female PhD students are encouraged to pursue an academic career - my supervisor didn't really encourage me, for example, as he said he wouldn't support any application for a post-doc at the same department, and when I started to investigate post-doc options elsewhere he wasn't supportive at all. Yet my brother who did a PhD in the same department was heavily supported and had a post-doc there for at least a year. I know I wasn't the only student that experienced this, there were at least two other female students at the same time who had similar experiences.
> 
> Also, whilst Phd funding has increased significantly, funding for post-docs hasn't increased at the same rate so there is even more competition for post-doc positions. I think many women are discoutaged by this point and choose other careers.


Not in the same ballpark but when the kabbess mentioned to her maths teacher in the sixth form that she wanted to apply to Cambridge, he told her that girls didn't really do maths and certainly not at Cambridge.  He followed that up by saying that only one person from her school had ever gone to Cambridge, and that was a boy.  "I know," she said, "that was my brother."  He shut up after that.

That was 1998.  Hardly the dark days of the 60s.  The attitudes persist.  Sometimes blatantly, like that.  But more usually at a more subtle level, manifesting itself in the way in which people interact, encourage or discourage, give opinions and do all that body language stuff.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

The only person I know in rela life with a Phd in Maths is my cousin and she's a girl (funny enough being a she), I'm slightly in awe of people with Phd's in maths, it's not like the humanities.

Though I say I'm in awe of such people I don't want to hang out with them, weirdos.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> FOR THE LOVE OF [INSERT DEITY/THING/WHATEVER HERE] CAN WE JUST MOVE THE FUCK ON???????????
> 
> THANKS.


 
I wish you the best of luck in your attempt to close Pandora's box.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Not in the same ballpark but when the kabbess mentioned to her maths teacher in the sixth form that she wanted to apply to Cambridge, he told her that girls didn't really do maths and certainly not at Cambridge. He followed that up by saying that only one person from her school had ever gone to Cambridge, and that was a boy. "I know," she said, "that was my brother." He shut up after that.
> 
> That was 1998. Hardly the dark days of the 60s. The attitudes persist. Sometimes blatantly, like that. But more usually at a more subtle level, manifesting itself in the way in which people interact, encourage or discourage, give opinions and do all that body language stuff.


I was told not to bother applying to Oxford. By a male teacher, natch.

A bloke on my poker site asked me for advice recently and we exchanged some PMs. He ended one message with "Hope you don't mind me asking but I thought I'd ask a smart guy." In my response, I noted that I was a gal not a guy. He instantly switched from asking me for advice to giving me some incredibly patronising unasked for advice, despite already knowing that I play considerably higher stakes than he does. Quite remarkable.

They've had to introduce a women's issues forum there because of the unchecked misogyny on the site. Easier than moderating the whole site properly, I guess. Still, the sexist assumptions made about female poker players make it very easy for us to take their money, so I tolerate it.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> The only person I know in rela life with a Phd in Maths is my cousin and she's a girl (funny enough being a she), I'm slightly in awe of people with Phd's in maths, it's not like the humanities.
> 
> Though I say I'm in awe of such people I don't want to hang out with them, weirdos.


It's so much fun at parties - people are interested in you when they find out you have a PhD, then when they find out it's in maths they walk away. Literally. 

I am a weirdo.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

I think your fucking ACE equation girl 

You clever, and cool, and don't think it's not been noticed how bloody KIND you are to a lot of other posters. Big up yourself.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's so much fun at parties - people are interested in you when they find out you have a PhD, then when they find out it's in maths they walk away. Literally.
> 
> I am a weirdo.


 
If it's any consolation I can manage that with out a Phd.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's so much fun at parties - people are interested in you when they find out you have a PhD, then when they find out it's in maths they walk away. Literally.
> 
> I am a weirdo.


 
fuck them then. i'm shit at maths but i enjoy finding out about things im shit at.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I don't see why you wouldn't interpret it as cheap point-scoring when it happens on so many threads, from the same people, over and over and over again.


you say (836) "The first line is me pointing out that Edie does not need to apologise for reading his post in that way." but it isn't, because you're saying you don't understand why edie's not interpreting it the way you think it should be interpreted.and you say there's what d-b would call a cunts collective who keep doing stuff. in fact, it seems to me you're making out edie's not really the sharpest tool in the box. no matter: it doesn't say what you said it said. fyi: it is not a good idea to talk a load of auld bollocks if people can check what you said before and see you're full of excrement.



> If you're OK with Blagsta'a explanation, that's fine. But I think he owes the thread an explanation given the amount of non-explanatory wriggling.


you say (836) "The second line is acknowledging that she has every right to forgive him, but his failure to simply apologise on the thread instead of repeated self-justifying means that I think it's reasonable to ask him to provide an explanation for that post on the thread." but there's bugger all about forgiveness here. you simply say that if edie accepts blagsta's explantion, that's fine. but it's clearly not, because you've already said that it's cheap point-scoring and you don't understand why edie's too stupid / internalised too much oppression / blinded by blagsta's explanation (delete as appropriate) to see it. 





> Funny how you as a woman cannot state that you are not oppressed without being told that you are unaware of your own oppression - but a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read. I guess it's something to do with us being weak-minded types. If only we were men who knew what was what automatically without ever having to look deep inside and question what it is that we are doing.


and revol's covered this in his posts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's so much fun at parties - people are interested in you when they find out you have a PhD, then when they find out it's in maths they walk away. Literally.
> 
> I am a weirdo.


what sort of maths?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I was told not to bother applying to Oxford. By a male teacher, natch.
> 
> A bloke on my poker site asked me for advice recently and we exchanged some PMs. He ended one message with "Hope you don't mind me asking but I thought I'd ask a smart guy." In my response, I noted that I was a gal not a guy. He instantly switched from asking me for advice to giving me some incredibly patronising unasked for advice, despite already knowing that I play considerably higher stakes than he does. Quite remarkable.
> 
> They've had to introduce a women's issues forum there because of the unchecked misogyny on the site. Easier than moderating the whole site properly, I guess. Still, the sexist assumptions made about female poker players make it very easy for us to take their money, so I tolerate it.


I was very fortunate at school - I had three brilliant maths teachers from 13-18 of which two were women. But I had a male physics teacher who always gave me a harder time than the guys even when I was getting the same high grades and helping half the class with the homework.

I was also fortunate in that I was encouraged by my dad to do maths, and later engineering, because I was good at those subjects.

These days I'm still the only woman at technical meetings. There's 6 women, of which I am one, out of 40-50 engineers on my floor of the office. 2012 and the 15% women ceiling still hasn't been broken.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's so much fun at parties - people are interested in you when they find out you have a PhD, then when they find out it's in maths they walk away. Literally.


 
What was your PhD on? Anything to do with abstract algebra?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> I think your fucking ACE equation girl
> 
> You clever, and cool, and don't think it's not been noticed how bloody KIND you are to a lot of other posters. Big up yourself.


Edie, that's made my shitty week tons better. Thanks, girlie x x


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> fuck them then. i'm shit at maths but i enjoy finding out about things im shit at.


yeh you can't do anything about a problem until you acknowledge it exists


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Edie, that's made my shitty week tons better. Thanks, girlie x x


Darlin I'm only saying what everyone is thinking.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what sort of maths?


 


goldenecitrone said:


> What was your PhD on? Anything to do with abstract algebra?


 
It's applied maths - I modelled how diabetic wounds heal so that I could investage different treatments to see if they could heal faster and better. It's tons of differential equations, simulataneous equations and some algebra at the start. It was really interesting but bloody hard work (60 hour weeks for 4 years) and I read over 400 papers, patents and books on medicine, biology, mathematical techniques and treatments.

Thanks for asking


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's applied maths - I modelled how diabetic wounds heal so that I could investage different treatments to see if they could heal faster and better. It's tons of differential equations, simulataneous equations and some algebra at the start. It was really interesting but bloody hard work (60 hour weeks for 4 years) and I read over 400 papers, patents and books on medicine, biology, mathematical techniques and treatments.
> 
> Thanks for asking


 
_walks off..._

__


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's applied maths - I modelled how diabetic wounds heal so that I could investage different treatments to see if they could heal faster and better. It's tons of differential equations, simulataneous equations and some algebra at the start. It was really interesting but bloody hard work (60 hour weeks for 4 years) and I read over 400 papers, patents and books on medicine, biology, mathematical techniques and treatments.
> 
> Thanks for asking


clever stuff - very clever. didn't know you could use maths to do that sort of thing.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Edie, that's made my shitty week tons better. Thanks, girlie x x


 
It's true. You've helped me out a lot in the past and I'm really grateful for that.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's applied maths - I modelled how diabetic wounds heal so that I could investage different treatments to see if they could heal faster and better. It's tons of differential equations, simulataneous equations and some algebra at the start. It was really interesting but bloody hard work (60 hour weeks for 4 years) and I read over 400 papers, patents and books on medicine, biology, mathematical techniques and treatments.
> 
> Thanks for asking


 
Bloody hard work, but rewarding with real-life importance. Nice one.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> clever stuff - very clever. didn't know you could use maths to do that sort of thing.


Thanks  

That's the beauty of applied maths, it's using maths to solve problems in a systematic way. Plus if its a medical problem it's easier to run simulations that try and do animal or human trials, plus you can do lots of experiments at a relatively low cost.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Thanks
> 
> That's the beauty of applied maths, it's using maths to solve problems in a systematic way. Plus if its a medical problem it's easier to run simulations that try and do animal or human trials, plus you can do lots of experiments at a relatively low cost.


It sounds like it makes you happy  (although I know your job makes you cry with frustration!)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

trashpony said:


> It sounds like it makes you happy  (although I know your job makes you cry with frustration!)


yeh but i wonder if equationgirl could model a better job to see what it looks like


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

I've always wanted to become better at maths. I enjoy reading about it especially geometry etc but I wish I could understand it.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Bloody hard work, but rewarding with real-life importance. Nice one.


Thank you 

It produced some papers, which have been picked up by the companies whose products I modelled, and the work showed there's an imbalance in the chemicals in the wound. This imbalance means the wound gets stuck in the early stage of the wound healing process so doesn't heal. Healing can be kick-started by addressing this chemical imbalance.

I had loads of ideas for taking the research onto post-doc level but couldn't get funding.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 15, 2012)

That is bloody clever, equationgirl, hard work but must have been so interesting.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

trashpony said:


> It sounds like it makes you happy  (although I know your job makes you cry with frustration!)


I like maths - I don't get to do much of it at the moment but I do regularly surprise engineers in the department by reading, understanding and correcting their equations


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 15, 2012)

I loved maths, I was just crap at it.  I get so far, and I dunno if it's related to my syndrome or something, but I can't visualise it any further. Damn spatial awareness problems.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but i wonder if equationgirl could model a better job to see what it looks like


Hmmm....

Nice boss + interesting work + quick commute + good remuneration = happy equationgirl if F(frustration) →0


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I was very fortunate at school - I had three brilliant maths teachers from 13-18 of which two were women. But I had a male physics teacher who always gave me a harder time than the guys even when I was getting the same high grades and helping half the class with the homework.


My physics teacher predicted me a D. I got an A. He very sweetly wrote to me to say "I've never been more happy to be more wrong."

I think it might have been less to do with my sex and more to do with the fact that every one of his physics lessons was first thing in the morning and I never managed to get in for any of them, but still.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> That is bloody clever, equationgirl, hard work but must have been so interesting.


Thanks, that's really nice of you.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're acting like a little kid poking a wasp nest with a stick.


 
So?


----------



## past caring (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but i wonder if equationgirl could model a better job to see what it looks like


 
Or maybe get a better job as a model.

( inserted for those that might not understand that this is a joke)


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

past caring said:


> Or maybe get a better job as a model.
> 
> ( inserted for those that might not understand that this is a joke)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> Fucks sake I wish I had a keyboard


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So?


 
So why bother unless you're the sort of pervert who like's getting stung?

You know what comes next, don't you? Yes, that's right, you'll be torturing cats, and then before you know it you'll be stalking lonely men home from the pub and beating them to death with your sock-full of 2p pieces.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's so much fun at parties - people are interested in you when they find out you have a PhD, then when they find out it's in maths they walk away. Literally.
> 
> I am a weirdo.


You're at the wrong parties. There are loads of us on here who'd be the exact opposite. Maths is


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I wish you the best of luck in your attempt to close Pandora's box.


 
Sexist!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's so much fun at parties - people are interested in you when they find out you have a PhD, then when they find out it's in maths they walk away. Literally.
> 
> I am a weirdo.


 
You know why? Probably because they feel overwhelmed. Higher maths is much more of a foreign language to most people than French or German will ever be. I'm perfectly at home studying the sceinces and social sciences, but try and get me beyond "O" level maths and I'm quite literally unable to understand it. I can get *why* that particular type of maths might be required to solve this type of problem, but I can't get how to do the actual "figuring out" for the life of me.

You're not a weirdo. Other people are afraid that they'll show themselves up as ignorant because your subject isn't one most people can just discourse on at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

Y'know, I'm off. And I feel pretty fuckin shocked about, well, stuff (in community). And it's just made me think, jesus, you lot are the fuckin GOOD guys. The people who _give_ a shit. And you may not always be right, like some of your opinions about sex work, but fuck me there aint a real cunt among you. Not really. Not what I'd call a cunt anyway.

If you wanna see sexist arseholes, these fuckin CUNTS take _down_ working girls who they reckon are part of the 'sisterhood'. That's any wg who dares to criticise punters on other forums and who they take a dislike to. They've been proper cunts slagging off one of my mates. They also slag off other punters who pay some respect to wg's. I hate them. You wanna get mad at someone, fukin GO!

http://www.[break]ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=6021.0


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> Y'know, I'm off. And I feel pretty fuckin shocked about, well, stuff (in community). And it's just made me think, jesus, you lot are the fuckin GOOD guys. The people who _give_ a shit. And you may not always be right, like some of your opinions about sex work, but fuck me there aint a real cunt among you. Not really. Not what I'd call a cunt anyway.
> 
> If you wanna see sexist arseholes, these fuckin CUNTS take _down_ working girls who they reckon are part of the 'sisterhood'. That's any wg who dares to criticise punters on other forums and who they take a dislike to. They've been proper cunts slagging off one of my mates. They also slag off other punters who pay some respect to wg's. I hate them. You wanna get mad at someone, fukin GO!
> 
> http://www.[break]ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=6021.0


 
fuck me that forum is shocking, the fact the twats have their own lingo, "civvy girls", like wtf!


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

civvy girl is common use


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> civvy girl is common use


 
common amongst the sort of cunts who are on that forum maybe, first I've ever heard of it.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

revol68 said:


> common amongst the sort of cunts who are on that forum maybe, first I've ever heard of it.


Common among anyone in the game tbf.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 15, 2012)

I don't know why I'm shocked that there are forums like this, but I am. I assumed if you used prostitutes you;d kind of keep it to yourself, not get together and discuss it like you're talking about Hi Fi equipment.

Maybe I'm more shletered than my internet history would suggest.


----------



## Edie (Mar 15, 2012)

> All this 'escort', 'courtsean' crap is just to make them try to forget they are the dirtiest most disgusting females on the planet


Says it all really. Fuckin prick. So y'know. Blags, you, ymu, even fuckin butchers. You aint cunts. Not anywhere near.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 15, 2012)

Men who punt have no respect for women shocker.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Men who punt have no respect for women shocker.


 Yes but there's being disrespectful, and then there's what edie posted from the forum. Whole other level - more predatory I would say.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

I'm surprised anyone is surprised. Especially given that it's this thread it's been posted on.

I think it is the cause of a lot of the conflict on these threads. Most men are decent, but this kind of shit surely is not invisible to them?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

I dont even want to look at that


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

Edie said:


> Says it all really. Fuckin prick. So y'know. Blags, you, ymu, even fuckin butchers. You aint cunts. Not anywhere near.


 
no they're not. and nor are you chick x


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I dont even want to look at that


i did and i don't feel any better for it, worse in fact


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Yes but there's being disrespectful, and then there's what edie posted from the forum. Whole other level - more predatory I would say.


nasty posts from a couple of blokes there about how they liked '"young" girls'


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i did and i don't feel any better for it, worse in fact


 
 I think that says it all since you're (imo) one of the most thick skinned people on here!


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I think that says it all since you're (imo) one of the most thick skinned people on here!


Yeah, no way am I reading that stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Yeah, no way am I reading that stuff.


i'm regretting it now


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2012)

Trying to score points on an rip thread. Truly the lowest of the low


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> Trying to score points on an rip thread. Truly the lowest of the low


i don't think i was, you know


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 15, 2012)

.


----------



## ymu (Mar 15, 2012)

Yeah, I call my partner a nigger when he annoys me. It doesn't mean I'm racist or anything. It's just what everyone does, right?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yeah, I call my partner a nigger when he annoys me. It doesn't mean I'm racist or anything. It's just what everyone does, right?


i'm sure you do. but i'd be interested in an explanation of why your post 836, which purports to explain the meaning of your post 820, bears scant relation to the earlier post's contents. in fact, you don't seem to have engaged at all with your earlier post.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

I'm not engaging with your willful stupidity any more Pickman's. You can attention seek as much as you like, but the posts are there for anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension to check for themselves.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yeah, I call my partner a nigger when he annoys me. It doesn't mean I'm racist or anything. It's just what everyone does, right?


 
what are you on about?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> Trying to score points on an rip thread. Truly the lowest of the low


 
are you for real?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> I'm not engaging with your willful stupidity any more Pickman's. You can attention seek as much as you like, but the posts are there for anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension to check for themselves.


rules you out then


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yeah, I call my partner a nigger when he annoys me. It doesn't mean I'm racist or anything. It's just what everyone does, right?


Hmmm. 'bitch' is a tricky one. I don't like the word much, but then there aren't many gender-specific, or even gender-neutral, words of abuse you can use for a woman. 'bastard' doesn't work. Neither does 'wanker'. On here, 'cunt' is pretty unisex, but irl it's really only used for men in the UK. 'prick' doesn't work. Not much left really. 'cow'? Dunno. What would you suggest (bearing in mind that you do use words of abuse against other posters yourself)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> what are you on?


*corrected for you*


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. 'bitch' is a tricky one. I don't like the word much, but then there aren't many gender-specific, or even gender-neutral, words of abuse you can use for a woman. 'bastard' doesn't work. Neither does 'wanker'. On here, 'cunt' is pretty unisex, but irl it's really only used for men in the UK. 'prick' doesn't work. Not much left really. 'cow'? Dunno. What would you suggest (bearing in mind that you do use words of abuse against other posters yourself)?


Cunt is an entirely unisex word in the UK. It's only in the US that they reserve it for women, much like we do the word bitch. I wouldn't have commented had he used it instead.

I'm not sure why you think a gender-specific term of abuse is appropriate here. That is precisely why I think his post is out of order. I don't have any objection to him expressing that sentiment, only to the way in which he chose to express it. Why does he need to include an abusive term that identifies her as a woman? It seems odd to me that someone would feel the need to do that, especially when they have the chance to consider and edit their words before posting them.

The thread it is posted on, again, adds an extra level of wtfness to this, of course.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

is ymu really equating Blagsta calling 5tella a bitch with calling someone nigger?

fucking hell.

also dragging an RIP thread into this shitstorm really is one of the lowest things I've ever seen on Urban, if not the actual lowest.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 16, 2012)

nah, in real life it's more common for it to refer just to men tbh. i think some people would find it offensive if it was addressed to a woman. (not that i do,just saying)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> is ymu really equating Blagsta calling 5tella a bitch with calling someone nigger?
> 
> fucking hell.
> 
> also dragging an RIP thread into this shitstorm really is one of the lowest things I've ever seen on Urban, if not the actual lowest.


i think so but i can't comprehend why someone would do that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

IRL I really would say that most people - and particularly most men - only use the word cunt about men. tbh, I'd think that 'bitch' is kind of the female equivalent in terms of the strength of feeling behind it, and the connotations of, well, cuntery.

I don't think it's straightforward in the sense that it's not a word with clearly nasty taboo connotations attached to it in a way that no right-thinking person would use it.


----------



## past caring (Mar 16, 2012)

This is complete fucking bollocks, tbf - stella gets to say something entirely out of order "Scoring points on a RIP thread" - you know, something that really, really is hurtful and an absolute character assasination - and the only problem is that someone called her "bitch" in response?

And you wonder why so many think you're a fucking joke.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> also dragging an RIP thread into this shitstorm really is one of the lowest things I've ever seen on Urban, if not the actual lowest.


Yep


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

Stella's comment _was_ completely out of order.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> Trying to score points on an rip thread. Truly the lowest of the low


plumbing the depths


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> nah, in real life it's more common for it to refer just to men tbh. i think some people would find it offensive if it was addressed to a woman. (not that i do,just saying)


If I heard a man calling a woman 'cunt' in the UK, I'd just be a bit puzzled, tbh. I'd think they had been watching too many US films.

_On here_, that isn't true, but irl, it is.

It's a problem, tbh. There is a deficit in our language of terms of abuse for women. Most of the good ones can only be used against men.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> IRL I really would say that most people - and particularly most men - only use the word cunt about men. tbh, I'd think that 'bitch' is kind of the female equivalent in terms of the strength of feeling behind it, and the connotations of, well, cuntery.
> 
> I don't think it's straightforward in the sense that it's not a word with clearly nasty taboo connotations attached to it in a way that no right-thinking person would use it.


I don't see the need for insults to identify an attribute like sex or race or sexuality (or hair colour or shortsightedness or baldness or fatness or anything else irrelevant). If the speaker feels the need to do so, it suggests that they feel that attribute is somehow adding to the insult. Descending into sexist or racist language just because you're annoyed with someone says something about your mindset. I'm surprised it's a contentious point when even the world of football is finally getting to grips with this.

I'll happily concede that the use of the word 'bitch' is not in the same league as the word 'nigger', but I don't call him a black bastard when we argue either. The colour of his skin has nothing to do with the reason I am annoyed, so why would I?


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Stella's comment _was_ completely out of order.


I agree.

That doesn't excuse the use of sexist insults to respond to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

But that's a problem of the language. Most terms of abuse - for men and women - are gender-specific. You wouldn't call a woman a bastard (or I wouldn't) or a wanker or a prick - or a cunt, away from here. But you would call a man that, and you're not being sexist about that.

It's just that terms of abuse tend in our language to be gender-specific. You have to choose one, and in particular if you want to choose a strong one, you have little choice but to be gender-specific even if you don't want to be.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu the bastard is the gendered insult.

generally bastard and bitch are seen as male and female equivalents.

and it's extremely dishonest (not to mention transparent) to start getting on your high horse about insults like bitch being sexist when you happily use the term cunt, a term that whilst most people in the UK and Ireland don't take as a misogynist insult certainly isn't without issue.

I would say that I would need to be pushed a lot further to call a woman a cunt IRL than a bitch and I think that would be true for the vast majority of people.

I think you should probably have been taking greater issue with 5tella's wallowing in the gutter than with Blagsta's perfectly justified insult.

Throughout this thread you have shown that you're more than happy to use accusations of sexism to further your own agenda in petty little shit storms and as such you totally devalue the term.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

Why has this shit been dragged up again? Im starting to think people are vile to each other because they enjoy it.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

what exactly is_ not_ sexist about using a derogatory term for a part of a woman's anatomy to describe a man? 
i.e. pussy, only more crass?


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

I disagree that bastard, cunt or wanker are male-specific terms. Maybe you just don't hear many women swear at each other? 

If you insist that they are male specific, arsehole seems like a perfectly good compromise.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> what exactly is_ not_ sexist about using a derogatory term for a part of a woman's anatomy to describe a man?
> i.e. pussy, only more crass?


Prick - man's part of body to describe a man.

Cunt - woman's part of body to describe a man.

It isn't sexist. It's a hangover from Victorian prudishness about talking about genitalia in polite company.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 16, 2012)

Jesus, this thread has turned fucking evil.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> I disagree that bastard, cunt or wanker are male-specific terms. Maybe you just don't hear many women swear at each other?
> 
> If you insist that they are male specific, arsehole seems like a perfectly good compromise.


I'm not insisting. I'm just saying that this is normal usage. That's all.

A lot of women call each other 'cow' or 'bitch' ime, fwiw.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Jesus, this thread has turned fucking evil.


 
well with the title it was christened with it never really stood much of a chance in life.

also it only kicked off again after 5tella really sank to gutter in order to have a go at Pickman's.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not insisting. I'm just saying that this is normal usage. That's all.
> 
> A lot of women call each other 'cow' or 'bitch' ime, fwiw.


 
You seem to be under the impression that ymu actually believes the crap she is posting, rather than just throwing out chaff to distract from 5tella's sick comment.

Though I have no idea why she would wish to do that.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Prick - man's part of body to describe a man.
> 
> Cunt - woman's part of body to describe a man.
> 
> It isn't sexist. It's a hangover from Victorian prudishness about talking about genitalia in polite company.


 
well, I'm a woman and I disagree. Not that it actually bothers me, just that it's laughable to say it's not sexist. because it clearly is. like calling something "gay" is homophobic, even though most of us started using it long before we knew what it actually meant, as an insult to mean "lame" which imo has nothing to do with gayness.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> well, I'm a woman and I disagree. Not that it actually bothers me, just that it's laughable to say it's not sexist. because it clearly is. like calling something "gay" is homophobic, even though most of us started using it long before we knew what it actually meant, as an insult to mean "lame" which imo has nothing to do with gayness.



What about calling a bloke a tit?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> well, I'm a woman and I disagree. Not that it actually bothers me, just that it's laughable to say it's not sexist. because it clearly is. like calling something "gay" is homophobic, even though most of us started using it long before we knew what it actually meant, as an insult to mean "lame" which imo has nothing to do with gayness.


Both male and female genitalia are used, though. prick, nob, cock: all insults. As is cunt. They've acquired certain specific connotations over the decades, but they're all taboo in polite company. Ah, but the female genitalia are reserved for the worst word? Well, fanny here in the UK is quite a mild term of abuse, so that argument doesn't quite work.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

> well, I'm a woman


 
Well done on that but it's not an argument.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> well, I'm a woman and I disagree. Not that it actually bothers me, just that it's laughable to say it's not sexist. because it clearly is. like calling something "gay" is homophobic, even though most of us started using it long before we knew what it actually meant, as an insult to mean "lame" which imo has nothing to do with gayness.


