# I need feminism because.... [Cambridge students respond]



## editor (Jun 18, 2013)

Cambridge University graduates were asked on campus why they needed feminism. They wrote their answer on a board and were then photographed holding the board.

More here: http://awkwardsituationist.tumblr.c...idge-university-students-were-asked-on-campus
It's an interesting study:


----------



## Thora (Jun 18, 2013)

Do you have an opinion on it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Interesting choice of who to ask.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2013)

Thora said:


> Do you have an opinion on it?


 
Yes, I do. I think it's a brilliant idea and it's uplifting to see some of the stuff that's been added by the people contributing.
Now, how about you? Have you an opinion or are you only interested in hearing about mine?


----------



## Thora (Jun 18, 2013)

I don't have an opinion, I was interested in yours.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

fuck cambridge


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2013)

Thora said:


> I don't have an opinion, I was interested in yours.


I hope you're not going to make habit of doing this on every thread because it kinds runs contrary to what bulletin boards are supposed to be about.


----------



## Thora (Jun 18, 2013)

editor said:


> I hope you're not going to make habit of doing this on every thread because it kinds runs contrary to what bulletin boards are supposed to be about.


Oh no   I hope I don't ruin urban.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

too late


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

forgive me for not giving a shit about what Cambridge students think about anything. Their existence is irrelevant.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

Cambridge eh?

I bet Laurie Penny tweets this. Right up her street: toff slacktivism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Wonder if they plan to go to Arbury and carry out a similar exercise and then compare the results - that would be pretty interesting i reckon. Maybe do it with different suggestions as well.

(I don't need Cambridge Uni because...for example)


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

that one in the top left looks exactly like my ex. She was into intersectionality


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2013)

Interesting choice of word that; "_*need*_".

Personally I'd have been happier finishing the statement "*I am a feminist because..."*

But there you go...good idea, though.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jun 18, 2013)

Perturb is a great word


----------



## Clair De Lune (Jun 18, 2013)

Inverted snobbery.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 18, 2013)

It's May Week ffs. What is wrong with them, have they nowhere else to be?


----------



## 89 Til Infinity (Jun 18, 2013)

The two girls in the third pic down on the right aren't a fan of Rosa Luxemburg I take it?

Ohhhhh they mean famous pro capitalist economists.

I can't think of a better place to ask about how you suffer from inequality than at Cambridge


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

Joan Robinson's pretty famous as a Keynesian, isn't she? Though mind you, she was Oxford.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jun 18, 2013)

My mum.

Wouldn't ask people like me though. Or my mum.


----------



## geminisnake (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> forgive me for not giving a shit about what Cambridge students think about anything. Their existence is irrelevant.


 
Why? Just because they go to Cambridge?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Joan Robinson's pretty famous as a Keynesian, isn't she? Though mind you, she was Oxford.


I love her crushing of the idea of utility. Other contenders today? Only two other famous women economicsts I can think of is the late Elinor Ostrom and Esther Duflo.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> fuck cambridge


"The annexe in the fens"


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)

that lady in the middle / bottom has a fantastic shirt.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

geminisnake said:


> Why? Just because they go to Cambridge?


 

absolutely.


----------



## JimW (Jun 18, 2013)

... because full communism is taking longer than anticipated.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I love her crushing of the idea of utility. Other contenders today? Only two other famous women economicsts I can think of is the late Elinor Ostrom and Esther Duflo.


 
Interesting - got a reference for this crushing of the marginalists?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I love her crushing of the idea of utility. Other contenders today? Only two other famous women economicsts I can think of is the late Elinor Ostrom and Esther Duflo.


 
There's loads, from Ann Pettifor types to Barbara Bergmann, Susan George, Maria Mies, Dalla Costa, Fortunati, Ferderici - to fucking Lagarde...


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

Ayn Rand.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> absolutely.


 
Is everybody who ever went to Cambridge similarly worthless?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting choice of who to ask.


 
A very *obvious* choice, too. Might have had more weight if they'd done some kind of "compare and contrast" with a less privileged section of Cambridge's population.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's loads, from Ann Pettifor types to Barbara Bergmann, Susan George, Maria Mies, Dalla Costa, Fortunati, Ferderici - to fucking Lagarde...


I think we were on about famous economists? As in, know to more people than a few nerds (like us).


Idris2002 said:


> Interesting - got a reference for this crushing of the marginalists?


It's just a quote really, not sure where it's from: "Utility is the quality in commodities that makes individuals want to buy them, and the fact that individuals want to buy commodities shows that they have utility." Utility is a circular concept.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> Perturb is a great word


 
It is.  She has a point, too. People who're perturbed by pit-hair are wasting their perturbationary essences.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I think we were on about famous economists? As in, know to more people than a few nerds (like us).


How many, do you reckon know the two that you mentioned?!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How many, do you reckon know the two that you mentioned?!


Many more than the ones you mentioned  excepting Lagarde.


----------



## rekil (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> forgive me for not giving a shit about what Cambridge students think about anything. Their existence is irrelevant.


PD done had a row with one, or ex-one (do they ever truly leave?), over the appointment of Amol Rajan as Independent editor. 



"Caring deeply about social mobility since 1917" should be a new PD slogan tbf.


----------



## Thora (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I think we were on about famous economists? As in, know to more people than a few nerds (like us).


Surely most people haven't heard of any economists?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

89 Til Infinity said:


> The two girls in the third pic down on the right aren't a fan of Rosa Luxemburg I take it?
> 
> Ohhhhh they mean famous pro capitalist economists.
> 
> I can't think of a better place to ask about how you suffer from inequality than at Cambridge


 
I think they mean "academic economists", rather than "pro-Capitalism economists".
Because everyone knows that forging your economic principles out of actual lived experience is invalid.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Is everybody who ever went to Cambridge similarly worthless?


Don't take it personally


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Thora said:


> Surely most people haven't heard of any economists?


Not true, it's just that they probably don't think of them as economists or that the economists are in fact bankers, politicians or worse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Many more than the ones you mentioned  excepting Lagarde.


 
What on earth makes you think that? I've not heard of either Elinor Ostrom or Esther Duflo.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What on earth makes you think that? I've not heard of either Elinor Ostrom or Esther Duflo.


Really? Genuinely surprised. Ostrom won the Nobel a few years ago, Duflo has been making all kinds of headlines in development economics in particular and economics more generally. I on the other hand hadn't heard of any of the ones you mentioned, except Lagarde.

I suppose it only proves Thora's point.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Not true, it's just that they probably don't think of them as economists or that the economists are in fact bankers, politicians or worse.



They may not present themselves as economists, true. Mainly because they'd be a laughing stock if they did so. Alistair Darling - famous economist


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

Thora said:


> Surely most people haven't heard of any economists?


 

Sshh, the Google intellectuals are talking.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> They may not present themselves as economists, true. Mainly because they'd be a laughing stock if they did so. Alistair Darling - famous economist


Famous eyebrows. I swear I could look at them wiggle for hours.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> Sshh, the Google intellectuals are talking.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A very *obvious* choice, too. Might have had more weight if they'd done some kind of "compare and contrast" with a less privileged section of Cambridge's population.


 
It would be good if they followed this up by doing just that.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

They won't though. 

Because they don't matter.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Really? Genuinely surprised. Ostrom won the Nobel a few years ago, Duflo has been making all kinds of headlines in development economics in particular and economics more generally. I on the other hand hadn't heard of any of the ones you mentioned, except Lagarde.
> 
> I suppose it only proves Thora's point.


 
FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS.

Argle bargle blart blurt.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

editor said:


> It would be good if they followed this up by doing just that.


 

It would be better if they'd done that from the start. Not a Cambridge thing particularly but these type of student projects always seem to be self-referential and insular, which is why they're mostly shit.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS.
> 
> Argle bargle blart blurt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A very *obvious* choice, too. Might have had more weight if they'd done some kind of "compare and contrast" with a less privileged section of Cambridge's population.


 
Exactly what i suggested they do up thread and suggested the Arbury estate in the same town to kick off with.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS.
> 
> Argle bargle blart blurt.


I didn't say a Noble Prize did I? But if you insist I shall henceforth refer to it by its proper name, *Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.*


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> They won't though.
> 
> Because they don't matter.


 


Idris2002 said:


>


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 18, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> that lady in the middle / bottom has a fantastic shirt.


 
Maybe it's just my gender-normative upbringing coming out but the beard suggests to me that this person is in fact a bloke.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly what i suggested they up thread and suggested the Arbury estate in the same town to kick off with.


 
I imagine that this was done by CU students, in which case they would most likely be unaware of the existence of Arbury, and even if they'd heard of it would have no idea how to get there.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> I imagine that this was done by CU students, in which case they would most likely be unaware of the existence of Arbury, and even if they'd heard of it would have no idea how to get there.


 

That's why their opinions matter. So relevant.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> I imagine that this was done by CU students, in which case they would most likely be unaware of the existence of Arbury, and even if they'd heard of it would have no idea how to get there.


Town and gown


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Well, do we know anyone in the town prepared to move it along to the next level?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well, do we know anyone in the town prepared to move it along the next level?


 

Ask Kabbes, he seems to feel quite strongly about this.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 18, 2013)

DrRingDing? I'm sunning myself in glorious Belfast this week.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> Ask Kabbes, he seems to feel quite strongly about this.


 
Strongly about what, now?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Strongly about what, now?


 

_something_

or nothing. I don't even know anymore.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 18, 2013)

you see, you shoulda gone to Cambridge....


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

I used to care about nothing but now I can't be bothered.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

How can we be sure this isn't all some kind of elaborate hoaxing or situationism - for a start how can men be feminists? Isn't that a bit like British people being Ogoni nationalists? 







Perhaps it's been taken too seriously?


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)

and pull your trousers up, you sloppy oik.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A very *obvious* choice, too. Might have had more weight if they'd done some kind of "compare and contrast" with a less privileged section of Cambridge's population.



Compare and contrast would be very interesting. But it is also worthwhile to gauge why even the most privileged people say they need feminism.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How can we be sure this isn't all some kind of elaborate hoaxing or situationism - for a start how can men be feminists? Isn't that a bit like British people being Ogoni nationalists?


 
No, it's a bit like some white people not being racists, or some straight people supporting gay rights.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Compare and contrast would be very interesting. But it is also worthwhile to gauge why even the most privileged people say they need feminism.


 
Or, the assumption might be a) only the privileged can adequately express what feminism is and why they/everyone needs it or b) that only they need feminism.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> Perturb is a great word


Don't go saying it in Keighley.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Compare and contrast would be very interesting. But it is also worthwhile to gauge why even the most privileged people say they need feminism.


 
That's actually why "compare and contrast" is important (IMO), though - to see which views are shared, where views diverge, etc. It *might*, done on a wider scale, provide at least the start of a basis for assessing why 3rd-wave feminism got broken on the rocks of identity politics, and give at least some clue where feminisms might wish to go next.


----------



## 89 Til Infinity (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How can we be sure this isn't all some kind of elaborate hoaxing or situationism - for a start how can men be feminists? Isn't that a bit like British people being Ogoni nationalists?


 


Nope men cant be for gender equality


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> No, it's a bit like some white people not being racists, or some straight people supporting gay rights.


 
That sounds like anti-sexism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly what i suggested they up thread and suggested the Arbury estate in the same town to kick off with.


 
I noticed that when I read down as far as your post.
Probably means we're thought-sharing members of a monothought clique.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I noticed that when I read down as far as your post.
> Probably means we're thought-sharing members of a monothought clique.


 
It's such an obvious point that i spent 10 minutes looking for the 'other half' of the project assuming they were on the case already...with no success of course.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's such an obvious point that i spent 10 minutes looking for the 'other half' of the project assuming they were on the case already...with no success of course.


 
Of course.
Because "the project" is about Cambridge students _per se_, rather than about "feminism". Feminism appears to merely be the hook for seeing how diverse (or how non-diverse) opinion on a subject might be among that demographic.
I'm sure I recall Dub mentioning something about advertising research using similar view-solicitation devices.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

I am not perturbed by female underarm hair, and when I was at college there was an Indian girl in my class whose legs were hairier than mine.


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 18, 2013)

FFS. You can't criticise the message so you criticism the medium. The important thing here, is to ALWAYS CRITICISE.

Here, have this video instead:



Or perhaps you'd be more comfortable once again ignoring the message and complaining that the woman's got a slightly annoying lispy voice?

We ALL need feminism. We should ALL be feminists. THAT'S what's important.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> FFS. You can't criticise the message so you criticism the medium. The important thing here, is to ALWAYS CRITICISE.


 

At what point do you start to ignore glaring faults in favour of just being nice and supportive? And what's the point if you are just nice and supportive about something which isn't very good? Like a project around the need for and personal experiences of feminism which solely involves those in a student bubble at a very privileged university?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

_Always question_ is a pretty good approach i think.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)




----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

Ah well, looking at the above maybe it's for the best that they didn't venture out into the world beyond campus to talk to people.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


>


 
Not sure if that's biting class anger along pointing out the gaps or _my job is safer now_ type stuff.

Anyway, he should be cast into the pit for saying sex. Bastard.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anyway, he should be cast into the pit for saying sex. Bastard.


 

Doesn't he know that all gender is performative? Problematic.


----------



## rekil (Jun 18, 2013)

CIS scum. And old as well.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 18, 2013)

To question it would be to ask who did the study/vox pop and why.

Questioning it would reveal that it was done by students from Cambridges universities feminist societies...

... as a vox pop publicity stunt... and part of a much larger "I need feminism because..." meme.

So not too much to criticise... it seems.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 18, 2013)

Seems like quite an easy idea to replicate in other parts of the country. All you need is a whiteboard and a marker pen. And a camera.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> To question it would be to ask who did the study/vox pop and why.
> 
> Questioning it would reveal that it was done by students from Cambridges universities feminist societies...
> 
> ...


 

If it's framed as just that then it's pointless rather than offensively niche. Again, self-referential and one sided. Wouldn't slate people for doing it, assuming they don't have delusions of grandeur about what they're doing, but it still serves no purpose save for that of self-satisfaction. And it could have been done so much better. Widen the scope outside of uni, talk to surrounding communities, get some possibly more interesting and almost certainly more widely relevant responses and it becomes more than just a side note to amuse a handful of people. As well as creating a link between uni societies and the greater community which could only be good in the long run.

Doing a nice thing and doing a productive thing are completely different tasks. I could care less for nice, if pointless, stuff but productive stuff is, well, productive...


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

I don't see that there is a problem that it is students who were asked. Anyone who wants to can ask any other group if they so wish. No one looking at this is being tricked that it was somehow representative of the whole population at large, it isn't.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 18, 2013)

YouSir said:


> If it's framed as just that then it's pointless rather than offensively niche. Again, self-referential and one sided. Wouldn't slate people for doing it, assuming they don't have delusions of grandeur about what they're doing, but it still serves no purpose save for that of self-satisfaction. And it could have been done so much better. Widen the scope outside of uni, talk to surrounding communities, get some possibly more interesting and almost certainly more widely relevant responses and it becomes more than just a side note to amuse a handful of people. As well as creating a link between uni societies and the greater community which could only be good in the long run.
> 
> Doing a nice thing and doing a productive thing are completely different tasks. I could care less for nice, if pointless, stuff but productive stuff is, well, productive...



I think the idea is for every university and feminist society to do it and then let the idea spread until perhaps other social groups are doing their own versions.

Part of a thing... not a thing in itself.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 18, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Seems like quite an easy idea to replicate in other parts of the country. All you need is a whiteboard and a marker pen. And a camera.



Which I think is the point.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 18, 2013)

On my phone so can't check but it appears from the examples posted on the thread as if no-one needs feminism because children are always the mother's responsibility, or because despite supposedly having equal pay we still have a massive lifetime pay gap, or because women are disproportionately more likely to work in low-paid, part-time, insecure jobs through 'choice' because childcare provision is woefully inadequate. But I suppose that doesn't matter as much as the cis white woman being the definition of beauty.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Underarm hair hating is much more important than lack of child-care, as any fool knows.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

weepiper said:


> On my phone so can't check but it appears from the examples posted on the thread as if no-one needs feminism because children are always the mother's responsibility, or because despite supposedly having equal pay we still have a massive lifetime pay gap, or because women are disproportionately more likely to work in low-paid, part-time, insecure jobs through 'choice' because childcare provision is woefully inadequate. But I suppose that doesn't matter as much as the cis white woman being the definition of beauty.


 
They're barely more than kids themselves, to be fair.  They know nothing of the inequities of employment and childcare.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 18, 2013)

You are looking at people who have gone from private schools to an elite university - they have no idea about any of those things. There are plenty of places in Cambridge where people would share your concerns, but if you dropped the students pictured in them they would never find their way home.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> They're barely more than kids themselves, to be fair. They know nothing of the inequities of employment and childcare.


 
It's not the kids being questioned/criticised and their answers that are really the key here, not what are being questioned, but the possible assumptions made by the makers and the gaps they reveal. Then again, i suppose those gaps do reappear in the answers.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> I think the idea is for every university and feminist society to do it and then let the idea spread until perhaps other social groups are doing their own versions.
> 
> Part of a thing... not a thing in itself.


 

As I said, there's a difference between a nice thing and a productive/useful thing. This is a nice enough thing with no real value to it. Much like a lot of online/meme based stuff, all very nice for the individuals involved but pointless unless it engages beyond those boundaries. And imo students should be trying to do that engaging as they've got the time and energy for it. Plus if it was run by the Feminist Society and it didn't dawn on them to ask women living in more 'normal' communities then that's a sign of their crapness and that does deserve criticising.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

YouSir said:


> As I said, there's a difference between a nice thing and a productive/useful thing. This is a nice enough thing with no real value to it. Much like a lot of online/meme based stuff, all very nice for the individuals involved but pointless unless it engages beyond those boundaries. And imo students should be trying to do that engaging as they've got the time and energy for it. Plus if it was run by the Feminist Society and it didn't dawn on them to ask women living in more 'normal' communities then that's a sign of their crapness and that does deserve criticising.


 
It was a telling/proving exercise as well rather than a listening one. Which may not have gone down to well in Arbury or other areas.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 18, 2013)

YouSir said:


> As I said, there's a difference between a nice thing and a productive/useful thing. This is a nice enough thing with no real value to it. Much like a lot of online/meme based stuff, all very nice for the individuals involved but pointless unless it engages beyond those boundaries. And imo students should be trying to do that engaging as they've got the time and energy for it. Plus if it was run by the Feminist Society and it didn't dawn on them to ask women living in more 'normal' communities then that's a sign of their crapness and that does deserve criticising.


 
You're thinking of this the wrong way up. The idea is to inspire others to do it themselves... and come up with their own answers. The question is always the same.

No one has to do the questioning... or reporting or analysis of answers. Just get a whiteboard a pen and do your own.

This is for do-ers. Not questioners.


----------



## Sue (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Underarm hair hating is much more important than lack of child-care, as any fool knows.


 
Was at a party a few years ago when some young women were discussing the feminist pros and cons of shaving ones legs. When asked what I thought, I said I really didn't care if people shaved their legs or not and that it might be more useful to worry about lack of affordable childcare, the difference in pay between men and women and other things that actually *mattered* to normal people. It did not go down at all well...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)




----------



## likesfish (Jun 18, 2013)

To be brutaly honest a female student at an elite university going on about feminism is a bit meh face it love your in the top 1% of the global population.

Nobodys going to shoot you or chuck acid in your face because you wanted to go to school rather than be sold off as a bride or get pregnant at 15 to get a council flat as thats seen as the height of ambition.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It was a telling/proving exercise as well rather than a listening one. Which may not have gone down to well in Arbury or other areas.


 

Might have been interesting though if nothing else, even if people thought the whiteboard/meme aspect was bollocks and went off on a tangent.



Kizmet said:


> You're thinking of this the wrong way up. The idea is to inspire others to do it themselves... and come up with their own answers. The question is always the same.
> 
> No one has to do the questioning... or reporting or analysis of answers. Just get a whiteboard a pen and do your own.
> 
> This is for do-ers. Not questioners.


 
Not sure I get that. Surely the 'inspiring' and 'doing' in this instance amounted to having a whiteboard and asking people if they wanted to do it? Which, as far as I was talking, is the same as asking the question. What I see is a failure is their limited choice of group to ask, wasn't suggesting that they should be doing in-depth analysis or review of the results (in fact they certainly shouldn't I suspect).


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 18, 2013)

knowyourmeme.com/memes/who-needs-feminism


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 18, 2013)

YouSir said:


> Not sure I get that. Surely the 'inspiring' and 'doing' in this instance amounted to having a whiteboard and asking people if they wanted to do it? Which, as far as I was talking, is the same as asking the question. What I see is a failure is their limited choice of group to ask, wasn't suggesting that they should be doing in-depth analysis or review of the results (in fact they certainly shouldn't I suspect).



Its bigger than just Cambridge university students. The fact is these student did it so effectively and widely that it made the papers....

... which is a good thing.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2013)

Whilst Cambridge students reembrace feminism here is what some non studenty women had to say when interviewed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ws-on-suffrage-street-interviews-8631771.html​


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

Sue said:


> Was at a party a few years ago when some young women were discussing the feminist pros and cons of shaving ones legs. When asked what I thought, I said I really didn't care if people shaved their legs or not and that it might be more useful to worry about lack of affordable childcare, the difference in pay between men and women and other things that actually *mattered* to normal people. It did not go down at all well...


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

It is not "a good thing" for an elite group to use media attention to set the scene for feminism on their own restricted, elitist terms; in some real or imagined misconception that (a) this would be accepted and adopted wholesale by their audience; (b) there's any kind of filter-down effect that isn't diluted/altered by the adverse effect of capitalism; and (c) it's relevant.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> You are looking at people who have gone from private schools to an elite university - they have no idea about any of those things. There are plenty of places in Cambridge where people would share your concerns, but if you dropped the students pictured in them they would never find their way home.


No stereotyping there, then.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

What Cesare said. At work, so sporadic replies.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

editor said:


> No stereotyping there, then.


Perhaps archetyping would be a more apposite description?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jun 18, 2013)

89 Til Infinity said:


> Nope men cant be for gender equality


 

and apparently people from certain universities can't be either


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Miss Caphat said:


> and apparently people from certain universities can't be either


 
Who said any such thing?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jun 18, 2013)

thread speaks for itself


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Miss Caphat said:


> thread speaks for itself


 
You're a better poster than that ffs.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

So someone does something positive, something, not perfect but a voice for good and the main thing people talk about is the messenger, not the message.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

Miss Caphat said:


> thread speaks for itself


 

And what's it saying..?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> So someone does something positive, something, not perfect but a voice for good and the main thing people talk about is the messenger, not the message.


 
Apart from that not really happening, you're spot on.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jun 18, 2013)

YouSir said:


> And what's it saying..?


 


it's saying to me that sometimes people crawl really far up their own asses  
I have to go to work now.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> You are looking at people who have gone from private schools to an elite university - they have no idea about any of those things. There are plenty of places in Cambridge where people would share your concerns, but if you dropped the students pictured in them they would never find their way home.


To be fair the only people I know who went to Cambridge  were at state schools, altho I'm sure they are percentage wise in a minority.


----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> So someone does something positive, something, not perfect but a voice for good and the main thing people talk about is the messenger, not the message.


 

I think most people have been talking about the medium and the failings inherent in that, which may very well relate to the messenger. This whole 'Lefty negativity' thing can get a bit tiring at times. The people who follow up any critical message with a reply like yours are getting more predictable than the ones doing the criticising (which is often well founded).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Miss Caphat said:


> it's saying to me that sometimes people crawl really far up their own asses
> I have to go to work now.


 
Or, that some posters identified a few gaps and assumptions that could so with challenging - and no attacks on the messengers (just the possible assumptions about who the messengers are and must be).


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 18, 2013)

I'm not sure you're realising that it's not just Cambidge University that's done this.

http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/

http://theineedfeminismproject.tumblr.com/

http://wnfmcgill.tumblr.com/

Cambridge are just one example of the meme. I do find the above links a bit depressing because no is talking about the issues weepiper mentions, which I agree desperately need to be highlighted more.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Miss Caphat said:


> thread speaks for itself



Cambridge students do not represent society at large. This is a very similar point to the one I made with you recently (in that example, modern day Greece, and that you similarly got rolleyed with) about being clear about what society you are discussing when making assumptions/drawing conclusions/what should be appropriate for "our society".


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 18, 2013)

YouSir said:


> I think most people have been talking about the medium and the failings inherent in that, which may very well relate to the messenger. This whole 'Lefty negativity' thing can get a bit tiring at times. The people who follow up any critical message with a reply like yours are getting more predictable than the ones doing the criticising (which is often well founded).


 
And this reply to that reply to those posts are getting tiresome. HELP. WE'VE GONE RECURSIVE.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> And this reply to that reply to those posts are getting tiresome. HELP. WE'VE GONE RECURSIVE.


 
How can anyone make criticisms of this elite university led project? I didn't attack it, i suggested an interesting way to expand it and highlighted why it needed to be expanded. This was dismissed as just criticism. What's my options here?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> To be fair the only people I know who went to Cambridge were at state schools, altho I'm sure they are percentage wise in a minority.


 
63.3% of students admitted to Cambridge in Autumn 2012 went to state schools.

36.7% went to private schools.  36.7% is still way higher than the national rate of private school attendance, showing the effect of embedded privilege.  But it also means that, approximately, for every private school kid at Cambridge, there are two state school kids.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> 63.3% of students admitted to Cambridge in Autumn 2012 went to state schools.
> 
> 36.7% went to private schools. 36.7% is still way higher than the national rate of private school attendance, showing the effect of embedded privilege. But it also means that, approximately, for every private school kid at Cambridge, there are two state school kids.


 
Remember what hidden privileges the term "state school" covers though.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> 63.3% of students admitted to Cambridge in Autumn 2012 went to state schools.
> 
> 36.7% went to private schools. 36.7% is still way higher than the national rate of private school attendance, showing the effect of embedded privilege. But it also means that, approximately, for every private school kid at Cambridge, there are two state school kids.


Yes I thought it was something like that, I think the word I was looking for was proportionally; there are still a lot more private educated than per the rest of the population


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You're a better poster than that ffs.



I once said as an anarchist I agreed with some feminist arguments and she took offence at that. As a feminist.


----------



## dolly's gal (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> 63.3% of students admitted to Cambridge in Autumn 2012 went to state schools.
> 
> 36.7% went to private schools. 36.7% is still way higher than the national rate of private school attendance, showing the effect of embedded privilege. But it also means that, approximately, for every private school kid at Cambridge, there are two state school kids.


 

hmmm. what kind of state schools? grammar schools? because grammar schools are not about educational equality, in my opinion


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Remember what hidden privileges the term "state school" covers though.


I know a lad who went to the local high school in Bramley.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Remember what hidden privileges the term "state school" covers though.



And it seems to be UK-domiciled (the survey)


> The proportion of places awarded to students who live in poor areas with a traditionally bad record of taking higher education courses increased from 2.7 to 3.6 per cent;



Although "poor areas" isn't defined either.


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How can anyone make criticisms of this elite university led project? I didn't attack it, i suggested an interesting way to expand it and highlighted why it needed to be expanded. This was dismissed as just criticism. What's my options here?


 
I was referring to Dillinger4's abuse, not yours. He didn't address the message at all, just said "Fuck Cambridge" and that the students are "essentially worthless".

I agree that if something like this is to be useful then it needs to be much, much broader. And it is (slightly), as shown by my above links showing that it's NOT just Cambridge students doing this. Just like you suggested should happen.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> 63.3% of students admitted to Cambridge in Autumn 2012 went to state schools.
> 
> 36.7% went to private schools. 36.7% is still way higher than the national rate of private school attendance, showing the effect of embedded privilege. But it also means that, approximately, for every private school kid at Cambridge, there are two state school kids.


 
However, the proportion of the top 500 (superior school location/inheritance) socially selective state schools within that state school segment is very high.
It is well over the 12.5% of state schools that the 500 (out of 4000) represents.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How can anyone make criticisms of this elite university led project? I didn't attack it, i suggested an interesting way to expand it and highlighted why it needed to be expanded. This was dismissed as just criticism. What's my options here?


 
The OP link seems to be to a blog, it is unclear to me who actually organised it, a lot of people seem from their comments to have "reblogged" it. Yes Uni students seem predominant in the respondents, but anyone can do an exercise like this, perhaps someone else will.

Meanwhile someone I know will, with about 1,000 others, be singing in Bristol on July 6 to raise money for WaterAid to save lives in Ghana and Malawi. I think, as result go, this might be a more worthy enterprise.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> The OP link seems to be to a blog, it is unclear to me who actually organised it, a lot of people seem from their comments to have "reblogged" it. Yes Uni students seem predominant in the respondents, but anyone can do an exercise like this, perhaps someone else will.
> 
> Meanwhile someone I know will, with about 1,000 others, be singing in Bristol on July 6 to raise money for WaterAid to save lives in Ghana and Malawi. I think, as result go, this might be a more worthy enterprise.


You mean the fundraising is more worthy?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You mean the fundraising is more worthy?


Yes, I think so, it will actually save lives.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Remember what hidden privileges the term "state school" covers though.


 
Of course, I don't deny it.

There's some older information  here, indicating that in 2008, 59% of Cambridge students were admitted from state schools and that this included 19% from grammar schools and 23% from comprehensive schools. (I have to admit to an imagination failure at this point -- I don't know what the other 17% in the 59% are from. Other countries possibly?)  19% is clearly a massive overrepresentation of grammar schools -- only about 5% nationally go to grammar schools.

It's not really true to say that a random Cambridge student is a private schoolkid who only knows privilege, though. There is a proportionately much higher level of background privilege and even amongst those from poorer backgrounds, they must have had a strong support network to get them the required grades. But "_You are looking at people who have gone from private schools to an elite university" _is a misrepresentation


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> I'm not sure you're realising that it's not just Cambidge University that's done this.
> 
> http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/
> 
> ...


The first and third links are Duke University which is rated 23 in the World University rankings. It's not clear who/what is running the second link's project.

I mention this only to illustrate that the meme seems to be driven by universities, and on a project basis, and that the audience is fairly self selecting. I'm not disputing that the meme is wider than Cambridge, and I agree that the links are depressing for reasons that weepiper said and you agree with.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> The OP link seems to be to a blog, it is unclear to me who actually organised it, a lot of people seem from their comments to have "reblogged" it. Yes Uni students seem predominant in the respondents, but anyone can do an exercise like this, perhaps someone else will.
> 
> Meanwhile someone I know will, with about 1,000 others, be singing in Bristol on July 6 to raise money for WaterAid to save lives in Ghana and Malawi. I think, as result go, this might be a more worthy enterprise.


 
It was organised by CUSU Women's Campaign and  ARU Feminist Society - as noted in the thread.  Following something similar from another elite university in the US. Thanks for you odd post


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 18, 2013)

There's also a sliding scale in comps themselves of wealth disparity and people look at postcodes and occupation of your parents etc and judge that way.


----------



## dolly's gal (Jun 18, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> There's also a sliding scale in comps themselves of wealth disparity and people look at postcodes and occupation of your parents etc and judge that way.


 

absolutley


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I once said as an anarchist I agreed with some feminist arguments and she took offence at that. As a feminist.


 


kabbes said:


> Of course, I don't deny it.
> 
> There's some older information  here, indicating that in 2008, 59% of Cambridge students were admitted from state schools and that this included 19% from grammar schools and 23% from comprehensive schools. (I have to admit to an imagination failure at this point -- I don't know what the other 17% in the 59% are from. Other countries possibly?) 19% is clearly a massive overrepresentation of grammar schools -- only about 5% nationally go to grammar schools.
> 
> It's not really true to say that a random Cambridge student is a private schoolkid who only knows privilege, though. There is a proportionately much higher level of background privilege and even amongst those from poorer backgrounds, they must have had a strong support network to get them the required grades. But "_You are looking at people who have gone from private schools to an elite university" _is a misrepresentation


 
You need to sort out who you're replying to and which claims they've made Kabbes. The claim you quote as wrong _is nearly half right though  _


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I think so, it will actually save lives.


Just asking cuz your wording as to what was worthy was a bit ambiguous. Of course you're right - securing access to safe, sustainable water supplies for all is a huge task still.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


>


 

Please tell me that "opening the door" is student slang for some filthy act of perversion, because I flipping love the idea of toothless there sharking his way through the student population.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Please tell me that "opening the door" is student slang for some filthy act of perversion, because I flipping love the idea of toothless there sharking his way through the student population.


 
Why have you called him toothless?


----------



## Santino (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The claim you quote as wrong _is nearly half right though  _


That's probably accurate enough for an actuary, actually.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

Yeah, I'm not even sure if I have a point to make, let alone who I am making it to.

I agree that there is a problem with representing the limited imagination of 19 year-old girls (and I used the term advisedly) who, regardless of schooling, have, by the very nature of being in Cambridge, been given high-quality support networks, as if the results of that imagination are representative of the universe of problems that feminism is trying to solve.

I don't think that means you should just say "fuck them" though. For two reasons -- firstly, they will certainly also eventually run into the same problems of workplace discrimination, childcare etc as everybody else and they no more deserve to deal with this inequality as anybody else, despite the fact that they don't currently perceive it. And secondly, these may well include some of the women best placed to drive through changes in the future.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why have you called him toothless?



A toothier grin I never have seen...

Must be all the tireless door opening.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 18, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> To be fair the only people I know who went to Cambridge were at state schools, altho I'm sure they are percentage wise in a minority.


Maintained schools are the majority of admissions actually (although there are far more private school pupils than in the general population). The thing is even in my day some of the maintained schools that were feeding into particular colleges were just as exclusive as the independent ones, and that has become much more pronounced in the meantime. In fact there's a weird snobbery around going to private schools in Cambridge city, in that the intelligentsia areas would send their children to the local primary (local to all the other wealthy academic types), whilst the perception is that the fee-paying ones are for the new-money folks who live out of town. It's become more pronounced in recent years as even senior academics have been feeling the pinch, so it's more likely that the children of professors and so on are more likely to go to the top state schools (which are of course in the top 1% nationally), whilst the private schools are full of the children of people who made their money in real estate.

Of course there are crap parts of the town with crap schools to match, some of them in the bottom 20% of schools in the country. Not many of that lot end up at the city's more famous university however.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, I'm not even sure if I have a point to make, let alone who I am making it to.
> 
> I agree that there is a problem with representing the limited imagination of 19 year-old girls (and I used the term advisedly) who, regardless of schooling, have, by the very nature of being in Cambridge, been given high-quality support networks, as if the results of that imagination are representative of the universe of problems that feminism is trying to solve.
> 
> I don't think that means you should just say "fuck them" though. For two reasons -- firstly, they will certainly also eventually run into the same problems of workplace discrimination, childcare etc as everybody else and they no more deserve to deal with this inequality as anybody else, despite the fact that they don't currently perceive it. And secondly, these may well include some of the women best placed to drive through changes in the future.


I think it's unlikely that they will run into the *same* problems of workplace discrimination in the workplaces they will have access to; and I think it's unlikely that they will drive through future changes that benefit more than their immediate circle/area of influence (ie the middle class) unless they understand and accept that capitalism has as much to do with inequality as patriarchy does, and that it's the joint forces of capitalism and patriarchy that inevitably adversely affects those at the lower end of our society than their privileged (however you quantify it) position.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

QED.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Q.O.RN.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> To be fair the only people I know who went to Cambridge were at state schools, altho I'm sure they are percentage wise in a minority.


