# Are sexist sentiment and language acceptable on these forums or not?



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

Poll. Multiple-choice. Anonymous, so vote without fear.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> Poll. Anonymous, so vote without fear.


Why not just make your point directly and report the poster you're having a go at?


----------



## 8115 (Apr 1, 2013)

It varies depending on context, speaker and intention.

The choice of poll answers does give some idea of your own stance on this


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

I have to say, I'm seeing a lot more reports about sexism which is A Good Thing. Particularly as previously the mods would get grief about inaction, which isn't fair if we don't know about it.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

Well, it's unacceptable, it's always unacceptable but I don't notice very much sexism on here but I have noticed how much of a sexist undercurrent there is to everyday life (tv, radio, books and people's attitudes) but I think if you're not vigilant it just washes over you.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Why not just make your point directly and report the poster you're having a go at?


 

Why do you think I'm having a go at anyone in particular?

If you mean the final poll option, that has happened a lot more often than just the latest bizarre incident, and not just to me. This poll is the culmination of around two years of my attempts to operate a zero tolerance policy and I think it needs some proper discussion.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Why not just make your point directly and report the poster you're having a go at?


 
I really don't think this is a call out of anyone in particular. more of a query about the constant low to medium level sexism on the boards. It is my opinion that were similar levels of comment directed against anyone for their race then it would get called out by more people and dealt with more severely.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Why not just make your point directly and report the poster you're having a go at?


Because it would be good to have a civilised discussion about the topic, I imagine


----------



## 8115 (Apr 1, 2013)

Personally I find low level sexist language a lot more acceptable than even low level racist language so I'm not sure about the comparison. I don't really know why this is.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> constant low to medium level sexism on the boards.


Wow, this is interesting as I haven't picked up on it. I won't ask for examples or specific posters as that would make it a call out thread, but in what ways or topics of discussion have you noticed this?


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Because it would be good to have a civilised discussion about the topic, I imagine


 
and I think help to highlight that there are some people who make sexist remarks that may not be aware they are being rude/insulting. simply that they have picked up their cue from society and not thought of the implications their actions have on the recipients of those comments.



Mrs Magpie said:


> I have to say, I'm seeing a lot more reports about sexism which is A Good Thing. Particularly as previously the mods would get grief about inaction, which isn't fair if we don't know about it.


I like the idea of zero tolerance on this tbh. There are hundreds of places where people can go on the net and exercise their right to be vile towards women solely for being women. I'd love it if this can be the place where they don't have that right. at all.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 said:


> Personally I find low level sexist language a lot more acceptable than even low level racist language so I'm not sure about the comparison. I don't really know why this is.


 
that's one of the things i'd like to see challenged. you are right, it is more acceptable. It shouldn't be IMO, but it is.

I'd like to look at why it is still acceptable and try to stop that.


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

Read that UKIP guys blog posted on another thread, sexism incarnate..


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Wow, this is interesting as I haven't picked up on it. I won't ask for examples or specific posters as that would make it a call out thread, but in what ways or topics of discussion have you noticed this?


 
do you mean the 'Woar' threads?, less of them now, do expand...


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 1, 2013)

13 replys and gromit has not post yet


The man is slacking


----------



## IC3D (Apr 1, 2013)

I think peoples perception of what constitutes sexism varies from person to person far more than racism. A statement like the Tories are raping this country is not as bad as so and so is being moody cos its her time of the month.


----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2013)

Specific words mean different things to different people.  They have different discourses due to each individual's experience.

Sexist opinions should be dealt with firmly IMO, but policing people's language is less simple.  Possibly far less important or constructive as well.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

This is not how you write a survey. A couple of these answers mean the same thing, my preferred answer of "I don't call it out because everyone beats me to it" isn't there, and you don't specify what sexist language is. Most sexists either deny being sexist or they deny that it matters, and no one knows what your exact views on it are, which obviously influence the survey as you have not given us a definition to go by. No one knows if you're going to use the data to make a point and no one knows what you're going to do with the data.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 1, 2013)

I've noticed more of it recently. Maybe I'm becoming more aware of it, maybe I'm becoming hypervigilant, maybe I'm just fed up of it. 

There is no excuse for sexism, just as there is no excuse for racism or homophobia and all the other -isms. If people don't like being called out on it, don't do it in the first place.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> do you mean the 'Woar' threads, less of them now, do expand...


I don't quite understand. I was asking the previous poster where they had picked up on the constant low to medium level of sexism, it was an enquiry that I'm not sure how I could expand....

I do, however, remember the Phwoar Thread and the debate it produced.  Also remember the discussion about Dr Alice Roberts and her beauty rather than her knowledge and presenting being discussed. Those are examples of sexism challenged on the boards and I picked up on those at the time so I would be interested to know what I haven't picked up on, what may have been normalised for me and/or the boards.


----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2013)

As for the poll:

"Sexist sentiment or sexist use of language on these forums is..."

They are two different questions, for the reasons above.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 1, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> This is not how you write a survey. A couple of these answers mean the same thing, my preferred answer of "I don't call it out because everyone beats me to it" isn't there, and you don't specify what sexist language is. Most sexists either deny being sexist or they deny that it matters, and no one knows what your exact views on it are, which obviously influence the survey as you have not given us a definition to go by. No one knows if you're going to use the data to make a point and no one knows what you're going to do with the data.


So what if other people have called out sexism? You can add your voice too.


----------



## cdg (Apr 1, 2013)

Can the OP define sexism?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

Corax said:


> policing people's language is less simple.


For me, personally, the eighties knocked the fight out of me. All that bollocks about 'herstory' etc made me disengage to a degree. However it's getting back to the level of the 1970s where casual sexism isn't even regarded as worthy of comment. I'm older and more tired these days but it's getting to a level where even I drag my weary carcass back into the fray.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 1, 2013)

I worry about policing language because language is rich and beautiful, and I automatically don't like it being taken out of people's mouths.  An approach I like is the mad pride/ gay pride one which says, this language is ours and it's great, but at the same time draws attention to the fact that language matters.  I think it's a more nuanced approach.


----------



## treefrog (Apr 1, 2013)

IC3D said:


> I think peoples perception of what constitutes sexism varies from person to person far more than racism. A statement like the Tories are raping this country is not as bad as so and so is being moody cos its her time of the month.


 
I think this statement neatly encapsulates why we need a zero tolerance policy.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 1, 2013)

There's supposed to be a zero tolerance policy already, but to be fair the mods can't read every thread so it's up to the community as a whole to report posts that cross the line.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> So what if other people have called out sexism? You can add your voice too.


Why? There's no point just repeating other things someone's said, especially when it's already been dealt with as much as it can be and there's been 100 posts since.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

IC3D said:


> I think peoples perception of what constitutes sexism varies from person to person far more than racism. A statement like the Tories are raping this country is not as bad as so and so is being moody cos its her time of the month.


 
yes. a bit but.....

a woman saying she is moody cause of her time of the month fine. asking her if it's her time of the month cause she's pissed off with something, not fine.very very long way from fine. if i wasn't pissed off at you personally already I bloody well am now, far from fine. usually ending in some twat announcing 'see, told you it was her time of the month', classic woman baiting IMO. one step along from telling her to get back in the kitchen.

rape- I know it's usually not intended but can be triggering for rape and sexual abuse victims, and there are a hell of a lot of us out there. and I think ti's massively overused, and is in many ways turned into a bad joke. where do you draw the line. somewhere between the tories are raping the country and 'i soooo got raped on COD last night'. or the really vile rape jokes teenagers come out with? I think if you don't know exactly where to draw the line with who you are with, don't go there at all. there's a lot of other words you could sub for rape in that example that would get your point across equally well.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Why? There's no point just repeating other things someone's said, especially when it's already been dealt with as much as it can be and there's been 100 posts since.


Critical mass, innit?


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 1, 2013)

I love it when people out themselves as sexist on here by some slip up or whatever cos it gives me the opportunity to rip 'em to shreds and make them feel stupid 

Some people will always have a sexist attitude, nothing you can do really 'cept hope they die alone, some people really love the fact that it winds women up, some folk have nowt better to do.

As long as women (and men for that matter) don't accept it in the workplace or whatever, that's the big issue for me, ignoring it in those situations would be criminal IMO.

Ignoring it here is another thing entirely, not playing into some sexist shit's game is often commendable.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 said:


> Personally I find low level sexist language a lot more acceptable than even low level racist language so I'm not sure about the comparison. I don't really know why this is.


The "internalisation of oppression". I have had multiple women tell me off over the years for 'feeding the trolls' when they haven't offered a word of criticism towards the sexist trolls themselves. As if this is something we just have to put up with and challenging it can only make the backlash worse so we shouldn't.


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I've noticed more of it recently. Maybe I'm becoming more aware of it, maybe I'm becoming hypervigilant, maybe I'm just fed up of it.
> 
> There is no excuse for sexism, just as there is no excuse for racism or homophobia and all the other -isms. If people don't like being called out on it, don't do it in the first place.


 

Something is happening with women and the issues, Harpy Marx on her blog seem about to combust...

globally as well...


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> There's supposed to be a zero tolerance policy already, but to be fair the mods can't read every thread so it's up to the community as a whole to report posts that cross the line.


For the record, I'd rather have a poster robustly challenged by posters here than banned.

(Edit to add: unless they're being pointless sexist/racist monsters/trolls, of course)


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> For me, personally, the eighties knocked the fight out of me. All that bollocks about 'herstory' etc made me disengage to a degree. However it's getting back to the level of the 1970s where casual sexism isn't even regarded as worthy of comment. I'm older and more tired these days but it's getting to a level where even I drag my weary carcass back into the fray.


 
nods.

I've started working with a women's history group and I think I'd throw eggs at anyone using herstory.maybee i should warn them of that.

there's an article in the indie (i think ) today on the NUT (i think) condeming that sexism has been rewritten to encourage women to actively encourage sexist behavior.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> For the record, I'd rather have a poster robustly challenged by posters here than banned.


 
I'd rather not have to challenge them, but i do aggree with your point


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> For the record, I'd rather have a poster robustly challenged by posters here than banned.
> 
> (Edit to add: unless they're being pointless sexist monsters, of course)


I'm not calling for a one strike then ban policy, that would be pointless. Zero tolerance policy to me means challenging all posts that cross the line.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

I like people's posts when they've called people out, does that count?


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> There's supposed to be a zero tolerance policy already, but to be fair the mods can't read every thread so it's up to the community as a whole to report posts that cross the line.


 
the problem comes in those who support abusing someone who admits to reporting posts.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> This is not how you write a survey. A couple of these answers mean the same thing, my preferred answer of "I don't call it out because everyone beats me to it" isn't there, and you don't specify what sexist language is. Most sexists either deny being sexist or they deny that it matters, and no one knows what your exact views on it are, which obviously influence the survey as you have not given us a definition to go by. No one knows if you're going to use the data to make a point and no one knows what you're going to do with the data.


Yeah, it is inadequate for a number of reasons. Not least that I was trying to avoid making this a call out thread. 

The data is entirely useless, of course. If I'd wanted to use it for anything I'd have included "I am a woman" or "I am a man" in each answer. These questions aren't answerable without step-wise research which is impossible within the constraints of the board's polling system. And I'm not interested in changing the world with it, just this little corner where I and others should feel safe to raise these issues but often do not.


----------



## cdg (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> asking her if it's her time of the month cause she's pissed off with something, not fine.very very long way from fine.


 
Are you speaking for every woman here?


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not calling for a one strike then ban policy, that would be pointless. Zero tolerance policy to me means challenging all posts that cross the line.


Then we're in total agreement, unless you expect the mods to be doing all the challenging.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Ignoring it here is another thing entirely, not playing into some sexist shit's game is often commendable.


 
but ignoring it can sometimes let it get worse, by telling people it won't be challenged and that they can keep going.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

cdg said:


> Are you speaking for every woman here?


 


find another thread to troll


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Then we're in total agreement, unless you expect the mods to be doing all the challenging.


Of course not! It's not like this is a paid gig for any of you, plus there is no way you can follow all threads to 'police them'. Like I said, I will challenge when I see something, and if more posters do that then there is more chance that fewer offensive posts will appear.


----------



## treefrog (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> yes. a bit but.....
> 
> a woman saying she is moody cause of her time of the month fine. asking her if it's her time of the month cause she's pissed off with something, not fine.very very long way from fine. if i wasn't pissed off at you personally already I bloody well am now, far from fine. usually ending in some twat announcing 'see, told you it was her time of the month', classic woman baiting IMO. one step along from telling her to get back in the kitchen.
> 
> rape- I know it's usually not intended but can be triggering for rape and sexual abuse victims, and there are a hell of a lot of us out there. and I think ti's massively overused, and is in many ways turned into a bad joke. where do you draw the line. somewhere between the tories are raping the country and 'i soooo got raped on COD last night'. or the really vile rape jokes teenagers come out with? I think if you don't know exactly where to draw the line with who you are with, don't go there at all. there's a lot of other words you could sub for rape in that example that would get your point across equally well.


Thank you for making the point so eloquently.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> the problem comes in those who support abusing someone who admits to reporting posts.


No one has to 'admit' to reporting posts and the mods don't make a habit of naming those who do (unless - for example - they're being a spectacular pain in the arse about it).


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> but ignoring it can sometimes let it get worse, by telling people it won't be challenged and that they can keep going.


 
Like I said I'm more than happy to rip em to shreds, but if I think their getting a rise from winding me up? Fuck that.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 1, 2013)

cdg said:


> Are you speaking for every woman here?


Are you being an arse on purpose?


----------



## Poot (Apr 1, 2013)

There are some posters whose posts have a sexist feel to them, but not enough to pull them up about it. But life is like that and it's easier not to mention it sometimes. Doesn't mean I don't notice and form a opinion about people, though.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 1, 2013)

I don't think anyone would get away with saying "is it your time of the month?" here, everyone here would jump all over that.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 1, 2013)

Poot said:


> There are some posters whose posts have a sexist feel to them, but not enough to pull them up about it. But life is like that and it's easier not to mention it sometimes. Doesn't mean I don't notice and form a opinion about people, though.


 
Like in the film Magnolia, "I'm quietly judging you".


----------



## cdg (Apr 1, 2013)

Im drunk and probably argumentative but not trolling. I'll bugger off anyway.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Then we're in total agreement, unless you expect the mods to be doing all the challenging.


 
Ideally, I'd like it to be known that if other posters challenging sexism isn't responded to then they will be backed up by the mods and temp banned if they continue either sexist behavior or deliberate disruption of discussion about sexist behavior.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Are you being an arse on purpose?


I think ranking comments as being more or less sexist than each other is dangerous in most situations.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

Feisty little thing aren't you, ymu?

I think urban isn't as 'right on' as it used to be but that's most likely because it is has become more mainstream.

I voted:



> Unacceptable but it is not always worth the grief of calling it out so sometimes I don't


 
BIt more cautious on pulling up people following mantergate. I tried to be gentle but I didn't do a very good job.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> the problem comes in those who support abusing someone who admits to reporting posts.


There have been at least two occasions where someone who has been banned has returned accusing me (and others) by name of having got them banned by reporting them. It's beyond pathetic, of course, but I'd actually hate for that accusation to be true, especially if I hadn't challenged them directly.

I agree wholeheartedly with editor's point. Hence, this thread. I am wondering why so few people do call it out and the apparent lack of support for them when they do.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> No one has to 'admit' to reporting posts and the mods don't make a habit of naming those who do (unless - for example - they're being a spectacular pain in the arse about it).


 
for the record, could you define whereabouts being a spectacular pain in the arse about it is. cause there are times i've wanted to hit the report button for a good dozen posts in one thread.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 1, 2013)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-355#post-12091287


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 1, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> I think ranking comments as being more or less sexist than each other is dangerous in most situations.


I haven't said anything about that


----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> If people don't like being called out on it, don't do it in the first place.


On sexist (or racist, or etc) *sentiments* I agree.

But the use of individual words isn't so simple IMO. A poster was recently challenged over a certain word used as an analogy for the tory benefit cuts (or something similar, I don't think the specifics are vital) - there were no sexist sentiments on display, but the word itself was the issue. Personally, I don't feel comfortable with that kind of censorship. Opinions, beliefs, attitudes and intent are what's important to me. Individual words mean different things to different people in different environments.  The same word can mean very different things to different people, and one person's understanding does not trump any other's, IMHO.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> for the record, could you define whereabouts being a spectacular pain in the arse about it is. .


When someone is abusing the report function or pestering the fuck out of a mod for something that has nothing to do with their job.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> but ignoring it can sometimes let it get worse, by telling people it won't be challenged and that they can keep going.


And by creating the impression that it is socially acceptable when it is not.

How does every racist joke start? With a glance over the shoulder to check who is listening.

I'd love it if sexism had to go underground like that. These people need it making clear that they are social outcasts.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 1, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Wow, this is interesting as I haven't picked up on it. I won't ask for examples or specific posters as that would make it a call out thread, but in what ways or topics of discussion have you noticed this?


women habitually do [highly negative behaviour]
women habitually do [incredibly stupid thing]
[common thing that most women do, but almost no men] makes them stupid/incompetent/incapable
story about person in job doing something the poster thinks is stupid, goes out of way to mention the gender of that person...

it's hard to explain these without contexts... when talking in general terms, it's easy to say 'oh well, that doesn't sound so bad'.  Which is what bigots rely on.  Racists, the EDL...  pernicious little comments that they hope people will struggle to pin down and identify as hate speech...

well, it's the same with sexism.  I'm very interested in the idea that sexism is less important than racism.  I can easily believe that is what people think, because it would explain why we've never had a reaction to sexism like that we had after the London Calling / Refused as Fuck racism thing.


----------



## cdg (Apr 1, 2013)

Firky said:


> Feisty little thing aren't you, ymu?


 
Should this be reported ymu?


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-355#post-12091287


 
this isn't a call out thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> Poll. Multiple-choice. Anonymous, so vote without fear.


 
If you're asking people to answer such a revealing question, doesn't it behoove you to actually define what *you* mean by "sexist sentiment or language", or is everyone supposed to share some normative definition?


----------



## 8115 (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> And by creating the impression that it is socially acceptable when it is not.
> 
> How does every racist joke start? With a glance over the shoulder to check who is listening.
> 
> I'd love it if sexism had to go underground like that. These people need it making clear that they are social outcasts.


 
People have to look over their should before they tell a racist joke, but inequality by racism absolutely thrives in Britain today. But it's ok, because nice people don't tell racist jokes. Personally I think I'd rather have it overground thanks.


----------



## xenon (Apr 1, 2013)

Corax said:


> Specific words mean different things to different people.  They have different discourses due to each individual's experience.
> 
> Sexist opinions should be dealt with firmly IMO, but policing people's language is less simple.  Possibly far less important or constructive as well.



Shut it you slaag. <DI Burnside style.)


This probably speaks ill of me but in my mind, re that thread about the WPC who tripped over the garage, I kinda mentally shrugged as Inferno's language cos AFAIK he's an old codger.  Meaning, perhaps not as aware what might have been common parlence in the 70s is a bit off. I know, I've just done a bit of ageism there.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I haven't said anything about that


Shite sorry, wrong person.
The TV's on and I get distracted


----------



## treefrog (Apr 1, 2013)

cdg said:


> Should this be reported ymu?


I thought you were going away?


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> .......I'd love it if sexism had to go underground like that. These people need it making clear that they are social outcasts.


 
Racism hasn't gone underground though. The racists that drink in the pub where I live are unfortunately just as vocal about their racist bullshit as they are about their sexism. Ditto cab drivers, etc, etc, etc..........


----------



## cdg (Apr 1, 2013)

Yes, sorry. Vodka. You know what us men are like


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

Corax said:


> On sexist (or racist, or etc) *sentiments* I agree.
> 
> But the use of individual words isn't so simple IMO. A poster was recently challenged over a certain word used as an analogy for the tory benefit cuts (or something similar, I don't think the specifics are vital) - there were no sexist sentiments on display, but the word itself was the issue. Personally, I don't feel comfortable with that kind of censorship. Opinions, beliefs, attitudes and intent are what's important to me. Individual words mean different things to different people in different environments. The same word can mean very different things to different people, and one person's understanding does not trump any other's, IMHO.


 
depends.

sometimes i think the overuse of some words devalues their meaning. if i call everyone to the right of me a nazi, the word nazi means nothing when i direct it at the nf. using rape constantly for a description, such as the one I used above of doing badly in a game, can devalue it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-355#post-12091287


 
You get that there's a difference between calling _you _a cunt and being sexist don't you? You cunt.

I don't really know what this is all about but I definitely think prejudice of any kind should be called out and dealt with, I didn't think that was a controversial point of view either, especially on here


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 1, 2013)

cdg said:


> Yes, sorry. Vodka. You know what us men are like


 
I know what people like you are like, yeah.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 said:


> People have to look over their should before they tell a racist joke, but inequality by racism absolutely thrives in Britain today. But it's ok, because nice people don't tell racist jokes. Personally I think I'd rather have it overground thanks.


 
Women are beaten, murdered, abused, discriminated against and best they're the punch-line in a joke. Much like racism.

Why would you ever want a sliding scales when it comes to racism, sexism or any other ism? It is absurd to say one is 'better' for want of a better word than the other.


----------



## killer b (Apr 1, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-355#post-12091287


ah, i was wondering why i suddenly got a flurry of likes for that post. 

you fucking joke.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

cdg said:


> Yes, sorry. Vodka. You know what us men are like


 
for the record, those of us challenging sexism will challenge that kind of crap as well. infantalising men isn't part of my definition of feminism.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

cdg said:


> Should this be reported ymu?


No, because he is taking the piss out of those who suddenly start using loaded terms when challenged by a woman. As should be obvious from his track-record if not the context.

I have no objection to words like feisty, hysterical or bitch being used in a neutral context (the simplest test being whether the same could be said to a man without sounding strange). The problem is when male posters use them deliberately to demean and dismiss, generally because they know they have no legitimate argument to rely on.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

cdg said:


> Should this be reported ymu?


 
I caught one! 

Now what?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2013)

there are some sexist pricks on here yes and i dont always feel comfortable challenging it. however if i'm remembering it right, it might have been worse a couple of years ago.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I've noticed more of it recently. Maybe I'm becoming more aware of it, maybe I'm becoming hypervigilant, maybe I'm just fed up of it.
> 
> There is no excuse for sexism, just as there is no excuse for racism or homophobia and all the other -isms. If people don't like being called out on it, don't do it in the first place.


 
The problem there is that no-one, not you, not me and not ymu, are actually "anti" all -isms all the time. We all "slip into" certain less-than-pure sentiment and language occasionally. So, while there's no excuse for projecting an -ism as part of your everyday personality (unless you're a scumbag), there is a justification for saying "one slip, I'll regard it as a slip, two slips and I'll regard you as a ****ist".


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 said:


> People have to look over their should before they tell a racist joke, but inequality by racism absolutely thrives in Britain today. But it's ok, because nice people don't tell racist jokes. Personally I think I'd rather have it overground thanks.


 
i wouldn't.

i'd rather not have to deal with open harassment


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there are some sexist pricks on here yes and i dont always feel comfortable challenging it. however if i'm remembering it right, it might have been worse a couple of years ago.


 
That DotCommunist fella, he's probably the worst.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there are some sexist pricks on here yes and i dont always feel comfortable challenging it. however if i'm remembering it right, it might have been worse a couple of years ago.


 
think it goes in waves. it gets worse, we challenge, it goes away. rinse and repeat.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 said:


> People have to look over their should before they tell a racist joke, but inequality by racism absolutely thrives in Britain today. But it's ok, because nice people don't tell racist jokes. Personally I think I'd rather have it overground thanks.


It is a mark of progess that racism is no longer something that can safely be practised in public. If it were still socially acceptable, there would be more racists around, overt or otherwise. The fact that sexist sentiment can safely be expressed and defended in public says that the sexists are not afraid of being ostracised because of it. Because they are not, in general, ostracised because of it.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> think it goes in waves. it gets worse, we challenge, it goes away. rinse and repeat.


 
I don't think most of the sexism is in the P and P forum either.

I think the H and S forum is pretty bad for it frankly.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem there is that no-one, not you, not me and not ymu, are actually "anti" all -isms all the time. We all "slip into" certain less-than-pure sentiment and language occasionally. So, while there's no excuse for projecting an -ism as part of your everyday personality (unless you're a scumbag), there is a justification for saying "one slip, I'll regard it as a slip, two slips and I'll regard you as a ****ist".


 
don't think anyone is suggesting one slip is a trip to the metaphorical gallows. but an honest 'ooooops' i'll take some more care is a great response. massive defensive overreaction less so. the latter is a great arsehole detector


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-355#post-12091287


 
killer b - expect alerts for a post made last week by the dozen, you busted a cunt


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2013)

Firky said:


> Women are beaten, murdered, abused, discriminated against and best they're the punch-line in a joke. Much like racism.
> 
> Why would you ever want a sliding scales when it comes to racism, sexism or any other ism? It is absurd to say one is 'better' for want of a better word than the other.


 
I don't think that's the point he/she was making though. It seemed to be a point made against the idea that by policing language you kill off prejudice (political correctness as a cure all).

When often all it does is make it unacceptable in 'polite society' - so people remain sexist or whatever but keep it behind closed doors, meanwhile the structural racism/sexism remains untouched.

I think this is partly why people like Laurie Penny get so shocked by sexism on the internet - because political correctness shields people like here from the low level sexism etc that you get on the ground in less wealthy and smartest girl in a smart school circles than those she moves in.

I think it's a valid point. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't call out sexist language - it just means you shouldn't make the idiotic post-modernist error of thinking that if you change the language you change the reality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 said:


> I worry about policing language because language is rich and beautiful, and I automatically don't like it being taken out of people's mouths. An approach I like is the mad pride/ gay pride one which says, this language is ours and it's great, but at the same time draws attention to the fact that language matters. I think it's a more nuanced approach.


 
In my own opinion, "policing" language is fine to a point - i.e. if what you're doing is policing a term or word that's being used in a derogatory or corrupt way - it's not fine if the "policing" is being done in order to close down debate. Mrs. M mentioned the '80s. I lost count of the political meetings I went to back then that were stopped in their tracks by someone using identity politics and the language issues around it as a focus for disrupting meetings.


----------



## treefrog (Apr 1, 2013)

Here's my issue.

I'm sick of this BS. I'm sick of a society where it's insinuated in court that children "lead on" their rapists. I'm sick of being valued exclusively on my body. I'm sick of being told to "calm down" when I dare to call someone out as though my opinion, my feelings were invalid. I'm sick of feeling guilty for espousing a view on something I am an expert in and putting a smiley face or a "but that's just my opinion" to try and defuse any backlash.

If you're male you _you don't know what it's like to live in a male-dominated world._ You don't know the fear that comes from a man getting in a lift behind you late at night. You don't know the disappointment of hearing someone you love carelessly patronise you over and over just because you're female. There is *no* escape from it, unless you spend your days living alone up a mountain somewhere. I for one am fucking tired of it and I make no apologies any more for being a humourless, bra-burning, "on-the-blob", lesbian feminist because if anyone brings their sexist bullshit to my table I wil bring my fucking righteous wrath down.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-355#post-12091287


Cunt is a sexist term in the US because it is solely directed at women. In the UK it is an entirely unisex insult and completely acceptable from an anti-sexist point of view.

There seem to be an awful lot of people who equate anti-sexism with not using obscene language or referring to sex in any way, shape or form, which is quite amazingly sexist in itself.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> It is a mark of progess that racism is no longer something that can safely be practised in public.


 
Not where I live


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

And gan on all the lasses on here, toggle, equationgirl, ymu, lizzieloo, froggy and the rest for putting their foot down. Good stuff


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2013)

for posts like that idiotic "the personal isn't political" bollocks from a certain member of an impossibilist party, i don't necessarily think it's a result of "sexism" so much as an inability to see anything that differs from their dogmas. It doesnt fit in with the line so it doesnt exist, simples


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> nods.
> 
> I've started working with a women's history group and I think I'd throw eggs at anyone using herstory.maybee i should warn them of that.




Isn't eggs a bit gynocentric? Perhaps chuck a bucket of bull spunk?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Well, it's unacceptable, it's always unacceptable but I don't notice very much sexism on here but I have noticed how much of a sexist undercurrent there is to everyday life (tv, radio, books and people's attitudes) but I think if you're not vigilant it just washes over you.


My husband says he has really noticed how much it's increased (glad to know it's not just me then!) and also he's noticed that generally speaking a lot of men cannot bear to be pulled up about anything by women, let alone anything else. His boss is a woman and he's really picked up on how a lot of men completely undermine her although she's very capable and good at her job.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2013)

The Party says the personal isn't political, so it isn't. Not sexist, but not exactly the sign of a healthy marxist analysis and in the end it ends up being "structurally sexist" even if it not deliberately because it implies the existence of two "spheres" the public and private sphere which is part of the philosophical underpinnings of sexism


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't eggs a bit gynocentric? Perhaps chuck a bucket of bull spunk?


 
i'll replace eggs with chicken shit.

better?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 1, 2013)

I don't think it's acceptable but I find the poll options loaded. 
I don't think it's always that black and white. Unfortunately. 

Urban has taught me a lot about how patriarchal society works and I am hugely greatful for that. 
However, I will treat every situation and poster individually, as l hope people would afford me the same courtesy.


----------



## andysays (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> Cunt is a sexist term in the US because it is solely directed at women. In the UK it is an entirely unisex insult and completely acceptable from an anti-sexist point of view.
> 
> There seem to be an awful lot of people who equate anti-sexism with not using obscene language or referring to sex in any way, shape or form, which is quite amazingly sexist in itself.


 
That's your opinion, and one which seems to be shared by many here. It's not one on which everyone would agree.

What's sauce for the goose...