It's not the same thing at all.

Cuss words are usually based on body parts or sexual acts. It's where they get their shock value from. Usage is far, far removed from the original meaning - try interpreting the word 'fuck' literally every time you hear it.

Use of the word 'gay' to mean something bad is not cussing, it is a new and unpleasant playground insult which directly refers to the origins of the word it has adopted.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

Why sexual organs though?

I suppose calling someone a stupid fucking arm doesnt quite work and arsehole has a nice ring to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Why sexual organs though?


Victorian prudishness mostly. We still live in the rump-end of the Victorian era in many ways.


----------



## yield (Mar 16, 2012)

Time out guys and ladies. *in memoriam* hth


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> Well done on that but it's not an argument.


 
sure it is. being in possession of a cunt personally, when I hear someone being called one, I have every right to be offended, and someone who is not in possession of one telling me I shouldn't be is a little


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

These words have been in use since before Chaucer. Fuck all to do with the Victorians.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> sure it is. being in possession of a cunt personally, when I hear someone being called one, I have every right to be offended, and someone who is not in possession of one telling me I shouldn't be is a little


You're American, though. It's used differently there, tbh. The word cunt is used here almost always about men, not women.

That's a rather weird argument, though. I've got a prick, but I don't feel offended when someone is called a prick.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

You wouldnt last long in the UK then.

@ caphat


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> sure it is. being in possession of a cunt personally, when I hear someone being called one, I have every right to be offended, and someone who is not in possession of one telling me I shouldn't be is a little


 
oh god get over yourself you aren't north american.

ah shit apparently you are, that explains it then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> These words have been in use since before Chaucer. Fuck all to do with the Victorians.


The words have existed since before Chaucer, but their modern connotations - and taboo nature - dates largely from the Victorians, who made reference to bodily functions in polite company taboo.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> It's not the same thing at all.
> 
> Cuss words are usually based on body parts or sexual acts. It's where they get their shock value from. Usage is far, far removed from the original meaning - try interpreting the word 'fuck' literally every time you hear it.
> 
> Use of the word 'gay' to mean something bad is not cussing, it is a new and unpleasant playground insult which directly refers to the origins of the word it has adopted.


 
 so what about pussy then? when used as an insult, it is clearly meant as a way to degrade a man, by means of comparing him to female genitalia.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The words have existed since before Chaucer, but their modern connotations - and taboo nature - dates largely from the Victorians, who made reference to bodily functions in polite company taboo.


There is a whole module of the brain devoted to swearing - it is separate from the parts that deal with language. The terms might change over the years, but humans have been swearing for an awful lot longer than that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> so what about pussy then? when used as an insult, it is clearly meant as a way to degrade a man, by means of comparing him to female genitalia.


That's a tricky one as it's basically a US swear word. You hear it a bit here, but only really because of US influence.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> so what about pussy then? when used as an insult, it is clearly meant as a way to degrade a man, by means of comparing him to female genitalia.



And cunt can be used as a term of endearment. As americans would say, go figure.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

oh fuck here we go, a thread on sexism descends into a fixation on language or not even how language is actually being used but a literalist reading of a words origin.

you'd think a north american had arrived.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> The terms might change over the years, but humans have been swearing for an awful lot longer than that.


Oh yeah, certainly. Sorry, I wasn't arguing otherwise.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> oh god get over yourself you aren't north american.
> 
> ah shit apparently you are, that explains it then.


 
whatever. I said it didn't bother me personally, but you're all fucked in the head and/or being facetious for the fun of it if you can't see the inherent sexism in calling a man a cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Why sexual organs though?
> 
> I suppose calling someone a stupid fucking arm doesnt quite work and arsehole has a nice ring to it.


 

you fucking spleen


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> you fucking spleen


 See that works!


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> whatever. I said it didn't bother me personally, but you're all fucked in the head and/or being facetious for the fun of it if you can't see the inherent sexism in calling a man a cunt.


 
what because we understand language as being fluid and don't have some fundamentalist notion of words being anchored to their origins?

when you hear the word fuck or shit do you automatically think of sex and poo regardless of context?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a tricky one as it's basically a US swear word. You hear it a bit here, but only really because of US influence.


 
you know, I have actually been told a few times by Brits that sexism doesn't really exist there. well, carry on in that case.  I guess I should know better than to stick my 2 cents in where it doesn't belong


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> you fucking spleen



Fuck off you sniveling solar plexus.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> what because we understand language as being fluid and don't have some fundamentalist notion of words being anchored to there origins?
> 
> when you hear the word fuck or shit do you automatically think of sex and poo regardless of context?


 
 I don't think of sex when I hear "fuck" but then again that's a unisex word. Shit does not make me think of poo but I'd say it's pretty clear why the word is used to describe unpleasant things.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> you know, I have actually been told a few times by Brits that sexism doesn't really exist there. well, carry on in that case.  I guess I should know better than to stick my 2 cents in where it doesn't belong


 
fuck you and your two cents, I don't see how you can bandy that term about without realising the huge amount of pain and suffering money has caused around the world, not least how it was used to seperate the native populations of the americas from their land.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> so what about pussy then? when used as an insult, it is clearly meant as a way to degrade a man, by means of comparing him to female genitalia.


I agree.

In the UK, the word cunt is not aimed exclusively at one sex, and it can be used affectionately as well as aggressively. It is considered sexist in the US because it is only ever used to describe women in a nasty way over there.

It has nothing to do with the etymology of the word and everything to do with the way it is used. I would put that use of the word 'pussy' in the same camp as 'gay' - it's not a swearword, it is an insulting comparison.

If you object to the use of the word cunt merely on the grounds that it describes a female body part and is used as a swear word, then you have to object equally to the use of the words cock, dick, prick and also twat and fanny (means cunt in the UK) - the whole caboodle. If you take that attitude, then you are basically just trying to ban certain swearwords, which will only make them more taboo anyway.

It's usage which matters. In the UK, the abbreviation 'Paki' is considered offensive. This is not because there is an inherent racism in the use of four letter abbreviations for a nationality ('Brit', for example, is fine), it is because it has a history of being used offensively.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> you know, I have actually been told a few times by Brits that sexism doesn't really exist there. well, carry on in that case.  I guess I should know better than to stick my 2 cents in where it doesn't belong


Hang on! All I said was that 'pussy' is largely a US swear word. It's not a word I would ever say, nor one I hear often. You're better placed than me to say what it means . I did provide the example of fanny here, which is a mild term of abuse, while prick certainly isn't.

Is it sexism in operation here, or swear words emerging from the taboos of polite society?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

> It has nothing to do with the etymology of the word and everything to do with the way it is used.


This, basically.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hang on! All I said was that 'pussy' is largely a US swear word. It's not a word I would ever say, nor one I hear often. You're better placed than me to say what it means . I did provide the example of fanny here, which is a mild term of abuse, while prick certainly isn't.
> 
> Is it sexism in operation here, or swear words emerging from the taboos of polite society?


 
 sorry, I was actually just about to apologize to you because you really didn't mean it the way I took it.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> I agree.
> 
> In the UK, the word cunt is not aimed exclusively at one sex, and it can be used affectionately as well as aggressively. It is considered sexist in the US because it is only ever used to describe women in a nasty way over there.
> 
> ...


 
hey, please try to read people's posts! I never said it did offend me. But yes, cock, dick, prick, etc, fall into the same category IMO. But lol at me trying to ban things! I use these words all the time, even cunt. 
can I go back to my homework now?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

or, rather, may I go back to my homework now, CUNTS?


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> you know, I have actually been told a few times by Brits that sexism doesn't really exist there. well, carry on in that case.  I guess I should know better than to stick my 2 cents in where it doesn't belong


That's the same phenomenon as the well meaning anti-racist liberals who pretend to be colour-blind. They think if they insist that they live in a post-racist society it will come true. In practice, it just means that black people get racist abuse and then 'nice' white people tell them it didn't happen.

Membership of a group which is responsible for oppression whilst not being a fan of that oppression is tricky. Some feel the need to pretend that their psyche s completely unaffected by it, some feel the need to pretend that the problem has been solved so they don't have to think about it any more, some just get curiously defensive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> or, rather, may I go back to my homework now, CUNTS?


That's better.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

You said you have every right to be offended:



Miss Caphat said:


> sure it is. being in possession of a cunt personally, when I hear someone being called one, I have every right to be offended, and someone who is not in possession of one telling me I shouldn't be is a little



strange thing to say if youre not actually bothered about it.


----------



## yield (Mar 16, 2012)

yield said:


> Time out guys and ladies. *in memoriam* hth


Let it rest. It's ugly.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> That's the same phenomenon as the well meaning anti-racist liberals who pretend to be colour-blind. They think if they insist that they live in a post-racist society it will come true. In practice, it just means that black people get racist abuse and then 'nice' white people tell them it didn't happen.
> 
> Membership of a group which is responsible for oppression whilst not being a fan of that oppression is tricky. Some feel the need to pretend that their psyche s completely unaffected by it, some feel the need to pretend that the problem has been solved so they don't have to think about it any more, some just get curiously defensive.


 
agreed, but this is kind of along the same lines of what I'm saying. you can swear up and down that "cunt" has no sexist connotations, but if some people feel that it does, doesn't that mean that it has sexist connotations to them and maybe they're perceiving it that way because of the inherent sexism in society and then does it therefore not make it at least partly true? at least according to their own experience?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

cunt, wanker, arsehole, prick, twat, nob, cock, dick, arse, fanny...

...in descending order.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> agreed, but this is kind of along the same lines of what I'm saying. you can swear up and down that "cunt" has no sexist connotations, but if some people feel that it does, doesn't that mean that it has sexist connotations to them and maybe they're perceiving it that way because of the inherent sexism in society and then does it therefore not make it at least partly true? at least according to their own experience?


But it's a very different word in the US. That's the problem. Different culture and different meaning attached to the same word.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> You said you have every right to be offended:
> 
> 
> 
> strange thing to say if youre not actually bothered about it.


 

Not quite sure what you're getting at. Would it make me some sort of flawed person if I _was_ actually offended by it?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But it's a very different word in the US. That's the problem. Different culture and different meaning attached to the same word.


 
no, it really isn't "the problem". I have been on here for over 10 years and have also lived in the UK. believe me, I understand the British connotation.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> agreed, but this is kind of along the same lines of what I'm saying. you can swear up and down that "cunt" has no sexist connotations, but if some people feel that it does, doesn't that mean that it has sexist connotations to them and maybe they're perceiving it that way because of the inherent sexism in society and then does it therefore not make it at least partly true? at least according to their own experience?


Male bodyparts are used just as indiscrimately for insult purposes. If they weren't, I'd agree with you. But they are, so I don't.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> Not quite sure what you're getting at. Would it make me some sort of flawed person if I _was_ actually offended by it?



Not particularly. But i wish you'd decide either way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck off you sniveling solar plexus.


 
You metatarsal, Why don't you take your galling views and shove them right up the cochlea


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Not particularly. But i wish you'd decide either way.


 
I have decided, and repeatedly stated that I am not personally offended by the word, but that it's understandable for an individual to be offended by it.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> Male bodyparts are used just as indiscrimately for insult purposes. If they weren't, I'd agree with you. But they are, so I don't.


 
I did say that it could be considered sexist to call someone a prick, cock, dick, etc. 
Do you really see no reason why there is less weight behind being sexist towards men in our society though?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> I have decided, and repeatedly stated that I am not personally offended by the word, but that it's understandable for an individual to be offended by it.



Plenty of people are offended by it. It certainly isnt something i would say in front of my mum. But they are offended because it is vulgar, not because it is sexist.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> I did say that it could be considered sexist to call someone a prick, cock, dick, etc.
> Do you really see no reason why there is less weight behind being sexist towards men in our society though?


It could be, but it would be silly. These age-old terms are not being used to draw a literal comparison in the way that the much more recently coined usages of 'pussy' or 'gay' are.

The use of sexist terminology has more impact on women than it does on men, of course. But I see absolutely no justification for tolerating sexism towards men as part of some kind of feminist backlash, and I see nothing positive for women in insisting that we can't be insulted but they can. It's about equality, not women getting the chance to be as shitty as men have, historically, been.


----------



## RaverDrew (Mar 16, 2012)

I always thought "pussy" was just short for "scaredy cat" ?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Plenty of people are offended by it. It certainly isnt something i would say in front of my mum. But they are offended because it is vulgar, not because it is sexist.


 

what if your mum thought it was sexist? would you tell her she was wrong? 
there is just something that is not getting through here, about the nature of what makes something offensive. It's a conversation that I've seen on here probably 8 gajillion times so I'm really confused as to why it's so unclear this time. 
Is it just that it's very late there?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> It could be, but it would be silly. These age-old terms are not being used to draw a literal comparison in the way that the much more recently coined usages of 'pussy' or 'gay' are.
> 
> The use of sexist terminology has more impact on women than it does on men, of course. But I see absolutely no justification for tolerating sexism towards men as part of some kind of feminist backlash, and I see nothing positive for women in insisting that we can't be insulted but they can. It's about equality, not women getting the chance to be as shitty as men have, historically, been.


 
yeah but those words are kind of offensive (and again, not trying to BAN them lol)
when I hear "prick" "cock" "dick" etc, it does actually bring to mind generalizations society seems to have about men, that they are often "prick-ish" by their very nature of being men and having penises. maybe it's just me


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

When you're swearing at someone, the intention is often to be offensive. Hence the use of vulgarities.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> what if your mum thought it was sexist? would you tell her she was wrong?
> there is just something that is not getting through here, about the nature of what makes something offensive. It's a conversation that I've seen on here probably 8 gajillion times so I'm really confused as to why it's so unclear this time.
> Is it just that it's very late there?



I dont think i'd ever be in the position of discussing the word with my mum like i am now. She wouldnt have a problem with me calling someone a tit which is just as sexist. Cunt is off bounds because its the most vulgar word in the English vocabulary. Theres an argument i suppose that that in itself is sexist. But as lbj has said, fanny is a relatively mild word. As is tit.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> When you're swearing at someone, the intention is often to be offensive. Hence the use of vulgarities.
> 
> I have no idea what you're trying to get at here.


 
what I'm getting at is what is actually consciously or unconsciously meant by certain words, especially ones which are specific to male or female genitalia, and why they are so powerful. I admit I agree a big part of it is just saying a naughty word that is naughty just because of its sexual nature, but I also think that the gender specificness of the words we choose does have an additional impact.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I dont think i'd ever be in the position of discussing the word with my mum like i am now. She wouldnt have a problem with me calling someone a tit which is just as sexist. Cunt is off bounds because its the most vulgar word in the English vocabulary. Theres an argument i suppose that that in itself is sexist. But as lbj has said, fanny is a relatively mild word. As is tit.


 
this is how I see it, and feel free to disagree

tit, fanny, pussy, etc fall into one category: that these words describing female body parts are used to convey certain stereotypically negative feminine "traits", such as weakness, ditziness, girly-ness (esp. in a man) etc. 
cunt is the darker side of female stereotypes, conveying all kinds of other seemingly incongruous things which I can't even put into words. bitchiness, or extreme stupidity, insanity, worthlessness, something to be feared, hardness, dirtiness, stuff like that. 

dick, prick, cock: all seem to mean the same thing, and correspond with stereotypical male "traits". arrogance, thoughtlessness, insensitivity, blind aggression, etc.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> what I'm getting at is what is actually consciously or unconsciously meant by certain words, especially ones which are specific to male or female genitalia, and why they are so powerful. I admit I agree a big part of it is just saying a naughty word that is naughty just because of its sexual nature, but I also think that the gender specificness of the words we choose does have an additional impact.


If you could show me that words used for female genitalia were used offensively when words used for male genitalia were not, then I would be able to see your point, but you can't because it doesn't happen. They seem to occur with approximately the same frequency and range of meanings (ie pretty much whatever the speaker wants them to mean in that context). I do not recognise the connotations you have posted above - all those words are used more or less interchangeably. 

Compare and contrast the use of words which compare men and women to animals. Women get bitch, dog and cow. Men get ... stud. Help me out here, am I missing something?

If you're going to get all hot and bothered about the use of sexist language, first look at whether there is any evidence of misogyny/misandry in the way that they were coined and are used.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> . I do not recognise the connotations you have posted above - all those words are used more or less interchangeably.


 
that's fine. so, they really all mean the same thing to you? which would be what? 



ymu said:


> Compare and contrast the use of words which compare men and women to animals. Women get bitch, dog and cow. Men get ... stud. Help me out here, am I missing something?
> 
> If you're going to get all hot and bothered about the use of sexist language, first look at whether there is any evidence of misogyny/misandry in the way that they were coined and are used.


 
I thought that's what I was doing . as I said, that's how they seem to be used, when I hear them. you're free to have your own interpretation. 
don't really know what you're saying about bitch, dog, cow, and stud. How do you interpret the use of these different animals to convey certain aspects of a male or female? If there is some difference, and you _don't_ feel that those words are used interchangeably, how is that any different than me feeling that dick, cock, and pussy being used specifically to convey different societal assumptions of how males and females behave?


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> that's fine. so, they really all mean the same thing to you? which would be what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe it is different in the US, but those words are used interchangeably here, and in a variety of contexts. Twat/tit and cock/dick are more likely to be used to indicate someone being an idiot and cunt or prick to indicate someone being nasty, but that's about it. Cunt is the only one that is also routinely used as an affectionate term without any real connotation at all (eg "ye daft wee cunt").

The point about comparisons with animals is that there don't actually seem to be many _insults_ which compare men to animals (I cant think of any - stud is used as a compliment), but rather a lot that compare women to animals. I think if sexist language bothers you, then words that were deliberately coined to apply specifically to one sex and one sex only, and which were and are intended solely to denigrate that sex, and which do not have any counterpart aimed at the other sex, are probably a good place to start.

Crack that one, and then maybe we can start trying to replace the entire cussing lexicon with neutral bodyparts just in case some people insist on taking offence for no apparent reason.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2012)

.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2012)

Pretty sure that "pussy" to mean somebody afraid of something comes from "pussy cat" (as, indeed, does the meaning of female body bits).  There is a long history of using the cat as an example of something that easily takes fright and stays away from rough-stuff (bit unfair to the cat, but there you go).

I distinctly remember in the 80s people saying "he's such a pussy cat".  This later seemed to become pussy.

I stand to be corrected, though.  This is speculation on my part.

(Very disappoint at the relatively tedious path this thread has now gone down, but oh well.)


----------



## co-op (Mar 16, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Pretty sure that "pussy" to mean somebody afraid of something comes from "pussy cat"


 
Scare-dy cat


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2012)

Yeah, quite.  Plus there has always been the concept of the "pussy cat" as being a creature that is playful and non-violent, just seeking warm fuzzies.

If that's the origin then objecting to calling somebody a "pussy" is a bit like objecting to the idea of "beavering away" at a task.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 16, 2012)

“Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding”


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Why has this shit been dragged up again? Im starting to think people are vile to each other because they enjoy it.


 
You must be one of life's innocents not to have concluded that earlier in your life.

(((((Citizen's innocence)))))


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Why sexual organs though?


 
Essentialisation, possibly. Reducing the person you're addressing to being characteristic of a set of organs whose main use besides excretion is for fucking - probably *the* primal urge. Pretty much calling you an unthinking ugly fuck while ony using a couple of syllables. 



> I suppose calling someone a stupid fucking arm doesnt quite work and arsehole has a nice ring to it.


 
As does "ringpiece".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> “Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding”


 
Maybe they mean "grow some balls, but armour-plate your scrotum"?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You must be one of life's innocents not to have concluded that earlier in your life.
> 
> (((((Citizen's innocence)))))



Or probably wasnt arsed enough to think about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Or probably wasnt arsed enough to think about it.


 
See, I try to give you an image boost as "goodhearted Citizen", and you throw it back in my face. You ringpiece!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> ...('Brit', for example, is fine)....


 
Only if you live on the mainland of the UK. It's been a swear-word in the Emerald Isle for at least the last 50 years, possibly longer, to the majority of inhabitants of that fair island, and understandably so.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Pretty sure that "pussy" to mean somebody afraid of something comes from "pussy cat" (as, indeed, does the meaning of female body bits). There is a long history of using the cat as an example of something that easily takes fright and stays away from rough-stuff (bit unfair to the cat, but there you go).
> 
> I distinctly remember in the 80s people saying "he's such a pussy cat". This later seemed to become pussy.
> 
> ...


 
it works both ways. pussy = cat, and pussy = vagina, so it's kind of a double entendre

I'm still kind of baffled at how people seem to be arguing that words have one very clear meaning and connotation, which is obviously the same to everyone (unless of course, they're north american) and that it never strays from the original meaning.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> See, I try to give you an image boost as "goodhearted Citizen", and you throw it back in my face. You ringpiece!



I was absent minded in a kind hearted way then.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> it works both ways. pussy = cat, and pussy = vagina, so it's kind of a double entendre


 And beaver = animal, and beaver = vagina, so when somebody says they are "beavering away", it's a double entendre too?

You can't have it both ways.  Either the etymology is where it is at, or the manner in which the context has surrounded the word is the important thing.

Particularly when the only reason pussy = vagina is because of the association with furriness.  It's a parallel evolution of the word, not an evolution that has gradually got from one meaning to the other.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I was absent minded in a kind hearted way then.


 
That's better.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

kabbes said:


> And beaver = animal, and beaver = vagina, so when somebody says they are "beavering away", it's a double entendre too?
> 
> You can't have it both ways. Either the etymology is where it is at, or the manner in which the context has surrounded the word is the important thing.
> 
> Particularly when the only reason pussy = vagina is because of the association with furriness. It's a parallel evolution of the word, not an evolution that has gradually got from one meaning to the other.


 
So beaver is nothing to do with _vagina dentata_, then, that oldest of male fears?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 16, 2012)

Is it something you see every time you close your eyes, VP?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Is it something you see every time you close your eyes, VP?


 
Not *every* time....


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

kabbes said:


> And beaver = animal, and beaver = vagina, so when somebody says they are "beavering away", it's a double entendre too?


Men are called bitches in the US, but not because it is a unisex term over there - because it compares them to a woman. It's used in exactly the same way as 'pussy':


> In high school especially, being called a “pussy” was a threat to your social reputation: if someone called you a “pussy”, you had better defend yourself (usually physically) because _what kind of man are you if you let other guys call you a pussy?_ In retrospect, it seems rather juvenile and pathetic that boys will let a slang word for a vagina disrupt their ego so much, but in a time when boys’ socialization is coming to its peak – right around the time they are beginning the last years of puberty – the worst thing he can hear is being accused of something opposite of his endstate, which is ultimately manhood.


Not a whimsical comparison with puddy cats. Really. 

Anyways, this article takes us back to some of the earlier discussion in the thread, about how the unacceptable attitudes described in the OP can/should be tackled:


> "Most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions," as the American Psychological Association put it in a 1998 position paper. "Alcohol and drugs sometimes help fuel these crimes, but the main determinant appears to be personal prejudice … [which] blind the aggressors to the immorality of what they are doing." The APA goes on to note that many hate crime perpetrators believe "that society sanctions attacks on certain groups":
> 
> "For example, Dr Karen Franklin, a forensic psychology fellow at the Washington Institute for Mental Illness Research and Training, has found that, in some settings, offenders perceive that they have societal permission to engage in violence against homosexuals."
> ...
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

There was a fearsome amount of homophobia around in my school. I didn't like it and didn't join in, but no way did I challenge it either. I had enough problems! I'm sure most kids who don't join in are like that.

Given that I'd wager most of the boys I knew then who were banging on with homophobic stuff probably are not homophobic as adults, not sure exactly where it comes from - the virulence of it at school, I mean. Does it perhaps originate much younger in the times when boys and girls first start to identify with gender roles - and do so normally in a very rigid and stereotypical way? (I remember, for instance, when I was very young, insisting on walking outside my mum 'to keep my sword arm free'. I was serious as well, I think. )


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There was a fearsome amount of homophobia around in my school. I didn't like it and didn't join in, but no way did I challenge it either. I had enough problems! I'm sure most kids who don't join in are like that.
> 
> Given that I'd wager most of the boys I knew then who were banging on with homophobic stuff probably are not homophobic as adults, not sure exactly where it comes from - the virulence of it at school, I mean. Does it perhaps originate much younger in the times when boys and girls first start to identify with gender roles - and do so normally in a very rigid and stereotypical way? *(I remember, for instance, when I was very young, insisting on walking outside my mum 'to keep my sword arm free'. I was serious as well, I think. )*


 
LOL

That is hilarious, were you a young Don Quixote?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

kabbes said:


> And beaver = animal, and beaver = vagina, so when somebody says they are "beavering away", it's a double entendre too?
> 
> *You can't have it both ways*. Either the etymology is where it is at, or the manner in which the context has surrounded the word is the important thing.
> 
> Particularly when the only reason pussy = vagina is because of the association with furriness. It's a parallel evolution of the word, not an evolution that has gradually got from one meaning to the other.


 
oh, I can, and do have it both ways. often.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> LOL
> 
> That is hilarious, were you a young Don Quixote?


I was hesitant about putting that in. I was only five or something, but I still cringed when I wrote it.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was hesitant about putting that in. I was only five or something, but I still cringed when I wrote it.


 
yeah right, you know it plays off as cute and the urban ladies will be "awwing" all over it.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was hesitant about putting that in. I was only five or something, but I still cringed when I wrote it.


 
it's super funny, though.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Mar 16, 2012)

eta: awwwwwww.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> yeah right, you know it plays off as cute and the urban ladies will be "awwing" all over it.


I just "liked" it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> yeah right, you know it plays off as cute and the urban ladies will be "awwing" all over it.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

That article hypothesises, as have posters on this thread, that these attitudes are picked up from, and are at least partially condoned by, wider society. Perhaps, just perhaps, if we didn't tolerate homophobia, racism or sexism, then kids wouldn't assume it was OK to behave like this.

Just a thought, like.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> That article hypothesises, as have posters on this thread, that these attitudes are picked up from, and are at least partially condoned by, wider society. Perhaps, just perhaps, if we didn't tolerate homophobia, racism or sexism, then kids wouldn't assume it was OK to behave like this.
> 
> Just a thought, like.