 
I remembered this snippet: Five schools ( Four private  - Eton, Westminster, St Paul's Boys and St Paul's Girls - and state-funded Hills Road Sixth Form College in Cambridge sent more pupils to Oxford and Cambridge over three years than nearly 2,000 others combined.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I think it's unlikely that they will run into the *same* problems of workplace discrimination in the workplaces they will have access to; and I think it's unlikely that they will drive through future changes that benefit more than their immediate circle/area of influence (ie the middle class) unless they understand and accept that capitalism has as much to do with inequality as patriarchy does, and that it's the joint force of capitalism and patriarchy that inevitably adversely affects those at the lower end of our society than their privileged (however you quantify it) position.


 
The one thing I would take issue with here is that gender discrimination can be even more pronounced in high-paid workplaces than lower-paid ones.  Financial institutions, to pick just one example, are notorious for destroying the careers of any woman who dares to want a baby.  There is an expectation in many high-paid work environments that you are willing to sacrifice all family for the sake of the job.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I remembered this snippet: Five schools ( Four private - Eton, Westminster, St Paul's Boys and St Paul's Girls - and state-funded Hills Road Sixth Form College in Cambridge sent more pupils to Oxford and Cambridge over three years than nearly 2,000 others combined.


I think they should set quotas from various/all state schools.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

Most people don't work in high paying financial institutions.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> Most people don't work in high paying financial institutions.


 
Right.  Er.  And?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I think they should set quotas from various/all state schools.


 
I think they should shut them down. And all w/c people should refuse to go.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> Most people don't work in high paying financial institutions.


Might be that Oxbridgers are much more likely to tho.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Might be that Oxbridgers are much more likely to tho.


 
Well let's put them at the back of the stack of things to tackle.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think they should shut them down. And all w/c people should refuse to go.


Nah don't shut em down, put em to good use.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 18, 2013)

A lot of Cambridge students come down to earth with a hell of a bump in my experience actually, these days it is not nearly enough to have got a reasonable degree if you don't have sufficient financial and social capital, and the illusion of a level playing field disperses like smoke in the third year when some people with the right background swan off to 50k graduate positions or bank-of-daddy postgraduate study, whilst others end up back in their parent's house or waiting tables, wondering what they did wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Nah don't shut em down, put em to good use.


 
By shutting them down as the institutions that they are. Not by burning them.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> The one thing I would take issue with here is that gender discrimination can be even more pronounced in high-paid workplaces than lower-paid ones.  Financial institutions, to pick just one example, are notorious for destroying the careers of any woman who dares to want a baby.  There is an expectation in many high-paid work environments that you are willing to sacrifice all family for the sake of the job.


I don't dispute that. However, I don't see redressing imbalances at the glass ceiling level as a personal priority; although of course financial institutions (for example) have plenty of people working as tellers, in call centres etc where (I think) it is a priority.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well let's put them at the back of the stack of things to tackle.


PRAISE JEHOVAH I GOT AN ALERT.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

I shall ask my sisters and mum tonight to fill in their version of this leading board. To try and get back on track.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I shall ask my sisters and mum tonight to fill in their version of this leading board. To try and get back on track.


No male relatives?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> No male relatives?


 
Not at my mums house no.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I don't dispute that. However, I don't see redressing imbalances at the glass ceiling level as a personal priority; although of course financial institutions (for example) have plenty of people working as tellers, in call centres etc where (I think) it is a priority.


 
It's not a different problem, though.  The problem is the way that society views women, women's place in the world and the value of what was traditionally women's work.  You don't have to make a special effort to redress it at the glass ceiling level.  It's about a global recognition of the problem and a global approach to dealing with it.  You're never going to get anywhere by restricting the solution to only those jobs paying less than median salary, for example.


----------



## Santino (Jun 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> No male relatives?


All dead, from vendettas.


----------



## dolly's gal (Jun 18, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I think they should set quotas from various/all state schools.


 

that wouldn't help them with their currently extremely lucrative alumni fundraising though


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> It's not a different problem, though. The problem is the way that society views women, women's place in the world and the value of what was traditionally women's work. You don't have to make a special effort to redress it at the glass ceiling level. It's about a global recognition of the problem and a global approach to dealing with it. You're never going to get anywhere by restricting the solution to only those jobs paying less than median salary, for example.


Vanguardism of the upper middle classes?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

trickle down equality


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> It's not a different problem, though. The problem is the way that society views women, women's place in the world and the value of what was traditionally women's work. You don't have to make a special effort to redress it at the glass ceiling level. It's about a global recognition of the problem and a global approach to dealing with it. You're never going to get anywhere by restricting the solution to only those jobs paying less than median salary, for example.


 
You not going to by making it about salaries either though.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Vanguardism of the upper middle classes?


 
No, not at all.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> It's not a different problem, though. The problem is the way that society views women, women's place in the world and the value of what was traditionally women's work. You don't have to make a special effort to redress it at the glass ceiling level. It's about a global recognition of the problem and a global approach to dealing with it. You're never going to get anywhere by restricting the solution to only those jobs paying less than median salary, for example.


 
Always best to start with a global approach if you want to get things done imo


----------



## Santino (Jun 18, 2013)

How can inequality be a problem when the Queen is a woman?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You not going to by making it about salaries either though.


 
If the problems have the same root cause, then tackling the root cause will deal with all the problems at once.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> No, not at all.


A bit though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> If the problems have the same root cause, then tackling the root cause will deal with all the problems at once.


 
Which, you,  don't think is salaries. Or wages.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not at my mums house no.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

What we need is a glocal approach.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> A bit though.


 
In what way?


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> It's not a different problem, though.  The problem is the way that society views women, women's place in the world and the value of what was traditionally women's work.  You don't have to make a special effort to redress it at the glass ceiling level.  It's about a global recognition of the problem and a global approach to dealing with it.  You're never going to get anywhere by restricting the solution to only those jobs paying less than median salary, for example.


It is a different problem because the adverse effects of patriarchy and capitalism have far less purchase on those with greater economic and social capital in the first place. Concentrating efforts on  (a) purely patriarchy; or (b) purely capitalism; and (c) the middle classes in preference to the working class; merely serves to perpetuate inequality.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2013)

If we start with a global approach what will happen if we discover life on another planet? Shouldn't we be thinking slightly bigger?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> It is a different problem because the adverse effects of patriarchy and capitalism have far less purchase on those with greater economic and social capital in the first place. Concentrating efforts on purely (a) patriarchy; or (b) purely capitalism; and (c) the middle classes in preference to the working class; merely serves to perpetuate inequality.


 
Indeed, you can end up with the people on the more direct end politically subsidising the fawcett society and stuff like that.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why have you called him toothless?


 

Because I can't see any teeth in his smile.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which, you, don't think is salaries. Or wages.


 
I think that social inequality, which starts with wage inequality, is the fundamental cause of the vast majority of social problems.  

I think, however, that capitalism and its relentless drive for profit causes a lot more problems than just wage inequality.  Its steamrollering of family life and other social structures being a case in point.  This impacts women -- all women -- in a qualitative way that men are not so affected by.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> In what way?


You say we need the m/c to solve this problem.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

Santino said:


> How can inequality be a problem when the Queen is a woman?


 
How can Rik be dead when we still have his poetry?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You say we need the m/c to solve this problem.


 
Don't think I did, actually.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

If the Queen was a man he'd be King, you dolt Santino.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Don't think I did, actually.





> You're never going to get anywhere by restricting the solution to only those jobs paying less than median salary, for example.


you said. Which in my head reads as "we need to involve the middle-classes here otherwise nothing will happen."


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I think that social inequality, which starts with wage inequality, is the fundamental cause of the vast majority of social problems.
> 
> I think, however, that capitalism and its relentless drive for profit causes a lot more problems than just wage inequality.  Its steamrollering of family life and other social structures being a case in point.  This impacts women -- all women -- in a qualitative way that men are not so affected by.


I don't think social inequality starts with wage inequality, though. I think it's more likely to start with the preference for valuing productive over re-productive labour power.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> you said. Which in my head reads as "we need to involve the middle-classes here otherwise nothing will happen."


 

He's saying that you need to involve all classes in a solution.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> you said. Which in my head reads as "we need to involve the middle-classes here otherwise nothing will happen."


 
Your head is wrong.  It in no way says that.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> He's saying that you need to involve all classes in a solution.


 
I'm saying that as the underlying problem is the same, any solution will, by its nature, address the problems across all classes.  I say nothing about who needs to be involved in that solution.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I think that social inequality, which starts with wage inequality, is the fundamental cause of the vast majority of social problems.
> 
> I think, however, that capitalism and its relentless drive for profit causes a lot more problems than just wage inequality. Its steamrollering of family life and other social structures being a case in point. This impacts women -- all women -- in a qualitative way that men are not so affected by.


 
What produces age inequalities then? It's not wage inequalities themselves. Social inequality is historical as well - it requires more than legislation within the current set up to overcome. Given that the current set up is designed to produce social inequality. 

I note you used the word impacts as you couldn't recall if it was effects or affects you should be using  Of course women may be more effected by a specific change (as men were when we moved from agriculture to industry) but what's your political point from that?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I don't think social inequality starts with wage inequality, though.


 

Surely the two go hand in hand?  It's hard to imagine a state where you can have social equality, with massive difference in wage levels?  Or indeed wage equality, with massively different social status?  Seems unlikely.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

I think a primary driver of inequality is that women bear and as a result often raise children. There is no way around the bearing of children, but men could in the future take more responsibility for the raising of children. What I mean is more men should give up their jobs and careers to raise their own children, while their wives continue in their careers, this is what I did and, while there have been consequences, I have no regrets.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Surely the two go hand in hand?  It's hard to imagine a state where you can have social equality, with massive difference in wage levels?  Or indeed wage equality, with massively different social status?  Seems unlikely.


You're only concentrating on (and have only quoted) half of my point.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Your head is wrong. It in no way says that.


I've got a very boring conference call coming up so I might let this slide


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I'm saying that as the underlying problem is the same, any solution will, by its nature, address the problems across all classes. I say nothing about who needs to be involved in that solution.


 

Damned if I can work out how you can effect a solution to a problem this diverse without involving all people, regardless of class, but hey ho. And thanks to Butchers I had to go and check twice that I did mean effected, not affected.

(and now I've no idea how to abbreviate butchersapron.  Is it butcher's apron, and thus butcher's.  Ah fuck it, I give up)


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What produces age inequalities then? It's not wage inequalities themselves. Social inequality is historical as well - it requires more than legislation within the current set up to overcome. Given that the current set up is designed to produce social inequality.
> 
> I note you used the word impacts as you couldn't recall if it was effects or affects you should be using  Of course women may be more effected by a specific change (as men were when we moved from agriculture to industry) but what's your political point from that?


 

I suppose that my root starting point is that we (and I use "we", but I'm not sure exactly what I mean by it) have allowed a state of affairs in which power and wealth (to the extent that the two are even separate) to pool into the hands of an incredibly small elite.  This elite have managed to direct policy such that a drive towards profit and productivity is seen as the ultimate end in itself -- an assumption that is generally unstated and accepted without question.  As part of this policy, we have created structures that have automatic feedback mechanisms to funnel power and wealth ever more towards the powerful and wealthy, and these mechanisms by their nature involve turning human beings into both consumers and producers of exploitable value.  The by-product of these mechanisms include aspects such as wholesale gender discrimination.  

There are various ways that this could be smashed.  To my mind, a good start would be to question the idea that increasing profit and productivity is a goal rather than a tool.  A lot of the structures that are critically dependent on these assumptions would then be laid bare for what they are.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I'm saying that as the underlying problem is the same, any solution will, by its nature, address the problems across all classes.  I say nothing about who needs to be involved in that solution.



I disagree, because the problems arising from the underlying problems (jointly, patriarchy and capitalism) manifest differently and with different intensity across the classes. Therefore applying the same (or any) solution throughout all classes won't necessarily be equally effective.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I suppose that my root starting point is that we (and I use "we", but I'm not sure exactly what I mean by it) have allowed a state of affairs in which power and wealth (to the extent that the two are even separate) to pool into the hands of an incredibly small elite. This elite have managed to direct policy such that a drive towards profit and productivity is seen as the ultimate end in itself -- an assumption that is generally unstated and accepted without question. As part of this policy, we have created structures that have automatic feedback mechanisms to funnel power and wealth ever more towards the powerful and wealthy, and these mechanisms by their nature involve turning human beings into both consumers and producers of exploitable value. The by-product of these mechanisms include aspects such as wholesale gender discrimination.
> 
> There are various ways that this could be smashed. To my mind, a good start would be to question the idea that increasing profit and productivity is a goal rather than a tool. A lot of the structures that are critically dependent on these assumptions would then be laid bare for what they are.


 
Everyone knows what they are mate. It's not that power with makes them so effective. It's having to work for them. No one likes this stuff, every person on this thread just cheered when the clock went past 4. They don't need telling. They have no illusions in profit and productivity.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

Bringing it back to the start, though: an intelligent girl who has been lucky enough to enjoy the privileges required to get to Cambridge may, at 19, not understand the nature of the underlying social forces that are working both with her and against her.  But she never will understand those forces unless she thinks about them, and a good start may be to get her to write what she thinks feminism is about on a whiteboard.  There are many years to come that may allow her to refine her thoughts on the matter, but we all have to start somewhere.

It's not like at 19 I had a clue.  I had also enjoyed a privileged background (state comprehensive, maybe, but one that had produced a succession of Cambridge students).  But at least I was _interested_.  The answers I would have given to questions at the time would have been staggeringly naive, but it was trying to answer those questions that led to further understanding.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Bringing it back to the start, though: an intelligent girl who has been lucky enough to enjoy the privileges required to get to Cambridge may, at 19, not understand the nature of the underlying social forces that are working both with her and against her. But she never will understand those forces unless she thinks about them, and a good start may be to get her to write what she thinks feminism is about on a whiteboard. There are many years to come that may allow her to refine her thoughts on the matter, but we all have to start somewhere.
> 
> It's not like at 19 I had a clue. I had also enjoyed a privileged background (state comprehensive, maybe, but one that had produced a succession of Cambridge students). But at least I was _interested_. The answers I would have given to questions at the time would have been staggeringly naive, but it was trying to answer those questions that led to further understanding.


 
Who is on about the answers given in the boards though? Weepiper noted the gaps and a few others noted the gaps in the wider project. No one is really attacking the people who responded or saying their political development is over.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I note you used the word impacts as you couldn't recall if it was effects or affects you should be using  Of course women may be more *effected[/] by a specific change..*


*

affected.

To be affected by ... change.
To effect a ... change. 

/pedant *


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who is on about the answers given in the boards though? Weepiper noted the gaps and a few others noted the gaps in the wider project. No one is really attacking the people who responded or saying their political development is over.


 
Dillinger's response was, in short, "fuck them".  I may think that the blog itself is surface-deep and of no great political significance, but I can't bring myself to agree with "fuck them".


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Riklet said:


> affected.
> 
> To be affected by ... change.
> To effect a ... change.
> ...


 
Almost like i didn't give a shit


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

Impacts.  It solves many problems.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Dillinger's response was, in short, "fuck them". I may think that the blog itself is surface-deep and of no great political significance, but I can't bring myself to agree with "fuck them".


 
And which posts were you replying to?

I think fuck 'em too. For going to Cambridge - until they show themselves not half-class traitors and people who are on the right side.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

I can't remember what posts I was replying to.  Half the time I just like to hear the sound of my own fingers typing.   You all then get the benefit of my Great Thoughts.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Dillinger's response was, in short, "fuck them".  I may think that the blog itself is surface-deep and of no great political significance, but I can't bring myself to agree with "fuck them".


All this debate cos Dilly said "fuck them"


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> All this debate cos Dilly said "fuck them"


 
Well, who can abide rudeness?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> All this debate cos Dilly said "fuck them"


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And which posts were you replying to?
> 
> I think fuck 'em too. For going to Cambridge - until they show themselves not half-class traitors and people who are on the right side.


Why fuck em?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Why fuck em?


 
For going to Cambridge.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Well, who can abide rudeness?



NOSD


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> For going to Cambridge.


Nah.
Altho my friend applied and didn't like it when they had the open  day.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

I went there once. Didn't like it.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

I was the rudest about Cambridge, tbf, and no-one pulled me up on it.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

How dare you etc.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> I went there once. Didn't like it.


Oxford is a nicer town to visit or live in.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

I went to a few lectures at Oxford about alternative energy and green architecture; they were really interesting and the venue was incredible (hundreds of years of history literally soaked into the walls) but I kept my mouth shut unless I was spoken too because I felt very self conscious. Not something I'd do now (keep quiet).

Oxford's beautiful too, I wanted to live there and went for a few interviews.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> How dare you etc.


I think I got away with it by not using any non-u swear words


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Oxford is a nicer town to visit or live in.


 

I have never been to Oxford. Cambridge put me right off. Some posh bloke was rude to me about boats. And then I wasn't allowed on the grass, students only. Disgusting.


----------



## dolly's gal (Jun 18, 2013)

i applied to do PPE at oxford. to be fair i totally flunked the interviews because the sixth form college i went to didn't prep me for them to within an inch of my life, or at all really. thank fucking god i didn't get in


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

dolly's gal said:


> i applied to do PPE at oxford. to be fair i totally flunked the interviews because the sixth form college i went to didn't prep me for them to within an inch of my life, or at all really. thank fucking god i didn't get in


They should have made you watch that Richard Griffiths film first.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> I have never been to Oxford. Cambridge put me right off. Some posh bloke was rude to me about boats. And then I wasn't allowed on the grass, students only. Disgusting.


I have lived there (nothing to do with university) it is town and gown divide there. There are at least colleges in Oxford open to the public (to be fair so there is in Cambridge, at least we visited something there). The impression I get of Cambridge is, there isn't much  going on apart from the uni. That's not the same in Oxford. There's more to it.


----------



## dolly's gal (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> They should have made you watch that Richard Griffiths film first.


 

which one?


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

dolly's gal said:


> i applied to do PPE at oxford. to be fair i totally flunked the interviews because the sixth form college i went to didn't prep me for them to within an inch of my life, or at all really. thank fucking god i didn't get in


 
I went to an open day at Warwick because I had an unconditional offer, and within twenty minutes of being there I wanted to leave. There was students there who actually had leather satchels and scarves with the university colours. My parents both said, "not sure this is the place for you, son"


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> I went to a few lectures at Oxford about alternative energy and green architecture; they were really interesting and the venue was incredible (hundreds of years of history literally soaked into the walls) but I kept my mouth shut unless I was spoken too because I felt very self conscious. Not something I'd do now (keep quiet).
> 
> Oxford's beautiful too, I wanted to live there and went for a few interviews.


Oh yeah they all pretend not to understand us northerners 
One creative  writing  teacher I had asked me about something I had been commissioned to do, and "if it was in dialect". Could hardly keep a straight face.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2013)

dolly's gal said:


> which one?


 

the one about the paedo


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

dolly's gal said:


> which one?


The History Boys


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 18, 2013)

Cambridge is great. The cost of a roof over your head is mental and the city council seem intent on wrecking the place, but there's loads of good stuff here.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Jun 18, 2013)

I was there when the students were taking the photographs. The spot they chose was just outside Kings College on Kings Parade - a public place. They seemed to be approaching anyone who was interested, irrespective of whether they looked like a tourist, a student or (as in my case) a local. I agree it would be interesting to see what the results of a similar exercise would be if they based themselves outside the Grafton Centre by Burleugh street, or on Mill Road (the eastern end) or Arbury court.


----------



## coley (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> For going to Cambridge.



TBF, who in their right mind would refuse the start in life that Cambridge et al offers?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

coley said:


> TBF, who in their right mind would refuse the start in life that Cambridge et al offers?


 
It is to laugh.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

coley said:


> TBF, who in their right mind would refuse the start in life that Cambridge et al offers?


 
Feminist, socialists. communists, anarchists.


----------



## coley (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Feminist, socialists. communists, anarchists.



So none of the above ever had a good university education?


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

coley said:


> TBF, who in their right mind would refuse the start in life that Cambridge et al offers?


 

Not Cambridge but as I said above, I had an offer from Warwick. I turned it down and went to an ex polytech because I knew it wasn't for me, I'd probably have done the same if I was offered a place at Cambridge. 3 years of your life is a long time to be miserable and I imagine there's a big divide between us and them on campus.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

coley said:


> So none of the above ever had a good university education?


 
Why did you say that? What made you type that out?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 18, 2013)

coley said:


> So none of the above ever had a good university education?


 

Assuming that OxBridge is the only place to get a good education kinda proves his point. The benefits they offer aren't necessarily to do with actually learning stuff of being good at things. That said I know someone who went to Oxford and I wouldn't hold it against them.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> Not Cambridge but as I said above, I had an offer from Warwick. I turned it down and went to and polytech because I knew it wasn't for me, I'd probably have done the same if I was offered a place at Cambridge. 3 years of your life is a long time to be miserable and I imagine there's a big divide between us and them on campus.


I felt the same about  SOAS. The course might have been good but it was the cost of everything in London. Plus, they just didn't seem very friendly at all.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

LSE/UCL is where it's at


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> LSE/UCL is where it's at


 

LSE turned me down for a job once, so they are dead to me now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> Not Cambridge but as I said above, I had an offer from Warwick. I turned it down and went to and polytech because I knew it wasn't for me, I'd probably have done the same if I was offered a place at Cambridge. 3 years of your life is a long time to be miserable and I imagine there's a big divide between us and them on campus.


 
You went to a poly? Did you really? _Shush -  the Google-fake-pasters are talking._


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

Well it wasn't a poly when I was there, obviously. But well done on noticing I missed out a word, I bet that felt great. 



_angel_ said:


> I felt the same about SOAS. The course might have been good but it was the cost of everything in London. Plus, they just didn't seem very friendly at all.


 

Exactly, going to uni is a big commitment and it has to feel 'right' any niggling doubts or fears have the potential to blow up into bigger things.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Feminist, socialists. communists, anarchists.



Soooo... you're saying that the women in those photos can't be feminists?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Soooo... you're saying that the women in those photos can't be feminists?


 
No. What on earth gave you that idea?


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

Haha I just noticed your edit, god, are your feelings still hurt? Get TruXta to kiss them better if you can pull his lips off your arsehole for a moment.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

coley said:


> TBF, who in their right mind would refuse the start in life that Cambridge et al offers?


I always imagined that it would be a potentially toxic environment & also not for the likes of me. As I become older and learn more about it, I think my teenage adverse reaction to pressure to attempt was in retrospect, justified. I don't know how many people would even reastically contemplate it/view it as any sort of kind of realistic option at all - very few, I suspect. But of those where it's an actual option, I think far more people deselect for social and/or political and/or economic reasons than those that go ahead.


----------



## coley (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why did you say that? What made you type that out?



In reply to your statement #244


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I always imagined that it would be a potentially toxic environment & also not for the likes of me. As I become older and learn more about it, I think my teenage adverse reaction to pressure to attempt was in retrospect, justified. I don't know how many people would even reastically contemplate it/view it as any sort of kind of realistic option at all - very few, I suspect. But of those where it's an actual option, I think far more people deselect for social and/or political and/or economic reasons than those that go ahead.


 

What was it you were going to study if you don't mind emasking?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2013)

These days it might be better if we introduced some sort of correspondence course based on the old Soviet system and give the universities to the homeless


----------



## scifisam (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No. What on earth gave you that idea?



You said feminists would turn down Cambridge.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I always imagined that it would be a potentially toxic environment & also not for the likes of me. As I become older and learn more about it, I think my teenage adverse reaction to pressure to attempt was in retrospect, justified. I don't know how many people would even reastically contemplate it/view it as any sort of kind of realistic option at all - very few, I suspect. But of those where it's an actual option, I think far more people deselect for social and/or political and/or economic reasons than those that go ahead.


This is more or less what my friend thought, too. Also she was outraged she couldn't take a frying pan into the halls of residence. Which was quite  funny.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> You said feminists would turn down Cambridge.


 
No i didn't. I was asked what sort of people might boycott  cambridge. Did i say all feminists must turn down cambridge?


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> What was it you were going to study if you don't mind emasking?


When I first went to comp I wanted to be a doctor/something medical. Just one term at subsequent grammar put me off (a) science; and (b) academic studies. So I confined my attention to textiles and graphic design until I was threatened with expulsion for attending an interview at an art college. Then I decided to leave school entirely.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> Haha I just noticed your edit, god, are your feelings still hurt? Get TruXta to kiss them better if you can pull his lips off your arsehole for a moment.


 
So what poly was it? You'd have been what - 10 - at the time of the last polys.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

Are you drunk already?


----------



## coley (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> Not Cambridge but as I said above, I had an offer from Warwick. I turned it down and went to an ex polytech because I knew it wasn't for me, I'd probably have done the same if I was offered a place at Cambridge. 3 years of your life is a long time to be miserable and I imagine there's a big divide between us and them on campus.


Aye, but the sooner there are more of us than them "on campus"  the sooner the equality gap will start to close, aye wishful thinking, I know.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> Well it wasn't a poly when I was there, obviously.


 
I Don't even know why I am bothering to entertain you.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> When I first went to comp I wanted to be a doctor/something medical. Just one term at subsequent grammar put me off (a) science; and (b) academic studies. So I confined my attention to textiles and graphic design until I was threatened with expulsion for attending an interview at an art college. Then I decided to leave school entirely.


 

AFter I left school I didn't want to go back into education again - a common feeling I reckon.





_angel_ said:


> This is more or less what my friend thought, too. Also she was outraged she couldn't take a frying pan into the halls of residence. Which was quite funny.


 
Smoke alarms?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

If you want a scrap, Firky, you'll have to wait until I'm back from the table tennis. Meanwhile, have a nice fresh fuck you.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> AFter I left school I didn't want to go back into education again - a common feeling I reckon.


I left that particular school early, but I carried on with education for about 10 years in aggregate, at night school.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No i didn't. I was asked what sort of people might boycott  cambridge. Did i say all feminists must turn down cambridge?



You were asked who would (not might) refuse Cambridge and included feminists among your answers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> You were asked who would (not might) refuse Cambridge and included feminists among your answers.


 
I was asked:



> TBF, who in their right mind would refuse the start in life that Cambridge et al offers?


 
and gave a list of people who might. What is the problem with this. People refuse to do things for political reasons. They boycott things for political reasons. It doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't isn't part of that group. Are you _really_ going to insist that i don't think any of the people in the stunt are feminists?


----------



## weepiper (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I always imagined that it would be a potentially toxic environment & also not for the likes of me. As I become older and learn more about it, I think my teenage adverse reaction to pressure to attempt was in retrospect, justified. I don't know how many people would even reastically contemplate it/view it as any sort of kind of realistic option at all - very few, I suspect. But of those where it's an actual option, I think far more people deselect for social and/or political and/or economic reasons than those that go ahead.


 
I was told I should apply for Oxford/Cambridge because I was predicted to get 5 As in my Highers. I thought about it but my gut reaction was 'Jesus no I'm not like them' and I did think I would spend the whole three years miserable and feeling like a sore thumb. Also realistically there's no way I'd have been able to afford it. So I didn't apply in the end. As it was I went to Edinburgh instead because it meant I didn't have to worry about paying rent and could get a part-time job easily. I came out with a good degree which has been sod all use and I still work in a shop. Would things have been different if I'd gone to Cambridge? I don't think so to be honest.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

weepiper said:


> I was told I should apply for Oxford/Cambridge because I was predicted to get 5 As in my Highers. I thought about it but my gut reaction was 'Jesus no I'm not like them' and I did think I would spend the whole three years miserable and feeling like a sore thumb. Also realistically there's no way I'd have been able to afford it. So I didn't apply in the end. As it was I went to Edinburgh instead because it meant I didn't have to worry about paying rent and could get a part-time job easily. I came out with a good degree which has been sod all use and I still work in a shop. Would things have been different if I'd gone to Cambridge? I don't think so to be honest.


I didn't go to university at all for similar reasons. I think things might have turned out differently for me if I had (bearing in mind that people of my age would have had more of a headstart by going to university than people in the last couple of decades have) but on balance I'm OK with the decisions I made back then even though I ended up in a Faustian pact with retail corporates


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

I went to Cambridge, had a bloody brilliant time and made life-long friends with other state school and foreign kids.

Since we're sharing, like.  Suck on that.


----------



## xenon (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I always imagined that it would be a potentially toxic environment & also not for the likes of me. As I become older and learn more about it, I think my teenage adverse reaction to pressure to attempt was in retrospect, justified. I don't know how many people would even reastically contemplate it/view it as any sort of kind of realistic option at all - very few, I suspect. But of those where it's an actual option, I think far more people deselect for social and/or political and/or economic reasons than those that go ahead.



My sister, who uses a wheelchair, went to Oxford for an interview post A-Levels. Said she found the place very stuffy but what really put her off was when one of the interviewers said in relation to her hired assistance. The university would have to be involved in choosing them because they couldn't just have anyone going there...

Needless to say she didn't go to Oxford, despite having the points.

I'm a few years older than her. I didn't even bothered applying to Oxford / Cainbridge. Partly due to thinking it not for me but also as I didn't think I'd get the grades anyway. (As it transpired I did but had other ideas by then.)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I went to Cambridge, had a bloody brilliant time and made life-long friends with other state school and foreign kids.
> 
> Since we're sharing, like. Suck on that.


 
All of you now failures.


----------



## xenon (Jun 18, 2013)

IIRC you didn't need five A's AKA 50 points to get into Oxford in the mid 90's. Not for what I was looking at anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Seriously, 18 is a big  boy/girl age.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I went to Cambridge, had a bloody brilliant time and made life-long friends with other state school and foreign kids.
> 
> Since we're sharing, like. Suck on that.


 

And what is your family background? 'State school' doesn't mean you're the same as me. And while we're at it, stick your 'suck on that' up your arse, Mr well-off actuary with a big house and lots of disposable income.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 18, 2013)

Seriously, 'I went to Cambridge and had a bloody brilliant time, suck on that' in the context of the previous few posts? Fuck you, kabbes.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Seriously, 'I went to Cambridge and had a bloody brilliant time, suck on that' in the context of the previous few posts? Fuck you, kabbes.


 

I think he was taking the piss (presumed he didnt really go but now I am having second thoughrs).


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Would things have been different if I'd gone to Cambridge?


 
Yep.

That`s the UK for you.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> I think he was taking the piss (presumed he didnt really go but now I am having second thoughrs).


I did go, but I was taking the piss out of all of this sudden sharing of 18 year-old life experiences.

As it happens, Cambridge was a great place if you didn't have much money, as I did not.  Accommodation was heavily subsidised -- I lived I an amazing place for less than £1000 a year.  Food was subsidised too -- I had three-course meals most nights for £2.60.  It wasn't all boaty wankers and Eton toffs (just 50% boaty wankers and Eton toffs).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> FFS. You can't criticise the message so you criticism the medium. The important thing here, is to ALWAYS CRITICISE.
> 
> Here, have this video instead:
> 
> ...




The message isn't amenable to criticism. It's a perfectly reasonable set of presented views.
The medium *is* amenable to criticism , though, because the medium places limits on how the message might be regarded more widely.

Don't you think it's rather childish to compare critiquing a medium that might limit the dispersal of an important message, with criticising someone with a lisp?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jun 18, 2013)

likesfish said:


> To be brutaly honest a female student at an elite university going on about feminism is a bit meh face it love your in the top 1% of the global population.
> 
> Nobodys going to shoot you or chuck acid in your face because you wanted to go to school rather than be sold off as a bride or get pregnant at 15 to get a council flat as thats seen as the height of ambition.


 

Ok, but here's the thing, neither will most of us. Do you not think we seem elite and privileged to women in those circumstances? I can see both sides of this, however people in glass houses, etc., is the side that wins out for me.
Do you really think a child prostitute in Calcutta would notice much of a difference between an Oxford student and any one of us? Let's be honest with ourselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I don't see that there is a problem that it is students who were asked. Anyone who wants to can ask any other group if they so wish. No one looking at this is being tricked that it was somehow representative of the whole population at large, it isn't.


 
You see no problem because (as you've demonstrated tirelessly over many years) you've little grasp of class.
And no-one is claiming that anyone's being tricked or misled, they're claiming that you won't get a balanced perspective if your sample comprises members of an elite, with no other samples to compare that to/seek correlations with and divergences from.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cambridge students do not represent society at large. This is a very similar point to the one I made with you recently (in that example, modern day Greece, and that you similarly got rolleyed with) about being clear about what society you are discussing when making assumptions/drawing conclusions/what should be appropriate for "our society".


 

see my above post


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

xenon said:


> My sister, who uses a wheelchair, went to Oxford for an interview post A-Levels. Said she found the place very stuffy but what really put her off was when one of the interviewers said in relation to her hired assistance. The university would have to be involved in choosing them because they couldn't just have anyone going there...
> 
> Needless to say she didn't go to Oxford, despite having the points.
> 
> I'm a few years older than her. I didn't even bothered applying to Oxford / Cainbridge. Partly due to thinking it not for me but also as I didn't think I'd get the grades anyway. (As it transpired I did but had other ideas by then.)


Were the conditions to their disability accessility policy as widely publicised as the fact of having an accessibility policy, I wonder.

Btw, I just had a quick look at the Oxford website and it seems that term-time working is still prohibited and vacation working discouraged - another set of economic limiters right there: http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/ugcurrent/managingyourfinances/working/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Underarm hair hating is much more important than lack of child-care, as any fool knows.


 
The East Germans had things right: No hang-ups about underarm hair, and widespread provision of free childcare.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 18, 2013)

*fem·i·nism  *

/ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Noun
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Is the above still a relevant definition of feminism in 21st century Britain or have things moved on nowadays?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> You are looking at people who have gone from private schools to an elite university - they have no idea about any of those things. There are plenty of places in Cambridge where people would share your concerns, but if you dropped the students pictured in them they would never find their way home.


 
To be fair, a *majority* of them will have gone to private scholls/not have a fucking Scooby, but a minority of them *will* have a clue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> *fem·i·nism *
> 
> /ˈfeməˌnizəm/
> Noun
> ...


 
Note how the pronunciation of "feminism" almost says "feminazim"? 

Is the OED trying to tell us something?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It was a telling/proving exercise as well rather than a listening one. Which may not have gone down to well in Arbury or other areas.


 
Condescension rarely does.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

weepiper said:


> And what is your family background? 'State school' doesn't mean you're the same as me. And while we're at it, stick your 'suck on that' up your arse, Mr well-off actuary with a big house and lots of disposable income.


 
My background isn't hard to understand, really.  All four grandparents were immigrants who came over with absolutely nothing.  Parents grew up in predictably poor circumstances, but in the 1950s-70s, just at just the moment when the wealth gap was closing at the only point in its history, when it was still possible to leave school and get apprenticeships and jobs.  

I was born in 76, when they were 19 and 20 years old.  When I was very young, we really had nothing -- my dad used to regularly miss meals so that we could eat -- but our situation improved rapidly during the 80s.  My mum started a social studies degree at what genuinely still was the local polytechnic when I was about 7.  When she learnt about entrenched privilege, she decided that if she couldn't beat it, her kids would join it.  From that point onward, she was determined that her kids would go to Cambridge.  That's what I grew up with -- their cast iron determination, and I never questioned it.  