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You get that there's a difference between calling _you _a cunt and being sexist don't you? You cunt.
> 
> I don't really know what this is all about but I definitely think prejudice of any kind should be called out and dealt with, I didn't think that was a controversial point of view either, especially on here


Very few of the P&P crowd ever do call it out. Possibly just because they are on different threads, but some of the worst offenders, IME, are self-described lefties who claim to be anti-sexist. They're not usually dim enough to push it as far as the usual suspects do, but they rarely get challenged by genuinely anti-sexist men on the left (who are, let's face it, the only people they're going to listen to, given their absolute right to be sexist pigs the moment they are challenged by a woman).

This is not a callout thread, so no, I won't give you examples. But it was lefties who self-describe as anti-sexist defending their descent into sexist abuse which prompted my zero tolerance policy in the first place.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think that's the point he/she was making though. It seemed to be a point made against the idea that by policing language you kill off prejudice (political correctness as a cure all).
> 
> When often all it does is make it unacceptable in 'polite society' - so people remain sexist or whatever but keep it behind closed doors, meanwhile the structural racism/sexism remains untouched.
> 
> ...


 
I know it wasn't the point 8115 was making and reading my post back I can see the confusion, I was trying to make the same sort of point you were. But I fucked up >_<

Was actually trying to say it should all be hit on the head / challenged rather than accepted, but not ignored


----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:
			
		

> It is a mark of progess that racism is no longer something that can safely be practised in public.


It can round here. Lots.


----------



## elbows (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> It is a mark of progess that racism is no longer something that can safely be practised in public. If it were still socially acceptable, there would be more racists around. The fact that sexist sentiment can safely be expressed and defended in public says that the sexists are not afraid of being ostracised because of it. Because they are not, in general, ostracised because of it.


 
Sadly my experiences at my former workplace mirrored the following observation by Lizzieloo:



lizzieloo said:


> Racism hasn't gone underground though. The racists that drink in the pub where I live are unfortunately just as vocal about their racist bullshit as they are about their sexism. Ditto cab drivers, etc, etc, etc..........


 
Indeed, quite the opposite of being ostracised both the racist and sexist comments at work appeared to still be part of group bonding banter, and it was clear that the most vocal of the people were not used to being challenged on either front at all. It is possible that certain very specific forms, sentiments and expressions of sexism had left that scene, but so many forms of it and of racism remained that it was as if all the apparent progress of decades never happened at all. A world that is barely reflected on television at all these days and may have vanished in certain locations and among certain groups or classes, but still exists and is perhaps even more dangerous for lack of the routine admittance of its continued existence. Or at the very least this idea that its no longer considered acceptable anywhere, which tragically isnt true. 

But perhaps the talk amongst people who knew each other at work isnt considered to be 'practised in public'. Perhaps these same people are in fact far more careful about when they let their attitudes hang out. Perhaps that is what happens on u75 if there are cycles of overt sexism, people getting comfortable and letting slip their true feelings unless we condemn them routinely.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

xenon said:


> Shut it you slaag. <DI Burnside style.)
> 
> 
> This probably speaks ill of me but in my mind, re that thread about the WPC who tripped over the garage, I kinda mentally shrugged as Inferno's language cos AFAIK he's an old codger.  Meaning, perhaps not as aware what might have been common parlence in the 70s is a bit off. I know, I've just done a bit of ageism there.


 
Age isn't really an excuse. I'm not exactly youthful, in fact I'm old enough to have used most of the "common parlance" in the '70s, but I'm about as likely to use the term "gormless cow" in a post as I am to beat my knob-end with a copy of the bible while screaming "hurt me Lord, for I am a sinner!".


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> this isn't a call out thread.


Sorry. Just explaining my vote for "Unacceptable but it is not always worth the grief of calling it out so sometimes I don't," which I see is winning. Look what happens. Not surprising people are not prepared to put their head above the parapet. I rest my case (but shan't bother again).


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

Not really monitored the boards so won't speak to that (hence rest of this comment off topic  ), but my sense in real life is that there's been a bit of a return to language that is unacceptable etc. but that more and more women don't put up with it any more - like there's been a bit of a push-back against the earlier waves of the women's movement but the genie won't be put back in the bottle.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 1, 2013)

Out of interest, where do people stand on your mum jokes?  I like them, I think they're funny, and even I blanched a little bit at some examples on the your mum joke thread.  I know that thread was well signposted, so basically if you read it you knew what you were getting.  But I think they're a good example of how it's more complicated than it seems.  I think they're the epitomy of mysogyny.

(Please don't stop people making your mum jokes though).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

cdg said:


> Yes, sorry. Vodka. You know what us men are like


 
Speak for yourself, not for me, thanks all the same.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Sorry. Just explaining my vote for "Unacceptable but it is not always worth the grief of calling it out so sometimes I don't," which I see is winning. Look what happens. Not surprising people are not prepared to put their head above the parapet. I rest my case (but shan't bother again).


 
report it on the thread it was said on then.

you're now being a cunt by trying to make this thread about you.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2013)

I voted before I noticed it was multi choice, so I only voted for 'I object to sexism sometimes, whenever I can be arsed' option, without ticking 'unacceptable' as well.


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Speak for yourself, not for me, thanks all the same.


We need Whitney, she was every woman and could do it all naturally-eee-ee.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> don't think anyone is suggesting one slip is a trip to the metaphorical gallows. but an honest 'ooooops' i'll take some more care is a great response. massive defensive overreaction less so. the latter is a great arsehole detector


 
Reading that last sentence reminded me of how Johnny Vodka kept on digging, ever time someone pulled him up for his crap which, iirc, started with him saying how he expected any woman he slept with to keep her pubes well-tended.


----------



## Poot (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 I would describe myself as a feminist and yet I thoroughly enjoy a good "your mum" joke. I can't pretend to be offended by them and I have no idea why. This is possibly why I don't often get into that kind of debate.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Not where I live


I'm referring explicitly to these forums, but it is actually very refreshing to have people admit that racism is a problem in their area. All the <I or my partner> got monkey-chanted threads are full of anti-racist white people claiming it wouldn't happen in their area. My partner gets this a lot: racist abuse followed by nice white people telling him it didn't happen.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

Corax said:


> It can round here. Lots.


Did you report any of them?


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Reading that last sentence reminded me of how Johnny Vodka kept on digging, ever time someone pulled him up for his crap which, iirc, started with him saying how he expected any woman he slept with to keep her pubes well-tended.


 
he has a well used shovel


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Reading that last sentence reminded me of how Johnny Vodka kept on digging, ever time someone pulled him up for his crap which, iirc, started with him saying how he expected any woman he slept with to keep her pubes well-tended.


I missed that one. I think on balance I'm grateful I did.


----------



## killer b (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> he has a well used shovel


this wasn't a callout thread a couple of posts ago.   

fwiw, iirc he claimed he was simply 'stating a preference'.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> My husband says he has really noticed how much it's increased (glad to know it's not just me then!) and also he's noticed that generally speaking a lot of men cannot bear to be pulled up about anything by women, let alone anything else. His boss is a woman and he's really picked up on how a lot of men completely undermine her although she's very capable and good at her job.


Yeah, I had a plumber in and he asked me "Miss, Ms or Mrs?" So I told him Ms. "Ah, so you're divorced?" He said. I proceeded to tell him that any woman may use Ms irrespective of marital status in order to avoid being defined by her marital status but he told me I was wrong and that he was told that divorcees use it. So we had a discussion, with my son watching on, and I distinctly go the the impression that he didn't like being tackled on it as he argued with me a little and tried to correct me until I convinced him by the historical accuracy of my claim that the term is not loaded with marital implications.

I'm currently studying so I don't need to dress smartly and, given the weather, am usually covered up in a big old coat. The other day I had a formal event to attend and had to dress up a little and by god, I was astonished at the difference in the way that men treated me: stepping aside, saying good morning, holding doors  Either there was a 50% upswing in manners that morning or they afforded me some kind of special treatment because I looked more 'feminine'. Can't say I was grateful.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 said:


> Out of interest, where do people stand on your mum jokes? I like them, I think they're funny, and even I blanched a little bit at some examples on the your mum joke thread. I know that thread was well signposted, so basically if you read it you knew what you were getting. But I think they're a good example of how it's more complicated than it seems. I think they're the epitomy of mysogyny.
> 
> (Please don't stop people making your mum jokes though).


 
I don't think they're funny. Nothing to do with misogyny though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

treefrog said:


> Here's my issue.
> 
> I'm sick of this BS. I'm sick of a society where it's insinuated in court that children "lead on" their rapists. I'm sick of being valued exclusively on my body. I'm sick of being told to "calm down" when I dare to call someone out as though my opinion, my feelings were invalid. I'm sick of feeling guilty for espousing a view on something I am an expert in and putting a smiley face or a "but that's just my opinion" to try and defuse any backlash.
> 
> If you're male you _you don't know what it's like to live in a male-dominated world._ You don't know the fear that comes from a man getting in a lift behind you late at night. You don't know the disappointment of hearing someone you love carelessly patronise you over and over just because you're female. There is *no* escape from it, unless you spend your days living alone up a mountain somewhere. I for one am fucking tired of it and I make no apologies any more for being a humourless, bra-burning, "on-the-blob", lesbian feminist because if anyone brings their sexist bullshit to my table I wil bring my fucking righteous wrath down.


 
Fantastic post. 

One point of order, though: Insinuations in court about kids leading on their molesters aren't always strictly about projecting a form of sexuality onto a being who's sometimes pre-sexual, it's more about there being arsehole criminal justice systems that don't effectively insulate children from questioning that's actively made to upset them/throw them off their testimony. What fucks *me* off is when idiots in the media latch onto such reasoning and it gets regurgitated onto the general public.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

andysays said:


> That's your opinion, and one which seems to be shared by many here. It's not one on which everyone would agree.
> 
> What's sauce for the goose...


You are absolutely free to disagree with me. It's a bit difficult to argue with you when all you can be arsed to do is trail off with a platitude that implies that only women have a voice in this debate. It's a remarkably common tactic for undercover sexists, but you're only recently appeared on my radar so I will give you a chance to explain your position properly before drawing any firm conclusions.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> I don't think they're funny. Nothing to do with misogyny though.


I first came across them amongst teenagers and I was blown away by the inventiveness and brio when they sparred through the medium of 'yer mum' jokes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Not where I live


 
Nor where my parents live in Norfolk, either.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> My husband says he has really noticed how much it's increased (glad to know it's not just me then!) and also he's noticed that generally speaking a lot of men cannot bear to be pulled up about anything by women, let alone anything else. His boss is a woman and he's really picked up on how a lot of men completely undermine her although she's very capable and good at her job.


My partner thinks it's getting worse too. He thinks its about the male psyche being under attack. All the 'good news' about girls doing better at school, women being more likely to be the main breadwinner in younger generations, you know, all the intensely sexist reporting that can only see it as surprising that women are just as capable as men and can only ever frame this as a battle of the sexes (the precise opposite of what any form of feminism worth subscribing to is about).


----------



## weepiper (Apr 1, 2013)

Don't like 'yer mum' jokes because it's the epitome of Madonna/whore bullshit. They're only 'funny' because 'you can't say that about someone's mum', but conversely it's ok to say them about any other woman.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

I love your mum jokes; because they're so shit 

The 'your mum' bit is just a prelude to the wit (which is often lacking).



ViolentPanda said:


> Nor where my parents live in Norfolk, either.


 
Nor in London, which is what ymu was referring to. Harking back to an earlier thread, title of which I forget.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'll replace eggs with chicken shit.
> 
> better?


 
Definitely, especially if it's fairly fresh.


----------



## Poot (Apr 1, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Yeah, I had a plumber in and he asked me "Miss, Ms or Mrs?" So I told him Ms. "Ah, so you're divorced?" He said. I proceeded to tell him that any woman may use Ms irrespective of marital status in order to avoid being defined by her marital status but he told me I was wrong and that he was told that divorcees use it. So we had a discussion, with my son watching on, and I distinctly go the the impression that he didn't like being tackled on it as he argued with me a little and tried to correct me until I convinced him by the historical accuracy of my claim that the term is not loaded with marital implications.



Ah, the old "you must fit neatly into my perception of you" thing. This is my pet hate. As the only person in the family who drives a car, and I refuse to use "mrs" even though i'm married, and I work even though I have small children this gets me every time.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> My partner thinks it's getting worse too. He thinks its about the male psyche being under attack.


I'm not sure what it is, but I do know that male suicides are rising significantly  in the UK over the last year.

*link edited.


----------



## elbows (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> Very few of the P&P crowd ever do call it out. Possibly just because they are on different threads, but some of the worst offenders, IME, are self-described lefties who claim to be anti-sexist.


 
Although the majority of my time on u75 is spent in the political forums, I have a feeling I may not be reading many of the threads you are referring to. Most of the time when I see sexist stuff others have already called people out for it, and I cant think of that many occasions where stuff has slipped by unnoticed, but then maybe I'm just guilty of not noticing.

The exceptions I have sometimes noticed are that ugly mix of politics where the person responsible for the political offence being discussed happens to be a woman, and then all standards seem to go out the window in the name of attacking them. I'm mostly talking about people such as female tory MPs, rather than female posters on the forum.

It may be just as bad or even worse in the world forum, where if recent experience is anything to go by I will end up dragged into prolonged arguments where I am likely to be painted as either blind to or supportive of imperialism if I draw attention to unsavoury aspects of anti-imperialist regime rhetoric and propaganda. If it is worse there then I expect its because that forum in particular seems to suffer from a lack of critical mass of participants in many of the threads. Now I come to think of it I think I noticed something sexist there that went uncommented on not too long ago, perhaps because it involved Condoleeza Rice (and no it was nothing to do with Peter Dow).


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

Corax said:


> It can round here. Lots.


Without being challenged, let alone being actively defended by a small group of racists/trolls/racist trolls, who are more or less guaranteed to turn up to back up the original offender(s)?

Genuine Q. There's plenty of racism around here, but not that doesn't get stamped on. Unless you're talking about stuff like the Rochdale grooming ring thread? There is certainly a long way to go on the 'religion is not race' trope. That thread is fucking shocking, IMO.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Don't like 'yer mum' jokes because it's the epitome of Madonna/whore bullshit. They're only 'funny' because 'you can't say that about someone's mum', but conversely it's ok to say them about any other woman.


When I first encountered them it was with both male and female teenagers, sparring on an equal footing and it was a form of word play like a fight with no fists and vocal group admiration for particularly clever ones. I think if I'd first encountered them in a Bernard Manning type context I'd probably feel very different.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 1, 2013)

No. Sexist language and sentiment are not acceptable on these forums.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 1, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I first came across them amongst teenagers and I was blown away by the inventiveness and brio when they sparred through the medium of 'yer mum' jokes.


 
I get that, but I just think they're crap, what inventiveness there might be fails to impress AFAIC. Anyway /tangent


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2013)

*i always use ms because i dont want people to know if i'm married or not, i've been told that it's polite when writing letters to prospective employers to call them "ms" rather than "miss" or "mrs" but some people seem to think that it means you're gay or divorced or something, not that there's anything wrong with either of those things *


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

elbows said:


> Although the majority of my time on u75 is spent in the political forums, I have a feeling I may not be reading many of the threads you are referring to. Most of the time when I see sexist stuff others have already called people out for it, and I cant think of that many occasions where stuff has slipped by unnoticed, but then maybe I'm just guilty of not noticing.


 
in the last week, I've seen several things pulled up that i didn't notice. gets to the point where it's so normalised, that you don't see it until it's highlighted.

agree with you about the attack on women politicians.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2013)

I dont think the politics forums are that bad for sexism, altho i can think of a few people who are sexist but it usually gets challenged. I think the health and sexuality forum is probably the worst for sexism and for some other strange attitudes as well, it always surprises me how sexist people can be on some of the threads about relationships.


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> agree with you about the attack on women politicians.


 
i stand by any remark i make about maggie


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 said:


> Out of interest, where do people stand on your mum jokes? I like them, I think they're funny, and even I blanched a little bit at some examples on the your mum joke thread. I know that thread was well signposted, so basically if you read it you knew what you were getting. But I think they're a good example of how it's more complicated than it seems. I think they're the epitomy of mysogyny.
> 
> (Please don't stop people making your mum jokes though).


The target is the person whose mother it is, not mothers or women in general. Distasteful? Often. Misogynistic? Not without a real effort to shoehorn misogyny in. Funny as fuck? Usually.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

8115 said:


> Out of interest, where do people stand on your mum jokes? I like them, I think they're funny, and even I blanched a little bit at some examples on the your mum joke thread. I know that thread was well signposted, so basically if you read it you knew what you were getting. But I think they're a good example of how it's more complicated than it seems. I think they're the epitomy of mysogyny.
> 
> (Please don't stop people making your mum jokes though).


 
Maybe it's because of my age, and the feeling that my generation (secondary school mid to late '70s) were the first to really let rip with "your mum" jokes, but I've never seen them as actual insults aimed at someone's mother, more just a formula for cussing someone even though there's no connection between what you're actually saying about "their mum", and who and what they are or their mum is. The cusses could just as effectively be "your dad", if we weren't living under patriarchy.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> Genuine Q. There's plenty of racism around here, but not that doesn't get stamped on.


Could you define "plenty" please, because I honestly rarely see it. We certainly don't see that many reported racist posts.

But like I said before, I'd rather have someone with a racist viewpoint posting here and being robustly engaged and challenged rather than just hoofing them off as soon as they utter something that could be seen as racist. Of course, the latter option is the correct course of action if they're just a ranting BNP-borg/hate-filled EDL nutjob.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

I make your mum jokes with my boy all the time....


----------



## Poot (Apr 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> *i always use ms because i dont want people to know if i'm married or not, i've been told that it's polite when writing letters to prospective employers to call them "ms" rather than "miss" or "mrs" but some people seem to think that it means you're gay or divorced or something, not that there's anything wrong with either of those things *


Exactly. People can tell whether you're married or not before anyone's even opened the letter - it's printed on the fucking envelope! What's that about?!


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

JimW said:


> Not really monitored the boards so won't speak to that (hence rest of this comment off topic  ), but my sense in real life is that there's been a bit of a return to language that is unacceptable etc. but that more and more women don't put up with it any more - like there's been a bit of a push-back against the earlier waves of the women's movement but the genie won't be put back in the bottle.


In real life, the police have just been dobbed in for reclassifying rape complaints as 'no offence recorded' to counter the rise in complaints being made.

What real life phenomena do you think we care about? This is not about unfunny jokes that we can just shrug off without further incident, you know?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> i stand by any remark i make about maggie


 
there's a difference between political criticisms of thatcher like "thatcher brought in repressive legislation and helped to start the demise of the welfare state" vs "thatcher should be raped and get aids" tho

i know that's a bit of an extreme example, but surely you can think of political criticisms for female politicians rather than just attacking them cos they're female (not that you do this btw)


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> i stand by any remark i make about maggie


 
she is a cunt in 15 million different ways, but that isn't because she has a vagina.


----------



## elbows (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> Without being challenged, let alone being actively defended by a small group of racists/trolls/racist trolls, who are more or less guaranteed to turn up to back up the original offender(s)?
> 
> Genuine Q. There's plenty of racism around here, but not that doesn't get stamped on. Unless you're talking about stuff like the Rochdale grooming ring thread? There is certainly a long way to go on the 'religion is not race' trope. That thread is fucking shocking, IMO.


 
Perhaps there is confusion due to the ambiguity of 'round here'. Just as likely to refer to where the poster lives as these forums.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 1, 2013)

Poot said:


> Exactly. People can tell whether you're married or not before anyone's even opened the letter - it's printed on the fucking envelope! What's that about?!


 
It's so the postie knows whether you're taken or whether it's okay for him to make his move


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> she is a cunt in 15 million different ways, but that isn't because she has a vagina.


 
of course not


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 1, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> When I first encountered them it was with both male and female teenagers, sparring on an equal footing and it was a form of word play like a fight with no fists and vocal group admiration for particularly clever ones. I think if I'd first encountered them in a Bernard Manning type context I'd probably feel very different.


 
That's interesting coz I've always thought Bernard Manning was an ok guy at heart and got a bit of an unfair bad press. Tell you what, with all these paedo revelations that are coming out - I'd bet my house that you'll never see our Bernard's name embroiled in any of that.

But it's like when you see these battle rappers going at it - It's like, yeah you've clearly put the work in developing your flow and that and you _are_ lyrically inventive, it's impressive & no mistake - But half the time all they seem to be able to think to do is go on about each others mams.


----------



## Poot (Apr 1, 2013)

Belushi said:


> It's so the postie knows whether you're taken or whether it's okay for him to make his move


I'm going to campaign for more titles. I think the postman needs to know whether we're up for a threesome or not.


----------



## andysays (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> You are absolutely free to disagree with me. It's a bit difficult to argue with you when all you can be arsed to do is trail off with *a platitude that implies that only women have a voice in this debate*. It's a remarkably common tactic for undercover sexists, but you're only recently appeared on my radar so I will give you a chance to explain your position properly before drawing any firm conclusions.


 
I'm not certain what you mean by that bit, but we'll let it pass unless you want to clarify it.

The point is (and others have made it on this thread before me) that not everyone agrees on what exactly constitutes "sexist sentiment and language"

You apparently think that someone making what I consider a fairly innocuous comment like

"There really can't be much left for the government to rape"

is worthy of being policed by you thus:

"Could you avoid using rape as metaphor, please."

and then:

"You're probably rather less aware than I am as to the strength of feeling it conveys. It is offensive whether you intend it to be or not. Don't use it as a metaphor, ever"

On the other hand, I would be very reticent about using the word "cunt" here, as I know it is considered by many to be extremely offensive, even though I don't necessarily find it so myself.

You, on the other hand, think it's find to use it as part of the same conversation:

"I asked nicely the first time, and he justified himself, so I put it more forcefully. Next time, I call him a cunt"

You seem eager to dictate the terms of acceptable discourse based entirely on your opinion, and oblivious to the notion that opinions other than yours might be valid.


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> In real life, the police have just been dobbed in for reclassifying rape complaints as 'no offence recorded' to counter the rise in complaints being made.
> 
> What real life phenomena do you think we care about? This is not about unfunny jokes that we can just shrug off without further incident, you know?


Not sure I understand you there.
To rephrase my point, my sense is that there may be a bit of a return of sexist language, but fewer women put up with it in silence than previously, so progress is still being made.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I dont think the politics forums are that bad for sexism, altho i can think of a few people who are sexist but it usually gets challenged. I think the health and sexuality forum is probably the worst for sexism and for some other strange attitudes as well, it always surprises me how sexist people can be on some of the threads about relationships.


 
Not wanting to make this about me but I was surprised that when I started a thread on advice regarding being the victim (don't want to use that word but can't think of another) of a sex crime, I had the piss taken out of me and a copy cat thread made. HAHA FIRKY, YOU LUCKY SOD! IF A 16 YEAR OLD FLASHED ME I'D HAVE GOT MY COCK OUT, YOU SHOULD HAVE LAPPED IT UP, GEEZER! YOU LUCKY BASTARD.

Also there's that long running thread that Cloo started, which keeps getting resurrected.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm not sure what it is, but I do know that male suicides are rising significantly  in the UK over the last year.
> 
> *link edited.


That's the flip side of the damage patriarchy does to men. The pressure to provide and the blip in suicide rates which accompanies severe recession, when so many of them cannot.

Feminism is not about what is wrong _for_ women and _with_ men. Barring some supremely shit forms of it that the media like to invent, of course.


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 1, 2013)

Firky said:


> Not wanting to make this about me but I was surprised that when I started a thread on advice regarding being the victim (don't want to use that word but can't think of another) of a sex crime, I had the piss taken out of me and a copy cat thread made. HAHA FIRKY, YOU LUCKY SOD! IF A 16 YEAR OLD FLASHED ME I'D HAVE GOT MY COCK OUT, YOU SHOULD HAVE LAPPED IT UP, GEEZER! YOU LUCKY BASTARD.
> 
> Also there's that long running thread that Cloo started, which keeps getting resurrected.


 
you also started the yo mamma thread before you get comfy on that cross


----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm referring explicitly to these forums, but it is actually very refreshing to have people admit that racism is a problem in their area. All the <I or my partner> got monkey-chanted threads are full of anti-racist white people claiming it wouldn't happen in their area. My partner gets this a lot: racist abuse followed by nice white people telling him it didn't happen.





editor said:


> Did you report any of them?


By 'round here' editor, I'm referring to Southampton not U75.

Racism against black and asian people has reduced (very) slightly in the last few years. Unfortunately that's only because the Polish have become the new target de jour...

When I moved down here from London a few years ago I was genuinely shocked by how open it was. On my first day here a certain area was described as "the jungle", and when I asked it was explained "that's where the monkeys live"... It wasn't a one off experience.

Nothing's improved since.  I'm really _really_ surprised that the EDL or friends haven't had a huge event down here; it's ripe for it.  My only guess is everyone's too fucking apathetic to be bothered organising anything...


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2013)

Can i just make the point that although i kind of agree re things like "tories are raping the country" i think a lot of the time that's due to ignorance rather than actual sexism. I remember one time I was talking about something and I asked whether "mentally handicapped" was the right way to describe somebody with that sort of condition, i was very rapidly put right and told that it was not the right term to use at all, but i could have used it in another context without thinking (and probably had done previously).


----------



## IC3D (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> she is a cunt in 15 million different ways, but that isn't because she has a vagina.


Yea but why is calling her a cock not half as powerful


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Yea but why is calling her a cock not half as powerful


 
i've got no idea. i don't do history of language.

i was aiming to make a very specific point there though.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> you also started the yo mamma thread before you get comfy on that cross


 
So non sequitur, I don't even know where to start so I shan't.


----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> Without being challenged, let alone being actively defended by a small group of racists/trolls/racist trolls, who are more or less guaranteed to turn up to back up the original offender(s)?
> 
> Genuine Q. There's plenty of racism around here, but not that doesn't get stamped on. Unless you're talking about stuff like the Rochdale grooming ring thread? There is certainly a long way to go on the 'religion is not race' trope. That thread is fucking shocking, IMO.


Whoops, you thought I was talking about Urban as well. Sorry - 'here' was IRL & geographical.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Could you define "plenty" please, because I honestly rarely see it. We certainly don't see that many reported racist posts.
> 
> But like I said before, I'd rather have someone with a racist viewpoint posting here and being robustly engaged and challenged rather than just hoofing them off as soon as they utter something that could be seen as racist. Of course, the latter option is the correct course of action if they're just a ranting BNP-borg/hate-filled EDL nutjob.


You don't get many reported posts because it is stamped on and the poster successfully beaten into silence if not submission. (With some exceptions, such as JHE who deserves to get called out early and often.)

Sexist posters are generally more persistent in their sexism, not least because they receive active support, often from at least as many posters as are actively challenging them.


----------



## elbows (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> My partner thinks it's getting worse too. He thinks its about the male psyche being under attack. All the 'good news' about girls doing better at school, women being more likely to be the main breadwinner in younger generations, you know, all the intensely sexist reporting that can only see it as surprising that women are just as capable as men and can only ever frame this as a battle of the sexes (the precise opposite of what any form of feminism worth subscribing to is about).


 
I certainly remember reading articles about this sort of thing, though long enough ago that I've forgotten a lot of the details. But if I remember rightly it included those issues you mentioned, but also a range of other stuff and it wasn't being framed as being down to just the dodgy reporting of these matters.

I'll have to try to refresh my memory before going on about it further and I'm sure its the usual gender discussion car crash in many ways. But as well as earnings/workplace issues I think it entailed plenty of waffle about blokes being all confused about the 'new rules' socially, their role, and including a load of lifestyle gubbins including the 'ladette' phenomenon that certain magazines liked to go on about. An angle which provides me with the opportunity to sarcastically remark on the 'wonderful' prospect that women may have within their grasp the prospect of achieving equality on the 'liver damage due to alcohol abuse' front.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

IC3D said:


> I think peoples perception of what constitutes sexism varies from person to person far more than racism.


 


Corax said:


> Specific words mean different things to different people.


 
Those on the receiving end tend to view it differently than the aggressors and apologists, yeah. Same as any other ism.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Don't like 'yer mum' jokes because it's the epitome of Madonna/whore bullshit. They're only 'funny' because 'you can't say that about someone's mum', but conversely it's ok to say them about any other woman.


Fair point. It originated as a way to attack young males because mothers and sisters are the only women they're 'supposed' to feel protective about.

I'm still unbothered by them. They don't directly target a group of people, suggesting that they are worth less than others whilst explicitly or implicitly encouraging discriminatory attitudes and violence to be visited upon them.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Yea but why is calling her a cock not half as powerful


 
Why did you start a copy cat thread taking the piss out of me being flashed? You never did answer the questions on that thread, you ran away.

Here's your chance.

What's so funny about it, I'd love to know?


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> You don't get many reported posts because it is stamped on and the poster successfully beaten into silence if not submission.


I'm still not altogether convinced that there's "plenty" of racism on here. That suggests there's a significant percentage of such posts every day. I'm really not seeing them.


----------



## Poot (Apr 1, 2013)

Just as an aside, I find these boards a lot less sexist than real life. I rarely get the urge to smack people in the face in quite the same way I've had during many irl confrontations. You lot are generally more aware of others' feelings than most, I find.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

Poot said:


> Just as an aside, I find these boards a lot less sexist than real life. I rarely get the urge to smack people in the face in quite the same way I've had during many irl confrontations. You lot are generally more aware of others' feelings than most, I find.


 
I think that is why it is so jarring when you see it on here. It really stands out because it's not "proper urbans".


----------



## IC3D (Apr 1, 2013)

Firky said:


> Why did you start a copy cat thread taking the piss out of me being flashed? You never did answer the questions on that thread, you ran away.
> 
> Here's your chance.