I think that's certainly a large part of it. Don't see how it couldn't be. But kids aren't just passive in this - they are actively trying to work out what's what, and that does lead to stereotyping. In younger kids, at least, none of it is deeply held, though. How could it be - they're kind of playing at the various roles they see.


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

Exactly. They're playing the roles they see. Adult men thinking it's fine to casually denigrate women or aggressively asserting their heterosexuality, for example.

Kids don't develop negative stereotypes out of nowhere. They go through phases of disliking certain types of foods and needing to sleep in late, they do not go through phases of hating entire demographic groups for no apparent reason.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> <snip>the urban ladies will be "awwing" all over it.


Stereotyping much?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> Exactly. They're playing the roles they see. Adult men thinking it's fine to casually denigrate women or aggressively asserting their heterosexuality, for example.
> 
> Kids don't develop negative stereotypes out of nowhere. They go through phases of disliking certain types of foods and needing to sleep in late, they do not go through phases of hating entire demographic groups for no apparent reason.


We're not disagreeing, I don't think. We're just stressing slightly different things. I do think that certain kinds of stereotypes are more likely to have purchase due to kids' active role in trying to find out their roles. But yes, the only way to tackle that is not to present it to them in any form. Hard job, that, though, when our kids act like a kind of simplifying mirror back us. I know a few parents who've been dismayed by the way their kids have picked up on stereotypes from the wider world - what parents do doesn't always count.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Stereotyping much?


 
and yet...


----------



## ymu (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're not disagreeing, I don't think. We're just stressing slightly different things. I do think that certain kinds of stereotypes are more likely to have purchase due to kids' active role in trying to find out their roles. But yes, the only way to tackle that is not to present it to them in any form. Hard job, that, though, when our kids act like a kind of simplifying mirror back us. I know a few parents who've been dismayed by the way their kids have picked up on stereotypes from the wider world - what parents do doesn't always count.


We're not really disagreeing, no. I'm just a tad over-sensitive to explanations which appear to absolve wider society of responsibility for addressing these problems. I know that's not what you're trying to do, but I don't think it's useful to suggest that there might be anything natural or inevitable about kids developing these attitudes.

You're absolutely right that there's only so much parents can do when others are still acting like shits. Which is why people who act like shits need calling out on it, whatever age they are - and kids need to see that too. It's a societal problem, not an individual one.

My dad taught my brother to bully me about my weight. For fifteen years, it was merciless. Then a mate of his that he looked up to tore a strip off him about it, in front of me. He never did it again. Small actions can have massive effects. Having decent principles is pointless if you don't have the courage to act on them.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Stereotyping much?


 
jesus, get a life you twat.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 16, 2012)

revol68 said:


> jesus, get a life you twat.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was hesitant about putting that in. I was only five or something, but I still cringed when I wrote it.


Heroric ideals are never bad


----------



## ymu (Mar 18, 2012)

Was just reminded of this on another thread. I don't think there's been a thread on it here yet, and this seems like the right thread for it.

This is a summary from the New Statesman. The story broke with a twitter hashtag: #mencallmethings



> You always remember the first time someone calls you ugly on the internet. I imagine -- although it hasn't happened to me -- you always remember the first time someone threatens to rape you, or kill you, or urinate on you.
> 
> The sheer volume of sexist abuse thrown at female bloggers is the internet's festering sore: if you talk to any woman who writes online, the chances are she will instantly be able to reel off a greatest hits of insults. But it's very rarely spoken about, for both sound and unsound reasons. No one likes to look like a whiner -- particularly a woman writing in male-dominated fields such as politics, economics or computer games. Others are reluctant to give trolls the "satisfaction" of knowing they're emotionally affected by the abuse or are afraid of incurring more by speaking out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 18, 2012)

ymu said:


> Was just reminded of this on another thread. I don't think there's been a thread on it here yet, and this seems like the right thread for it.
> 
> This is a summary from the New Statesman. The story broke with a twitter hashtag: #mencallmethings


 

There is a lot of nasty mysogyny (sp) floatin about..... To pretend otherwise is misguided.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 18, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> There is a lot of nasty mysogyny (sp) floatin about..... To pretend otherwise is misguided.


Quite.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 19, 2012)

The funniest aspect of lbj keeping his 'sword arm' free is that in line with the nature of the direction the discussion has taken, sword is also a euphemism for a sexual organ.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 29, 2012)

Even by the standards of religious extremists this is shocking - Rabbi to the IDF says it's OK to rape non-Jewish women in wartime, in fact troops should do it cause it's good for morale :
http://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 29, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Even by the standards of religious extremists this is shocking - Rabbi to the IDF says it's OK to rape non-Jewish women in wartime, in fact troops should do it cause it's good for morale :
> http://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/


 
What a nut job, frankly.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 29, 2012)

Got me thinking about sexual consent and the church.  "Thou shalt not rape" is not one of the ten commandments - I suppose there's the bit about not coveting your neigbour's wife - but rape within marriage, or sexual aggression more generally?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Heroric ideals are never bad


 
No more heroes anymore


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 29, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Got me thinking about sexual consent and the church. "Thou shalt not rape" is not one of the ten commandments - I suppose there's the bit about not coveting your neigbour's wife - but rape within marriage, or sexual aggression more generally?


 
It was definitely Catholic teaching that rape in marriage was not recognised - and may well be even today. I wouldn't put it past them in fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Even by the standards of religious extremists this is shocking - Rabbi to the IDF says it's OK to rape non-Jewish women in wartime, in fact troops should do it cause it's good for morale :
> http://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/


 
Bear in mind that a rabbi is no more of a consecrated spokesman for his (because they are mostly male) religion than an imam or mullah is, he's just a (more, or often less) learned person with an opinion, and is no more representative of that religion (even the extreme end of it) than any other individual.

BTW, the texts common to Christianity, Islam and Judaism *all* contain justifications for the rape of the women of an enemy. That this _schlemiel_ expands on those justifications to endorse a putative "morale-booster" is despicable, but (unfortunately) entirely within the ambit of his religion, if not within the ambit of any normative morality.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2012)

also 'colonel-rabbi'

as in battle priest, notoriously mental.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> What a nut job, frankly.


 
Unfortunately not. He's merely drawing on the same set of excuses and justifications as the peoples of the book have drawn on for millennia. He's no more nuts than any sincere believer who justifies their behaviour through religious texts rather than through what we might call a normative standard of decency.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> also 'colonel-rabbi'
> 
> as in battle priest, notoriously mental.


 
How do you distinguish between delusions caused by battle trauma, and the delusion of worshipping a tentacle of the flying spaghetti monster?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> N
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> How do you distinguish between delusions caused by battle trauma, and the delusion of worshipping a tentacle of the flying spaghetti monster?


 

(((loyola)))


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> How do you distinguish between delusions caused by battle trauma, and the delusion of worshipping a tentacle of the flying spaghetti monster?


the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. if you'd said 'the delusion of worshipping a tentacle of cthulhu' then your hypoethetical might have some validity.


----------



## purenarcotic (Mar 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately not. He's merely drawing on the same set of excuses and justifications as the peoples of the book have drawn on for millennia. He's no more nuts than any sincere believer who justifies their behaviour through religious texts rather than through what we might call a normative standard of decency.


 
Perhaps, but I know few religious people that would stand by or support his interpretation.  His interpretation is cunty and nuts.


----------



## trabuquera (Mar 29, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Perhaps, but I know few religious people that would stand by or support his interpretation. His interpretation is cunty and nuts.


 
There is no blanket prohibition whatsoever of rape in any of the Abrahamic faiths and the nutter battle-rabbi is not alone.

the Old Testament states explicitly that while women who claim to have been raped outside city walls should be allowed to live (how generous!) and their attackers killed, the rule is different if the assault happened in town: in that case, it being presumed that any 'decent' woman would shout and be rescued, so if she didn't she wasn't a victim but a slapper and should be executed (by stoning) along with her co-fornicator.

There are various Quranic verses to do with what you are legitimately allowed to 'seize' in warfare .... which explicitly include the women of your defeated enemies. Muslim extremists (and islamophobic nutters) extrapolate from this that it's positively recommending that such captives SHOULD be enslaved and used for whatever you fancy. Can't remember the exact verse but it goes something like 'and what your left hand may seize, possess it for it is yours')

But they're not alone. In the very early medieval period (and earlier, just after Augustine's efforts) the Catholic and some branches of the Orthodox church didn't just 'fail to recognise' rape as a crime ... they too claimed that anyone raped by anyone OTHER than their husband was (by definition) not a 'rape victim' but a fornicator and thus due for punishment. Just like the loopier interpretations of sharia today (zina laws in Pakistan and Afghanistan etc.)


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

This story probably belongs here:



> Twitter reaction to Ched Evans case shows rape culture is alive and kicking
> 
> On Friday afternoon, the Sheffield United footballer Ched Evans was sentenced to five years in jail for raping a 19-year-old woman. His co-accused, Port Vale footballer Clayton McDonald, was found not guilty.
> 
> ...


 
Good to see that the Twitterati responded so vehemently, but the author concludes with an excellent point:


> While it may be without doubt that those who used Twitter in an unlawful way over this issue should be punished, and it is fair to say that the law is constantly being tested in its application in our new media age, what this weekend has demonstrated is how alarmingly alive and pervasive rape culture is. Isn't the biggest question what we do about that?


 

[Before it causes a bunfight, the law she wants used is that against naming a rape survivor, not merely being offensive on social media.]


----------



## two sheds (Apr 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's no more nuts than any sincere believer who justifies their behaviour through religious texts rather than through what we might call a normative standard of decency.


 
Sorry, I think that's just crap. So a Christian who rapes women because of a text in the bible is 'no more nuts' than Christians who devote their lives to helping other people inspired by the story of the Good Samaritan?

I don't like organized religion but I do feel there is a real arrogance on the boards against followers of religion. This is by no means the worst of the statements - usually they are on science-related threads. Just replace 'science' with 'Christianity' and many of the statements here could have been taken from religious tracts exhorting people to go out and civilize those old savages.


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Sorry, I think that's just crap. So a Christian who rapes women because of a text in the bible is 'no more nuts' than Christians who devote their lives to helping other people inspired by the story of the Good Samaritan?
> 
> I don't like organized religion but I do feel there is a real arrogance on the boards against followers of religion. This is by no means the worst of the statements - usually they are on science-related threads. Just replace 'science' with 'Christianity' and many of the statements here could have been taken from religious tracts exhorting people to go out and civilize those old savages.


It was a subtle qualification, but VP did refer to behaviours that were justified on religious grounds rather than "normative standards of decency", ie the need to reach for religious justification because a behaviour is otherwise appalling.

I do have sympathy with your point though. Secularism is not the same as atheism, and some atheists go way too far down an anti-secular route to retain any kind of claim to the moral high ground.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 24, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Sorry, I think that's just crap. So a Christian who rapes women because of a text in the bible is 'no more nuts' than Christians who devote their lives to helping other people inspired by the story of the Good Samaritan?


 
1) I'm not talking about Christians (plural) who choose to follow the philosophy set out in the religion they practice, I'm talking about individuals who justify their actions with regard to *specific* moral or religious prescriptions.

2) Anyone who *depends* on religion, *any* religion, as the centre of their "universe" is describable/diagnosable as neurotic under current medical health guidelines. That includes those for whom secularism is a religion.



> I don't like organized religion but I do feel there is a real arrogance on the boards against followers of religion. This is by no means the worst of the statements - usually they are on science-related threads. Just replace 'science' with 'Christianity' and many of the statements here could have been taken from religious tracts exhorting people to go out and civilize those old savages.


 
I'm not a vocally anti-Christian poster, and (unluckily for you) I actually have a history on Urban of being rather too "live and let live" for some of the board's more devoutly (see what I did there?) secular posters. I dislike the people who staff the hierarchies of all organised religions, whether they be lay or part of a religion's "official" priesthood, and I dislike them because of what they historically get away with in the name of their religion, i.e. all sorts of things that the original religious philosophy they claim to follow would have found abhorrent. To paraphrase a Christian saying, I "hate the sinner, not the sin".


----------



## two sheds (Apr 24, 2012)

Fair play.

I forgive you then  .


----------



## Citizen66 (May 7, 2012)

Just like Jesus would have done.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2012)

I think technically jesus intercedes on your behalf so that his old man does the forgiving


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 7, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Just like Jesus would have done.


 
I'm not sure that Jesus would forgive me, seeing as I killed him.


----------



## ExtraRefined (May 24, 2012)

> The stereotype of the male student has shifted in recent years. No longer do cab drivers and grumpy newspaper columnists make jokes about spotty Adrian Mole-types sat around all day wanking their way to degrees in _Countdown_. In the public imagination, the male student is now someone who makes jokes about rape and tweets racist abuse at footballers who, in medical terms, have just died in public. All of which has alerted the world to the infiltration of British universities by a new breed of scholar: the anti-scholar, the beer-swilling, banter-puking cuckoo in the scholarly nest, The Lad.


http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-big-night-out-withbritains-biggest-lads

What a lovely bunch.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 24, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> It was definitely Catholic teaching that rape in marriage was not recognised - and may well be even today. I wouldn't put it past them in fact.


 
Martial rape was not officially recognised in the UK until 1991.


----------



## stuff_it (May 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure that Jesus would forgive me, seeing as I killed him.


I knew you were older than me, but...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I knew you were older than me, but...


 
Cheeky!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 24, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Must draw a distinction between lads and 'lads' - the latter are the ones with the Perfectly Quaffed Hair and Really Tight Jeans who read Nuts Magazine and are doing a degree in Marketing. Sorry if that wasn't initially clear.


 If you quaff hair, you're coughing up hairballs for days.


----------



## Blagsta (May 24, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-big-night-out-withbritains-biggest-lads
> 
> What a lovely bunch.


 
Jesus, dull ain't the word for them saps. Hardcore? They wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes at the parties we used to throw.  And we didn't have to resort to being wankers for a laugh.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 24, 2012)

wankers - went to the student union - they would have got their heeds kicked in if they had gone drinking in the Bigg market


----------



## Pickman's model (May 24, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Martial rape was not officially recognised in the UK until 1991.


yes it was. marital rape, on the other hand...


----------



## Nylock (May 24, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-big-night-out-withbritains-biggest-lads
> 
> What a lovely bunch.


What total bunch of bellends...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2012)

They are to hardcore behaviour what Jim Davidson is to comedy - its antithesis. If they're Britain's "biggest lads", then Britain is producing some right fucking plonkers, losers and bampot tossrags nowadays!


----------



## ExtraRefined (May 24, 2012)

I was just in the pub with a mate who put away 7 pints, and she'll still be in work for 0900 tomorrow. Those kids are pathetic.


----------



## tar1984 (May 25, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-big-night-out-withbritains-biggest-lads
> 
> What a lovely bunch.


 
I hate these people.  It's reminding me of being stuck on a coach surrounded by a group like this.  At the time I thought of them as 'bro' types, but 'lad' works too.  Annoying loud cunts with devastatingly tedious 'banter'.


----------



## weepiper (May 25, 2012)

what a bunch of boring wee wanks.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 25, 2012)

mmm, the snearing post-hipster nihilists of vice magazine vs the arse-end of Britain's uni 'lad' culture. I mean Vice magazine win by some margin but they're still complete dicks.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 25, 2012)

both candidates for immediate liquidation tbf


----------



## ExtraRefined (May 25, 2012)

I love Vice - a bunch of public schoolboys sneering at everything outside of London - what could be better.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> I love Vice - a bunch of public schoolboys sneering at everything outside of London - what could be better.


 
To see the self-satisfied elitist douchebags doing a lamp-post waltz?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 25, 2012)

Much of the area they live in - heaton - is a student ghetto these days - lots of BTL and parents buying places for their spoilt kids to live in whilst at Uni - its a fucking pigsty and these spoilt cunts trash the place week in , week out.Fuck them and their student pranks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> Much of the area they live in - heaton - is a student ghetto these days - lots of BTL and parents buying places for their spoilt kids to live in whilst at Uni - its a fucking pigsty and these spoilt cunts trash the place week in , week out.Fuck them and their student pranks.


_Any time you're Heaton way,_
_Any evening, any day,_
_You'll find them all_
_Doin' the Lamp-post Waltz. Oi!_


_Every little Heaton scrote,_
_swinging gently by the throat,_
_You'll find them all_
_Doin' the Lamp-post Waltz. Oi!_


(with extreme apologies to Furber and Rose  )


----------



## ddraig (Oct 6, 2012)

<Bump>
more student hilarity 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19850826



> *The students unions at Queens and the University of Ulster have condemned a Facebook page that shows young women walking home in Belfast in the morning after an evening out.*
> The page claims to be produced by students living in the Holyland area of Belfast and features three pictures of different women among its content.
> The women are not identified in the pictures.
> Some of the comments posted about the women are sexually derogatory.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 6, 2012)

god those "lads" came across as pratts. I particularly liked the attempt to defend getting legless and making an arse of yourself.
 what a chopper


----------



## cantsin (Oct 7, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> I love Vice - a bunch of public schoolboys sneering at everything outside of London - what could be better.


tbf, they sneer at everything , everywhere, and always have


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 10, 2012)

More worrying Uni-lad sounding shit:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...sexual-politics-of-freshers-week-8203400.html


----------



## ddraig (Oct 10, 2012)

that is really fucking grim 
not noticed any events like that advertised in Cardiff but will keep an eye out
that everyday sexism project is ace, respect to them


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I think it sends a clear message that whatever is supposedly being done to improve things isn't working, and part of that is public perception to the crime of rape.
> 
> I think the poster campaign in Canada that Idris talked about - Don't be _that_ guy - should be used over here. Cinemas, bus stop adverts, tube posters, half-time game advertising, the works.


It's happening!



And some fuckwits complained about their children being subjected to it.  But the ASA refused to consider their complaints.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

trashpony said:


> This is a video from the HO's campaign to tackle teenage rape and sexual assault. It's quite good I think


Sorry Trashy - either this totally passed me by at the time or I forgot that I'd seen this campaign before. 

Nice to get an opportunity to reread this thread though. It's very good. Well done urbs.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's happening!
> 
> 
> 
> And some fuckwits complained about their children being subjected to it.  But the ASA refused to consider their complaints.




imo even that ad goes a little too far into the territory of overdramatizing, if it's trying to portray date or acquaintance rape. The girl doesn't need to be crying, and the guy doesn't need to be forcing her down on the bed. All it needs is for her to say no, frankly. (eta for clarification, I do not mean that's the end of the clip, I meant that even without the crying and forcing down on the bed, it's still rape because she said no, and that I think they should show this instead)
I'm making a point about this after hearing a guy who counsels rapists say that 99% of the men he counsels still don't believe they actually raped anyone, and I fear part of the reason for this is a lack of understanding of what consent really means, and that people who feel coerced into something they don't want don't always kick and scream (or cry).


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

Miss Caphat said:


> imo even that ad goes a little too far into the territory of overdramatizing, if it's trying to portray date or acquaintance rape. The girl doesn't need to be crying, and the guy doesn't need to be forcing her down on the bed. All it needs is for her to say no, frankly.
> I'm making a point about this after hearing a guy who counsels rapists say that 99% of the men he counsels still don't believe they actually raped anyone, and I fear part of the reason for this is a lack of understanding of what consent really means, and that people who feel coerced into something they don't want don't always kick and scream (or cry).


She's not crying - there is a need to show that she is obviously (but quietly) distressed, but she's making no sound and the boy is not looking at her face.

I don't understand what you mean by this: _and the guy doesn't need to be forcing her down on the bed. All it needs is for her to say no, frankly._ If all that happens is her saying no and him not forcing her, how is the rape going to occur? Or are you saying that the reality of rape should not be portrayed at all, even if it is aimed at getting teenage boys to understand what rape actually is?

Your last paragraph illustrates exactly what I mean. A very large proportion of men do not know what rape is (as pointed out by Trashy earlier on the thread, backed up by personal experience and as recently demonstrated by Assange supporters, including a British MP and several fairly well respected commentators). How are they ever going to get it if all you show is a woman saying no and a man respecting that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> She's not crying - there is a need to show that she is obviously (but quietly) distressed, but she's making no sound and the boy is not looking at her face.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by this: _and the guy doesn't need to be forcing her down on the bed. All it needs is for her to say no, frankly._ If all that happens is her saying no and him not forcing her, how is the rape going to occur? Or are you saying that the reality of rape should not be portrayed at all, even if it is aimed at getting teenage boys to understand what rape actually is?
> 
> Your last paragraph illustrates exactly what I mean. A very large proportion of men do not know what rape is (as pointed out by Trashy earlier on the thread, backed up by personal experience and as recently demonstrated by Assange supporters, including a British MP and several fairly well respected commentators). How are they ever going to get it if all you show is a woman saying no and a man respecting that?


 
I disagree with you profoundly about "a very large proportion of men" not knowing what rape is. Most of us do, from our teenage years on. The problem (which I believe Kitzinger dealt with at length back in the noughties) is that culture and law in most nation-states leaves large "holes" through which men can excuse their actions as, variously, "misinterpreted signals", "being led on" and other such shit, hence we have such ridiculous sitiuations as women and men being enjoined to obtain verbal consent from each other.
Men know that because a woman consents to fellate you, that she doesn't necessarily consent to any other form of penetrative sex; they know that because a woman consents to sex with you, she doesn't consent to sex with your fellow athletes; that because a woman is asleep in your bed with you that doesn't constitute consent to have sex with her. It's not rocket surgery, and we're not stupid. Men acting as though they don't know what constitutes rape doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what rape is, it can and does (in my own experience) mean that they've actively chosen to not acknowledge a boundary that they know exists, for political, personal or whatever reasons.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

I suppose it depends what you think a very large proportion is.

47,000 rapes a year (~0.2% of adult women), and people working with sex offenders report that most of them do not think they committed rape. I think that suggests a very large proportion (given the severity of the crime). How large is impossible to know, because we do not know the average number of offences per offender. We don't even know the true number of offences. Even with quality survey data, plenty of women don't know what it is either. Internalised oppression and all that.

I agree with everything else you say. But I would put these forward as reasons why they don't know (or can't admit to themselves that they know/manage to self-justify).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2013)

Rape is presumably what the man in the next cell did


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

I don't know if that is a prison rape joke, or a hypothetical scenario where rapists are most likely to be found in prison.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> I suppose it depends what you think a very large proportion is.
> 
> 47,000 rapes a year (~0.2% of adult women), and people working with sex offenders report that most of them do not think they committed rape. I think that suggests a very large proportion (given the severity of the crime).


 
I think you're mistaking a claim by some men not to know/to not think that they've raped, a claim that is motivated by  a wish to escape responsibility for their actions, with actual ignorance of what constitutes rape.



> How large is impossible to know, because we do not know the average number of offences per offender. We don't even know the true number of offences. Even with quality survey data, plenty of women don't know what it is either. Internalised oppression and all that


 
We know that in terms of contact offences (i.e. sexual assault crimes), that more will re-offend than will not, and that for a majority of re-offenders this will mean multiple re-offending. If the first offence is committed as a juvenile, then the possibility of a "criminal career" centred around sex offences is higher than in those who commit the first offence as an adult.

As for data on prevalence and frequency, it's not particularly attention-worthy, for the reasons you give. The most often thrown-around data in the UK is the BCS, which is *utterly* unrepresentative of anything except the fraction of victims who've actually reported the crime.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

I think we're disagreeing over semantics only. I think the lies we tell ourselves can be very convincing, until and unless we are prepared to do some soul-searching. But I'm happy to agree with your formulation.

As for what is a large proportion ... if we're looking at a new treatment which causes, say, alopecia in 10% of patients, we'd be horrified if it was for headache and fucking delighted if it was for cancer. The size of the risks is judged against the severity of the disease. That's not a lecture, it's just where I'm coming from.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> She's not crying - there is a need to show that she is obviously (but quietly) distressed, but she's making no sound and the boy is not looking at her face.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by this: _and the guy doesn't need to be forcing her down on the bed. All it needs is for her to say no, frankly._ If all that happens is her saying no and him not forcing her, how is the rape going to occur? Or are you saying that the reality of rape should not be portrayed at all, even if it is aimed at getting teenage boys to understand what rape actually is?
> 
> Your last paragraph illustrates exactly what I mean. A very large proportion of men do not know what rape is (as pointed out by Trashy earlier on the thread, backed up by personal experience and as recently demonstrated by Assange supporters, including a British MP and several fairly well respected commentators). How are they ever going to get it if all you show is a woman saying no and a man respecting that?


 

Your comment "If all that happens is her saying no and him not forcing her, how is the rape going to occur?" shows exactly why it's important to educate people on this.

Date rape, acquaintance rape, often happens without the force that stranger rape is associated with. It works on a psychological level, because the victim is too mortified by what's happening to do anything or struggle. Similar to the way that child sexual abuse often happens.

We need to educate simply that "No" means you stop what you're doing and back the fuck off. It does not mean keep going and assume that if she's not crying and struggling that you're not raping her.

I did not mean you show a girl saying no and then the guy stopping. You misunderstood my post. I meant do the video the same, except perhaps without him pushing her down so obviously or something. Maybe just show the woman crying and distressed after saying No a bunch of times or something.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

OK, fair dos. A heavy petting scenario turning into rape might work better. To make it absolutely clear that no form of consent to sexual activity implies consent for different sexual activities, and to remove the need for more obvious force in the scenario.

This is part of an ongoing campaign. I haven't checked out the rest, but probably should before deciding whether the overall message is right. There are an awful lot of 'yes, that is rape' type scenarios to cover. It is fucking wonderful to see an anti-rape campaign that doesn't blame the victim though. It's a first for this country.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2013)

Who the fuck wants to wear one of these?:
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-02/slogan-t-shirts-still-on-sale-after-companys-apology/


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Who the fuck wants to wear one of these?:
> http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-02/slogan-t-shirts-still-on-sale-after-companys-apology/


 
Weltweit?

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/can-rape-jokes-ever-be-funny.296192/page-5


----------



## Badgers (Mar 2, 2013)

Who would wear a rape t-shirt? 
Domestic violence t-shirt is fine of course 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B007DWDM4O/ref=redir_mdp_mobile?qid=1362209609&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1


----------



## Lixer (Mar 2, 2013)

Who makes this crap up?