From my early teenagehood, the most important thing to me was to get a job that would mean I had no money worries.  I wanted to do maths because that would get me the "best job", although I didn't know what that meant.  At university, I found a career that would give me the best wage I could and I moved straight into it as soon as I graduated.

Kids are the product of their environment, and I am very much the product of mine.  I didn't really make an actual life choice myself until I was in my mid-20s.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

Well I went to a Polytechnic, when they were Polytechnics.

I had to wait a year because they were over subscribed so I had a gap year. It was a 4yr thick sandwich course (no sniggering) with a year in employment which I found in Redditch. I got a 2:1 and on the back of that found a job and the beginnings of a career quite easily. Someone recently reviewing my CV saw "Polytechnic" and suggested I put "University" to look better. My understanding is that Polys were vocational while Universities for academia. I was never an academic child, a Poly suited me much better.


----------



## xenon (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Were the conditions to their disability accessility policy as widely publicised as the fact of having an accessibility policy, I wonder.
> 
> Btw, I just had a quick look at the Oxford website and it seems that term-time working is still prohibited and vacation working discouraged - another set of economic limiters right there: http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/ugcurrent/managingyourfinances/working/



I can't honestly say how they publicized any such policy back then, if they had one.  



Term-time employment is not permitted except under exceptional circumstances and in consultation with your Tutor and the Senior Tutor. If you hold a student visa, make sure you understand the limitations on working. All undergraduates are reminded that academic work is expected of them in every vacation, and it should take priority over other commitments. Undergraduates should consult their Tutors before undertaking such work."

FFS. That rules out most of the people I went to university with down here. Even some of the ones with moderately middle class backgrounds might have had their rent paid but still needed to work for food.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The East Germans had things right: No hang-ups about underarm hair


 
I don`t know about hang-ups, but they certainly didn`t have any underarm hair.  The women that is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Santino said:


> How can inequality be a problem when the Queen is a woman?


 
How dare you write such filth about our lizard monarch?


----------



## 1%er (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Note how the pronunciation of "feminism" almost says "feminazim"?
> 
> Is the OED trying to tell us something?


Its the lizards, I'm sure they had something to do with it

But you didn't answer my question  I read a lot about feminism here so I'd like to know if its moved on and encompasses other areas of discrimination and prejudice?


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

xenon said:


> I can't honestly say how they publicized any such policy back then, if they had one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They seem to have relaxed the rule on the all out prohibition on vacation working; I don't know when that happened. But this is another reason why they can confidently state more open access to people that come from a state school background yet still economically determine that it will mostly only be comparatively wealthy state school background people that are able to go there, now that the days of full grants have gone.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You see no problem because (as you've demonstrated tirelessly over many years) you've little grasp of class.
> And no-one is claiming that anyone's being tricked or misled, they're claiming that you won't get a balanced perspective if your sample comprises members of an elite, with no other samples to compare that to/seek correlations with and divergences from.


 
I don't know that I have demonstrated anything of the kind, I loathe class and the very concept of class, I strongly dislike people who stick to their born class or exclude people who are not of the same class, whichever class that is.

Personally I may have abandoned my born class, I had a firmly middle middle class upbringing but if I now find myself in a gathering of middle middle class people I am at sea and uncomfortable, I can more easily mix with a gathering of bikers, a collection of photographers or a barbeque of immigrant Turkish families.

And I don't expect this group of students, and others, came from one cohesive class so the point is irrelevant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Little grasp of class. Demonstrated.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Jun 18, 2013)

Look what this chap did http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cam...stem-at-Cambridge-May-Ball-20130618113232.htm at a recent May Ball - in today's local paper.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> Cambridge is great. The cost of a roof over your head is mental and the city council seem intent on wrecking the place, but there's loads of good stuff here.


 
Too many webfoots for my liking.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Well I went to a Polytechnic, when they were Polytechnics.
> 
> <snip>Someone recently reviewing my CV saw "Polytechnic" and suggested I put "University" to look better. My understanding is that Polys were vocational while Universities for academia. I was never an academic child, a Poly suited me much better.


With regard to modern languages, Polytechnics were for those who were going to work with their languages, while universities were more aimed at those who intended to teach that language's literature.  Either path was equally academically demanding, but in different ways.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 18, 2013)

Prince Rhyus said:


> Look what this chap did http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cam...stem-at-Cambridge-May-Ball-20130618113232.htm at a recent May Ball - in today's local paper.


 
Here's another odd Oxbridge tradition - the trashing with flour that takes place after the end of examinations by friends from other subjects.

It's not done in ordinary clothes or overalls, but in the gown uniforms which are used for Exams and Balls and receptions, so the rich students buy at least two sets of blazers.






It's like the burning of 50 pound notes and pouring champagne at St Andrews


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Little grasp of class. Demonstrated.


There is a class which is social, the idea that class is only capitalists and wage slaves may be one that you prefer but it is not the only concept that exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

Prince Rhyus said:


> Look what this chap did http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cam...stem-at-Cambridge-May-Ball-20130618113232.htm at a recent May Ball - in today's local paper.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> There is a class which is social, the idea that class is only capitalists and wage slaves may be one that you prefer but it is not the only concept that exists.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class


 

That's the one you just linked to, though.  It is obviously more complex.  Read the page.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> With regard to modern languages, Polytechnics were for those who were going to work with their languages, while universities were more aimed at those who intended to teach that language's literature. Either path was equally academically demanding, but in different ways.


 
Oh, I didn't know that.

I am not at all sure calling the former Polytechnics Universities was a useful change. Now there are numerous universities to chose from and perhaps the choice is less clear cut.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> They seem to have relaxed the rule on the all out prohibition on vacation working; I don't know when that happened. But this is another reason why they can confidently state more open access to people that come from a state school background yet still economically determine that it will mostly only be comparatively wealthy state school background people that are able to go there, now that the days of full grants have gone.


My sis got told she shouldn't be working when she was at Sheffield uni doing engineering, which is full on, people need to eat tho!


----------



## Diamond (Jun 18, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> forgive me for not giving a shit about what Cambridge students think about anything. Their existence is irrelevant.


 
This is patently not true.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

Riklet said:


> That's the one you just linked to, though. It is obviously more complex. Read the page.


I have read the page!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> My sis got told she shouldn't be working when she was at Sheffield uni doing engineering, which is full on, people need to eat tho!


some people need to eat rather more than others: that is, some people deserve to eat rather more than others. perhaps female sheffield engineering students rather more than sexist pigs.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> <snip> am not at all sure calling the former Polytechnics Universities was a useful change.<snip>


 
I agree with you - some polytechnics were far more respected for the quality of their graduates than the same town's university, teaching the same core subject (just with different subsidiaries and a different bias). You should have heard us sniggering when we (everyone I knew in my subject groups) all turned up at the start of the final year to be told that Liverpool Polytechnic was henceforth to be provisionally known on all paperwork as "The Liverpool University" (within spitting distance of Liverpool University itself). It didn't take long for the university up the road to veto that, so the poly ended up as John Moores.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> Its the lizards, I'm sure they had something to do with it
> 
> But you didn't answer my question  I read a lot about feminism here so I'd like to know if its moved on and encompasses other areas of discrimination and prejudice?


 
It certainly tries to, but there's a tension between feminism that aim for inclusivity, and those that take the intersectional approach that elevates being the subject of intersecting modes of oppression to ultimate victimhood, and ignores that all victims of oppression are...victims of oppression.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> I agree with you - some polytechnics were far more respected for the quality of their graduates than the same town's university, teaching the same core subject (just with different subsidiaries and a different bias). You should have heard us sniggering when we (everyone I knew in my subject groups) all turned up at the start of the final year to be told that Liverpool Polytechnic was henceforth to be provisionally known on all paperwork as "The Liverpool University" (within spitting distance of Liverpool University itself). It didn't take long for the university up the road to veto that, so the poly ended up as John Moores.


manchester poly always had a very good reputation for economics...


----------



## Riklet (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I have read the page!


 

What does "there is a class which is social" mean?

How does this differ from the idea that this "social" class is an unequal one.  And it's an unequal one because there is a capitalist ruling class and various levels of exploitation lead to this inequality.  

Are there not rich people and poor people? Who owns Amazon and who cleans the toilets? What does this show, people living a social experience... _equally_?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Diamond said:


> This is patently not true.


Because you're a perturbed lawyer? Or because the argument is a little complex for you? Our agenda should not be set be Cambridge students.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because you're a perturbed lawyer? Or because the argument is a little complex for you? Our agenda should not be set be Cambridge students.


you can see from british comedy what happens when you let cambridge students set the agenda.


----------



## JHE (Jun 18, 2013)

Prince Rhyus said:


> Look what this chap did http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cam...stem-at-Cambridge-May-Ball-20130618113232.htm at a recent May Ball - in today's local paper.


 

Are we supposed to see this an example of posh people's foolishness?  It seems to me to be just the sort of unfortunate accident that happens at piss-ups all the time - whether the piss-ups are posh, plebeian, middling, right-wing, left-wing, feminist, anti-feminist, with champers or cheap cider, real ale, real lager, really don't give a shit as long as it gets you pissed...


----------



## xenon (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> They seem to have relaxed the rule on the all out prohibition on vacation working; I don't know when that happened. But this is another reason why they can confidently state more open access to people that come from a state school background yet still economically determine that it will mostly only be comparatively wealthy state school background people that are able to go there, now that the days of full grants have gone.



Yep. And unless you were aware of their policy re work (I wasn't) you might blithely assume it's perhaps nebulous subjective attitudes keeping working class kids out of these places. Not that those aren't often powerful enough of themselves, (e.g. my sister's feeling about the place.) But hard barriers such as simply not being financially able to sustain yourself, even after taking the max loans for fees.

Sorry longwinded way of saying I agree.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I don't know that I have demonstrated anything of the kind, I loathe class and the very concept of class, I strongly dislike people who stick to their born class or exclude people who are not of the same class, whichever class that is.
> 
> Personally I may have abandoned my born class, I had a firmly middle middle class upbringing but if I now find myself in a gathering of middle middle class people I am at sea and uncomfortable, I can more easily mix with a gathering of bikers, a collection of photographers or a barbeque of immigrant Turkish families.


 
As I said, you've little grasp of class. Possibly because your class gifted you with a few more open doors than your working-class contemporaries.  It's easy to loathe something you don't understand.



> And I don't expect this group of students, and others, came from one cohesive class so the point is irrelevant.


 
No-one has claimed that these students came from "one cohesive class", they claimed that a majority of them came from privileged backgrounds.  That the majority came from such backgrounds is entirely-relevant, because it indicates that their understanding of feminism is likely to be confined to those manifestations of sexism that might occur to someone of that class. This why butchersapron and others all made points about the fact that the original sample would return one-dimensional results.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

JHE said:


> Are we supposed to see this an example of posh people's foolishness? It seems to me to be just the sort of unfortunate accident that happens at piss-ups all the time - whether the piss-ups are posh, plebeian, middling, right-wing, left-wing, feminist, anti-feminist, with champers or cheap cider, real ale, real lager, really don't give a shit as long as it gets you pissed...


few people not drinking wine will impale themselves on a wine glass.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

JHE said:


> Are we supposed to see this an example of posh people's foolishness? It seems to me to be just the sort of unfortunate accident that happens at piss-ups all the time - whether the piss-ups are posh, plebeian, middling, right-wing, left-wing, feminist, anti-feminist, with champers or cheap cider, real ale, real lager, really don't give a shit as long as it gets you pissed...


 

It warmed the cockles of my heart to see Jonty with shard of glass through his foot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> It warmed the cockles of my heart to see Jonty with shard of glass through his foot.


i wasn't so pleased. i thought, if he wants stigmata then he needs the other foot and both hands done too. not to mention some gaping wound in his chest.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

Riklet said:


> What does "there is a class which is social" mean?


Upper middle and lower are not Marxist concept, I used the words social class to refer to them.



Riklet said:


> How does this differ from the idea that this "social" class is an unequal one. And it's an unequal one because there is a capitalist ruling class and various levels of exploitation lead to this inequality.


 
People are not equal. This is not news.

Someone implied, I forget who, that they disliked the Cambridge residents who wrote their ideas on feminism on their tablets. They implied there was a class issue. I don't necessarily agree with that, just because you reside in Cambridge and may be a student does not definitely mean that you will emerge as a member of the ruling class, or a capitalist.



Riklet said:


> Are there not rich people and poor people? Who owns Amazon and who cleans the toilets? What does this show, people living a social experience... _equally_?


 
I don't know the background of the chap that owns Amazon, perhaps he came from privilege, perhaps he didn't. Maybe you can enlighten me.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

JHE said:


> Are we supposed to see this an example of posh people's foolishness? It seems to me to be just the sort of unfortunate accident that happens at piss-ups all the time<snip>


 
The point is that if you need to worry about your chance of getting a job (because none of your relatives know the right people to pull a few strings for you) and you haven't got much left after paying for the essential, you might still choose to act raucously and get bladdered, but you end up having to be a lot more circumspect about it than somebody with more money and better contacts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I don't know the background of the chap that owns Amazon, perhaps he came from privilege, perhaps he didn't. Maybe you can enlighten me.


www.google.co.uk


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> The point is that if you need to worry about your chance of getting a job (because none of your relatives know the right people to pull a few strings for you) and you haven't got much left after paying for the essential, you might still choose to act raucously and get bladdered, but you end up having to be a lot more circumspect about it than somebody with more money and better contacts.


Plus the cost of just the tickets was £150 a pop.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> I agree with you - some polytechnics were far more respected for the quality of their graduates than the same town's university, teaching the same core subject (just with different subsidiaries and a different bias). You should have heard us sniggering when we (everyone I knew in my subject groups) all turned up at the start of the final year to be told that Liverpool Polytechnic was henceforth to be provisionally known on all paperwork as "The Liverpool University" (within spitting distance of Liverpool University itself). It didn't take long for the university up the road to veto that, so the poly ended up as John Moores.





Heh my ex went there. Think I did more of his course reading than he did!
I found the polys I applied to wanted higher grades than the unis on the whole.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Upper middle and lower are not Marxist concept, I used the words social class to refer to them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read the link, the one that says they only asked students. Do you ever read any links or posts? And nothing like that was implied.


----------



## JHE (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> The point is that if you need to worry about your chance of getting a job (because none of your relatives know the right people to pull a few strings for you) and you haven't got much left after paying for the essential, you might still choose to act raucously and get bladdered, but you end up having to be a lot more circumspect about it than somebody with more money and better contacts.


 

You don't see much circumspection in the centre of Nottingham on a Friday or Saturday night.  The casualty departments, overflowing with injured drunks, don't indicate great circumspection either.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Upper middle and lower are not Marxist concept, I used the words social class to refer to them.


 What?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

JHE said:


> You don't see much circumspection in the centre of Nottingham on a Friday or Saturday night. The casualty departments, overflowing with injured drunks, don't indicate great circumspection either.


do you have 'frequent fuck-up' status when you attend? as opposed to 'frequent flyer'...


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said, you've little grasp of class. Possibly because your class gifted you with a few more open doors than your working-class contemporaries. It's easy to loathe something you don't understand.


I would just take issue with the idea that I don't understand it. If anyone would prefer a classless society, it is me.



ViolentPanda said:


> No-one has claimed that these students came from "one cohesive class", they claimed that a majority of them came from privileged backgrounds. That the majority came from such backgrounds is entirely-relevant, because it indicates that their understanding of feminism is likely to be confined to those manifestations of sexism that might occur to someone of that class. This why butchersapron and others all made points about the fact that the original sample would return one-dimensional results.


 
But so what, the survey - if you can call it that - was done where it was done, it is what it is, there is no need to hate the participants because they may have had privileged backgrounds which may be debateable anyhow. The respondents have their point of view and that is what their utterances would likely display. It does not seem a difficult or rigorous survey, anyone could do it in any community with a few chalk boards and a camera! But these would be no more or less valid than this one.

Incidentally VP, first you say "No-one has claimed that these students came from "one cohesive class", then you go on to say "a majority of them came from privileged backgrounds" but after denying that class is the issue you return to it at the end of your post with "that might occur to someone of that class".

Is it about privilege or class VP?


----------



## coley (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I was asked:
> 
> 
> 
> and gave a list of people who might. What is the problem with this. People refuse to do things for political reasons. They boycott things for political reasons. It doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't isn't part of that group. Are you _really_ going to insist that i don't think any of the people in the stunt are feminists?



Not insisting anything, I think you may have your replies mixed up?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

Nope. It wasn't you insisting. It was Sam.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I would just take issue with the idea that I don't understand it. If anyone would prefer a classless society, it is me.


 
Just so long as you realise that this is impossible in a capitalist society.  It's baked into the whole way a capitalist society operates.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> www.google.co.uk


Thanks Pickman's but as I didn't originally bring up Bezos I don't think it is down to me to research him.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Upper middle and lower are not Marxist concept, I used the words social class to refer to them.


 
They can be.




> People are not equal. This is not news.
> 
> Someone implied, I forget who, that they disliked the Cambridge residents who wrote their ideas on feminism on their tablets. They implied there was a class issue. I don't necessarily agree with that, just because you reside in Cambridge and may be a student does not definitely mean that you will emerge as a member of the ruling class, or a capitalist.


 

Don't you think that a "class issue" might mean something else than all of these students going on to run international companies? If they do, or if they don't, i'd say..... class issues were the reason, personally!



> I don't know the background of the chap that owns Amazon, perhaps he came from privilege, perhaps he didn't. Maybe you can enlighten me.


 

Yeah, i'm sure it's a tale of hard work and rags to riches, scrimp and save, earned his way there, went to a grammar school blah blah. I don't really care enough to look it up. The fact is he no longer lives a life of the kind of day to day restrictions that face most people.

So what is he, a normal "average joe" done good? Who does he have more in common with, another average joe or the CEO of a FTSE100 company? That's class relations really.

I've seen you debate enough about this before and got health issues at the mo' so no more replies from me about this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I would just take issue with the idea that I don't understand it. If anyone would prefer a classless society, it is me.


 
If you understood class, you'd know that a classless society is impossible under capitalism. Our economic system *requires* a class division in order to function and to perpetuate itself.
That, by the way, isn't Marxism, it's a rational assessment of capitalism.



> But so what, the survey - if you can call it that - was done where it was done, it is what it is, there is no need to hate the participants because they may have had privileged backgrounds which may be debateable anyhow.


 
I don't hate them. Who hates them?



> The respondents have their point of view and that is what their utterances would likely display. It does not seem a difficult or rigorous survey, anyone could do it in any community with a few chalk boards and a camera! But these would be no more or less valid than this one.


 
And here class again rears its head. Do you believe that such an exercise, conducted in, say, a working-class community in Luton, would have attracted the publicity that carrying it out in the part of cambridge it was done in has done?



> Incidentally VP, first you say "No-one has claimed that these students came from "one cohesive class", then you go on to say "a majority of them came from privileged backgrounds" but after denying that class is the issue you return to it at the end of your post with "that might occur to someone of that class".
> 
> Is it about privilege or class VP?


 
The two are indivisible in this situation. Class position dictates degree of access to privilege.
Allow me to explain a little something. If one talks in terms of cohesive classes, then we have three - what Marx called the ruling classes, the _bourgeoisie_/middle-classes and the proletariat/ Speaking in such terms is sometimes a blunt instrument, so theorists post-Marx, such as Weber, developed the idea that those three classes could be viewed as each having strata or layers.
That's how I can say they're not members of a cohesive class, and still make the statement about "that class" - because they're from different strata, so "not cohesive", but from the same two overarching classes that the majority of Oxbridgers are: The ruling classes and the _bourgeoisie_.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> ........
> And here class again rears its head. Do you believe that such an exercise, conducted in, say, a working-class community in Luton, would have attracted the publicity that carrying it out in the part of cambridge it was done in has done?
> .......


 
As far as I can see this exercise has had some exposure in the blog-osphere but not much anywhere else. And it is a pretty unwieldy thing to promote in any media that is not visual so I don't expect much exposure in the main stream printed press.

Anyhow yes, I would think a similar exercise in Luton, perhaps with the results posted on facebook, might be even more popular.     Why not, do feminist issues not apply to ordinary people too?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

Riklet said:


> .......
> I've seen you debate enough about this before and got health issues at the mo' so no more replies from me about this.


Sorry to hear about the health issues, hope you are better soon.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope. It wasn't you insisting. It was Sam.



Because I made the mistake of going on what you actually wrote, forgetting that you always expect people on here to read your mind. I'm out of here. (I think that means there's only one woman left who's not given up on this thread).


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Because I made the mistake of going on what you actually wrote, forgetting that you always expect people on here to read your mind. I'm out of here. (I think that means there's only one woman left who's not given up on this thread).


Which women have given up on this thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Because I made the mistake of going on what you actually wrote, forgetting that you always expect people on here to read your mind. I'm out of here. (I think that means there's only one woman left who's not given up on this thread).


You made the mistake of misreading what I said. I even clarified. Don't do this. And don't suggest that me being forced to respond to your misreading has chased all female posters off the thread. That's a disgrace.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Just so long as you realise that this is impossible in a capitalist society. It's baked into the whole way a capitalist society operates.


I do accept capitalism has a greasy pole and that some are born already up it and others, but just a tiny minority, manage to climb it.

But even in other systems there are elites, in the USSR was there not a ruling elite? certainly in the DDR there were normal people with Trabbants and ordinary apartments, and their rulers who travelled by Zil motorcades and had weekend country lodges. And in China, no perhaps that is not a good example.

I am not sure there are any easy ways to rid us of class but I do support pressure groups such as unions to reduce the total difference between the have's and the have nots.

I am hoping to read a sci-fi book by Ian (M) Banks apparently about a future, in which I believe there is no scarcity, no money, machines I think do the work and humans live lives largely of leisure. I hope it will be a good read.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You made the mistake of misreading what I said. I even clarified. Don't do this. And don't suggest that me being forced to respond to your misreading has chased all female posters off the thread. That's a disgrace.



I never said you've chased all female posters on the thread. Just me. That's nothing to do with feminism though.

cesare: haven't you noticed that there were several women at the start of the thread and there aren't now? But I honestly don't want to participate any more, so that's that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> I never said you've chased all female posters on the thread. Just me. That's nothing to do with feminism though.
> 
> cesare: haven't you noticed that there were several women at the start of the thread and there aren't now? But I honestly don't want to participate any more, so that's that.


 
No, you _suggested_ it. Another misreading of what i said. This one is far more deliberate.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Which women have given up on this thread?


 

I know of one poster who's taken a break from here as from today but I don't think it is because of this thread but a combination of things.


----------



## Santino (Jun 18, 2013)

mrsfran would be here but I've sent her and the kids away until the dust settles.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> I know of one poster who's taken a break from here as from today but I don't think it is because of this thread but a combination of things.



Yes.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> I never said you've chased all female posters on the thread. Just me. That's nothing to do with feminism though.
> 
> cesare: haven't you noticed that there were several women at the start of the thread and there aren't now? But I honestly don't want to participate any more, so that's that.


I've noticed that several women have been posting at different times throughout the thread. I've seen nothing to suggest that there's only one woman left - which is what you claimed - and I've seen nothing to suggest that women have stopped posting because of what butcher's has posted which I accept you didn't directly say, but you were replying to specifically to him so that's a fairly straightforward inference to draw.


----------



## Sue (Jun 18, 2013)

Erm, I'm still here though was off for a bit doing other things. Not posting as haven't really got anything to say at the mo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

scifisam said:


> I never said you've chased all female posters on the thread. Just me. That's nothing to do with feminism though.
> 
> cesare: haven't you noticed that there were several women at the start of the thread and there aren't now? But I honestly don't want to participate any more, so that's that.


There's a blessing


----------



## Al Kriegen (Jun 18, 2013)

Everyone wins!


----------



## seventh bullet (Jun 18, 2013)

weltweit said:


> But even in other systems there are elites, in the USSR was there not a ruling elite? certainly in the DDR there were normal people with Trabbants and ordinary apartments, and their rulers who travelled by Zil motorcades and had weekend country lodges. And in China, no perhaps that is not a good example.


 
SOCIALISM saw some nice-looking cars made for the little people, though. The GAZ-21.

ETA:


----------



## coley (Jun 19, 2013)

If the apocalypse happened tomorrow the zombies would have a class system in place within six months, but like all good survivors of upheavals,they would have a system of removing anyone,who recognised the burgeoning emergence of such a system,removed within three months.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 19, 2013)

coley said:


> If the apocalypse happened tomorrow the zombies would have a class system in place within six months<snip>


 
It's funny that you should say that, because it reminded me of something I'd come across recently.  "How to be an awesome zombie " is a not terribly serious book which lays out exactly how to become one of the ruling zombies (instead of one of the ones who either fall apart too quickly or fall victim to one of the remaining humans), come the zombie apocalypse.


----------



## coley (Jun 19, 2013)

Greebo said:


> It's funny that you should say that, because it reminded me of something I'd come across recently.  "How to be an awesome zombie " is a not terribly serious book which lays out exactly how to become one of the >>>ruling zombies <<<<(instead of one of the ones who either fall apart too quickly or fall victim to one of the remaining humans), come the zombie apocalypse.


Very simple, stab your zombie brother and bribe the zombie unions


----------



## Diamond (Jun 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because you're a perturbed lawyer? Or because the argument is a little complex for you? Our agenda should not be set be Cambridge students.


 
No, principally, because it is clearly factually incorrect.

Or let me spell it out for you manifestly - the argument that Cambridge students are distinctly irrelevant is categorically wrong.

Understood?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

why is it hard to understand that a memeish voxpop with some very privileged young women on the matter of feminism raises backs amongst w/c feminists? 

It's not to do it down is it. it is the irritation of 'yes I live it day in day out. You are at fucking cambridge. Do me a favour'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How can we be sure this isn't all some kind of elaborate hoaxing or situationism - for a start how can men be feminists? Isn't that a bit like British people being Ogoni nationalists?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm sorry but the chap on the left is just doing everything wrong here. Sunglasses on head, beady 'ethnic' chokers and wristbands, tie-dye t shirt, improperly fastened trousers and white underpants on an adult man. I bet if his shoes were in the shot, they'd be awful too.

As for the chap on the right, I really don't think toucans are native to Venice. And his choice of friends leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 19, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm sorry but the chap on the left is just doing everything wrong here. Sunglasses on head, beady 'ethnic' chokers and wristbands, tie-dye t shirt, improperly fastened trousers and white underpants on an adult man. I bet if his shoes were in the shot, they'd be awful too.
> 
> As for the chap on the right, I really don't think toucans are native to Venice. And his choice of friends leaves a lot to be desired.


 

SpookyGokWan speaks.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> There's a blessing


nice


----------



## Al Kriegen (Jun 19, 2013)

By him?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

Ahhh. It is a bit satisfying watching cambridge alumni being po-faced because of a throwaway comment on the internet saying 'fuck cambridge' and saying that their opinions are worthless. 

I was only joking when I said that. But I also mean it as well. Seriously. Fuck Cambridge. The opinions of those students are pointless and irrelevant. They live in a world so rarefied that whatever they say about feminism or just about anything else is absolutely meaningless to the rest of the world.

Sure, you can have a discussion about the glass ceiling and wage equality. But people I know are struggling to feed themselves from week to week, and its getting harder. There are not many jobs, and the ones that do exist are absolutely rubbish, especially for single mums, things like zero hour contracts for care work, or agency work where they can be fired at any time. And this entire area is deeply sexist. The problems of sexism here are not about not getting a promotion in a financial institution, they are about big men who like their rugby and their beer and are frustrated in life and take it out on their girlfriends. That is the sharp end of sexism. 

So I stand by what I said. Fuck Cambridge. And the more offended and po-faced all of you ex Cambridge students become, trying to defend your importance and relevance, the more satisfied I will be.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> why is it hard to understand that a memeish voxpop with some very privileged young women on the matter of feminism raises backs amongst w/c feminists?
> 
> It's not to do it down is it. it is the irritation of 'yes I live it day in day out. You are at fucking cambridge. Do me a favour'


 

Exactly.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> Ahhh. It is a bit satisfying watching cambridge alumni being po-faced because of a throwaway comment on the internet saying 'fuck cambridge' and saying that their opinions are worthless.
> 
> I was only joking when I said that. But I also mean it as well. Seriously. Fuck Cambridge. The opinions of those students are pointless and irrelevant. They live in a world so rarefied that whatever they say about feminism or just about anything else is absolutely meaningless to the rest of the world.
> 
> ...


 
Who is offended?


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Who is offended?


I thought you were, when you wrote #276


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> I thought you were, when you wrote #276


 
Why?


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Why?



Because of the "sucks to you" part.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> Because of the "sucks to you" part.


 
That was clearly a joke. The post was in the spirit of puncturing the bubble of "When I were a lad we had to walk 10 miles up hill both ways" posts that had developed over the previous page.  My antidote was, "it was brilliant!"

Ironically, I am a bit offended that you thought I was offended, so maybe Dilly wins after all.


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

In a very real sense, aren't we all Cambridge alumni?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> That was clearly a joke. The post was in the spirit of puncturing the bubble of *"When I were a lad we had to walk 10 miles up hill both ways" posts* that had developed over the previous page.


 

don't do this, i usually like you.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

Santino said:


> In a very real sense, aren't we all Cambridge alumni?


 
No, most people very really aren't.  Only the best people.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

Santino said:


> In a very real sense, aren't we all Cambridge alumni?


 

we are all neil kinnock, falling into the sea.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> don't do this, i usually like you.


 
I found it deeply disappointing that people had already put themselves into a box of saying that they wouldn't like the place before even trying it.  They had classified it as being for people _not like them_.  That _needed_ puncturing.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I found it deeply disappointing that people had already put themselves into a box of saying that they wouldn't like the place before even trying it. They had classified it as being for people _not like them_. That _needed_ puncturing.


 

why? 

by the way i've done quite a bit of work for oxford university. for what it's worth, i didn't apply to oxford or cambridge, looked round oxford uni once, hated it. i don't like the idea of oxford and cambridge, elite institutions which are above everything else. why do we need elite institutions like this?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

that sort of thing should be available to everyone, not just a privileged few with fancy garb and dinner halls and that.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> why?
> 
> by the way i've done quite a bit of work for oxford university. for what it's worth, i didn't apply to oxford or cambridge, looked round oxford uni once, hated it. i don't like the idea of oxford and cambridge, elite institutions which are above everything else. why do we need elite institutions like this?


 
Whilst the elite institutions exist, why do we not need normal people to go to them?


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> That was clearly a joke. The post was in the spirit of puncturing the bubble of "When I were a lad we had to walk 10 miles up hill both ways" posts that had developed over the previous page.  My antidote was, "it was brilliant!"
> 
> Ironically, I am a bit offended that you thought I was offended, so maybe Dilly wins after all.


It wasn't clearly a joke. The experiences that people were sharing were real ones, and valid. They weren't anything like the way that you're now seeking to present them in order to justify the "sucks to you" element of what you wrote. Why should you take it upon yourself to provide an antidote - your antidote to counter everyday experiences - with a comment that's so _superior_ unless you were offended? Or at least that was what I was asking myself when I was itching to reply in kind, but deciding not to on the basis that it might have been a comment borne out of being offended yourself.

And now you say that you weren't offended, but were doing something along the lines of countering the Hovis ad bubble. That's even worse.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

perhaps i'm not explaining myself very well but it's the whole _idea_ of oxford and cambridge that's wrong


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> that sort of thing should be available to everyone, not just a privileged few with fancy garb and dinner halls and that.


 
See, it's interesting that you focus on fancy garb and dinner halls.

My experience was that it was _considerably_ cheaper for me to attend Cambridge than it was for my friends to attend other universities.  Those dinner halls cost £2.60 for a three course meal, and you could get it 7 days a week.  Accommodation -- really good accommodation -- cost £30 per week and you only needed to rent it for 30 weeks per year.  Meanwhile, my friends were paying a fortune to hire private houses in other cities.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> that sort of thing should be available to everyone, not just a privileged few with fancy garb and dinner halls and that.



To everyone or no one?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> See, it's interesting that you focus on fancy garb and dinner halls.
> 
> My experience was that it was _considerably_ cheaper for me to attend Cambridge than it was for my friends to attend other universities. Those dinner halls cost £2.60 for a three course meal, and you could get it 7 days a week. Accommodation -- really good accommodation -- cost £30 per week and you only needed to rent it for 30 weeks per year. Meanwhile, my friends were paying a fortune to hire private houses in other cities.


 

fair enough but it's also everything else, it's the entrance procedures, the fact that to go to cambridge you've got to be seen as "something special", it's the fact that by going to cambridge you therefore get doors opened to you that wouldn't elsewhere.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> It wasn't clearly a joke. The experiences that people were sharing were real ones, and valid. They weren't anything like the way that you're now seeking to present them in order to justify the "sucks to you" element of what you wrote. Why should you take it upon yourself to provide an antidote - your antidote to counter everyday experiences - with a comment that's so _superior_ unless you were offended? Or at least that was what I was asking myself when I was itching to reply in kind, but deciding not to on the basis that it might have been a comment borne out of being offended yourself.
> 
> And now you say that you weren't offended, but were doing something along the lines of countering the Hovis ad bubble. That's even worse.


 
People saying that it wasn't for the likes of them were effectively saying that it wasn't for the likes of me either.  I thought it worth pointing out that was wrong, although maybe the tone in which I did it didn't come across very well, for which I apologise.  I was trying to keep it lighthearted, but I obviously failed.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> fair enough but it's also everything else, it's the entrance procedures, the fact that to go to cambridge you've got to be seen as "something special", it's the fact that by going to cambridge you therefore get doors opened to you that wouldn't elsewhere.


 
doors opened to cheaper meals


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> fair enough but it's also everything else, it's the entrance procedures, the fact that to go to cambridge you've got to be seen as "something special", it's the fact that by going to cambridge you therefore get doors opened to you that wouldn't elsewhere.


 
The institutions aren't going to stop existing just because normal people don't go to them.  Instead, that will just mean that the opportunities remain in the hands of those already rich and powerful.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

my old uni actually outperformed oxford and cambridge in a couple of subjects, yet it doesn't carry nearly the same prestige as those institutions do. the "name" of oxford and cambridge is seen as important, the whole idea that a third from oxford or cambridge is worth more than a first from other uni's for example (let alone somebody who didn't go to uni) 

im not having a go at you, i'm just saying that those institutions are a way for privilege to be entrenched, even if some of the people going to them are not from privileged backgrounds.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

If you are talking about a need to reform all our power structures, I'm right there with you.

In the meantime, I don't see why we should allow the powerful to play their games unhindered by the oiks.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 19, 2013)

Deep entryism


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

i've done quite a lot of work for oxford university in some form over the years. i agree that not everyone going to oxford is some sort of toff, however that will become increasingly the case, as tuition fees are hoiked up and any sort of higher education becomes increasingly out of bounds. oxford university own much of the property in oxford and they are able to get planning permission for developments that adversely affect the lives of people living there. 

among the upper and upper middle classes overseas there is frequently a huge amount of emphasis placed on an "english education" places like oxford and cambridge are a training ground for a future elite, even if not everyone who goes there becomes part of that elite.


----------



## Limejuice (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> The institutions aren't going to stop existing just because normal people don't go to them. Instead, that will just mean that the opportunities remain in the hands of those already rich and powerful.