It wasn't about you, there was a jokey reference to you in the poll as it was the thread that lead to a fairly idle stream of thought that lead to me creating my one. I considered whether you'd be a offended and at that point didn't think you would. I was wrong I will apologise now.


----------



## IC3D (Apr 1, 2013)

Can we try as a community to use the word 'cunt' less


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

andysays said:


> I'm not certain what you mean by that bit, but we'll let it pass unless you want to clarify it.


"What's sauce for the goose ..." [is sauce for the gander].

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it was the entire sum of your argument and looks well sus from where I am sitting.



andysays said:


> The point is (and others have made it on this thread before me) that not everyone agrees on what exactly constitutes "sexist sentiment and language"
> 
> You apparently think that someone making what I consider a fairly innocuous comment like
> 
> ...


If you can explain to me how using the word 'cunt' in a unisex fashion threatens the equality and physical safety of women, I will gladly engage in that debate and reconsider my use of language as appropriate.

In the conversation you relate, I very politely asked someone not to use rape as metaphor. He chose to respond with his reasons for concluding that it was appropriate in context. I pointed out that he didn't need to lecture me about the horror conveyed by that word and that he should not devalue it by using it as metaphor, finishing with a less polite request not to use it as metaphor.

A poster then told me I'd get further if I asked politely, so I pointed out that I had asked politely and if the original offender made me post for a third time I would be calling him a cunt. The offender told me to call him a cunt because he had every right to use the word as he saw fit, and then you turned up and told me you agreed with the point I was making but I nevertheless should not be making it.

All of which is a bit fucking  from my perspective.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

IC3D said:


> It wasn't about you, there was a jokey reference to you in the poll as it was the thread that lead to a fairly idle stream of thought that lead to me creating my one. I considered whether you'd be a offended and at that point didn't think you would. I was wrong I will apologise now.


 
A jokey reference - that was the problem. I wasn't offended, more saddened. Why do you think people are so hesitant about reporting sex crimes when people make it jokey?

Fair enough, apology accepted. At least you didn't try and talk your way out of it like some cunts.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 1, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Yeah, I had a plumber in and he asked me "Miss, Ms or Mrs?" So I told him Ms. "Ah, so you're divorced?" He said. I proceeded to tell him that any woman may use Ms irrespective of marital status in order to avoid being defined by her marital status but he told me I was wrong and that he was told that divorcees use it. So we had a discussion, with my son watching on, and I distinctly go the the impression that he didn't like being tackled on it as he argued with me a little and tried to correct me until I convinced him by the historical accuracy of my claim that the term is not loaded with marital implications.


 
He's not the only confused person.  I did two threads on this subject back in 2008. 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/ms-mrs-miss.201139/

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/following-on-ms.201230/


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

Here's the thing. Where I am, the word 'cunt' is only powerful because people rarely use it, there's as little connotation to anything as if you were calling someone a twat. Both men and women use it as an insult and it is directed at both genders. However, some people I know, mainly but not always middle class men, think that the word rape, on its own, is a joke, and it's vile. Probably because if you're willing to shout "rape" down a corridor because your mate's hugged you as a joke then you're probably also calling women sluts and you're not ashamed and you're not being called out on it often enough. Ugh
Edit: But yeah if it has sexist connotations elsewhere then it's only right we try and avoid using it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

cdg said:


> Are you speaking for every woman here?


 
Ah yeah. Some black people don't mind the N word. So it's partially acceptable.


----------



## Firky (Apr 1, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Here's the thing. Where I am, the word 'cunt' is only powerful because people rarely use it, there's as little connotation to anything as if you were calling someone a twat. Both men and women use it as an insult and it is directed at both genders. However, some people I know, mainly but not always middle class men, think that the word rape, on its own, is a joke, and it's vile. Probably because if you're willing to shout "rape" down a corridor because your mate's hugged you as a joke then you're probably also calling women sluts and you're not ashamed and you're not being called out on it often enough. Ugh
> Edit: But yeah if it has sexist connotations elsewhere then it's only right we try and avoid using it.


 
You're alright for a newbie 

What page are you on now?


----------



## elbows (Apr 1, 2013)

elbows said:


> I certainly remember reading articles about this sort of thing, though long enough ago that I've forgotten a lot of the details.


 
Oh blimey, not got time to look properly right now but just had a brief dig and it appears the stuff I'm remembering is up to 20 years old. And appears to be heavily tied into a 'new lad' phenomenon that was supposedly a response to the 'new man' stuff. If there has been a regression to older forms of sexism, especially on the cultural front, then this is certainly one place to look for its emergence.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 1, 2013)

Cunt has different connotations depending where you are and on context. It can be quite affectionate between mates in Scotland 'aye he's a good cunt, one of the best'.


----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2013)

Some things are pretty clear cut.  But some things less so.  Some people are willing to listen to opinions on the latter.  Some people are arrogant enough to not need to.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

Firky said:


> You're alright for a newbie
> 
> What page are you on now?


 
the right page, I think.

*muscovyduck*


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

Firky said:


> You're alright for a newbie
> 
> What page are you on now?


Why thank you 
On a different computer but the page is bookmarked on the other one so I''ll get back to it in a few weeks!
So I'm guessing in some countries the word 'cunt' has been ...reclaimed, for want of a better word? Or was it never sexist in those areas in the first place?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 1, 2013)

IC3D said:


> Can we try as a community to use the word 'cunt' less


why?

i think it's awesome that the strongest word our language has, comes from the female body.


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Cunt has different connotations depending where you are and on context. It can be quite affectionate between mates in Scotland 'aye he's a good cunt, one of the best'.


Yeah, that's why I didn't vote in the poll yet - to my mind sexist sentiment is always wrong but it's harder to say what words exactly are always sexist - though the post by muscovyduck just above about 'rape' is spot on - swear i never heard it used outside the legal context until not so long back.


----------



## manny-p (Apr 1, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Cunt has different connotations depending where you are and on context. It can be quite affectionate between mates in Scotland 'aye he's a good cunt, one of the best'.


Agreed ya wee cunt.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

JimW said:


> Not sure I understand you there.
> To rephrase my point, my sense is that there may be a bit of a return of sexist language, but fewer women put up with it in silence than previously, so progress is still being made.


I'm asking you to demonstrate that progress has actually been made. You are essentially arguing the uber-PC point that language affects behaviour, and I don't buy that. Rochdale happened because police and social workers believed that those girls were choosing prostitution as a lifestyle choice, and the CPS regarded the original complainant as an unreliable witness precisely because she was vulnerable enough to be victimised.

You cannot infer progress from the fact that sexist language is becoming more prevalent and more women are challenging it. It probably does mean some progress in the workplace and social sphere because this is backlash stuff from men (IME), but I don't think physical safety has improved much at all.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> He's not the only confused person.  I did two threads on this subject back in 2008.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/ms-mrs-miss.201139/
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/following-on-ms.201230/


Indeed. It was never properly explained to me when I was younger and I happen to think that Miss should be abolished but the way that he took being corrected was interesting because at first his reaction was not to say 'oh, I was lead to believe that blah blah blah' but was more 'no, you're wrong, it's just for divorced women'. By the end he was almost apologetic but his initial response was to rubbish my view rather than to consider that he might be misinformed.


----------



## andysays (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> "What's sauce for the goose ..." [is sauce for the gander].
> 
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it was the entire sum of your argument and looks well sus from where I am sitting. If you can explain to me how using the word 'cunt' in a unisex fashion threatens the equality and physical safety of women, I will gladly engage in that debate and reconsider my use of language as appropriate. In the conversation you relate, I very politely asked someone not to use rape as metaphor. He chose to respond with his reasons for concluding that it was appropriate in context. I pointed out that he didn't need to lecture me about the horror conveyed by that word and that he should not devalue it by using it as metaphor, finishing with a less polite request not to use it as metaphor. A male poster then told me I'd get further if I asked politely, so I pointed out that I had asked politely and if the original offender made me post for a third time I would be calling him a cunt. The offender told me to call him a cunt because he had every right to use the word as he saw fit, and then you turned up and told me you agreed with the point I was making but I nevertheless should not be making it. All of which is a bit fucking  from my perspective.


 
Maybe you'd like to explain to the class how using the expression in question, "There really can't be much left for the government to rape"

"threatens the equality and physical safety of women"

I'm not telling you not to use any word - I wouldn't be so fucking arrogant - I'm pointing out that many people find that word particularly offensive. Whether you think they're right to do so is, frankly, utterly irrelevant.

Your argument, on this thread, the one we've been referring to, and a number of others which I'm not going to go back to, looks equally sus to me. It's basically that everyone has to follow your rules, and that you are not prepared to make any effort to recognise that some people have the temerity to use words you would prefer them not to, or to mean things slightly different from what you would mean if you used them.

You're coming across as a self-appointed police officer and censor of what people are allowed to say, and I find *that* offensive.

I've got just as much right to challenge you on that, as you have to challenge anyone on shit you don't like


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm referring explicitly to these forums, but it is actually very refreshing to have people admit that racism is a problem in their area. All the <I or my partner> got monkey-chanted threads are full of anti-racist white people claiming it wouldn't happen in their area. My partner gets this a lot: racist abuse followed by nice white people telling him it didn't happen.


 
My experience with racism is involves a bizarre interplay between stereotypes. I'm a 30-something bloke with a skinhead who always wears jeans and tracky tops (none of which are a fashion statement, the short hair is easy to manage and I like the clobber cos it's comfortable). And so on a few occasions when racists have gone for the glance over the shoulder and seen me they've assumed they're free to say whatever they want. Because obviously people who look like me must be racist  (and it's not just racists who think that - I've been refused entry to a UAF demo because of my appearance). What they don't realise is that despite my appearance I'm staunchly anti-racist - most of my mates at school were Asian and I was shacked up with a black woman for about 5 years and still love her kids to bits and that kind of thing can't fail to have a profound effect on the way you view racism.

So when they check over their shoulders and, seeing me, decide they can say whatever they want - often with a knowing wink in my direction - they've been shocked to find that I reacted angrily (and on one occasion violently - as far as I know I'm still barred from that pub).

That's the thing about political correctness - it doesn't change anyone's attitudes - and I think it sometimes entrenches them further, feeding a persecution complex that makes them immune to reason. All it means is they'll save it for when they think they're surrounded by like minded people. I think it's always better to challenge than to censor with this stuff.

I do think things have got better with racism though - it's not improved enough but it has improved.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

JimW said:


> Yeah, that's why I didn't vote in the poll yet - to my mind sexist sentiment is always wrong but it's harder to say what words exactly are always sexist - though the post by muscovyduck just above about 'rape' is spot on - swear i never heard it used outside the legal context until not so long back.


I wouldn't know myself because I'm quite young so I've grown up with it.
It's a difficult one to explain to these people too - exactly why using the word is wrong - because they say things like 'free speech' 'oh well everyone's equal now anyway' 'ugh you're just a slut' and either think they've ''won'' or think they're funny. It depends where you are and who you're with and often you're not backed up by other people who are hanging around, where they might back you up with more easy to explain forms of sexism.


----------



## IC3D (Apr 1, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> why?
> 
> i think it's awesome that the strongest word our language has, comes from the female body.


I remember when my little one was tentatively taking those first steps across the room towards me I would encourage him by saying "COMEONYOUCUNT!" Sarcasm by the way.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

Case Study 1:



andysays said:


> Maybe you'd like to explain to the class how using the expression in question, "There really can't be much left for the government to rape"
> 
> "threatens the equality and physical safety of women"


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm asking you to demonstrate that progress has actually been made. You are essentially arguing the uber-PC point that language affects behaviour, and I don't buy that. Rochdale happened because police and social workers believed that those girls were choosing prostitution as a lifestyle choice, and the CPS regarded the original complainant as an unreliable witness precisely because she was vulnerable enough to be victimised.
> 
> You cannot infer progress from the fact that sexist language is becoming more prevalent and more women are challenging it. It probably does mean some progress in the workplace and social sphere because this is backlash stuff from men (IME), but I don't think physical safety has improved much at all.


Not the point I'm arguing at all (that it's language alone) - mine is that more women are aware of sexism both in langage and a wider social context and are willing to contest it, and that's the progress - agency. That institutions are lagging behind or even regressing doesn't necessarily refute that. Not got any solid sense of the facts about physical safety so won't try to argue on that point.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 1, 2013)

Rape = sexual assault using penetration.

why is that word appropriate in that context? It isn't. It's just fucking lazy.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Agreed ya wee cunt.


 
Generally between close friends...


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

JimW said:


> Yeah, that's why I didn't vote in the poll yet - to my mind sexist sentiment is always wrong but it's harder to say what words exactly are always sexist - though the post by muscovyduck just above about 'rape' is spot on - swear i never heard it used outside the legal context until not so long back.


 
one thing you've just reminded (this isn't aimed at having a go, just to be clear) me to add is the concept of 'mansplaining''. it's pretty common for women talking about their experiences of sexism to get a dose of, where someone who doesn't experience sexism tells them they know more about that experience than the recipient. the idea applies equally well to the recipient of any discrimination being stopped from discussing their experiences in favor of the privileged group getting to speak more, but ti's common in discussions of sexism, hence mansplaining.

some people seem aware they are doing this and some people haven't lernt not to. but when, for example women are trying to discuss their experiences, it's well shit when a bloke comes along and tells them what their experiences mean and how to deal with them. and generally takes over. I'm sure it's equally shit for other victims of discrimination as well.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Can i just make the point that although i kind of agree re things like "tories are raping the country" i think a lot of the time that's due to ignorance rather than actual sexism. I remember one time I was talking about something and I asked whether "mentally handicapped" was the right way to describe somebody with that sort of condition, i was very rapidly put right and told that it was not the right term to use at all, but i could have used it in another context without thinking (and probably had done previously).


I agree. For the record, I didn't accuse him of being a sexist, I asked him nicely not to use rape as a metaphor. The (subconscious, for most) sexism is in failing to understand why it is so offensive; from not seeing rape as too serious and too prevalent to trivialise in this way.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Rape = sexual assault using penetration.
> 
> why is that word appropriate in that context? It isn't. It's just fucking lazy.


Sorry to be pedantic, but rape can also mean "the wanton destruction or spoiling of a place" as in 'Rape of the Fair Country.'


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

Edit: pardon me


----------



## andysays (Apr 1, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Case Study 1:


 
What?


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm still not altogether convinced that there's "plenty" of racism on here. That suggests there's a significant percentage of such posts every day. I'm really not seeing them.


We both misread Corax as referring to here rather than his hometown.

I am continually astonished that JHE is given such freedom to peddle his hatred though. As I said earlier, the relationship between race and religion is the next big battleground; the Rochdale grooming thread is a disgrace, IMO.


----------



## IC3D (Apr 1, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Edit: pardon me


I believe I did unless I was hallucinating


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> the Rochdale grooming thread is a disgrace, IMO.


I've not read it. I don't think anyone's reported it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

Firky said:


> Why did you start a copy cat thread taking the piss out of me being flashed? You never did answer the questions on that thread, you ran away.
> 
> Here's your chance.
> 
> What's so funny about it, I'd love to know?


 
Because if you were a real man you'd have taken advantage of a barely legal young woman.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

IC3D said:


> I believe I did unless I was hallucinating


Yes, I'm sorry, I missed your post.


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> one thing you've just reminded (this isn't aimed at having a go, just to be clear) me to add is the concept of 'mansplaining''. it's pretty common for women talking about their experiences of sexism to get a dose of, where someone who doesn't experience sexism tells them they know more about that experience than the recipient. the idea applies equally well to the recipient of any discrimination being stopped from discussing their experiences in favor of the privileged group getting to speak more, but ti's common in discussions of sexism, hence mansplaining.
> 
> some people seem aware they are doing this and some people haven't lernt not to. but when, for example women are trying to discuss their experiences, it's well shit when a bloke comes along and tells them what their experiences mean and how to deal with them. and generally takes over. I'm sure it's equally shit for other victims of discrimination as well.


Yep, aware of the term and see what it's saying. Is that how I'm coming over? Hope not - was only trying in original post to say what my experience is rather than deny anyone else's, and to re-iterate for the third time, that experience is of fewer women putting up with sexism.
Not at all keen on the US college discourse of privilege, but for a whole load of abstruse reasons we can prbably save for a different thread.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Sorry to be pedantic, but rape can also mean "the wanton destruction or spoiling of a place" as in 'Rape of the Fair Country.'


 
The Rape of Nanking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2013)

JimW said:


> Yep, aware of the term and see what it's saying. Is that how I'm coming over? Hope not - was only trying in original post to say what my experience is rather than deny anyone else's, and to re-iterate for the third time, that experience is of fewer women putting up with sexism.
> Not at all keen on the US college discourse of privilege, but for a whole load of abstruse reasons we can prbably save for a different thread.


 
no. specifically that your post had reminded me that the concept needed adding to the thread, in that some men didn't realise they did this. it wasn't intentional. but some did it on purpose.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

andysays said:


> What?


Oh, what you said supported one of the main points I've been making. You don't understand the link between a lazy metaphor which uses one of the most personal and horrific crimes that can be commited as a casual vague adjective, and people being upset, offended or panicked by it. Or maybe it's just me that doesn't understand the link between every statement phrased like that and rape.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 1, 2013)

weltweit said:


> The Rape of Nanking
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)


 
 that was known as the Rape of Nanking because 20,000 women were raped as part of the massacre.


----------



## andysays (Apr 1, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Because if you were a real man you'd have taken advantage of a barely legal young woman.


 
Now that *is* offensive, whether it's meant as a "joke" or not


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

weltweit said:


> The Rape of Nanking
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)


The Chinese terms have none of those connotations AFAIK, FWIW.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Sorry to be pedantic, but rape can also mean "the wanton destruction or spoiling of a place" as in 'Rape of the Fair Country.'


Yes it can. And perhaps that's the basis of 'fraped'.

As a rape victim though, I really hate the term being bandied about with such abandon. I think there's a bit of a frisson about using it which is why it's gained such popularity of late, like straight people saying queer or white people saying nigger. It's a form of oppression


----------



## weltweit (Apr 1, 2013)

weepiper said:


> that was known as the Rape of Nanking because 20,000 women were raped as part of the massacre.


This is true.


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> no. specifically that your post had reminded me that the concept needed adding to the thread, in that some men didn't realise they did this. it wasn't intentional. but some did it on purpose.


Thank God for that, because despite not liking the terminology I have seen that behaviour in action and would hope to be shot before I ever did it myself


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> why?
> 
> i think it's awesome that the strongest word our language has, comes from the female body.


Some people try to claim that this is exactly why it's sexist. Which makes no sense at all given that twat is the mildest of body-part insults, so mild that Cameron can say "too many tweets make a twat" and get no disapprobation from the media about it.

I blame the US and its influence on our culture. People have picked up on the US feminist condemnation of the word (justified there) and applied the conclusion here. To me, that simply says they never understood the argument in the first place. A bit like Gromit's anecdote of a male-dominated workplace considering renaming male and female connectors to avoid offending women, as if what offends us is lewd references because, you know, women don't like sex (that's why they have to be bribed or forced into it).


----------



## weltweit (Apr 1, 2013)

JimW said:


> The Chinese terms have none of those connotations AFAIK, FWIW.


I may be being thick, but can you expand on that pls?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

The word rape will have an traumatic and emotional resonance for rape victims. Bandying it around is quite careless and inconsiderate IMO. 
While the word may have had varying meanings throughout history, I can't say that I use it to describe anything other than sexual violence because that is what I has come to mean to society these days, not just exploitation but sexual violence. Where there is a rape there is a violated person so people ought to be a bit more mindful about the weight such words carry.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2013)

trashpony said:


> As a rape victim though, I really hate the term being bandied about with such abandon.


Do you mean on these boards?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

andysays said:


> Now that *is* offensive, whether it's meant as a "joke" or not


 
It was meant as paraphrasing the thread sentiment. Are you normally this thick?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 1, 2013)

editor said:


> Do you mean on these boards?


No, not at all, I mean in general. Which includes these boards.


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I may be being thick, but can you expand on that pls?


Just that the only two phrases I recall referring to the massacre in Chinese don't have any connotations of sexual violence - the most common term on the mainland is 大屠杀 which means 'great slaughter' or similar, and the other one I've heard has the sense of pillage and slaughter too.

Edits for typos


----------



## andysays (Apr 1, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Oh, what you said supported one of the main points I've been making. You don't understand the link between a lazy metaphor which uses one of the most personal and horrific crimes that can be commited as a casual vague adjective, and people being upset, offended or panicked by it. Or maybe it's just me that doesn't understand the link between every statement phrased like that and rape.


 
I actually *do* understand that it can be seen by many people as offensive or upsetting, and if you'd like to go back to the original thread on which this conversation took place, you'll see that I said something to that effect there. As someone said above, rape has a wider meaning than just referring to sexual assault, so it isn't a lazy metaphor, although that doesn't necessarily make it any less upsetting.

What I'm objecting to is an attempt to the attempt to dictate what others can say based on the idea that the one who's attempting to dictate is the only one whose opinion is valid. There is a difference between pointing out that you find something offensive and attempting to censor it.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> twat is the mildest of body-part insults, so mild that Cameron can say "too many tweets make a twat" and get no disapprobation from the media about it.


small point but that's a southern thing. round here it's as strong as cunt. sometimes stronger.


----------



## andysays (Apr 1, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> It was meant as paraphrasing the thread sentiment. Are you normally this thick?


 
Apparently...


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> small point but that's a southern thing. round here it's as strong as cunt. sometimes stronger.


 
Yeah but your area's full of them.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> small point but that's a southern thing. round here it's as strong as cunt. sometimes stronger.


 
same here. 'Twat' as an insult coming from a child say would be almost as shocking as 'cunt'. But 'fanny' or 'fud' would be absolutely fine


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

andysays said:


> Apparently...


 
Get that sarcasm detector seen to.


----------



## xenon (Apr 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> *i always use ms because i dont want people to know if i'm married or not, i've been told that it's polite when writing letters to prospective employers to call them "ms" rather than "miss" or "mrs" but some people seem to think that it means you're gay or divorced or something, not that there's anything wrong with either of those things *



I don't get some people's problem with this. When I worked in a callcentre, you just called peple by what ever title they'd given you. I did call a couple of deep voiced customers sir once at beginning of the call,until they corrected me.  But you just say sorry madam can I take your title and full name please and it's done.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

andysays said:


> Maybe you'd like to explain to the class how using the expression in question, "There really can't be much left for the government to rape"
> 
> "threatens the equality and physical safety of women"
> 
> ...


It has already been explained to the class, and I didn't think it needed explaining to you because you already stated that you agreed with me, whilst telling me off for raising it.

If you want to have a discussion about offensive language, that's fine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with sexism. I'll gladly express my views on the delicate flower types who focus on form rather than content, but not on this thread. It's completely irrelevant.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2013)

If it's said with the right level of venom I reckon 'prick' can be as devastating as 'cunt'.

There's probably a bad joke in there somewhere.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

The only people on here I've seen objecting to the use of the word cunt for sexism reasons have been men.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

andysays said:


> I actually *do* understand that it can be seen by many people as offensive or upsetting, and if you'd like to go back to the original thread on which this conversation took place, you'll see that I said something to that effect there. As someone said above, rape has a wider meaning than just referring to sexual assault, so it isn't a lazy metaphor, although that doesn't necessarily make it any less upsetting.
> 
> What I'm objecting to is an attempt to the attempt to dictate what others can say based on the idea that the one who's attempting to dictate is the only one whose opinion is valid. There is a difference between pointing out that you find something offensive and attempting to censor it.


 
Rape may, technically, have wider meanings but there are so many other words to use in those situations. If you understood just how offensive or upsetting it is then why would you use that specific example? If you feel like your language is being policed then surely you can come up with another?


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

xenon said:


> I don't get some people's problem with this. When I worked in a callcentre, you just called peple by what ever title they'd given you. I did call a couple of deep voiced customers sir once at beginning of the call,until they corrected me.  But you just say sorry madam can I take your title and full name please and it's done.


me either - don't think I ever heard of it as a kid (backwoods small town) but when I did it was explained or I looked it up and seems perfectly straightforward.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

Well a woman can be a Miss, a Ms or a Mrs. A man is Mr. And that's it.


----------



## xenon (Apr 1, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Why thank you
> On a different computer but the page is bookmarked on the other one so I''ll get back to it in a few weeks!
> So I'm guessing in some countries the word 'cunt' has been ...reclaimed, for want of a better word? Or was it never sexist in those areas in the first place?



This I'll admit is an attitude I've grown up with and not felt inclined to alter. Cunt usually the strongest term you can call a reprehensible bloke. But to call a woman a cunt has just always seemet bang out of order. I'm aware that is a sexist attitude but as I say, don't feel inclined to address it by starting to call highly objectionable women cunts. Course it cant' be meant in a matey way. "You soppy cunt." But again, wouldn't sit right with me to say that to a female mate. 

Shit I'm a sexist.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Well a woman can be a Miss, a Ms or a Mrs. A man is Mr. And that's it.


A woman can be whatever she wants to be


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 1, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Well a woman can be a Miss, a Ms or a Mrs. A man is Mr. And that's it.


 
we stopped calling our male children master


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> A woman can be whatever she wants to be


 
But the fact there's choices speaks volumes.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 1, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Well a woman can be a Miss, a Ms or a Mrs. A man is Mr. And that's it.


A woman can be Miss, Mrs, Ms, Lady, Frau etc
A man can be Mr, Captain, Colonel, Lord, etc  

Always best in CRM systems to leave the title field as a free type in field.


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

JimW said:


> Yeah, that's why I didn't vote in the poll yet - to my mind sexist sentiment is always wrong but it's harder to say what words exactly are always sexist - though the post by muscovyduck just above about 'rape' is spot on - swear i never heard it used outside the legal context until not so long back.


I think the test is fairly simple. Would or could the sentiment have been expressed the way it was without changing anything apart from the sex of the person/people being talked about or to? That applies as much to anti-male sexism as anti-female, of course. Stereotyping men as mindless beasts driven solely by their cocks is insulting and unacceptable too.

That puts the use of rape as a metaphor right on the edge, of course. Not, for the umpteenth time, that I accused him of sexism. That is more an issue of not trivialising things that affect one group of people in ways that others can only imagine (and often do not bother to try imagining). And being capable of acknowledging that fact.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

weltweit said:


> A woman can be Miss, Mrs, Ms, Lady, Frau etc
> A man can be Mr, Captain, Colonel, Lord, etc
> 
> Always best in CRM systems to leave the title field as a free type in field.


 
I'm speaking exclusively about marital status. Not titles.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 1, 2013)

Certain people just have to know how to pigeonhole you. For example, I am 'Miss X' whereas my children have their dad's surname, and despite me having corrected them several times and them being perfectly well aware that I'm a single parent, the school office and teachers etc persist in addressing me as 'Mrs Y'. Because I am a mum, therefore I must be married. And in Shifty's example the plumber or whoever he was was making a judgement about how to relate to her (Mrs = respectable married woman, hands off; Ms = better check if she's divorced or a lesbian before I try to chat her up...)


----------



## weltweit (Apr 1, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm speaking exclusively about marital status. Not titles.


Wasn't an unmarried man called "esquire" ?


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

xenon said:


> This I'll admit is an attitude I've grown up with and not felt inclined to alter. Cunt usually the strongest term you can call a reprehensible bloke. But to call a woman a cunt has just always seemet bang out of order. I'm aware that is a sexist attitude but as I say, don't feel inclined to address it by starting to call highly objectionable women cunts. Course it cant' be meant in a matey way. "You soppy cunt." But again, wouldn't sit right with me to say that to a female mate.
> 
> Shit I'm a sexist.


Well I guess it's just because of how men and women are sperated durring childhood, so they have to form friendship groups with their own sex and find it more difficult to hang around with the other. I'm sure the only reason I bothered with boys was because I preferred their gender specific role to my own - if it wasn't for that I wouldn't have bothered. And as our childhoods mold us into who we are, it's more likely that men will feel comfortable with the rough and tumble approach to everything, so maybe that's why you're more comfortable calling men cunts


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2013)

toggle said:


> one thing you've just reminded (this isn't aimed at having a go, just to be clear) me to add is the concept of 'mansplaining''. it's pretty common for women talking about their experiences of sexism to get a dose of, where someone who doesn't experience sexism tells them they know more about that experience than the recipient. the idea applies equally well to the recipient of any discrimination being stopped from discussing their experiences in favor of the privileged group getting to speak more, but ti's common in discussions of sexism, hence mansplaining.
> 
> some people seem aware they are doing this and some people haven't lernt not to. but when, for example women are trying to discuss their experiences, it's well shit when a bloke comes along and tells them what their experiences mean and how to deal with them. and generally takes over. I'm sure it's equally shit for other victims of discrimination as well.


 


> Woman: I have to be on guard against rapists at all times by doing [insert list of things here].  It’s exhausting and I wish it wasn’t that way.
> 
> Man:  Well I’m not a rapist so you don’t have to be that way around me.
> 
> ...


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think the test is fairly simple. Would or could the sentiment have been expressed the way it was without changing anything apart from the sex of the person/people being talked about or to? That applies as much to anti-male sexism as anti-female, of course. Stereotyping men as mindless beasts driven solely by their cocks is insulting and unacceptable too....


That seems about right. Was going to say I felt a bit like that supposed judge in the US supreme court obscenity trial - you know it when you see it, but obv that's not much of a standard to try to codify.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 1, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Well a woman can be a Miss, a Ms or a Mrs. A man is Mr. And that's it.


Or a Dr.


----------



## xenon (Apr 1, 2013)

weltweit said:


> A woman can be Miss, Mrs, Ms, Lady, Frau etc
> A man can be Mr, Captain, Colonel, Lord, etc
> 
> Always best in CRM systems to leave the title field as a free type in field.