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

A computer.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 2, 2013)

Lixer said:


> Who makes this crap up?


Men


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 2, 2013)

Picked up by the BBC now...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21640347

What an amazing coincidence that all the phrases this Abulafia type computer program (that generates random phrases based on 1000s of words in the English language) came out with all involve violence towards women...


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

Men did not design the tshirts. Read the report.

Computer generates them, idiots buy the offensive ones - the offensive ones then feature on Amazon.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 2, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Men


manboys


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Computer generates them, idiots buy the offensive ones - the offensive ones then feature on Amazon.


See that's what I don't get, who would actually not only buy one, but wear it in public?!


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> See that's what I don't get, who would actually not only buy one, but wear it in public?!


 
Arseholes! 

Get over yourself, darling. It's only a joke.


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 2, 2013)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jimmy-Black...69&s=clothing&ie=UTF8&qid=1362234388&sr=1-257

Use of proper nouns from a computer program that picks phrases using "hundreds of thousands of *dictionary* words"?


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

My understanding of jimmying something is sliding a hacksaw blade between a car window and the door to pop the lock


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 2, 2013)

After looking it up, I'll have to concede that (altho we say jemmy in this country)


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 2, 2013)

dunno where cyber rose is - but we say 'jemmy' too.


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 2, 2013)

Leeds!


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

*waits for Gromit or Weltweit to show up, credit card in hand.*


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 2, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> Leeds!


ahh, right - yes. definitely jemmy in london too.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> Leeds!


Glad to see your joy at us moving to within 3 points of the play off spots.


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Glad to see your joy at us moving to within 3 points of the play off spots.


Erm...


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> ahh, right - yes. definitely jemmy in london too.


 
In hindsight I think I am just mistaken and thought it was jimmy and not jemmy 

I would blame dyslexia or something but alas am just a thick fuck


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> In hindsight I think I am just mistaken and thought it was jimmy and not jemmy
> 
> I would blame dyslexia or something but alas am just a thick fuck


Should've kept that to yourself!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jimmy?s=t


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

See what I mean?

I blame lack of sleep.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Men did not design the tshirts. Read the report.
> 
> Computer generates them, idiots buy the offensive ones - the offensive ones then feature on Amazon.


Idiot men buy them.


----------



## cesare (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Men did not design the tshirts. Read the report.
> 
> Computer generates them, idiots buy the offensive ones - the offensive ones then feature on Amazon.


Computer generates them. Then people are involved in the printing, quality control, selling, and distribution.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> Computer generates them. Then people are involved in the printing, quality control, selling, and distribution.


And people decide that 'Keep calm and hit him' won't sell but that 'keep calm and hit her' will.

It's a very weaselly get out


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

Yep, good point. But no one objectively sat down with a note pad and pen and did some brain storming.

Plug: www.sabcat.com for your offensive tshirt* needs, from the mouth of a genuine taxi driver:







*offensive to tories,



trashpony said:


> And people decide that 'Keep calm and hit him' won't sell but that 'keep calm and hit her' will.
> 
> It's a very weaselly get out


That's the way Amazon and things work, they put the most popular tshirts at the top as they're most likely to be sold. Google does the same with it's auto-correct and 'did you mean?'.


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

But obviously the person behind the company / software would be aware of their best selling lines - and did not act upon it because it was a money maker.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 2, 2013)

I'm confused. Does the computer generate phrases and they all get displayed, even the vast majority that will be crap, or the computer generates phrases, and someone chooses which ones to put up for sale?

If it's the latter, then trashpony's right - it's no different from writing it yourself.

ETA: or is it that people can generate their own on the website? The article isn't clear about that. But even then, someone has to physically make and deliver it, as tp says.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

> "This has been immediately deleted as it was and had been automatically generated using a scripted computer process running against hundreds of thousands of dictionary words."


 
There are about 250 000 english words. So that's all of them pretty much included in your process. Why was nothing using the word evasion used in your productions? Because there was a quality control person at some point. Who thought this/these were ok.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 2, 2013)

Someone decided which ones to put up. There were about 10 with violence against women on Amazon and none with violence against men. That isn't random.


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm confused. Does the computer generate phrases and they all get displayed, even the vast majority that will be crap, or the computer generates phrases, and someone chooses which ones to put up for sale?


 
Someone would have wrote software which inserts the appropriate noun into the phrase, then over time as people browsed, clicked and bought tshirts - Amazon's ranking system (again automated) would put the most viewed and bought tshirts to the top. That is generally the way CMS for online stores work.

Of course there's someone behind all that rubbing their hands with glee. 

Also I think it's important to remember that this tshirt would not be the forefront of the list of choices if it were not for people buying them. The machine gives us what "we" want - a black mirror if you will (urgh! I just used a Brooker phrase).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 2, 2013)

Ok, I see. Someone inspired by Dawkins' 'meme' idea, perhaps. A decent illustration of how that is such a crap idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Someone would have wrote software which inserts the appropriate noun into the phrase, then over time as people browsed, clicked and bought tshirts - Amazon's ranking system (again automated) would put the most viewed and bought tshirts to the top. That is generally the way CMS for online stores work.
> 
> Of course there's someone behind all that rubbing their hands with glee.
> 
> Also I think it's important to remember that this tshirt would not be the forefront of the list of choices if it were not for people buying them. The machine gives us what "we" want - a black mirror if you will (urgh! I just used a Brooker phrase).


wtf are you talking about? They were produced as 'goers' before any large scale production. People didn't type "rape t-shirt" into amazon.

This script or whatever doesn't exist anyway. A person came up with them then others thought that they was a good idea.


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

Amazon sells all kinds of horrible stuff through their resellers:


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> people didn't type "rape t-shirt" into amazon.


 
Of course they didn't.



> This script or whatever doesn't exist anyway.


 
Scripts like that do exist, they've been around for ages, as long as the internet. They most often used to generate random phrases and text links for click through referrals. That is why you sometimes get quite bizarre recommendations in Google. The more the generated phrase is clicked on the more it will appear.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> People didn't type "rape t-shirt" into amazon.


 
I will love if it turns out that this is actually what happened and they've been mining searches. I would imagine the original intent to have been for an anti-rape t-shrt though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Also I think it's important to remember that this tshirt would not be the forefront of the list of choices if it were not for people buying them. The machine gives us what "we" want - a black mirror if you will (urgh! I just used a Brooker phrase).


All it does is tell us what we already knew - that there are men out there with fucked-up attitudes towards women. I find it hard to imagine anyone ever wearing it, though.


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> All it does is tell us what we already knew - that there are men out there with fucked-up attitudes towards women. I find it hard to imagine anyone ever wearing it, though.


 
Exactly.

I can't imagine anyone wearing it but then again I have seen people with 1488 tattooed onto their knuckles :/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I can't imagine anyone wearing it but then again I have seen people with 1488 tattooed onto their knuckles :/


I had to google that. I'd just have been puzzled seeing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Of course they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Scripts like that do exist, they've been around for ages, as long as the internet. They most often used to generate random phrases and text links for click through referrals. That is why you sometimes get quite bizarre recommendations in Google. The more the generated phrase is clicked on the more it will appear.


I know that they exist. I have been on the internet before (but i think i got away with it). They were not used here. That's an attempt at a get out.


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I had to google that. I'd just have been puzzled seeing it.


 
American I think isn't it? The guy who I saw with the tattoo had the pompy dots too. Weird place, Portsmouth.

3 dots in a triangle formation like the predator laser. Not entirely sure what the point of them is as the only people who know what tehy mean is people from Portsmouth. Maybe that was the point.



butchersapron said:


> I know that they exist. I have been on the internet before (but i think i got away with it). They were not used here. That's an attempt at a get out.


I believe the computer did generate it but I don't believe they knew nothing about it.  Should have said that in the first place, much more concise


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I know that they exist. I have been on the internet before (but i think i got away with it). They were not used here. That's an attempt at a get out.


I'm not sure I see much difference either way (stupid cunts selling something shit or stupid cunts deciding to buy something shit) but how do you know they are lying about how it happened?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 2, 2013)

I'm suspicious of their explanation in the first place, but even if it is true at all it is a good illustration of how computer generated results are at heart human generated, and why this is a shit excuse. Somebody puts the words into the system in the first place and somebody chooses the ones that go onto Amazon (they hardly generated every possible combination of dictionary words and put them all for sale here, Amazon would have banned them for spam). Who would have thought that if you put the words "rape" and "her" into a system it would come out with "keep calm and rape her"? Inconceivable.


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

It is a plausible explanation if not entirely convincing. It is however a shit excuse.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm not sure I see much difference either way (stupid cunts selling something shit or stupid cunts deciding to buy something shit) but how do you know they are lying about how it happened?


Because they weren't selling anything that would back up their story.

And of course it makes a difference:
a) we have decided to sell a t-shit via rape
vs
b) we will sell a t-shirt by a script coming up with rape

are different things. Connected, related, but different.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> It is a plausible explanation if not entirely convincing. It is however a shit excuse.


The only way in which it is plausible puts just as much responsibility on the company as if they'd picked the words by hand.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Someone would have wrote software which inserts the appropriate noun into the phrase, then over time as people browsed, clicked and bought tshirts - Amazon's ranking system (again automated) would put the most viewed and bought tshirts to the top. That is generally the way CMS for online stores work.
> 
> Of course there's someone behind all that rubbing their hands with glee.
> 
> Also I think it's important to remember that this tshirt would not be the forefront of the list of choices if it were not for people buying them. The machine gives us what "we" want - a black mirror if you will (urgh! I just used a Brooker phrase).


 
I don't think all phrases possible in the english language were put up for people to browse.  That would be a lot of browsing.

Oh, I see FM has already said that.  What FM says.


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

Here's a reseller I'd rather not give publicity too, think I am gonna report this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=KSAS Supplies&index=clothing&search-type=ss






http://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-Pr...YUYM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362256250&sr=8-1


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2013)

x-posted with BA, but I think this works as a response to him, so editing in his post:



butchersapron said:


> Because they weren't selling anything that would back up their story.
> 
> And of course it makes a difference:
> a) we have decided to sell a t-shit via rape
> ...


 
According to C4 News, few of their automatically generated T-shirt slogans make much sense. It's hard to believe any kind of quality control went into this lot.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> x-posted with BA, but I think this works as a response to him, so editing in his post:


Ok, pretty clearly the script thing then. Which takes us a) back a step to what words were chucked in and b) who saw them? Is this _really lean_ production?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 2, 2013)

I'm quite surprised that that level of auto submission didn't get picked up by Amazon, but the fact remains that if you set up a system with the words "knife", "choke", "rape" etc as verbs - and "her" as the object, I understand that there was no "rape him" version - you know what is possible for it to come out with. If you haven't thought about the possibility that says quite a lot about you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Here's a reseller I'd rather not give publicity too, think I am gonna report this:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=KSAS Supplies&index=clothing&search-type=ss
> 
> ...


 

do amazon have a policy on the sale of Nazi tat?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, pretty clearly the script thing then. Which takes us a) back a step to what words were chucked in and b) who saw them? Is this _really lean_ production?


There are are standard lists of dictionary words which are used for text generation. There are also "clean" versions which are generally available, because there are many applications for them which need to be used in schools etc.

I could potentially buy the explanation that an "intern" used a full list instead of a clean list but two things make me suspicious - one, the limited number of nouns as objects and the fact that the verbs must have been subsetted too (there are a lot of verbs) and two, that it's just so incredibly obvious that these things need checking. The absolutely most generous possibility is that they are slipshod spamming cunts, but I suspect that they are slipshod spamming edgy cunts.


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, pretty clearly the script thing then. Which takes us a) back a step to what words were chucked in and b) who saw them? Is this _really lean_ production?


It's clearly a list of verbs that is being used. Whether or not they force them to be followed by 'her', or whether there are also versions that end in 'him', 'it', 'them' or that just use the verb with no object I don't know. There are certainly a huge number of these things based on the Keep Calm and ... meme at the moment.

I don't think their lack of concern about what they were selling is any more or less telling that the choices of those who bought them. If it was a fashion brand actively promoting rape and DV I'd feel differently, but it's not, it's a group of lazy chancers with a T-shirt printing machine and no need to have a prototype for every possible variation of what they sell.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Here's a reseller I'd rather not give publicity too, think I am gonna report this:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=KSAS Supplies&index=clothing&search-type=ss
> 
> ...


 @ the reviews.... http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B005LMV812/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

And here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-Pr...sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_img?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1



> I bought these stylish budgie-on-a-swazzie shirts as my five-a-side team's new match kit, thinking they would bring some of the Special Soldiers' legendary efficiency to Striker Dave. I was most upset when none of the other teams would countenance playing any of the scheduled matches, but delighted when we were awarded the wins by default. We're now top of the league and looking to make inroads into Europe.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 3, 2013)

When all else fails, blame it on the robot/computer/machine/tools.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

firky said:


> Men did not design the tshirts. Read the report.
> 
> Computer generates them, idiots buy the offensive ones - the offensive ones then feature on Amazon.


 
Who generates the list of words the computer chooses from? I'm not convinced the program just gets fed the OED and is left to churn out what would be 95% nonsense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> Leeds!


 
In which case you probably say "jemmeh".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

firky said:


> Amazon sells all kinds of horrible stuff through their resellers:


 
A knife isn't "horrible, firks, it's a knife*. It's what some people choose to do with the knife that is horrible.

**Most Fairbairn-Sykes knives reside on the walls of 30-40 year old single blokes who still live with their parents, and have never been used for anything more horrible than digging out toecheese.*


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In which case you probably say "jemmeh".


I _live _in Leeds, I'm not _from _Leeds!


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> I _live _in Leeds, I'm not _from _Leeds!




I'm both and don't know what either means.


----------



## maomao (Mar 3, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I'm both and don't know what either means.


 
Jimmy means to use a tool that slips down between the window and body of a car door in order to 'pick' the lock.

Jemmy means to prise open a door with a crowbar or similar tool.


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who generates the list of words the computer chooses from? I'm not convinced the program just gets fed the OED and is left to churn out what would be 95% nonsense.


They've got over half a million T-shirts up there, and are expected to hit a million shortly (according to C4 News, anyway). The majority make no sense.

That is hit and hope random generation, not a carefully thought out product line. There's so many people selling Keep Calm tat, these are just lazy fuckers trying to take advantage and getting burnt.


----------



## maomao (Mar 3, 2013)

By the look of the photos they don't even print them out unless you order one. All the creases are in the same place and the letters have been superimposed.


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2013)

Precisely. They'd be an awful lot better off just letting people type in the message they want. It would be a lot less bother for both them and their customers.


----------



## maomao (Mar 3, 2013)

Keep Calm and Shoot a Tory in the Face. 

I'd buy that.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2013)

maomao said:


> Keep Calm and Shoot a Tory in the Face.
> 
> I'd buy that.


Computer says no.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 3, 2013)

firky said:


> Here's a reseller I'd rather not give publicity too, think I am gonna report this:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=KSAS Supplies&index=clothing&search-type=ss
> 
> ...


I complained.


----------



## CyberRose (Mar 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who generates the list of words the computer chooses from? I'm not convinced the program just gets fed the OED and is left to churn out what would be 95% nonsense.


If you click through the shirts (which go in alphabetical order), it does appear that the word after "Keep calm and" is a random verb, however, the last word is certainly pre-decided as there are only a certain words (a lot, in, me, it, not, off, on, out, them, us ... and her). "Him" does not appear to feature.


----------



## toggle (Mar 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A knife isn't "horrible, firks, it's a knife*. It's what some people choose to do with the knife that is horrible.
> 
> **Most Fairbairn-Sykes knives reside on the walls of 30-40 year old single blokes who still live with their parents, and have never been used for anything more horrible than digging out toecheese.*


 
snorts.

cause as Bakunin as found out, gf's tend not to be impressed with suggestions of purchases of such items


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> snorts.
> 
> cause as Bakunin as found out, gf's tend not to be impressed with suggestions of purchases of such items


 
Yep.
I did know a bloke who collected knives, as in "displayed in a fuck-off big glass-fronted mahogany cabinet". He was, it has to be said, partnerless.


----------



## toggle (Mar 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep.
> I did know a bloke who collected knives, as in "displayed in a fuck-off big glass-fronted mahogany cabinet". He was, it has to be said, partnerless.


 
hmmmmmmm.

loopy, serial killer obsessed i could handle.

loopy, serial killer obsessed and collects weapons might have made even me think twice.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 3, 2013)

collecting knives is not that bad


its not like having a wow account


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> snorts.
> 
> cause as Bakunin as found out, gf's tend not to be impressed with suggestions of purchases of such items


 
Does that rule out going on Ebay and getting this novelty cigar cutter as well?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-C...les_Tobacciana_Smoking_LE&hash=item338014eb5a


----------



## toggle (Mar 3, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Does that rule out going on Ebay and getting this novelty cigar cutter as well?
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-C...les_Tobacciana_Smoking_LE&hash=item338014eb5a


 
i suppose there are things ohter than cigars that could be of use for


----------



## maomao (Mar 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> snorts.
> 
> cause as Bakunin as found out, gf's tend not to be impressed with suggestions of purchases of such items


Wives either.


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> i suppose there are things ohter than cigars that could be of use for


 
It'd look quite realistic if you accidentally caught your finger in it, I suppose,


----------



## toggle (Mar 3, 2013)

nods


----------



## Firky (Mar 3, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I complained.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> i suppose there are things ohter than cigars that could be of use for


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2013)




----------



## kabbes (Mar 4, 2013)

By this point in the meme evolution, "Keep Calm And... " is an affront to human taste and decency WHATEVER happens to follow it.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Mar 4, 2013)

kabbes said:


> By this point in the meme evolution, "Keep Calm And... " is an affront to human taste and decency WHATEVER happens to follow it.


 
Just to make it worse, the font it uses was DESIGNED BY A PEDO


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 4, 2013)




----------



## ExtraRefined (Mar 4, 2013)

neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2013)

I suspect you have to be a nerd to know where the neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd reference comes from.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 6, 2013)

kabbes said:


> By this point in the meme evolution, "Keep Calm And... " is an affront to human taste and decency WHATEVER happens to follow it.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21667348
an 'expert' in comedy writes


> The subversion and continuation of the form is a classic comedy technique, suggests Dr Oliver Double, an expert in comedy at the University of Kent.
> "When I see someone wearing a parody T-shirt I think 'Oh look, there's that Keep Calm and Carry On poster we're killing'."
> But who is to judge when the meme has become boring?
> "Humour is subjective," says Double, "How can you ever be intellectually justified saying something is cool and something else is not?"
> Although the parodies "may be reaching saturation point", he argues: "We'll only know it's stale when people stop making them."





> People use it to make a statement, Double says. "You wear a comedy shirt because you want to say 'This is my humour'."


----------



## Firky (Mar 6, 2013)

I am glad we have these people to tell us what to think.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 6, 2013)

> How can you ever be intellectually justified saying something is cool and something else is not?"


if he has to ask, he'll never know


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> To come back to the culture issue,
> 
> I think that the cultural and social changes in the 70's and 80's re:gender and sexism (and racism and homophobia) in part contributed to the creation of a space where it seemed safe to perpetrate an ironic middle class 'mock' appropriation of a caricature of working class sexism (and racism etc) within wider society that is displayed by the success of comedians like Jimmy Carr etc and as successfully skewered by Nathan Barley with Sugar Ape and the episode where he shags the model he thinks is 13. Unfortunately this safe space and the attitude it has fostered has looped back to make the reality as bad as if not worse than before, also bolstered by a genuine conservative backlash against it.


 
I think you're right. In early to mid 2000s several Cambridge colleges put on "chav parties" - dress codes based around wearing clothing on the lines of cheap tracksuits, cheap trainers and cheap chains.
In these some of these parties "chav behaviour" was the aim, hence sexist sometimes abusive behaviour was carried out by the male students upon the female.

And it has extended beyond being a male thing, so an Oxford university all-female lacrosse initiation is based around teenage mums/chavs and babies - with "chavs" applying alcohol and physically punishing their children.

"Older students - who played the role of "chav" mums - wore tracksuits and gold jewellery while smoking and shouting abuse at their "babies", the paper said. During the initiation ceremony Wednesday, the younger girls had to sit on the older student's laps and be "fed" from baby bottles full of booze."

The only concern of authorities seems to be the the prestige of Oxford, which would be badly damaged by extreme abusive behaviour, hence forcing people to drink excessive alcohol is acceptable, only once a year nothing to see. The assumption on the part of Oxford students that working-class women all over-consume alcohol, are all beating or being abusive their children - not tackled.

The classism is the bedrock to this kind of 'new sexism'/lad culture. The NUS has a report out about lad culture within universities. It seems to suggest this has emerged from within the top-tier universities, in particular their middle-class element, often associated sadly with sport-team-based bonds:

"In Dempster’s UK based research on male undergraduates who participated in a variety of sports, the cruder the behaviour regarding women and homosexuality the less likely it was that players’ actions would be negatively sanctioned by their peers. The words ‘faggot’ and ‘queer’ are frequently used against sporting opponents at universities in both the US and the UK. Sporting societies and clubs have also been criticised for minimising or even glamorising sexual violence and abuse: in 2012, a men’s rugby club at Durham University was banned from playing after some of its members dressed up as TV star and child abuser Jimmy Savile, his victims and police, for a night out."

See more here http://www.nus.org.uk/en/nus-calls-for-summit-on-lad-culture

Some of the very worst behaviour is coming from the top and is being pushed downwards. There is something particular going on with middle-class full-time undergraduates who aren't working during the weekends or hunting for work - they have a lot of time, not helped by the managerial funding-decision based reduction in contact time, meaning these top tier universities increasingly focus on masters and postgraduate work. Hence it is filled with this kind of ironic Jimmy Savile behaviour - it has as you say spun out of control.

If anyone is interested in the emergence of 'new lad' culture in the very early 1990s, Tim Southwell's memoir Getting Away with it The Inside Story of Loaded whilst a usual heap of empty anecdotes you get the feeling from his remarks that it is a middle-class grouping that felt itself hard-done-by in the changes in cultural output that happened in the 1980s (anti-Thatcher, soft-left, Rock against Sexism, pro-feminist, Red Wedge, alternative comedy). It wanted to be able to do sexism and chauvinism and saw that the best way to do this would be to openly declare itself intelligent, ironic and smart.
If you look carefully the new lad has a large dose of middle-class moulding.
Loaded, begun in 1993, produced by an entirely middle-class set, is just one example.
In to up 1990, Frank Skinner, although working-class was not particularly loved by working-class people, it was a middle-class judging panel that awarded him the Perrier award in 1991, then it was middle-class commissioners who encouraged the pairing with Baddiel in 1994.
Men Behaving Badly began in 1991 developed by middle-classed novelist and playwrite Simon Nye, first broadcast on ITV - not much support. Then in 1992 middle-class BBC chiefs took it on and encouraged Nye to make it more 'extreme' .
The key figure behind The Word in 1990 is Charlie Parsons, who later brought new a softer but still present new lad sexism into morning television with The Big Breakfast with "working-class" Chris Evans as presenter playing against "middle-class" prudish Gaby Roslin.
Baddiel & Newman are an interesting case because they begin from 'alternative comedy' shows, but by 1991 with BBC producers behind them etc, in a primetime interview on Clive Anderson's talk-show, their approach to Mary Whitehouse is once again ironic sexism, and straightforward chauvinism over the Middle East and the Gulf War.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2013)

That chav thing is a joke because everyone knows how widespread massive over-consumption of booze is at university


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I think you're right. In early to mid 2000s several Cambridge colleges put on "chav parties" - dress codes based around wearing clothing on the lines of cheap tracksuits, cheap trainers <snip>


 
I refuse to recognise the concept of chav, but no scally wears cheap trainers.


----------



## Firky (Mar 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> That chav thing is a joke because everyone knows how widespread massive over-consumption of booze is at university


 
Chav / charver  used to mean something very different to me and my friends than it does elsewhere. Before Little Britain and BBC 3 popularised it, it wasn't really the derogatory term that it is now. I know better than to use it on here or in a wider area but it is odd to see one of "your" words corrupted.

Reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons where Homer is worried Bart is gay and says, "They took our word [gay] from us and made it bad" or words to that effect.


----------



## ymu (Mar 9, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> I refuse to recognise the concept of chav, but no scally wears cheap trainers.


You think these twats know _anything_ about the people they're sneering at?


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 10, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> no scally wears cheap trainers.


 
Yep.


----------



## ymu (Mar 10, 2013)

This article is appalling on so many different levels it is hard to know where to start. Perhaps your disgustingly classist approach to feminism has something to do with the failures you lament, love?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> This article is appalling on so many different levels it is hard to know where to start. Perhaps your disgustingly classist approach to feminism has something to do with the failures you lament, love?


That's a pretty vile article though


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 10, 2013)

Response from Glasgow University:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_269666_en.html



> The University of Glasgow has reacted to the reports of misconduct at this year’s Glasgow University Union (GUU) Ancients Debating Championship with serious concern. The University authorities welcome the full and unreserved apology that has already been extended by the GUU President.  The University is also supporting the GUU in its investigation into the disruptive behaviour during the contest. The University will not tolerate abusive, threatening or sexist behaviour.


----------



## ymu (Mar 10, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> That's a pretty vile article though


On so many different levels, yes.

I posted it for the stuff that is relevant to this thread (male backlash), as well as the stuff that (for me) helps to explain why feminism has largely failed to improve things much for women (apart from middle-class ones who want to compete with middle-class men, and hence this backlash being a very middle-class male phenomenon).


----------



## sihhi (Mar 10, 2013)

Glasgow's student union has had sexism (and classism) running back a long time, it's not a new problem of "declining standards", elite adopting the culture of the those below.

A small summary from this article



> The GUU was originally set up as the men's union, while women had the separate Queen Margaret Union. With the passing of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, both unions were under pressure to admit members of the opposite sex. QMU did so in 1979, the GUU in 1980 – but despite pressure from university management, 139 members voted against allowing women to join the GUU. The 139 Club was later formed, an "exclusive gentleman's club" named in honour of the 139 recalcitrant members. The club held dinners on the anniversary of the vote to celebrate these members. The dinners were only banned from being held on campus in 2011.