This year 63% of student intake was from state schools.

I can't guarantee that any of them were normal though.

ETA: 63% of Cambridge University's intake...


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

Limejuice said:


> This year 63% of student intake was from state schools.
> 
> I can't guarantee that any of them were normal though.


 

well that statistic can hide more than it says, there are a lot of state schools which are possibly even more prestigious and exclusive than some of the private schools - selective schools in Buckinghamshire and a few other counties which still have the 11+ for example.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> well that statistic can hide more than it says, there are a lot of state schools which are possibly even more prestigious and exclusive than some of the private schools - selective schools in Buckinghamshire and a few other counties which still have the 11+ for example.


 
Yes, there is no doubt that the institutions are problematic for the way that they allow the powerful to send their kids there to entrench their power.  I don't think we're going to win by simply leaving them to it though.  We should be encouraging all schools to view it as an option, whereas they are more likely to tell their kids to not even bother.

The kabbess' brother was the first kid ever from his school to go to Cambridge.  The kabbess was told by her maths teacher not even to bother applying (particularly because she was a girl, but that's another story), and that only one kid from the school had ever gone there.  She had to point out that yes, that was her brother.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

It's shit but do you not see that having an elite institution disadvantages everyone else? There's nothing wrong with having an education and going to uni, but I think oxford and cambridge are quite different to other universities.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> People saying that it wasn't for the likes of them were effectively saying that it wasn't for the likes of me either. I thought it worth pointing out that was wrong, although maybe the tone in which I did it didn't come across very well, for which I apologise. I was trying to keep it lighthearted, but I obviously failed.


So you *were* offended.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It's shit but do you not see that having an elite institution disadvantages everyone else? There's nothing wrong with having an education and going to uni, but I think oxford and cambridge are quite different to other universities.


 
Yes, I do see that.

Do you not see that until such a time as we manage to dismantle those institutions comes about, having elite institutions that everybody lets the elite get on with unencumbered disadvantages everyone else even more?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> So you *were* offended.


 
Do I have to be offended in order to think that somebody is wrong?


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Do I have to be offended in order to think that somebody is wrong?


You don't have to be. But if you choose to tell a number of people that they are wrong by way of a "sucks to you" _joke_ then subsequently explain that that everyday experiences sound like something out of a Hovis ad that _needs_ puncturing, then explain that what was actually going on was that the people saying that it wasn't for the likes of them were effectively saying that it wasn't for the likes of you either (now we come down to it) then apologising for the tone rather than what you actually did - yes, that sounds like offence to me.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the whole idea that a third from oxford or cambridge is worth more than a first from other uni's for example (let alone somebody who didn't go to uni)


 
If people really think that they're  seriously wrong!


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> You don't have to be. But if you choose to tell a number of people that they are wrong by way of a "sucks to you" _joke_ then subsequently explain that that everyday experiences sound like something out of a Hovis ad that _needs_ puncturing, then explain that what was actually going on was that the people saying that it wasn't for the likes of them were effectively saying that it wasn't for the likes of you either (now we come down to it) then apologising for the tone rather than what you actually did - yes, that sounds like offence to me.


 
And the fact that I say I wasn't offended is meaningless to you?  I don't get to make that decision for myself?


----------



## YouSir (Jun 19, 2013)

I have one friend who went to Oxford and they've just finished. Socially they definitely had a sense of being the 'other' which I think she found quite hard although she did find some good people. Interested to see what she does next. She was talking about job hunting the other day and she's very optimistic, applied for lots of jobs at the uni. I just wonder how well that'll work, she has quite an obscure degree and none of the contacts that those around her seem to have access to. Strong suspicion that reality will hit at some point and her path will diverge from her classmates as they go on to top jobs. 

Comparing her experience to mine at a not very good university there's no way I'd swap. Mine had a good social life, a genuine mix of people and felt like it was in the real world, not an isolated bubble. The privilege of the name isn't worth the cost on other fronts, plus the notion of playing on some percieved 'elite' status in life is pretty repulsive. Would have been nice if my uni had the same teaching levels and resources though.

Also once had an Oxford and Cambridge graduate as a lecturer who stereotyped half the class within half an hour and told me I didn't deserve to be there. Could tell that as good as her education was it was divorced from reality. Not sure how long she lasted on her quest to help the deserving poor.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> And the fact that I say I wasn't offended is meaningless to you? I don't get to make that decision for myself?


Life is full of offence - it means nothing, because what offends one person doesn't offend another. If you're telling me that you aren't and weren't offended; that you just think people are wrong and deliberately chose a privilege-based put down to demonstrate that, then that's obviously entirely a matter for you but I think it's worse.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> Life is full of offence - it means nothing, because what offends one person doesn't offend another. If you're telling me that you aren't and weren't offended; that you just think people are wrong and deliberately chose a privilege-based put down to demonstrate that, then that's obviously entirely a matter for you but I think it's worse.


 
I wasn't offended.  I was trying to make my point in a jokey manner.  Clearly, I got the tone very wrong -- something easily done in text (I was typing on a mobile phone at the time, which makes it even easier to misjudge your words IME).  I can only apologise if, in turn, others were offended at the manner in which I responded.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Yes, there is no doubt that the institutions are problematic for the way that they allow the powerful to send their kids there to entrench their power. I don't think we're going to win by simply leaving them to it though. We should be encouraging all schools to view it as an option, whereas they are more likely to tell their kids to not even bother.


 
Where does this end though? Should we be encouraging primary school teachers to view grammar schools and private school scholarships as an option (for bright but poor pupils)?

Many would consider the destruction of all forms of rank and superiority in education to be far more important than securing places in elite institutions. Cambridge and Oxford being dismantled as institutions - student flats becoming high-quality council housing, its professors rotated elsewhere, its conveyor belt of alumni donations/sponsorships broken apart.

Oxbridge alumni give donations (tax-free as charity even in wills) to the university and down the line their children or their relatives' children benefit from that same university. No inheritance tax paid. Oxbridge is basically a kind of large tax loophole.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Nigella Lawson went to Oxford.

(this factoid also makes a point. I wonder who'll get it?)


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Nigella Lawson went to Oxford.
> 
> (this factoid also makes a point. I wonder who'll get it?)


 
I don't get it but Nigel Lawson, her father, went to Oxford.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Where does this end though? Should we be encouraging primary school teachers to view grammar schools and private school scholarships as an option (for bright but poor pupils)?
> 
> Many would consider the destruction of all forms of rank and superiority in education to be far more important than securing places in elite institutions. Cambridge and Oxford being dismantled as institutions - student flats becoming high-quality council housing, its professors rotated elsewhere, its conveyor belt of alumni donations/sponsorships broken apart.
> 
> Oxbridge alumni give donations (tax-free as charity even in wills) to the university and down the line their children or their relatives' children benefit from that same university. No inheritance tax paid. Oxbridge is basically a kind of large tax loophole.


 
I am basically a pessimist, and I have little hope that the future I would like will come to pass.  So in the meantime, I would encourage people to try to take advantage of the few remaining opportunities still open to them, even whilst they act to try to destroy them (or at least talk about it).

I can accept that others do not take the same attitude, but I can't help but feel that they are disadvantaging themselves for no gain in the process.

I do actually give money to my old college's hardship fund, which is there to help kids at the college who are struggling financially.  I don't get any tax break for it, though.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I wasn't offended. I was trying to make my point in a jokey manner. Clearly, I got the tone very wrong -- something easily done in text (I was typing on a mobile phone at the time, which makes it even easier to misjudge your words IME). I can only apologise if, in turn, others were offended at the manner in which I responded.


Your point was more offensive than your tone.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Here's another odd Oxbridge tradition - the trashing with flour that takes place after the end of examinations by friends from other subjects.
> 
> It's not done in ordinary clothes or overalls, but in the gown uniforms which are used for Exams and Balls and receptions, so the rich students buy at least two sets of blazers.
> 
> ...


 

They jump off the bridge every year and fuck up the traffic.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> Your point was more offensive than your tone.


 
My point was that a state school kid from a background that includes no entrenched privilege can still go to Cambridge and enjoy themselves.

Is that offensive?


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> My point was that a state school kid from a background that includes no entrenched privilege can still go to Cambridge and enjoy themselves.
> 
> Is that offensive?


Yes.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yes.


 
Fair enough.  I disagree with you, but that's the essence of it and if you are offended by it, there is little else I can say.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Fair enough. I disagree with you, but that's the essence of it and if you are offended by it, there is little else I can say.


I didn't say I was offended.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> They jump off the bridge every year and fuck up the traffic.


the first part's good


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> I didn't say I was offended.


 
I'm not sure you can claim offence on behalf of others.

However, the point remains regardless of who I make it to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> And the fact that I say I wasn't offended is meaningless to you? I don't get to make that decision for myself?


no


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> They jump off the bridge every year and fuck up the traffic.


They still doing that?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I am basically a pessimist, and I have little hope that the future I would like will come to pass. So in the meantime, I would encourage people to try to take advantage of the few remaining opportunities still open to them, even whilst they act to try to destroy them (or at least talk about it).
> 
> I can accept that others do not take the same attitude, but I can't help but feel that they are disadvantaging themselves for no gain in the process.
> 
> I do actually give money to my old college's hardship fund, which is there to help kids at the college who are struggling financially. I don't get any tax break for it, though.


 
The opportunity to do what? To jump into the privilege and then to become the defenders and guarantors of that privilege into the future? To succeed financially on an _individual_ level? Because that's what happens - and that is what has happened during the period of opening up of elite universities. People taking those individual opportunities hasn't produced 1000s of people turning against the elite universities, it's produced thousands of _bulwarks_ for them. People who argue it's about talent and making the most of (context-free) opportunities that their privilege (new or old) now affords their family and their followers.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> They still doing that?


 

they are.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I'm not sure you can claim offence on behalf of others.
> 
> However, the point remains regardless of who I make it to.


You asked if it was offensive - I said yes. I'm not claiming offence on behalf of anyone, just noting the potential. If you don't think your point had the potential for offence, perhaps you'd like to review what happened last night in response to it.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The opportunity to do what? To jump into the privilege and then to become the defenders and guarantors of that privilege into the future? To succeed financially on an _individual_ level? Because that's what happens - and that is what has happened during the period of opening up of elite universities. People taking those individual opportunities hasn't produced 1000s of people turning against the elite universities, it's produced thousands of _bulwarks_ for them. People who argue it's about talent and making the most of (context-free) opportunities that their privilege (new or old) now affords their family and their followers.


By the sounds of it, the genuine state school kids that go thru Oxbridge don't get the same set of privileges as the posh kids do. The power networks start much before Oxbridge.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I am basically a pessimist, and I have little hope that the future I would like will come to pass. So in the meantime, I would encourage people to try to take advantage of the few remaining opportunities still open to them, even whilst they act to try to destroy them (or at least talk about it).
> 
> I can accept that others do not take the same attitude, but I can't help but feel that they are disadvantaging themselves for no gain in the process.
> 
> I do actually give money to my old college's hardship fund, which is there to help kids at the college who are struggling financially. I don't get any tax break for it, though.


 
Every Cambridge college has one of these schemes:

http://www.magdalenecambridge.com/page.aspx?pid=388

featuring opportunities such as:




> Donating shares
> If you donate shares to Magdalene, relief from both Capital Gains Tax and Income Tax are included. For example, a gift of £10,000 could cost you a minimum of just £2,000:


 
The University receives the tax break not the donor, just that their relatives go on to benefit.
On tax avoidance:




> Making a gift to Oxford
> 
> A will is very personal, and we strongly advise you to consult your legal advisor before drafting a new will or updating an existing one. We are always happy to discuss your wishes and intentions but, regretfully, the University of Oxford is unable to offer direct legal or financial advice on will making or estate planning.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.campaign.ox.ac.uk/contribute/legacies_bequests/index.html etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> You asked if it was offensive - I said yes. I'm not claiming offence on behalf of anyone, just noting the potential. If you don't think your point had the potential for offence, perhaps you'd like to review what happened last night in response to it.


there are none so blind, cesare, as those who will not see


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> By the sounds of it, the genuine state school kids that go thru Oxbridge don't get the same set of privileges as the posh kids do. The power networks start much before Oxbridge.


 
They might not have the exact same level of privilege first time around but you can bet your last penny they work bloody hard to make sure the next lot do, and so they become part of the elite. It's your basic top-down sponsored social mobility - sifting the plebs to find the best defenders of the status quo by involving them in how it's privileges work.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They might not have the exact same level of privilege first time around but you can bet your last penny they work bloody hard to make sure the next lot do, and so they become part of the elite. It's your basic top-down sponsored social mobility - sifting the plebs to find the best defenders of the status quo by involving them in how it's privileges work.


Not *everybody* will do this or want to even. My history teacher went to Oxford, for example, he was just a teacher in a state school comp.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Not *everybody* will do this or want to even. My history teacher went to Oxford, for example, he was just a teacher in a state school comp.


 
Of course not *everybody* does it.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

Not *everybody* non-Oxbridge is denied entrance to the world of management boards or the high law courts.

This doesn't change the essential point.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

I also get begging emails from my old uni for money,but I can't really afford to give them anything and I think they have enough money as it is, they've certainly made massive profits from cutting loads of uni jobs and facilities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Diamond said:


> No, principally, because it is clearly factually incorrect.
> 
> Or let me spell it out for you manifestly - the argument that Cambridge students are distinctly irrelevant is categorically wrong.
> 
> Understood?


 
Get your degree from Cambridge, did you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Deep entryism


 
This is a thread about feminism, not about how you like to get balls-deep in camels.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

Struggling to muster much inclination atm to post, and not read the whole thread but my immediate thoughts are:

1) yes, it's a nice idea but purely in relation to the OP - it shows the kind of privileged bubble that Cambridge student feminists live under and which doesn't exactly translate well to the struggles wider women face, weeps summed up some of it well.

(to refer to that 'I am tired of feeling safe at night ONLY because I get mis-gendered' example in the OP - I'm sorry but that is pretty weak - how about for most women/trans people I know/and had duty of care over in my last job - they were dealing with having lost their jobs because of dubious unfair dismissals, getting post-it notes through their flat doors calling them 'dirty freaks', fighting NHS/DWP)

2) power structures won't change and can't be 'reformed' whilst these privileged institutions exist, or just because more working class kids get into them.

(I accept my own privilege here as first gen of my family that is working class to go to uni - not Oxbridge though, which despite being reasonably academic, I never even considered as somewhere I'd even wanted to go to - not that that mattered anyway, my teachers never regarded me for the 'you should apply to....' nod like they did some of my peers).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the first part's good


 
Personally, I'm consoled by the fact that some of the bridge-jumpers sustain nasty injuries.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I also get begging emails from my old uni for money,but I can't really afford to give them anything and I think they have enough money as it is<snip>


 
I'll see that and raise you begging calls from my former poly, made by current students there, who do it because it's the only job they can find.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They might not have the exact same level of privilege first time around but you can bet your last penny they work bloody hard to make sure the next lot do, and so they become part of the elite. It's your basic top-down sponsored social mobility - sifting the plebs to find the best defenders of the status quo by involving them in how it's privileges work.


 
It's also a flag to be waved at people - look how liberal and tolerant we are, even you plebs can come here and become like us.
And so the privilege is entrenched, with elite institutions viewed by some as targets of aspiration, rather than as institutions designed to stifle the aspirations of the many.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Personally, I'm consoled by the fact that some of the bridge-jumpers sustain nasty injuries.


that's what i meant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> Struggling to muster much inclination atm to post, and not read the whole thread but my immediate thoughts are:
> 
> 1) yes, it's a nice idea but purely in relation to the OP - it shows the kind of privileged bubble that Cambridge student feminists live under and which doesn't exactly translate well to the struggles wider women face - weeps summed up some of it well.
> 
> (to refer to that 'I am tired of feeling safe at night ONLY because I get mis-gendered' example in the OP - I'm sorry but that is pretty weak - how about for most trans women/people I know/and had duty of care over in my last job - they were dealing with having lost their jobs because of dubious unfair dismissals, getting post-it notes through their flat doors calling them 'dirty freaks', fighting NHS/DWP)


 
We know from various shrieks on here and in the media that many "bubble" people haven't got a clue about the DWP, and can't cope with it even on the basic level of signing on, let alone anything more complex.



> 2) power structures won't change and can't be 'reformed' whilst these privileged institutions exist, or just because more working class kids get into them.


 
And the institutions will continue to exist, not least because power first and foremost looks to perpetuate itself via such institutions.



> (I accept my own privilege here as first gen of my family that is working class to go to uni - not Oxbridge though, which despite being reasonably academic, I never even considered as somewhere I'd even wanted to go to - not that that mattered anyway, my teachers never even considered me for the 'you should apply to....' nod like they did some of my peers).


 
Frankly though, if you're between 35 and 60, then being the first in your family to go to uni is a *personal* privilege, but given the funding arrangements, it was only in the minor league of being a social privilege, given the funding arrangements until the early '90s.


----------



## Sue (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> They jump off the bridge every year and fuck up the traffic.


 
They end up closing the bridge for hours on the 1st of May which affects huge numbers of people -- loads of people live to the east of the town (and most of the estates are over that way too) and via this bridge is the only way of getting into the centre without doing a massive detour, meaning it's a right pain in the arse. And every year there's a massive debate about it all which is extremely tedious. One year there was hardly any water and a load of them still jumped -- which does make you think they can't be *that* smart -- and it ended up with relays of ambulances taking the injured up to the hospital.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> ... And so the privilege is entrenched, with elite institutions viewed by some as targets of aspiration, rather than as institutions designed to stifle the aspirations of the many.


 
I don't buy that. Just because an educational institution finds a way to be successful, in a particular way, over a long period of years, does not mean it is "designed to stifle the aspirations of the many". While you can certainly argue that it does in effect stifle I don't think you can argue that it is designed to do that.

Even with secondary schools there are better and worse performers. Those with better results are more attractive to parents who are interested in such things, schools with very good results may even persuade people to move house to get within their catchment areas so that their kids can attend a school with good results. Are those schools also "designed to stifle"? because the comparison is similar.

And there is no way to get away from it. If Oxbridge were to be totally eliminated from the scene other universities would still vie for the position of top dog. Would they be trying in that effort to "stifle the aspirations of the many" .. I just don't think that is a valid argument.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Upper middle and lower are not Marxist concept, I used the words social class to refer to them.


 
Oh, and this made me lol, even though it hurts to atm


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I don't buy that. Just because an educational institution finds a way to be successful, in a particular way, over a long period of years, does not mean it is "designed to stifle the aspirations of the many". While you can certainly argue that it does in effect stifle I don't think you can argue that it is designed to do that.
> 
> Even with secondary schools there are better and worse performers. Those with better results are more attractive to parents who are interested in such things, schools with very good results may even persuade people to move house to get within their catchment areas so that their kids can attend a school with good results. Are those schools also "designed to stifle"? because the comparison is similar.
> 
> And there is no way to get away from it. If Oxbridge were to be totally eliminated from the scene other universities would still vie for the position of top dog. Would they be trying in that effort to "stifle the aspirations of the many" .. I just don't think that is a valid argument.


There's a difference with Oxford and, to a marginally lesser extent, Cambridge though. Those institutions exist to primarily perpetuate the ruling class - even if some of the bourgeoisie/aspiring bourgeoisie/fortunate working class are allowed limited access.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

I'd say they exist to primarily perpetuate themselves, to be honest.  The effect is the perpetuation of the ruling class, but from the universities' perspective, this is in the service of the perpetuation of the university.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I'd say they exist to primarily perpetuate themselves, to be honest. The effect is the perpetuation of the ruling class, but from the universities' perspective, this is in the service of the perpetuation of the university.


The ruling class rule. They decide what happens, even to the extent of which educational institutions will be preserved. It's their wealth and patronage that ensure Oxford and Cambridge exist with only minor modifications.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I don't buy that. Just because an educational institution finds a way to be successful, in a particular way, over a long period of years, does not mean it is "designed to stifle the aspirations of the many". While you can certainly argue that it does in effect stifle I don't think you can argue that it is designed to do that.


 
I don't care that you don't "buy it". It's an unfortunate fact (as said earlier in this thread) that an Oxbridge degree is a tool via which privilege can be accessed. By supporting and maintaining a system of privilege, entrenching differential access to work and to society based on where one is educated, the aspirations of others who are equally-qualified but for the embossed coat-of-arms on their degree certificate are stifled.



> Even with secondary schools there are better and worse performers. Those with better results are more attractive to parents who are interested in such things, schools with very good results may even persuade people to move house to get within their catchment areas so that their kids can attend a school with good results. Are those schools also "designed to stifle"? because the comparison is similar.


 
It's not about "performance", because you can't judge on "performance" any institution that uses any form of selection of attendee beyond cachement (for schools) or results (for unis). Your comparison is fatuous because it doesn't grasp that all things aren't equal.



> And there is no way to get away from it. If Oxbridge were to be totally eliminated from the scene other universities would still vie for the position of top dog. Would they be trying in that effort to "stifle the aspirations of the many" .. I just don't think that is a valid argument.


 
It's not about institutions vying to be top dog. It's about the fact that some institutions are bastions of entrenched privilege, and use that entrenched privilege to perpetuate that privilege. Insofar as I might approve of the university system, I don't mind a university being "top dog" if it becomes such through producing consistently excellent research and consistently excellent graduates. That's rarely the case, though. Oxbridge selects beyond results, it selects those it believes fits an Oxbridge "ethos" best. In other words, it selects to best perpetuate a certain type of graduate, the majority of whom are drawn from the strata of the ruling and upper middle classes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I'd say they exist to primarily perpetuate themselves, to be honest. The effect is the perpetuation of the ruling class, but from the universities' perspective, this is in the service of the perpetuation of the university.


 
But also of the environment that best suits the perpetuation of the universities, which is an environment where the current class system is perpetuated.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't care that you don't "buy it". It's an unfortunate fact (as said earlier in this thread) that an Oxbridge degree is a tool via which privilege can be accessed. By supporting and maintaining a system of privilege, entrenching differential access to work and to society based on where one is educated, the aspirations of others who are equally-qualified but for the embossed coat-of-arms on their degree certificate are stifled.


 
As I wrote "While you can certainly argue that it does in effect stifle I don't think you can argue that it is designed to do that." Oxbridge is designed to do as well for its undergraduates as it can. I think, while it may in effect stifle the ambitions of others, that is a side effect rather than being "by design".


ViolentPanda said:


> It's not about "performance", because you can't judge on "performance" any institution that uses any form of selection of attendee beyond cachement (for schools) or results (for unis). Your comparison is fatuous because it doesn't grasp that all things aren't equal.


 
I accept selection means results are not comparable between institutions.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit How else can the ruling class continue to rule unless they ensure that they have in place the structures and mechanisms in order to do so? Bastions of properly elite educational privilege are just one such structure and method. These structures and methods are designed and have also evolved, to perpetuate the system where the ruling class have people to rule. It is by design, not chance.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> It is by design, not chance.


 
Of course. And much lower down, people like weltweit will buy a house close to a 'good' state school.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> weltweit How else can the ruling class continue to rule unless they ensure that they have in place the structures and mechanisms in order to do so? Bastions of properly elite educational privilege are just one such structure and method. These structures and methods are designed and have also evolved, to perpetuate the system where the ruling class have people to rule. It is by design, not chance.


 
thinking


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> weltweit How else can the ruling class continue to rule unless they ensure that they have in place the structures and mechanisms in order to do so? Bastions of properly elite educational privilege are just one such structure and method. These structures and methods are designed and have also evolved, to perpetuate the system where the ruling class have people to rule. It is by design, not chance.


if weltweit was in charge of it, capitalism would have tumbled decades if not centuries ago


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if weltweit was in charge of it, capitalism would have tumbled decades if not centuries ago


This is quite possibly true.
My first experience of capitalism was as a kid using my pocket money to buy picture disks (records) of many and various punk bands and then when my cash flow ran out, selling them to my schoolmates for LESS than I had bought them for! Not a good business model!


----------



## salem (Jun 19, 2013)

So, what would you have all written?

I've started another thread rather then derail this one - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/i-need-feminism-because-urban-edition.311806/


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

salem said:


> So, what would you have all written?
> 
> I've started another thread rather then derail this one - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/i-need-feminism-because-urban-edition.311806/



Hooray for this person who seems to get the point.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if weltweit was in charge of it, capitalism would have tumbled decades if not centuries ago


Even if he'd managed to destroy capitalism, he's still be left with the class system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> Even if he'd managed to destroy capitalism, he's still be left with the class system.


he'd fuck that up too given the chance


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> he'd fuck that up too given the chance


He might accidentally it, I s'pose  Worth a try though.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jun 19, 2013)

Oh.  Is Kizmet pathetically trying to appear dead clever by being deliberately vague so as to seem profound again?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> weltweit How else can the ruling class continue to rule unless they ensure that they have in place the structures and mechanisms in order to do so? Bastions of properly elite educational privilege are just one such structure and method. These structures and methods are designed and have also evolved, to perpetuate the system where the ruling class have people to rule. It is by design, not chance.


 
I have thunk a bit, but have not found any great insights sorry cesare 

The continued existence of a ruling elite needs cannon fodder, a good supply of bright well educated people ready to take on positions of power and responsibility. Oxbridge (and others) gives them that. I am not saying normal universities and former polytechnics cannot provide them just as well.

Indeed was the system of public schools and universities not originally intended to provide administrators for the empire. I am not sure how true that is / was but it is certainly out of date now - if it were ever true.

On your point about the ruling class continuing to rule, do you mean their children will inherit the privilege their parents have and themselves become members of the ruling elite?

Each year, many people from relatively normal backgrounds go to Oxbridge, graduate and then become new members of the ruling class. Surely that is a good thing.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> Oh.  Is Kizmet pathetically trying to appear dead clever by being deliberately vague so as to seem profound again?



Kizmet is dead clever. It means nothing, however.

But it does to you. The quicker you get over that fact, the better.

I take it you didn't get the reference to Nigella Lawson in the context of the university she attended, feminism and the recent events in her life.

There is a connection and a point. Find it or fuck off.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> he'd fuck that up too given the chance


 
I would happily fuck up the class system!

Just give me the nod when you want it done and I will get to work


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

> Each year, many people from relatively normal backgrounds go to Oxbridge, graduate *and then become new members of the ruling class.* Surely that is a good thing.


 
No it isn't.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I would happily fuck up the class system!
> 
> Just give me the nod when you want it done and I will get to work


 
I don't think twanging rulers counts tbh!




(you see what I did there?!)


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> No it isn't.


 
But frogwoman, will there not always be a ruling class of some kind? Are there any utopias where there are no rulers? Or at least people in authority? or at least some kind of government populated by people of some kind or other?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> No it isn't.



In context, frogwoman. The institutions still exist, you will not smash them... at least not anytime soon..... so can you consider the question in context?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I would happily fuck up the class system!
> 
> Just give me the nod when you want it done and I will get to work


how does now suit you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Kizmet is dead clever. It means nothing, however.
> 
> But it does to you. The quicker you get over that fact, the better.
> 
> ...


in your case, just 'foxtrot oscar'


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> In context, frogwoman. The institutions still exist, you will not smash them... at least not anytime soon..... so can you consider the question in context?


"You won't smash these institutions any time soon, so you may as well take actions that help them survive even longer."


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> in your case, just 'foxtrot oscar'



Beg.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Santino said:


> "You won't smash these institutions any time soon, so you may as well take actions that help them survive even longer."



What actions?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> how does now suit you?


 
Bit busy atm, will check my diary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Beg.


no, i think you'll fuck off without my degrading myself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Bit busy atm, will check my diary.


get to work


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i think you'll fuck off without my degrading myself.



The frequency with which you do it suggests that you'll degrade yourself regardless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> The frequency with which you do it suggests that you'll degrade yourself regardless.


i expect you'll be banned by christmas.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i expect you'll be banned by christmas.



Don't hold your breath. No.. on second thoughts
.. do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Don't hold your breath. No.. on second thoughts
> .. do.


pisspoor


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> pisspoor



good answer, bro.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> Of course. And much lower down, people like weltweit will buy a house close to a 'good' state school.


I just want to come back on this.
We moved 60 miles from where we used to live. At first we had no idea where to look for somewhere to live except that it had to be commutable to work, then we also realised it had ideally to be walking distance from a secondary school. We looked at some schools, went to visit them, and decided on one we liked, then we looked for somewhere to live near enough to that school.

Where we used to live the nearest school had a 25% pass rate, as it happens the new school we lived near to had a 75% pass rate of which it was proud.

If you had the choice of living near either school, which one would you choose?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Nice to see frogwoman and seventh bullet "like" a post predicting a ban for me, but both completely fail to answer a direct question.

Perhaps they should reconsider arguing about class until they can show some?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet you should stop posting. maybe in a year or three's time when you've grown up a bit and can mingle with grown-up people without embarrassing yourself you can come back.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Kizmet you should stop posting. maybe in a year or three's time when you've grown up a bit and can mingle with grown-up people without embarrassing yourself you can come back.



I don't mind being embarrassed in front of people like you, its fine. Really.

Its the same principle as when a complete cunt hates you because you called him out.

No matter what he calls you its a compliment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> I don't mind being embarrassed in front of people like you, its fine. Really.
> 
> Its the same principle as when a complete cunt hates you because you called him out.
> 
> No matter what he calls you its a compliment.


that's all very well and it's what i expected you to say. but it's not just 'people like me' who would have you think again about your career here. you're the only person who leaps to mind who describes themselves as a bully here. so, when people stand up to you they're standing up to a self-styled bully, which isn't the same thing as being nasty to some downtrodden little oik.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I just want to come back on this.
> We moved 60 miles from where we used to live. At first we had no idea where to look for somewhere to live except that it had to be commutable to work, then we also realised it had ideally to be walking distance from a secondary school. We looked at some schools, went to visit them, and decided on one we liked, then we looked for somewhere to live near enough to that school.
> 
> Where we used to live the nearest school had a 25% pass rate, as it happens the new school we lived near to had a 75% pass rate of which it was proud.
> ...


 
I wouldn't/will not have that 'choice.' I'm not middle class like you are.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> I wouldn't/will not have that 'choice.' I'm not middle class like you are.


I don't think class has anything to do with it.

If you look for work everywhere, i.e. not just close to home, you will have the same choice when you move to be near your new job.

For us there was no work at the previous place, for either of us. So we had to look further afield.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that's all very well and it's what i expected you to say. but it's not just 'people like me' who would have you think again about your career here. you're the only person who leaps to mind who describes themselves as a bully here. so, when people stand up to you they're standing up to a self-styled bully, which isn't the same thing as being nasty to some downtrodden little oik.



Again, that's perfectly fine by me. Let the haterz hate. It's what they do.

Perhaps I am the only person to admit that I can be a bully sometimes. But nearly everyone can be at some points. And being aware of it means I can use it to only bully the people who bully others. Treat people fairly and I'll treat you fairly. Simple rule.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I don't think class has anything to do with it.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


>


Come on steph, not everything is about class!!


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Come on steph, not everything is about class!!



Class is like God... if you believe in it.. it's omnipresent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Again, that's perfectly fine by me. Let the haterz hate. It's what they do.
> 
> Perhaps I am the only person to admit that I can be a bully sometimes. But nearly everyone can be at some points. And being aware of it means I can use it to only bully the people who bully others. Treat people fairly and I'll treat you fairly. Simple rule.


but you don't. you're a liar. look at how you're treating frogwoman and seventh bullet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Class is like God... if you believe in it.. it's omnipresent.


funny how there's no class where you are


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

good thing i can't see what he's saying cos he's on ignore Pickman's model


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> good thing i can't see what he's saying cos he's on ignore Pickman's model


 

same for me


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

what am I supposed to take from the example of nigella- that violence knows no class boudries and DV is DV regardless of money?


its true but its no earthshaker of a point?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Exactly. Seventh bullet just posted out of the blue to have a personal dig and frogwoman has failed to respond to a few direct and open questions but had the time to like your ban prediction.

That's not treating people fairly. And thus my response was fair and justified.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Come on steph, not everything is about class!!


 


weltweit said:


> We moved 60 miles from where we used to live.
> 
> At first we had no idea where to look for somewhere to live except that it had to be commutable to work, then we also realised it had ideally to be walking distance from a secondary school.
> 
> ...


 
Awful lot of things there where you benefit from the class structure.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> Awful lot of things there where you benefit from the class structure.


Go on then ...


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> good thing i can't see what he's saying cos he's on ignore Pickman's model



Ah... this explains why no answer to direct questions.


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Ah... this explains why no answer to direct questions.


It's also because you're incredibly boring.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Exactly. Seventh bullet just posted out of the blue to have a personal dig and frogwoman has failed to respond to a few direct and open questions but had the time to like your ban prediction.
> 
> That's not treating people fairly. And thus my response was fair and justified.


the answer of a bully


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Go on then ...


 
Just re-read your own post


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)




----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

oops. wrong thread. but weirdly apt.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> what am I supposed to take from the example of nigella- that violence knows no class boudries and DV is DV regardless of money?
> 
> 
> its true but its no earthshaker of a point?



To all those suggesting that because these people are privileged their opinions of feminism are less worthy... would they also consider privileged and Oxford educated Nigella's opinions of dv less worthy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> To all those suggesting that because these people are privileged their opinions of feminism are less worthy... would they also consider privileged and Oxford educated Nigella's opinions of dv less worthy?


dull daft drivel: onto ignore you go you shitferbrains twat


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the answer of a bully



Sure. 5/6 of you all on one. And yet that one is the bully?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Sure.* 5/6 of you all on one*. And yet that one is the bully?


 

I've seen that art film


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jun 19, 2013)

omg, this thread is so much better than the Oxford students' responses!


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> dull daft drivel: onto ignore you go you shitferbrains twat



I'll miss our valuable conversations.


----------



## 89 Til Infinity (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet
Are an all white group able to adequately decide which issues most greatly effect black people?

They may have some similar experiences but they'll never truly know how they experience inequality


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> Just re-read your own post


I preferred your previous response


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

89 Til Infinity said:


> Kizmet
> Are an all white group able to adequately decide which issues most greatly effect black people?
> 
> They may have some similar experiences but they'll never truly know how they experience inequality


 
The more relevant analogy would be whether black people attending Cambridge university can adequately decide which issues affect them as black people. Don't know about the "most greatly" part, not sure that's relevant.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

Miss Caphat said:


> omg, this thread is so much better than the Oxford students' responses!



I need this thread because...
it got me onto the ignore list of some of Urbans most cliquey.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> <snip>violence knows no class boudries and DV is DV regardless of money?
> 
> 
> its true but its no earthshaker of a point?


 
It might not have surprised you, but you'd be surprised by how many people assume that 'wifebeating' and other types of DV are something in which only the lower orders indulge.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> I need this thread because...
> it got me onto the ignore list of some of Urbans most cliquey.


 

I don't see the point in the ignore function. It is rendered entirely superflous by a little button that says 'show ignored content' at the bottom of the page. So whats the point? Its too easy to give in and have a look at what the ignored party has said. They should make it more difficult, like have you do a crossword before you can un-ignore the person


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't see the point in the ignore function. It is rendered entirely superflous by a little button that says 'show ignored content' at the bottom of the page. So whats the point? Its too easy to give in and have a look at what the ignored party has said. They should make it more difficult, like have you do a crossword before you can un-ignore the person


yeh i've looked a couple of times using that little link but i have been confirmed in my belief that Kizmet is a timewaster


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> If you are suggesting working class people can't relocate for work...