Ours had codes for the common titles and one letting you free typed for Dr, Lord, Lady, etc.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 1, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think the test is fairly simple. Would or could the sentiment have been expressed the way it was without changing anything apart from the sex of the person/people being talked about or to? That applies as much to anti-male sexism as anti-female, of course. Stereotyping men as mindless beasts driven solely by their cocks is insulting and unacceptable too.
> 
> That puts the use of rape as a metaphor right on the edge, of course. Not, for the umpteenth time, that I accused him of sexism. That is more an issue of not trivialising things that affect one group of people in ways that others can only imagine (and often do not bother to try imagining). And being capable of acknowledging that fact.


I agree with the sentiment behind this but men can be raped too, although it is more likely to happen to women and women have to change their lives to avoid it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Wasn't an unmarried man called "esquire" ?


 
Maybe in your era


----------



## Riklet (Apr 1, 2013)

not read this thread (probably should?) but that's a bit of an antagonistic title and poll.

this has to be one of the least sexist places i've ever been tbh, especially on the internet! stuff is regularly called up and explained as to why it is shit/out of order etc. proud to be urbanz etc etc.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm about as likely to use the term "gormless cow" in a post as I am to beat my knob-end with a copy of the bible while screaming "hurt me Lord, for I am a sinner!".


 
This could mean one of two things. Either you're a fine example of a non-sexist, or........


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 1, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Certain people just have to know how to pigeonhole you. For example, I am 'Miss X' whereas my children have their dad's surname, and despite me having corrected them several times and them being perfectly well aware that I'm a single parent, the school office and teachers etc persist in addressing me as 'Mrs Y'. Because I am a mum, therefore I must be married. And in Shifty's example the plumber or whoever he was was making a judgement about how to relate to her (Mrs = respectable married woman, hands off; Ms = better check if she's divorced or a lesbian before I try to chat her up...)


True. No wedding ring, child running about, calls herself Ms=divorced. You couldn't make those assumptions about a man but you can make them, indeed it's second nature for some people, to make them about women.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Or a Dr.


 


Fine. there's no problem regarding a woman's marital status being flagged in society because they can be called doctor.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

In fact 'Lady' or 'Doctor' only illustrates that it's working class women who are judged. Rich women from good stock and those who attended medical school aren't.


----------



## xenon (Apr 2, 2013)

JimW said:


> me either - don't think I ever heard of it as a kid (backwoods small town) but when I did it was explained or I looked it up and seems perfectly straightforward.



Yeah, I think I only first heard it on shit 70's / 80's sitcoms. Where some cliche strident femmenist said she was a mS and the unreconstructed idiot blokes pronounced it Mzz.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


>


What's the facepalm for?

Do you know why I prefer to use Dr? Because since the age of 30 everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - assumes I am married, when I am clearly not. It gets very wearing (at best, and mostly fucking annoying) having to explain to people that your title is wrong on everything, especially when I have provided the correct title and people choose to override with their assumptions. I know I am not married, I don't need to be reminded of that all the time by staff at the renal clinic, telephone call centre staff, GP, even _work_ ffs.

Facepalm all you want, but you don't constantly have your single status thrown back in your face because society says you're a failure for not being married just because you've passed the age of 30.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

You missed my edit sorry (I did add to it).

Seems I'm actually agreeing with you.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> The only people on here I've seen objecting to the use of the word cunt for sexism reasons have been men.


Miss Caphat does, strongly. But she's American (not intended to be dismissive of her, as she will argue it further than the usual US-based objections).

It does seem to be a useful distraction tactic used by some, mostly delicate flower types who seem to be almost exclusively men on here, often old-fashioned 'not in front of the ladies' types who want to avoid confronting whatever bigotry of theirs has just been challenged.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> You missed my edit sorry (I did add to it).
> 
> Seems I'm actually agreeing with you.


Sorry, it's late, I should be asleep. It just gets tedious explaining yet again to whatever audience that my title is Dr EG, not Mrs EG.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Sorry, it's late, I should be asleep. It just gets tedious explaining yet again to whatever audience that my title is Dr EG, not Mrs EG.


 
Which, to me at least, shows the sexism extends further. Not happy With your Dr status, they have to ask your marital one too. It would grate on me also.


----------



## coley (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> There have been at least two occasions where someone who has been banned has returned accusing me (and others) by name of having got them banned by reporting them. It's beyond pathetic, of course, but I'd actually hate for that accusation to be true, especially if I hadn't challenged them directly.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with editor's point. Hence, this thread. I am wondering why so few people do call it out and the apparent lack of support for them when they do.



But you haven't given a definitive answer to those who ask " what in your view, constitutes. "sexism" does a reference to "blondes" in the jokes thread' for instance constitute an offence?


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

weltweit said:


> A woman can be Miss, Mrs, Ms, Lady, Frau etc
> A man can be Mr, Captain, Colonel, Lord, etc
> 
> Always best in CRM systems to leave the title field as a free type in field.


Women can't be captains or colonels?

Reminds me of several tweets on #everydaysexism where women who give their title as Dr or Professor over the phone subsequently get post addressed to Professor and Mrs X.


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Sorry, it's late, I should be asleep. It just gets tedious explaining yet again to whatever audience that my title is Dr EG, not Mrs EG.


 
tis slightly sad that you still have to deal with titles, your name should be enough...


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Miss Caphat does, strongly. But she's American (not intended to be dismissive of her, as she will argue it further than the usual US-based objections).
> 
> It does seem to be a useful distraction tactic used by some, mostly delicate flower types who seem to be almost exclusively men on here, often old-fashioned 'not in front of the ladies' types who want to avoid confronting whatever bigotry of theirs has just been challenged.


I'm not a fan of the word to be honest - and someone uses it at work, which I hate ( a woman incidentally).


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> I agree with the sentiment behind this but men can be raped too, although it is more likely to happen to women and women have to change their lives to avoid it.


Actually, it may be that men get raped more than women. But it tends to be in prison or in war, and whatever the circumstances even harder for men to report than women (for the same reasons that Firky being flashed was considered something worth joking about: the stereotyping of men as macho thugs who do the raping).


----------



## Joe2369 (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Why do you think I'm having a go at anyone in particular?
> 
> If you mean the final poll option, that has happened a lot more often than just the latest bizarre incident, and not just to me. This poll is the culmination of around two years of my attempts to operate a zero tolerance policy and I think it needs some proper discussion.


 

my attempts to operate a zero tolerance policy   Why ?  dont you want to get a feel for people , a real feel were they dont hide there opinions and feeling , a true feeling of how that person thinks and acts and how they will respond ,  If you mark sombody as a "whatever"   on these forums accept it and learn from them do these people have to change for you , the country , the world , themselves .No doubt your opinion is taken on board by many but " the whatevers" have there opinions also and give them freely please dont try and stagnate that.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Women can't be captains or colonels?


 
Quite right ymu! although the mental image I always bring up at the very mention of the title colonel is not one I think that many women would like 



ymu said:


> Reminds me of several tweets on #everydaysexism where women who give their title as Dr or Professor over the phone subsequently get post addressed to Professor and Mrs X.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

coley said:


> But you haven't given a definitive answer to those who ask " what in your view, constitutes. "sexism" does a reference to "blondes" in the jokes thread' for instance constitute an offence?


If you read the thread, I have. My answer covers jokes as well as normal conversation. I have also given my definition of what makes a joke unacceptable on at least two different joke threads.

The issue is whether a person or group of people is being targeted or stereotyped because of their sex, race or appearance (or other characteristic commonly regarded as bullying fodder), and whether the joke is aimed at further denigrating them or taking the piss out of those who do the denigrating.

I don't like blond jokes any more than I like blonde ones. Unless the joke is poking fun at people who judge on appearances. It's always fine to embarrass people for that kind of stupidity, IMO.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Joe2369 said:


> my attempts to operate a zero tolerance policy  Why ? dont you want to get a feel for people , a real feel were they dont hide there opinions and feeling , a true feeling of how that person thinks and acts and how they will respond , If you mark sombody as a "whatever" on these forums accept it and learn from them do these people have to change for you , the country , the world , themselves .No doubt your opinion is taken on board by many but " the whatevers" have there opinions also and give them freely please dont try and stagnate that.


Hippy cunt.


----------



## coley (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> If you read the thread, I have. My answer covers jokes as well as normal conversation. I have also given my definition of what makes a joke unacceptable on at least two different joke threads.
> 
> The issue is whether a person or group of people is being targeted or stereotyped because of their sex, race or appearance, and whether the joke is aimed at further denigrating them or taking the piss out of those who do the denigrating.
> 
> I don't like blond jokes any more than I like blonde ones. Unless the joke is poking fun at people who judge on appearances. It's always fine to embarrass people for that kind of stupidity, IMO.



Fair go, just reading me way through the thread and needed a bit clarification.


----------



## Joe2369 (Apr 2, 2013)

split arse  


ymu said:


> Hippy cunt.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not a fan of the word to be honest - and someone uses it at work, which I hate ( a woman incidentally).


It's fine to not be a fan of it. It's not fine to claim that the lack of fandom is because it is sexist.

I wouldn't use it at work because it is still extremely taboo for many people and I don't go around trying to upset them. I am careful on forums which do not tolerate bad language, especially when it is because they have very young members. I do not swear at all in front of young children.

Here, I can speak as I do with my mates. I will, and do, engage in debate about that, but if the argument against is that it is sexist I will argue, because in my view that is not only untrue, it completely misses the point about what sexism is.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Or a Dr.


 
There's a poster in some Newcastle hospitals to remind staff not to call people 'pet'. It has a photo of an elderly woman and the text says, "I am not, dear, pet, or hen. I am doctor".


----------



## Greebo (Apr 2, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> This could mean one of two things. Either you're a fine example of a non-sexist, or........


He is - why would I settle for less?  Make of that what you will.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> There's a poster in some Newcastle hospitals to remind staff not to call people 'pet'. It has a photo of an elderly woman and the text says, "I am not, dear, pet, or hen. I am doctor".


Those are unisex terms oop north, no? If so, I object to the notice. It is saying "respect my status as a doctor" not "respect women".


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Riklet said:


> not read this thread (probably should?) but that's a bit of an antagonistic title and poll.
> 
> this has to be one of the least sexist places i've ever been tbh, especially on the internet! stuff is regularly called up and explained as to why it is shit/out of order etc. proud to be urbanz etc etc.


You should read the thread.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 2, 2013)

What am I going to do with all my blond jokes now?


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

weltweit said:


> What am I going to do with all my blond jokes now?


Work on turning them around to target the people who think they are funny?


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Those are unisex terms oop north, no? If so, I object to the notice. It is saying "respect my status as a doctor" not "respect women".


 
Couldn't it have just happened to be a woman, same as the poster might have just happened to have depicted a man?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Miss Caphat does, strongly. But she's American (not intended to be dismissive of her, as she will argue it further than the usual US-based objections).
> 
> It does seem to be a useful distraction tactic used by some, mostly delicate flower types who seem to be almost exclusively men on here, often old-fashioned 'not in front of the ladies' types who want to avoid confronting whatever bigotry of theirs has just been challenged.


 
I do? 

I think you may be suffering from false memory syndrome, ymu. I am not at all offended by the word cunt, and use it often myself (erm  ). I do think that it and all other words for female genitalia are inherently sexist when used as an insult, however. Just not in a way that makes me become enraged or something.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Those are unisex terms oop north, no? If so, I object to the notice. It is saying "respect my status as a doctor" not "respect women".


 
They are, yeah. The poster is more about trying to get staff to address patients / clients with a degree of professionalism. It doesn't really work, I was called sweetheart, petal, love, hinny, and all sorts by NA's to consultants 

It hasn't anything to do with status but calling all patients by their name instead of local colloquialisms. Typical management bollocks from people with no experience in care.

I hate being called 'young man'. That's the only one that gets my shackles up.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

Joe2369 said:


> my attempts to operate a zero tolerance policy  Why ? dont you want to get a feel for people , a real feel were they dont hide there opinions and feeling , a true feeling of how that person thinks and acts and how they will respond , If you mark sombody as a "whatever" on these forums accept it and learn from them do these people have to change for you , the country , the world , themselves .No doubt your opinion is taken on board by many but " the whatevers" have there opinions also and give them freely please dont try and stagnate that.


 
Yeah, those lovable free and easy bigots.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> I know it wasn't the point 8115 was making and reading my post back I can see the confusion, I was trying to make the same sort of point you were. But I fucked up >_<


 
I think the interweb would be a better place all round if more people had the [insert non sexist genitalia related term here] to say something like that on forums rather than either (a) disappear off the thread or (b) defend their fuck-up to the last ditch / until the banhammer is used


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Miss Caphat said:


> I do?
> 
> lol. you may be suffering from false memory syndrome, ymu. I am not at all offended by the word cunt, and use it often myself (erm  ). I do think that it and all other words for female genitalia are inherently sexist when used as an insult, however.


Apologies for misrepresenting your argument, it was a very brief comment!

I think the argument is pretty much identical, but you do at least take it to its logical extreme.

I still disagree with you.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> They are, yeah. The poster is more about trying to get staff to address patients / clients with a degree of professionalism. It doesn't really work, I was called sweetheart, petal, love, hinny, and all sorts by NA's to consultants
> 
> I hate being called 'young man'. That's the only one that gets my shackles up.


Patronising innit, the other terms are just local words for "person"

In Tipton you get called wench by people over a certain age, it just means woman there.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Couldn't it have just happened to be a woman, same as the poster might have just happened to have depicted a man?


Yes. I would still disapprove of such demands for respect on the basis of what job they do. If they think the words are disrespectful, then they should be banned for use in addressing porters and nurses too.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I think the interweb would be a better place all round if more people had the [insert non sexist genitalia related term here] to say something like that on forums rather than either (a) disappear off the thread or (b) defend their fuck-up to the last ditch / until the banhammer is used


 
Something like what?


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> In Tipton you get called wench by people over a certain age, it just means woman there.


 
That got a snorty laugh with snot


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

Christ, I can only imagine what would happened if I called someone a wench on here 

"Aaahhh, lizzieloo, one of my favourite wenches on urban"


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yes. I would still disapprove of such demands for respect on the basis of what job they do. If they think the words are disrespectful, then they should be banned for use in addressing porters and nurses too.


 
I'd imagine nobody in Newcastle would want any of those words banned in any situation, especially in a "caring" environment, words like that are reassuring.

It'd be "duck" where I'm from, I'd prefer pet.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't think it's useful to include what is acceptable locally/amongst friends in the wider argument. Because we're talking about here really. Obviously what is said in the Dog and Duck in Dodgeville may pass as ok.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> Christ, I can only imagine what would happened if I called someone a wench on here
> 
> "Aaahhh, lizzieloo, one of my favourite wenches on urban"


 
You didn't say that in a thick Black Country accent though did you.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Sorry for flippant things thread


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> You didn't say that in a thick Black Country accent though did you.


 
Just in the accent you saw on cuntryfile, sorry 

Err. Yeah, back on topic.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yes. I would still disapprove of such demands for respect on the basis of what job they do. If they think the words are disrespectful, then they should be banned for use in addressing porters and nurses too.


 
It's not about the carer it is about the patient. You've got it the wrong way round, doctors sometimes call patients 'pet' instead of 'doctor lucy' or whatever. The point of the poster is to turn it around.

I didn't explain it properly


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> They are, yeah. The poster is more about trying to get staff to address patients / clients with a degree of professionalism. It doesn't really work, I was called sweetheart, petal, love, hinny, and all sorts by NA's to consultants
> 
> I hate being called 'young man'. That's the only one that gets my shackles up.


Now, I use "young man" sometimes, but only ever to older men to whom I am supposed to show some respect (bosses, elderly male friends), as a kind of cheeky compliment, I suppose.

This kind of thing does trouble me though. I often refer to my partner as "the boy", which stems from a friend who uses it in the kind of way that points out that being older and more experienced makes sexual relationships no less confusing than they were when we were kids. I'd hate if it as read as patronising towards him.

I once introduced an older man who was assisting me on a workshop in glowing terms, because he is often ignored because he is older and a bit deaf. I finished with "if only I was twenty years older". I did ask him beforehand, and it raised a laugh, but I don't know if it offended any men in the audience, or whether they would be right to be offended.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Maybe you should think about it a wee bit less


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Maybe you should think about it a wee bit less


I don't think that is reasonable if I also make a habit of asking men to think about it more.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't mind my partner calling me "the boy" or anything. Used to get called the "pain in my arse" which was just an invite for a crass quip.

Someone knocked on my door selling sausages (how northern) and said, "would you like to buy some sausages, young man?". I said, "no thanks, old man" and he looked offended!! Twat. 

Don't like the presumption - that's what it is. You gotta know me and earn that camaraderie, sort of thing.

I want to go to Tipton though and hear this wench in the wild


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

Thinking about the acceptable/local thing I can think of a few examples when growing up that sexism could have been seen to be 'acceptable'. The difference being that it was said in parody between mates.

A good litmus test for what is or isn't acceptable in the real world would be to say it to your boss's wife (or boss if female). Or your girlfriend's mum.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2013)

Do people on here think 'lass' is sexist?

I got called sexist for using it once and it surprised me, I've always considered it the female version of lad and I never attached any more meaning to it than that. Everyone uses it where I come from, men and women, and it doesn't have any negative connotations. It's made me wonder if the person who called me out on it (who was from the south) just didn't understand the way the term is used.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Now, I use "young man" sometimes, but only ever to older men to whom I am supposed to show some respect (bosses, elderly male friends), as a kind of cheeky compliment, I suppose.
> 
> This kind of thing does trouble me though. I often refer to my partner as "the boy", which stems from a friend who uses it in the kind of way that points out that being older and more experienced makes sexual relationships no less confusing than they were when we were kids. I'd hate if it as read as patronising towards him.
> 
> I once introduced an older man who was assisting me on a workshop in glowing terms, because he is often ignored because he is older and a bit deaf. I finished with "if only I was twenty years older". I did ask him beforehand, and it raised a laugh, but I don't know if it offended any men in the audience, or whether they would be right to be offended.


 
Well yeah, I have wondered about your referring to him as "The boy" - A  _lot  _of people would see the referring to a black man as "boy" as intrinsically racist - Honest to god, I'm not saying this to have a go & I agree with you most of the time but, your calling him "the boy" doesn't sit right with me TBH, not when you're so ready to pull others up on their use of language.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Thinking about the acceptable/local thing I can think of a few examples when growing up that sexism could have been seen to be 'acceptable'. The difference being that it was said in parody between mates.
> 
> A good litmus test for what is or isn't acceptable in the real world would be to say it to your boss's wife (or boss if female). *Or your girlfriends mum*.


 
Heteronormative twat.


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 2, 2013)

In a hospital setting, most consultants I've met have been cold in their professionalism, perhaps too cold.  It's lower down where love, fella, sweetheart is used ime.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> Something like what?


 
to say (as you did) something like "oops, i fucked up" when someone disagrees with something they have posted.

it seems more pronounced on the interweb than in the real world for people to defend their fuck-ups vehemently even if they realise they have fucked up.

although that having been said, it also seems more pronounced on the interweb than in the real world for people to respond to something that's ambiguous but potentially offensive with a load of abuse rather than saying "you what?" or "you mean, as in X?"


----------



## xenon (Apr 2, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> He's not the only confused person.  I did two threads on this subject back in 2008.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/ms-mrs-miss.201139/
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/following-on-ms.201230/


I  remember deliberately being a bit of a nob on that thread.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Heteronormative twat.


 
Not entirely. I could be addressing a female about her girlfriend.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Heteronormative twat.


 
Touché


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Not entirely. I could be addressing a female about her girlfriend.


 
Gah


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Gah


 
Although no because women aren't sexist. yeah?


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Although no because women aren't sexist. yeah?


 
*pop*


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Gah


 
Gash


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do people on here think 'lass' is sexist?
> 
> I got called sexist for using it once and it surprised me, I've always considered it the female version of lad and I never attached any more meaning to it than that. Everyone uses it where I come from, men and women, and it doesn't have any negative connotations. It's made me wonder if the person who called me out on it (who was from the south) just didn't understand the way the term is used.


I see this a lot. Also with 'girl' for an adult woman. Loads of objections to Olympics commentators referring to female athletes as girls. Which in some cases was justified criticism, but it was often applied to commentators who also referred to the men as 'the boys'.

Using the lass/girl is only sexist, IME, if the words lad/boy are not also used in the same context by the same person, or would seem out of place if they were used by anyone.


----------



## treefrog (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fantastic post.
> 
> One point of order, though: Insinuations in court about kids leading on their molesters aren't always strictly about projecting a form of sexuality onto a being who's sometimes pre-sexual, it's more about there being arsehole criminal justice systems that don't effectively insulate children from questioning that's actively made to upset them/throw them off their testimony. What fucks *me* off is when idiots in the media latch onto such reasoning and it gets regurgitated onto the general public.


 
Good point. That example is from personal experience. I read your post and had a think about it for a while. I wonder if they'd suggest that if it was a young boy of the same age in the stand? 

And what a shitty, shitty legal system we have that this is even a discussion


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well yeah, I have wondered about your referring to him as "The boy" - A _lot _of people would see the referring to a black man as "boy" as intrinsically racist - Honest to god, I'm not saying this to have a go & I agree with you most of the time but, your calling him "the boy" doesn't sit right with me TBH, not when you're so ready to pull others up on their use of language.


Blimey, that aspect had never occurred to me.

In that case, I shall cease forthwith!


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> Gash


 
Too far


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

Hmm. At the risk of a mauling I think there's more implied generalisations around the word 'lad' than girl'. 

Bit of a lad implies fuck loads. I can't think of an equal example using 'girl' that does the same.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do people on here think 'lass' is sexist?


 
I've been calling lasses on here lass for nigh on over a decade and never had any grief. Think I've used on this thread as well.


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Too far


 
Indeed..


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well yeah, I have wondered about your referring to him as "The boy" - A _lot _of people would see the referring to a black man as "boy" as intrinsically racist


 
I've seen that row happen at work!


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Hmm. At the risk of a mauling I think there's more implied generalisations around the word 'lad' than girl'.
> 
> Bit of a lad implies fuck loads. I can't think of an equal example using 'girl' that does the same.


 
That's because for a female it'd automatically be a derogatory term used, not lass or girl.

I reckon.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

treefrog said:


> Good point. That example is from personal experience. I read your post and had a think about it for a while. I wonder if they'd suggest that if it was a young boy of the same age in the stand?
> 
> And what a shitty, shitty legal system we have that this is even a discussion


On that particular example, I think the most damaging aspect of it being allowed to be raised in court is precisely because sex offenders take advantage of burgeoning sexuality, and ignorance of the implications of sexual behaviour in younger people. Feeling partially responsible for what happened is a huge part of the burden for many of those who have been abused (of all ages).

I think it is a lot less likely to be put forward as a defence where the victim was a young boy, especially if he is is not gay or camp. There is no general mythology of men saying no when they mean yes, being evil tempters, or of it being entirely understandable for a man to be driven to desperate measures by his passion for an unconsenting young man.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> That's because for a female it'd automatically be a derogatory term used, not lass or girl.
> 
> I reckon.


 
I'm not making a poor oppressed males argument.  But I've heard fairly elderly women referring to themselves (and being referring to) as the girls. 'The Lads' does carry negative connotations imo. On the piss, a bit cheeky but generally rogues. I can't stand it.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

It's all about context. Being called a 'boy' can be a derogatory put-down. But then it can also be high praise if you've become "one of the boys."


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> In a hospital setting, most consultants I've met have been cold in their professionalism, perhaps too cold. It's lower down where love, fella, sweetheart is used ime.


 
I didn't want to say that but that is my experience too with the exception of my consultant who looks like santa claus and calls me 'laddy'. He's Scottish, a big jolly fella. Chuckles at the end of every sentence. Probably would have smoked a pipe in his office once upon a time.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

Why hasn't anyone pulled me up on using the word lass then?


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not making a poor oppressed males argument.  But I've heard fairly elderly women referring to themselves (and being referring to) as the girls. 'The Lads' does carry negative connotations imo. On the piss, a bit cheeky but generally rogues. I can't stand it.


 
I read your post wrong, It's late, the hot choc was strong


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Hmm. At the risk of a mauling I think there's more implied generalisations around the word 'lad' than girl'.
> 
> Bit of a lad implies fuck loads. I can't think of an equal example using 'girl' that does the same.


I am contrasting boy vs girl and lad vs lass, not lad vs girl.

The implication of "lad" outside of the north is very much a sexist image. The stereotyping of women requires the stereotyping of men. Both forms of stereotyping are as insulting, of course, but it's hard for a bloke to stand up and say _"I object to being stereotyped as an insensitive oaf who is only interested in getting his end away. And by the way, you protest too much, you transparently insecure dickhead."_


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> It's all about context. Being called a 'boy' can be a derogatory put-down. But then it can also be high praise if you've become "one of the boys."


 
If someone called me 'one of the boys' I'd change my lifestyle overnight.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> The implication of "lad" outside of the north is very much a sexist image.


Is it really?


----------



## treefrog (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Hmm. At the risk of a mauling I think there's more implied generalisations around the word 'lad' than girl'.
> 
> Bit of a lad implies fuck loads. I can't think of an equal example using 'girl' that does the same.


 
Yep, a bit bit of a lad implies lots of masculine traits that are in many circles seen as positive. Hit with the ladies, treat-em-mean-keep-em-keen, holds his drink etc. Immature? Yes, but not childish. There's no implications of weakness in that word. 

Girl has implications of being prepubescent, passive, child-like, dependent, shallow, pathetic. "Don't be such a girl!" "you hit like a girl" "Drinks like a girl" "She's such a girl".

I'm 29, a career woman, about to buy my own house. I have emigrated half way round the world alone and am completely financially independent. There's nothing remotely girlish about me. Which is why when I'm described by strangers using a word that technically means a child it rankles.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> If someone called me 'one of the boys' I'd change my lifestyle overnight.


If you go to football, you almost automatically become 'one of the boys.' Same if you join a Thin Lizzy tribute band and return to your home town.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Is it really?


I explained why in my post. If you disagree you are free to do so, but I need a bit more to go on as to why if you want to discuss it.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> If someone called me 'one of the boys' I'd change my lifestyle overnight.


 
Never really thought of that before, it'd piss me off too I reckon.

But ymu's right, being pissed off about it would be construed as over sensitive.

It's a bit 'welcome to our world'


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> If you go to football, you almost automatically become 'one of the boys.' Same if you join a Thin Lizzy tribute band and return to your home town.


 
Don't like football and the 'banter' appeals to me even less.  Thin Lizzy are alright though I guess.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Never really thought of that before, it'd piss me off too I reckon.
> 
> But ymu's right, being pissed off about it would be construed as over sensitive.
> 
> It's a bit 'welcome to our world'


 
My mates would take the piss out of those who bracket themselves as that.  They grow up to be Mondeo man, watch the footie and sell Insurance. They go to nightclubs in a suit. Not druggy clubs, The Hitman and Her high street types.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Do you mean on these boards?


Missed this.

Do you mean that inappropriate use of the word rape is something you'd like to see being reported?


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> If you go to football, you almost automatically become 'one of the boys.' Same if you join a Thin Lizzy tribute band and return to your home town.


 
You Welsh are always calling people boyo


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Do you mean that inappropriate use of the word rape is something you'd like to see being reported?


Only if it breaks the forum rules.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> it's hard for a bloke to stand up and say _"I object to being stereotyped as an insensitive oaf who is only interested in getting his end away. And by the way, you protest too much, you transparently insecure dickhead."_


 
I am not sure I agree with that TBH. Even when I was a kid at school and objected to the pressure of needing to support a football team, I never really found it difficult to say, 'fuck that'. I always found it easier to be truthful than to pretend. Never got stick for it and can't say I ever really have from people who's opinion I'd give a toss about. It can be frustrating now and again when people assume you're like Danny Dwyer because you have a cock but I would't say I ever found it hard or problematic.

Only dead fish swim with the stream and all that jazz.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Only if it breaks the forum rules.


 
In my view it does break the forum rules ("don't be a dick") but there's not a lot of point reporting instances unless it is known that the mods agree, because you'll just regard it as vexatious (not unreasonably, if that is your position).

At the risk of starting an argument, why did you ask trashpony if it happened here as well as in the real world if you don't think it is against the FAQ? If you were trying to say that urban is a helluva lot better than elsewhere, then I'd have to agree. But it does come across as a bit dismissive if there is no declaration of action behind it.

I am not and never have asked for people to be banned for this kind of thing, BTW. But if a rapid warning from a mod would always ensue when minor infractions like this are reported, it would mean that people like me do not have to risk hijacking threads by asking people not to use it as a metaphor, nor retreat under fire precisely because the thread will get hijacked if we do not.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> I am not sure I agree with that TBH. Even when I was a kid at school and objected to the pressure of needing to support a football team, I never really found it difficult to say, 'fuck that'. I always found it easier to be truthful than to pretend. Never got stick for it and can't say I ever really have from people who's opinion I'd give a toss about. It can be frustrating now and again when people assume you're like Danny Dwyer because you have a cock but I would't say I ever found it hard or problematic.
> 
> Only dead fish swim with the stream and all that jazz.


Well, that's the thing. People who do raise their heads above the parapet often get more admiration than stick for it. That doesn't mean its easy for all blokes at all times to speak out against crassly sexist behaviour.

I don't want to believe that most men buy into this shit.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> At the risk of starting an argument, why did you ask trashpony if it happened here as well as in the real world if you don't think it is against the FAQ? If you were trying to say that urban is a helluva lot better than elsewhere, then I'd have to agree. But it does come across as a bit dismissive if there is no declaration of action behind it.


You seem to be reading far too much into my words and I'd be grateful if you didn't try to project what I'm supposed to be thinking.