 


> Other longstanding traditions at the GUU include initiation procedures which are rumoured to involve male members having to strip naked and stand outside the union for a period of time. The week before Daft Friday, the night of the GUU Christmas Ball, it is tradition for the union president to be stripped nearly naked, placed on a trolley and left outside the QMU building.


 


> Siobhan Barrett-Gostelow recalls being harassed repeatedly when attending Hive – the GUU nightclub – in the past. She told the Sunday Herald: "The weekend before Fresher's 2012, I was at the Hive with two of my friends and a man approached me. He tried to kiss me. I said, 'No' and told him that I was a lesbian and I simply wasn't interested. He then responded by forcefully pushing me backwards into a crowd. This behaviour is totally intolerable." She said she's lost count of the times "in which my female friends and I have experienced groping from thick, sleazy GUU f***wits.


 


> In 2002, a GUU publication infamously contained these words: "No means yes, and yes means harder." In 2004, the university newspaper Glasgow Guardian exposed how the GUU used its funds to purchase pay-per-view pornography for its members. The Hetherington Occupation of 2011 at Glasgow University, a lengthy sit-in protest about higher education funding cuts, was marred by GUU members running around the building naked. Just this academic year, yet another celebratory LAMB dinner was held – LAMB stands for Last All-Male Board.


 


> Louise McTavish, says she was repeatedly groped when she was at the Hive nightclub during her first year. She said: "I only went to the Hive three times, but each time while at the bar, guys would stand behind me, grope my bum and run away before I could turn around and see who it was. I also had an extremely drunk guy talking to me while I was at the bar, and it took me a while to realise that while he was talking to me, he actually had his penis out and was peeing all over the floor."


 


> Cat Watt is wearied by the constant sexist jokes. She said: "I think the 'lad culture' is really sexist, yet it is taken as 'banter'. Jokes about sexism are not OK and I have felt the victim of those kind of jokes before." And Emily Grenfell said she stopped going to the GUU after feeling uncomfortable there. She said: "In first year, I was there a lot and it was such a 'lads' atmosphere, such a 'jock' haven, that I just didn't fit in."


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2013)

Useless hammer drills and kneecaps  post.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 10, 2013)

Cambridge has revoked its reciprocal arrangement with the GUU and will no longer send debaters to the Ancients competition:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...ebaters-allegations-of-anti-feminism.20412131


----------



## ymu (Mar 10, 2013)

That's not unique to Glasgow by any means. The worrying thing is, it does appear to be getting worse. I don't think that's me getting old and forgetting what it was like. I didn't encounter any rape jokes from the age of 13 (when girls would make them mostly, and it was a virtual synonym for sex in the 1970s) and around 10 years ago. Now, they're everywhere.

Summat very nasty going on.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Mar 10, 2013)

I've been to a lot of bad night clubs but the absolute most appalling disrespectful behaviour that I've ever seen was at the GUU.

It's a shoddy shitty culture that says I'm allowed to do what want and fuck you.

It's tolerated and endemic there cause it's insular -you know what you are getting there and what the dicks in there will be like, uni sports teams, twats in  shirts. And nothing will meaningfully change cause the board is made up of the most loyal patrons.

My brother was once asked to leave after kissing a boy cause he was "too drunk" 

and it fucking stinks.

And they water their optics.

Don't go.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Mar 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Summat very nasty going on.



pornography/media maybe. Changes in the way these are consumed.

I can't really tell and don't know how you'd quantify it but I get the impression that woman hating speach and attitudes are being more widely expressed.

Was late 80's- early 2000's an historic low point for sexism?


----------



## ymu (Mar 10, 2013)

I think it's the pressure of being expected to be an alpha male in a system which affords very few that privilege. It's a middle-class phenomenon because feminism has primarily benefited middle-class women, who are now doing better than men at school, university and in job entrance (but are still largely absent from most management structures even in areas where they are over-represented in the less senior layers). Working-class women have a much bigger pay gap still and little opportunity to get paid at all when childcare often costs more than they can earn.

It's the EDL for male psyches under attack. _We're having a shit time because women are getting it better. Fuck those bitches._


----------



## sihhi (Mar 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think it's the pressure of being expected to be an alpha male in a system which affords very few that privilege.


 
I sort of agree, but these people are often _already_ alpha males. The ringleader behind the planned sexist abuse at the debate is apparently former GUU President, Chris Sibbald.




> Sibbald, who was studying history, went to Edinburgh’s fee-paying George Heriot’s school and is the son of a university vice-chancellor. He was president of the GUU from 2011 to 2012. Fellow students say he has political ambitions and he lists a stint as a House of Commons researcher on his CV and spent last summer as a voluntary intern in the office of Angus Robertson, the SNP’s leader in the Commons.


 
These psyches aren't under attack they are sustained by popular culture, and expectations that students will be students.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I sort of agree, but these people are often _already_ alpha males. The ringleader behind the planned sexist abuse at the debate is apparently former GUU President, Chris Sibbald.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Those sort of squeakoids aren't alpha males though, except in their own minds - Their entire shtick stems from their barely concealed inadequacy IMO.


----------



## ymu (Mar 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I sort of agree, but these people are often _already_ alpha males. The ringleader behind the planned sexist abuse at the debate is apparently former GUU President, Chris Sibbald.
> 
> These psyches aren't under attack they are sustained by popular culture, and expectations that students will be students.


If you're saying they're mostly middle-class, then yes. If you're saying they actually feel secure in their superior position vis-a-vis other human beings then no, I don't think so.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 11, 2013)

Interesting, one of them is a trainee solicitor at quite a big Scottish firm. Bet they have taken a dim view of his behaviour at the debate. The fact they got indirectly namechecked in the Daily Record thanks to him will do wonders for his career progression...


----------



## The Boy (Mar 11, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Interesting, one of them is a trainee solicitor at quite a big Scottish firm. Bet they have taken a dim view of his behaviour at the debate. The fact they got indirectly namechecked in the Daily Record thanks to him will do wonders for his career progression...


 
If my limited experience of solicitors is anything to go by he'll fit right in.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 11, 2013)

The Boy said:


> If my limited experience of solicitors is anything to go by he'll fit right in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> That's not unique to Glasgow by any means. The worrying thing is, it does appear to be getting worse. I don't think that's me getting old and forgetting what it was like. I didn't encounter any rape jokes from the age of 13 (when girls would make them mostly, and it was a virtual synonym for sex in the 1970s) and around 10 years ago. Now, they're everywhere.
> 
> Summat very nasty going on.


 
People, especially people (most obviously males) away from their usual regulating influences, will often push the boundaries of social acceptability. In some environments, perhaps most nowadays, such boundary-testing is swiftly shut down through appropriate peer-policing.
A uni, though, is an environment where most of your peers are as ignorant as you of appropriate behaviour and/or are engaged in the same sort of "boundary-testing" that you are. If you happen to also have some sense of entitlement (as many middle-class males are inculcated with almost from birth), then the social scene is set for some pretty horrific behaviour, and without either the uni authorities or the union making it patently and transparently clear that some behaviours are unacceptable/will result in immediate action up to and including expulsion from your course and/or legal action, then it'll keep on happening, and continue to be excused as "high jinks", "banter", "ironic humour" and other such bullshit excuses for bad behaviour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I sort of agree, but these people are often _already_ alpha males.


 
I disagree. They're beta males (or lower) reared in environments (the public/private school, the comfortable upper middle-class home) where they come to *believe* that they are alpha males, and act accordingly. Most of them, however, are "followers", not leaders by *any* stretch of the imagination.
This is why I've always seen Sandhurst's mania for recruiting from the public schools as an "open goal" for the British military - these people are conformist-as-fuck followers, not leaders, not thinkers-outside-the-box.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I disagree. They're beta males (or lower) reared in environments (the public/private school, the comfortable upper middle-class home) where they come to *believe* that they are alpha males, and act accordingly. Most of them, however, are "followers", not leaders by *any* stretch of the imagination.


 
If someone is the _elected president_ of the student union of a major university, graduated from a premier private school (Edinburgh's no.2 school), basically loaded, and already securing internships with senior powerful figures - then that is _alpha male_ at that age.



> This is why I've always seen Sandhurst's mania for recruiting from the public schools as an "open goal" for the British military - these people are conformist-as-fuck followers, not leaders, not thinkers-outside-the-box.


 
How is it an open goal - do you mean own goal?
Sandhurst doesn't really have the mania by itself does it? The private schools produce and drive forward people who quite consciously select British Army officership. They choose Sandhurst, don't they? Obviously, Sandhurst is terrible in general. Women on the site are apparently called 'baggers' (needing a bag over their heads to stop them talking) by students/trainee officers.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> If someone is the _elected president_ of the student union of a major university, graduated from a premier private school (Edinburgh's no.2 school), basically loaded, and already securing internships with senior powerful figures - then that is _alpha male_ at that age.<snip>
> 
> .


 
Nah pissing around in the student union and being an alumini of a private school and joeying about as an intern pretty much precludes a guy from being an alpha male, I reckon.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nah pissing around in the student union and being an alumini of a private school and joeying about as an intern pretty much precludes a guy from being an alpha male, I reckon.


 
Except that being a leader of a student union or a student body - Malcolm Rifkind, Michael Heseltine, Jack Straw, Trevor Phillips, Lorna Fitzsimmons, Wes Streeting, David Aronovitch, Charles Clarke, John Reid - helps in politics. Political interning opens further doors later.

'Alpha male' wasn't my term in this thread, but he is a highly successful young adult male by the standards of mainstream society.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> If someone is the _elected president_ of the student union of a major university, graduated from a premier private school (Edinburgh's no.2 school), basically loaded, and already securing internships with senior powerful figures - then that is _alpha male_ at that age.


 
Only insofar as it's a continuation of being reared to believe one is an "alpha male" if one "rules the roost" in some limited and ultimately ineffective capacity.
Would a true alpha male soil themselves with the sort of petty vindictiveness and sexism that Mr. Sibbald has displayed? I rather think not. The man is a legend inhis own lunchtime - that's as far as his alpha-maleness extends.




> How is it an open goal - do you mean own goal?


 
I do. 



> Sandhurst doesn't really have the mania by itself does it? The private schools produce and drive forward people who quite consciously select British Army officership. They choose Sandhurst, don't they


 
Hobson's Choice, unless they've got the bottle and stamina to go the enlisted route and then go for a commission.



> Obviously, Sandhurst is terrible in general. Women on the site are apparently called 'baggers' (needing a bag over their heads to stop them talking) by students/trainee officers.


 
Sandhurst is the worst of the military colleges, though. Their "selection procedure" is more skewed than Dartmouth (Dartmouth has historically preferred aptitude to where the candidate had their previous education) toward candidates who are of "sound stock" (as defined by having gonme to the "right" schools).


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 11, 2013)

The "alpha male" thing originally comes from studies of wolf packs. The thing is, most of the early studies of wolves were either done on animals in capitivity or (IIRC) in areas where wolf populations had been decimated by human culling.

Left to themselves, it appears, wolves display different behaviours:



> Abstract: The prevailing view of a wolf (Canis lupus) pack is that of a group of
> individuals ever vying for dominance but held in check by the "alpha" pair, the alpha
> male and the alpha female. Most research on the social dynamics of wolf packs, however,
> has been conducted on non-natural assortments of captive wolves. Here I describe the
> ...


 
http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/resources/mech_pdfs/267alphastatus_english.pdf


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Except that being a leader of a student union or a student body - Malcolm Rifkind, Michael Heseltine, Jack Straw, Trevor Phillips, Lorna Fitzsimmons, Wes Streeting, David Aronovitch, Charles Clarke, John Reid - helps in politics. Political interning opens further doors later.
> 
> 'Alpha male' wasn't my term in this thread, but he is a highly successful young adult male by the standards of mainstream society.


 
Maybe. And fair enough that alpha male wasn't your term, but there's no way I could possibly view the people named in your post as being in any way successful though. To me they seem like weirdos who had no option but to take the student union/internship route coz they'd have been hard pressed to survive in any other environment. I suppose the joke's on me in a way coz they're all getting paid a decent butty whereas I'm not, but could you imagine ever wanting to swap places with any of them? I certainly couldn't.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

The colloquial use of the word never had much to do with how biologists use it. I'm using it (colloquially) to refer to the kinds of pressures patriarchal capitalism places on men (the mirror image of the pressures it places on women).

I don't think you get this kind of bullying backlash from individuals who feel secure in their position. People who feel secure don't generally feel the need to belittle others in order to boost their own self-esteem.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only insofar as it's a continuation of being reared to believe one is an "alpha male" if one "rules the roost" in some limited and ultimately ineffective capacity.
> Would a true alpha male soil themselves with the sort of petty vindictiveness and sexism that Mr. Sibbald has displayed? I rather think not. The man is a legend inhis own lunchtime - that's as far as his alpha-maleness extends.


 
Yes, he made a tactical error. A more superior alpha male might have gathered more participants or roped in some middle-class female Glasgow students to mock via anti-Oxbridge-ism or less overt sexist insults (ie nothing about breasts as the rag describes it) the English debaters or just started generally murmur-booing, rumpling papers whenever the women spoke. He didn't cover himself well enough.

Niall Ferguson, for instance, is an "alpha male", sometimes he does it close to the start of his lectures. He makes a joke about his wife and debt and shoes and women being in charge of the economy, then adds that's a joke I love my wife dearly so no feminist objections please, disarming anyone who might want to make a feminist case in response.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

That's not disarming, it's creepy. Also standard practice for a lot of male academics. Under the radar enough not to generate (many) complaints, blatant enough to put women at a disadvantage and tacitly tell male students that it is OK to behave like this.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> The colloquial use of the word never had much to do with how biologists use it. I'm using it (colloquially) to refer to the kinds of pressures patriarchal capitalism places on men (the mirror image of the pressures it places on women).


 
I don't think patriarchical capitalism places any kind of pressure on these sectors of the population. Capitalism gives him more money for little work and success/prestige. (I'm talking about Sibbald and his ilk.)


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

No pressure on men to behave badly? Come off it.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> <snip>
> 
> Niall Ferguson, for instance, is an "alpha male"<snip>


 
_Is_ he?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> No pressure on men to behave badly? Come off it.


 
Yes - not pressure, just knowlegde it won't be taken seriously and he can wriggle out of any minor consequences.


----------



## Corax (Mar 11, 2013)

What's Glasgow Uni's demographic? My perception is that this kind of open misogyny is more prevalent in the posh and semi-posh these days*.

*and perhaps always? (ETA)


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

Corax said:


> What's Glasgow Uni's demographic? My perception is that this kind of open misogyny is more prevalent in the posh and semi-posh these days.


 
It's Russell Group and _I think_ Scotland's premier university, pegging with Edinburgh, I don't know its ins and outs perhaps someone could clarify.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 11, 2013)

im currently at glasgow uni and would say anecdotally its very middle class and a lot of the students seem to come from fee paying schools. So the class thing along with the fact that im mr ancient there, makes me feel like a fish outta water!


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's Russell Group and _I think_ Scotland's premier university, pegging with Edinburgh, I don't know its ins and outs perhaps someone could clarify.


St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen are the oldest universities in Scotland, and are generally thought of as the leading universities depending on subject. Certainly anyone doing law or medicine will have considered one or more of these depending on the career path they are looking at. Most private school pupils will end up at one of those if they can't get into Oxbridge - many English private school pupils are often pushed towards these choices too.

Certainly when I went to uni in the 1990s, those in the east went to Edinburgh and those in the west went to Glasgow. 

I live very close to the university district in Glasgow. It does appear to attract, in the main, students from well-off families, but not exclusively so, and in common with many UK universities lots and lots of foreign students especially Chinese. Our very own tar1984 is thriving at Glasgow .


----------



## two sheds (Mar 12, 2013)

Superdupastupor said:


> pornography/media maybe. Changes in the way these are consumed.
> 
> I can't really tell and don't know how you'd quantify it but I get the impression that woman hating speach and attitudes are being more widely expressed.
> 
> Was late 80's- early 2000's an historic low point for sexism?


 
Just get used to it, people. In a few years statements like "that's a sexist view" or "that's a racist view" or "that's a homophobic view" or "that's a middle class view" could well be greeted with the urban refrain "FUCK OFF YOU LIBERAL CUNT".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Just get used to it, people. In a few years statements like "that's a sexist view" or "that's a racist view" or "that's a homophobic view" or "that's a middle class view" could well be greeted with the urban refrain "FUCK OFF YOU LIBERAL CUNT".


 
I somehow doubt it, because I suspect enough of us know that defending the collective rights of people (whether on grounds of race, gender or sexuality) not to be discriminated against isn't "liberal" (Liberalist behaviour being all about the rights of the individual), it's human.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I somehow doubt it, because I suspect enough of us know that defending the collective rights of people (whether on grounds of race, gender or sexuality) not to be discriminated against isn't "liberal" (Liberalist behaviour being all about the rights of the individual), it's human.


 
I'm not sure those values are 'human' because such a large part of the human race doesn't seem to have a problem with sexism, racism or homophobia. So it'll be a bit of a fine point to argue while someone's shouting their "FUCK OFF YOU LIBERAL CUNT" at you.

I saw on a previous thread that you (I think anyway) distinguished between American liberals and UK liberals. I still don't really understand the difference. I've always been used to being thought a twat by right wingers because I'm against discrimination. It came as a surprise to be seen as a twat by left wingers for the same reasons.

Why does my being against discrimination become Liberal Cuntdom whereas your being against discrimination is wonderful and to be admired? I consider myself left wing, too, but does that mean I can't be in favour of rights of the individual? And being anti sexism, racism, homophobia are liberal traits but are they necessarily socialist ones? I'd have thought a lot of people who call themselves socialist wouldn't necessarily share them.

Fox News and the US shock jocks would have no doubts in calling virtually everyone on urban liberals (or commies, same thing), you're just in denial because you know in your heart of hearts that you're really a liberal cunt.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 13, 2013)

In Europe, liberals are pro capitalist free market, not communist.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2013)

The Liberal Parties might be, but I'm not sure all liberals would agree. As I say, the defining quality of 'liberal' for me has been the being against discrimination, and as opposed to 'conservative'. It doesn't mean you'll necessarily vote Liberal. Like socialists wouldn't necessarily vote Labour.

Do people mean neo-liberals when they say liberals?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 13, 2013)

two sheds said:


> The Liberal Parties might be, but I'm not sure all liberals would agree. As I say, the defining quality of 'liberal' for me has been the being against discrimination, and as opposed to 'conservative'. It doesn't mean you'll necessarily vote Liberal. Like socialists wouldn't necessarily vote Labour.
> 
> Do people mean neo-liberals when they say liberals?


 
No. Liberalism has always meant that in Europe. Whigs and Tories?

My understanding is that the Liberal party evolved out of the Whigs to represent the new industrial middle class as opposed to the old remnants of the feudal class system.  So free trade, but also a more liberal approach to social issues.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 13, 2013)

Delightful Spectator article claiming GUU are the victims of a smear campaign and that the ladies who complained need to grow up.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8857921/grow-up-girls/

Written by a conservative scot who was at GUU some time in the 1960s, and who I suspect has not realised the feminist movement actually happened.


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

I think the 'unilads' are going to get a rude awakening very soon on campus....


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 13, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Maybe. And fair enough that alpha male wasn't your term, but there's no way I could possibly view the people named in your post as being in any way successful though. To me they seem like weirdos who had no option but to take the student union/internship route coz they'd have been hard pressed to survive in any other environment. I suppose the joke's on me in a way coz they're all getting paid a decent butty whereas I'm not, but could you imagine ever wanting to swap places with any of them? I certainly couldn't.


And just how do you think the current government would survive in open business, without any help or support from their families?


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

'If anyone is interested in the emergence of 'new lad' culture in the very early 1990s, Tim Southwell's memoir Getting Away with it The Inside Story of Loaded whilst a usual heap of empty anecdotes you get the feeling from his remarks that it is a middle-class grouping that felt itself hard-done-by in the changes in cultural output that happened in the 1980s (anti-Thatcher, soft-left, Rock against Sexism, pro-feminist, Red Wedge, alternative comedy). It wanted to be able to do sexism and chauvinism and saw that the best way to do this would be to openly declare itself intelligent, ironic and smart.
If you look carefully the new lad has a large dose of middle-class moulding.''


in the mid eighties I used to drink occassionally with a young M/C lad from Liverpool Uni, John Aldred, decent guy though not political, he was the brother of Sophie Aldred(Ace in Dr Who)

a few years ago i googled his name, well blow me down, he went on to become the editor of Loaded

fucking sad really...

oh, and James Brown used to write for the NME, just what happened...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baxendale-Walker

oh, its new owner is a laywer for corporate tax dodgers and has a very chequered history..

edited for clarity


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 13, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> And just how do you think the current government would survive in open business, without any help or support from their families?


 

Well they wouldn't - That's what I was saying. I'm  mildly confused as  to how you seem to think we disagree with each other TBH.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> 'If anyone is interested in the emergence of 'new lad' culture in the very early 1990s, Tim Southwell's memoir Getting Away with it The Inside Story of Loaded whilst a usual heap of empty anecdotes you get the feeling from his remarks that it is a middle-class grouping that felt itself hard-done-by in the changes in cultural output that happened in the 1980s (anti-Thatcher, soft-left, Rock against Sexism, pro-feminist, Red Wedge, alternative comedy). It wanted to be able to do sexism and chauvinism and saw that the best way to do this would be to openly declare itself intelligent, ironic and smart.
> If you look carefully the new lad has a large dose of middle-class moulding.''
> 
> 
> ...


 
Brown's a wanker - I stopped reading Viz after that squealer bought it. And the NME has always been contemptible.


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

sorry, john aldred..


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/blog_comments/loaded_editors_change_of_heart


not sure if this has been posted, another former editor of Loaded does a mea culpa...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 14, 2013)

"He began to realise that there was a problem way back in 2004"
"But the real transformation occurred in 2009 when he had a son"

And now after all those years he writes an article in the Mail. Worthless media twat who thinks he knows the way the wind is blowing at any one time, basically.


----------



## treelover (Mar 14, 2013)

absolutely, apparently one of the editors of Front was a sociology phd..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I'm not sure those values are 'human' because such a large part of the human race doesn't seem to have a problem with sexism, racism or homophobia. So it'll be a bit of a fine point to argue while someone's shouting their "FUCK OFF YOU LIBERAL CUNT" at you.


 
You've very little faith in your fellow humans.

Perhaps *that *is why people call you a liberal cunt? 



> I saw on a previous thread that you (I think anyway) distinguished between American liberals and UK liberals. I still don't really understand the difference. I've always been used to being thought a twat by right wingers because I'm against discrimination. It came as a surprise to be seen as a twat by left wingers for the same reasons.


 
There's a difference between liberal democracy as a political form (representative democracy, free elections etc), social liberalism (broadly, say, "the permissive society" that rightwingers rail against, even while they're _schtupping_ women young enough to be their daughters), and being a member of a Liberal (aka Lib-Dem or piss-yellow Tory) party. People tend to confuse and conflate those definitions.



> Why does my being against discrimination become Liberal Cuntdom whereas your being against discrimination is wonderful and to be admired? I consider myself left wing, too, but does that mean I can't be in favour of rights of the individual? And being anti sexism, racism, homophobia are liberal traits but are they necessarily socialist ones? I'd have thought a lot of people who call themselves socialist wouldn't necessarily share them.


 
I suppose that it depends what your views are a function of. I'd say that if your views derive from a belief that liberal democracy is the only way, and that any anti-discrimination law should be subservient to the principles of liberal democracy, then being labelled a "Liberal" is a hazard of holding those beliefs. The thing with liberal democracy is that while it looks great, it's often illiberal, and (as is the case with the UK) the democracy is the sum total of Hobson's Choice - a chance to elect a cipher ever few years, and the reassurance that we have "inalienable" rights that turn out to only be inalienable until the state decides to rescind or limit them.



> Fox News and the US shock jocks would have no doubts in calling virtually everyone on urban liberals (or commies, same thing), you're just in denial because you know in your heart of hearts that you're really a liberal cunt.


 
Nope, I'm an autonomist cunt.* *


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2013)

> EverydaySexism
> We're holding a tweet chat about #ladculture- use the hashtag to add your experiences


----------



## ddraig (Mar 27, 2013)

sorry if this has been posted, not spotted it, really astonishingly outrageous and sick

*Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap 'rapist'*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ool-that-told-her-to-clap-rapist-2278522.html
No right to stay silent 



> The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a review of the case brought by the woman, who is known only as HS. Lower courts had ruled that she was speaking for the school, rather than for herself, when serving on a cheerleading squad – meaning that she had no right to stay silent when coaches told her to applaud.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 3, 2013)

I've just spotted this dreck on Torygraph blogs.



> Men who call themselves lads, and women who share their jokes and culture, are not misogynists. They like drinking, and they are – to varying degrees – raucous, irreverent and sex-obsessed. You may find such people obnoxious, but they are harmless. The idiot who makes jokes about “surprise sex” and says women belong in the kitchen? He's just that: an idiot. Tell him. The rugby captain who loves casual sex and getting hammered? Sorry to break it to you, but that sounds to me like a normal guy enjoying his youth.
> You can see how this poison has spread. The lads are prominent, intimidating and socially dominant, and there is an unpleasant but minuscule fringe of them who actually do have contempt for women. But that unpleasantness runs across society – take the Socialist Workers’ Party, for example. It’s unacceptable, but to lay the blame at the door of lad culture is counter-productive and wrong. It's a smokescreen that hinders us from identifying the real offenders.
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...ads-so-what-do-they-do-smear-them-as-rapists/


 
Check out the cunt's pic too. Proper posh little fucker.


----------



## Corax (Apr 3, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> I've just spotted this dreck on Torygraph blogs.
> 
> 
> 
> Check out the cunt's pic too. Proper posh little fucker.


He does have a point though doesn't he?














Nah, just kidding!  I do like some of the comments though:



> this is a terrible article, please stop.


Good point, well made.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 3, 2013)

Corax said:


> He does have a point though doesn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Does he? I agree with the comment that you've quoted. Tbh, it's another one of those "time to bash the NUS" article, but worse than that, the author fails to get to grips with the boorish, chauvanistic lad culture that emerged (or was constructed) in the 90s as a response to the New Man (also a media construction) and so-called political correctness.