 
Not at all.



weltweit said:


> If you are saying it might be harder for a working class person to relocate for work then certainly under some circs it might be.


 
Of course it is. My parents did that when my dad lost his job in London when I was young, and what was left of engineering in this country seemed to be smaller little firms in the surrounding counties. It was more difficult for them than if say they were both in middle class professions, university qualifications, ready capital, benefit from say one of their parents having left a home.

But compared to other working class people, they were more able to do so. I always think dad has been very fortunate to stay in his engineering job until retirement (even though he hates it with a passion!), but given the state of engineering in this country since Thatch, he has.



weltweit said:


> I am not saying being middle class, does not offer some advantage because plainly it can. But as someone who can't at the moment find a job near my family, sometimes they are overrated.


 
No one as far as I can see is criticising you for one moment for the choices you made, or what you've done, but none of those things you've mentioned are removed from the machinations of class and neither are you. Or that your decisions, or mine, are isolated from it and indeed what happens to others.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

steph you cheater, I edited that post out because I didn't like it yet you quoted it ....... I let you edit out your previous post rather than grabbing it !!  I feel cheated ... no perhaps not that !!


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

Too slow on the buttons....


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)




----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

steph have you finished your improvements to your post 521 yet? is it safe yet to quote it?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

Go on then, if you must


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

89 Til Infinity said:


> Kizmet
> Are an all white group able to adequately decide which issues most greatly effect black people?
> 
> They may have some similar experiences but they'll never truly know how they experience inequality



That's true, but as kabbes pointed out... there are other analogies that fit better.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

Surely its obvious that any kind of discrimination, racism, etc, is going to affect people who have fewer options disproportionately. For example somebody who has qualifications where they can easily get another job won't be as likely to be in the position where they have to put up with racism or sexism at work. A young woman who has few qualifications and doesn't get hired by a company "because she might get pregnant" is going to be much worse off from someone who's not hired for the same reason, when they went to an elite school and then Cambridge.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

I will just quote the bottom bit, you can carry on "improving" the rest !!



steph said:


> ... But, none of those things you mention are removed from the machinations of class, and neither are you, or that your decisions, or mine, are isolated from it, or indeed what happens to others.


 
Now I don't have anything to say.

Schools with good results that are attractive to families moving into an area are not exclusive to middle class areas.

One of the primary schools we looked at here was in an area of lower cost housing, where there was a high proportion of recent immigrants who did not have English as a first language, there was a high proportion of kids on free school meals but none of this was an impediment to the staff at the school who managed to achieve Ofsted's very top rating. We had considered living near that one but the corresponding secondary was not so interesting, I forget why.

Anyhow on that angle, access to better state primary or secondaries may not be as much about class, as perhaps luck. Of course it would be best if all schools were excellent, for everyone, which is probably what the education system should be aiming for.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't see the point in the ignore function. It is rendered entirely superflous by a little button that says 'show ignored content' at the bottom of the page. So whats the point? Its too easy to give in and have a look at what the ignored party has said. They should make it more difficult, like have you do a crossword before you can un-ignore the person


 
I only have one person on ignore and I have done that because I find them incredibly disruptive to the flow of a thread.  I have no problem with not ever showing ignored content because their contributions just irritate me; that's why I put them on ignore in the first place!


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Schools with good results that are attractive to families moving into an area are not exclusive to middle class areas.


 
I'd rather bet that it is heavily weighted towards those areas that are though.

And what happens to those areas with good schools? The class dynamics? What effect does it have over time?



weltweit said:


> Anyhow on that angle, access to better state primary or secondaries may not be as much about class, as perhaps luck. Of course it would be best if all schools were excellent, for everyone, which is probably what the education system should be aiming for.


 
Access to better state schools is certainly linked to class - what happens to those schools which aren't doing as well? What effect does it have on the wider area those schools are located in, those that live there?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I only have one person on ignore and I have done that because I find them incredibly disruptive to the flow of a thread. I have no problem with not ever showing ignored content because their contributions just irritate me; that's why I put them on ignore in the first place!


 

is it jonny canuck the third of his line?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> is it jonny canuck the third of his line?


 
It's not, actually.  I have no problem scanning through a Canuck carpetbomb.  I will say no more, however, as I have no interest in naming and shaming my ignored individual.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't see the point in the ignore function. It is rendered entirely superflous by a little button that says 'show ignored content' at the bottom of the page. So whats the point? Its too easy to give in and have a look at what the ignored party has said. They should make it more difficult, like have you do a crossword before you can un-ignore the person



 Me neither... but being ignored by some people is actually a huge relief. especially pedants.

It's ok I guess if you use it to ignore a stalker or an abusive person... but using it to hide points of view you don't like or to avoid people with different opinions is kinda negative for you in the long run.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 19, 2013)

Yasmine Alibhai-Brown disses young women for betraying feminism
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/todays-young-women-have-betrayed-feminism-8660798.html


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> What effect does it have on the wider area those schools are located in, those that live there?


 
Actually I think sometimes schools can change their performance faster than masses of families can move in or move out of their catchment area. All it takes is a change of head and all bets are off. The area we left the school was put on special measures, bear in mind that this was perhaps 5 years before our sprog would have been going there. It got a new head and everyone was wondering the effect these changes would have, and how quickly.

Conversely, the school sprog is now at, I really liked the head we met when we looked at the school but by the time our kid started there, the bugger had retired. The new head is not a patch on the old one. More fool us!

 

Sorry folks, this education stuff is a bit of a derail.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> It's not, actually. I have no problem scanning through a Canuck carpetbomb. I will say no more, however, as I have no interest in naming and shaming my ignored individual.


 

Not me is it?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Not me is it?


I think it might be me


----------



## kabbes (Jun 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Not me is it?


 
Yes





weltweit said:


> I think it might be me


Also yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2013)

so where are the cambridge students alluded to in the title? they're fucking conspicuous by their absence! very disappointing.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Actually I think sometimes schools can change their performance faster than masses of families can move in or move out of their catchment area. All it takes is a change of head and all bets are off. The area we left the school was put on special measures, bear in mind that this was perhaps 5 years before our sprog would have been going there. It got a new head and everyone was wondering the effect these changes would have, and how quickly.


 
For me, the 'failing school', 'turn it into an academy', 'send in the fixer squad' is just a way of treating the symptoms caused by inequalities of class, by the neo-liberalisation of education and of course neo-liberalism/capitalism as a whole.

And this then tends to create even more divisions and inequality in class over time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> For me, the 'failing school', 'turn it into an academy', 'send in the fixer squad' is just a way of treating the symptoms caused by inequalities of class, by the neo-liberalisation of education and of course neo-liberalism/capitalism as a whole.
> 
> And this then tends to create even more divisions and inequality in class over time.


 

Their are no failing schools under a private regime. They either fold or falsify records to keep intake up.

Which is clearly the best way to run education.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Yasmine Alibhai-Brown disses young women for betraying feminism
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/todays-young-women-have-betrayed-feminism-8660798.html


It's interesting that she blames young women, rather than perceiving what she has identified as a natural consequence of the identity politics arising out of the worst aspects of 70s/80s feminism.

edit: It's as if she perceives [whatever freedoms] that were gained as an inheritance or gift to be used (or squandered, according to her) rather than a work in progress. It's a bit pontius pilate.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's interesting that she blames young women, rather than perceiving what she has identified as a natural consequence of the identity politics arising out of the worst aspects of 70s/80s feminism.


 
I thought that as well. Its quite easy to see why Louise Mensche's brand of feminism is for some an attractive opposite to the swamp of identity politics.


----------



## cesare (Jun 19, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I thought that as well. Its quite easy to see why Louise Mensche's brand of feminism is for some an attractive opposite to the swamp of identity politics.


Definitely. And it's not just the swamp/cotton wool effect; it's also that retreat into identity politics is so much weaker. So I can see why LM's politics could be perceived as much stronger and more straight forward.


----------



## salem (Jun 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> so where are the cambridge students alluded to in the title? they're fucking conspicuous by their absence! very disappointing.


 
I'm guessing they mean what the OP is about which is Cambridge students responding to 'I need feminism because...' 

Take a look at www.knowyourmeme.com/memes/who-needs-feminism and you'll see that lots of places have done it of which Cambridge is only one.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> Definitely. And it's not just the swamp/cotton wool effect; it's also that retreat into identity politics is so much weaker. So I can see why LM's politics could be perceived as much stronger and more straight forward.


 
I just found out that the audience for the Lousie Mensche /Laurie Penny  newsnight discussion on feminism ( I had Mensche clearly ahead on all three cards) was  totally dwarfed by the documentary on Jodie Marsh Bullied: My Secret Past



> Feminism is, ultimately, about girls like Jodie Marsh. It’s about the girl wants to be a vet but learns that she will get more respect by taking her top off.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

kabbes said:


> It's not, actually. I have no problem scanning through a Canuck carpetbomb. I will say no more, however, as I have no interest in naming and shaming my ignored individual.


 

It's Santino, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> As I wrote "While you can certainly argue that it does in effect stifle I don't think you can argue that it is designed to do that." Oxbridge is designed to do as well for its undergraduates as it can. I think, while it may in effect stifle the ambitions of others, that is a side effect rather than being "by design".


 
It's not a side-effect. It's a very deliberate feature of the institution.  It's about perpetuating privilege, and Oxbridge has successfully enabled and assisted with that for half a millennium.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> Of course. And much lower down, people like weltweit will buy a house close to a 'good' state school.


 
And see little or nothing wrong with such "gaming" of the system, because they believe, in fact *know* that they matter more than other more plebian souls.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Hooray for this person who seems to get the point.


 
Yet again, kizmet pats himself on the back/gives himself a reach-around.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> Oh. Is Kizmet pathetically trying to appear dead clever by being deliberately vague so as to seem profound again?


 
Indeed he is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> But frogwoman, will there not always be a ruling class of some kind? Are there any utopias where there are no rulers? Or at least people in authority? or at least some kind of government populated by people of some kind or other?


 
Yes, there will always be a ruling class of some kind, but better a ruling class that isn't deeply entrenched, than one that is. The former is easier to dislodge.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I just want to come back on this.
> We moved 60 miles from where we used to live. At first we had no idea where to look for somewhere to live except that it had to be commutable to work, then we also realised it had ideally to be walking distance from a secondary school. We looked at some schools, went to visit them, and decided on one we liked, then we looked for somewhere to live near enough to that school.
> 
> Where we used to live the nearest school had a 25% pass rate, as it happens the new school we lived near to had a 75% pass rate of which it was proud.
> ...


 
You don't seem to understand that your ability to choose privileges you massively over the majority who have no such privilege. perhaps this is what makes you curiously blind to other exercises of privilege.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Nice to see frogwoman and seventh bullet "like" a post predicting a ban for me, but both completely fail to answer a direct question.
> 
> Perhaps they should reconsider arguing about class until they can show some?


 
Perhaps they're expressing an opinion with such a "like", an opinion not unadjacent to you being an utter arse.

Because, to be frank, you are an utter arse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Again, that's perfectly fine by me. Let the haterz hate. It's what they do.
> 
> Perhaps I am the only person to admit that I can be a bully sometimes. But nearly everyone can be at some points. And being aware of it means I can use it to only bully the people who bully others. Treat people fairly and I'll treat you fairly. Simple rule.


 
People don't hate you. You're really not that important.You're a minor irritant along the lines of haemorrhoids.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Come on steph, not everything is about class!!


 
On the contrary.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And see little or nothing wrong with such "gaming" of the system, because they believe, in fact *know* that they matter more than other more plebian souls.


 
What a nasty insinuation.

I don't matter any more than anyone else.

All children deserve a decent education. I suppose you would choose somehow in a holier than thou way to send your kids to a really shitty school for some reason? Would you?

And it is quite normal for people to try to do their best for their children.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> Too slow on the buttons....


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> People don't hate you. You're really not that important.You're a minor irritant along the lines of haemorrhoids.


 
I don't know - Farmers can be a proper drag. And no mistake. One could almost wish for a drunken squaddie to pop them once and for all. Perhaps in a toilet, say on a moving train?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You don't seem to understand that your ability to choose privileges you massively over the majority who have no such privilege. perhaps this is what makes you curiously blind to other exercises of privilege.


Are you saying that only middle class people can move to find work? I doubt you are saying that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> What a nasty insinuation.


 
It's not an insinuation, it's a simple statement of fact. People with the ability and the lack of conscience to game the system benefit disproportionately. You did so, and your family benefitted and may, for all I know, continue to benefit.
Exactly how many people do you think have the ability (and lack of conscience, or perhaps in your case massive naivety) to do so? A small minority of those who use state schools for their childrens' educations, that's who.




> I don't matter any more than anyone else.


 
I absolutely agree.



> All children deserve a decent education. I suppose you would choose somehow in a holier than thou way to send your kids to a really shitty school for some reason? Would you?
> 
> And it is quite normal for people to try to do their best for their children.


 
You still don't get it.
Most of us have to make do with what's on offer. We don't have the resources to move nearer a "good" school, so we make do, and generally look for solutions that *don't* involve gaming the system. For most of my friends and relatives faced with being in the cachement of a not-particularly-brilliant school, that has meant them tutoring their kids at home, over and above what the school manages to provide. it's a solution that doesn't deprive someone in a better cachement of a school place, and doesn't require uprooting a kid from their friendship network.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> It's Santino, isn't it?


 
It's *always* Santino.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Are you saying that only middle class people can move to find work? I doubt you are saying that.


 
Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!


 
It is a bit, isn't it?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Are you saying that only middle class people can move to find work? I doubt you are saying that.


 
Well, people in social housing can't move to find work without giving up their halfway decent tenency terms so, no it's not only middle class people who can move to find work  _but_  some sections of the w/c community (ie those in social housing) just _can't_. And yeah, they could get exchanges, but who's gonna exchange a gaffe on say, Kirkholt in Rochdale for a gaffe in the LDN?


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> forgive me for not giving a shit about what Cambridge students think about anything. Their existence is irrelevant.


 
Yes what has Cambridge ever done for us... but apart from that  sweet fa.

The Nobel Prize was established in accordance with the will of Swede, Alfred Nobel – inventor of dynamite and holder of more than 350 patents. Awarded annually since 1901, the Nobel Prize is the first annual international award to recognise achievements in Physics, Medicine, Chemistry, Peace and Literature. Nobel prizes have been awarded to members of Cambridge University for significant advances as diverse as the discovery of the structure of DNA, the development of a national income accounting system, the mastery of an epic and narrative psychological art and the discovery of penicillin.
Affiliates of University of Cambridge have won more Nobel Prizes than those of any other institution.

89 affiliates of the University of Cambridge have won the Nobel Prize since 1904.
Affiliates have won in every category, with 29 Nobel prizes in Physics, 26 in Medicine, 21 in Chemistry, nine in Economics, two in Literature and two in Peace.
Trinity College has 32 Nobel Prize winners, the most of any college at Cambridge.
Dorothy Hodgkin is the first woman from Cambridge to win a Nobel Prize, for her work on the structure of compounds used in fighting anaemia.
In 1950, Bertrand Russell became the first person from Cambridge to win the Nobel Prize in Literature, for his 1946 work, ‘A History of Western Philosophy’.
Frederick Sanger, from St John’s and fellow of King’s, is one of only four individuals to win a Nobel Prize twice. He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1958 and 1980.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

*Cambridge’s Nobel Prize winners*

2012 John Gurdon, Churchill and Magdalene Colleges: Emeritus Professor in Cell Biology: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for the discovery that mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent
2010 Robert G. Edwards, Churchill College: Emeritus Professor of Human Reproduction: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for the development of in vitro fertilization
2009 Venki Ramakrishnan, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome
2009 Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Darwin College, PhD 1975: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase
2008 Roger Y. Tsien, Churchill / Caius Colleges: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein, GFP
2007 Martin Evans, Christ's College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for discoveries of principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice by the use of embryonic stem cells
2007 Eric Maskin, Jesus College: Prize in Economic Sciences, for having laid the foundations of mechanism design theory
2005 Richard R. Schrock: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the development of the metathesis method in organic synthesis
2002 Sydney Brenner, King's College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for discoveries concerning genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death
2002 John Sulston, Pembroke College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for discoveries concerning genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death
2001 Tim Hunt, Clare College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for discoveries of key regulators of the cell cycle
2001 Joseph Stiglitz, Caius College: Prize in Economics, for analyses of markets with asymmetric information
2000 Paul Greengard: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for discoveries concerning signal transduction in the nervous system


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

2000 Alan McDiarmid, Sidney Sussex College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the discovery and development of conductive polymers
1998 John Pople, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the development of computational methods in quantum chemistry
1998 Amartya Sen, Trinity College: Prize in Economics, for his contributions to welfare economics
1997 John Walker, Sidney Sussex College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for studying how a spinning enzyme createsthe molecule that powers cells in muscles
1996 James Mirrlees, Trinity College: Prize in Economics, for studying behaviour in the absence of complete information
1989 Norman Ramsey, Clare College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for developing the separated field method
1984 Richard Stone, Caius College and fellow of King's College: Prize in Economics, for developing a national income accounting system
1984 Georges Kohler Nobel Prize in Medicine, for developing a technique for the production of monoclonal antibodies
1984 Cesar Milstein, Fellow of Darwin and Fitzwilliam Colleges: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for developing a technique for the production of monoclonal antibodies
1983 William Fowler, Pembroke College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for the evolution and devolution of stars
1983 Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for the evolution and devolution of stars


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

1983 Gerard Debreu, Churchill College: Prize in Economics, for reforming the theory of general equilibrium
1982 Aaron Klug, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the structure of biologically active substances
1980 Walter Gilbert, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the theory of nucleotide links in nucleic acids
1980 Frederick Sanger, St John's College and fellow of King's College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the theory of nucleotide links in nucleic acids
1979 Steven Weinberg: Nobel Prize in Physics, for electromagnetic and weak particle interactions
1979 Allan Cormack, St John's College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for developing CAT scans
1979 Abdus Salam, St John's College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for electromagnetic and weak particle interactions
1978 Pyotr Kapitsa, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for inventing the helium liquefier
1978 Peter Mitchell, Jesus College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the energy transfer processes in biological systems
1977 Philip Anderson, Churchill College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for the behaviour of electrons in magnetic solids
1977 Nevill Mott, Caius / St John's Colleges: Nobel Prize in Physics, for the behaviour of electrons in magnetic solids
1977 James Meade, Christ's/Trinity Colleges: Prize in Economics, for contributions to the theory of international trade
1974 Patrick White, King's College: Nobel Prize in Literature, for an epic and psychological narrative art


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

1974 Martin Ryle, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for the invention of aperture synthesis
1974 Antony Hewish, Caius / Churchill Colleges: Nobel Prize in Physics, for the discovery of pulsars
1973 Brian Josephson, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for the tunneling in superconductors andsemiconductors
1972 Rodney Porter, Pembroke College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for the chemical structure of antibodies
1972 Kenneth J Arrow, Churchill College: Prize in Economics, for the equilibrium theory
1972 John Hicks, Caius College: Prize in Economics, for the equilibrium theory
1967 Ronald Norrish, Emmanuel College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the study of fast Chemical reactions
1967 George Porter, Emmanuel College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the study of fast Chemical reactions
1964 Dorothy Hodgkin, Newnham / Girton Colleges: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the structure of compounds used to fight anaemia
1963 Andrew Huxley, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for the transmission of impulses along a nerve fibre
1963 Alan Hodgkin, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for the transmission of impulses along a nerve fibre
1962 Max Perutz, Peterhouse: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for determing the structure of haemoproteins
1962 Maurice Wilkins, St John's College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for determining the structure of DNA
1962 John Kendrew, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for determining the structure of haemoproteins
1962 James Watson, Clare College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for determining the structure of DNA
1962 Francis Crick, Caius / Churchill Colleges: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for determining the structure of DNA
1959 Philip Noel-Baker, King's College: Nobel Prize in Peace, for work towards global disarmament
1958 Frederick Sanger, St John's College and fellow of King's College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the structure of the insulin molecule
1957 Alexander Todd, Christ's College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for work on nucleotides
1954 Max Born: Nobel Prize in Physics, for fundamental research into quantum mechanics
1953 Hans Krebs: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for discovering the citric acid cycle
1952 Richard Synge, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for developing partition chromatography
1952 Archer Martin, Peterhouse: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for developing partition chromatography
1951 John Cockcroft, St John's / Churchill Colleges: Nobel Prize in Physics, for using accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei
1951 Ernest Walton, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for using accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei
1950 Cecil Powell, Sidney Sussex College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for photography of nuclear processes
1950 Bertrand Russell, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Literature, for A History of Western Philosophy, 1946
1948 Patrick Blackett, Magdalene / Kings Colleges: Nobel Prize in Physics, for nuclear physics and cosmic radiation
1947 Edward Appleton, St John's College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for discovering the Appleton Layer
1945 Howard Florey, Caius College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for the discovery of penicillin
1945 Ernst Chain, Fitzwilliam College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for the discovery of penicillin
1937 George Thomson, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for interference in crystals irradiated by electrons
1937 Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Fitzwilliam College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for combustion in biology
1936 Henry Dale, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for the chemical transmission of nerve impulses
1935 James Chadwick, Caius College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for discovering the neutron
1933 Paul Dirac, St John's College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for quantum mechanics
1932 Lord Adrian, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for work on the function of neurons
1932 Charles Sherrington, Caius College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for work on the function of neurons
1929 Frederick Hopkins, Trinity / Emmanuel Colleges: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for discovering growth stimulating vitamins
1928 Owen Richardson, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for creating Richardson's Law
1927 Charles Wilson, Sidney Sussex College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for inventing the cloud chamber
1927 Arthur Holly Compton: Nobel Prize in Physics, for discovering wavelength change in diffused X-rays
1925 Austen Chamberlain, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Peace, for work on the Locarno Pact, 1925
1922 Niels Bohr, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for investigating atomic structure and radiation
1922 Francis Aston, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for work on mass spectroscopy
1922 Archibald Hill, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Medicine, for work on heat production in the muscles
1917 Charles Barkla, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for discovering the characteristics of X-radiation
1915 William Bragg, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics for analysing crystal structure using X-rays
1915 Lawrence Bragg, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for analysing crystal structure using X-rays
1908 Ernest Rutherford, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for atomic structure and radioactivity
1906 J. J. Thomson, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for investigating the electrical conductivity of gases
1904 Lord Rayleigh (John William Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh), Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for discovering Argon


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

People in receipt of privilege went on to get Nobel Prizes, well I am fucking surprised.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

An wot?

E2a - that would've looked a lot better if Steph hadn't have got in first. Gutted.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

It is truly a global centre of excellence that attracts some of the planet's finest minds ...and worthless toffs. I hope in a more egalitarian world the there would still be a place for more 'democratic' access  rather than a Year Zero approach.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

Name one that won a prize as a student.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

Feel free to copy and paste another list. If you can find one.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> It is truly a global centre of excellence that attracts some of the planet's finest minds ...and worthless toffs. I hope in a more egalitarian world the there would still be a place for more 'democratic' access rather than a Year Zero approach.


 
1. Do we apply this backwards to some private schools as well which also have an immense scientific pedigree and accumulated knowledge/expertise. Let them stand in the name of the holy spirit of individual genius.

2. You are aware that with Year Zero many teachers from everywhere in the country not just the universities were forcibly arrested, often tortured and in many cases killed.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> 1925 Austen Chamberlain, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Peace


 
LOL! Sent British warships to bombard leftist Chinese nationalists and peasant supporters.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

What was Kenneth J Arrow's stance on feminism ibilly? I am sure that whatever it was, it was completely valid due to his Nobel Prize. Probably more valid than anybody else. Because some person at a top institution awarded him, another person at a top institution, a prize.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> LOL! Sent British warships to bombard leftist Chinese nationalists and peasant supporters.


 

its funny how you actually have to authorise grand scale murder to get the peace prize and heres me in my smalls who never even beat a dog and the biggest prize I get comes free with shreddies


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

What about Lord Adrian? Ernest Walton? Surely you know. You didn't just copy and paste a list of people to make some kind of pointless point, did you?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 19, 2013)

genuine question folks. if someone is hovering at the bottom of the class pile are there certain choices that one would do just to even up the odds a bit to getting a job that pays enough money to take ones kids on holiday once or twice before they become adults?... Like for instance me, would i be like betraying my class if i did a post grad at oxbridge?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 19, 2013)

Anybody got a list of our MPs that went to Oxbridge? That would make for a more interesting list I'm sure.



Dillinger4 said:


> Feel free to copy and paste another list. If you can find one.


 
It's a C+P Odyssey - that's Class+Privilege Odyssey obviously


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> People in receipt of privilege went on to get Nobel Prizes, well I am fucking surprised.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

steph said:


> A*nybody got a list of our MPs that went to Oxbridge?* That would make for a more interesting list I'm sure.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a C+P Odyssey - that's Class+Privilege Odyssey obviously


 

the % of MP millionaires compared to the normal % of millionaires to population is a good un


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 1. Do we apply this backwards to some private schools as well which also have an immense scientific pedigree and accumulated knowledge/expertise. Let them stand in the name of the holy spirit of individual genius.
> 
> 2. You are aware that with Year Zero many teachers from everywhere in the country not just the universities were forcibly arrested, often tortured and in many cases killed.


 
Yes and yes - I was  trying rather inelegantly making a case for Centres of Excellence that act as clusters for the advancement of human knowledge if we could sort out a more egalitarian way of access to the privileged elite place that it undoubtedly is. Currently just 50% of its undergraduates went to state schools. When the revolution comes then one hopes we wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater when reforming the state and its institutions. My brother's Marxist sociology lecturer from Leeds Aidan Foster-Carter was a resolute supporter of the bold communist anti-imperialist 'adventure' .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/feb/16/cambodia-khmer-rouge


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

I knew it , I knew it I should have kept my half-baked thoughts from the big boy and girl's threads where serious matters are debated with great intelligence and panache. I shall stick to less serious matters and thraeds in future and read silently and be informed. I've heard it's good over in suburban. Quitely leaves heated kitchen....as you were. I went to Surrey University myself.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 19, 2013)

Fascinating to watch the way this thread was smashed off topic. Especially given how many people round here either went to or work for posh universities themselves.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> What about Lord Adrian? Ernest Walton? Surely you know. You didn't just copy and paste a list of people to make some kind of pointless point, did you?


 
sadly yes my apologies.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> I knew it , I knew it I should have kept my half-baked thoughts from the big boy and girl's threads where serious matters are debated with great intelligence and panache. I shall stick to less serious matters and thraeds in future and read silently and be informed. I've heard it's good over in suburban. Quitely leaves heated kitchen....as you were.


 

no

there was no great intelligence in what I said. I was just being a dick. I can admit that much. Although I do think that copy and pasting long lists of eminent Cambridge scholars was the wrong approach.  

Saying their opinions are worthless is a bit strong. At 18 years old, most people don't know much about life. To go through education, and get to a place like Cambridge, you are almost certainly going to have been shielded from a lot of things. And Cambridge itself, as a bastion of elitism, ivory towers and all that, perhaps isn't the best place to ask why we need feminism. As was said earlier in the thread, perhaps it could have been tempered by also asking people who exist in different circumstances. 

I don't say this to many people, but I do quite like the things you post, usually. So apologies for the aggressive tone.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> no
> 
> there was no great intelligence in what I said. I was just being a dick. I can admit that much. Although I do think that copy and pasting long lists of eminent Cambridge scholars was the wrong approach.
> 
> ...


 
No problem thanks for your kind words I'm also a bit drunk - one should use the old ( adapted) carpenter's maxim for Urban - think twice post once.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 19, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Yes and yes - I was trying rather inelegantly making a case for Centres of Excellence that act as clusters for the advancement of human knowledge if we could sort out a more egalitarian way of access to the privileged elite place that it undoubtedly is. Currently just 50% of its undergraduates went to state schools. When the revolution comes then one hopes we wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater when reforming the state and its institutions.


 
Oxbridge is more like a draining hoarder of worldwide intellect in the service of, increasingly, market-funded and 9k-fees funded research centres. It wrests the best 'minds' (trained with labour and resources in poorer nations) from other centres of scientific excellence elsewhere in the world. It also serves as a bedrock for transmitted privilege in many fields such as law and medicine.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 19, 2013)

This notion of fine minds is such cock. 'Intelligence' is social labour.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Oxbridge is more like a draining hoarder of worldwide intellect in the service of, increasingly, market-funded and 9k-fees funded research centres. It wrests the best 'minds' (trained with labour and resources in poorer nations) from other centres of scientific excellence elsewhere in the world. It also serves as a bedrock for transmitted privilege in many fields such as law and medicine.


You're skirting the question - if you agree there is a question to be answered - should we not allow for competition in fields such as experimental sciences? Trial by hypothesis might be founded on collective labour, but it's still competitive and still reliant on flashes of individual genius.


----------



## JHE (Jun 20, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Yes and yes - I was trying rather inelegantly making a case for Centres of Excellence that act as clusters for the advancement of human knowledge if we could sort out a more egalitarian way of access to the privileged elite place that it undoubtedly is. Currently just 50% of its undergraduates went to state schools. When the revolution comes then one hopes we wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater when reforming the state and its institutions. My brother's Marxist sociology lecturer from Leeds *Aidan Foster-Carter* was a resolute supporter of the bold communist anti-imperialist 'adventure' .
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/feb/16/cambodia-khmer-rouge


 

Aidan Foster-Carter: Eton and Oxford (Balliol)!


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You still don't get it.


 
What, middle class people have some advantages! Yes some do.



ViolentPanda said:


> Most of us have to make do with what's on offer. We don't have the resources to move nearer a "good" school, so we make do, and generally look for solutions that don't involve gaming the system.


 
Finding ourselves near a school with better results was a bonus. We didn't "game" the system, i.e. did not move with the intention to get a better education. We moved to find work THEN looked at local schools.

Where we used to live it was possible to go to about four schools, the poorly performing one was most convenient as it was walking distance but some sent their kids to slightly further schools by bus, and some drove to others. There was a degree of choice for everyone. I assume you wouldn't begrudge that?



ViolentPanda said:


> For most of my friends and relatives faced with being in the cachement of a not-particularly-brilliant school, that has meant them tutoring their kids at home, over and above what the school manages to provide.


 
Tutoring gives a kid an advantage over those unable or unwilling to tutor. We have done some tutoring with our kid. As you seem so sensitive to advantage and privilege are you not uncomfortable with tutoring?

BTW I know some who did move because of schooling. That was NOT the case for us, we moved to find work!



ViolentPanda said:


> it's a solution that doesn't deprive someone in a better cachement of a school place, and doesn't require uprooting a kid from their friendship network.


 
There was no guarantee of a place at the school we liked, we rented a house and hoped for the best. Here again there were three schools we put down as options. We were no more likely to get a place than any other family in the area.

As to uprooting a kid from friends, we all liked where we used to live! I have moved 12 times since I was a child. My kid has moved 3 times. Moving is massively disruptive, personally I hate it, and we never had an extended family which some benefit from.

Anyhow I think we have milked this issue to death. It is obvious you think I am the devil incarnate for having had some luck in being near a slightly "better" school than we were previously near. You suggested I had no conscience, would it have been better for society in general, or anyone in particular, for us to have stayed in the previous location, taken a place at the worst school available in the area and drawn IB, or job seekers and housing benefit perhaps indefinitely?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> 1983 Gerard Debreu, Churchill College: Prize in Economics, for reforming the theory of general equilibrium
> 1982 Aaron Klug, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the structure of biologically active substances
> 1980 Walter Gilbert, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the theory of nucleotide links in nucleic acids
> 1980 Frederick Sanger, St John's College and fellow of King's College: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for the theory of nucleotide links in nucleic acids
> ...


Oh dear you're coming across as something of a bohr


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I just found out that the audience for the Lousie Mensche /Laurie Penny  newsnight discussion on feminism ( I had Mensche clearly ahead on all three cards) was  totally dwarfed by the documentary on Jodie Marsh Bullied: My Secret Past


I haven't seen that. Not hard to see why it'd be more popular viewing though, looking at the summary. I don't know much about JM but I daresay being bullied at school and how she reacted to that plus success, are going to be far more appealing.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Kizmet is dead clever. It means nothing, however.


No, he isn't. He desperately wants to appear clever. In truth, he's a huge bundle of vague, woolly inanities, desperately trying to look profound, and only succeeding in looking fuckwitted instead


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> By the sounds of it, the genuine state school kids that go thru Oxbridge don't get the same set of privileges as the posh kids do. The power networks start much before Oxbridge.


In fact, thery start more or less at birth.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> In fact, thery start more or less at birth.


Yes. Button says "born to rule" and that's how they behave, many of them unconscious of it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> will there not always be a ruling class of some kind?


not necessarily, no.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> What, middle class people have some advantages! Yes some do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Most parents assist their child with their education at some point. Doing so directly isn't advantaging them. Hiring an external tutor would be.



> BTW I know some who did move because of schooling. That was NOT the case for us, we moved to find work!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What's hilarious (and very sad) is that you believe I'm attacking you personally, so you're reacting personally. You're just an example of the problem, not the problem itself.  Think beyond yourself, if possible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> genuine question folks. if someone is hovering at the bottom of the class pile are there certain choices that one would do just to even up the odds a bit to getting a job that pays enough money to take ones kids on holiday once or twice before they become adults?... Like for instance me, would i be like betraying my class if i did a post grad at oxbridge?


 
My personal take:
If you're good at what you do, and Oxbridge is the place where your subject is dealt with best, it's okay (or at least permissible) for professional development.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Come on steph, not everything is about class!!


when it comes to an implicitly political issue, such as the entrenchment of [privilege by location and education, everything _is_ about class.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most parents assist their child with their education at some point. Doing so directly isn't advantaging them. Hiring an external tutor would be.


I think that part isn't logical.  Parents are a source of social capital too.  There is no effective difference between a parent spending an hour earning money to pay for a professional tutor for an hour and that same parent being a professional tutor themself.


The fact that parents start to advantage their children from birth is one of the key sources of inequality, actually, because parents at different levels of social, educational and fiscal power have the ability to create advantage at different rates.  Parents that are able to provide better nutrition and healthcare are also advantaging their children beyond those whose parents cannot do so.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's hilarious (and very sad) is that you believe I'm attacking you personally, so you're reacting personally. You're just an example of the problem, not the problem itself. Think beyond yourself, if possible.


 
You're attacking his attitudes and actions, how the hell is that not personal?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You're attacking her attitudes and actions, how the hell is that not personal?


 
His, I believe.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> His, I believe.


Sorry, yes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I think that part isn't logical. Parents are a source of social capital too. There is no effective difference between a parent spending an hour earning money to pay for a professional tutor for an hour and that same parent being a professional tutor themself.


 
I'd quibble there, and say that there is an effective difference between gving your own children tuition, and providing professional tuition, if the professional tutor is more skilled in pedagogy and has a better grasp of the subject(s) than you do.



> The fact that parents start to advantage their children from birth is one of the key sources of inequality, actually, because parents at different levels of social, educational and fiscal power have the ability to create advantage at different rates. Parents that are able to provide better nutrition and healthcare are also advantaging their children beyond those whose parents cannot do so.