----------



## treefrog (Apr 2, 2013)

Why does asking people to check themselves have to be so fucking loaded? I've said plenty of things over the years that have been racist, sexist, homophobic etc. I know I've offended people just by not being aware of my language. I wish to fuck that someone had taken me aside on those occasions and called me on it. I've learned a lot when people _have _called me on it. Being told that hey, what you said wasn't cool, isn't an implication that you're a bad person, just that what you said wasn't cool and maybe you need to think a bit harder about what you say. Is that too much to ask without getting wildly defensive and angry?


----------



## Balbi (Apr 2, 2013)

treefrog said:


> Why does asking people to check themselves have to be so fucking loaded? I've said plenty of things over the years that have been racist, sexist, homophobic etc. I know I've offended people just by not being aware of my language. I wish to fuck that someone had taken me aside on those occasions and called me on it. I've learned a lot when people _have _called me on it. Being told that hey, what you said wasn't cool, isn't an implication that you're a bad person, just that what you said wasn't cool and maybe you need to think a bit harder about what you say. Is that too much to ask without getting wildly defensive and angry?


 


Just because someone says you've articulated a point clumsily, doesn't necessary invalidate that whole point. If it's a good and valid point, but there's a better way of saying it, without making an arse of yourself or making someone else feel excluded or slighted, then why not take it on board. It's not policing, it's fucking politeness. No, it's not a consistent rule - it's for handling situations where basically most people are in agreement, and you're not dealing with an outright chest thumping racist/sexist/homophobe (although sometimes, the approach can be used to disarm them). 

Polarities are common though and fucking impossible to continue a discussion point past in some cases. Because of the charged nature of some discussion, the fact that our experiences may be similar but will never be identical, our backgrounds and personal identities, our moral and cultural outlooks all combine to present a dynamic environment in which the discussions that people of a shared intent should have to progress as individuals and a group. It boils down to, when in a group that you know contains people whose lives or outlooks are different to yours, don't be a fucking dickhead. Be willing to share, but also to learn from what others tell you.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Sometimes, it is just pure ego. I come across it a lot teaching (and in myself, of course ). It's a massive problem for teachers (and individuals afflicted by it) because people who refuse to acknowledge they could ever be wrong about something cannot learn anything.

Medical students are particularly bad for it, probably because they're mostly straight A students and the way we educate kids places so much more emphasis on getting the right answer than on knowing why it is the right answer.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> Why hasn't anyone pulled me up on using the word lass then?


I've been pulled up for saying lass.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 2, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I've been pulled up for saying lass.


 
I've not read this thread, but what's wrong with lass?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 2, 2013)

Not here mind. It was a group of teenage girls who were larking about happily on a geography field trip and said something about them being a lovely group of lasses and a female colleague said it was a derogatory term. I didn't make an issue. Wouldn't have been appropriate to get into a disagreement, but I just thought she was wrong.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 2, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've not read this thread, but what's wrong with lass?


Nothing, imo


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 2, 2013)

On the other hand I wouldn't walk into a room of elderly women and call them lasses as it's over-familiar.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 2, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> On the other hand I wouldn't walk into a room of elderly women and call them lasses as it's over-familiar.


 
It's not a word I'd use myself, and especially not with people older than me, but I consider it a regional thing, a bit like pet or hen


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 2, 2013)

I do think there is casual (sometimes thoughtless, sometimes deliberately belittling) sexism here but it's not as common as elsewhere. Really hateful stuff gets noticed by everyone. Other stuff sometimes goes under the radar but is still insidious and cumulative. I think it should be tackled as I know that over the years some women have left because of it (sometimes said loudly and clearly and sometimes without a word) and that's not good. Sometimes it's also about sexuality as well. Anyway...I'm off to bed.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

At this point I should make it clear that this is absolutely not a complaint about the mods. If I thought it was something the mods should tackle I would report the posts that I challenge. I don't because I think it is more important to challenge it openly and allow people the chance to understand what it is they're doing wrong and for others to say why they agree or disagree. Following rules without understanding why they exist is of limited value, IMO and E.

The reason for this thread is to allow some discussion of the problem faced by anyone trying to have a sensible discussion of sexism on these forums, and to ask why that is. In my view it is similar to the way Israel/Palestine threads used to go before the worst of the Zionists were banned. They used to complain that Israel got more attention here than any other egregiously violent and discriminatory state, but the reason for that was the sheer number of people willing to turn up and defend the indefensible.

I am asking why so many anti-anti-sexist men feel safe to behave the way they do here, and it's got nothing to do with how the mods handle it (from my perspective at least).


----------



## treefrog (Apr 2, 2013)

How to deal with being called out: a handy guide


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

treefrog said:


> How to deal with being called out: a handy guide


 
I love it when the internet delivers


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> The only people on here I've seen objecting to the use of the word cunt for sexism reasons have been men.


This has since been rectified but I see no-one has called her a cunt for doing so. So there would seem to be a taboo here, reflecting some recognition that using the word as an insult (the supreme and most commonly used one here) does have a sexist or misogynistic connotation and origin?


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

I get called a cunt all the time. What the fuck are you on about?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> This has since been rectified but I see no-one has called her a cunt for doing so. So there would seem to be a taboo here, reflecting some recognition that using the word as an insult (the supreme and most commonly used one here) does have a sexist or misogynistic connotation and origin?


I saw a female poster saying she didn't like it.  I didn't see her saying she thought it was sexist or misogynist.  Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> This has since been rectified but I see no-one has called her a cunt for doing so. So there would seem to be a taboo here, reflecting some recognition that using the word as an insult (the supreme and most commonly used one here) does have a sexist or misogynistic connotation and origin?


 
No, we just think you're a cunt.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 2, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> I saw a female poster saying she didn't like it. I didn't see her saying she thought it was sexist or misogynist. Correct me if I am wrong.





Miss Caphat said:


> I do?
> I think you may be suffering from false memory syndrome, ymu. I am not at all offended by the word cunt, and use it often myself (erm  ). I do think that it and all other words for female genitalia are inherently sexist when used as an insult, however. Just not in a way that makes me become enraged or something.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

And yet, she uses it often. Why aren't you scolding her after that, no doubt appalling to you, confession?


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean luc: of the five people who've liked my post since you linked to it yesterday, four are feminists. Perhaps you might have a think about why they might have done that?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, we just think you're a cunt.


Who's we? The clique of Trotskyoid bullies who try to drive off people critical of their views so that others can't hear them? Incidentally, this sort of thing is more prevalent here (but only on the politics sections) than on other forums which discuss the same sort of thing, e.g. http://libcom.org/forums


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 2, 2013)

Ahh, sorry.  I was talking about equationgirl.  

I've no wish to dismiss miss caphat at all, but the continuation of her argument is that calling someone a cock is also sexist.  That's absolutely a point of view, but it's quite an extreme one.   It is, perhaps, also informed by miss caphat living in a culture where the word cunt is pretty much only ever used towards women.   Which is an alien cultural concept on a British-based board.   

If a number of feminists from our own cultural context were articulating their problems with the word cunt as being sexist or misogynist, then I would likely modify my behaviour.   Just like when I was about seven and I understood why it was unpleasant to refer to the "paki" shop.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 2, 2013)

Call me old fashioned, but I do prefer to call tories @rseholes....we all have one of those.


----------



## treefrog (Apr 2, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Call me old fashioned, but I do prefer to call tories @rseholes....we all have one of those.


And they're all full of shit


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> Jean luc: of the five people who've liked my post since you linked to it yesterday, four are feminists. Perhaps you might have a think about why they might have done that?


I'm not waging a big campaign about this. It just struck me as out of place on a thread on which people were accusing the SWP of being sexist and rape-deniers that one of those arguing this should call someone trying to defend the SWP (not me) a cunt (it's a high-level political discussion there) without realising its possible sexist and misogynistic connotations. You'd have thought that people discussing rape would have been sensitive to this. And why then call someone who tries to point this out a cunt too? . Actually I would like to know why feminists would want to call someone a cunt for trying to make this point instead of simply saying they disagree.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 2, 2013)

My mum would say things like "weltweit I am having some girls round tonight". I would appear later to find the kitchen filled with 60 year old women, but where were the girls I wondered?


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Who's we? The clique of Trotskyoid bullies who try to drive off people critical of their views so that others can't hear them?


you don't really get urban do you?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 2, 2013)

On a forum like this with such a variety of users, it is quite likely everyone is going to offend someone at some point in time. Most people don't want to offend and more is the point, probably don't go out of their way to do so.

But if you offend someone should that always dictate that you change your language? There is no right not to be offended after all and it is not as if being offended is the end of the world!


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> you don't really get urban do you?


What do I have to do to enter into the spirit of thing? Call you an arsehole?


----------



## coley (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> This has since been rectified but I see no-one has called her a cunt for doing so. So there would seem to be a taboo here, reflecting some recognition that using the word as an insult (the supreme and most commonly used one here) does have a sexist or misogynistic connotation and origin?


I hate that word, and most obscenities, don't know why it's considered so normal on here?


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I'm not waging a big campaign about this. It just struck me as out of place on a thread on which people were accusing the SWP of being sexist and rape-deniers that one of those arguing this should call someone trying to defend the SWP (not me) a cunt (it's a high-level political discussion there) without realising its possible sexist and misogynistic connotations. You'd have thought that people discussing rape would have been sensitive to this. And why then call someone who tries to point this out a cunt too? . Actually I would like to know why feminists would want to call someone a cunt for trying to make this point instead of simply saying they disagree.


ok, I'll try again. why do you think some feminists might like a comment where i call you on referring to them as some kind of homogenous group?


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What do I have to do to enter into the spirit of thing? Call you an arsehole?


feel free - it was the trotskyoid bit that i was talking about though.


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> And why then call someone who tries to point this out a cunt too? . Actually I would like to know why feminists would want to call someone a cunt for trying to make this point instead of simply saying they disagree.


 IIRC you made a blanket assertion that no feminist would ever call someone a cunt. So some feminists called you a cunt. It was a witty way to puncture your assertion. Get it?


----------



## treefrog (Apr 2, 2013)

weltweit said:


> On a forum like this with such a variety of users, it is quite likely everyone is going to offend someone at some point in time. Most people don't want to offend and more is the point, probably don't go out of their way to do so.
> 
> But if you offend someone should that always dictate that you change your language? There is no right not to be offended after all and it is not as if being offended is the end of the world!


 
 it's not about occasionally offending someone though, is it? It's the systematic use of language in a way that belittles and insults _half the fucking population by the other half._

For example, I was sexually assaulted as a child. Sometimes, I find jokes about paedophilia offensive. In fact, I've found them incredibly upsetting. However, I know that people making jokes about such things are not likely to be child rapists, nor are they making those jokes to inflict pain on me. I get offended, sometimes I go home and have a bit of a cry. I get the fuck over it.

With sexism though, it's different. It's constant. It's pervasive. Every day I and other women have our right to exist as equal human beings challenged. We walk past adverts that describe us as "things". The magazines men read have us as ornaments draped over cars. the magazines WE read tell us we're too fat, too ugly, and too poor to attract what gives us worth- men. 

We are CONSTANTLY assaulted with comments, insults and visuals that undermine us as human beings. Constantly. It's not a matter of "offense", it's about _not talking to half the population like they are animals or infants. _

There isn't actually any excuse for it, other than "I am an arsehole and I don't give a fuck about equality".


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 2, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> It is, perhaps, also informed by miss caphat living in a culture where the word cunt is pretty much only ever used towards women. Which is an alien cultural concept on a British-based board.


I'd never ever use the word cunt across the Atlantic...it has a completely different power over there. Here it's like a very strong way of calling someone an absolute bastard. I don't regard it as woman-hating. In fact I can think of plenty of women-hating insults, supposedly far milder, that would offend me. I also think that there is generally more shock about swearing generally in the US. We are casually foul-mouthed in the UK.



eta
There are plenty of contexts in the UK where I wouldn't use the word cunt though. I'd never say it in front of my mother. Or in the corner-shop.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 2, 2013)

coley said:


> I hate that word, and most obscenities, don't know why it's considered so normal on here?


 
I too would feel uncomfortable using the word, but perhaps that says more about the 'censorship' in my head than anything else. That said, it is good to see a forum where posters can make up their own mind about the way in which they want to express themselves.


----------



## lighterthief (Apr 2, 2013)

Using the word cunt?  It's dull, unimaginative and frankly tedious to see it cropping up again and again.

/rant


----------



## weltweit (Apr 2, 2013)

treefrog said:


> it's not about occasionally offending someone though, is it? ............


 
But that was my point yes.
Whatever I do, I will offend someone in the next 12 months, it is certain.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 2, 2013)

treefrog said:


> ..........
> With sexism though, it's different. It's constant. It's pervasive. Every day I and other women have our right to exist as equal human beings challenged. We walk past adverts that describe us as "things". The magazines men read have us as ornaments draped over cars. the magazines WE read tell us we're too fat, too ugly, and too poor to attract what gives us worth- men.
> ............


I have often thought that magazines are odd.
What appears in mens magazines? women!
What appears in womens magazines? women!
If men want to read mags about women, why do women not want to read mags that are about men?


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)




----------



## treefrog (Apr 2, 2013)

weltweit said:


> But that was my point yes.
> Whatever I do, I will offend someone in the next 12 months, it is certain.


And so will I. But I'll think about what I say and ask the question "Is what I'm saying to a class/in public/in a published forum actively pushing ideas that oppress people?" and if they are, I won't say it. 

It's not actually that hard, just another version of Rule #1 for living. 

Don't be an asshole.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> clique of Trotskyoid bullies


 


I don't _actually _think you're a cunt (though you're acting a bit like one here) - I agree with about half what you say and disagree with the other half, as I do with most posters on here. But I'm a mischeivous fucker and you seem to have a bit of a thing about being called a cunt so I'm saying it to wind you up (which I suspect is more about it being directed your way than anything to do with feminism). I find it slightly depressing that I need to point this out.


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


>


i really need to know more about this clique. i've been posting here 10 years and the trots have always been whipping dogs on the politics forum.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 2, 2013)

lighterthief said:


> Using the word cunt? It's dull*, unimaginative* and frankly tedious to see it cropping up again and again.
> 
> /rant


 
just another way to say swearing shows a lack of vocabulary. In a radio four sneer.

I.E load of crap.  I've ten dozen words to use where one will do and sometimes that one is cunt. The people that act all 'oh swearing is passe' are intimidated by earthy language and are the sort of people who got smoking banned in pubs.


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> i really need to know more about this clique. i've been posting here 10 years and the trots have always been whipping dogs on the politics forum.


By "trotskyoid" he means he's calling everyone who disagrees with him trotskyist-like


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Ah yeah. Some black people don't mind the N word. So it's partially acceptable.


 
In fact, some black people use it, therefore surely it must be okay for *everyone* to use it!!


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> IIRC you made a blanket assertion that no feminist would ever call someone a cunt. So some feminists called you a cunt. It was a witty way to puncture your assertion. Get it?


I see. Fair enough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Cunt has different connotations depending where you are and on context. It can be quite affectionate between mates in Scotland 'aye he's a good cunt, one of the best'.


 
Widest use when I was a teen/young adult was as a synonym for "jammy bastard".
"Your parents bought you an old banger for your 18th? You cunt!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Agreed ya wee cunt.


 
Are you calling that wee cunt a cunt, you cunt?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Rape = sexual assault using penetration.
> 
> why is that word appropriate in that context? It isn't. It's just fucking lazy.


 
It's *not* appropriate if you've a vocabulary wider than your ringpiece, and a modicum of consideration in your head. Unfortunately, some people lack either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Sorry to be pedantic, but rape can also mean "the wanton destruction or spoiling of a place" as in 'Rape of the Fair Country.'


 
Rarely used in that context for at least 70 years, though ("The Rape of Nanking" is the last incidence I can think of).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

weltweit said:


> The Rape of Nanking
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)


 
Yep. Long time ago, though. It's not still in general usage with that meaning (although given dessiato is a bible-reading sort, perhaps that's where he picked up the context he used it in).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

weepiper said:


> that was known as the Rape of Nanking because 20,000 women were raped as part of the massacre.


 
And because the Japanese nicked everything not bolted down, including people, to be scrupulously fair.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rarely used in that context for at least 70 years, though ("*The Rape of Nanking*" is the last incidence I can think of).


 
these days we'd say 'they fallujahed the place'


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rarely used in that context for at least 70 years, though ("The Rape of Nanking" is the last incidence I can think of).


Two seconds googling gets me this newspaper headline from 2010: Sichinga accuses China of raping Zambia's resources.

I see it used in that context fairly commonly.


----------



## treefrog (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Two seconds googling gets me this newspaper headline from 2010: Sichinga accuses China of raping Zambia's resources.
> 
> I see it used in that context fairly commonly.


Oh for crying out loud. The headline quotes a Zambian businessman discussing a Chinese company in a Namibian newspaper.

Of course that makes it acceptable in 2013 Britain! Silly me, what a _fantastic _example!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> This could mean one of two things. Either you're a fine example of a non-sexist, or........


 
A pervert?
Can't I be both?


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Two seconds googling gets me this newspaper headline from 2010: Sichinga accuses China of raping Zambia's resources.
> 
> I see it used in that context fairly commonly.


 Where? Apart from African newspapers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Two seconds googling gets me this newspaper headline from 2010: Sichinga accuses China of raping Zambia's resources.
> 
> I see it used in that context fairly commonly.


 
Well, you've made my point for me, by having to google what's actually an obscure instance in a country where English isn't necessarily the first language!


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

treefrog said:


> Oh for crying out loud. The headline quotes a Zambian businessman discussing a Chinese company in a Namibian newspaper.
> 
> Of course that makes it acceptable in 2013 Britain! Silly me, what a _fantastic _example!


Sorry, but I'm not going to have the mods turned into language police. It's a legitimate word, whether some people like it or not. I don't think I've ever used it in that context myself, but this place is going to turn into a parody if we have to start compiling lists of legitimate words being used in context that are supposed to trigger a mod intervention.

Here's the result of another five seconds Googling. I do hope the country of origin is acceptable to you this time?

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/burma-is-being-raped-of-its-natural-resources/255
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=43855

But do tell me what you'd like here. Instant bans for anyone using the word rape as in, "The rape of Africa's natural resources continues unabated"?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Two seconds googling gets me this newspaper headline from 2010: Sichinga accuses China of raping Zambia's resources.
> 
> I see it used in that context fairly commonly.


 
Indeed. The word is still in common usage in a non-sexual context.

The countryside and environment is often referred to as "being raped" as are countries, such as in Marcus Bleasdale's book The Rape of A Nation, which deals with the plundering of Congolese resources as well as physical violence visited upon its women.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> Where? Apart from African newspapers.


Here, for example.





> According to economist Colm Rapple, there is “no benefit to Ireland” in the current Corrib gas field operation. “The oil will flow out of Mayo and Shell won’t pay anything for a very long time. And we’ll pay the same price as if we were buying the gas from Russia.” Rapple describes the terms granted to Enterprise Oil (subsequently bought by Shell) in 1992 for the excavation of the Corrib gas field as “a rape of our natural resources”.


http://irishoilandgas.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/a-rape-of-our-natural-resources/


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Here, for example.
> http://irishoilandgas.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/a-rape-of-our-natural-resources/


I take your examples, but a couple of blogs and a Catholic news website aren't evidence for common usage. Maybe you read and hear it more often than I do, but I still think the very vast majority of uses of rape have connections to sexual violence. As the Bleasdale example shows.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

Rape is a word, like many others (gay for example), which has undergone/is undergoing semantic change. Why is it so preposterous to ask people to consider the connotations of it's usage?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Rape is a word, like many others (gay for example), which has undergone/is undergoing semantic change. Why is it so preposterous to ask people to consider the connotations of it's usage?


 
Has it? Gay didn't use to be used describe homosexuals. Rape hasn't taken on a new meaning.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> I take your examples, but a couple of blogs and a Catholic news website aren't evidence for common usage.


Personally, I don't like the word being thrown around with "abandon," but I do feel that it can be a legitimate word to use when used in the context of the examples above. It's probably not a word I'd use, but the suggestion that mods should step in whenever it's being used to describe anything other than make/female rape is not something I think is reasonable.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> I take your examples, but a couple of blogs and a Catholic news website aren't evidence for common usage. Maybe you read and hear it more often than I do, but I still think the very vast majority of uses of rape have connections to sexual violence. As the Bleasdale example shows.


 
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politic...urgh_windfarm_cabling_plan_rejected_1_1175578
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/20/ruralaffairs.foodanddrink
http://www.fells.info/hall.htm
http://www.cotswoldjourneys.com/rape-of-the-countryside/
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20051208/letters/the-rape-of-the-countryside.69744
http://munromusings.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/the-rape-of-the-british-countryside-continues/


----------



## elbows (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> I take your examples, but a couple of blogs and a Catholic news website aren't evidence for common usage. Maybe you read and hear it more often than I do, but I still think the very vast majority of uses of rape have connections to sexual violence. As the Bleasdale example shows.


 
Indeed the vast majority of uses will. To determine quite how rare other uses of the term are, I have begun to search the last year+ of u75 posts. Only tried the word 'raping' so far as opposed to rape, since I dont have enough time to do this justice right now. Apart from the hundreds of uses in the sex crime context, I found one use as part of a parody of attitudes towards asylum seekers, one reference to raping of a countries economy, and one use in the form of 'raping the emotions'.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Rape is a word, like many others (gay for example), which has undergone/is undergoing semantic change. Why is it so preposterous to ask people to consider the connotations of it's usage?


That's absolutely fine. Feel free to challenge its usage here if you like whenever you come across it, but don't be surprised if people have different opinions to you.


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> the suggestion that mods should step in whenever it's being used to describe anything other than make/female rape is not something I think is reasonable.


has this been suggested?


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> has this been suggested?


Yes.


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Personally, I don't like the word being thrown around with "abandon," but I do feel that it is a legitimate word to use when used in the context of the examples above.  It's probably not a word I'd use, but the suggestion that mods should step in whenever it's being used to describe anything other than make/female rape is not something I think is reasonable.


I agree that the examples you've posted are of legitimate use, I'm just saying that this kind of use is rare, and old fashioned, and that nowadays the word "rape" carries an overwhelming sense of sexual violence, even if used very carefully in a different context. I think that's something that even people who want to use it in the other sense need to acknowledge.

I've got no position on what the mods should do. I think that's up to them. What we can discuss here is our views on what we think is acceptable, in general.


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politic...urgh_windfarm_cabling_plan_rejected_1_1175578
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/20/ruralaffairs.foodanddrink
> http://www.fells.info/hall.htm
> http://www.cotswoldjourneys.com/rape-of-the-countryside/
> ...


Have you even bothered to read your own links? The top one is referring to _oilseed rape_ for goodness sake.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> Have you even bothered to read your own links? The top one is referring to _oilseed rape_ for goodness sake.


 
 I'm at work and in a hurry. Read the rest.

Seriously, if you've never read about rape as despoliation then you're probably not reading enough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

treefrog said:


> Good point. That example is from personal experience. I read your post and had a think about it for a while. I wonder if they'd suggest that if it was a young boy of the same age in the stand?


 
Sadly, I've read enough case studies to know it's pretty much the same regardless of whether the child is female or male.
One of my particular bugbears on the subject is that some fairly progressive legislative changes were made in the late '90s and early '00s, with regard to shielding children from such aggressive cross-examination, but the institutional inertia (and sexism and ageism) of the criminal justice system has meant that outside of the family division of the courts, judges rarely pull up barristers who continue to use such methods to undermine child testimony.




> And what a shitty, shitty legal system we have that this is even a discussion


 
Yep, and it's rife pretty much through most adversarial judicial systems, too.


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I'm at work and in a hurry. Read the rest.
> 
> Seriously, if you've never read about rape as despoliation then you're probably not reading enough.


You're in a hurry so it's OK to post up bullshit and still expect people to agree with you?

Edit: started to read your links. Found yet another about oilseed. Gave up


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

There really is no shortage of examples of it being used in modern times, and not just by Johnny Foreigners either.

Even the esteemed Telegraph was using it last year:


> Not the countryside ought to be a party political issue: our natural landscape is something all of us ought to be able to enjoy and ought to want to defend with a passion. It's currently being raped – and from what I've seen and heard and felt in the last few weeks – that's really not too strong a word.
> The rape of Britain has got to stop. Who, among the Tories, is man enough to say so?
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...save-his-party-the-economy-and-rural-britain/


Other UK examples:
http://www.chilla-against-turbines....-of-the-countryside-or-salvation-of-the-world
http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/rural-life/country-view/high-speed-rail-will-‘rape’-the-countryside/34549.article
http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/incinerator-would-rape-countryside-1-687105

But just to recap: it's not a word I like to use in this context, but people are clearly still using it today. It's part of the modern language.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 2, 2013)

yawn-rape is a usage that has nothing to do with rapine/despoliation etc but seems to get a free pass. Also 'frape'?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> That's absolutely fine. Feel free to challenge its usage here if you like whenever you come across it, but don't be surprised if people have different opinions to you.


Naturally. And don't be surprised if your opinion is found similarly disagreeable.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> Have you even bothered to read your own links? The top one is referring to _oilseed rape_ for goodness sake.


 
2 out of 5. NIce way to ignore the substantive point though.

If I had time I could plaster the thread with references to rape as despoliation. Are you saying that the term is archaic or never used? 

Because if so you are absolutely wrong.


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Yes.


Where? The only person talking of mod intervention ive seen is you huffily throwing up your hands. Maybe ive missed something though. Either way, it doesn't seem to me to be either the point of the thread, or what's being discussed by the vast majority of its participants. 

Its possible to discuss this stuff without demanding our conclusions be enshrined in the FAQ. If nothing else, it lets us put a marker on the cunts for future reference.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Naturally. And don't be surprised if your opinion is found similarly disagreeable.


What's disagreeable about my opinion?


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> There really is no shortage of examples of it being used in modern times, and not just by Johnny Foreigners either.
> 
> Even the esteemed Telegraph was using it last year:


 If you read that paragraph he's using the term in close connection and in awareness of to the sexual violence connection. Like I said, this is the baggage that the word has nowadays.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> I am not sure I agree with that TBH. Even when I was a kid at school and objected to the pressure of needing to support a football team, I never really found it difficult to say, 'fuck that'. I always found it easier to be truthful than to pretend. Never got stick for it and can't say I ever really have from people who's opinion I'd give a toss about. It can be frustrating now and again when people assume you're like Danny Dwyer because *you have a cock but I would't say I ever found it hard* or problematic.


 
(((((firky)))))


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> Its possible to discuss this stuff without demanding our conclusions be enshrined in the FAQ. If nothing else, it lets us put a marker on the cunts for future reference.


Well, that certainly is an option


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Are you saying that the term is archaic or never used? Because if so you are absolutely wrong.


 I'm saying that the overwhelmingly dominant meaning nowadays of the word rape is of sexual violence. And I'm fairly bored of having to argue such an obvious point.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> If you read that paragraph he's using the term in close connection and in awareness of to the sexual violence connection. Like I said, this is the baggage that the word has nowadays.


Right, I'm done here.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

I started this thread to try and prevent this one getting hijacked by semantic arguments about the use of the word rape.

Should have posted the link here before.  at self.


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Right, I'm done here.


Is that a real reply to my post?


----------



## elbows (Apr 2, 2013)

In any case it seems likely to me that any problematic, offensive or trivialising uses of the term rape on this forum are far more likely to be of a form where it still retains at least some kind of sexual context or connotation, than when it is used to describe a completely different act. Where it is used in the completely different context it is likely to be in reference to acts that are considered to be of great harm, and therefore the term is not being trivialised in the process. Phrases such as 'the systematic rape of ...' could be applied to something relatively trivial I suppose, but I doubt they often are round here. Its supposed to be a powerful and emotive term, and I doubt that u75 is likely to tolerate the downgrading of it to something far less powerful. Like I said, most trivialisations of rape I've seen have still been in a sexual context, and this is where offence can, will and should be generated.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> What's disagreeable about my opinion?


You advised me not to be taken by surprise if people disagreed with me and I returned the favour. 
I can't see why you felt you had to advise of it in the first place but there you have it.


----------



## elbows (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> I started this thread to try and prevent this one getting hijacked by semantic arguments about the use of the word rape.
> 
> Should have posted the link here before.  at self.


 
Sorry, didnt see this post until after I'd finished my last one.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> I'm saying that the overwhelmingly dominant meaning nowadays of the word rape is of sexual violence. And I'm fairly bored of having to argue such an obvious point.


 
I'm not surprised, because it's a stupid point.

That a word can be used in multiple contexts and very much IS, is hardly a revelation, ffs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Who's we? The clique of Trotskyoid bullies who try to drive off people critical of their views so that others can't hear them? Incidentally, this sort of thing is more prevalent here (but only on the politics sections) than on other forums which discuss the same sort of thing, e.g. http://libcom.org/forums


 
TBF, if you were able to articulate your views as clearly as your passion for holding them, you probably wouldn't generate as much friction in P & P. I mean, you're the person who claimed that "the personal *isn't* political", and then failed to articulate anything approaching a decent argument for why it might be so. Do you not think that your lack of articulation might be involved somewhere along the line; that it isn't all about "Trotskyoid bullies", but at least partially about people who like to hear coherent and considered arguments made to support claims such as yours?


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Has it? Gay didn't use to be used describe homosexuals. Rape hasn't taken on a new meaning.


It has you know. In my youth, it was used as a virtual synonym for sex, by sitcoms as well as juveniles telling jokes, and it was legal to rape a woman within marriage (and as recently as 1991, there were vocal objections to changing the law).

The analogy might not be perfect, but it is nowhere near as far off as you are claiming.

The other thread is the place for this though. The semantics are distracting from what this thread is supposed to be about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What do I have to do to enter into the spirit of thing? Call you an arsehole?


 
"Arsehole" is WAAAYYYYYYYY too vanilla.

Try "wrecked ringpiece".


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not surprised, because it's a stupid point.
> 
> That a word can be used in multiple contexts and very much IS, is hardly a revelation, ffs.