----------



## Corax (Apr 3, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Does he?


No, he fucking doesn't!  That's why it says "Nah, just kidding" underneath!


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 3, 2013)

Corax said:


> No, he fucking doesn't! That's why it says "Nah, just kidding" underneath!


Oops, my bad, like, guvnor.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

bump

more 'hilarity'  this time in Cardiff for freshers at Cardiff Met SU
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cardiff-met-student-union-under-5763102


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2013)

> Cardiff Met Student Union was promoting its night "TNT" on its website with a poster which included the picture of a person with "I was raping a woman last night and she cried" written across the back of their Tshirt.


 
But.... but... I don't understand _why _anyone would do this __


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

nor me
thought yesterday that it was one poster that was written on but no


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

i mean how many people would it have to go through and did none of them speak out?!


----------



## kabbes (Aug 22, 2013)

That poster has been carefully put together.  Somebody deliberately chose the photo of that T-shirt.  It's not an unlucky background shot, it's a clear and defined feature.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

yes and they don't appear to have replied to being found out


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2013)

ddraig said:


> yes and they don't appear to have replied to being found out


 

I don't suppose they think they had anything to be 'found out' about and are deeply confused about any fuss. 

Is this like a 'gay' as an insult we-don't-mean-it-in-a-bad-way-that's-how-we-youngsters-talk-now-grandad-type thing? I'm so fucking old


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

hopefully they'll be sacked off from promoting in the students union at least!
twitter account seems to have changed from yesterday tho  
*@ClimaxPromotion*


----------



## Stigmata (Aug 22, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> But.... but... I don't understand _why _anyone would do this __


 
If you look, it's the setup line for a bad taste joke. The report misses out the punchline. It's the sort of thing youngsters might imagine is edgy transgressive humour but is actually just shite (and I like sick jokes)


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

not sure about that
think it might be some attempt at a 'status update' or post similar to facebook


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 22, 2013)

ddraig said:


> i mean how many people would it have to go through and did none of them speak out?!


 
It's beyond moronic.

I wouldn't rule out someone deliberately sabotaging the campaign or mischief making.

Doesn't make sense otherwise.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

yeah that is why i and others thought it was the one that had been written on yesterday
doen't bare thinking about how many people were involved in the process otherwise, not to mention the staff at the student union

but the person who spotted it said it was on posters and a website

nothing from the promoters still, maybe they are stupid entitled thick macho testosterone filled dickheads like the unilad lot??
baffling


----------



## Grace Johnson (Aug 22, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> If you look, it's the setup line for a bad taste joke. The report misses out the punchline. It's the sort of thing youngsters might imagine is edgy transgressive humour but is actually just shite (and I like sick jokes)


 
Read further down the shirt, there's more. Get's even worse.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 22, 2013)

Looks like the _Mirror_'s going to run with it:

https://twitter.com/LTraynorMirror/status/370500916543102976


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 22, 2013)

Oh, that joke originally appeared on b3ta's joke site iirc.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

it is still weird
as someone pointed out, it is not on the flyer on this site
http://climax.fatsoma.com/events/92439/
might pop in to walkabout and see if there are any actual posters with it on


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

response from TNT
https://www.facebook.com/CardiffTNT/posts/531118966960607
that's it

so could just have been online?


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 22, 2013)

Even if it was a mistake it was an idea that never should have seen the light of day.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 22, 2013)

well i'm not sure about that

expression needs a dark underbelly


we need to have an scene that allows for the the expression of non standard opinion.


black comedy should be allowed

this is pritty low en black houmor if it is that but saying it should not exist is more troulblesome than saying it should exist and be chalamnged


a good mid point is father ted


for the catholic establishment this is something that should be considers a low that should now be m banned


some thing that father ted itself parodyed with the whole "careful now" and "down with this sort of thing" joke




i would genrally promote a concept of exposure and criticism far above one of censorship and cismissal


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 22, 2013)

It's not about censorship, shippy. Being allowed to say something doesn't mean you should.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 22, 2013)

formal apology from the students' union
event cancelled
http://www.cardiffmetsu.co.uk/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=377763


> “Firstly Cardiff Met Students’ Union would like to apologise for the ‘TNT Freshbook’ advertisement, which was one of the promotional student nights organised by Climax Promotions.
> 
> This event has been cancelled and investigations are on going into how this abhorrent advertisement came to pass through our usually stringent approval procedures and ultimately, to be publicised on our website.
> 
> ...


----------



## emanymton (Aug 23, 2013)

Am I the only one who thinks the name C_limax Promotions_ sounds dodgy to begin with?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's not about censorship, shippy. Being allowed to say something doesn't mean you should.


 

that is of course a fine thing to have as a personal perspective  but  when it comes to a societies perspective social mores are sometimes as restrictive as  censorship

i'm  not saying this was right

this example was  fairly putrid  and  the producers of it were right to formally apologise.

but i think the expression of this thought and then the public apology is more healthy  than  an underground scene where this kinda thing is vouge


----------



## ddraig (Aug 23, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the name C_limax Promotions_ sounds dodgy to begin with?


 
ai but it is an outfit that does nights at student unions


----------



## Santino (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> but i think the expression of this thought and then the public apology is more healthy than an underground scene where this kinda thing is vouge


Upon what basis do you make this claim?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> that is of course a fine thing to have as a personal perspective but when it comes to a societies perspective social mores are sometimes as restrictive as censorship
> 
> i'm not saying this was right
> 
> ...


 
An underground scene of public displays of grossly immature and insensitive displays? How's that going to work then?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

my understanding of both history and human nature.

i am intrested in hearing about peer reviewed journals  that discuss this however


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> An underground scene of public displays of grossly immature and insensitive displays? How's that going to work then?


 
sounds like most uni campuses

and most pubs

and  well  most social gatherings


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

i'm sorry that was far too cynical


not most social gathering. just a significant subset


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> sounds like most uni campuses
> 
> and most pubs
> 
> and well most social gatherings


 
You need to find better RL friends, I think shippy.

As for the whole liberal idea that wankers will inevitably condemn themselves out of their own mouths, and so there's nothing to worry about - if only it were that simple.

Also, could the thread title be changed? I know it's typical LiamO shock tactics, but some of us are at work. . .


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

what is better

hearing about wankers  or not hearing about wankers


or worring  that   everyone are wankers  so you won't ever hear about them


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

also i have fine IRL freinds but i was also set on fire once in school

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

the person who saw someone look for a match


----------



## Santino (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> what is better
> 
> hearing about wankers or not hearing about wankers
> 
> ...


What is better if you are a bigot or a rape apologist? Not feeling able to mention it, or being able to spot those who share your views and being pals with them?

Anyone can make up dichotomies.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> sounds like most uni campuses
> 
> and most pubs
> 
> and well most social gatherings


 
I'm not talking about the telling of the joke among a relatively closed social circle, i'm on about _what actually happened_ in this case - when the whole point of the thing was to be displayed in public to people who would not be expecting it by either context or basic decency (and without any idea on the part of the people who produced it what effect this may have on the people who did see it or understanding why). How is that going to work 'underground'?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2013)

> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


 
I do, i've been watching the bastards


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

look if you can give me a good reason why  my feeling are wrong  please do    but so far i've not really seen arguments against my p[oints  only dismissals of it.

i'm sorry if  i missed the meeting  where  no platrom was  argued and won  but  y'knkow  thats going to be the case for most pweople

i get not agreeing with people     shit  on the internet that is 99% of the time   but  i don't  get this  kinda responce



i say as  i do that kind of responce


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2013)

There's a slight difference between telling a sick joke to a close mate who might appreciate such titillation and launching a club night advertised under a banner of said joke.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> look if you can give me a good reason why my feeling are wrong please do but so far i've not really seen arguments against my p[oints only dismissals of it.
> 
> i'm sorry if i missed the meeting where no platrom was argued and won but y'knkow thats going to be the case for most pweople
> 
> ...


 
You have had at least two substantive responses to your post in the last few minutes. Firstly that that you provide no reasoning or evidence for your assertion that "i think the expression of this thought and then the public apology is more healthy than an underground scene where this kinda thing is vouge" and secondly that the situation that you assert will exist if the same thought is not expressed is impossible and that you don't seem to get the public element and potential impact of this - and by extension, of your ideal scenario. It was all there in those posts that you replied to. (I expect there was more last night but i've not looked yet).


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not talking about the telling of the joke among a relatively closed social circle, i'm on about _what actually happened_ in this case - when the whole point of the thing was to be displayed in public to people who would not be expecting it by either context or basic decency (and without any idea on the part of the people who produced it what effect this may have on the people who did see it or understanding why). How is that going to work 'underground'?


 
i suppose  it depends on what you consider underground

i'd have though most  low level web pages  and tiny run publications  were kinda underground.


but i guess that is klinda beside the point

there are many p[ossible  circumstances  that  might be encountered

is it

1. understood to be wrong  and therefore not even considered
2. understood to be wrong but therefore  only  talked about in limited circumstances
3. not understood to be wrong  and not really talked about that much 
4. not understood to be wrong  but commonly talked about

etc etc


genrally  i feel  having more information is better


and as i can't imagine a situation where every individual knows all the laws and rules    or  a situation where    there is a a frame work that can  actually  address  these thing   i much prefer   a culture of  openly listening to  ideas  and then  addressing them



also  was  the  piece really published to an audience who " would not be expecting it by either context or basic decency"
or do you think it was pandering to a audience who  are into this kinda stuff

i certainly think the p[ublishers thought the latter

and i kinda expect   that  they might be partially right


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

I'm not sure if I understand what your point is Shippy - are you suggesting that a university student union (or I guess any organisation) should allow anything, no matter how offensive on their promotional material, as long as the intended audience are unlikely to be offended?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You have had at least two substantive responses to your post in the last few minutes. Firstly that that you provide no reasoning or evidence for your assertion that "i think the expression of this thought and then the public apology is more healthy than an underground scene where this kinda thing is vouge" and secondly that the situation that you assert will exist if the same thought is not expressed is impossible and that you don't seem to get the public element and potential impact of this - and by extension, of your ideal scenario. It was all there in those posts that you replied to. (I expect there was more last night but i've not looked yet).


 

admittedly  my reasoning is vague

most peoples take on a subject  will not be  on they have formed by sitting down and hypothesising on a thought and then researching it's basis.  it will only be  a preposition they have come to from after experiencing the world  and  hopefully   considering that experience.

when engaged in a discussion they will then put forward their opinions

other people  will also put forward theirs

most people will not put forward an in depth  reasoning for this perspective.    case in point  I've not really seen that on this thread   not that i have  really  been paying that  much attention to it



i would say i do not expect people  to give this reasoning.  this is not the right platform for  this.   i am not  trying to perfectly express  the mechanics of a situation i am mearly throwing in my two bits  to a  discussion.



i'm not sure what you mean by "secondly that the situation that you assert will exist if the same thought is not expressed is impossible"

i do consider the impact  of the two scenareios

it would take  quite a bit of time for me to  fully  explain  what my thoughts are  and unfortunately i don't think  i can be arsed to 

i do have experience working with people  {admittedly  this is only  with a small group  of people  (10-30 people)
} and seeing  what happens  with  options  expressed to a select few  or  to a wider group
normally  i find  that within a select group ideas  even distasteful ideas are fostered   as there is a group understanding that the opinions of your peers are worthy.  if some one higher up simply decrees that you are wrong in my experiance that tends to build a resistance.  open critisism  and debate  usually  work better  at  defusing a situation  and comming to a common understanding

yes the open expression of an idea   can draw more followers to that idea   it's certainly  a situaton that happens

but   if the majority of people oppose the idea  the more exposure an idea gets   the more opposition it gets  (i hope)


we get into tricky situation when a significat proporion of the population  belive in something



that is a   rought  and poorly formed epression of my thoughtd


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 23, 2013)

Surely there's more suitable subjects for a 'free expression' debate than an ad for a dodgy student disco (or any ad really). Now they've backed down I don't think they'll be sneaking around setting up underground 2 for 1 drinks nights so they can put out their obnoxious adverts freely.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure if I understand what your point is Shippy - are you suggesting that a university student union (or I guess any organisation) should allow anything, no matter how offensive on their promotional material, as long as the intended audience are unlikely to be offended?


 

no.  nothing  should  be based on  peoples  expectation to be offended

there will always be somebody who will be offended by your position  that's just human nature


all i'm saying  is   i think it's  better if things are expressed and debated    than   censored by a higher  power


i don't think there is ever  a group that  can decide 100% if an opinion is  offensive of damaging.  


i guess i'm very  morally relativistic   therefore  i think  that  opinions  can only be formed through debate

proper debate is stifled  by  censorship


i like platforms  that  allow  for   unothadox opinions to be debated.  looks at stuff like urbans  drug forum.   

it's  not quite the same as this     this is  prtiity  fucking disgusting  and should  be rightly  criticised and lambasted 

i just worry about  the downsides of a culture  of   censorship more than i worry about    the uptake of  abhorent ideals  through publication


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

if this is the case then why since the early 90s have we seen a re-birth and growth of this laddy-sexist stuff, then since the early 2000s  - and growing out of the previous development -  a growth of rape-apologetics? Surely the opposite should be happening right, it's appearance should have been met with widespread opposition and questions about where it came from, leading to it disappearing again. But we haven't, we've, in fact, witnessed the exact opposite, expressions of rape-apologetics legitimisng and normalising a wider culture in which it's taken for granted, to such an extent that this piece of shit could have been put out without a whole range of people even seeing a problem


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 23, 2013)

Rape is a vile crime. I cannot even begin to imagine what it does to the psyche of the victim. One would imagine that the aftermath of the attack goes on for a long time. It isn't ever something that should be reduced to a joke.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

i simply don't know

i could be the rise of shock humor.  

this could be considered  the magazine version of something like jackass

known to be wrong  but also considered  OK as  it is seen as   i don't know  tounge in cheek

that might be why it is more aceppted

my gut  tells me   it isn't more widespread  just  because editors are more lax


mind  you my gut has just taken in a passed it sell by date redy meal so who can trust guts


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Rape is a vile crime. I cannot even begin to imagine what it does to the psyche of the victim. One would imagine that the aftermath of the attack goes on for a long time. It isn't ever something that should be reduced to a joke.


 

is making some thing a joke  trivalising something  or underlining something#


bernard manning  or goeorge carling  are not the same    


i think


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

It doesn't matter if they're not in your argument though does it? Your argument effectively treats them as if they were exactly the same. It has to.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

my opinion of their content  is not the same as if i feel they should be allowed

it's a bit like the statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

admittedly one of my best friends  does call me disgustingly relativistic


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

So you are forced to treat them exactly the same. Your opinion of the views expressed is neither here not there in that case.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

i do not treat them exactly the same

i may well criticise one  but praise the other

however  i allow both


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

You must treat them the same if you want, for some reason, to make this incident a question of censorship.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

that would only apply if i had powers to censor

last time i checked i did not

critisism is not the same as censorship

calling  for something to be shamed is not the same as saying it should not  be published


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

not publishing rape jokes in your promotional posters is not censorship shippy. it's nothing like censorship.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

No, it follows from your own posts and the logic of the argument that you have offered against any censorship. It's irrelevant whether you have the power to censor or not .


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

npt doing it through choice isn't censorship

not doing it because people force you not to is censorship


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, it follows from your own posts and the logic of the argument that you have offered against any censorship. It's irrelevant whether you have the power to censor or not .


 

no it doesn't

i argue  that people have a right to express their opinion

i also argue i have as right to critisise that opinion




i'm not sure  what i have said that  contradicts either of those two statements


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> no it doesn't
> 
> i argue that people have a right to express their opinion
> 
> ...


 
You don't seem to understand the argument that you've been putting forward here. You argue against any censorship so in terms of censorship you must therefore treat any and all material exactly the same in terms of censorship. Your opinion of that material is meaningless - it doesn't enter into any debate on this terrain.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

i argue against censorship

i argue against it  no matter my opinion on the piece.

that doesn't mean i can't hold an opinion on the piece


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

am i missing your point?  because if i am i'd like you to clarify it if possible


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Has that ready meal gone straight to your brain


----------



## ddraig (Aug 23, 2013)

shippy - you can argue all you want to be able to read/watch and draw/write hentai but that is not the same as putting it up in a place shared by others

is it?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

apparently

i don't see where i have contradicted myself  or anything like that


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> apparently
> 
> i don't see where i have contradicted myself or anything like that


 
Do you agree that _in terms of censorship_ you must treat all material the same if you wish to make your case against all censorship?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 23, 2013)

shippy
is that an answer to me?
apparently what?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

ddraig said:


> shippy - you can argue all you want to be able to read/watch and draw/write hentai but that is not the same as putting it up in a place shared by others
> 
> is it?


 

i'm not saying it's the same

and i do acknowledge  there is a fuzzy boundary

but  however i'm erring on the side  where  public exposure (and the resulting critisism)  is better than banning


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do you agree that _in terms of censorship_ you must treat all material the same if you wish to make your case against all censorship?


 

yes

have i ever said otherwise?


----------



## cyprusclean (Aug 23, 2013)

> it doesn't enter into any debate on this terrain.


 
 Vintage Butcher's.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> yes
> 
> have i ever said otherwise?


 
Yes, when i said to you that "you are forced to treat them exactly the same. Your opinion of the views expressed is neither here not there in that case." you replied: 



Shippou-Sensei said:


> i do not treat them exactly the same
> 
> i may well criticise one but praise the other
> 
> however i allow both


 
Which, amazingly both denies that you are forced to treat them the same then goes on to say that you are forced to treat them the same!


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2013)

Shippou-Sensei said:
			
		

> that would only apply if i had powers to censor
> 
> last time i checked i did not
> 
> ...



Who has censored anything in this case? Akaik the uni responded to criticism. That's how it should work.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

i am forced to not censor  them 

i am not forced  not to criticise them


i'm not sure what   you are not getting at here

are you perhaps conflating my ideas of critisism and my ideas of censorship?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Who has censored anything in this case? Akaik the uni responded to criticism. That's how it should work.


 

no one  has

i wasn't saying they had

i was speaking against calls that it shouldn't have been published in the first place



i will say that if i was the editor  i would have  have   probably bined the article  i'm just saying that  that power  is a dangerous one

i worry a lot more about  the ability to stifle  opinions  thean i worry about   people  stating those opinions


i worry  about WHY people have those opinions  and  i try to fix  those opinion but  thats something diffrent


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

I'm telling you that in terms of censorship you are forced despite your alternate denial/agreement with me on this, to treat all material exactly the same. And in being forced to this by the logic of this position, then your own opinion on the quality or content of the material is irrelevant to the question of censorship.

And the reason i started down what looked like a nice simple path was to then go on to suggest that a policy based on treating all material regardless of content, context, intention motivation or potential impact is an incredibly crude and simplistic way of looking at an issue that brings together many complex strands of how society works, the relationship between creativity, expression and the public domain between public life and private views, between the state and civil society, between civil society and individual and so on. But, i sort of get the feeling we're not going to get there now


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

well now you have actually said what you were trying to say i understand your point

my feelings are that we need  a overly simplified  way of looking at content  because  the  complicated way of looking at things  is incredibly debatable  and  in my opinion previous  and current attempts  to  address content  are  often more damaging that   having that content published

i err on the side of having stuff published  rather than having stuff   censored


i worry more  about things like russia  ban on promoting homosexual lifestlye  than i worry about  some uni rag publishing this article

of course no simple rule  is going to adrees  a complex issue  

but  when do complex rules work?


----------



## purenarcotic (Aug 23, 2013)

We live our lives by complex rules all the time yet manage to bumble along somehow. 

We don't even think of a lot of the rules as complex because we're so used to them.  Lying is a pretty good example of a complex rule: we're taught as children that lying is wrong but quickly realise that it's not as simple as that.  There are times when lying is okay, potentially beneficial even, there are degrees of lies and so on.

There is nothing wrong with complexity.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

the more complex something is the more likely it is to be flawed

it is also more likely to be incorrectly applied  and  poorly explained and transmitted


i prefer simplicity

sometimes we can't escape complexity  but i don't belive  it is preferable


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

utter rot shippy.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

people are complicated. life is complicated. you can't just wish that away.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 23, 2013)

You can't propose a simple rule to deal with complex issues just on the basis of its simplicity. Well, you could but it would be stupid.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

where did i say you could

i said  sometimes we can't escape complexity



i perhaps should  say  we  mainly can't escape complexity

but  i do say  that simplicity is preferable


which of these is wrong

the more complex something is the more likely it is to have something that is flawed

the more complex something is the more likely to be incorrectly applied

the more complex something is the  explanation is more complex and difficult

which of those is utter rot




i'm not saying   complexity doesn't exist   i'm saying  we should try to simplify


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You can't propose a simple rule to deal with complex issues just on the basis of its simplicity. Well, you could but it would be stupid.


 


it wasn't because it was simple it was because i felt it to be the lesser of two evils (partly due to it's simplicity)


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

simple good / complex bad is total bollocks though. where are you getting that from?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

i said simplicity is preferably to complexity 

i may have been a little exaggerated when i asked "when do complex rules work?"

but it comes from a real belife in the other statements


and seeing you don't say any of them are wrong  i'm guessing  you acknowledge at least some of it

simple good / complex bad  is a simplifcation of what i said


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2013)

Which is therefore good and preferable - right? Think you just shot yourself in the foots there.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

just trying to keep things simple mate. 

<edit. damn you butchersapron  >


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

i think i may have oversimplified


but my previous points are not untrue


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

which ones?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

ikt's a bit like the whole lies to children thing

 the shell model of    electrons

these are simplifications that aid us


sometimes they are not enough  but they are a good place to start


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> which ones?


 
the more complex something is the more likely it is to have something that is flawed

the more complex something is the more likely to be incorrectly applied

the more complex something is the explanation is more complex and difficult


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2013)

ah, ok. no, i don't think they are true. apart from the last one, which is pretty much self evident.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 23, 2013)

ok

i feel those points are kinda common sense


something  that is complex has more elements

if we belive  it is possible for some thing  to be wrong  a proposition that  has  multiple element has  more points that can be flawed  that  a simplistic one


if  something can be misapplied  the more opperttunities   to missapply something  the more likly  it is to happen


tha#t is my take on things


----------



## Smyz (Aug 23, 2013)

Censorship is a red herring.

The absence of self-censorship and the reasons for that are the worrying questions here.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 14, 2013)

Oxford Uni rugby team dickheads get relegated and banned from competing
my bold
http://www.independent.co.uk/studen...rugby-club-banned-from-competing-8922464.html


> “This is an utter mess,” he said. “I am personally sorry for not having better judgement; I reacted too slowly in condemning the email and did not act as a proper leader.”
> 
> Kim, the former social secretary also apologised, saying, “I cannot be more sincere about my apology”.
> 
> ...


----------



## toph (Nov 15, 2013)

ddraig said:


> Oxford Uni rugby team dickheads get relegated and banned from competing
> my bold
> http://www.independent.co.uk/studen...rugby-club-banned-from-competing-8922464.html



I see they are a rugby union club, no surprise.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 15, 2013)

Durham's rugby club have been playing drinking games involving the sentence 'it's not rape if...'

http://www.independent.co.uk/studen...or-its-not-rape-if-drinking-game-8917797.html

Delightful.


----------



## gabi (Nov 15, 2013)

Some rapey news from the backward little country i hail from..



> A young Wellington woman raped by a bouncer in an alleyway could have "closed her legs" if she didn't want sex, the man's lawyer told a jury.



http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9397528/Rape-victim-could-have-closed-legs-says-lawyer


----------



## likesfish (Nov 15, 2013)

Sick humour is one thing between "mates"
 But do it in public expect to be called on it.
Put it in an email as a member of a club put it up on a poster expect to be challenged on it etc etc.

is rape funny no niether is spiking drinks or sexual abuse if you think its acceptable your in the wrong.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 15, 2013)

gabi said:


> Some rapey news from the backward little country i hail from..
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9397528/Rape-victim-could-have-closed-legs-says-lawyer


Yes, because that totally works as an anti-rape strategy  That lawyer is a dickhead if he thinks that.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 15, 2013)

don't you know by now it is not the man's fault!

either the woman was asking for it or didn't stop it happening so blates her fault


----------



## weepiper (Nov 15, 2013)

Stirling students singing on a bus full of young women about feeling a woman up, giving her their 'Jap's eye' and giving her a miscarriage among other things


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 15, 2013)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/stirling-university-students-slammed-over-2793941

Stirling uni investigating the hockey team who were responsible for this. Bus company, First Bus said this type of behaviour isn't tolerated on their buses, but there is no sign of the driver enforcing any kind of policy in that clip.

Article includes exceptionally poor attempt at an apology from one of the SU vice-presidents.

Pretty sickening all all - apart from young woman who can be heard proclaiming her disgust. If other passengers had been more vocal, perhaps they would have shut the fuck up.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 15, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/stirling-university-students-slammed-over-2793941
> 
> Stirling uni investigating the hockey team who were responsible for this. Bus company, First Bus said this type of behaviour isn't tolerated on their buses, but there is *no sign of the driver enforcing any kind of policy in that clip.*
> 
> ...



In fairness to the driver he or she probably gets abuse on a daily basis and didn't know how to tackle it.
Can't imagine ever thinking it would be ok to inflict shit like that on others...even when I was a teenager (and I weren't a saint) I'd have thought that was so fucking wrong.
Totally agree with you last bit though...it ain't as though they'd have been the only one either...all they had to do was back her up. Unfortunately I think people keep their head down so they don't get a load of shit thrown their way I guess.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 15, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> In fairness to the driver he or she probably gets abuse on a daily basis and didn't know how to tackle it.
> Can't imagine ever thinking it would be ok to inflict shit like that on others...even when I was a teenager (and I weren't a saint) I'd have thought that was so fucking wrong.
> Totally agree with you last bit though...it ain't as though they'd have been the only one either...all they had to do was back her up. Unfortunately I think people keep their head down so they don't get a load of shit thrown their way I guess.