 
Absolutely. Knowing that it exists, alongside more overt social advantaging *should* be a spur toward equality, though, not a spur to shrug and say "well, there's nothing we can do about that".


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

If Newton popped in to mention the universal action of gravity on all material objects, weltweit would pipe up to argue that gravity was just a theory, and anyway didn't some people land on the moon once?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd quibble there, and say that there is an effective difference between gving your own children tuition, and providing professional tuition, if the professional tutor is more skilled in pedagogy and has a better grasp of the subject(s) than you do.


But what if the tutor is not more skilled than I am? What if I am a professional tutor as well as being a parent? What if I understand the subject _better_ than the average tutor? Why does paying for it create advantage whereas merely having free access to the same thing does not? Free to those who can afford it, very expensive to those who cannot.



> Absolutely. Knowing that it exists, alongside more overt social advantaging *should* be a spur toward equality, though, not a spur to shrug and say "well, there's nothing we can do about that".


 
Yes, it should. It should be a spur to removing as much entrenched advantage as possible, starting by providing excellent universal healthcare and educational services and continuing with the removal of all inherited wealth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> If Newton popped in to mention the universal action of gravity on all material objects, weltweit would pipe up to argue that gravity was just a theory, and anyway didn't some people land on the moon once?


 

I'd just chuck apples at his head while crowing 'you like them apples?'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You're attacking his attitudes and actions, how the hell is that not personal?


 
No, I've used his actions to point out where and how he has used privilege for personal reasons. If I were attacking him, he'd know about it.  He may *believe* (as you do - what do the two of you have in common, I wonder?) that I'm attacking him, but I'm not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> If Newton popped in to mention the universal action of gravity on all material objects, weltweit would pipe up to argue that gravity was just a theory, and anyway didn't some people land on the moon once?


 
Isn't the fact that people landed on the moon actually proof of Newton's hypotheses, though?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I've used his actions to point out where and how he has used privilege for personal reasons. If I were attacking him, he'd know about it. He may *believe* (as you do - what do the two of you have in common, I wonder?) that I'm attacking him, but I'm not.


We're both male and middle-aged, is about it. You may not *think* you're attacking him, but you are.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't the fact that people landed on the moon actually proof of Newton's hypotheses, though?


Well, quite.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 20, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> This notion of fine minds is such cock. 'Intelligence' is social labour.


 

Any chance you could elaborate on that for lesser minds such as myself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> But what if the tutor is not more skilled than I am? What if I am a professional tutor as well as being a parent? What if I understand the subject _better_ than the average tutor? Why does paying for it create advantage whereas merely having free access to the same thing does not? Free to those who can afford it, very expensive to those who cannot.


 
Your "what if" is interesting, but what real-world value does it have? How often will the parent be more well-informed than the tutor or, as may be the case, have the time to devote as much full attention to the tuition as the tutor?
My point about familial tutoring is that it's something that happens (yes, even among working-class scum like us!) widely, but that it's often general and/or basic. It's "advantage", but on a small scale, and one that doesn't significantly accrue from generation to generation. Professional/bought in tutoring, on the other hand, isn't usually general or basic, but subject-specific, and provides a means by which the purchaser and the recipient *create* advantage through differential access to finance and use of social capital. Such advantage can and does accrue from generation to generation, like a cartoon snowball.




> Yes, it should. It should be a spur to removing as much entrenched advantage as possible, starting by providing excellent universal healthcare and educational services and continuing with the removal of all inherited wealth.


 
Amen to that, but I suspect that those whose privilege is  built on inheritance of wealth might be upset to be expropriated, so we should expect some "fireworks".


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most parents assist their child with their education at some point. Doing so directly isn't advantaging them. Hiring an external tutor would be.


What if you're not  capable of helping them with the subject? 
This would say it's ok for my mum and dad to tutor me in Maths, so I passed, but not for my Dad to offer private tuition to someone else to do so.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Affiliates of University of Cambridge have won more Nobel Prizes than those of any other institution.


Your point being....?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your "what if" is interesting, but what real-world value does it have? How often will the parent be more well-informed than the tutor or, as may be the case, have the time to devote as much full attention to the tuition as the tutor?


Amongst the educated classes (working, middle or upper), it happens a lot. And it starts early. By the time some kids start school, they can already read to a decent level and perform basic numeracy, such as adding, subtracting and multiplying. Meanwhile, other kids have never even seen the written word. Advantage has already been transferred.

I think you're drawing a very artificial and arbitrary line between tutoring by parents and by paid-for individuals. We haven't even discussed social capital -- tutoring by friends and family other than parents. I have tutored friends' kids for nothing a few times -- how does that fit into the template?



> My point about familial tutoring is that it's something that happens (yes, even among working-class scum like us!) widely, but that it's often general and/or basic. It's "advantage", but on a small scale, and one that doesn't significantly accrue from generation to generation. Professional/bought in tutoring, on the other hand, isn't usually general or basic, but subject-specific, and provides a means by which the purchaser and the recipient *create* advantage through differential access to finance and use of social capital. Such advantage can and does accrue from generation to generation, like a cartoon snowball.


I understand the distinction you are trying to draw, but I think you are underestimating the scale and quality of familial tutoring. And of course it accrues down generations. A highly educated parent can create highly educated children. Arguably, by denying similar advantage to kids without such educated parents, you are actually allowing the accrual of knowledge to accumulate more strongly.

In short, it isn't such an easy distinction. The only way around it is to get to the point where there is no _point_ in private tutoring, because public services are good enough to render it unnecessary.



> Amen to that, but I suspect that those whose privilege is built on inheritance of wealth might be upset to be expropriated, so we should expect some "fireworks".


 
Good. And a bonfire with a wicker man too.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> If Newton popped in to mention the universal action of gravity on all material objects, weltweit would pipe up to argue that gravity was just a theory, and anyway didn't some people land on the moon once?


 

Would that be before or after Dillinger4 tells Newton he's irrelevant?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Yes, it should. It should be a spur to removing as much entrenched advantage as possible, starting by providing excellent universal healthcare and educational services and continuing with the removal of all inherited wealth.


 
And then onto wealth full stop.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Would that be before or after Dillinger4 tells Newton he's irrelevant?


 
surely that is einsteins job


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> surely that is einsteins job


 

True, Einstein was renowned for thinking Cambridge students were a bunch of dicks.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> True, Einstein was renowned for thinking Cambridge students were a bunch of dicks.


 
But he was a very handsome fellow.


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yet again, kizmet pats himself on the back/gives himself a reach-around.


 
Isn't this a misunderstanding/misuse of the term?

If you think he's a wanker just say so


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> No, he isn't. He desperately wants to appear clever. In truth, he's a huge bundle of vague, woolly inanities, desperately trying to look profound, and only succeeding in looking fuckwitted instead


Do us all a favour and try addressing a point once in a while rather than just display your insecurities with a personal attack.

For example... the point has been made that this discussion about Cambridge and privilege is irrelevant to the spreading of the basic meme. Except that the inherent privilege means that the meme has a higher chance of attracting mainstream coverage for the campaign.

Do you accept this point? If not why not?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> What if you're not capable of helping them with the subject?
> This would say it's ok for my mum and dad to tutor me in Maths, so I passed, but not for my Dad to offer private tuition to someone else to do so.


 
There's something implicit to the word "hire". Your dad helping a neighbour's kid for free - fine by me. Your dad allowing himself to be paid by someone he doesn't know to give extra tuition to a kid he doesn't know - not so fine by me. The former is just community-minded kindness, the latter is profiting from someone wishing to buy advantage.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:
			
		

> Fascinating to watch the way this thread was smashed off topic. Especially given how many people round here either went to or work for posh universities themselves.



Which one did you go to?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's something implicit to the word "hire". Your dad helping a neighbour's kid for free - fine by me. Your dad allowing himself to be paid by someone he doesn't know to give extra tuition to a kid he doesn't know - not so fine by me. The former is just community-minded kindness, the latter is profiting from someone wishing to buy advantage.


So I get it for free, that makes it all okay?
My dad has done plenty of free tuition as well as paid for, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> Amongst the educated classes (working, middle or upper), it happens a lot. And it starts early. By the time some kids start school, they can already read to a decent level and perform basic numeracy, such as adding, subtracting and multiplying. Meanwhile, other kids have never even seen the written word. Advantage has already been transferred.
> 
> I think you're drawing a very artificial and arbitrary line between tutoring by parents and by paid-for individuals. We haven't even discussed social capital -- tutoring by friends and family other than parents. I have tutored friends' kids for nothing a few times -- how does that fit into the template?


 
As I said to _angel_, helping friends or neighbours for no reward (other than emotional satisfaction and/or petrol money) is fine by me.



> I understand the distinction you are trying to draw, but I think you are underestimating the scale and quality of familial tutoring. And of course it accrues down generations. A highly educated parent can create highly educated children. Arguably, by denying similar advantage to kids without such educated parents, you are actually allowing the accrual of knowledge to accumulate more strongly.
> 
> In short, it isn't such an easy distinction. The only way around it is to get to the point where there is no _point_ in private tutoring, because public services are good enough to render it unnecessary.


 
Well quite.




> Good. And a bonfire with a wicker man too.


 
With or without a stuffing of MPs?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> So I get it for free, that makes it all okay?
> My dad has done plenty of free tuition as well as paid for, too.


 
It doesn't make it "okay" - the only thing that would "make it okay" would be a decent, equitable and fair education system - but it makes it understandable and acceptable outwith any other solution.
Buying in help, though, that sticks in my craw. Only a relatively small amount of people can afford to do that, so (to make a very general point to which I'm sure there are many individual exceptions) it's the buying of privilege.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's something implicit to the word "hire". Your dad helping a neighbour's kid for free - fine by me. Your dad allowing himself to be paid by someone he doesn't know to give extra tuition to a kid he doesn't know - not so fine by me. The former is just community-minded kindness, the latter is profiting from someone wishing to buy advantage.



So how would a tutor earn a living?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> So how would a tutor earn a living?


 
By working within the state education system, which is the only education system there should be.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> By working within the state education system, which is the only education system there should be.


Ivan Illich wants a word.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> By working within the state education system, which is the only education system there should be.


Has it not occurred to you that my dad also is/was a teacher in the state system already?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> By working within the state education system, which is the only education system there should be.



By this do you mean a system which eradicates the need for personal tuition or one which provides personal tuition?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

What if you don't agree with the state system?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> What if you don't agree with the state system?


Then Ivan Illich wants a word. Or John Gatto. Or Paolo Freire.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

By the way, what about a music teacher or someone who wouldn't be employed to give 1:1 lessons under the state system? A student who is offering language tuition to someone who isn't at a school or uni and just wants to learn? Is that not allowed either?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> What if you don't agree with the state system?


 
Then you're a dick.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> It doesn't make it "okay" - the only thing that would "make it okay" would be a decent, equitable and fair education system - but it makes it understandable and acceptable outwith any other solution.
> Buying in help, though, that sticks in my craw. Only a relatively small amount of people can afford to do that, so (to make a very general point to which I'm sure there are many individual exceptions) it's the buying of privilege.



In all cases? A mate of mine got extra tutoring for maths and his old man was a labourer so they were hardly swimming in cash. The extra tuition actually got him to be about average rather than ahead of everyone else. I agree that there should be free and adequate education for all but when the school doesn't meet your child's needs you should allow them to languish whilst clutching tightly to your principles?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Then you're a dick.


Depends what your proposed alternative is doesn't it?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Depends what your proposed alternative is doesn't it?


 
Yeah, true. I just couldn't resist the lure of calling kizmet a dick.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> In all cases? A mate of mine got extra tutoring for maths and his old man was a labourer so they were hardly swimming in cash. The extra tuition actually got him to be about average rather than ahead of everyone else. I agree that there should be free and adequate education for all but when the school doesn't meet your child's needs you should allow them to languish whilst clutching tightly to your principles?


Or while someone else can tutor their own kids for free because they have those skills already?
Fwiw I think teachers already offer a lot of out of hours services for kids, now.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Yeah, true. I just couldn't resist the lure of calling kizmet a dick.


It's tough, I grant you that.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Yeah, true. I just couldn't resist the lure of calling kizmet a dick.



Fair enough. You are clearly obsessed with them so who am I to judge.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Ivan Illich wants a word.


 
Yes, because wanting fairness and equity, that's more than a little bit communism, isn't it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:
			
		

> Or while someone else can tutor their own kids for free because they have those skills already?
> Fwiw I think teachers already offer a lot of out of hours services for kids, now.



Well yeah, they then have an unfair advantage. My dad was able to help me out with maths. He helped my mate out too but just with science iirc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Has it not occurred to you that my dad also is/was a teacher in the state system already?


 
Actually, perhaps because you mention it so often, I was already well aware.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, because wanting fairness and equity, that's more than a little bit communism, isn't it?


Say what now? All I meant was that a state educational system isn't the only way to educate the masses. The alternative isn't necessarily a free market.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> By this do you mean a system which eradicates the need for personal tuition or one which provides personal tuition?


 
The former.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Say what now? All I meant was that a state educational system isn't the only way to educate the masses. The alternative isn't necessarily a free market.


 
A state system is probably the best structure through which to deliver such education, though, when and if you can dismantle or circumvent all the blockages built into it by the bureaucrats.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A state system is probably the best structure through which to deliver such education, though, when and if you can dismantle or circumvent all the blockages built into it by the bureaucrats.


Could be an interesting thread (albeit probably done several times before): alternative visions for the provision of mass education. FWIW I don't agree with compulsory schooling using a standardised curriculum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> What if you don't agree with the state system?


 
You've got two choices. Allow your child to receive a state education, or not.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> .. What's hilarious (and very sad) is that you believe I'm attacking you personally, ....


 
You were, there is no mistaking it, do you want me to go back and quote your posts back to you? You didn't make general points, you directed them at me by name.



ViolentPanda said:


> You're just an example of the problem, not the problem itself. Think beyond yourself, if possible.


 
I am not even an example of the particular problem as I did not game the system except in your biased mind, we moved to find work and found as a side effect that schooling was better at the new place. It was luck, we could just as easily have found work somewhere where all the local schools were absolute rubbish and there would equally have been nothing we could have done about that!

.
.
Anyhow, you say you want more general argument!

People will in general try to do their best for their children, everyone in the main is the same in that regard. People want the best for their children.

You say, middle class people moving house to get a better catchment is unethical, but working class people tutoring their kids is not.

I believe tutoring yourself is the same as paying a tutor. Everyone's time is worth money. And it is extra help for your child more than the school can provide, more than the state education system paid for by general taxation provides. We invested time in helping our child to read, before primary school, primary encouraged us to spend as much time as possible encouraging and helping our kid study. Not all parents could be bothered, some kids did not have such a supported start. Educational inequality starts early.

My ex partner happens to be a teacher, they can tutor as well as any in their specialist subject. But I would also pay a tutor if it was necessary and I could afford it.

If you accept, which you might come round to, that paying for a tutor can be ethical, then you are half way toward saying that private education is acceptable because a paid for tutor is private education.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It's tough, I grant you that.



There's just something about the way some of you guys whinge about _everything_ that just makes it funny to be a dick to you.

Some of you are so fucking pompous at times you're almost bursting for a prick to pop your bubbles.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> There's just something about the way some of you guys whinge about _everything_ that just makes it funny to be a dick to you.
> 
> Some of you are so fucking pompous at times you're almost bursting for a prick to pop your bubbles.


Get back to the groping.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've got two choices. Allow your child to receive a state education, or not.



And if not... alternative education systems are only allowed if free?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Could be an interesting thread (albeit probably done several times before): alternative visions for the provision of mass education. FWIW I don't agree with compulsory schooling using a standardised curriculum.


 
I actually agree that if you compulsorily school (as the UK has putatively done since the mid 19th century) then to have a standardised curriculum is pointless - a basic curriculum in primary education, with a greater diversity of optional subjects in secondary education, would seem more rational.
Of course, I'd also want mandatory maximum class sizes and pupil/teacher ratios, and a merciless concentration on delivering high-quality "special needs" provision that included trying to "catch" all kids who need statementing early in their educational careers (say within the first 2 years), and provides solutions and/or assistance for them.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Get back to the groping.



Ooh cutting. Reference to inappropriate sexual behaviour based on rumour.

Skillz, bro.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> By working within the state education system, which is the only education system there should be.


 

i thought you were an anarchist


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I actually agree that if you compulsorily school (as the UK has putatively done since the mid 19th century) then to have a standardised curriculum is pointless - a basic curriculum in primary education, with a greater diversity of optional subjects in secondary education, would seem more rational.
> Of course, I'd also want mandatory maximum class sizes and pupil/teacher ratios, and a merciless concentration on delivering high-quality "special needs" provision that included trying to "catch" all kids who need statementing early in their educational careers (say within the first 2 years), and provides solutions and/or assistance for them.


 
Beyond basic numeracy and literacy I don't think anything should be standardised through curricula.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The former.



A state system that eradicates the need for personal tuition?

That's easily the more difficult of the two to implement.

So in that context lets discuss immigration... how does an immigrant community/individual catch up with the state system if they are behind? How does anyone catch up of they fall behind?


----------



## Firky (Jun 20, 2013)

Added a couple more people to my ignore list yesterday (the obsequious one and the creepy one) and now this thread is hard to follow.

Looks like VP is losing it


----------



## J Ed (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Beyond basic numeracy and literacy I don't think anything should be standardised through curricula.


 

Really? You don't think that children should _have to_ learn grammar, foreign languages or even basic science?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> In all cases? A mate of mine got extra tutoring for maths and his old man was a labourer so they were hardly swimming in cash. The extra tuition actually got him to be about average rather than ahead of everyone else. I agree that there should be free and adequate education for all but when the school doesn't meet your child's needs you should allow them to languish whilst clutching tightly to your principles?


 
So basically your mate's dad was making a personal sacrifice in order to do something - probably had to give up or cut back on a vice, because the system wasn't adequate to his son's needs?
I don't like that, but I see, if not the necessity, the need for it.  My experience of tuition, though, doesn't often reflect that sort of scenario. It reflects the lazy entitled student whose parents make little or no sacrifice to buy in assistance to make sure their kid passes his exams. Okay, my pool of experience is small, less than a dozen kids, but it doesn't make me particularly forbearing on the subject.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Firky said:


> Added a couple more people to my ignore list yesterday (the obsequious one and the creepy one) and now this thread is hard to follow.
> 
> Looks like VP is losing it


 
Yes, truly I'm an absolute fascist.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> But he was a very handsome fellow.


Ah yes, but did he monetise his hotness?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Really? You don't think that children should learn grammar, foreign languages or even basic science?


I think kids should learn whatever they want to learn. And I think everyone should be encouraged to be curious. Beyond that I don't see the need for standardisation. If kids should have to learn anything it should be skills leading to critical thinking, independence and feelings of pride and joy in themselves and their family, friends and community.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> By the way, what about a music teacher or someone who wouldn't be employed to give 1:1 lessons under the state system? A student who is offering language tuition to someone who isn't at a school or uni and just wants to learn? Is that not allowed either?


 
If you're not at school or uni, then it's hardly the business of the state education system, is it?


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> What if you don't agree with the state system?


 
Re-education camp, innit


----------



## Firky (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, truly I'm an absolute fascist.


 

Nah, it looks like you're arguing with thin air!


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

Firky said:


> Added a couple more people to my ignore list yesterday (the obsequious one and the creepy one) and now this thread is hard to follow.
> 
> Looks like VP is losing it


 
Who are the the obsequious one and the creepy one?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 20, 2013)

Firky said:


> Nah, it looks like you're arguing with thin air!


 
http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you're not at school or uni, then it's hardly the business of the state education system, is it?


 
So what are we talking about here?  The banning of paid-for tutoring in specific subjects but not unpaid-for tutoring, and not paid-for in other subjects?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> And if not... alternative education systems are only allowed if free?


 
What part of "You've got two choices. Allow your child to receive a state education, or not." are you having difficulty with?


----------



## Firky (Jun 20, 2013)

I have seen that garfield thing, it is like a comic strip of someone with severe mental health problems. :/



kabbes said:


> Who are the the obsequious one and the creepy one?


 

Well not you because I am replying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i thought you were an anarchist


 
I am anarchist who acknowledges the sad fact that we exist within a state system. If we *have* to exist within that system, then why not make sure it works well for all, that there isn't a mass of differentials between what a minority get, and what the majority get?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I am anarchist who acknowledges the sad fact that we exist within a state system. If we *have* to exist within that system, then why not make sure it works well for all, that there isn't a mass of differentials between what a minority get, and what the majority get?


 

I have to say that I agree.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Beyond basic numeracy and literacy I don't think anything should be standardised through curricula.


 
I think that's a great ideal, but I'm not sure it's pragmatically-achievable when taking into account the ever-increasing need for, for example, bilingualism.
That's not to say that I think that languages should be compulsory, just that I suspect that ways and means would be found to facilitate the requirements of capitalism, IYSWIM.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you're not at school or uni, then it's hardly the business of the state education system, is it?


Ok so you are allowed personal tuition if you're not at school?
Also about telling everyone to work in the state system, where does music lessons come, what about a student wanting to offer tuition to kids but couldn't work in the state system because they're not actually teachers?
To pass a music GCSE you need to learn an instrument, this kind of tuition isn't usually provided by state schools and the onus is on pupils to learn the instrument on their own. Often, a private tutor comes in. My sis didn't have one and failed her music GCSE terribly.
Schools usually simply don't have more than one music teacher anyway and there's no way that they can 1:1 tutor all the kids to play an instrument.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I think kids should learn whatever they want to learn. And I think everyone should be encouraged to be curious. Beyond that I don't see the need for standardisation. If kids should have to learn anything it should be skills leading to critical thinking, independence and feelings of pride and joy in themselves and their family, friends and community.


Montessori?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> By working within the state education system, which is the only education system there should be.


 
I would be quite happy with just a state education system. As long as it was adequate.

The muddle we have at the moment is a mess. Dismantling it might be a headache though.

You have stated you want fairness but I wonder what you mean by that word?

Is streaming or setting fair?

Is it fair someone with a natural aptitude for a particular subject, perhaps nurtured at home, can excel, go on to a better university and then on to significantly better earning prospects than normal kids? i.e. Is some kind of an educational meritocracy fair?

I have not formulated what I think fairness is, I am not an expert in education, sometimes I rail against the fact that life just is not fair, even better looking candidates do better in job interviews, is it possible to have a fair system?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What part of "You've got two choices. Allow your child to receive a state education, or not." are you having difficulty with?



The "not" part, in this instance.

If not, what?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that's a great ideal, but I'm not sure it's pragmatically-achievable when taking into account the ever-increasing need for, for example, bilingualism.
> That's not to say that I think that languages should be compulsory, just that I suspect that ways and means would be found to facilitate the requirements of capitalism, IYSWIM.


Of course I'm talking ideals. In practice I'd still want to see a lot less standardisation of curricula - after all isn't the point of primary education to give kids a) basic content knowledge needed to parse text and numbers, and b) learning how to learn?

The latter is the big one IME - a lot of people never learn how to learn.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Montessori?


I much prefer that approach, but... I dunno, something about those schools give me the creeps.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 20, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Any chance you could elaborate on that for lesser minds such as myself.


 

I mean that thinking, knowledge production, making links, new ideas, mental work is always social, always part of a relationship. I think the idea that intelligence exists prior to or in some special sphere apart from the culture that forms it is a political view that supports the current way of organising our society for the benefit of the few, the fine few, with their fine minds, and fine rewards.

It's always a particular type of intelligence that's valued, the type that directly and visibly aids production of profit. Maths and science specifically. Al those middle class men in which a fine mind just happens to reside.

I wonder how fine the mind of a mother is, constantly analysing risk, assessing developmental appropriateness, taking on and understanding emotions, her own, her children's, managing change, all at the same time, every minute. Is that a fine mind?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

In reply to my post : "will there not always be a ruling class of some kind?"



Streathamite said:


> not necessarily, no.


 
Would you care to expand on that Streathamite?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I mean that thinking, knowledge production, making links, new ideas, mental work is always social, always part of a relationship. I think the idea that intelligence exists prior to or in some special sphere apart from the culture that forms it is a political view that supports the current way of organising our society for the benefit of the few, the fine few, with their fine minds, and fine rewards.
> 
> It's always a particular type of intelligence that's valued, the type that directly and visibly aids production of profit. Maths and science specifically. Al those middle class men in which a fine mind just happens to reside.
> 
> I wonder how fine the mind of a mother is, constantly analysing risk, assessing developmental appropriateness, taking on and understanding emotions, her own, her children's, managing change, all at the same time, every minute. Is that a fine mind?


That's a tired mind. Very very tired.


----------



## Firky (Jun 20, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I mean that thinking, knowledge production, making links, new ideas, mental work is always social, always part of a relationship. I think the idea that intelligence exists prior to or in some special sphere apart from the culture that forms it is a political view that supports the current way of organising our society for the benefit of the few, the fine few, with their fine minds, and fine rewards.
> 
> It's always a particular type of intelligence that's valued, the type that directly and visibly aids production of profit. Maths and science specifically. Al those middle class men in which a fine mind just happens to reside.
> 
> I wonder how fine the mind of a mother is, constantly analysing risk, assessing developmental appropriateness, taking on and understanding emotions, her own, her children's, managing change, all at the same time, every minute. Is that a fine mind?


 

Good 'post.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> .. I wonder how fine the mind of a mother is, constantly analysing risk, assessing developmental appropriateness, taking on and understanding emotions, her own, her children's, managing change, all at the same time, every minute. Is that a fine mind?


In my perfect world, mothers would be paid for bringing up children, unless the fathers did it, which increasingly they should and in which case they would be paid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> A state system that eradicates the need for personal tuition?
> 
> That's easily the more difficult of the two to implement.


 
Difficulty should not be a bar to implementation.



> So in that context lets discuss immigration... how does an immigrant community/individual catch up with the state system if they are behind? How does anyone catch up of they fall behind?


 
Through the state system.  Decent funding of primary, secondary and tertiary education (whether further or higher) makes the above achievable. In fact it used to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> So what are we talking about here? The banning of paid-for tutoring in specific subjects but not unpaid-for tutoring, and not paid-for in other subjects?


 
Sort of.
Ideally, the removal of the need for any tutoring in any subject.

Oh, and the liquidation of crammers and anyone who has attended one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Firky said:


> Nah, it looks like you're arguing with thin air!


 
Hey, if that's all there is to argue with, I'll take it!


----------



## 8ball (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> In my perfect world, mothers would be paid for bringing up children, unless the fathers did it, which increasingly they should and in which case they would be paid.


 
Wonder how long it would take for everything to be outsourced to massive baby farms...


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> .. Oh, and the liquidation of crammers and anyone who has attended one.


People often use crammers for a second chance at exams they failed.

Do you believe kids should only have one shot even if they blow it?

I believe Gove thinks that, hence his latest proposed changes.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> In my perfect world, mothers would be paid for bringing up children, unless the fathers did it, which increasingly they should and in which case they would be paid.


 
They were - Til the DWP made them sign on instead of getting income support til the kids turned sixteen.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> People often use crammers for a second chance at exams they failed.
> 
> Do you believe kids should only have one shot even if they blow it?
> 
> I believe Gove thinks that, hence his latest proposed changes.


He's a fucking twat. (Gove obv).


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Difficulty should not be a bar to implementation.
> 
> 
> 
> Through the state system.  Decent funding of primary, secondary and tertiary education (whether further or higher) makes the above achievable. In fact it used to.



How did it work without offering personal tuition to those who needed extra assistance, though?

The fundamental problem with this approach is that it has difficulty being flexible to deal with large scale cultural changes or population migration/immigration. I wonder how you propose to build that kind of flexibility into the system when you are discounting alternatives.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> They were - Til the DWP made them sign on instead of getting income support til the kids turned sixteen.


 
When our sprog was young, years ago, when we needed childcare we used a lovely woman around the corner who already had three kids of her own. It was a strictly cash only business but it was quite fine. Now childminders have to be Ofsted inspected, there are minder / child ratios and all sorts and the cost of childcare has risen significantly. Childcare is a massive issue and I don't think the current system is right at all!


----------



## 8ball (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> When our sprog was young, years ago, when we needed childcare we used a lovely woman around the corner who already had three kids of her own. It was a strictly cash only business but it was quite fine. Now childminders have to be Ofsted inspected, there are minder / child ratios and all sorts and the cost of childcare has risen massively. Childcare is a massive issue and I don't think the current system is right at all!


 
I may be massively naive but should it be Ofsted that inspects childminders?  I didn't realise they were meant to have an educational function...


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> When our sprog was young, years ago, when we needed childcare we used a lovely woman around the corner who already had three kids of her own. It was a strictly cash only business but it was quite fine. Now childminders have to be Ofsted inspected, there are minder / child ratios and all sorts and the cost of childcare has risen massively. Childcare is a massive issue and I don't think the current system is right at all!


You're still free to leave your kids with whomever you please. The only issue comes if you're trying to get a rebate via tax credits etc.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 20, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Would that be before or after Dillinger4 tells Newton he's irrelevant?


 

after.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Ok so you are allowed personal tuition if you're not at school?
> Also about telling everyone to work in the state system, where does music lessons come...


 
In my ideal world, music would be taught to all at primary school, and given the same funding and priority as any other optional subject in secondary school. It's a matter of great annoyance to me that generations of schoolchildren after me got a much poorer musical education than I did (I was lucky enough to attend school when the Inner London Education Authority existed, which made funding of music depts a priority).



> what about a student wanting to offer tuition to kids but couldn't work in the state system because they're not actually teachers?


 
You mean like, for example, a teaching assistant? 




> To pass a music GCSE you need to learn an instrument, this kind of tuition isn't usually provided by state schools and the onus is on pupils to learn the instrument on their own. Often, a private tutor comes in. My sis didn't have one and failed her music GCSE terribly.
> Schools usually simply don't have more than one music teacher anyway and there's no way that they can 1:1 tutor all the kids to play an instrument.


 
I admit ignorance about music GCSEs, as they're after my time, but tuition was never an issue when I learned violin, possibly because the teaching back then was very programmatic - more about advancing through a series of exercises that improved competence with the instrument, and which you had to then display to the teacher, than about requiring a lot of 1-to-1.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> You're still free to leave your kids with whomever you please. The only issue comes if you're trying to get a rebate via tax credits etc.


Oh. are you permitted to pay some ordinary person (not Ofsted regd.) cash for looking after your children?
eta: I didn't know you could get any rebate via tax credits.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 20, 2013)

I mean, I don't know what his views on feminism are. But he is also dead.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> The "not" part, in this instance.
> 
> If not, what?


 
If not, logically, no state education.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In my ideal world, music would be taught to all at primary school, and given the same funding and priority as any other optional subject in secondary school. It's a matter of great annoyance to me that generations of schoolchildren after me got a much poorer musical education than I did (I was lucky enough to attend school when the Inner London Education Authority existed, which made funding of music depts a priority).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stuff like music is always the first to be cut. I vaguely remember 1:1 music teaching in primary school in the seventies. Not since then, though.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 20, 2013)

How was Cambridge for you, Lemon Eddy?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If not, logically, no state education.



Obviously. So in that case private education...  paid for. But you said this wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Say what now? All I meant was that a state educational system isn't the only way to educate the masses. The alternative isn't necessarily a free market.


 
I've met and socialised with home school kids. Its horrific


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> People often use crammers for a second chance at exams they failed.
> 
> Do you believe kids should only have one shot even if they blow it?
> 
> I believe Gove thinks that, hence his latest proposed changes.


 
Crammers are most often used by people cramming for entrance exams to specific universities. Most re-sit educational provision is within the state system.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 20, 2013)

What is a crammer?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> I may be massively naive but should it be Ofsted that inspects childminders? I didn't realise they were meant to have an educational function...


 
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/early-year...arents-and-carers/choosing-childcare-provider
There is a whole section of the site, if you can make head or tail of it 

even:


> Caring for children in their own home
> We use ‘home childcare’ for care that takes place in a child’s home. Nannies and au pairs are the most common examples of home childcare. For further information go to the Caring for children in their own home page.


 
The only family I know who used au pairs, for Violent Panda's benefit  would argue with you till the cows come home that they were firmly working class! (can you be a working class university professor?)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> I may be massively naive but should it be Ofsted that inspects childminders? I didn't realise they were meant to have an educational function...


 
I'm just glad Woodhead is out of there. I wouldn't trust him around children.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I've met and socialised with home school kids. Its horrific


I wasn't necessarily on about home schooling.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I wasn't necessarily on about home schooling.


 

so long as you never are. It's like the kids from village of the damned.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> What is a crammer?


 
An institution where tutors will literally "cram" a load of knowledge into your head about either the nuances of an Oxbridge entrance interview/exam, or the info you need to pass a specific exam. The tutors having generally analyses the exam requirements, and tailored the information accordingly.
It's not cheating _per se_, but again it *is* the purchase of advantage.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Stuff like music is always the first to be cut. I vaguely remember 1:1 music teaching in primary school in the seventies. Not since then, though.


I had one-to-one teaching at a state school in the 90s. I think my parents had to pay a nominal fee for it - a few quid a term perhaps.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> so long as you never are. It's like the kids from village of the damned.


 
All my G-dchildren were home-schooled, and none of them are Aryan looking or psychic.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> What is a crammer?


Nothing, what'sa crammer with you?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> I had one-to-one teaching at a state school in the 90s. I think my parents had to pay a nominal fee for it - a few quid a term perhaps.


Yeah I think even at primary in the seventies, the parents paid for the tuition. Which is no different really to paying outside of school.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> (can you be a working class university professor?)


 (no)


----------



## 8ball (Jun 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> An institution where tutors will literally "cram" a load of knowledge into your head about either the nuances of an Oxbridge entrance interview/exam, or the info you need to pass a specific exam. The tutors having generally analyses the exam requirements, and tailored the information accordingly.
> It's not cheating _per se_, but again it *is* the purchase of advantage.


 
Maybe they could centrally record the use of these institutions so that when choosing, for example, a cardiac surgeon I could find one who passed their exams by knowing their shit rather than going to one of these places and forgetting everything immediately after the exam.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Yeah I think even at primary in the seventies, the parents paid for the tuition. Which is no different really to paying outside of school.


It was different, because it was a tiny fraction of the actual costs of tuition. I'm fairly sure it was there to fulfil some regulation somewhere.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> I had one-to-one teaching at a state school in the 90s. I think my parents had to pay a nominal fee for it - a few quid a term perhaps.


 
Going from a prog on the Beeb last year, some EAs benefit from bequests that are for specific funding of music teaching, and which subsidise decent provision, but others don't. IIRC Lambeth, for example, has just seen additional music education buggered, because the councillors decided it wasn't important enough for the paltry amount of additional funding it cost (disregarding the fact that it's a proven method of keeping otherwise-disengaged students in education).


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> so long as you never are. It's like the kids from village of the damned.


Isn't it mainly religious people that do homeschooling in the UK?


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Yeah I think even at primary in the seventies, the parents paid for the tuition. Which is no different really to paying outside of school.


I got violin then flute lessons after school (state comp) for free in the 70s


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> (no)


 

one of my ex tutors was a beardy marxist who wore charity shop clothes and drove a car columbo would have been ashamed of. I know he had the money to do better, so it must be some weird principle.