I'm going to stop replying to you, as you're simply not making any sense any more. Get on with your work.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> I'm going to stop replying to you, as you're simply not making any sense any more.


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Arsehole" is WAAAYYYYYYYY too vanilla.
> 
> Try "wrecked ringpiece".


while jean-luc is welcome to insult me as he see's fit, 'wrecked ringpiece' has an air of homophobia (with an edge of male rape) that i personally wouldn't feel comfortable using. x


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


>


get to work, or I'll exterminate you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

treefrog said:


> it's not about occasionally offending someone though, is it? It's the systematic use of language in a way that belittles and insults _half the fucking population by the other half._
> 
> For example, I was sexually assaulted as a child. Sometimes, I find jokes about paedophilia offensive. In fact, I've found them incredibly upsetting. However, I know that people making jokes about such things are not likely to be child rapists, nor are they making those jokes to inflict pain on me. I get offended, sometimes I go home and have a bit of a cry. I get the fuck over it.
> 
> ...


 
Another fantastic post.  (I'm starting to seem sychophantic, aren't I?  )
And you used exactly the right word - "systematic". I'd go as far as to add "systemic", though, because our entire culture is bedded down in patriarchal relations, just as it is bedded down in class relations. I'd argue that it's because of this that change is so creepingly slow, and why for every step forward in gender relations, we take two back.
Someone earlier mentioned a kind of "gender war", where undermined males are fighting back against a culture where males have their noses rubbed in female achievements. I don't agree. In my opinion it is only an "issue" because those with the power and means to do so *make it* an issue. We know that papers like (to use a banal example) _The Daily Mail_ make it an open policy to undermine advances in gender relations - promotion of "poor men!" narratives plays exactly the same game as their constant stories about why women *can't* "have it all". The media, and those whose interests they work in, benefit from patriarchal culture, and benefit from reinforcing patriarchal culture. They *cause* issues, rather than merely reporting them.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> The analogy might not be perfect, but it is nowhere near as far off as you are claiming.


It wasn't meant to be an analogy but an example of an observable semantic shift.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> while jean-luc is welcome to insult me as he see's fit, 'wrecked ringpiece' has an air of homophobia (with an edge of male rape) that i personally wouldn't feel comfortable using. x


 
I was thinking more of curry and beer, myself,but okay!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

lighterthief said:


> Using the word cunt? It's dull, unimaginative and frankly tedious to see it cropping up again and again.
> 
> /rant


 
People feel the same about your posts in general.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Arsehole" is WAAAYYYYYYYY too vanilla.
> 
> Try "wrecked ringpiece".


 


'battered like a calamari' was one my brother trotted out the other day. And I know he isn't quick enough to be minting his own phrases so it must be in semi-common usage round his way...


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> 'battered like a calamari' was one my brother trotted out the other day. And I know he isn't quick enough to be minting his own phrases so it must be in semi-common usage round his way...


Knowing the Greeks there's probably something mansex involved in that new phrase anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I have often thought that magazines are odd.
> What appears in mens magazines? women!
> What appears in womens magazines? women!
> If men want to read mags about women, why do women not want to read mags that are about men?


 
It's not about the subject matter _per se_, it's about how the subject matter is represented/about what "stories" the subject matter tell.

Minor example of differential representation: Get in your time machine, and go back to the '90s. Buy a copy of "Men Only". Look at the pictures, read the accompanying text. Now go to Foyles Bookshop, pick up a £50-100 hardback of "erotic photographs" with similar pictures (sometimes taken by the same photographers) without accompanying text. The first, because the text presents a single obvious meaning on the pictures, is represented purely as masturbation material/sexual stimulus material. The latter, because it doesn't present such a blatant narrative of female sexual availability, is represented as more intellectually-appealing, even though the pictorial material content is the same.


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I was thinking more of curry and beer, myself,but okay!


i'll let you off this time, but i've got my eye on you.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> Have you even bothered to read your own links? The top one is referring to _oilseed rape_ for goodness sake.




I find that offensive - having a grain with the name rape in it.    Most other examples of the word rape don't bother me half as much as other uses of the word.


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> I find that offensive - having a grain with the name rape in it.    Most other examples of the word rape don't bother me half as much as other uses of the word.


 It's pretty bonkers, that name. Sensible north Americans to call it canola imo.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> I find that offensive - having a grain with the name rape in it. Most other examples of the word rape don't bother me half as much as other uses of the word.


 
I have no idea why it's called rape but I suspect the word came from a different etymological root didn't it? Like bail and bale.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 2, 2013)

Random said:


> It's pretty bonkers, that name. Sensible north Americans to call it canola imo.


 
Grapes are worse - those other letters hiding behind the letter 'G' and then trying to look all innocent - makes my blood boil.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I have no idea why it's called rape but I suspect the word came from a different etymological root didn't it? Like bail and bale.


 
It is from a different root.

Chambers is good for etymology:

rape1 noun 1 the crime of forcing a person, especially a woman, to have sexual intercourse against their will. 2 violation, despoiling or abuse. verb (raped, raping) 1 to commit rape on someone. 2 to violate or despoil, especially a country or place in wartime. rapist noun.
ETYMOLOGY: 14c: from Latin _rapere_, to seize and carry off.

rape2 noun the refuse of grapes left after wine-making and used in making vinegar.
ETYMOLOGY: 17c: from French _râpe._

rape3 noun oilseed rape.
ETYMOLOGY: 14c: from Latin _rapum_ turnip.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I have no idea why it's called rape but I suspect the word came from a different etymological root didn't it? Like bail and bale.


 


> The name derives from the Latin for turnip, _rāpa_ or _rāpum_, and is first recorded in English at the end of the 14th century


 
/trivial tangent.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

It's not trivial. 

It's 40% of @spymaster's evidence.


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I have no idea why it's called rape but I suspect the word came from a different etymological root didn't it? Like bail and bale.


Even so, I might try calling it canola now before my children know anything about that grain. Rape doesn't sit well in my mouth


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

Yeah I usually call it "rapeseed oil" but even that sounds a bit wrong.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Farmer's daughter. It doesn't sound at all odd to me, but then it's clear from the context what type of rape is meant, and no analogy is being drawn.

Dad was horribly allergic to it though. Terrible crop.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 2, 2013)

8ball said:


> Grapes are worse - those other letters hiding behind the letter 'G' and then trying to look all innocent - makes my blood boil.




All packaging in Ontario is in both French and English.  When we first arrived, I reached for the grated parmesan and the package said "fromage rape" - I don't like that either.



I think it's those four letters put together - RAPE - sends a shudder of disgust through me.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah I usually call it "rapeseed oil" but even that sounds a bit wrong.




We call it Canola oil here  


(Actually, canola is variant of the rapeseed)


----------



## treefrog (Apr 2, 2013)

It's canola here too.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 2, 2013)

Motion carried - canola it is.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't think calling it canola will help, people will just start using canola as a euphemism for rape if we do that. We should just ban the actual thing - the plant and that.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I hate the stuff and it makes my summers miserable by causing me to sneeze and my eyes to run.


----------



## fogbat (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not about the subject matter _per se_, it's about how the subject matter is represented/about what "stories" the subject matter tell.
> 
> Minor example of differential representation: Get in your time machine, and go back to the '90s. Buy a copy of "Men Only". Look at the pictures, read the accompanying text. Now go to Foyles Bookshop, pick up a £50-100 hardback of "erotic photographs" with similar pictures (sometimes taken by the same photographers) without accompanying text. The first, because the text presents a single obvious meaning on the pictures, is represented purely as masturbation material/sexual stimulus material. The latter, because it doesn't present such a blatant narrative of female sexual availability, is represented as more intellectually-appealing, even though the pictorial material content is the same.



I think you'd be squandering the potential of a time machine if you just used it to buy mucky books


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think calling it canola will help, people will just start using canola as a euphemism for rape if we do that. We should just ban the actual thing - the plant and that.
> 
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I hate the stuff and it makes my summers miserable by causing me to sneeze and my eyes to run.


Is "corn hole" also a vegetable-oil-related term I wonder?


----------



## Joe2369 (Apr 2, 2013)

This is the most boreing string on this forum since Christmas


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Joe2369 said:


> This is the most boreing string on this forum since Christmas


 
I think it's one of the more interesting.

Takes all sorts.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Patronising innit, the other terms are just local words for "person"
> 
> In Tipton you get called wench by people over a certain age, it just means woman there.


 
'lover', 'maid' and 'bird' are common round this way.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> On that particular example, I think the most damaging aspect of it being allowed to be raised in court is precisely because sex offenders take advantage of burgeoning sexuality, and ignorance of the implications of sexual behaviour in younger people. Feeling partially responsible for what happened is a huge part of the burden for many of those who have been abused (of all ages).
> 
> I think it is a lot less likely to be put forward as a defence where the victim was a young boy, especially if he is is not gay or camp. There is no general mythology of men saying no when they mean yes, being evil tempters, or of it being entirely understandable for a man to be driven to desperate measures by his passion for an unconsenting young man.


 
definately. the blame in the later case is put entirely onto the preditory older man who is after the young lad. cause letching after young men is wrong and letching after young women is normalised.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 2, 2013)

xenon said:


> I don't get some people's problem with this. When I worked in a callcentre, you just called peple by what ever title they'd given you. I did call a couple of deep voiced customers sir once at beginning of the call,until they corrected me.  But you just say sorry madam can I take your title and full name please and it's done.


 
i got a bolloking at work by one of the parents for calling her Ms as she didn't like it and wanted to be called Miss.
I knew she was divorced but was not sure if the name she was using was her married or maiden. How was I supposed to be privy to that knowledge.

I think sometimes you just can't get it right now matter how hard you try.
If you tell someone what you like to be called and they ignore it then OK get pissed off.
Or if they don't ignore you but make assumptions about what that means about you when it has nothing to with them then get pissed off.
But don't get pissed off but if they don't know and can't read your mind and just happen to get it wrong.
Or if they need to make a guess about your martial status based on what info they have to say sell you something or they are looking after your child or it's official stuff.
I think sometimes people get far too het up about it for no reason.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

toggle said:


> 'lover', 'maid' and 'bird' are common round this way.


 
I call everyone (everyone I know really well) "my lover", born in Devon, Devon family.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Apr 2, 2013)

Joe2369 said:


> This is the most boreing string on this forum since Christmas


 
why is it even in this forum?


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Miss Caphat said:


> why is it even in this forum?


I don't know. I thought I put it in General. The other one is over there.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 2, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> I saw a female poster saying she didn't like it. I didn't see her saying she thought it was sexist or misogynist. Correct me if I am wrong.


 
I don't like it. I don't think that it is sexist or misogynistic, although that does (of course) depend on the context.

I have also objected to being called 'silly' before on urban, because it's use in that particular context was designed to put me down and dismiss my opinions precisely because I am a woman.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

There was a thread about female sexisim. I was taking it off topic discussing male sexism. I was ask to leave the thread and previously others had suggested starting a thread about male sexism.

I started a thread about male sexism and stated on said thread that people should not carry over arguments from the previous thread.

FridgeMagnet banned me for 24 hours, the excuse was that I was trying to carry on an argument. Thread was instantly deleted. I don't think it even made it into the bins so that people could see what question i got banned for.

So to answer the OP there is already censorship on these boards regarding sexism.


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

finally.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> finally.



Welcome.

Plus last post here.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/do-men-suffer-from-sexism-in-britain.133823/

This one wasn't binned, maybe it was seen as you having an agenda, not saying it was, but might have been seen that way.

I kinda agree FWIW I hate all kinds of stereotypes based on sex, someone I went to school with was always posting shit all over her FB page "Men are this....men are that....blah, blah, blah...."

I couldn't take it any more and told her how shit it was, she unfriended me.

But y'know women have been putting up with sexism in their faces all day, every day, forever.


----------



## killer b (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Plus last post here.


right.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> So to answer the OP there is already censorship on these boards regarding sexism.


That's a _very_ selective interpretation of the story you're presenting there.

The existence of this thread proves that there is no censorship on these boards regarding sexism. If there was it would have been, err, censored.

As you were.


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> I started a thread about male sexism and stated on said thread that people should not carry over arguments from the previous thread.
> 
> So to answer the OP there is already censorship on these boards regarding sexism.


 
.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> That's a _very_ selective interpretation of the story you're presenting there.
> 
> The existence of this thread proves that there is no censorship on these boards regarding sexism. If there was it would have been, err, censored.
> 
> As you were.



If you can assure me of a time where a spin off thread covering female sexism has been deleted (for a given reason other than
the content)  then I'll accept that I was treated equally rather than being censored.

p.s. Killer B, damn you were right.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> If you can assure me of a time where a spin off thread covering female sexism has been deleted (for a reason other than
> the content) then I'll accept that I was treated equally rather than being censored.
> 
> p.s. Killer B, damn you were right.


Can you back up your claim and list some of these sexism threads that have been "censored" and explain why this one has remained untouched?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> The existence of this thread proves that there is no censorship on these boards regarding sexism. If there was it would have been, err, censored.


 
It proves there is no _consistent_ censorship.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

8ball said:


> It proves there is no _consistent_ censorship.


There is no censorship around the discussion of female sexism.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> There is no censorship around the discussion of female sexism.


 
Before it was just sexism.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2013)

8ball said:


> Before it was just sexism.


I was quoting Gromit.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

and as per usual gromit turns up on a thread about sexism, to try to make that thread about him.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 2, 2013)

"but what about the mens????"

answer http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/


----------



## 8ball (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> I was quoting Gromit.


 
Yes, when Gromit's contention was that a thread about male sexism had been deleted, hence if no threads about female sexism had ever been deleted then that would imply a lack of even-handedness.  Not that I'm sure what either is (is 'male sexism' females being sexist about men or vice versa?).


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> There was a thread about female sexisim. I was taking it off topic discussing male sexism. I was ask to leave the thread and previously others had suggested starting a thread about male sexism.


 

woop woop 40 pages before friday


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> woop woop 40 pages before friday


 
please stop trolling this.


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 2, 2013)

did not think i was but I'll behave


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

editor said:


> I was quoting Gromit.


 
Gromit means threads about male oppression.


----------



## Corax (Apr 2, 2013)

toggle said:


> please stop trolling this.


I dunno, I suspect that this thread has hit its constructiveness apex tbh, and pictures of kittens is the only way it will be improved now.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Gromit means threads about male oppression.


 
it would help if he had a clue about what that was though. he seems determined to claim that oppression of working class men by upper class men is in some way beneficial to women.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

Corax said:


> I dunno, I suspect that this thread has hit its constructiveness apex tbh, and pictures of kittens is the only way it will be improved now.


 
might still get somewhere if gromit can stfu and learn


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Gromit means threads about male oppression.



aaaaand here comes the standard and widely supported belittling. An historic tool used to support sexism against both men and women.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

toggle said:


> it would help if he had a clue about what that was though. he seems determined to claim that oppression of working class men by upper class men is in some way beneficial to women.



No i don't.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> aaaaand here comes the standard and widely supported belittling. An historic tool used to support sexism against both men and women.


 
What did I say that was belittling? 

Editor didn't seem to realise what you were getting at, I was clarifying.

You think I'm anti men? think again kidda 

ETA: Kidda - A term I use whatever tackle you happen to have in your trousers and whatever age you are


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

toggle said:


> might still get somewhere if gromit can stfu and learn



No doubt people said that to women once upon a time too.


----------



## Poot (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> No doubt people said that to women once upon a time too.


It wasn't aimed at men. It was aimed at you.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> What did I say that was belittling?
> 
> Editor didn't seem to realise what you were getting at, I was clarifying.
> 
> You think I'm anti men? think again kidda



Sorry I thought you were doing OU's usual Oohhh Oppressed White Males thing.

I don't think men are oppressed. I just believe that the principles of equality should be applied evenly regardless of who does or does not currently holds a balance of power. Eventually things will even out if we treat EVERYONE the same.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Yeah, I consider myself a feminist and believe belittling anyone, whatever sex they are, because of their sex is shite.

I think you'll find the vast majority of feminists think the same way.

I married a bloke FFS


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

Poot said:


> It wasn't aimed at men. It was aimed at you.



And no doubt it was aimed at specific women in the past who had the gall to want to have their opinions expressed.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> And no doubt it was aimed at specific women in the past who had the gall to want to have their opinions expressed.


 
You're just preaching to people that think the same thing though


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Sorry I thought you were doing OU usual Oohhh oppressed White Males thing.
> 
> I don't think men are oppressed. I just believe that the principles of equality should be applied evenly regardless of who does or does not currently holds a balance of power. Eventually things will even out if we treat EVERYONE the same.


If we treat EVERYONE the same - this will mean (for the sake of example) that disabled people will no longer have access to aids to level the playing field and the power inequities will be perpetuated. Equality isn't about treating everyone the same; it's about addressing the power imbalances that result in social injustice.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> You're just preaching to people that think the same thing though



If Toggle thinks the same thing then why is she committing the same crime?


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Thank fuck for people cleverer than me 

@ cesare


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> If we treat EVERYONE the same - this will mean (for the sake of example) that disabled people will no longer have access to aids to level the playing field and the power inequities will be perpetuated. Equality isn't about treating everyone the same; it's about addressing the power imbalances that result in social injustice.



Treat everyone the same when applying the principles of equality. The second sentence was leading off of the first.
In the case you point you are providing equal opportunity. One of the principles.

And co-incidentally something I used to do for a living.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think calling it canola will help, people will just start using canola as a euphemism for rape if we do that. We should just ban the actual thing - the plant and that.



Strange, I've never heard that before and we have been using canola oil for years.  



> This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I hate the stuff and it makes my summers miserable by causing me to sneeze and my eyes to run.



Sorry to heard about your allergies, but I don't think it's canola's fault.  I doubt it is grown in your part of the world.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Treat everyone the same when applying the principles of equality. The second sentence was leading off of the first.
> In the case you point you are providing equal opportunity. One of the principles.


You have been put through, iirc, 26 EO courses and still fail to understand the basic principles.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> No doubt people said that to women once upon a time too.


 
Gromit, at the cutting edge of the fight for equality.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> Strange, I've never heard that before and we have been using canola oil for years.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to heard about your allergies, but I don't think it's canola's fault. I doubt it is grown in your part of the world.


Lots of the stuff is grown in the UK.


----------



## Poot (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> And no doubt it was aimed at specific women in the past who had the gall to want to have their opinions expressed.


Yes, that's kind of what we're discussing. People whose views were ignored because of their sex, not people whose views were ignored because they consistently derailed threads because they couldn't understand that women in daily life have historically suffered more injustice than men and that there is still a long way to go before there is equality.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

Poot said:


> Yes, that's kind of what we're discussing. People whose views were ignored because of their sex, not people whose views were ignored because they consistently derailed threads because they couldn't understand that women in daily life have historically suffered more injustice than men and that there is still a long way to go before there is equality.


 
Why isn't there a white history month?


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Why isn't there a white history month?


http://wheniswhitehistorymonth.tumblr.com/


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

Poot said:


> Yes, that's kind of what we're discussing. People whose views were ignored because of their sex, not people whose views were ignored because they consistently derailed threads because they couldn't understand that women in daily life have historically suffered more injustice than men and that there is still a long way to go before there is equality.



I'm sure historically they thought they had justifications too. Because the women couldn't understand blah blah blah.

Its so easy to say people shouldn't be allowed to talk because in your opinion they don't understand. Its still wrong imo.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> And no doubt it was aimed at specific women in the past who had the gall to want to have their opinions expressed.


 
in the link i posted up in the other thread gromit, there was a bit i think you should have read.

the problem is not that feminists don't like men. there are a lot of men here that we like. we just don't like arseholes, and you are being a complete arsehole.

therefore..............


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

can't stand men myself. especially that DotCommunist fellow.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> can't stand men myself. especially that DotCommunist fellow.


 
that Bakunin is worse


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

toggle said:


> in the link i posted up in the other thread gromit, there was a bit i think you should have read.



Would that be the thread you screamed at me to leave and that I unsubscribed from and so haven't been reading? 
Hmmm let me get my physic reading glasses.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

Me. I'm the worst.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> I'm sure historically they thought they had justifications too. Because the women couldn't understand blah blah blah.
> 
> Its so easy to say people shouldn't be allowed to talk because in your opinion they don't understand. Its still wrong imo.


 
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and be known as one.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> If we treat EVERYONE the same - this will mean (for the sake of example) that disabled people will no longer have access to aids to level the playing field and the power inequities will be perpetuated. Equality isn't about treating everyone the same; it's about addressing the power imbalances that result in social injustice.


 
This is what it took me quite a long time to get my head around. But I see it now. 
I used to kinda think like Gromit (in that post) but slowly over time I have realised that it was wrong even if it came from a goodhearted place.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and be known as one.



the correct quote is I believe.

.. and remove all doubt.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Would that be the thread you screamed at me to leave and that I unsubscribed from and so haven't been reading?
> Hmmm let me get my physic reading glasses.


 
it was linked to, in a post you responded to.

so clearly you weren't considering yourself unwelcome to respond at that point.

and you could perhaps provide evidence of 'screaming;',

how in the hell does someone scream on the internet?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> the correct quote is I believe.
> 
> .. and remove all doubt.


 
my attempt at a sly dig failed


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

toggle said:


> it was linked to, in a post you responded to.
> 
> so clearly you weren't considering yourself unwelcome to respond at that point.
> 
> ...



Was it. I probably did read it then. Did I respond? I've wiped that thread from my mind now. Seeing as I was unwelcome I considered that the best course.

Screaming is my colourful way of saying demanded it in multiple posts.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Was it. I probably did read it then. Did I respond? I've wiped that thread from my mind now.
> 
> Screaming is my colourful way of saying demanded it in multiple posts.


 
I'm a bit of a thicky, I think if we out ourselves openly like it's best all round.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> I'm a bit of a thicky, I think if we out ourselves openly like it's best all round.



I'm not exactly sure that I get what you are attempting to convey here. I could be being the thicky by not understanding though.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Thank fuck for people cleverer than me
> 
> @ cesare


 
Init 

Damn these articulate and intelligent people speaking sense


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> I'm not exactly sure that I get what you are attempting to convey here. I could be being the thicky by not understanding though.


 
Thicky equality achieved 

I should be PM


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> And co-incidentally something I used to do for a living.


 
Really? That's quite sad, but it does go someway to explain why things don't really change.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> Init
> 
> Damn these articulate and intelligent people speaking sense


I'm really, really, not particularly articulate and intelligent


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm really, really, not particularly articulate and intelligent


Rubbish.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Treat everyone the same when applying the principles of equality. The second sentence was leading off of the first.
> In the case you point you are providing equal opportunity. One of the principles.
> 
> And co-incidentally something I used to do for a living.


Equality of treatment when all else is equal. But things don't start from a position of all else being equal. That's why (back in the day) it was thought that first you have to work towards equality of opportunity. That's why they used to call them Equal Opportunities courses.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Was it. I probably did read it then. Did I respond? I've wiped that thread from my mind now. Seeing as I was unwelcome I considered that the best course.
> 
> Screaming is my colourful way of saying demanded it in multiple posts.


 
translation: I only respond to things that support my worldview that women are wrong. i refuse to consider responding to their arguments, but instead make it all about me.

then i use 'colourfull' phrasing that are a clear attempt at a sexist windup and pretend i wasn't trying to when called out on it.

you're an arshole gromit. a willfully ignorant one.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm really, really, not particularly articulate and intelligent


 
What a load of shite! You have influenced, shaped and changed my opinion and view on things more than anyone else on here.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> What a load of shite! You have influenced, shaped and changed my opinion and view on things more than anyone else on here.


Except Valve.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> aaaaand here comes the standard and widely supported belittling. An historic tool used to support sexism against both men and women.


 
If you talk semi-coherent shite, don't you think you deserve to be belittled?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Sorry I thought you were doing OU's usual Oohhh Oppressed White Males thing.
> 
> I don't think men are oppressed. I just believe that the principles of equality should be applied evenly regardless of who does or does not currently holds a balance of power. Eventually things will even out if we treat EVERYONE the same.


 
If you disregard the balance of power, you disempower those on the downside of the balance of power, and privilege those on the upside of the balance.
If, however, you take the balance of power into consideration, you can operate in a way that makes equality more likely, by operating a "handicapping" system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> If we treat EVERYONE the same - this will mean (for the sake of example) that disabled people will no longer have access to aids to level the playing field and the power inequities will be perpetuated. Equality isn't about treating everyone the same; it's about addressing the power imbalances that result in social injustice.


 
Which is precisely why our neoliberal parliamentary representatives do little more than mop at the edges of inequalities.
After all, it wouldn't do to give the lower orders an even break, would it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> I'm sure historically they thought they had justifications too. Because the women couldn't understand blah blah blah.
> 
> Its so easy to say people shouldn't be allowed to talk because in your opinion they don't understand. Its still wrong imo.


 
It's not really about whether you talk (or are allowed to talk) or not _per se_, though. It's about people believing that because they have an opinion, it's as valid as the opinion of someone speaking from experience. That isn't the case. An *informed* opinion has more validity than an uninformed opinion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> can't stand men myself. especially that DotCommunist fellow.


 
Isn't he a homosexualist of the shirtlifting variety, anyway?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> Really? That's quite sad, but it does go someway to explain why things don't really change.



Does it?

I gave disabled people equipment to help them level the playing field. I do not feel that I gave them special treatment. I treated them no differently to others requiring equipment. Accessed their specific needs, provided it, gave them any advice and support they wanted whoever they were. If they were being an idiot and risking their health by ignoring best practice I told them so whoever they were. 

Mostly disabled people were the better customers because they accepted H&S advice more readily. But they also appreciated when i was frank with them because so many pussy foot around them. Most but not all because there are are always people who think H&S is a waste of time. That they are somehow immune to RSI or other WRULDs. 

I think treating anyone differently in such circumstances is insulting them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Me. I'm the worst.


 
Self-praise is no recommendation.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

toggle said:


> translation: I only respond to things that support my worldview that women are wrong. i refuse to consider responding to their arguments, but instead make it all about me.
> 
> then i use 'colourfull' phrasing that are a clear attempt at a sexist windup and pretend i wasn't trying to when called out on it.
> 
> you're an arshole gromit. a willfully ignorant one.



You tell my to STFU then you criticise me for not responding to stuff. You can't have it both ways.

Whats sexist about screaming? Men can and do scream at people?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you disregard the balance of power, you disempower those on the downside of the balance of power, and privilege those on the upside of the balance.
> If, however, you take the balance of power into consideration, you can operate in a way that makes equality more likely, by operating a "handicapping" system.



I can see you are a person who believes in positive discrimination practices.
I see pros and cons to it tbh.

The biggest con imo is that I think attitudes need to change and positive discrimination often fuels negative attitudes towards those receiving it.
They only got the job because they were a...
If they were any good then they wouldn't have had to....
I could have gotten that job but I wasn't a....

But mainly I feel that two wrongs never make a right. Discriminating to fight discrimination just seems too much like becoming the thing you hate to fight it.

I admit I could be wrong and maybe it is the way forward but its never felt right to me.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is precisely why our neoliberal parliamentary representatives do little more than mop at the edges of inequalities.
> After all, it wouldn't do to give the lower orders an even break, would it?



Note the timeline of the release of equality legislation. Note the massive gap. Note when Thatcher was in power.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> I can see you are a person who believes in positive discrimination practices.
> I see pros and cons to it tbh.
> 
> The biggest con imo is that I think attitudes need to change and positive discrimination often fuels negative attitudes towards those receiving it.
> ...


 
I'm not in favour of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination is unnecessary *if* your intention is to achieve equity, because "levelling the playing field" isn't discriminatory, it's "levelling the playing field". You don't discriminate against someone by not giving them what they've already got, and neither do you discriminate *for* someone by giving them what they haven't got.
Positive discrimination is only necessary if what you're looking to achieve is meeting quotas to reflect how "into" equality you are, rather than achieve actual structural change.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is precisely why our neoliberal parliamentary representatives do little more than mop at the edges of inequalities.
> After all, it wouldn't do to give the lower orders an even break, would it?


I see that Gromit has just interpreted this post as advocating positive discrimination rather than what you said - "an even break".


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not in favour of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination is unnecessary *if* your intention is to achieve equity, because "levelling the playing field" isn't discriminatory, it's "levelling the playing field". You don't discriminate against someone by not giving them what they've already got, and neither do you discriminate *for* someone by giving them what they haven't got.
> Positive discrimination is only necessary if what you're looking to achieve is meeting quotas to reflect how "into" equality you are, rather than achieve actual structural change.


Quite.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> I see that Gromit has just interpreted this post as advocating positive discrimination rather than what you said - "an even break".



I didn't quote that quote.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not in favour of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination is unnecessary *if* your intention is to achieve equity, because "levelling the playing field" isn't discriminatory, it's "levelling the playing field". You don't discriminate against someone by not giving them what they've already got, and neither do you discriminate *for* someone by giving them what they haven't got.
> Positive discrimination is only necessary if what you're looking to achieve is meeting quotas to reflect how "into" equality you are, rather than achieve actual structural change.



Then it appears that we believe the same thing and are just arguing semantics over how we express it.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> I didn't quote that quote.


True. Apologies. The point stands though - VP was talking in both posts about levelling the playing field rather than positive discrimination.


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> You tell my to STFU then you criticise me for not responding to stuff. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Whats sexist about screaming? Men can and do scream at people?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Or if they need to make a guess about your martial status based on what info they have to say sell you something or they are looking after your child or it's official stuff.
> I think sometimes people get far too het up about it for no reason.


But why on earth should my marital status have anything to do with selling me stuff or communicating something to me about my child?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> But why on earth should my marital status have anything to do with selling me stuff or communicating something to me about my child?


 
Targeted marketing usually. Feeling-out your demographic to help them and others decide what shit to try to flog you.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Targeted marketing usually. Feeling-out your demographic to help them and others decide what shit to try to flog you.