I can appreciate that the driver probably gets a lot of abuse, and that's not right either, but it's a bit rich for the bus company to say that this type of behaviour isn't tolerated when there was clearly no intervention from the driver whilst it was going on. Now, it's possible that he stopped the bus and they all got turfed off - used to happen with students when I was studying if they fucked the drivers off - it's just not seen on film, but I would have expected the bus company to come out and say so if that were the case.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 15, 2013)

Better to be a drunken arse singing stupid songs about miscarriages than to be a journalist paid to ring up miscarriage support groups and weasel some words of condemnation about the stupid song out of a volunteer so that you can pad out your stupid story about the stupid song with some extra outrage. A dozen times better.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 15, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I can appreciate that the driver probably gets a lot of abuse, and that's not right either, but it's a bit rich for the bus company to say that this type of behaviour isn't tolerated when there was clearly no intervention from the driver whilst it was going on. Now, it's possible that he stopped the bus and they all got turfed off - used to happen with students when I was studying if they fucked the drivers off - it's just not seen on film, but I would have expected the bus company to come out and say so if that were the case.



Agreed...sorry if I came across like I was criticising what you wrote as I didn't mean it that way...companies say things like this then as soon an employee says something to a punter they complain to the company and the employee is disciplined cos the punter is always right...kind of makes employees like the driver less likely to act...that's what i kind of meant really


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 15, 2013)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> I can appreciate that the driver probably gets a lot of abuse, and that's not right either, but it's a bit rich for the bus company to say that this type of behaviour isn't tolerated when there was clearly no intervention from the driver whilst it was going on. Now, it's possible that he stopped the bus and they all got turfed off - used to happen with students when I was studying if they fucked the drivers off - it's just not seen on film, but I would have expected the bus company to come out and say so if that were the case.



He's perfectly within his rights to call BTP and let them deal with it. Which he should if other passengers feel threatened. Happens on trains all the time and buses are no different.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 15, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Better to be a drunken arse singing stupid songs about miscarriages than to be a journalist paid to ring up miscarriage support groups and weasel some words of condemnation about the stupid song out of a volunteer so that you can pad out your stupid story about the stupid song with some extra outrage. A dozen times better.



Really?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 15, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Really?



Perhaps only three times better. But how do you feel about the Daily Record's Gareth Jones and his search for someone who has had a miscarriage so that he can add colour and human interest to the story? You can't argue, surely, that he is anything other than a cunt of the first order?


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 15, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Perhaps only three times better. But how do you feel about the Daily Record's Gareth Jones and his search for someone who has had a miscarriage so that he can add colour and human interest to the story? You can't argue, surely, that he is anything other than a cunt of the first order?



If you'd said that I'd not have answered cos i agree that that seems a shitty and thoughtless thing to do but speaking to a miscarriage support group volunteer seems ok if you want to educate about the possible damage "joking" about miscarriages can do


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 15, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> If you'd said that I'd not have answered cos i agree that that seems a shitty and thoughtless thing to do but speaking to a miscarriage support group volunteer seems ok if you want to educate about the possible damage "joking" about miscarriages can do



if you really believe that Jones wanted to educate, you are clearly a kind and good person who sees the best in others, and it would be a shame to disabuse you.


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2013)

Just because journos can be cunts doesn't mean the subjects of their stories aren't.  It's not zero-sum, and taking the thread off on that tangent seems a bit odd tbh.


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2013)

ddraig said:


> Oxford Uni rugby team dickheads get relegated and banned from competing
> my bold
> http://www.independent.co.uk/studen...rugby-club-banned-from-competing-8922464.html


And the current 'most recent' comment on that article?


> Please note that the JCR President, Becky Howe - the one more likely to be in charge of us in the future - is the one expressing the sexist sentiments. It was a fairly bad taste joke, but it was a joke. The "culture" one should fear is one that fears jokes or, worse, punishes them.


Fuckinell.  

ETA: The comments continue, and they're fucking horrific. Not _only_ misogyny, but people who are presumably Oxbridge generally cultivating some sort of martyr complex - the poor oppressed dears.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 15, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I can appreciate that the driver probably gets a lot of abuse, and that's not right either, but it's a bit rich for the bus company to say that this type of behaviour isn't tolerated when there was clearly no intervention from the driver whilst it was going on. Now, it's possible that he stopped the bus and they all got turfed off - used to happen with students when I was studying if they fucked the drivers off - it's just not seen on film, but I would have expected the bus company to come out and say so if that were the case.


 
One driver vs how many drunken (possibly violent, if they were stirred) louts?  Even if 'official policy', would you seriously expect a single man/woman to step in?


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2013)

Johnny Vodka said:


> One driver vs how many drunken (possibly violent, if they were stirred) louts?  Even if 'official policy', would you seriously expect a single man/woman to step in?


Have to agree.  Not everyone would feel safe to front up a group of rowdy drunks and tell them where to get off (literally in this instance).  Yeah, we all know what we'd _*like*_ to do, but with the ever increasing media angle that anyone under 40 and not wearing suit is probably looking to stab you, I don't think it fair to condemn a bus driver for not tackling instances like this themself.  Some people find simply walking past a rowdy group after dark a frightening experience even though that group may not be being at all hostile.  They may well be very good at driving a bus and dealing with the vast majority of passengers, but having the confidence to stand up to a group of pissed-up twats would be out of the question.

Doesn't mean they should just ignore such vile behaviour, but there should be other options made available to the driver, and it's not fair (IMO) to blame them for not 'stepping in'.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 15, 2013)

Johnny Vodka said:


> One driver vs how many drunken (possibly violent, if they were stirred) louts?  Even if 'official policy', would you seriously expect a single man/woman to step in?


I'd expect them to e.g. call the police, or stop the bus and put them off. 

Like I said, they might have stepped in after filming stopped.


----------



## Corax (Nov 16, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I'd expect them to e.g. call the police


Yep, I'd expect that.


equationgirl said:


> I'd expect them to stop the bus and put them off.


I wouldn't expect that for the reasons upthread.


equationgirl said:


> Like I said, they might have stepped in after filming stopped.


Depends what you mean by 'stepped in' - but certainly shouldn't have been simply forgotten and ignored.


----------



## Corax (Nov 16, 2013)

One of the things I noticed in the video is that the thing they're getting most of their kicks from is bad puns.  I _love _bad puns, so I can empathise with that.  But they have to layer a load of ladmag bollocks on top of it as well.

I'd bet that the majority would be just as amused and entertained without the misogyny.  But it becomes a self-perpetuating circle of expectation.

And that, I think, is where the influence of Nuts, Zoo, et all really comes in.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 16, 2013)

I think it's a weird mixture of the driver being damned either way. If s/he does nothing and continues the service s/he puts passengers at risk and they have a shit journey. Any other option including having to deal with it him/herself or parking the bus up whilst waiting for the old bill to sort it out puts him/herself at risk. I know there's a perspex screen on modern buses but It's not impenetrable.  

Fwiw I'd cut the driver some slack. It wasn't them causing the shit and they find themselves in a predicament when tossers get on the bus. There's fuck all stopping passengers noting down BTP's number and contacting them themselves in these situations. I'm sure 999 will get the info put their way too.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Nov 16, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I'd expect them to e.g. call the police, or stop the bus and put them off.
> 
> Like I said, they might have stepped in after filming stopped.


 
Call the police, maybe.  Stop the bus and put them off?  Would you, as a single driver, be comfortable putting ~10 rowdy, drunken blokes off a bus?  I guess a lot of people would just_ do nothing _for fear of inflaming a situation.  How many people when they see anti-social behaviour on public transport just look away and hope it goes away?

Where I work (a college, as IT support staff) I'd be expected to challenge any instance of anti-social behaviour from students (from swearing up), but you know what?  I don't. I'm not a bouncer, I'm not a security guard, I'm not exactly Bruce Lee and I don't get paid danger money.  I don't see it as my job to get involved in any sort of situation which might end up in a fight. Obviously, if someone was in physical danger, I'd _do something_, but as an employee/member of the general public I have the right to avoid potentially dangerous situations (especially if well outnumbered).



A suggestion would be to have CCTV on buses (I think they already do, though) and prosecute offenders or have guards, trained to deal with such behaviour, on problem routes.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Nov 16, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Can't imagine ever thinking it would be ok to inflict shit like that on others...even when I was a teenager (and I weren't a saint) I'd have thought that was so fucking wrong.


I think that's one of the most worrying things - that it seems to be perceived as culturally acceptable by these young men to say and do these horrifically sexist things. Yes, I don't think it would have happened so publicly 15 years ago when I was an undergrad, or at least with this apparent regularity   Though there were definitely sexist ideas around. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't think there's any co-incidence that as women have gained more financial and social independence, then this sort of "lad"/rape culture has increased, along with objectification. There obviously needs to be some way of putting these women in their place 

I don't know why these stories don't make more publicised news either - I think this is far more shocking than a couple of first years dressed as the Twin Towers on Halloween.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Nov 16, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Pretty sickening all all - apart from young woman who can be heard proclaiming her disgust. If other passengers had been more vocal, perhaps they would have shut the fuck up.


I probably (hopefully) would have backed someone up who had the guts to speak out first. But as a small woman, I have to say there is no way I would have been the first to speak up again an essentially misogynistic* song. Which shows that it's obviously very effective at intimidating women. 

*I know this word gets bandied about a lot, but I think this song does actually qualify


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2013)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't think there's any co-incidence that as women have gained more financial and social independence, then this sort of "lad"/rape culture has increased, along with objectification. There obviously needs to be some way of putting these women in their place
> 
> I don't know why these stories don't make more publicised news either - I think this is far more shocking than a couple of first years dressed as the Twin Towers on Halloween.



There's also the whole class angle here. I know these stories get _some_ publicity but there's never a general attack on the class who are doing it; the Public-school "guys" and "chaps" who are our future rulers. Instead the story is shunted sideways into the ghetto of feminism (by which I mean it's contained within a media-feminist narrative about "sexism", never allowed to spill out into questions about wider power imbalances that make this kind of behaviour inevitable).

Imagine the shrill shrieks from the press if these were working class lads or - my god - young muslim lads. We'd have the Blunketts and the Straws and all the other wankers lining up to make it a Real Big Issue.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 16, 2013)

the word culture would be mentioned. 'There is a culture of acceptable rapeyness amongst this community'

community is the go-to media codeword for race or class these days as well.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Nov 16, 2013)

co-op said:


> There's also the whole class angle here. I know these stories get _some_ publicity but there's never a general attack on the class who are doing it; the Public-school "guys" and "chaps" who are our future rulers. Instead the story is shunted sideways into the ghetto of feminism (by which I mean it's contained within a media-feminist narrative about "sexism", never allowed to spill out into questions about wider power imbalances that make this kind of behaviour inevitable).


Yes, agreed 

However...



> Imagine the shrill shrieks from the press if these were working class lads or - my god - young muslim lads. We'd have the Blunketts and the Straws and all the other wankers lining up to make it a Real Big Issue.


I'm not sure, in _this _instance, that the class thing would have really made it more reportable. Even though I think this sort of stuff is getting worse and more publicly acceptable, women have been harassed by men of all classes for fucking decades, and I'm not sure if it would be more newsworthy if it had been working class lads. In fact, I suspect it's more newsworthy with it being about (presumably) middle class students, because of cultural ideas that such young men are upstanding members of the community, and shouldn't be saying such things (whereas there are loads of stereotypes about working class men being sexist). Police involvement, however, is probably a different story. 

I agree that it probably would have been more newsworthy if it had been a group of apparent muslim lads


----------



## likesfish (Nov 16, 2013)

I knew some truly obnoxious songs but even with my pea sized brain could figure out that some songs you didnt sing around people who might be offened

 If you must be an offensive dick you do it in private not on a fucking bus


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2013)

Agent Sparrow said:


> In fact, I suspect it's more newsworthy with it being about (presumably) middle class students, because of cultural ideas that such young men are upstanding members of the community, and shouldn't be saying such things (whereas there are loads of stereotypes about working class men being sexist).



Ah you might be right here, it's the "contrast" between their assumed respectability and their actual behaviour. There's just something about the way these stories (rugby clubs, hockey clubs, oxford colleges etc) appear that's different and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I mean they hardly get reported. I think I'm still reeling from the sheer amount of publicity that arse Blunkett got for his Roma comments - like the Roma are this massive issue in this country, when as you say the kind of thing in the video clip is actually normal (even if not commonplace iyswim)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2013)

They have always gone on but they were hidden (What did all those rugby playing doctors get up to?) due to the smaller numbers of w/c kids entering university in the past but the wider knowledge of how things operate at these places that student expansion brought and the ease of documenting and circulating  their behaviour today has changed things.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 16, 2013)

There's bus routes near the university up here where this kind of rowdiness is just the norm on a Friday/Saturday night - not necessarily misogynistic or threatening, sometimes good-spirited, benign or funny (though usually just annoying). I imagine other towns with big colleges are the same. It'd be hard for bus drivers to police, in that it's probably difficult to judge where a line has been crossed between 'high spirits' and stuff that is sinister or threatening. A lot of it probably gets tuned out by the driver as background noise, so unless someone makes them aware of it then it's not that fair to expect them to act on it. Maybe we need more conductors back on.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 16, 2013)

It has always gone on in private or private-ish situations - rugger buggers sang the Good Ship Venus when I was a teenager 20 years ago, but I don't recall it having been so publically acceptable then, that's a new development. They'd have done it in their club or behind their hands sniggering, not bellowing it out loud on a crowded bus.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Nov 16, 2013)

weepiper said:


> It has always gone on in private or private-ish situations - rugger buggers sang the Good Ship Venus when I was a teenager 20 years ago, but I don't recall it having been so publically acceptable then, that's a new development. They'd have done it in their club or behind their hands sniggering, not bellowing it out loud on a crowded bus.


Yup, I'd agree with this - it's the public and widespread nature that seems to have changed. I remember the guys I semi hung around with in my first year saying some pretty sexist stuff within the confines of the group (not this sort of thing, but slagging off women based on their looks, being patronising etc.)  but I also remember them still being pretty respectful of women in clubs and stuff. They certainly wouldn't have done this (although I'm sure even at the time, they weren't the worst for casual sexism).

There was a recent article about a club night I used to go to 15 years ago, which is now being an entire evening of promoter sanctioned/encouraged sexual harassment. Whilst it was always a bit dodgy in other ways, I know it wasn't anything like that when I went there.


----------



## co-op (Nov 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They have always gone on but they were hidden (What did all those rugby playing doctors get up to?) due to the smaller numbers of w/c kids entering university in the past but the wider knowledge of how things operate at these places that student expansion brought and the ease of being able to document and circulate their behaviour today has changed things.



I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the real elite schools when they train future leaders in reputation-management; if you think of all the fuss Cameron and Co made just to try and suppress *that* Bullingdon club photo (which is quite innocuous really, just a fancy dress party to a lot of people) then presumably they must want to make sure that real misbehaviour is kept completely invisible and they must be instructed in how to do this in the digital era. Film of the Bullingdon doing their thing would be very very damaging in a way a posed still photo just isn't.


----------



## Corax (Nov 16, 2013)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't think there's any co-incidence that as women have gained more financial and social independence, then this sort of "lad"/rape culture has increased, along with objectification.


Has it?  Or is it just that such attitudes are documented (inc. the interwebs) these days, whereas before it was no better but such things were just daily life and thus not 'reported'?  When I look at the way women were perceived 10/20/30 etc years ago it certainly doesn't appear likely that women were _less_ objectified, and as for the rape thing the fact that it was *legal* within marriage until not so long ago must be a pointer.

Genuine question btw - the contention in your post isn't something I've considered before really.

Perhaps it's gained more shock value now as it's become more taboo?  But _if so_, that itself must be better than it not being taboo in the first place.


----------



## Corax (Nov 16, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> There's bus routes near the university up here where this kind of rowdiness is just the norm on a Friday/Saturday night - not necessarily misogynistic or threatening, sometimes good-spirited, benign or funny (though usually just annoying). I imagine other towns with big colleges are the same. It'd be hard for bus drivers to police, in that *it's probably difficult to judge where a line has been crossed* between 'high spirits' and stuff that is sinister or threatening. A lot of it probably gets tuned out by the driver as background noise, so unless someone makes them aware of it then it's not that fair to expect them to act on it. Maybe we need more conductors back on.


Whilst I don't think it fair to blame the driver (for reasons above) I disagree with the bit I've highlighted.  The line is sexism/racism/other bigotry.  99% of the time that line is pretty distinct.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 16, 2013)

I know my unit used to sing some waffen SS songs que panic form the OC as the two visting germans might be offened. They of course knew all the words.
 Apprantly the somgs had all be de nazified in the 50s but everybody knew the naughty versions and guess which version got sung after a few beers.
 But nobody thought singing those songs n public wpuld be smart.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 16, 2013)

Corax said:


> Has it?  Or is it just that such attitudes are documented (inc. the interwebs) these days, whereas before it was no better but such things were just daily life and thus not 'reported'?  When I look at the way women were perceived 10/20/30 etc years ago it certainly doesn't appear likely that women were _less_ objectified, and as for the rape thing the fact that it was *legal* within marriage until not so long ago must be a pointer.
> 
> Genuine question btw - the contention in your post isn't something I've considered before really.
> 
> Perhaps it's gained more shock value now as it's become more taboo?  But _if so_, that itself must be better than it not being taboo in the first place.


Yes, I tend to agree. In the 1970s, blatant objectification of women was part of mainstream culture. In the 1980s, the Sunday Sport was a big-selling newspaper, and page 3 girls like Sam Fox became national figures.

That said, I never look at 'lad mags', which are a fairly recent invention, so I genuinely don't know what they are like. But the magazine this thread was started to talk about was a pretty small-fry publication (and I've just had a look for it on the internet - it appears to have folded already). Before the internet, it would have been a fanzine.

And we have a long way to go, clearly, but I can remember the time when certain judges in court recommended that rape victims lie back and enjoy it. It's not that long ago - 20 years or so - but I think we've moved beyond that now at least.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 16, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That said, I never look at 'lad mags', which are a fairly recent invention, so I genuinely don't know what they are like. But the magazine this thread was started to talk about was a pretty small-fry publication (and I've just had a look for it on the internet - it appears to have folded already). Before the internet, it would have been a fanzine.



Lads mags sales have gone down massively afaik. They really peaked in the late 90s - when I was at uni maybe about half the male students I knew would buy one and most of us would read one. Their sales dropped off dramatically after that and they're not massive sellers now. So if it is getting worse since then I'm not sure they're to blame. 

I suppose it might be they appeal to a smaller but more sexist audience now, possibly.


----------



## toph (Nov 16, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Lads mags sales have gone down massively afaik. They really peaked in the late 90s - when I was at uni maybe about half the male students I knew would buy one and most of us would read one. Their sales dropped off dramatically after that and they're not massive sellers now. So if it is getting worse since then I'm not sure they're to blame.
> 
> I suppose it might be they appeal to a smaller but more sexist audience now, possibly.



The time period coincides with when easy internet access became widely available.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Nov 17, 2013)

Corax said:


> Has it?  Or is it just that such attitudes are documented (inc. the interwebs) these days, whereas before it was no better but such things were just daily life and thus not 'reported'?  When I look at the way women were perceived 10/20/30 etc years ago it certainly doesn't appear likely that women were _less_ objectified, and as for the rape thing the fact that it was *legal* within marriage until not so long ago must be a pointer.
> 
> Genuine question btw - the contention in your post isn't something I've considered before really.
> 
> Perhaps it's gained more shock value now as it's become more taboo?  But _if so_, that itself must be better than it not being taboo in the first place.


Tbh I was thinking of it on a much wider time scale-from Victorian times to now, so the stuff you're referring to could be seen very much seen as a reaction to that growing independence. Btw, I see the abolition of legal marital rape more as an increased social independence rather than a reduction in objectification.

And in many ways, you are right. Certainly I was a kid in the 80s, around the time that Benny Hill and Russ Abott, with their casual objectification of women, were big name TV stars. In the 90s as a teenager I certainly experienced sexist values, harassment and groping, which continued throughout my 20s. However, from the things I am reading about, certainly in a university context (as that what many of the reports have been about), things are sounding a lot fucking worse, from the perceived acceptability of rape jokes to large scale sexual assaults in clubs. As I mentioned in a previous post, I read an article about a promoted night I used to go to 15 years ago, and it sounds completely different (from a blatant sexism perspective) to when I used to go there. Eating disorders still continue to rise afaik. Also look at the changing expectations of how women in music are meant to present themselves. The following was posted by CRI on the bandwidth thread but I think it does make a point in regards to this.  

And btw, I completely disagree that these things are becoming more taboo. On TV maybe, but not IRL.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 17, 2013)

I don't follow pop music at all, but have lyrics really become that much more submissive in general?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 17, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Stirling students singing on a bus full of young women about feeling a woman up, giving her their 'Jap's eye' and giving her a miscarriage among other things




Fucking animals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I don't follow pop music at all, but have lyrics really become that much more submissive in general?


Smacks of moral panic to me, tbh. I'm not defending 'gangsta' stuff (of which I know little), but there is a lot more than just objectification going on here (and the objectification extends to men, too). It also feeds into racial stereotyping and expectations. Also, we should be very careful not to conflate USA with UK. The US has a big influence here, but we are not the US and the dynamics here are different.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 17, 2013)

Corax said:


> One of the things I noticed in the video is that the thing they're getting most of their kicks from is bad puns.  I _love _bad puns, so I can empathise with that.  But they have to layer a load of ladmag bollocks on top of it as well.
> 
> I'd bet that the majority would be just as amused and entertained without the misogyny.  But it becomes a self-perpetuating circle of expectation.
> 
> And that, I think, is where the influence of Nuts, Zoo, et all really comes in.



Really, nuts and zoo, magazines with a dwindling circulation of 60,000 in the whole of the UK? 

Maybe sexism and misogyny are a bit more "organic" than some magazines, people aren't blank morons worked upon by a top down ideology.


----------



## Corax (Nov 17, 2013)

Good bit of literalism there.  Fab.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 17, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Lads mags sales have gone down massively afaik. They really peaked in the late 90s - when I was at uni maybe about half the male students I knew would buy one and most of us would read one. Their sales dropped off dramatically after that and they're not massive sellers now. So if it is getting worse since then I'm not sure they're to blame.
> 
> I suppose it might be they appeal to a smaller but more sexist audience now, possibly.



theres young lads at my work buy them and from what i can see pretty much all of them are either under the thumbs of their girlfreinds or would like to be if they had one .

the things strike me more as sad than misogynist, although thats not to say they arent .


----------



## Smyz (Nov 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> theres young lads at my work buy them and from what i can see pretty much all of them are either under the thumbs of their girlfreinds or would like to be if they had one .
> 
> the things strike me more as sad than misogynist, although thats not to say they arent .


Can you hear yourself?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

He can't. He needs hear another echo. He's wrote worse things today.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 17, 2013)

im not speaking, but posting, therfore i can read myself. If youve a point come out with it .


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I don't follow pop music at all, but have lyrics really become that much more submissive in general?


I think they've become more explicit with younger female singers singing them.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 20, 2013)

more bullshit at Unis in Wales  
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cardiff-university-football-team-banned-6320964


----------



## ddraig (Nov 20, 2013)

and it's time to sort it out
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news-opinion/welsh-universities-sexism-problem---6322636


----------



## revol68 (Nov 20, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I think they've become more explicit with younger female singers singing them.



I think there needs to be a line drawn between submissiveness in general and sexual submissiveness role play. Singing about whips and chains Riri style or whatever isn't saying "Put me in my place in the kitchen, pay me less for the same work or sexually harass me".

Ironically female sexual empowerment (the falling away of shame about having desires and discussing them) can go perfectly hand in hand with a proliferation of submissive sexual fantasy ie Rihana's S&M, 50 shades of grey etc

Anyway feel a bit ekky posting that so I'll bow out now.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 20, 2013)

I think you missed my point - I wasn't saying lyrics were more submissive, I said that lyrics were more explicit in my opinion.

I do not think a thread discussing an article making light of rape is perhaps the best place to start a discussion about submissiveness in whatever form.


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 20, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I think they've become more explicit with younger female singers singing them.


 
I think explicit is the key word - lyrics were often coded in the Blues / Rhythm and Blues trads, not so much any more. Not sure that singers are getting younger though. Gladys Horton laid down 'Please Mr Postman' aged 15 for example.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 20, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I think you missed my point - I wasn't saying lyrics were more submissive, I said that lyrics were more explicit in my opinion.
> 
> I do not think a thread discussing an article making light of rape is perhaps the best place to start a discussion about submissiveness in whatever form.



I read your post as saying that the submissive lyrics are more explicit now.

I didn't start the discussion, I was replying to it.



equationgirl said:


> > I don't follow pop music at all, but have lyrics really become that much more submissive in general?
> 
> 
> I think they've become more explicit with younger female singers singing them.


----------



## kavenism (Nov 21, 2013)

Here's something my sock on FB was allerted to. He's "friends" with number 6. didn't expect this from Holloway tbh.
http://www.ratemash.com/rhul/girlsleaderboard


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 21, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Here's something my sock on FB was allerted to. He's "friends" with number 6. didn't expect this from Holloway tbh.
> http://www.ratemash.com/rhul/girlsleaderboard


It's not just Holloway, there's a lot of universities on there.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 22, 2013)

and they do have a leaderboard for the males as well:

http://www.ratemash.com/rhul/guysleaderboard

so at least it's just fucking stupid rather than blatantly sexist.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 22, 2013)

mojo pixy said:


> and they do have a leaderboard for the males as well:
> 
> http://www.ratemash.com/rhul/guysleaderboard
> 
> so at least it's just fucking stupid rather than blatantly sexist.


I would say so. It looks like some of party hook-up site to be honest.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 26, 2014)

Jesus, just tuned into a show called 'The Millionaire Matchmaker' on 4 music (i like to look into the open sewer occasionally just to see how bad things have got). Obviously it is vile and shit in every way, but I was still shocked at some of its content. There was one scene where the female host of the show said to the male contestant 'here's the rules: no roofies, no strip clubs, no swinging' and the male contestant jokingly replied 'ah, you got me'. So basically, I just turned on the telly at 8:00pm on a sunday and saw witty banter about drugging women in order to rape them. I mean - what the fuck, are there no depths to which the media won't sink?


----------



## keybored (Jan 26, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> are there no depths to which the media won't sink?