Incedently the bloke who done ma's tatoo last month knows him from the prison tutors circuit. Small world.

anyway


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Yeah I think even at primary in the seventies, the parents paid for the tuition. Which is no different really to paying outside of school.


 
I think what Santino is on about was the fee to cover the instrument's insurance. Was about 50p a term when I was at school in the '70s.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Isn't it mainly religious people that do homeschooling in the UK?


 

I speak with no authority on the matter but in my experience that is so


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> one of my ex tutors was a beardy marxist who wore charity shop clothes and drove a car columbo would have been ashamed of. I know he had the money to do better, so it must be some weird principle.
> 
> Incedently the bloke who done ma's tatoo last month knows him from the prison tutors circuit. Small world.
> 
> anyway


We'll go out for a walk later. A WALK!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Maybe they could centrally record the use of these institutions so that when choosing, for example, a cardiac surgeon I could find one who passed their exams by knowing their shit rather than going to one of these places and forgetting everything immediately after the exam.


 
Good idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2013)

I thought crammer was a pun on the remaining grammar schools.  _Kentish_ mostly isn't it?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> I got violin then flute lessons after school (state comp) for free in the 70s


This definitely didn't happen in our school in the 80s/90s unless it was the world's biggest secret.

I shall have to ask F-I-L (retired music teacher).


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I thought crammer was a pun on the remaining grammar schools. _Kentish_ mostly isn't it?


I wasted a few minutes toying with a joke about Tudor Archbishops.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I speak with no authority on the matter but in my experience that is so


Well, there you have it.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> so long as you never are. It's like the kids from village of the damned.


 

I went out with a home schooled girl once.

I don't want to talk about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I thought crammer was a pun on the remaining grammar schools. _Kentish_ mostly isn't it?


 
You're thinking of Cranmer, I suspect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> I wasted a few minutes toying with a joke about Tudor Archbishops.


 
Damn you for thinking better of it!


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> In reply to my post : "will there not always be a ruling class of some kind?"
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to expand on that Streathamite?


Sure. I am a socialist, therefore I believe there will - eventually - be a socialist revolution, and following that a series of "social evolutions' that will cause the concept and entity of a ruling class to wither and die on the vine


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Sure. I am a socialist, therefore I believe there will - eventually - be a socialist revolution, and following that a series of "social evolutions' that will cause the concept and entity of a ruling class to wither and die on the vine


 
Who would decide foreign policy, education policy, defence, the health service, etc etc .. surely even in a socialist utopia there would be administrators?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> I went out with a home schooled girl once.
> 
> I don't want to talk about it.


 

bet you home schooled that like a boss etc


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Who would decide foreign policy, education policy, defence, the health service, etc etc


the people's tribunes, democratically


> .. surely even in a socialist utopia there would be administrators?


You're conflating administration with social class, and the two shouldn't be; the best and easiest way to understand social class is history X money


----------



## 8ball (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Who would decide foreign policy, education policy, defence, the health service, etc etc .. surely even in a socialist utopia there would be administrators?


 
Foreign policy: Dotcommunist
Education policy: Spanglechick
Health Service: Mauvais


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Who would decide foreign policy, education policy, defence, the health service, etc etc .. surely even in a socialist utopia there would be administrators?


It's like when you ask an anarchist how they'd remove the police and prisons.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> It's like when you ask an anarchist how they'd remove the police and prisons.


With a bulldozer, obviously.

And then think what to do with the prisons.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Sure. I am a socialist, therefore I believe there will - eventually - be a socialist revolution, and following that a series of "social evolutions' that will cause the concept and entity of a ruling class to wither and die on the vine



Now you see THAT is the real definition of a wooly inanity.

And avoiding direct questions. How can I take you seriously when you're this hypocritical?

Its that hypocrisy that annoys me... you talk like you're all inclusive... and discuss at length what would be good for society and what is best for all  people and yet are among the first to start dishing out abuse and denigrating other opinions or points of view that don't fit with yours.

Divisive, bullying and dismissive, it disappoints me that this is what represents a large proportion of leftist politics... not very inclusive at all.

If that disappointment comes across to you as being a dickhead... then so be it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Foreign policy: Dotcommunist
> Education policy: Spanglechick
> Health Service: Mauvais


 

get in


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> I had one-to-one teaching at a state school in the 90s. I think my parents had to pay a nominal fee for it - a few quid a term perhaps.


 
They should demand a refund.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

I don't need a flashy job in this new world. I'll just handle the boring details like regional representatives, the list of approved delegates, party membership, that sort of thing. You can count on me, comrades.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

I'll be the insurance actuary.


----------



## Santino (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I'll be the insurance actuary.


The Glorious People's Insurance Actuary?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

Santino said:


> The Glorious People's Insurance Actuary?


Glorious Insurance Mutural Prospect


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> get in


Fuck off, you'll be Minister of Public Health, Sanitation and Free Booze.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Fuck off, you'll be Minister of Public Health, Sanitation and Free Booze.


 

think I'll manage one of those three


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I'll be the insurance actuary.


 

are you hip to credit unions brother?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> think I'll manage one of those three


I know you're dead handy with a hoover.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> are you hip to credit unions brother?


 
I'm hip to whatever job gets me a nice and comfortable lifestyle.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I'm hip to whatever job gets me a nice and comfortable lifestyle.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

I'd have gone for Theo rather than Duncan.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

I was more thinking Evan.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I was more thinking Evan.


 

Meaden


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

on a side note James Caan changed his name from Khan to Caan in order to get on in the world but now has a school built with his money in his fathers name.

feeling a bit guilty for ditching the family name. Possibly.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Caan, or Khan, is also embarrassed (I would be) after agreeing to a government adviser job on fairness in employment or equal opportunities or anti nepotism or something, shortly after which it came to light that he employed his daughter in one of his companies.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 20, 2013)

what would i be?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> what would i be?


 
Ministry of Cognitive Dissonance Management


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> Ministry of Cognitive Dissonance Management


Is that another term for Chancellor of the Exchequer?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Is that another term for Chancellor of the Exchequer?


 
More of a cross between the 'nudge unit' and the CoE.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> what would i be?


 
You would be my Queen! Stronger than the foundations of the earth! Treacherous as the sea! all would love you and despair

/tolkien


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> You would be my Queen! Stronger than the foundations of the earth! Treacherous as the sea! all would love you and despair
> 
> /tolkien


You just want to be Celeborn. ADMIT IT


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 20, 2013)

8ball said:


> More of a cross between the 'nudge unit' and the CoE.


 

whats the nudge unit?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> You just want to be Celeborn. ADMIT IT


 

I just thought of a massively inappropriate joke about grey havens, but I shall not repeat it outside of my own head


----------



## 8ball (Jun 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> whats the nudge unit?


 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_Insights_Team


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I just thought of a massively inappropriate joke about grey havens, but I shall not repeat it outside of my own head


We won't shine Earendil's light on that little number.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

More like The Fudge Unit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

one does not simply derail a thread with LOTR chat


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> one does not simply derail a thread with LOTR chat


It's so way off course after responding to Welty's education questions that it makes precious* little difference now.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 20, 2013)

One thing to school them all


----------



## Thora (Jun 20, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I much prefer that approach, but... I dunno, something about those schools give me the creeps.


Montessori schools give you the creeps?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

kabbes said:


> One thing to school them all


 

And in the darkness bind them


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> And in the darkness bind them


In the land of Montessori, where the shadows lie.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 20, 2013)

I don't want any part in your pokey little government. I will be the one who overthrows you and administer revolutionary justice for your crimes against the people.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> I don't want any part in your pokey little government. I will be the one who overthrows you and administer revolutionary justice for your crimes against the people.


 

does that end with giant eagles taking you back to the Shire. Cos if it doesn't you can bog off


Of all the things excised from LOTR films the Scouring of The Shire was the most grievous loss. Forget bomabacunt and goldfuckwit river daughter. The scouring was where it was at, they came home in great power and found a landscape utterly transformed by evil


which they then sorted.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 20, 2013)

Does the Naked Rambler need feminism?

I'm trying to think of what he'd write on the whiteboard, it's got me thinking


----------



## audiotech (Jun 20, 2013)

Philby, Maclean, Burgess, Blunt and the "fifth man" been mentioned yet?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> on a side note James Caan changed his name from Khan to Caan in order to get on in the world but now has a school built with his money in his fathers name.
> 
> feeling a bit guilty for ditching the family name. Possibly.


 
James Caan's mint. Top film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief_(film)


----------



## TruXta (Jun 20, 2013)

Thora said:


> Montessori schools give you the creeps?


TBF that impression is based on a very limited sample.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 21, 2013)

Perhaps you mean Steiner.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 21, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> on a side note James Caan changed his name from Khan to Caan in order to get on in the world but now has a school built with his money in his fathers name.
> 
> feeling a bit guilty for ditching the family name. Possibly.


 
How pointless is it to change your name from Khan to Caan?

Worse than Lee Jacob.


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2013)

One does not simply apply to Montessori.


----------



## Thora (Jun 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> TBF that impression is based on a very limited sample.


Nurseries or primary schools?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 21, 2013)

Thora said:


> Nurseries or primary schools?


Primaries, and not even in this country.


----------



## Thora (Jun 21, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Primaries, and not even in this country.


Which country do they have Montessori primaries?  And what is creepy about them?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 21, 2013)

Thora said:


> Which country do they have Montessori primaries? And what is creepy about them?


Norway/Oslo. I dunno what's creepy about them, it was just a gut reaction. Probably because of the location - posh place in the capital.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> One does not simply apply to Montessori.


 

for some reason that name makes me think of quality ice cream. Youknow, the good stuff that you had to steal in case this years dad caught you.

Oh it gino genelli I'm thinking of. Could also double as a name for a crime family.


----------



## souljacker (Jun 21, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Oh it gino genelli I'm thinking of.


 

Tutti Frutti what a cutie


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2013)

Montessori schools teach theosophy. Fact.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> Montessori schools teach theosophy. Fact.


 

wat


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> Montessori schools teach theosophy. Fact.


 
In that case they are racists. That's _pretty_ creepy.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> Montessori schools teach theosophy. Fact.


 
My son was at a Montessori school for a while ( not my idea tbh)and they quizzed me whether it was appropriate that he had a stop the war badge on.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 21, 2013)

In Spain, apparently, Montessori schools are reputed to be fronts for Opus Dei.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 21, 2013)




----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> Montessori schools teach theosophy. Fact.


 
I'm pretty sure that's Steiner schools - this is like when everyone mixes up the Mormons and the JWs.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 21, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> In Spain, apparently, Montessori schools are reputed to be fronts for Opus Dei.


 
That originally why we sent him there but it turned out its not the same in Britain


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 21, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> That originally why we sent him there but it turned out its not the same in Britain


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 21, 2013)

Santino said:


> Montessori schools teach theosophy. Fact.


 

That's Steiner.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> That's Steiner.


 
I think that was santino's double bluff. I fell for it.

Nice to see you back posting btw.


----------



## Red Cat (Jun 21, 2013)

Ah yes. I see that now 

Thanks


----------



## kabbes (Jun 21, 2013)

My nephew starts at a brand new Montessori primary school in the Autumn (he's 4 years old).

Not only is it a brand new Montessori primary school, it's also a brand new Montessori primary _free_ school.

I... don't know what to say about that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

_free_ meaning?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _free_ meaning?


 
Free as in "free to refuse to support any pupils with disabilities or special educational needs, free to let unqualified teachers teach instead of being teaching assistants, free to ignore the national curriculum..."

AFAIK there's more but what it boils down to is probably not good news.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 21, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> We ALL need feminism. We should ALL be feminists. THAT'S what's important.


We all need equality. We should not all be feminists. If we were, we would only address those issues in which women are at a disadvantage, and fail to address those issues in which men are at a disadvantage.

Becoming a feminist would confer absolutely no advantage to me in addressing my gender's higher risk of early death from occupational and male specific disease, violence, or suicide, or low educational attainment, and higher probability of incarceration for the same offence, any more than expecting you to join the men's rights movement will help equal pay, etc.

But I understand that it may be what you think is important. It's the nature of the gynocentric paradigm.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

_The jew hunter swoops. Misses. Examines turfed talons. Now..._


----------



## sihhi (Jun 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _free_ meaning?


 
The Montessori types have been attacking the government from the right for a while:

http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/article/1006910/montessori-wants-nurseries-free-school-choice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> for some reason that name makes me think of quality ice cream. Youknow, the good stuff that you had to steal in case this years dad caught you.
> 
> Oh it gino genelli I'm thinking of. Could also double as a name for a crime family.


 
So, not Viennetta, then?


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2013)

Falcon said:


> We all need equality. We should not all be feminists. If we were, we would only address those issues in which women are at a disadvantage, and fail to address those issues in which men are at a disadvantage.
> 
> Becoming a feminist would confer absolutely no advantage to me in addressing my gender's higher risk of early death from occupational and male specific disease, violence, or suicide, or low educational attainment, and higher probability of incarceration for the same offence, any more than expecting you to join the men's rights movement will help equal pay, etc.
> 
> But I understand that it may be what you think is important. It's the nature of the gynocentric paradigm.


Christ, you're a dick.


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2013)

Falcon said:


> We all need equality. We should not all be feminists. If we were, we would only address those issues in which women are at a disadvantage, and fail to address those issues in which men are at a disadvantage.
> 
> Becoming a feminist would confer absolutely no advantage to me in addressing my gender's higher risk of early death from occupational and male specific disease, violence, or suicide, or low educational attainment, and higher probability of incarceration for the same offence, any more than expecting you to join the men's rights movement will help equal pay, etc.
> 
> But I understand that it may be what you think is important. It's the nature of the gynocentric paradigm.


Gynocentric paradigm? Jesus fuck, you absolute tool.


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2013)

Falcon said:


> We all need equality. We should not all be feminists. If we were, we would only address those issues in which women are at a disadvantage, and fail to address those issues in which men are at a disadvantage.
> 
> Becoming a feminist would confer absolutely no advantage to me in addressing my gender's higher risk of early death from occupational and male specific disease, violence, or suicide, or low educational attainment, and higher probability of incarceration for the same offence, any more than expecting you to join the men's rights movement will help equal pay, etc.
> 
> But I understand that it may be what you think is important. It's the nature of the gynocentric paradigm.


Jesus. I mean, I knew you were a racist, doom-mongering cockwit, but fuck me...


----------



## 8ball (Jun 21, 2013)

Tell me more about this gynocentric paradigm - I have a feeling I might like to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2013)

Of course, they all have gynocentric paradigms once I've finished with them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2013)

He is an odd one. Well done Santino. Hid on the all wall of other threads. They let him go for that long - questions must be asked.


----------



## toggle (Jun 21, 2013)

Falcon said:


> We all need equality. We should not all be feminists. If we were, we would only address those issues in which women are at a disadvantage, and fail to address those issues in which men are at a disadvantage.
> 
> Becoming a feminist would confer absolutely no advantage to me in addressing my gender's higher risk of early death from occupational and male specific disease, violence, or suicide, or low educational attainment, and higher probability of incarceration for the same offence, any more than expecting you to join the men's rights movement will help equal pay, etc.
> 
> But I understand that it may be what you think is important. It's the nature of the gynocentric paradigm.


 
fairly clear misunderstanding of feminism there.


and you can perhaps explain to me when the so called men's rights groups were about anything other than the right for some men to be arseholes to women.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 21, 2013)

It's still really odd that wanting equality for 50% of humanity somehow means wanting the other 50% to have a shit time.

Admittedly, I'm above average in maths aptitude but it makes you wonder.


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2013)

Just remembered, I haven't condemned the actions of Israel today.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He is an odd one. Well done Santino. Hid on the all wall of other threads. They let him go for that long - questions must be asked.


Yes. My argument that:

(1) All people are equal, and should be treated so
(2) Proportionally higher male death rates are a matter of serious concern to any moral person
(3) Feminism does not address that concern

is appalling. Questions really must be asked.

Out of curiosity, with which statement(s) do you disagree, and on what basis?

Please tell us you haven't committed one of your famous affirmation of the consequent fallacies, leapt from the observation that misogynists challenge feminism, to the observation that I have challenged one statement about feminism ("we should all be feminists"), to the formally invalid conclusion that I am a misogynist, and are now merely indulging in a lovely frisson over a fictional villain?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2013)

Santino said:


> Just remembered, I haven't condemned the actions of Israel today.


 

Oh i did. Cock crowed thrice as well


----------



## Falcon (Jun 22, 2013)

toggle said:


> fairly clear misunderstanding of feminism there.


Are you claiming:

(1) that there is a universally agreed definition of feminism, and that I have misunderstood it?

(2) there is no definition of feminism that is consistent with my understanding?

Or, merely

(3) my understanding of feminism is not yours

(1) seems unlikely, given the high number of mutualy exclusive and highly antagonistic factions who claim to speak for all women in their particular articulation of "feminism"

(2) I perceive "feminism" to have two ideologically distinct branches, and I believe my understanding is consistent with the "equity feminism" branch, and challenges the "gender feminism" branch.

So it seems we merely disagree on what flavour of feminism is the most useful. And that's OK.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Yes. My argument that:
> 
> (1) All people are equal, and should be treated so
> (2) Proportionally higher male death rates are a matter of serious concern to any moral person
> ...


you are such a huge bellend falcon. Bet you think you are asking really penetrating questions as well. You total wingnut. Please do define a moral person, thats going to be 100% gold.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> So it seems we merely disagree on what *flavour of feminism* is the most useful. And that's OK.


 
whats so amazing is that you don't even know you are doing it. You'd never get halfway through a sentence and think 'hold on, this is a bit off'

you are tapped


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> So it seems we merely disagree on what flavour of feminism is the most useful. And that's OK.


 
Since you popped up on this thread, I'm starting to lean towards the rad fem side.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 22, 2013)

steph said:


> Since you popped up on this thread, I'm starting to lean towards the rad fem side.


Not one of you is going to state which part of my argument you disagree with. Unless you do, we have to conclude that you believe one or more of the following:

(1) You don't believe all people are equal
(2) Proportionally higher male death rates are not a matter of serious concern to any moral person
(3) Feminism addresses the problem of higher male death rates

Now it could be that (3) is a valid statement. In which case it would be really interesting to hear why you think so. 

But, DotCommunism - what exactly is it you think I don't know I'm doing, and what exactly do you think you are doing?


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 22, 2013)




----------



## toggle (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Are you claiming:
> 
> (1) that there is a universally agreed definition of feminism, and that I have misunderstood it?
> 
> ...


 
not even the vast majority of 'gender feminism' as you put it fits your descriptions. and your ideas of what you believe in come no where close to 'equality' based ideals.

i really suggest you improve your knowledge on this before flapping your ignorance around any further.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Yes. My argument that:
> 
> (1) All people are equal, and should be treated so
> (2) Proportionally higher male death rates are a matter of serious concern to any moral person
> ...


 
just to entertain this load of balls for a minute-why is feminism supposed to adress the disproportionate death rates? I mean are you really such an enormous bellend as to link high death rates among males with an imagined failure of feminism? what do you want women to do, swoop in and save a man from death by using her clunge? Presumably they should be deonouncing Israel and crying about the energy defecit worldwide at the same time. Your a fucking disgrace falcon.


----------



## toggle (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> (3) Feminism addresses the problem of higher male death rates


 
1. feminism tries to address the problems caused by patriarchy.

2. patriarchy causes a significant proportion of the discrepancy in male mortality

http://dro.dur.ac.uk/5199/


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 22, 2013)

toggle said:


> and you can perhaps explain to me when the so called men's rights groups were about anything other than the right for some men to be arseholes to women.


 
Quite - my experience of the prevalent feminism over the years is that it does quite a lot to discuss and put on the agenda wider equality issues, tackling issues which affect men/male health, etc. - and more so than MRA's which I've found to be a pretty right-wing, sexist and homophobic bunch - obsessed with spending their time wanting to put women 'back in the kitchen' and moaning about 'how the country is politically correct/swung the other way', rather than working with any feminist or left movements to work on men's issues, or better equality for all.


----------



## toggle (Jun 22, 2013)

i need that links i've waved arround before, explaining how every complaint MRA's have other than 'fucking uppity women' is addressed by 'it's caused by the patriarchy you idiot'

but on my way out in a min. i'll look it up later


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 22, 2013)

stop saying stuff falcon ffs


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 22, 2013)

brilliant


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon is fucking amazing. If he's not demanding jews apologize for israel-all of them with their jew agenda- he is demanding that feminism adresses the higher death rate amongst male. Its pure fucking gold, you'd never tell from his posts on energy threads. But he is proper proper baked.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> why is feminism supposed to adress the disproportionate death rates?


It's not. Which is precisely why the statement "We should all be feminists" is untrue.


DotCommunist said:


> I mean are you really such an enormous bellend as to link high death rates among males with an imagined failure of feminism?


Nope.


DotCommunist said:


> what do you want women to do, swoop in and save a man from death by using her clunge?


Nope.


DotCommunist said:


> Presumably they should be deonouncing Israel and crying about the energy defecit worldwide at the same time. Your a fucking disgrace falcon.


… for arguing that we are all equal. I think there are very serious issues of inequality that affect women, just as there are very serious issues that affect men. I think those women deserve better advocates of those issues than you.


----------



## Santino (Jun 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> why is feminism supposed to adress the disproportionate death rates?





Falcon said:


> It's not. Which is precisely why the statement "We should all be feminists" is untrue.


That doesn't follow at all, Mr Logic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> It's not. Which is precisely why the statement "We should all be feminists" is untrue.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...


 

good job I'm not an advocate and rather a normal human male then. What the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> It's not. Which is precisely why* the statement "We should all be feminists" is untrue.*
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...


 

oh please expand. You do know that when you step outside of your malthusian obsessions you practically knit your own hempen noose?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Not one of you is going to state which part of my argument you disagree with. Unless you do, we have to conclude that you believe one or more of the following:
> 
> (1) You don't believe all people are equal
> (2) Proportionally higher male death rates are not a matter of serious concern to any moral person
> ...


 
Because feminism makes men drink and smoke less, and use less violence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 22, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Yes. My argument that:
> 
> (1) All people are equal, and should be treated so
> (2) Proportionally higher male death rates are a matter of serious concern to any moral person


 
i) *Proportionately* higher.
ii) Those death rates have been limping toward convergence for close on a century.
iii) The disparity is a combination of gender role and the effects of human biology.
iv) Morals and personal morality have little to do with things, except on an individual basis. Your morality may not be mine.



> (3) Feminism does not address that concern


 
Most feminisms address it directly, through attempting to re-negotiate gender roles



> is appalling. Questions really must be asked.
> 
> Out of curiosity, with which statement(s) do you disagree, and on what basis?
> 
> Please tell us you haven't committed one of your famous affirmation of the consequent fallacies, leapt from the observation that misogynists challenge feminism, to the observation that I have challenged one statement about feminism ("we should all be feminists"), to the formally invalid conclusion that I am a misogynist, and are now merely indulging in a lovely frisson over a fictional villain?


 
I suspect they're more likely swallowing a feeling of revulsion at interacting with a self-regarding nitwit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 22, 2013)

toggle said:


> not even the vast majority of 'gender feminism' as you put it fits your descriptions. and your ideas of what you believe in come no where close to 'equality' based ideals.
> 
> i really suggest you improve your knowledge on this before flapping your ignorance around any further.


 
Uh, I don't think you've grasped the dynamic here. Falcon is a "big thinker", and therefore he's always right. When he is seen as not being right, that's actually an issue to do with the intellectual lack of his interlocutor, and not a flaw in his masterful understanding of every single subject he declaims upon.

HTH.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 22, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Because feminism makes men drink and smoke less, and use less violence.


 
Goddamn feminazi health fascists!


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jun 22, 2013)




----------



## Greebo (Jun 22, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Because feminism makes men drink and smoke less, and use less violence.


 
Unlike you to get correlation and causality mixed up, got any proof for that?


----------



## Falcon (Jun 23, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> i) *Proportionately* higher.
> ii) Those death rates have been limping toward convergence for close on a century.


*Proportionally* higher. Higher than the proportions of male to female would account for. In fact, *three to five times higher* and, since the financial crash, *rising again.*


> Male suicide rates are on average 3-5 times higher than female rates and men aged 30-44 are the group with the highest rate...Compared to previous years: The suicide rate for males in the UK is its highest since 2002
> 
> - _Suicide: facts and figures_ (Samaritans, 2013)


 


ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect they're more likely swallowing a feeling of revulsion at interacting with a self-regarding nitwit.


 
Ahem. So if a feminist is concerned about the welfare of females, (s)he is displaying a legitimate regard for others. If the male equivalent is concerned about the welfare of males, (s)he is a self-regarding nit-wit?

Setting aside that you can't get basic facts right in this gynocentric society, isn't this precisely the mechanism of gynocentricity?


----------



## Falcon (Jun 23, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Because feminism makes men drink and smoke less, and use less violence.


Really? The founder of Women's Aid (Erin Pizzey) had her dog killed, and she and her children and her grandchildren (would you believe) received death threats from *feminists*, merely for pointing out that domestic violence was reciprocal, with both partners abusing each other in equal rates, and for trying to set up shelters for men to protect them and their children from female violence.

Other definitive research since then examining 286 scholarly investigations (221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses) demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. e.g.


> _Capaldi, D. M. & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 15 (3), 425-440._ Drawn from a community based at-risk sample, 159 young couples were assessed with the Conflict Tactics scale and measures of self reported injuries. Findings indicated that 9.4% of men and 13.2% of women perpetrated frequent physical aggression toward their partners. Contrary to expectations, 13% of men and 9% of women, indicated that they were physically injured at least once. *Authors report "2% of the men and none of the women indicate that they had been hurt by their partners between five and nine times.*"


 
Statistics Canada also finds that men are almost as likely as women to be the victims of domestic abuse. Sadly, the Canadian man who set up a shelter for abused men and their children recently committed suicide after exhausting his savings and going bankrupt. (Source: Women's Post)

Your post doesn't make it clear why feminism should make men use less violence, when women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. Nor, even if men had used more violence, is it clear how a movement which issues death threats to children can encourage men to use less violence.

I presume, in order to account for this, you would have me interpret inconvenient behaviour by some women and/or feminists as not representative of all women and/or feminists, and to interpret equivalent behaviour by some men and 'masculinists' (or whatever the term would be in a non-gynocentric society) as representative of all men and/or 'masculinists'.

Which, of course, is gynocentric.


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2013)

hatstand


----------



## 8ball (Jun 23, 2013)

I've been having a bit of a ponder and I'm sure there are gaps and problems with what I'm saying, and someone may have already said it because I've been a bit tired and prone to missing post in threads...

But I wonder if the ideas underlying the edifice of patriarchy, where men are 'strong', 'resilient', 'take the knocks', has perhaps led to a situation where men's health problems such as testicular cancer don't really get much attention.  There is little appetite and certainly very little to be gained in terms of advertising attention to drawing attention to something that would, in the patriarchal paradigm, be linked to ideas of 'male weakness', which are of course almost as bad as being feminine/weak/despicable/unclean.

Just a thought, and apologies for any wanky language which is probably down to a lack of articulacy rather than a surplus.


----------



## andysays (Jun 23, 2013)

Falcon said:


> ...gynocentric...


----------



## Greebo (Jun 23, 2013)

8ball said:


> <snip>I wonder if the ideas underlying the edifice of patriarchy, where men are 'strong', 'resilient', 'take the knocks', has perhaps led to a situation where men's health problems such as testicular cancer don't really get much attention. There is little appetite and certainly very little to be gained in terms of advertising attention to drawing attention to something that would, in the patriarchal paradigm, be linked to ideas of 'male weakness', which are of course almost as bad as being feminine/weak/despicable/unclean.<snip>


 
Prostate cancer doesn't get much attention?  Depression doesn't get much attention?  I put it to you that part of the problem is that it's often only possible for a working age adult to see a GP during office hours, or at a time likely to make you late for work because it'd delay your commute.

I also put it to you that women's health problems (perhaps with the exception of breast cancer) don't get much attention either, that hormone-based contraception is IMHO ridiculously hit and miss (the same goes for HRT) with regard to knowing in advance who gets which side effects, and that medication dosage is still optimised for a young adult male of approximately 15 stone rather than whichever human ends up taking it.


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 23, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Really? The founder of Women's Aid (Erin Pizzey) had her dog killed, and she and her children and her grandchildren (would you believe) received death threats from *feminists*, merely for pointing out that domestic violence was reciprocal, with both partners abusing each other in equal rates, and for trying to set up shelters for men to protect them and their children from female violence.
> 
> Other definitive research since then examining 286 scholarly investigations (221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses) demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. e.g.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/4...e-partners-responsible-half-murders-women.htm


----------



## 8ball (Jun 23, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Prostate cancer doesn't get much attention? Depression doesn't get much attention? I put it to you that part of the problem is that it's often only possible for a working age adult to see a GP during office hours, or at a time likely to make you late for work because it'd delay your commute.


 
I'm not sure whether you're trying to address my point or one of Falcon's here. Until pretty recently neither depression among men nor prostate cancer have been especially high visibility from what I can see and recent increases in publicity have been to try and get men to see their GP rather than try to tough things out due to the death rates involves. Times for getting to see a GP are difficult but a great many women work too so I'm not sure if that's driving at one of Falcon's points.

I'm also not sure what the side effects profile of HRT or other hormone-based treatments is relevant to.


----------



## toggle (Jun 23, 2013)

Santino said:


> hatstand


 
it's a complete misrepresentation as well.

yes women can be abusive, women can be violent. but sustained campaigns of physical abuse designed to control their partner are over 90% male on female. and the injuries received (and potential to die) from male on female attacks are generally much worse than from an attack by a woman.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 23, 2013)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure whether you're trying to address my point or one of Falcon's here. Until pretty recently neither depression among men nor prostate cancer have been especially high visibility from what I can see and recent increases in publicity have been to try and get men to see their GP rather than try to tough things out due to the death rates involves. Times for getting to see a GP are difficult but a great many women work too so I'm not sure if that's driving at one of Falcon's points.
> 
> I'm not sure what the side effects profile of HRT or other hormone-based treatments is relevant to.


 
To clarify for the tired or somewhat hazy of thought -
Those women who have children are more likely to see a GP on a regular basis because of their children, men are less likely to take their offspring to the GP. So that chance of seeing any information leaflets or mentioning a niggling ailment (or early symptom) is missed.

Adults of working age and without children are equally (un)likely to see a GP early about what seems to be a minor ailment which might go away in its own good time.

Depression and prostate cancer have had several publicity campaigns in recent years - IMHO if you didn't notice them, you can't have been looking.

Men's hormones don't fluctuate much from week to week, women's do. It affects how medication is absorbed and metabolised but, because most of it's tested on men, those differences are largely unrecorded. Even full grown women tend to be smaller than men of the same age and have different ratios of fat to muscle to bone, yet the medication for both is standardised at the same dosage. I repeat, *medication is standardised to suit men.*

It can hardly be news to medical science that there is a female homonal cycle, yet (apart from checking for pregnancy) it's ignored when medicating to throw those hormones slightly out of balance (contraception) or to correct their balance (treating PMS, the menopause etc). This makes as much sense to me as deciding that a bike has been unevenly loaded, then (instead of first checking which side is pushed further down by the weight) adjusting the balance by getting a blindfolded stranger to throw randomly chosen objects (of different sizes and weights) onto first one side and then the other.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 24, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Your post doesn't make it clear why feminism should make men use less violence, when women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.


 
Even if this were true, which I frankly doubt, male domestic violence would stil be a bigger problem than female domestic violence--because men do far more damage when they are violent than women, whose violence is often barely worthy of the name.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 24, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>men do far more damage when they are violent than women, whose violence is often barely worthy of the name.


 
Lorena Bobbit.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 24, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Lorena Bobbit.


 
Unrepresentative.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 24, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Unrepresentative.


 
Obviously, because otherwise she wouldn't have made the news.

I still don't see how feminism would make men drink less, smoke less, or be less violent - if it does at all.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 24, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/4...e-partners-responsible-half-murders-women.htm


Christina Hoff Summers article, "_Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship_", (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 29th June 2013) provides an interesting insight, from an academic feminist, about the unreliability of statistics such as those presented as "fact" by mentalchic. For example,


> Zorza also informs readers that "between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence." Studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, indicate that the figure is closer to 1 percent.
> 
> Few students would guess that the Lemon book is anything less than reliable. The University of California at Berkeley's online faculty profile of Lemon hails it as the "premiere" text of the genre. It is part of a leading casebook series, published by Thomson/West, whose board of academic advisers, prominently listed next to the title page, includes many eminent law professors.


Why does it matter? As Hoff Summers says:


> False assertions, hyperbole, and crying wolf undermine the credibility and effectiveness of feminism. The United States, and the world, would greatly benefit from an intellectually responsible, reality-based women's movement.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 24, 2013)

Hoff Sommers?! Christ almighty


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 24, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Christina Hoff Summers article, "_Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship_", (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 29th June 2013) provides an interesting insight, from an academic feminist, about the unreliability of statistics such as those presented as "fact" by mentalchic. For example,
> 
> Why does it matter? As Hoff Summers says:


 
Well, google tells us that that piece is from 2009, not this year, and that it has attracted its share of critics:



> Similarly, Laura Flanders’s criticisms of Sommers on FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), written in 1994, are equally valid years later: “[_Who Stole Feminism_] is filled with the same kind errors, unsubstantiated charges and citations of 'advocacy research' that she claims to find in the work of the feminists she takes to task.” In the Chronicle article, Sommers cites other female professors' work (specifically Christine Rosen, Noretta Koertge, and Daphne Patai). Just who am I supposed to believe in academia anyway?


 
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/lies-...l-them-the-latest-from-christina-hoff-sommers

Go away, you tedious imbecile.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 24, 2013)

steph said:


> Hoff Summers?! Christ almighty


 
Walk like an Egyptian.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 24, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Even if this were true, which I frankly doubt, male domestic violence would stil be a bigger problem than female domestic violence--because men do far more damage when they are violent than women, whose violence is often barely worthy of the name.


That may or may not be so - you are free to critique the academic literature. But the argument that I should become a feminist because the lower damage inflicted by women in an equal or higher number of domestic violence cases makes men smoke and drink less, and use less violence, is implausible.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 24, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Well, google tells us that that piece is from 2009, not this year, and that it has attracted its share of critics:


Google? The *University of California at Berkeley* profiles the author of the fabricated data as a "domestic-violence expert", and the book her piece appears as the "premiere" text of the genre. It is part of a leading casebook series, published by Thomson/West, whose board of academic advisers, prominently listed next to the title page, includes many eminent law professors.

Surely the time for criticism was by those eminent law professors before it got published by an "expert" in the "premiere" text of the genre, rather than leaving it for the students of this prominent expert to determine that her research was fabricated?

And has there been some purge of fabricated data from the literature since 2009, or is your point irrelevant?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Because feminism makes men drink and smoke less, and use less violence.


have you any empirical evidence for that, involving a statistically significant sample?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Google? The University of California at Berkeley profiles the author as a "domestic-violence expert", and the book her piece appears as the "premiere" text of the genre. It is part of a leading casebook series, published by Thomson/West, whose board of academic advisers, prominently listed next to the title page, includes many eminent law professors.