I'm sure you understand that I was not asking why such information IS used but why SHOULD it be used in that manner. Why should a woman be defined/pigeon holed/classified by her marital status?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I'm sure you understand that I was not asking why such information IS used but why SHOULD it be used in that manner. Why should a woman be defined/pigeon holed/classified by her marital status?


 

Why should anyone? Men are frequently asked the same question. It's easy enough to decline to answer unless it's a required response such as a car insurance quote.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

Oh god. 20 pages.
Didn't vote as I don't know.
It is objectionable but i don't know if it is unacceptable. Maybe it is, as it seems to have become a problem recently and the perps just won't listen. 
If I was in charge, I would expel the individuals concerned, but make it clear that idiots who never learn are an unacceptable presence here, rather than those who hold different views. I wouldn't ban sexist language outright!


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster: Oh really, when are men asked such question? I hadn't considered that.
The difference is that while men may be asked and can consent or decline at will, women declare it by their title (unless they use Ms) and, as we were discussing, people make assumptions about a woman's marital status when addressing her when it is not at all relevant to the purpose of their communication.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Why should anyone? Men are frequently asked the same question. It's easy enough to decline to answer unless it's a required response such as a car insurance quote.


Men don't actually have a system built into the English language by which it's impossible to address them even semi-formally without referring to their marital status.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 2, 2013)

What's that counter-historical essay that somebody wrote which compares it to having different titles for black people depending on whether they are employed or not? I thought it was by Robert Anton Wilson but I can't find it right now.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Spymaster: Oh really, when are men asked such question? I hadn't considered that.


 
Quite often. The last time for me was buying insurance. Also visa apps, sometimes when buying stuff online ...



> The difference is that while men may be asked and can consent or decline at will, women declare it by their title (unless they use Ms) and, as we were discussing, people make assumptions about a woman's marital status when addressing her when it is not at all relevant to the purpose of their communication.


 
Point taken here, but as you say there's the Ms option. Would you rather that "Mrs" was done away with completely?


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Would you rather that "Mrs" was done away with completely?


 
Seems like the obvious solution to me.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 2, 2013)

I'd rather they were all done away with. And replaced with "Comrade", clearly.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> But why on earth should my marital status have anything to do with selling me stuff or communicating something to me about my child?


 
See my post about getting a bollocking from a parent for calling her Ms X as she wanted to she wanted to be called Miss. I knew she was divorced but I didn't know he well enough to call her by her fist name so I put Ms X and she shouted at me in the school bus yard.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'd rather they were all done away with. And replaced with "Comrade", clearly.


Balls to that. Nothing is as cringe-inducing as hearing someone address another person as "comrade".


----------



## kittyP (Apr 2, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Seems like the obvious solution to me.


 
Why? I like being called Mrs.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Why? I like being called Mrs.


It does imply that Badgers owns you. Mister's.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Seems like the obvious solution to me.


 
Interesting thought. I wonder how many women would agree with it.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 2, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It does imply that Badgers owns you. Mister's.


 
But I personally know that that is not true, 
I like people knowing that I am married.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Interesting thought. I wonder how many women would agree with it.


Do a survey and find out?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It does imply that Badgers owns you. Mister's.


 
No it doesn't. It implies that she's married.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> But I personally know that that is not true,
> I like people knowing that I am married.


I'm sure it could be arranged so that the world would know you're married without it implying (however anachronistic the usage) that you're your own person?!


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> No it doesn't. It implies that she's married.


Well yes, it's true that it's from mistress rather than Mister's - I wrote "Mister's" to make a point, but in hindsight it only muddies the waters.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I like being called Mrs.


 
That's the most important thing, it is Kitty's choice. She likes being called Mrs and that's her choice, and as such should be respected.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

I just call her  pigeon woman


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Quite often. The last time for me was buying insurance. Also visa apps, sometimes when buying stuff online ...


It doesn't surprise me that insurers or credit companies ask for it as everybody is classed as less of a 'risk' if they are married... visa applications, well I guess they want as much information about you possible but buying stuff online, really? I've never heard of that before, cant remember being asked specifically for my marital status when simply making a purchase. How peculiar




> Point taken here, but as you say there's the Ms option. Would you rather that "Mrs" was done away with completely?


 Good question. I wouldn't want to deprive people of the opportunity of self identifying as married, a state they have entered into of their own free will but while the title Mrs exists then the title does imply an alternate state or status. While i wouls feel happy at it's abolition, i wonder if other women would think it fair. I'll think about that.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> See my post about getting a bollocking from a parent for calling her Ms X as she wanted to she wanted to be called Miss. I knew she was divorced but I didn't know he well enough to call her by her fist name so I put Ms X and she shouted at me in the school bus yard.


Yes  I did see it and it struck me that the incident was a rather strange over reaction. You seemed to say that we should not really mind if people make assumptions about marital status in promotions or communications about our children but I disagree because I don't think it is any way relevant or useful to do so.And I do mind, very much.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> .... but buying stuff online, really? I've never heard of that before, cant remember being asked specifically for my marital status when simply making a purchase. How peculiar.


 
On reflection, I could be imagining that bit. I think the times I've been asked when making a purchase is when I've filled out an accompanying "voluntary questionnaire".

But with the exception of "Mrs" to signify marriage, when else are women asked their marital status?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

i've seen it as a question on job application forms


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i've seen it as a question on job application forms


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i've seen it as a question on job application forms


 
Same here on blokes forms. No employers that I'm aware of have gender specific job application forms.

Are there any instances where women are asked and blokes not though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> On reflection, I could be imagining that bit. I think the times I've been asked when making a purchase is when I've filled out an accompanying "voluntary questionnaire".
> 
> But with the exception of "Mrs" to signify marriage, when else are women asked their marital status?


lots of people supply the information on their cvs, though that's not a formal question

oh, and people (including women) are asked their status on eg benefit forms.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 2, 2013)

I hope i'll be forgiven for crossposting the below... because it's the absolute evidence that we need everyone who finds sexism offensive to speak up when they see it:



Johnny Vodka said:


> If I did in real life rather than with about 3 people on the internet, I probably would.


 


Casually Red said:


> well i dont . Most women think Im quite nice and polite and even tell me so . Its only the odd one on here . Which by your logic would probably make them wrong.


 


Spymaster said:


> What if it's only a couple of women on U75, when all the other dozens of women in real life have no issues whatsoever with ones behaviour on that count?


 
when it's the usual suspects again and again, we can be ignored.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Same here on blokes forms. Few employers that I'm aware of have gender specific job application forms.
> 
> Are there any instances where women are asked and blokes not though?


 
I *think* it's illegal to ask the marital status of anyone


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Why? I like being called Mrs.


I wouldn't attack your right to identify yourself as whatever you wish but may I ask why you like the title or why you think it may be important to yourself or to other women? What pleasure or advantage is there in it for married women?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> What pleasure or advantage is there in it for married women?


a question many married women doubtless ask themselves on a regular basis.

*gets coat*


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2013)

They ask on job seekers forms and more.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I woulN attack your right to identify yourself as whatever you wish tummy I ask why you like the title or why you think it may be important to yourself or to other women? What pleasure or advantage is there in it for married women?


i also prefer mrs... because i'm really glad i'm married to my husband - i love him to bits and for me, personally, marriage was something very meaningful (though i completely accept that it's not for other couples with equally strong and happy relationships).  anyway, being married is very important to me, and i like people knowing that.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> I *think* it's illegal to ask the marital status of anyone


I don't even think asking for gender is legal if it isn't some sort of exempt job. Though it isn't usually very hard to tell from name and CV. Even if your name isn't on it, if you went to St Cake's School For Girls you may be female.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

Gromit said:


> They ask on job seekers forms and more.


yes we know


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> I *think* it's illegal to ask the marital status of anyone


They ask for your title on a lot of forms


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 2, 2013)

toggle said:


> that Bakunin is worse


 






'BAKUNIN! YOU TERRIBLE CUNT!'


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

"Mrs" is important to me because we've been to hell and back in our relationship, for a long time now it's been very, very right, getting married was like the public deceleration of how ace we both think the other is.

I'm dead proud of being married to him, I feel the same way about my wedding ring (so does he).

His (our) name is still shite though


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> "Mrs" is important to me because we've been to hell and back in our relationship, for a long time now it's been very, very right, getting married was like the public deceleration of how ace we both think the other is.
> 
> I'm dead proud of being married to him, I feel the same way about my wedding ring (so does he).
> 
> His (our) name is still shite though


you can change your name though. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/engla...s_and_changing_your_name_e/change_of_name.htm


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> They ask for your title on a lot of forms


 
Just put "Reverend"


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> They ask for your title on a lot of forms


now you're a teacher you should put 'sir'


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Just put "Reverend"





Pickman's model said:


> now you're a teacher you should put 'sir'


or reverend sir


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you can change your name though. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/engla...s_and_changing_your_name_e/change_of_name.htm


 
I know but I don't really care if I have my father's name or my husband's name. Makes no difference to me.

I'm just "Liz"


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> I know but I don't really care if I have my father's name or my husband's name. Makes no difference to me.
> 
> I'm just "Liz"


pleased to meet you


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> Just put "Reverend"


One I filled in had a drop down box with a plethora of titles from Air Marshal to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän on it (well, not really, but it had a lot of obscure titles on the list


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> One I filled in had a drop down box with a plethora of titles from Air Marshal to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän on it (well, not really, but it had a lot of obscure titles on the list


so are you going to put 'sir' on these forms in future?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> now you're a teacher you should put 'sir'


Librarian, not teacher. but, yes, i still look behind me occasionally when addressed as sir.
Funnily enough, I get called Miss often too.
Why do female school staff get called 'Miss' habitually?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> so are you going to put 'sir' on these forms in future?


Perhaps


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Libraria, not teacher. but, yes, i still look behind me occasionally when addressed as sir.
> Funnily enough, I get called Miss often too.
> Why do female school staff get called 'Miss' habitually?


librarian? i hope you've joined cilip.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> ... getting married was like the public deceleration of how ace we both think the other is.


And Mrs is the continuation of that public declaration for you, spangles, kittyP and other women then I suppose. 

I can't imagine it for myself and I don't think I could divorce it from the baggage which comes with the title,even if it is symbolic of loving commitment but each to their own.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> librarian? i hope you've joined cilip.


I can only join as a friend


----------



## weepiper (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Libraria, not teacher. but, yes, i still look behind me occasionally when addressed as sir.
> Funnily enough, I get called Miss often too.
> Why do female school staff get called 'Miss' habitually?


 
Because it's not so long (two generations) since women were expected to give up their jobs when they got married.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Libraria, not teacher. but, yes, i still look behind me occasionally when addressed as sir.
> Funnily enough, I get called Miss often too.
> Why do female school staff get called 'Miss' habitually?


 
It's the polite form of address for students to use with female teachers.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's the polite form of address for students to use with female teachers.


Yes. I am aware of this. I work in a school and went to one myself. 
weepiper has provided a plausible reason.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 2, 2013)

Ma'am would be better.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> i also prefer mrs... because i'm really glad i'm married to my husband - i love him to bits and for me, personally, marriage was something very meaningful (though i completely accept that it's not for other couples with equally strong and happy relationships). anyway, being married is very important to me, and i like people knowing that.


I won't change my name professionally, but I will happily be Mrs Him for aspects of our personal life. His parents have welcomed me with open arms, and they are my family now too, so of course I won't object to using their name when it makes sense to do so. And with my family, well a black man from south London is always going to need a  confidence booster faced with a farming family from the Fens. So I'll proudly take his name then too.

The simplest solution of course, is not for women to lose choices but for men to gain them. I propose Msr for married men and Mr if they want to be coy about it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

I think people who marry should change their names into a new, compound name. C'mon, it will be fun!


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

But the problem with an alternative married title for men and for women is that the status is defined by alterity: Mrs, or Msr, if it were introduced, would be defined in opposition to the marital status of the other so the problem would be renamed not removed.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I think people who marry should change their names into a new, compound name. C'mon, it will be fun!


I would consider changing my family name, I'd much rather be known as Ms Shifty-Utan than Mrs Utan


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

The Spanish do this via their kids. Much better.

Resolutely refusing to change your name only passes the problem down the generations. I knew a Tamil woman who kept her name. Her husband was very blond British and all the children looked very anglo-saxon. She got treated like the child-minder by the school and other parents, because not only did they not look much like her, they didn't have the same name either.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I would consider changing my family name, I'd much rather be known as Ms Shifty-Utan than Mrs Utan


I thought you'd never ask!


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I would consider changing my family name, I'd much rather be known as Ms Shifty-Utan than Mrs Utan


 
What about your daughter when she gets married? And hers


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> But the problem with an alternative married title for men and for women is that the status is defined by alterity: Mrs, or Msr, if it were introduced, would be defined in opposition to the marital status of the other so the problem would be renamed not removed.


Mr would be for married men who prefer Mr to Msr. Msr wouldn't be compulsory.

As long as men and women have the same choices of title. I couldn't give a flying fuck how many or what they mean or even if we just abolish them altogether.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Father's name, husband's name, what's the difference?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> The Spanish do this via their kids. Much better.
> 
> Resolutely refusing to change your name only passes the problem down the generations.


Ahh, but what problem and whose problem are we talking about now...


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 2, 2013)

i changed my name from my father's name to my husband's.  i wanted us to have the same name.  he didn't care and thought it was odd for me t go through the admin hassle.  therefore, if i wanted us to have the same name, it was going to have to be his - cos it would be wrong to impose a change on him that he didn't want in the first place.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

Ok, how about if you get married, you have to cut a finger off?


----------



## toggle (Apr 2, 2013)

we're both changing our names. at least that's the plan


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> What about your daughter when she gets married? And hers


It could just get very longed dead until we used initials...
Or both sons and daughters could choose either matrilineal or patrilineal name according to their own preference.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Ok, how about if you get married, you have to cut a finger off?


Can you keep it frozen somewhere in case of divorce?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Can you keep it frozen somewhere in case of divorce?


Only until our society is truly equal. Then, tough shit - you made a bad decision


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I wouldn't attack your right to identify yourself as whatever you wish but may I ask why you like the title or why you think it may be important to yourself or to other women? What pleasure or advantage is there in it for married women?


 
I'd guess it is because she simply loves her husband.

E2A:

Not my place to answer, sorry, just seems the most obvious reason.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> I'd guess it is because she simply loves her husband.


You can love your husband without coupling your identity with his.


----------



## JimW (Apr 2, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'd rather they were all done away with. And replaced with "Comrade", clearly.


One of the good changes (to my mind) that came in during the collective era in China was people would refer to their partner as their "airen" ('beloved') as a unisex term. Only hear old folk (and me  ) still using it these days, with gendered stuff off HK dramas coming in like 'laogong' for husband.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> You can love your husband without coupling your identity with his.


 
You can but some people want that union of two becoming one. I guess they'd do the same thing if it was the husband who adopted the wife's name, I know I would.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 2, 2013)

JimW said:


> One of the good changes (to my mind) that came in during the collective era in China was people would refer to their partner as their "airen" ('beloved') as a unisex term. Only hear old folk (and me  ) still using it these days, with gendered stuff off HK dramas coming in like 'laogong' for husband.


The change from "husband"/"wife"/"boyfriend"/"girlfriend" to "partner" in English is something that's relatively recent here. I find it interesting how it was originally just for social workers and that PC sort but now, it's very much accepted and the standard, because it prevents any awkward misunderstandings and imprecisions.

I think it's more about British fear of social embarrassment than anti-discrimination tbh


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

I took his name rather than the other way round because it would have properly upset his parents, and confuse and upset his sister come to that.

I don't want to upset people I care about by keeping one man's name over another's


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> You can love your husband without coupling your identity with his.


But I wouldn't be. My name is fairly well known in my field and no way would I change it. Plus, I'm the main breadwinner, I don't need to make him feel small by saying he's not important enough to acknowledge.

I asked him if he'd mind if I used his name when we get married yesterday, as it happens. He beamed.

Oh yeah, I asked him if he'd marry me a bit before that and he said, yeah.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> But I wouldn't be. My name is fairly well known in my field and no way would I change it. Plus, I'm the main breadwinner, I don't need to make him feel small by saying he's not important enough to acknowledge.
> 
> I asked him if he'd mind if used his name when we get married yesterday, as it happens. He beamed.
> 
> Oh yeah, I asked him if he'd marry me a bit before that and he said, yeah.


 
I asked Mr Loo 

Edit: And that down there vvvv


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> But I wouldn't be. My name is fairly well known in my field and no way would I change it. Plus, I'm the main breadwinner, I don't need to make him feel small by saying he's not important enough to acknowledge.
> 
> I asked him if he'd mind if used his name when we get married yesterday, as it happens. He beamed.
> 
> Oh yeah, I asked him if he'd marry me a bit before that and he said, yeah.



Congratulations to you both!


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

I've found women have wanted to marry me just to adopt my surname it is so awesome 

E2A:

Did you just propose, ymu? Congrats, dude


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 2, 2013)

Firky said:


> I've found women have wanted to marry me just to adopt my surname it is so awesome


 
No it isn't.


----------



## Firky (Apr 2, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> No it isn't.


 


It is better than my middle-name


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> But I wouldn't be. My name is fairly well known in my field and no way would I change it. Plus, I'm the main breadwinner, I don't need to make him feel small by saying he's not important enough to acknowledge.
> 
> I asked him if he'd mind if used his name when we get married yesterday, as it happens. He beamed.
> 
> Oh yeah, I asked him if he'd marry me a bit before that and he said, yeah.


Congratulations to you both


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The change from "husband"/"wife"/"boyfriend"/"girlfriend" to "partner" in English is something that's relatively recent here. I find it interesting how it was originally just for social workers and that PC sort but now, it's very much accepted and the standard, because it prevents any awkward misunderstandings and imprecisions.
> 
> I think it's more about British fear of social embarrassment than anti-discrimination tbh


I started using it in the late 1980s, because I thought it was a bit shit that gay people were effectively forced to come out to total strangers by using a neutral term. Then it just started to feel more normal and 'grown-up' and everyone was using it. Then I started to use it more for more serious relationships and not randoms you happened to be introducing someone to.

Oh look, words change connotation over time. Who'da thunk it?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> But I wouldn't be.


I wasn't talking about you or your relationship. I was responding to Firky's post saying that the preferring to be called Mrs or by a husband's surname cannot be attributed to something as simple as loving your partner since many people love their partners without marrying, or even in marrying without taking their name. There seems to me to be something more profound going on whether that be tradition, identity, symbolic union or departure from a previous state or status.... I was interested in hearing why women might want to identify themselves in another way.

It is also interesting that you say you didn't want to make him feel small as I suppose one ought to consider the impact it does have one men and whether they feel more masculine or emasculated by the woman's choice in taking or not taking their name.
I don't really want to get into it as I am unwell but it's worth thinking about.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

Sorry, I missed the context.

It can be for all sorts of reasons, and I think all of them are fine. It's not as simple as loving your partner, no. But under some circumstances, it is. It might be to make families happy or keep village life serene or, just because.

He's the least sexist person I know (thank you, the usual suspects, for making me realise I needed to make sure I kept a good hold of him ), and he's surprised I want to. But pleased too. Being feminist doesn't mean being insensitive to how men are affected by the challenges in areas many of their fathers (and mothers) told them they would automatically dominate.

I would hate it if he was earning and I wasn't, and it is inevitably much harder for him because, regardless of his own feelings, people question whether it's fair. I couldn't do my work without his support at home, but somehow that doesn't count as earnings? It affects him the same way as this shit does women, with the added burden of the male stereotype piled on top.

So I ain't gonna quibble over the little things. If, heaven forbid, I'd fallen for a domineering rich dude, I would feel very differently.

/ramble


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> It can be for all sorts of reasons, and I think all of them are fine. It's not as simple as loving your partner, no. But under some circumstances, it is. It might be to make families happy or keep village life serene or, just because.


But some circumstances, such as your example of keeping village life serene are societal pressures and, to my mind at least, that's not fine.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

I grew up in a village with 20 houses and everybody knew my gran. My auntie scandalised the place as a young 'un. 

That wouldn't be a problem any more, but families from the Caribbean are still a bit old-fashioned about this kind of thing. I wouldn't bother correcting his older relatives if they assumed we were already married. Let's put it that way.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Yes I did see it and it struck me that the incident was a rather strange over reaction. You seemed to say that we should not really mind if people make assumptions about marital status in promotions or communications about our children but I disagree because I don't think it is any way relevant or useful to do so.And I do mind, very much.


 
No. I have previously stated that people are entitled to not like people making assumptions about their marital status if it has no baring on the situation. Sorry sales was a mistake, I was wrong to mention it. 
I don't know about all school situations but the SEN school I work in, it's important to build and maintain good relationships with children parents/families so you can know about their home life as lots of the students are incapable of telling you anything about home themselves. 
It helps to know what the exact situation is at home even if they can tell you some of it and they often get mixed up. 
Considering I am not a teacher and a lot of the work is tied to pastoral stuff and child protection, a good ground knowledge of home and family is important.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 2, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I'm sure it could be arranged so that the world would know you're married without it implying (however anachronistic the usage) that you're your own person?!


 
Like what?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Like what?


A missing finger


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Like what?


Could be anything couldn't it? You could change your name to Kitty Badgerswife?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 2, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Could be anything couldn't it? You could change your name to Kitty Badgerswife?


 
Now you are just being silly young man


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

I think the Wee Ape's suggestion was better actually.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Now you are just being silly young man


We'll have none of that demeaning language around here, Mrs.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

I'm off to bed you cunts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 3, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> Strange, I've never heard that before and we have been using canola oil for years.


 
I was only joking 





spring-peeper said:


> Sorry to heard about your allergies, but I don't think it's canola's fault. I doubt it is grown in your part of the world.


 
If it's the same stuff as oil seed rape it definitely is - there's a field near my mum's that's full of the stuff in the summer.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 3, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I was only joking


 
 me too  



> If it's the same stuff as oil seed rape it definitely is - there's a field near my mum's that's full of the stuff in the summer.



I wasn't joking that allergies sucked  

tbh - I'd never heard of rapeseed until a couple of weeks ago, Urban introduced it to me.  What a horrid name!!!


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 3, 2013)

kittyP said:


> No. I have previously stated that people are entitled to not like people making assumptions about their marital status if it has no baring on the situation.



In your post you did also say that women sometimes get het up about it for no good reason as well which is what made it seem, I don't know, trivial. 

As for child protection, well, I should imagine that those are not really situations where you might need to make a guess about the marital status when communicating with parents. People frequently address letters as 'Parent/Carer of ....' Which would seem the most diplomatic way if you have had little or no contact with the parent or carer. The school would also, presumably have a record of the parents details so you shouldn't really be put in the position of having to guess either.

I'm not going to bang on about it, particularly as I seem to be the only person who gives a shit, but your post did raise the point of when, if ever, it is appropriate or advisable to make these assumptions.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

It not about making assumptions in this case, it's about being forced to guess when people don't tell you. 
It's not like if someone gives me the name Ms x that I think oh they must be a lesbian or divorced. 
It's about gathering the correct information. 
If someone won't give you information because they think it's none of your business then sometimes you are forced to guess, which doesn't really help either but when you're trying not to offend any one or put your foot in it, you do your best.
Not all people are as honest as you possibly are. 
Parents sometime lie and conive and outright confuse everyone including there own children. 
When planning for lessons such as pshe, which are really fucking important for kids withy SEN, it's helps to have all the details so no one gers upset or surprised etc. 

Also you would be surprised what info does not gets passed on from year to year.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 3, 2013)

I found for a while that to just address people as john Bishop or Jane Smith and then Dear John Bishop etc seemed to get around it. But then of course there are people who want to be called Dr Jane Smith or something. I think if they want to be addressed in a particular way the onus is on them to make sure people know this.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2013)

I'm gonna change my name to The Head.
That'll bamboozle them!


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 3, 2013)

kittyP said:


> It not about making assumptions in this case, it's about being forced to guess when people don't tell you.
> It's not like if someone gives me the name Ms x that I think oh they must be a lesbian or divorced.
> It's about gathering the correct information.
> If someone won't give you information because they think it's none of your business then sometimes you are forced to guess, which doesn't really help either but when you're trying not to offend any one or put your foot in it, you do your best.
> ...


Why not just use 'Parent/Carer of' if they don't wish to declare it to you or they lie or get the correct information from the school.
If you're talking about parents who lie to/about/in front of their children then its a situation rather more complex than addressing letters which was what we were talking about

'Not all parents are as honest as you possibly are'. What does that mean?


----------



## ymu (Apr 3, 2013)

E-mail makes this easier, of course. If you've ever met them, it's OK to just use their first name. 

These are troubles of times past.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:
			
		

> Why not just use 'Parent/Carer of' if they don't wish to declare it to you or they lie or get the correct information from the school.
> If you're talking about parents who lie to/about/in front of their children then its a situation rather more complex than addressing letters which was what we were talking about
> 
> 'Not all parents are as honest as you possibly are'. What does that mean?



You said, I think, I'm on my phone and it's difficult to look back, that it was no one's business what your marital status is, that's more than what goes on letters. 
I'm not talking about letters, I'm talking about dealing with children. 

If your child is well informed of your situation and what that means then brilliant, but how am I as a care giver supposed to know. 
Parents of children of school age, there relationship / marital status, are often not static. 
Parents get married, separated, divorced, meet new people and marry them. 

Is it really that terrible an idea to keep a school informed of that home situation? 
What do you lose by telling them? 

Ok, it's maybe not so important in a mainstream secondary. 
But to assume that it is never anyone else's business what your marital status is is a little naive imho. 

School admin, electronic, data systems get changed and updated so often nowadays thar it's no surprise that info gets changed or not updated effectively. 
Why is it so bad if a new teacher or support staff ask what the home situation is so they can be sure?


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 3, 2013)

"Dear fellow human"

Too much?


----------



## ymu (Apr 3, 2013)

Doesn't help kitty though. 

I don't think there is any problem with making mistakes and situations will arise. Apologising immediately, mebbe kinda facepalming yourself if the situation is right for it. If they are unreasonably annoyed, just behave better than them until they calm down.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

ymu said:
			
		

> E-mail makes this easier, of course. If you've ever met them, it's OK to just use their first name.
> 
> These are troubles of times past.



Lots of our parents either don't use email or won't give you their email address. 
I have only ever had email contact with one parent that I was only dealing with in school. 
Sometimes administration staff have an email address but it's is not available to class staff. 


And no, I don't think it's fair to assume that if you have ever met someone they will be ok with them using their first name. 

I'm not just talking about addressing letters. 
I'm talking about having a good ground knowledge of home situation.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 3, 2013)

I'd honestly say most folk don't think this hard about it, I'm not sure facepalms are necessary.

Whether that's right or wrong is a whole other thing.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

ymu said:
			
		

> Doesn't help kitty though.
> 
> I don't think there is any problem with making mistakes and situations will arise. Apologising immediately, mebbe kinda facepalming yourself if the situation is right for it. If they are unreasonably annoyed, just behave better than them until they calm down.



I'm not talking about just making mistakes with parents. 
I'm also talking about making them with kids which is much harder. 
Some kids spend far more time with school staff than they do with their families. They talk, ask questions, get upset and confused. 
Why deny someone the right to possibly help comfort your child just because you don't want to tell them your marital status.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2013)

I don't see how knowing someone's marital status is going the help comfort their child.
'Its ok. Your mum's not married.'


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I don't see how knowing someone's marital status is going the help comfort their child.
> 'Its ok. Your mum's not married.'




Yes of course that's the way you deal with a situation 

You tell me how it could hurt knowing? 
Ok, let's not use marital but family status instead. 
Knowing if mum, dad, nan whoever is at home helps. 
Knowing if people have joined or left helps. 
Your relationship status mostly goes hand in hand with your family status when you have young children. 
How is someone supposed to know if Ms means your divorced, never married but dad's at home, never married but dad's absent, married and dad's at home and you didn't change your name, married but you never changed your name and dad's absent. I could go on with more examples. 
Are you so nieve to think these things don't have an effect on children?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 3, 2013)

kittyP said:


> You said, I think, I'm on my phone and it's difficult to look back, that it was no one's business what your marital status is, that's more than what goes on letters.
> I'm not talking about letters, I'm talking about dealing with children.


We were talking about formally addressing people which most commonly these days takes the form of letters and paperwork. I said that a woman should not be addressed according to an assumed marital status. I believe that stands for mothers.
Why we have digressed onto your job, my 'possible' honesty and whether schools should have a full social profile of all of their children, I don't know but it's not a conversation I want to entertain but it does in fact emphasis how weighted a woman's title is to many people in society.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2013)

Surely the idea of Ms is so people don't know? As it's none of their business


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Surely the idea of Ms is so people don't know? As it's none of their business



As I said, some kids spend more time with other people than they do with their families. 
Can you really not envisage that there would ever be a time when their parents relationship status is poignant to a child when the parent isn't there? Really? 
What about a child's rights as well as their parents?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2013)

What? You're not really making any sense.
Time for bed for me I think.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What? You're not really making any sense.
> Time for bed for me I think.



Ok if you're tired but I think that makes perfect sense.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Ok if you're tired but I think that makes perfect sense.



No, that's not why it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense cos it doesn't explain why knowing a mother's marital status helps comfort a child. Knowing their home situation may help, but that is not the same as knowing a mother's marital status. 
Good night.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> We were talking about formally addressing people which most commonly these days takes the form of letters and paperwork. I said that a woman should not be addressed according to an assumed marital status. I believe that stands for mothers.
> Why we have digressed onto your job, my 'possible' honesty and whether schools should have a full social profile of all of their children, I don't know but it's not a conversation I want to entertain but it does in fact emphasis how weighted a woman's title is to many people in society.