I don't know, but that double-negative is playing havoc with my OCD.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 26, 2014)

keybored said:


> I don't know, but that double-negative is playing havoc with my OCD.



The sentence is correct though isn't it.


----------



## kraepelin (Jan 26, 2014)

But this isn't even a case of between friends,  I've run with a rough lot, but it seems rape as a punch line is on the rise, i really remember it being a something that came up in the past.

I wonder if this is a push back against the move to educate people about the issues around rape.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 27, 2014)

I loathe the proliferation and trivialising of the word in gaming, particularly online.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2014)

kraepelin said:


> But this isn't even a case of between friends,  I've run with a rough lot, but it seems rape as a punch line is on the rise, i really remember it being a something that came up in the past.
> 
> I wonder if this is a push back against the move to educate people about the issues around rape.



Partially. Under whose aegis, though?  Mens' Rights Activists are mostly a bunch of inchoate chest-beaters, so do we lay this one at the media's door?  I mean, historically the media follow direction, so who's directing?

I think there's also an issue regarding the tension between male displacement from the workplace, and continued promotion of the "man as breadwinner" meme, but again that's only part of it.

I think there's also a deliberate coarsening of social mores by those elements of the population that are more able to "get away" with such things.  We hear a lot about working class people getting drunk, misbehaving and basically being lewd and licentious, and invariably such people end up before the magistrate, paying the price for their folly.  What we *don't* hear quite so much about is when this behaviour takes place (and it does) in non-working class environments, and because such behaviour isn't "policed" in the way it is among w/c populations, it's not questioned anywhere near as closely.  Unfortunately, unaddressed misbehaviour quickly becomes habit, and the unpunished twat quickly comes to believe that their behaviour is not merely acceptable, but legitimate.

And yes, I'm well aware I'm making a class issue out of a behaviour (rape) that crosses class boundaries, but there's an element of difference between how the classes are treated that provides a fertile soil for a sense of middle class "entitlement" to grow in.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 27, 2014)

I have noticed people are calling out creepy behaviour a bit more thesedays (a good thing), but often they are using phrases like 'a bit rapey' which can seem like trivialising rape.  It's also diverting attention from the fact that Blue WKD-drinking 'lads' dropping roofies in people's drinks are far less common than people being attacked by someone they know and trust. 'Rapey' behaviour or appearance isn't something that should be defined so simply.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 27, 2014)

sorry if this is a bit off the point but it amazes and saddens me that so many football fans refer to a fast player "raping" a slower player ... a pundit on tv even said it a few months back.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 24, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-British-universities-ever-get-rid-of-it.html
lots in this article
*Can universities ever get rid of boozy, sexist lad culture?*


> *What to do?*
> Toni Pearce, NUS president, speaking at an event in London at the end of last week about lad culture in higher education, said: “It beggars belief that a very present danger to women on our campuses was denied and ignored by universities for so long. Frankly there came a point when saying, not on my campus, was unacceptable really. Lad culture on campus will never be tackled unless we work together – all students - to confront it, using the National Strategy Team (NST) to facilitate this.”


----------



## 8ball (Feb 24, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> sorry if this is a bit off the point but it amazes and saddens me that so many football fans refer to a fast player "raping" a slower player ... a pundit on tv even said it a few months back.


 
Oh ffs - it's spreading to the so-called 'grown ups'.


----------



## comrade spurski (Feb 24, 2014)

8ball said:


> Oh ffs - it's spreading to the so-called 'grown ups'.


?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Oxford Union President Ben Sullivan is arrested on suspicion of rape



> A leading light in student politics and member of an elite university drinking club, Benjamin Sullivan, the President of the Oxford Union, has been released on bail until 18 June after being arrested on suspicion of rape and attempted rape.



Last year a Oxford university club sent out this:



> Last Monday, the social secretary of the Pembroke College Rugby Football Club sent his members an email with the subject line “FREE PUSSY”. In the email, Mr Kim proposed a “challenge” to the male members of the college; to “pick” a female fresher of their choice as a guest for the upcoming crew date. Mr Kim’s email continued, “please bring TWO bottles of wine – one for yourself and one for your guest”. This second bottle of wine is to be tampered with. He wrote, “You must open the bottle in advance, and include a substance of your choice. It may be spirits or anything you like.”
> 
> “Please be as clandestine as possible in your deed.”



What sort of people are these places breeding? Vile products of privilege it looks like.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

wow, what? that email is incredible.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Surely 'elite university drinking club' is an oxymoron?


----------



## ddraig (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> wow, what? that email is incredible.


init! 
dickheads thinking they are untouchable putting such plans and instructions in emails, lol
hopefully it will get far wider coverage now than it did a while back due to the case


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Surely 'elite university drinking club' is an oxymoron?


Can't help but feel that you're not focusing on the larger point here.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (May 8, 2014)

Urgh that email is just vile. The university doing nothing about it is pretty disgusting too.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

The email isn't just vile, it's evidence of a conspiracy to rape, I'd have thought?


----------



## ddraig (May 8, 2014)

but but their daddies make generous donations and know the very best of lawyers
they went to Oxford with them of course

maybe one of them will get sent down (to Carfax) for a few months as some kind of token punishment


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Can't help but feel that you're not focusing on the larger point here.



It's just that the way these things get reported seems quite telling. These people call themselves 'elite' and so that's what the papers call them, even in the context of a story about these elite individuals' despicable attitude towards women. If this were a group from any other stratum of society, the press wouldn't be so kind as to call them by their preferred title. 

A minor point I know, but it says a lot somehow.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> The email isn't just vile, it's evidence of a conspiracy to rape, I'd have thought?



Yes I thought that too but obviously nothing is being done about it. The email is nothing to do with the current arrest, something I first thought. It's an email from last year that Oxford just said is completely unacceptable and left at that


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Urgh that email is just vile. The university doing nothing about it is pretty disgusting too.


many years ago when i was a sabbatical at a large london college there was an instance of 'date rape'. the college refused to do anything unless criminal proceedings took place. i suppose that the position's the same now and that the university would say that they have to presume innocence until guilt is determined. i had a big row with the head of the college about their refusal to take action in the case i was aware of; i hope the students union at oxford are pushing the point with the college and the university.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's just that the way these things get reported seems quite telling. These people call themselves 'elite' and so that's what the papers call them, even in the context of a story about these elite individuals' despicable attitude towards women. If this were a group from any other stratum of society, the press wouldn't be so kind as to call them by their preferred title.
> 
> A minor point I know, but it says a lot somehow.


It's not _describing _them as elite ffs - it's laughing at that claim but also suggesting that wider contacts and influence mean that it does in fact constitute an elite, despite the inadequacies of its individual members. Does no one know how to read nuance anymore?


----------



## sim667 (May 8, 2014)

ddraig said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-British-universities-ever-get-rid-of-it.html
> lots in this article
> *Can universities ever get rid of boozy, sexist lad culture?*


 
They need to start destroying the culture in schools, not tackling it unis


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Urgh that email is just vile. The university doing nothing about it is pretty disgusting too.



It was posted up here before, maybe a year ago, and went viral all over the place. If it's true that the university has taken no action against this guy since then that sends a pretty clear message that the universtiy considers its female students fair game for this sort of treatment. Disgraceful.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

ddraig said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-British-universities-ever-get-rid-of-it.html
> lots in this article
> *Can universities ever get rid of boozy, sexist lad culture?*


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's not _describing _them as elite ffs - it's laughing at that claim but also suggesting that wider contacts and influence mean that it does in fact constitute an elite, despite the inadequacies of its individual members. Does no one know how to read nuance anymore?



The thing about nuance is that it's open to interpretation.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The thing about nuance is that it's open to interpretation.


Or you can totally miss it.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

eh? it's a drinking club at an elite university, not an elite drinking club at a university. I don't think Oxford's status as an elite uni is really much in doubt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Or you can totally miss it.



Or imagine it's there when it's not.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

The guardian gets round it with _prestigious - _puffing up its entire staff in the process.


----------



## likesfish (May 8, 2014)

FFS even as a"joke" that needed being stamped on.
If he was even remotely fucking serious some time  with a copper explaining date rape, conspriacy etc to him and all his so called friends.

Any evidence of somebody being as fucking stupid as to follow the advice police called ban the club and advertise why it was banned as attempting to orgainse drug rape.

Stupid should really fucking hurt.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Or imagine it's there when it's not.


If you didn't see that that 'elite' was typed with a huge disdainful curl of the lip then i wonder what else you miss.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> eh? it's a drinking club at an elite university, not an elite drinking club at a university.



The way it's written is ambiguous.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The way it's written is ambiguous.


With nuance perchance?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

likesfish said:


> FFS even as a"joke" that needed being stamped on.
> If he was even remotely fucking serious some time  with a copper explaining date rape, conspriacy and all his so called friends



Well it didn't seem like a joke, it seemed like a genuine set of instructions. And again, even if it's a joke it's a sign that the person responsible for it is not elligible for higher education, owing to an absence of higher brain function.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The way it's written is ambiguous.


 it really isn't.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

This is from a report into sexual violence at Oxford University from last year.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> With nuance perchance?



I don't think we're going to agree on the presence or otherwise of nuance in the article, maybe we should just leave it.


----------



## likesfish (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well it didn't seem like a joke, it seemed like a genuine set of instructions. And again, even if it's a joke it's a sign that the person responsible for it is not elligible for higher education, owing to an absence of higher brain function.


 Then he needed calling on it if only to disover  how a body can operate with out a brain

How the fuck did you think that was a good idea


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> it really isn't.



Well to me 'elite university drinking club' means a university drinking club that happens to be elite, not an ordinary drinking club at an elite university.

That fact that we've both read the same sentence in two different ways is proof enough that the sentence is ambiguous, no?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Then he needed calling on it if only to disover  how a body can operate with out a brain
> 
> How the fuck did you think that was a good idea



They should've thrown him out of the university is what I was getting at. With the amount of public exposure this got, to do anything less is to implicitly justify the email and the behaviour discussed therein.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Yes yes yss, there's a def a chance they meant the best damn drinking club at oxford uni. There really really is.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well to me 'elite university drinking club' means a university drinking club that happens to be elite, not an ordinary drinking club at an elite university.
> 
> That fact that we've both read the same sentence in two different ways is proof enough that the sentence is ambiguous, no?


Perhaps on it's own the sentence could be ambiguous. In the context of an article about a drinking club at Oxford University, it isn't.

The fact that you've misread something isn't evidence of ambiguity. It is evidence of something else though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> The fact that you've misread something isn't evidence of ambiguity. It is evidence of something else though.



But you're the one who has misread it. So whatever this evidence is, it's evidence against YOU


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes yes yss, there's a def a chance they meant the best damn drinking club at oxford uni. There really really is.



Oh just let something go for once in your life would you? I'm entitled to read something and come to my own conclusions about it.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

But I haven't misread it, you have. I know you like shouting about things Frank, but why not shout about real things? There's no need to go looking for stuff that isn't really there.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2014)

isn't this oxford union who invited\assange to speak by video link? invited Le Pen to speak in person.

fucked up


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> But I haven't misread it, you have. I know you like shouting about things Frank, but why not shout about real things? There's no need to go looking for stuff that isn't really there.



Or maybe you misread it.

Maybe it's ambiguous, maybe you're being a bit of a dick telling other people that their interpretation of something is wrong. Maybe a lot of things.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

There's nothing to interpret though - there isn't any ambiguity. You just got it wrong is all.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Bailed until 18th june.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> There's nothing to interpret though - there isn't any ambiguity. You just got it wrong is all.



Ah but on the other hand, maybe you got it wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well to me 'elite university drinking club' means a university drinking club that happens to be elite, not an ordinary drinking club at an elite university.
> 
> That fact that we've both read the same sentence in two different ways is proof enough that the sentence is ambiguous, no?


nice to see pedantry alive and well on urban


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ah but on the other hand, maybe you got it wrong.


 there isn't another hand, except in your head.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> there isn't another hand, except in your head.



On the other hand, perhaps you have no right to tell someone how to read a sentence. Perhaps you're not in charge around here after all. Perhaps you're just a cunt.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

so cute.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> On the other hand, perhaps you have no right to tell someone how to read a sentence. Perhaps you're not in charge around here after all. Perhaps you're just a cunt.


a lot of perhapses about killer b but none about you.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> a lot of perhapses about killer b but none about you.



Well perhaps I don't appreciate some uppity fucker telling me I can't read.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well perhaps I don't appreciate some uppity fucker telling me I can't read.



you can read. but you can always do better. seemed to me it was constructive criticism.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you can read. but you can always do better. seemed to me it was constructive criticism.



Seems to me it wasn't, but I daresay I'm wrong about that as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Seems to me it wasn't, but I daresay I'm wrong about that as well.


probably.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 8, 2014)

'elite university drinking club' is ambiguous. As everybody already knows that Oxford is an elite university, the use of 'elite' relating to the university is superfluous and it could easily be referring to the drinking club. Badly written.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> 'elite university drinking club' is ambiguous. As everybody already knows that Oxford is an elite university, the use of 'elite' relating to the university is superfluous and it could easily be referring to the drinking club. Badly written.


This is where the readers brain comes into it. Or should.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> 'elite university drinking club' is ambiguous. As everybody already knows that Oxford is an elite university, the use of 'elite' relating to the university is superfluous and it could easily be referring to the drinking club. Badly written.



It's not bad writing, it's nuance. The angry man told me.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not bad writing, it's nuance. The angry man told me.


are you calling killer b a nuance?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Oh god, yes, this thread needs sulkers calling people cunts. Thanks Frank.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The angry man told me.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2014)

who gives a shit, they are basically wannabe drug rapists who entertain the leader of FN

if thats elitism, then we must burn it.


----------



## cesare (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not bad writing, it's nuance. The angry man told me.


_You're_ calling butchers angry


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> _You're_ calling butchers angry



Well sometimes he's just snippy. Depends if the sun's over the yard arm yet.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, yes, this thread needs sulkers calling people cunts. Thanks Frank.


SpookyFrank doesn't do long, nuanced posts


----------



## cesare (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well sometimes he's just snippy. Depends if the sun's over the yard arm yet.


You missed my emphasis.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well sometimes he's just snippy. Depends if the sun's over the yard arm yet.


i've been drinking for hours now, it's a poor show if people are only starting at lunchtime.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> You missed my emphasis.



No, I ignored it.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2014)

Classy - you disagree with someone so they're a drunk. Real nice.


----------



## cesare (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, I ignored it.


That's still missing it, just deliberately missing it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> Classy - you disagree with someone so they're a drunk. Real nice.


tbh SpookyFrank's enough to drive anyone to drink. i haven't had a brandy in years but i'm down the offie in a minute to get a bottle of vsop to have with my lunch.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh SpookyFrank's enough to drive anyone to drink. i haven't had a brandy in years but i'm down the offie in a minute to get a bottle of vsop to have with my lunch.



Anything I can do to hasten your death from liver failure I will consider a public service.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2014)

Top quality tantrum here curly.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anything I can do to hasten your death from liver failure I will consider a public service.


yes. it's this sort of post which undermines your affecting to be a serious or indeed capable poster. the first sign of criticism and you start wishing death on people. that's not manly, that's piss weak you cunt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. it's this sort of post which undermines your affecting to be a serious or indeed capable poster. the first sign of criticism and you start wishing death on people. that's not manly, that's piss weak you cunt.



And your comments up to now had all been so constructive as well. You must be so disappointed.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> And your comments up to now had all been so constructive as well. You must be so disappointed.


more constructive than yours, you greasy toerag, with your 'you read it that way but i read it this way' bullshit. i have at least addressed the point, you've pissed all around it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> more constructive than yours, you greasy toerag, with your 'you read it that way but i read it this way' bullshit. i have at least addressed the point, you've pissed all around it.



I made a point about the media's presentation of the issue at hand. Everyone pissed all over that, for reasons of semantics rather than content. After about the fourth time I was told that I was wrong because (insert name here) said so, I lost interest in being constructive about anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I made a point about the media's presentation of the issue at hand. Everyone pissed all over that, for reasons of semantics rather than content. After about the fourth time I was told that I was wrong because (insert name here) said so, I lost interest in being constructive about anything.


the rest of the world is --> that way


----------



## likesfish (May 8, 2014)

The rugby club got demoted and banned for a month  its crewdate was cancelled and the creepy would be date rapist resigned so smething was done.
 Stupid did hurt.


----------



## Nylock (May 8, 2014)

Not enough, he should have been punted out.


----------



## emanymton (May 8, 2014)

Perhaps it was a club for the drinking of elite universitys?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Perhaps it was a club for the drinking of elite universitys?


perhaps the members were the drinking equivalent of the sas and had had to undergo some stamina test before admission.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Not enough, he should have been punted out.


down the river


----------



## Corax (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> wow, what? that email is incredible.


And arrestable I'd hope.


----------



## ddraig (May 8, 2014)

by appointment if at all
don't you know who these people are!?!


----------



## Corax (May 8, 2014)

killer b said:


> The email isn't just vile, it's evidence of a conspiracy to rape, I'd have thought?


Ah. I should really have read to the end of the thread before hitting reply


----------



## Corax (May 8, 2014)

... And now I wish I hadn't


----------



## likesfish (May 8, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Not enough, he should have been punted out.



Not sure you can ruin somebodys life for a stupid email making the cunt sweat in a cell for a few hours definitely


----------



## The Pale King (May 8, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Not sure you can ruin somebodys life for a stupid email making the cunt sweat in a cell for a few hours definitely



Stupid email? Fuck that.

Looks to me like incitement to sexual assault and battery.

The perpetrators are protected by their status - not unlike the American football players in certain cases in the States.

Universities should take the welfare of their female students more seriously.

Throw the book at these cunts. The only way they learn is if there be consequences.


----------



## likesfish (May 8, 2014)

Incitement yes but once the email leaked that was the end of the any crewdate so nothing actually happened the bloke should be sanctioned not sure you can bring the cops in his name is mud and so is the rugby club


----------



## Corax (May 8, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Not sure you can ruin somebodys life for a stupid email making the cunt sweat in a cell for a few hours definitely


I don't know what, but *surely* there's something prosecutable about sending a communication that essentially promotes, encourages, and sets out specific plans for spiking and 'date rape' (otherwise known as 'rape'). Something under Tort possibly.


----------



## Nylock (May 9, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Not sure you can ruin somebodys life for a stupid email making the cunt sweat in a cell for a few hours definitely


The guy was advocating the possibility of committing an act that could have potentially ruined the life of the woman on the receiving end of the participants' rapey intentions. Fuck him.


----------



## Nylock (May 9, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Incitement yes but once the email leaked that was the end of the any crewdate so nothing actually happened the bloke should be sanctioned not sure you can bring the cops in his name is mud and so is the rugby club


Again, fuck him and his kind.


----------



## xenon (May 9, 2014)

Corax said:


> I don't know what, but *surely* there's something prosecutable about sending a communication that essentially promotes, encourages, and sets out specific plans for spiking and 'date rape' (otherwise known as 'rape'). Something under Tort possibly.



Tort deals with civil law far as I recall. I thought maybe Compute Misuse Act might have a provision but having a quick Google maybe Serious Organized Crimes Act 2007. Insighting or encouraging a crime...

After all, you can imagine someone encouraging via email or some other electronic medium an extra judicial re-educational approach towards the author, - which could possibly constitute a crime, might attract Police attention.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 9, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Incitement yes but once the email leaked that was the end of the any crewdate so nothing actually happened the bloke should be sanctioned not sure you can bring the cops in his name is mud and so is the rugby club


His name is only mud in circles that share our values. To these elite scum, they don't care. 

Time to close the places down and punish attitudes such as those shown in that letter. There is no justification; rape isn't a joke.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Incitement yes but once the email leaked that was the end of the any crewdate so nothing actually happened the bloke should be sanctioned not sure you can bring the cops in his name is mud and so is the rugby club


Maybe this time. Who say's it's the first time he set such a challenge?


----------



## likesfish (May 9, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> His name is only mud in circles that share our values. To these elite scum, they don't care.
> 
> Time to close the places down and punish attitudes such as those shown in that letter. There is no justification; rape isn't a joke.


 The practice of crew dating really needs to be shut down its not creepy at all.
 The drinking clubs are dieing a natural death when the president of the oxford union attempts to use legal means to bar knowledge of his membership of one you can see the writings on the wall for them.
 Boris and daves photo has probably done more to hurt them than anything


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 9, 2014)

To the filthy elite the only thing this guy did wrong was get caught. Same with Maria Miller etc. 

This requires a sea change culturally. Personally I'd shut these fucking schools down and turn them into state schools.

Then I'd punch David Cameron in the gut.


----------



## dessiato (May 9, 2014)

I just re-read the article referred to in the OP. I then noticed this attempt at humour on the same site (from March this year) Clearly the writers have learned nothing.
http://uniladmag.com/articles/record-breaking-number-girls-fingerbanged-clubnight/


----------



## The Octagon (May 9, 2014)

That seems like a poor attempt at sending themselves up at first read, or is it just me?

Still a shite site.


----------



## dessiato (May 9, 2014)

The Octagon said:


> That seems like a poor attempt at sending themselves up at first read, or is it just me?
> 
> Still a shite site.


My feeling is as you say, it is an attempt at sending themselves up. What surprises me is that after the problems they experienced from the rape article you'd think they would have learned that some things aren't funny at all. Or is it that modern day male university students really aren't as clever as they think they are?


----------



## trashpony (May 9, 2014)

This was on BBC2 last night: 





> From bomb threats sent to campaigners for more females on banknotes to sexually explicit pop videos. From extreme laddism at universities to rape jokes in the school yard... Kirsty Wark explores whether there's a new culture abroad in which it's acceptable to write about, talk about, and feature women in a sexually offensive, even abusive way. Or whether the female of the species just needs to 'man up', learn to enjoy a gag, and get used to the 21st century world



Not watched it yet but seems germane to this discussion


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 9, 2014)

trashpony said:


> This was on BBC2 last night:
> 
> Not watched it yet but seems germane to this discussion




Was pretty good. Good to see that serious discussion of the 'new misogyny' is making it onto mainstream TV. Kristy Walk seemed to know her stuff. Rod Liddle features and - amazingly - comes across as a total fucking dick ("these women need to man up")


----------



## sim667 (May 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oxford Union President Ben Sullivan is arrested on suspicion of rape
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ugh, just read that email, its fucking heinous.


----------



## Nylock (May 9, 2014)

Yep, it is.


----------



## Corax (May 9, 2014)

xenon said:


> Tort deals with civil law far as I recall.


It does yeah, but there's an overlap with criminal in some instances, and a lower burden of proof - which is why you can get successful civil prosecutions for the same offence that's been found not guilty in criminal court. 

It would require a civil prosecution rather than a CPS call though yeah. 

The reason I mentioned Tort in particular is that IIRC it deals more with what would be considered 'reasonable' behaviour than other areas. Man on the Clapham omnibus stuff. It's a long time since I studied though, so I can't pin down exactly which Tort I think might apply - it just *feels* like their ought to be something applicable iykwim.


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

A little compendium. Do look at the first one as its from yesterday:



> A notorious Cambridge drinking society is facing a police investigation after a group of men suspected to be members was filmed walking down a street in Oxford chanting about rape.
> 
> The group, described as being clearly intoxicated, were captured on video by an Oxford student who later reported the incident to Thames Valley Police.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 15, 2014)

...and at a sort of similar elite US university:



> Students who walked into women’s bathroom stalls at Columbia University this week could see the frustration about how colleges judge and punish accused rapists scrawled on walls and fliers.
> 
> Whoever listed the four male student names under the heading “rapists on campus” – written on bathroom walls and fliers tucked on top of toilet paper dispensers – mounted a brief awareness campaign that seemed to combine aspirations of strengthening public safety with inflicting public shame. Twenty-three students at Columbia and Barnard College have already filed a federal complaint accusing the university of running flawed sexual assault hearings and letting alleged perpetrators off the hook.


----------



## ddraig (May 28, 2014)

may help change some of this culture?

initiative with 7 uni's including Swansea to stop initiation ceremonies and binge drinking
no Cardiff tho 


> Binge drinking students are the target of a new pilot scheme hoping to clamp down on excessive alcohol culture in universities.
> 
> Seven universities have joined a pilot scheme run by the National Union of Students and the Home Office.
> 
> ...


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/binge-drinking-students-subject-new-7179619


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2014)

I remember when 'binge drinking' was just called 'drinking'. 

'action to tackle pub-crawls'?

My first reaction to that is 'fuck the fuck off'.


----------



## ddraig (May 28, 2014)

"you'll take my drink from my cold dead hands"

it is more aimed at the carnage events i believe


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2014)

ddraig said:


> it is more aimed at the carnage events i believe


In the town I grew up in, this was known as 'Saturday night'.

They do say they want 'action to tackle pub-crawls'. What kind of action? Tackle in what sense?


----------



## ddraig (May 28, 2014)

yes it is badly worded
i think they mean the huge organised pubcrawls that are in the pic of the article
literally hundreds if not a thousand all out in matching t shirts on the same night


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 28, 2014)

ddraig said:


> yes it is badly worded
> i think they mean the huge organised pubcrawls that are in the pic of the article
> literally hundreds if not a thousand all out in matching t shirts on the same night


Ah ok. That is a new thing to me.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 25, 2014)

This recent event at Nottingham University also seems pertinent to the discussion on this thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-29756910



> A number of students have been fined following an investigation after footage emerged of a group chanting about violence and necrophilia.
> 
> The chant filmed during the Freshers' Week included a reference to digging up and having sex with a female corpse.
> 
> ...


----------



## BandWagon (Oct 25, 2014)

This looks like a dead thread to me.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 25, 2014)

why?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 25, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why?





> chanting about violence and necrophilia


----------



## ddraig (Oct 25, 2014)

ah! my sides
ta


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 25, 2014)

I figured it fit better with this thread, which is about sexism and students, and has already been bumped on more than one occasion, than to start a new one.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 25, 2014)

Better to be accused of thread necromancy than anger the spirit of pogo.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 25, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Better to be accused of thread necromancy than anger the spirit of pogo.



We should just a throw a student into our local active volcano, the better to appease the pogo god.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 25, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> We should just a throw a student into our local active volcano, the better to appease the pogo god.


Can't hurt...


----------