 
And she's jewish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Christina Hoff Summers article, "_Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship_", (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 29th June 2013) provides an interesting insight, from an academic feminist, about the unreliability of statistics such as those presented as "fact" by mentalchic. For example,
> 
> Why does it matter? As Hoff Summers says:


an academic feminist or a feminist academic?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> have you any empirical evidence for that, involving a statistically significant sample?


 
I've already asked that, and he came up with a blank.  Not even any anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2013)

Greebo said:


> I've already asked that, and he came up with a blank.  Not even any anecdotal evidence.


Sadly that fits in with phildwyer's m.o. of talking shit and getting caught out


----------



## Greebo (Jun 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Sadly that fits in with phildwyer's m.o. of talking shit and getting caught out


 
We'll see.  Or not.  Meanwhile, there's a buried mobile phone to unearth and the tea to pull out of thin air.  Miracles will take a little longer.


----------



## toggle (Jun 24, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Christina Hoff Summers article, "_Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship_", (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 29th June 2013) provides an interesting insight, from an academic feminist, about the unreliability of statistics such as those presented as "fact" by mentalchic. For example,
> 
> Why does it matter? As Hoff Summers says:


 
and her underlying attitudes can be summed up with?:




> There are a lot of homely women in women's studies. Preaching these anti-male, anti-sex sermons is a way for them to compensate for various heartaches-- they're just mad at the beautiful girls.


 

do you actually want to use writing by someone who is trying to argue that as your evidence?


----------



## Falcon (Jun 24, 2013)

toggle said:


> and her underlying attitudes can be summed up with?:


Well, no - it can't. A straw man might be constructed from it, though.


toggle said:


> do you actually want to use writing by someone who is trying to argue that as your evidence?


I'm not using her opinion. I'm using the primary sources she cites. Primary sources like Centers for Disease Control statistician Janey Hsiao, who confirms that _"among ED [Emergency Department] visits made by females, the percent of having physical abuse by spouse or partner is 0.02 percent in 2003 and 0.01 percent in 2005._" - in contradiction of a so-called "domestic-violence expert" who claims the figure is 20-35 percent.

In what way is the evidence she cites from authoritative sources unsatisfactory?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Well, no - it can't. A straw man might be constructed from it, though.
> 
> I'm not using her opinion. I'm using the primary sources she cites. Primary sources like Centers for Disease Control statistician Janey Hsiao, who confirms that _"among ED [Emergency Department] visits made by females, the percent of having physical abuse by spouse or partner is 0.02 percent in 2003 and 0.01 percent in 2005._" - in contradiction of a so-called "domestic-violence expert" who claims the figure is 20-35 percent.
> 
> In what way is that evidence from authoritative sources unsatisfactory?


 
Where are you accessing these primary sources?


----------



## cesare (Jun 25, 2013)

Another of MP's mates.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The East Germans had things right: No hang-ups about underarm hair, and widespread provision of free childcare.


 
Absolutely.When the wall came down and the West German and multi internationals started to flog heir products to the Ost Persil couldn't understand why the take up of their product was so low. They did focus groups and the simple issue was that their advertising campaign was built around an advert in which a middle-aged executive type woman returning to work and finding that her husband and children can't cope without her until she discovered new Persil capsules.

East German women , before unification , were used to working all their adult lives were offended at the implication that it was somehow wrong to 'leave' their family to go back to work. Faced with structural and gender biased unemployment problems they were disgusted at the suggestion that such a women could find a good post as soon as she chose to work,they also dislike the snobbish content of the advert.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Well, no - it can't. A straw man might be constructed from it, though.
> 
> I'm not using her opinion.


 
Toggle hasn't claimed that you have, sparky.



> I'm using the primary sources she cites. Primary sources like Centers for Disease Control statistician Janey Hsiao, who confirms that _"among ED [Emergency Department] visits made by females, the percent of having physical abuse by spouse or partner is 0.02 percent in 2003 and 0.01 percent in 2005._" - in contradiction of a so-called "domestic-violence expert" who claims the figure is 20-35 percent.
> 
> In what way is the evidence she cites from authoritative sources unsatisfactory?


 
Frankly, I'm not prepared to believe either projection, until and unless I see the dataset the figures are drawn from.
Interesting that you're happy to class a figure that supports your argument as "authoritative" *without* having checked the data, though.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interesting that you're happy to class a figure that supports your argument as "authoritative" *without* having checked the data, though.


Not quite as interesting as your willingness to accept, without comment, a pro-feminist statistic that is provided without any sources whatsoever.

But that is the fabric of gynocentricity.


----------



## toggle (Jun 25, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Not quite as interesting as your willingness to accept, without comment, a pro-feminist statistic that is provided without any sources whatsoever.
> 
> But that is the fabric of gynocentricity.


 
whereas your willingness to accept a position, from someone who has shown her deeply unpleasant and vicious biases, that you cannot personally verify is absolutely fine

that is the fabric of mysogeny.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 25, 2013)

toggle said:


> whereas your willingness to accept a position, from someone who has shown her deeply unpleasant and vicious biases, that you cannot personally verify is absolutely fine
> 
> that is the fabric of mysogeny.


Help me (1) understand how I "personally verify" the 286 scholarly investigations published in peer reviewed academic journals which directly contradict the feminist assertion that women are less physically aggressive than men and (2) why you are relieved of the burden of applying that same standard of verification before asserting the counter argument without _any_ citation at all?


----------



## toggle (Jun 25, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Well, no - it can't. A straw man might be constructed from it, though.
> 
> I'm not using her opinion. I'm using the primary sources she cites.


 



> Christina Hoff Summers article, "_Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship_", (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 29th June 2013) provides an interesting insight, from an academic feminist, about the unreliability of statistics such as those presented as "fact" by mentalchic. For example


 
you are using her opinions, because you are using that article as evidence. that isn't the raw data, it is data that is selectively filtered through her selection biases.

an article that appears to be published in a non peer reviewed publication. there's no checks in that on the verifiability of any data she claims within that article or whether any of her data supports her interpretations.

so now i know 2 things:

1. you don't have a fucking clue what does and does not constitute reliable sources

2. if she had a point she could support, it wouldn't be published in that manner.


----------



## toggle (Jun 25, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Help me (1) understand how I "personally verify" the 286 scholarly investigations published in peer reviewed academic journals which directly contradict the feminist assertion that women are less physically aggressive than men and (2) why you are relieved of the burden of applying that same standard of verification before asserting the counter argument without _any_ citation at all?


 
then perhaps you could explain why, if there are so many journal articles that proove your point, you chose a newspaper article as your evidence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2013)

toggle said:


> then perhaps you could explain why, if there are so many journal articles that proove your point, you chose a newspaper article as your evidence.


 

its because outside of his specialist subject (being a malthusian) the pointy headed fuckwit applies all the scholarly knowledge I bring to bear on a menu choice at the Hungry Horse eatery


----------



## Falcon (Jun 25, 2013)

toggle said:


> then perhaps you could explain why, if there are so many journal articles that proove your point, you chose a newspaper article as your evidence.


I didn't. I presented two separate sources. You chose the Sommers and inexplicably ignored the other. Can you explain your choice?


toggle said:


> you are using her opinions, because you are using that article as evidence. that isn't the raw data, it is data that is selectively filtered through her selection biases.


Could you point out in what way the evidence you haven't questioned hasn't been filtered through a selection bias?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2013)

Completely off topic but is it me, or whenever anyone says the word "paradigm" does that mean they're a loon or a twat. There have been a lot of talk of paradigms on here lately, all by loons like Falcon


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Completely off topic but is it me, or whenever anyone says the word "paradigm" does that mean they're a loon or a twat. There have been a lot of talk of paradigms on here lately, all by loons like Falcon


 

it's not just you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2013)

its a good word, but its been stolen by dickheads.


----------



## toggle (Jun 25, 2013)

i'd suspect the reason for that is related to BA's question and C's comment on where he is getting this info from. this is someone Else's argument, produced on another forum. and they haven't posted that bit yet.

oh yes.

the author is working for an American group with conservative agendas. her article has been criticized as being poorly constructed, lacking any real basis for her claim and that it shows more about her lack of understanding than any valid criticism of the research she attacks.

and it seems she also likes to throw around accusations of political bias, while refusing to consider that her own interpretations will be influenced by her political positions. any half decent scholar won't throw arround the kind of allegation that can be so clearly leveled at them.


----------



## toggle (Jun 25, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Christina Hoff Summers article, "_Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship_", (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 29th June 2013) provides an interesting insight, from an academic feminist, about the unreliability of statistics such as those presented as "fact" by mentalchic. For example,
> 
> Why does it matter? As Hoff Summers says:


 


Falcon said:


> I didn't. I presented two separate sources. Y?


 
that's one cited source.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 25, 2013)

Just for the record, Hoff Sommers is heavily funded by the American Enterprise Institute - one the Big Four alongside the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute - that have attempted to roll back pro-labour and pro-women legislation.

Hoff Sommers also attempts to reclaim backlash anti-ERA campaign leader Phyllis Schlafly as a feminist in her conception of Freedom Feminism. (Freedom feminism being feminism which is pro-capitalist and doesn't attempt to change the structural bases of property inequality or male violence, whilst evil socialist feminism must be purged.)


----------



## toggle (Jun 25, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I didn't. I presented two separate sources. You chose the Sommers and inexplicably ignored the other. Can you explain your choice?
> 
> Could you point out in what way the evidence you haven't questioned hasn't been filtered through a selection bias?


 
what evidence that i haven't questioned?


----------



## toggle (Jun 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> its a good word, but its been stolen by dickheads.


 
is this where i need to go hide rather than admitting i use it far too often in my writing?


----------



## toggle (Jun 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> its because outside of his specialist subject (being a malthusian) the pointy headed fuckwit applies all the scholarly knowledge I bring to bear on a menu choice at the Hungry Horse eatery


 
shhhhhhhh, i got a new toy to play with.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 25, 2013)

toggle said:


> what evidence that i haven't questioned?


The 286 scholarly investigations (221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses) demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. (link)

And while I'm enjoying your scrutiny of the academic references I have provided, I'm also noting that you are accepting counter evidence that has no academic references at all.


----------



## fogbat (Jun 25, 2013)

Could you do the gays next, Falcon? Can't help but feel you have valuable opinions to contribute there.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 25, 2013)

fogbat said:


> Could you do the gays next, Falcon? Can't help but feel you have valuable opinions to contribute there.


How do you know I'm not gay? Do you find yourself often making such assumptions?


----------



## fogbat (Jun 25, 2013)

Falcon said:


> How do you know I'm not gay? Do you find yourself often making such assumptions?


I didn't assume you were male, or non-Jewish, either (why did you assume I did?), but you've come out with some blinders there. 

Do you find yourself often making such assumptions?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 25, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Not one of you is going to state which part of my argument you disagree with. Unless you do, we have to conclude that you believe one or more of the following:
> 
> (1) You don't believe all people are equal
> (2) Proportionally higher male death rates are not a matter of serious concern to any moral person
> ...


 

 

this is fucking brilliant


----------



## Greebo (Jun 25, 2013)

fractionMan said:


> <snip>this is fucking brilliant


 
Just as well, because I've got a bad feeling about his fucking.  *gets coat*


----------



## Falcon (Jun 26, 2013)

fogbat said:


> I didn't assume you were male, or non-Jewish, either (why did you assume I did?), but you've come out with some blinders there.


Of course you didn't assume I was male - I told you I was. And of course you didn't I assume I was non-Jewish, because Jewishness was introduced by a third party as an irrelevant misdirection and ignored by me and, in a topic about feminism, no further assumption was required of you. What you *did* do was assume I was not one of "the gays", in order to deploy your misdirection that I might have a view on it with which you might disagree and contaminate this one. And to attempt a recovery, you are now prevaricating.


----------



## toggle (Jun 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> The 286 scholarly investigations (221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses) demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. (link)
> 
> And while I'm enjoying your scrutiny of the academic references I have provided, I'm also noting that you are accepting counter evidence that has no academic references at all.


 
Ok, I'll question it. what is it? what does it say? how did you select these articles, or who selected thm for you?

you can provide some summaries of who is doing this research, what their research methodology is, how it differs to the 'feminist research' you attack, and who is funding the research or the researchers.

off you go.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Of course you didn't assume I was male - I told you I was. And of course you didn't I assume I was non-Jewish, because Jewishness was introduced by a third party as an irrelevant misdirection and ignored by me and, in a topic about feminism, no further assumption was required of you. What you *did* do was assume I was not one of "the gays", in order to deploy your misdirection that I might have a view on it with which you might disagree and contaminate this one. And to attempt a recovery, you are now prevaricating.


 

What about the disableds?


----------



## andysays (Jun 26, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Just as well, because I've got a bad feeling about his fucking. *gets coat*


----------



## cesare (Jun 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What about the disableds?


He's done that already.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 26, 2013)

Imagine what sort of arrogant dickheadishness it takes to start giving it on a threads about people who have killed themselves because of the cuts


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Imagine what sort of arrogant dickheadishness it takes to start giving it on a threads about people who have killed themselves because of the cuts


 

i imagine his views on black people might also be quite "interesting"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 26, 2013)

he will demand every black person apologises for the rwandan massacre and the trade in conflict stones


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 26, 2013)

ExtraRefined said:


>


 

you can get to fuck as well


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> he will demand every black person apologises for the rwandan massacre and the trade in conflict stones


 

and "jamaican drug gangs"


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 26, 2013)

Have we learned what Falcon's views might be on 'race mixing' yet?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 26, 2013)

the bell-curve


----------



## Santino (Jun 26, 2013)

steph said:


> Have we learned what Falcon's views might be on 'race mixing' yet?


Whatever they are, the debate would go down a blind alley as he argues the toss over some bit of research without actually engaging with the main point.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Just for the record, Hoff Sommers is heavily funded by the American Enterprise Institute - one the Big Four alongside the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute - that have attempted to roll back pro-labour and pro-women legislation.
> 
> Hoff Sommers also attempts to reclaim backlash anti-ERA campaign leader Phyllis Schlafly as a feminist in her conception of Freedom Feminism. (Freedom feminism being feminism which is pro-capitalist and doesn't attempt to change the structural bases of property inequality or male violence, whilst evil socialist feminism must be purged.)


 
Schlafly was a fruit-de-loop nutcase who believed that the Hydrogen Bomb was, and I quote, "a gift from God".


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the bell-end


 
FIFY


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 26, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Schlafly was a fruit-de-loop nutcase who believed that the Hydrogen Bomb was, and I quote, "a gift from God".


 

Someone to add to the Proletarian Democracy theoretical canon then


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Completely off topic but is it me, or whenever anyone says the word "paradigm" does that mean they're a loon or a twat. There have been a lot of talk of paradigms on here lately, all by loons like Falcon


 
What a Kuhn-t.


----------



## toggle (Jun 26, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Schlafly was a fruit-de-loop nutcase who believed that the Hydrogen Bomb was, and I quote, "a gift from God".


 
this is something a lot of these twonks don't seem to get is that just because we listen to women's opinions, dosen't mean we automatically believe anything just because it is said by a woman. part of accepting women as acedemic equals means criticizing them when they talk shit. wheras they ignore most women, just because they are women, unless they happen to be spouting out something that is derogatory to most other women.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Completely off topic but is it me, or whenever anyone says the word "paradigm" does that mean they're a loon or a twat. There have been a lot of talk of paradigms on here lately, all by loons like Falcon


 
All Chaotes are loons or twats then.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Completely off topic but is it me, or whenever anyone says the word "paradigm" does that mean they're a loon or a twat. There have been a lot of talk of paradigms on here lately, all by loons like Falcon


 
I used that word a lot in my fundie days so probably yes...


----------



## co-op (Jun 26, 2013)

Oh God, I feel I have to post a long boring post to take on a little of what Falcon is saying. Apologies.

Falcon - you clearly don't know what you are talking about here and are rushing off to google for ammo and then whacking your posts back up here without any reflection at all.

Often you are just comparing apples and oranges. For example you cite the CDC figure for DV-caused admissions in the US




Falcon said:


> Zorza also informs readers that "between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence." Studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, indicate that the figure is closer to 1 percent.


apparently to refute mentalchic's link to the McMaster Ontario University study from this year that found that one in six female admissions to fracture clinics were by women who had been victims _at some time_ of DV.(you say 
 "an interesting insight, from an academic feminist, about the unreliability of statistics such as those presented as "fact" by mentalchic".) 
The McMaster study actually says that the number admitted because of DV was "1 in 50", i.e 2%, i.e. not greatly at odds with the CDC figure. But the two figures are totally non-comparable anyway because one is for ER admissions, the other from fracture clinics. One is from the USA only the other an attempt to get a worldwide picture and therefore made up of data from several different countries with varying rates of IPV (intimate partner violence). 
Of course the real answer here is that no one knows what the true figure is because it's very hard to find out and anyway there's no objective criterion to define IPV, much of this is culturally defined etc etc
So you're just not reading what you're commenting on, yet you feel free to draw incredibly strong conclusions about it.

Moving on, you specifically cite Capaldi and Owen (2001) who found more incidents of female instigated violence within at-risk couples than male-instigated ones (13% vs 9%). Great - Capaldi and Owen were looking at an "at-risk" group - i.e. couples who were reporting violence within their relationship. The commonest sub-group of IPV perpetrators (and the most likely to report violence to outsiders - indeed this group often openly advertise their violence and carry it out in public) is often known as Common Couple Violence, sometimes the violence is characterised as "Conflict Instigated Violence". This has been defined as follows
 _"[It] is characterized by hostile verbal exchanges over common disagreements that escalate to intermittent physically violent struggles initiated jointly or by one or the other party over time. These couples have limited problem-solving skills and respond to conflict with angry outbursts, loud arguing, insults, and demands that, if not met, escalate to snatching, breaking things, pushing shoving and hitting, tactics that are often seen as normal and justified within their family cultures. Compared to abusive relationships (such as coercive-controlling violence), power is relatively balanced and each refuses to submit to the others rules or demands; neither is particularly fearful of the other, and the men do not generally have misogynistic attitudes. After separation the violence is not likely to escalate although the couple continue to have difficulty co-operating so that disputes regarding the children’s access and care as well as spousal and child support can precipitate renewed conflict and sometimes violent incidents, especially when exchanging the child…”_ 
You can see that within this group there is no particular gender orientation (although of course Capaldi and Owen did find that the most severe injuries suffered by participants in their study were all suffered by women - for pretty obvious reasons I guess). Anyway the point I hope is clear - the fact that sub-groups of IPV perpetrators exist within which violence is non-gendered does not prove anything one way or the other about the gendering of violence in general.
But anyway Capaldi and Owen are talking about IPV not violence in general. Yet you have used their study (and others) to generate this conclusion - 



Falcon said:


> 286 scholarly investigations published in peer reviewed academic journals which directly contradict the feminist assertion that women are less physically aggressive than men


i.e. you are saying that the proposition that women are less violent in general than men has been "directly contradicted". That's just bollocks. It hasn't been by the data you cite, but it's also readily refutable by even a cursory glimpse at the general statistics about the use of violence in general which shows that it is overwhelmingly carried out by men - and of course very often against women. The neatest graph in a five second google I could find was this but they all show the same pattern. 







IPV/DV is a very complex subject and you really need to be careful about jumping in and making great assertions one way or another - especially on the basis of a few right-wing yankee nutters still fighting a desperate last-ditch culture war against feminism and in particular its critique of patriarchy and the incompatibility of patriarchy with equality and justice. 
The gendering of violence in general has its complications, but the basic data is pretty clear - it's a male problem first, and of course as others have argued on this thread, it's pretty bad for men too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Not quite as interesting as your willingness to accept, without comment, a pro-feminist statistic that is provided without any sources whatsoever.
> 
> But that is the fabric of gynocentricity.


 
I explicitly said that I didn't accept either set.

Your failure to notice that is part of the fabric of your Falconcentricity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> its a good word, but its been stolen by dickheads.


 
Dickheads who often don't apply the proper meaning, but who use it as a "scientific-sounding" substitute for "perspective" or "point-of-view".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2013)

toggle said:


> is this where i need to go hide rather than admitting i use it far too often in my writing?


 
It's okay to use it in academic writing. It's almost expected!


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Falconcentricity.



They came round the other day... offered 30% off my fuel bills and free installation of a brand new paradigm.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> They came round the other day... offered 30% off my fuel bills and free installation of a brand new paradigm.


 
Pure snake oil as usual, then?


----------



## co-op (Jun 26, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> They came round the other day... offered 30% off my fuel bills and free installation of a brand new paradigm.


 


It won't work; the Ideology Return On Ideology Invested doesn't add up.


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 26, 2013)

cesare said:


> Which women have given up on this thread?


 
This is a bit late now, but I've only just seen this. I gave up on the thread. Because life's too short.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pure snake oil as usual, then?



Was one of those smart new German combi paradigms... controls your perspective _and_ your point of view. On tap.


----------



## co-op (Jun 26, 2013)

Since we're cross referring with Falcon's energy thread, can I just chuck in that in my anecdotal experience men like Falcon, who see the End of the World coming - aye and soon - often end up linking this back to the Rise of Feminism and the overthrow of the natural order. It's a bit like conspira-lunacy and anti-semiticism; they _can_ exist independently, but it's notable how often they don't.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dickheads who often don't apply the proper meaning, but who use it as a "scientific-sounding" substitute for "perspective" or "point-of-view".


 
Yep thats the way i used it hhaha


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2013)

co-op said:


> Since we're cross referring with Falcon's energy thread, can I just chuck in that in my anecdotal experience men like Falcon, who see the End of the World coming - aye and soon - often end up linking this back to the Rise of Feminism and the overthrow of the natural order. It's a bit like conspira-lunacy and anti-semiticism; they _can_ exist independently, but it's notable how often they don't.


 
It may (and I'm only throwing this out there as a possibility) also explain a certain attitude toward feminism on a personal basis.  If the end of civilisation comes, and you're doing your best to hang on, the idea that uppity women might not appreciate your attempts to re-populate the world with right-thinking people who share your genetic template. They might even string you up by the two things you hold most dear.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 26, 2013)

toggle said:


> Ok, I'll question it. what is it? what does it say? how did you select these articles, or who selected thm for you?
> 
> you can provide some summaries of who is doing this research, what their research methodology is, how it differs to the 'feminist research' you attack, and who is funding the research or the researchers.
> 
> off you go.


As can you. Oh, by the way - you haven't *even* provided any research to substantiate your claim. You are simply stating it as a matter of axiomatic truth.

As one does in a gynocentric paradigm.

Off you go.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 26, 2013)

Every time you say 'gynocentric paradigm' you just come across as more of a cunt.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 26, 2013)

co-op said:


> The gendering of violence in general has its complications, but the basic data is pretty clear - it's a male problem first, and of course as others have argued on this thread, it's pretty bad for men too.


I'm so sorry you went to such great lengths in order to demonstrate that you completely missed the point. The point was not whether or not it was a male problem first or not. The point was that the statement that we should all be feminists because feminism forces men to drink and smoke less and to use less violence, is not supported by any data in general, and certainly not by your data about intermittent physically violent struggles initiated jointly or by one or the other party over time.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 26, 2013)

steph said:


> Every time you say 'gynocentric paradigm' you just come across as more of a cunt.


In what other way might it come across, to an inhabitant of a paradigm?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 26, 2013)

gynocentric


----------



## toggle (Jun 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> As can you. Oh, by the way - you haven't *even* provided any research to substantiate your claim. You are simply stating it as a matter of axiomatic truth.
> 
> As one does in a gynocentric paradigm.
> 
> Off you go.


 

ah, waiting for your cronies to come back to you with some answers.

how long do they normally take?


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jun 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> you can get to fuck as well


----------



## toggle (Jun 26, 2013)




----------



## Manter (Jun 26, 2013)

"Gynocentric paradigm" is such utterly delicious bollox I am going to try and add it to my bullshit bingo in my next long meeting.

I will report back on how I get on


----------



## Greebo (Jun 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> <snip>gynocentric paradigm<snip>


Bless your little cotton socks, sweetie, you just can't think beyond androcentrism.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 26, 2013)

Falcon said:


> In what other way might it come across, to an inhabitant of a paradigm?


 
Now there was I thinking that paradigms were held or sustained, not inhabited.


----------



## co-op (Jun 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> I'm so sorry you went to such great lengths in order to demonstrate that you completely missed the point. The point was not whether or not it was a male problem first or not. The point was that the statement that we should all be feminists because feminism forces men to drink and smoke less and to use less violence, is not supported by any data in general, and certainly not by your data about intermittent physically violent struggles initiated jointly or by one or the other party over time.


 
That's a pretty poor answer to a considered post. I addressed the question of whether men are more violent than women in general because you had clearly generalised to that claim from your (incorrectly used) citations regarding male-female violence within intimate relationships.

I offered no data about "intermittently physically violent" relationships - I criticised your use of data (specifically the Capaldi and Owen study) by pointing out that a sub-group of IPV consists in relationships - often tagged "at risk" in some way or other - that are characterised by non-gender specific violence. But it's a sub-group, not the whole group.

And diverting off to something phil dwyer posted which is nothing to do with anything I referred to - that's just blatant bulletin-board tactics.

Disappointing all round really but given that you've obviously got some anti-feminist bee in your bonnet about "gynocentrism" it's not unexpected.

But since you're a man I think you'd find the subject of violence, who is, why and what we might be able to do about it, an interesting one. And much of the insight into the topic has been inspired by feminist analysis of masculinity you probably need to drop the anti-feminist thing to be able to face it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2013)

Falcon said:


> As can you. Oh, by the way - you haven't *even* provided any research to substantiate your claim. You are simply stating it as a matter of axiomatic truth.
> 
> As one does in a gynocentric paradigm.
> 
> Off you go.


 
If you actually knew anything about paradigms beyond your frantic googlings, you wouldn't throw the concept around quite so readily.
Do you know why that's the case, though?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you actually knew anything about paradigms beyond your frantic googlings, you wouldn't throw the concept around quite so readily.


 
It just looks like gobbledigook from _inside_ the gynocentric paradigm - you need to take the red pill maaaan.


----------



## co-op (Jun 27, 2013)

Gobbledigoogle.


----------



## Falcon (Jun 29, 2013)

co-op said:


> That's a pretty poor answer to a considered post.


Your considered post was a poor answer to my argument (it was probably a great answer to a different argument).

My argument (only) is that becoming a feminist would not address much more serious problems that men face, such as a suicide rate that is three to five times higher. I have further argued that the position advanced by most or all here that feminism does address those issues (inherent superiority, moderator of male violence, etc.) betrays a worldview underlying a set of theories about gender - a paradigm. And I have argued that the assumption that such a view can be deployed as a matter of unexamined, unsupported, axiomatic fact while demanding its counterargument to be referenced and examined betrays that paradigm as taking a feminist point of view - gynocentric. And while I appreciate the length of your answer to a tangential point, I note this thread's deafening silence on much simpler points, for example that feminists who offer help to men have had their pets killed and grandchildren threatened with murder - by feminists.

Interestingly, an argument which has never denied the relevance of feminism, and specifically asserted the principle that we are all equal, has solicited a frenzy of outrage. That appears to betray a weakness in feminism, a lack of confidence in the intellectual rigour of its argument, and a wearying fondness for rudeness over civility - the irony of which in a thread which argues that feminism yields a better sort of person may not be readily apparent to you.



co-op said:


> But since you're a man I think …


An apposite and self-terminating illustration of the problem with the argument that has been deployed, and a useful place to draw this fruitless examination of feminist assumption to a close.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2013)

Do you *ever* stop stroking your cock?


----------



## co-op (Jun 29, 2013)

Falcon said:


> Your considered post was a poor answer to my argument (it was probably a great answer to a different argument).


 
You may think so but it's pretty clear to me that I have very specifically addressed points or arguments that you and you alone made. It was you who sought to saddle me with other peoples' posts (e.g. the smoking and drinking point of phil dwyers). You'd probably withdraw some of your claims if you were being honest - it's in the nature of bulletin boards that casually written posts are made. An example would be your claim that - and I paraphrase here - 'academic studies have refuted the idea that women are less violent than men'. The studies you cited didn't do that and any cursory look at the data shows it to be a daft claim. The sensible thing to do would be to just admit you generalised carelessly from data you are unfamiliar with. The only reason I labour this (obvious I admit) point is that refusal to back down is linked to fear of loss of face and that is a very typical issue with many men - especially those who are strongly attached to a patriarchal concept of their own gender. Real Men Don't Back Down When Challenged. Instead they come straight back at ya. I'm not having that kind of debate right now, although I have done it in my time.




Falcon said:


> My argument (only) is that becoming a feminist would not address much more serious problems that men face, such as a suicide rate that is three to five times higher. I have further argued that the position advanced by most or all here that feminism does address those issues (inherent superiority, moderator of male violence, etc.) betrays a worldview underlying a set of theories about gender - a paradigm. And I have argued that the assumption that such a view can be deployed as a matter of unexamined, unsupported, axiomatic fact while demanding its counterargument to be referenced and examined betrays that paradigm as taking a feminist point of view - gynocentric. And while I appreciate the length of your answer to a tangential point, I note this thread's deafening silence on much simpler points, for example that feminists who offer help to men have had their pets killed and grandchildren threatened with murder - by feminists.
> 
> Interestingly, an argument which has never denied the relevance of feminism, and specifically asserted the principle that we are all equal, has solicited a frenzy of outrage. That appears to betray a weakness in feminism, a lack of confidence in the intellectual rigour of its argument, and a wearying fondness for rudeness over civility - the irony of which in a thread which argues that feminism yields a better sort of person may not be readily apparent to you.


 
The first point I'd make here is that - by your own citations and posts as much as anything - it should be obvious that there is no such thing as a monolithic body of thought called 'feminism'. How can 'feminists' kill each others' dogs etc over doctrinal differences if they are all reading from the same script? Again, an obvious point but one that you seem to be ignoring. I wouldn't even call myself a 'feminist' as such - I've always called myself a socialist and that's a whole other debate.

But lets look at male suicide in western economies. You're right - massively higher than rates of female suicide (although lower than other gender differences in violence rates). Is suicide a violent act? I'd say so - all the components of violence are there, but the target is the self rather than an other; suicide = 'self-murder'. But this gets into historical cultural stuff pretty quickly. Suicide stats were certainly not included as crimes of violence for many years after the legalisation of suicide - this was part of the drive to de-stigmatise suicide which seemed important to many in the UK, especially just after suicide was made legal in the 60s; it was believed to make treatment of suicide survivors much more likely to be effective. I am old enough to remember the culture change from 'suicide is the cowrads way out' to 'you have to be very brave or very desperate to do that'. More recently suicide stats are generally included in general violence stats by many who study the subject because there are some very good correlations between suicide and homicide rates which suggests they are linked - e.g. maybe both 'caused' by the same environmental factors.

But in terms of gender what certainly links them is that men are hugely more likely to commit both acts. What has 'feminism' to offer to this question? (obviously using the term feminism as a cipher for the type that you disparage) I have already mentioned the idea of patriarchy - a defining set of assumptions about appropriate gender roles. Feminism has had much to say about this - it virtually created the subject. Obviously feminism has been most particularly associated with the rejection of the role assigned to women in patriarchal cultures - passive, sex objects etc. But it has also continually pointed out how these gender roles are often deeply damaging to men too. The strong silent male who copes, and when he can't cope uses violence as a way of reasserting his masculinity is also the man who - disproportionately - is likely to kill himself or others. The 'others' he kills are usually his friends, his children, family members, his intimate partners - all people who should be sources of joy and meaning in his life. Even when he kills strangers, he usually destroys his own life in the process.

Why is a body of theory examining these kinds of role assignation (which I personally see played out daily) so hostile to men? How does it - in your words - "does not address" male issues? Like why so many more men than women kill themselves?

Many women have come to feminist analysis because they don't like what they see being projected onto their sons, as much as they dislike what they have experienced being projected onto themselves.

It seems to me you really have barely scratched the surface of the subject and yet you are full of utter certainty that you know what is going on here - perhaps a little humility might be in order?




Falcon said:


> An apposite and self-terminating illustration of the problem with the argument that has been deployed, and a useful place to draw this fruitless examination of feminist assumption to a close.


 
Why's it so fruitless for you?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 3, 2013)

Did this get posted up?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2013/jun/20/why-i-started-a-feminist-society

I think it's connected to this as it's linked to from here:

http://www.upworthy.com/if-you-stil...-the-signs-these-girls-were-bullied-for?c=to2


----------



## ExtraRefined (Aug 12, 2013)




----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 12, 2013)

This'll go well.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Aug 12, 2013)

co-op said:


> .


----------



## toggle (Aug 12, 2013)

was there anything you wanted in particular, or you're pissed, bored and fancied showing off your ignorance?


----------



## toggle (Aug 12, 2013)

ExtraRefined said:


>


 
even if there was a valid correlation there, it does not equal causation.


----------



## andysays (Aug 12, 2013)

I need feminism so that there are women like toggle to give trolling wankers a slap when they come out with shit like the above


----------



## Combustible (Aug 12, 2013)

ExtraRefined said:


>


 
What do you think is the reason for the difference?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2013)

We still need feminism as long as there are attitudes such as those posted by ExtraRefined.


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

If he posted about anti-racism as he posts about feminism, he'd have been banned yonks ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2013)

He did and he was.


----------



## Smyz (Aug 13, 2013)

And yet he is and he isn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

That's what's great about the future.


----------



## Dr Smith (Aug 13, 2013)

I have tried to follow Laurie Penny on Twitter but she often uses it as a waste bin for random thoughts, spams up my feed. She's funny, to me, more than insightful, or even helpful. I do like how she dresses, tho. Too friendly with some really bad "communists" who are so far up the ass of the British SWP only their legs stick out. 

Am I wrong about Penny?

Some of my daily reads, and followed on Twitter include:

everydaysexism.com

http://www.feministfrequency.com/

http://femen.org/ (NSFW)

http://www.upworthy.com/

http://veruca-assault.tumblr.com/


----------



## treelover (Aug 17, 2013)

> As a working class woman I agree with a lot of what Soraya says. I am loathe to call myself a feminist as my own experience of women who use that term has been one of middle class women who wish to compete with men on their own terms in the capitalist marketplace. They are unable to relate to working class women and the issues that affect them because they have no experience of what it means to be working class. *When I used to clean the houses of the middle classes to supplement my benefits there were a lot of very posh women who would sit around having conversations about how difficult their lives were because they were women, while I, a working class woman with no education and no prospects would be mopping the floor around them, ironing their clothes or stacking the dishwasher after last nights dinner party. No one asked me what I thought; I don’t think they actually saw me.*
> As Soraya points out working class women are the most exploited in society and the root of that oppression lies not in biology but in social conditions. The discrimination I have suffered in my life, from both men and women, has usually been as a result of my class position and not my gender. There was a time when this discrimination was based on my accent, and where I lived, now I no longer live on a council estate the discrimination is more on the grounds of attitudes and values which are very different from those of the middle class and which set me apart from them. I still have more in common with working class men then I could ever have with middle class women.


 


Someone posted this on a discussion article on Left Unity, its very sharp and revealing, one could think it was made up if it it wasn't for the provenance


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 10, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS.
> 
> Argle bargle blart blurt.





TruXta said:


> I didn't say a Noble Prize did I? But if you insist I shall henceforth refer to it by its proper name, *Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.*


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2015)

But you...lost.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> But you...lost.



Did I? I honestly can't remember.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 10, 2015)

Don't see TruXta about much anymore.


----------