 
OK fair enough.
But I did start down this line quite a bit further back and I thought that it was fairly obvious that I was not just talking about formal addressing on letters and such.
You say 'possible' honesty with a tone that insinuates that I was questioning your honesty, which I just want to make clear I wasn't.
I am not making it about my job, I am trying to explain that there are times when someones, anyone' s relationship status is poignant.
The difference between it being a man or woman's relationship status is that it was you talking and I know you are a women. If a man had said the same thing I would have given them the same argument.
And yes it is a shame that sometimes a woman's relationship status is weighted in the way you are talking about.
But in the circumstances I was describing it's not weighted, its important for men and women to be honest. It is other peoples business.
I would never have said anything if you had not said that it was *never* anyone else's business what you relationship status is. That was what I was arguing. That is why I bought kids and schools in to it. And yes it is the same for men in this instance.
If you had said that it was not _*usually*_ anyone else's business then fair enough but I think it is naive and unfair to think that these things could never be poignant to or have a baring on or effect your child when you are not around.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> No, that's not why it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense cos it doesn't explain why knowing a mother's marital status helps comfort a child. Knowing their home situation may help, but that is not the same as knowing a mother's marital status.
> Good night.


 
So you leave me with an argument and then say goodnight....? 

You go to bed but I''ll explain anyway. 

As I already said, when you have young children your (men and women) martial status often has a huge baring on your family situation.
Often marital status's are not static for parents of children of school age. They change a lot, as I said already.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 3, 2013)

kittyP said:


> OK fair enough.
> But I did start down this line quite a bit further back and I thought that it was fairly obvious that I was not just talking about formal addressing on letters and such.


 I don't think that it was abundantly clear as initially it was also about promotions.



> You say 'possible' honesty with a tone that insinuates that I was questioning your honesty, which I just want to make clear I wasn't.


 When you said 'Not all parents are as honest as you possibly are' and then did not explain when I subsequently asked what you meant then it is difficult to draw a conclusion about what you intended or did not intend to insinuate about my own personal honesty.



> I am not making it about my job, I am trying to explain that there are times when someones, anyone' s relationship status is poignant.
> The difference between it being a man or woman's relationship status is that it was you talking and I know you are a women. If a man had said the same thing I would have given them the same argument.
> And yes it is a shame that sometimes a woman's relationship status is weighted in the way you are talking about.
> But in the circumstances I was describing it's not weighted, its important for men and women to be honest. It is other peoples business.
> ...


I believe that you are conflating marital status with familial harmony, they are not one and the same thing and this position is more naive than mine. The title' which is what the discussion was about, can only denote your legal status not the security of your home life and, as you know, an insecure family life can arise from any number of factors of which marital status is not the most significant.
I believe that a professionals in contact with children should respond to the child's immediate needs: if they are in distress then comfort them based on the distress they present to you rather than according to a presumption of where their distress may stem. 
I am not convinced that an institution should have the presumed right to personal information on the basis that people have little to lose in disclosing it. Your choice of words is also a little perturbing: that women should be honest about it, as opposed to dishonest?  That's incredibly unbalanced and I think it's wrong on many fronts.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:
			
		

> I don't think that it was abundantly clear as initially it was also about promotions.
> 
> When you said 'Not all parents are as honest as you possibly are' and then did not explain when I subsequently asked what you meant then it is difficult to draw a conclusion about what you intended or did not intend to insinuate about my own personal honesty.
> 
> ...



All I can really say is you have totally confused pretty much everything I have said. 
A lot of that is presenting me and my opinions in a way I am not very happy about to be honest. 
I am not stupid, I know that marital status and family harmony do not equate to the same thing. I was not suggesting they did. 
I don't make presumptions, I work with what is presented in front of me. 
You are making massive assumptions about my choice of words. 
I was talking about all family members in the end, not just women, it's just that the conversation started with women not wanting to disclose their marital status. 
You are reading far too much in to what I was saying, stuff that's not there. 
I'm gonna stop because I don't want this to become personal and offensive.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

Oh and for the record, when I said not all parents are as honest as you possibly are, it was a compliment, I wasn't accusing you of dishonesty in the slightest. In fact the opposite.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 3, 2013)

Okay, but on reflection I hope you see that it wasn't my intention and not my generally style to misrepresent what people say. I'm giving you my response to what you've said and I haven't made any personal attacks on you and nor would I wish to.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 3, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:
			
		

> Okay, but on reflection I hope you see that it wasn't my intention and not my generally style to misrepresent what people say. I'm giving you my response to what you've said and I haven't made any personal attacks on you and nor would I wish to.



No, I know you of old on here, I've met you in real life and you're totally cool. 
I think maybe we are both projecting a bit and getting too defensive.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 3, 2013)

kittyP said:


> No, I know you of old on here, I've met you in real life and you're totally cool.
> I think maybe we are both projecting a bit and getting too defensive.


Likewise and it's fine to disagree with people you like. It's easy to take things the wrong way on t'internet and I'm sure we wouldn't fall out talking about it in the pub.
The only thing I was in danger of taking personally was the possible honesty thing but I now think perhaps you meant my readiness to volunteer information about my family background (which for the record is limited: I tell the school what I think is relevant for them to understand and care for my child but I will retain my/our right to privacy).


----------



## Yu_Gi_Oh (Apr 3, 2013)

I do find it confusing that it's overwhelmingly women who change their names upon marriage.  Why do so few men want to adopt their wives name?  Why is it more important to women than men?


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 3, 2013)

genetics mostly methinks


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 3, 2013)

Yu_Gi_Oh said:


> I do find it confusing that it's overwhelmingly women who change their names upon marriage.  Why do so few men want to adopt their wives name?  Why is it more important to women than men?


I think very few men grow up imagining or expecting or even entertaining the likelihood that they will change their name.   OTOH, even in an apparently post feminist society, women grow up knowing that it might happen, or that it's an option, or that lots of other women do.


----------



## killer b (Apr 3, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> genetics mostly methinks


just fuck off.


----------



## ymu (Apr 3, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> I think very few men grow up imagining or expecting or even entertaining the likelihood that they will change their name. OTOH, even in an apparently post feminist society, women grow up knowing that it might happen, or that it's an option, or that lots of other women do.


Or that if their name is a pain in the arse to spell out, or connects them to youthful indiscretions, they can change it, if they want to.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 3, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I found for a while that to just address people as john Bishop or Jane Smith and then Dear John Bishop etc seemed to get around it. But then of course there are people who want to be called Dr Jane Smith or something. I think if they want to be addressed in a particular way the onus is on them to make sure people know this.


I do tell people I want to be called Dr EG. Doesn't make any difference to some of them.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 3, 2013)

The way it always worked at my house was that teachers etc got away with Mr and Mrs, or Drs X and Y, but Dr and Mrs usually got a tart reminder


----------



## Poot (Apr 3, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> The way it always worked at my house was that teachers etc got away with Mr and Mrs, or Drs X and Y, but Dr and Mrs usually got a tart reminder


I know a Mr and Dr and this seems to cause no end of confusion. And she has the audacity to keep her maiden name as well as being married and a Dr. Attention seeking, clearly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> The way it always worked at my house was that teachers etc got away with Mr and Mrs, or Drs X and Y, but Dr and Mrs usually got a tart reminder


not quite the way i'd have put it


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I do tell people I want to be called Dr EG. Doesn't make any difference to some of them.


i tell people i want to be called dr p's m. doesn't make the blindest bit of difference


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

Yu_Gi_Oh said:


> I do find it confusing that it's overwhelmingly women who change their names upon marriage. Why do so few men want to adopt their wives name? Why is it more important to women than men?


there's an increasing number of people retaining both names, so they'd be mr & mrs double-barrel rather than mr & mrs double.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 3, 2013)

I did notice but decided to just leave it hanging out like that.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> there's an increasing number of people retaining both names, so they'd be mr & mrs double-barrel rather than mr & mrs double.


And Ax would have it that the double barrel is also a double helix.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> And Ax would have it that the double barrel is also a double helix.


i'll give him both barrels.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> I did notice but decided to just leave it hanging out like that.


what's all that about?


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 3, 2013)

Dunno. Been on holiday, feeling a bit weird this morning.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll give him both barrels.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> Dunno. Been on holiday, feeling a bit weird this morning.


that'll be the comedown


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 3, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> "Dear fellow human"
> 
> Too much?


 
 -  species-ist


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Balls to that. Nothing is as cringe-inducing as hearing someone address another person as "comrade".


 
CTR, you'll like it or you'll go to the wall, *comrade*!


----------



## TruXta (Apr 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> CTR, you'll like it or you'll go to the wall, *comrade*!


Who's gonna make me?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> genetics mostly methinks


 
You're a protozoan. You don't know genetics from a salt-beef bagel!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Who's gonna make me?


 
The comrades, comrade. The comrades.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're a protozoan. You don't know genetics from a salt-beef bagel!


 
Bloke at my work took his wife's name.

We did a DNA test - it was positive.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The comrades, comrade. The comrades.


The comrades will be too busy knifing each other in the back to get onto the Central Vanguardist Committee to bother with people like me.


----------



## Corax (Apr 3, 2013)

Yu_Gi_Oh said:


> I do find it confusing that it's overwhelmingly women who change their names upon marriage. Why do so few men want to adopt their wives name? Why is it more important to women than men?


Conditioning/tradition


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

Corax said:


> Conditioning/tradition


Rooted in property.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

TruXta said:


> The comrades will be too busy knifing each other in the back to get onto the Central Vanguardist Committee to bother with people like me.


 
Such people are not comrades, comrade. They are ruling-class scum and their _kulak_ henchmen, and deserve more than a knife to the back - two or three knives to the back, perhaps!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> Rooted in property.


 
It couldn't *not* be, given our history.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It couldn't *not* be, given our history.


And the property angle is class related of course ...


----------



## Corax (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> Rooted in property.


Sure. But whilst useful context, I think that the importance of historical origins for traditions (or words, or other stuff) isn't always as relevant as some people will make out when it suits their PoV.  (For clarity, I'm not accusing you of doing so)

It is, and should be, a choice for the individual. Women shouldn't be _expected_ to take on their husband's name - but equally those that choose to do so shouldn't be judged as somehow making a choice that is counter to feminist principles. Men should also be free to choose, and take on their wife's name if that's their preference. Many, _many_ factors will play into those choices. To be honest, if a couple can't agree on something as essentially inconsequential as naming, it's probably best that they don't commit to each other anyway as there will undoubtedly be other equally contentious but more important issues that they will need to agree on in future.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

Corax said:


> Sure. But whilst useful context, I think that the importance of historical origins for traditions (or words, or other stuff) isn't always as relevant as some people will make out when it suits their PoV. (For clarity, I'm not accusing you of doing so)
> 
> It is, and should be, a choice for the individual. Women shouldn't be _expected_ to take on their husband's name - but equally those that choose to do so shouldn't be judged as somehow making a choice that is counter to feminist principles. Men should also be free to choose, and take on their wife's name if that's their preference. Many, _many_ factors will play into those choices. To be honest, if a couple can't agree on something as essentially inconsequential as naming, it's probably best that they don't commit to each other anyway as there will undoubtedly be other equally contentious but more important issues that they will need to agree on in future.


Oh aye. I was just commenting on why it's still so pervasive tbh. We were still property within our grandparents'/greatgrandparents' lifetimes - ie within living memory, and family naming traditions still understandably flow from that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> And the property angle is class related of course ...


 
Predominantly, yes.
But then it always comes back to class, much as some people might wish it didn't.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Predominantly, yes.
> But then it always comes back to class, much as some people might wish it didn't.


Whilst the amount of property* owned by the working class was less a century ago, the relative importance of property ownership was concentrated in the ruling class who had every reason not to want to relinquish control over it.

*including women


----------



## Gromit (Apr 3, 2013)

Yu_Gi_Oh said:


> I do find it confusing that it's overwhelmingly women who change their names upon marriage.  Why do so few men want to adopt their wives name?  Why is it more important to women than men?



My ex once told me that if we got married she would not be taking my name. That statement hurt. Her objection was not feminists grounds she just didn't want to be known by a surname which is an adjective for big. Vanity eh!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> Whilst the amount of property* owned by the working class was less a century ago, the relative importance of property ownership was concentrated in the ruling class who had every reason not to want to relinquish control over it.
> 
> *including women


 
They still have, to be fair.
I do find it interesting that despite what was a very obviously-loaded system in terms of class and gender prjudices, there were still successful working class and _petit bourgeois_ (in the Marxian sense) women. Doctor Johnson's long-term partner kept a hold of *and* built her brewing business in spite of dirty tricks from male rivals, for example.

I think, in terms of expropriation of ruling class property, we should start with people who have Norman surnames!


----------



## ymu (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> Whilst the amount of property* owned by the working class was less a century ago, the relative importance of property ownership was concentrated in the ruling class who had every reason not to want to relinquish control over it.
> 
> *including women


 
Did a double take on which word was asterisked there, and then went: oh, yeah.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

Gromit said:


> My ex once told me that if we got married she would not be taking my name. That statement hurt. Her objection was not feminists grounds she just didn't want to be known by a surname which is an adjective for big. Vanity eh!


 
Common sense, if you're of small stature, though. Your adopted surname would effectively mock you if that were the case!


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

ymu said:


> Did a double take on which word was asterisked there, and then went: oh, yeah.


Yep  We weren't actually people in our own right until 1929.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think, in terms of expropriation of ruling class property, we should start with people who have Norman surnames!


 
And forenames.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

8ball said:


> And forenames.


 
An excellent point!


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> They still have, to be fair.
> I do find it interesting that despite what was a very obviously-loaded system in terms of class and gender prjudices, there were still successful working class and _petit bourgeois_ (in the Marxian sense) women. Doctor Johnson's long-term partner kept a hold of *and* built her brewing business in spite of dirty tricks from male rivals, for example.
> 
> I think, in terms of expropriation of ruling class property, we should start with people who have Norman surnames!


Yes, there's still a vested interest in the ruling class doing what's possible to perpetuate patriarchy (including hindering feminism) under capitalism because they feed off each other. Although to be fair patriarchy predated capitalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yes, there's still a vested interest in the ruling class doing what's possible to perpetuate patriarchy (including hindering feminism) under capitalism because they feed off each other. Although to be fair patriarchy predated capitalism.


 
As did male-centric primogeniture.


----------



## ymu (Apr 3, 2013)

I find it quite interesting to look at how the world changed through my dad's life. War baby, traditional, male-dominated, authoritarian, farming family which he's desperate to escape but can't, unlike his little sister who can, but needs amphetamines to get out of the house, she's so shy. Generations growing up in the same house, often at the same time. Mother wasn't allowed to learn to drive so he taught her when she was widowed; she died in a car crash, but he knows her freedom was much more important than a risk-free existence.

Coming of age in the sixties and starting his own family when all that suddenly became very old-fashioned and much of it just plain wrong. I've watched him 'grow up' adapting to the world as it changed around him, and seeing his daughters get the kind of education he was never allowed and his son do something else altogether. He was pretty sexist and a bit of a bully when we were kids, but he's capable of recognising that and taking responsibility for it and it's not hard to see what he was going through.

It's confusing for a lot of men of that generation, and where a lot of the usual suspects are coming from, albeit with different cultural details.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

And on occasion with cultural derails


----------



## Corax (Apr 3, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's confusing for a lot of men of that generation


This generation as well, I'd suggest.

Whilst I'm not 'excusing' bad behaviour, I can see that current societal expectations of young men are often contradictory to each other.

(young men aren't unique in that of course)


----------



## Ax^ (Apr 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're a protozoan. You don't know genetics from a salt-beef bagel!


----------



## Glitter (Apr 3, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Why? I like being called Mrs.



Me too but I don't really know why (although it gives me a reason to talk about the wedding)

All my instincts tell me Ms is absolutely the right way to go for everyone. But I don't use it. Odd.


----------



## Corax (Apr 3, 2013)

Glitter said:


> All my instincts tell me Ms is absolutely the right way to go for everyone.


I don't want to be a 'Ms'.


----------



## ymu (Apr 3, 2013)

But, you'd look so purdy.


----------



## CyberRose (Apr 3, 2013)

Interesting thread and has made me think a bit, especially the debate over whether assumptions based on Ms/Miss/Mrs/etc was sexist or a woman's right to choose.

On the Penny thread (yes I'm an avid reader ) she wrote an article based on a website called Nice Guys of OK Cupid (which is a dating site) which essentially 'outs' men who moan about being nice but shunned by women and then go on to make some kind of sexist remark (I actually see the website more as a form of cyber-bullying against people with social inadequacies altho some clearly deserve it, but that's by the by). One of the main examples is the answer to the question "should men be the head of households?" to which a 'yes' answer is considered sexist. While the website is clearly searching men's profiles, I also have a profile and as a straight man have read loads of women's profiles and their answer to that same question. While not in the majority, I've noticed that a very large proportion of women also answer 'yes' to the men as heads of households question. I personally don't agree that men should be heads of households (I even find the term 'head of household' to be outdated, let alone thinking it should be ascribed to one gender or another) and would tend to agree that men who do should be considered sexist. However, this is a dating site and a man and woman who both believe men should be heads of household clearly have something in common so in this context it's a useful thing to know/state whatever your personal thoughts on it are.

This is really causing me a lot of confusion and I'd be interested to hear others' opinions. While I support equal rights and would be opposed to anything that discriminates against women/treats women differently, I also support a woman's right to choose how to live their lives. In the example above, considering men to be the heads of households is clearly discriminatory ('women should know their place' etc) but at the same time women who also believe this have a right to do so. The two however would seem somewhat contradictory (it might even be argued that women who think men should be heads could be considered sexist themselves if this is an expectation on men). 

I'm struggling to even finish this post without possibly coming across as either being judgemental or patronising! I guess what I'm trying to ask is what do people think about something a woman chooses to do that may at the same time be considered by others as entrenching sexist attitudes?


----------



## toggle (Apr 3, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> I'm struggling to even finish this post without possibly coming across as either being judgemental or patronising! I guess what I'm trying to ask is what do people think about something a woman chooses to do that may at the same time be considered by others as entrenching sexist attitudes?


 
I had some contact elsewhere on the net with women who made a choice to have their husband as head of household, which including giving him the right to treat them as children needing protecting (and physical chastisement) but while the right to choose is something feminists fight for, not every choice is a feminist one.

A fe3w years ago, I read Dworkin's 'right wing women'. which looks into the women who make anti feminist choices. She explained it thusly: women don't live in an equal society. we get left holding the baby, we get paid less, society condemn us for whatever we choose and we stay in shit relationships cause that is the only realistic financial option(she's American and it's a lot more true there). Our options for finding stability are either to fight for equality where we can support ourselves and and kinds we have, and choose a partner only for love/sex/companionship or fight for the return to 'chivalric' style society where moral constructs demanded men support women.

anti feminist choices are about that latter option. ignoring the fact that to put either sex in charge will likely lead to rampant hypocrisy. We have enough examples of that in patriarchal societies and I can't for one minute entertain the idea that a matriarchy would be any different.

what I'd like to see is a society of the sort where women don't feel the need to make anti feminist choices to protect themselves and their children. but I condemn and fight the society that makes them think that is their best option. not them unless they try to force their views onto me.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

Cyber rose, I personally don't think there's a need for a "head of the household" at all. Don't see why there's a need for anyone to be in charge.


----------



## CyberRose (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cyber rose, I personally don't think there's a need for a "head of the household" at all. Don't see why there's a need for anyone to be in charge.


Yea me neither, agree completely - it was just an example that had stuck in my head after seeing the article Laurie Penny had written (and the website it was about). I suppose other examples could be lap dancers (which I'd thought of using due to the recent article on the BBC about the teachers' conference)


----------



## CyberRose (Apr 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> what I'd like to see is a society of the sort where women don't feel the need to make anti feminist choices to protect themselves and their children. but I condemn and fight the society that makes them think that is their best option. not them unless they try to force their views onto me.


Yes something else I had considered is to what extent some of these choices would be made in a truly equal society without patriarchal pressure. I suppose in the absence of such a society the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" applies.

I don't think there's anything wrong with men and women doing things differently - let's face it, we _are _different, but there's a huge difference between being different (which is very often something that is/should be celebrated) and being _treated _different/inequality - and in an equal society none of these choices would ever be seen as having a negative impact.


----------



## ymu (Apr 3, 2013)

CyberRose

Thoughtful stuff. 

I think it is about everyone having choices. Women who want to feel secure with a financially reliable partner are not doing anything wrong. I think it is madness that the pro-middle-class women forms of feminism have resulted in two earners being needed to have the spending power of one forty years ago, with the same amount of childcare and housework needing done and still mostly by a woman. That is not feminism.

My partner looks after stuff around the house so that I can work, and we get to spend our leisure time together instead of scrambling to keep house and spending more to buy quality time. I don't want every man to choose that role, because it would just be a different set of people forced into unpaid labour which leaves them insecure and at higher risk of poverty. I want single income families, community childcare, and a completely free choice within couples as to who takes responsibility for the various things that need to be done over a lifetime of being a family.

Also, it is arse about face to consider that women who make financial choices based on their imposed role as provider of eye-candy and sex are any kind of 'problem' for feminism. The problem is restricting their choices in the first place. I read a feminist blog the other day that said let him pay for your drinks, it's not like we get a 25% discount on purchases just because employers get a 25% discount on us. I find it hard to disagree, but I've never ended up going out with a rich man, so I don't have to search my conscience on that one.

I know lots of men who would love to stay at home, and plenty that do. I want everyone to have that choice as much as I want everyone to have a fair shot at work and a fair shot at a decent pay packet (by which I mean, decent pay for all). It's happening, but there still isn't the free choice for everyone, especially not in ways that offer benefits to men in return for removing the invisible privilege they previously took for granted.

I was at a meeting with four other women the other day and every single one of us had a stay-at-home partner. Only two had kids. The rest of us do it because we're lucky enough to have those choices. Everyone should.


----------



## CyberRose (Apr 3, 2013)

ymu said:


> I was at a meeting with four other women the other day and every single one of us had a stay-at-home partner. Only two had kids. The rest of us do it because we're lucky enough to have those choices. Everyone should.


Think I was trying to make a similar point above. In an equal society these choices simply wouldn't be considered as being a "gender" choice, rather a "relationship" choice between two equals (and that could be expanded into pretty much all other areas of society...). Think I'm just about getting my head round my own question! Cheers!


----------



## Corax (Apr 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> She explained it thusly: women don't live in an equal society. we get left holding the baby, we get paid less, society condemn us for whatever we choose and we stay in shit relationships cause that is the only realistic financial option(she's American and it's a lot more true there). Our options for finding stability are either to fight for equality where we can support ourselves and and kinds we have, and choose a partner only for love/sex/companionship or fight for the return to 'chivalric' style society where moral constructs demanded men support women.
> 
> anti feminist choices are about that latter option.


Whilst I'm sure that's true for most, I'm also pretty confident that (just like men) some women are just dicks.

That's not intended as much of a constructive addition to the debate, I'm just a dick and think I'm funny...


----------



## ymu (Apr 3, 2013)

People in diverse group of individuals shock!


----------



## Gromit (Apr 3, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> (I even find the term 'head of household' to be outdated,


A phrase designed to let men think they were the boss at home for the sake of their egos. An illusion when quite clearly they weren't in most cases.

Boss of the garden shed perhaps but not the home.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2013)

a thousand facepalms


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

Gromit said:


> A phrase designed to let men think they were the boss at home for the sake of their egos. An illusion when quite clearly they weren't in most cases.


a word you'll find on censuses going back donkey's years btw, eg 'arthur machen - - - head / amelia machen - - - wife' (1891 census)


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> a thousand facepalms


if you did that each time gromit posts some godawful guff there'd never be sufficient time to finish facepalming before the next shite comment appeared.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cyber rose, I personally don't think there's a need for a "head of the household" at all. Don't see why there's a need for anyone to be in charge.


what about 'figurehead of household'?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cyber rose, I personally don't think there's a need for a "head of the household" at all. Don't see why there's a need for anyone to be in charge.


 
Some have greatness thrust upon them


----------



## toggle (Apr 3, 2013)

Gromit said:


> A phrase designed to let men think they were the boss at home for the sake of their egos. An illusion when quite clearly they weren't in most cases.




if you had a clue, you would know it stems from situations such as household suffrage, which was the system in place in a few areas before the great reform act. the head of house had the vote and in a very few situations this was a woman. this situation changed when voter registration requirements were equalized in 1832.it also had a status in paying rates such as the poor rate.after 1884, there was a scam by which many officials/landlords tried to put the woman as head of household on the poor rate paperwork if the husband was away fro a while, because it was his name on that paperwork that qualified him to vote. hence decreasing the size of the working class vote. i'd suspect that it was important in other ways before that as well, but this I was reading about earlier today.

far, far more interesting than your shite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Some have greatness thrust upon them


some have greatness thrust past them.


----------



## fogbat (Apr 3, 2013)

In the unlikely event I ever got married, I like to imagine we'd both swap surnames, largely out of spite.


----------



## petee (Apr 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> while the right to choose is something feminists fight for, not every choice is a feminist one.


very true, but a tough one to sell. a little while ago i mentioned (on this site) that in marriage i didn't want my wife to take my name (because, simply, i'm not her and she's not me). i was hit with bricks for this, and one poster claimed iirc that it was "interesting that i didn't let her do what she wanted." so as long as a woman makes a choice, it has to be accepted because it was made by a woman, and i was a sexist, not for doing anything controlling, but only for asserting my own interests. i think this attitude is quite widespread.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Some have greatness thrust upon them


Yes, sometimes things happen that way.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 3, 2013)

toggle said:


> if you had a clue, you would know it stems from situations such as household suffrage, which was the system in place in a few areas before the great reform act. the head of house had the vote and in a very few situations this was a woman. this situation changed when voter registration requirements were equalized in 1832.it also had a status in paying rates such as the poor rate.after 1884, there was a scam by which many officials/landlords tried to put the woman as head of household on the poor rate paperwork if the husband was away fro a while, because it was his name on that paperwork that qualified him to vote. hence decreasing the size of the working class vote. i'd suspect that it was important in other ways before that as well, but this I was reading about earlier today.
> 
> far, far more interesting than your shite.



Now tell me something I didn't already know.


----------



## fogbat (Apr 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yes, sometimes things happen that way.


It's fun when that happens, ime.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2013)

fogbat said:


> It's fun when that happens, ime.


Depends on the circumstances!


----------



## fogbat (Apr 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> Depends on the circumstances!


 
Good point. I think I may have missed your point


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> I find it quite interesting to look at how the world changed through my dad's life. War baby, traditional, male-dominated, authoritarian, farming family which he's desperate to escape but can't, unlike his little sister who can, but needs amphetamines to get out of the house, she's so shy. Generations growing up in the same house, often at the same time. Mother wasn't allowed to learn to drive so he taught her when she was widowed; she died in a car crash, but he knows her freedom was much more important than a risk-free existence.
> 
> Coming of age in the sixties and starting his own family when all that suddenly became very old-fashioned and much of it just plain wrong. I've watched him 'grow up' adapting to the world as it changed around him, and seeing his daughters get the kind of education he was never allowed and his son do something else altogether. He was pretty sexist and a bit of a bully when we were kids, but he's capable of recognising that and taking responsibility for it and it's not hard to see what he was going through.
> 
> It's confusing for a lot of men of that generation, and where a lot of the usual suspects are coming from, albeit with different cultural details.


 
Interesting post - And while my dad would probably have chinned me if I'd described him as a feminist, the old goat did believe in and passionately live by the concept of equality. As a union rep, he stood up for this woman who worked in the canteen who objected when some of the lads in his workplace were getting their own brews rather than waiting for her to pour them - "You're doing her out of a job" was the phrase he used to get them onside. And she wasn't even in his union. Yeah, there's a whole other thing going on as to why she's  the one pouring the drinks, but the way I see it he went out of his way to stick up for a fellow worker who was in a vulnerable position.

I think it came from being brought up by a single mum in a two berth flat with ten brothers and sisters and lodgers as well - In a scene like that there's no way women could be seen as less than men coz everyone's contribution was not just welcome but properly needed. No time for prejudice, pragmatism is the order of the day in a gig like that.

I've spoke to my mam about this since my dad died and while my mam never got on with my dads mam (coz she was a mad catholic basically), she has said "I proper respect Anne (my dads mam), how the _fuck_ she ran that house I'll never know"


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2013)

fogbat said:


> Good point. I think I may have missed your point


Aye, I was thinking of all the adverse things that can happen along the way that result in one person needing to run a household.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

If the privilege of doing all the unpaid necessity work puts women in such a powerful position, why aren't there more men queuing up to put their economic future in the hands of someone else? Who wouldn't be delighted about it, especially if that someone else is so insecure and obsessed with their self-image that they'd dump them for a better class of eye-candy as soon as fatherhood took its toll.

I prefer the kind of privilege which allows me to pay the rent tbh. Security is what I want and it doesn't strike me as very secure, relying on the earning partner not to become an arsehole as soon as they become an ex-partner. The kind of parasitic man (or, more rarely, woman) who can regard their earning power as solely down to their own efforts and justify leaving the stay-at-home parent of their kids destitute simply because they were mug enough to give up their own earning potential to bring up the children of a preening arsehole.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 4, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> I'm struggling to even finish this post without possibly coming across as either being judgemental or patronising! I guess what I'm trying to ask is what do people think about something a woman chooses to do that may at the same time be considered by others as entrenching sexist attitudes?


Interesting point isn't it because feminism has fought for a woman's right for power and autonomy so it would seem wrong to deny any woman her right to make any choice which suited her.
However,there is a part of me that believes it is necessary to act on principle and that we should eradicate all behaviours in both men and women which feed into those entrenched attitudes as it must, to some degree, perpetuate them. Strident? Dogmatic? I'm not sure and at the same time I don't want to be overbearing and say people must do this or that when they have their own reasons for the choices they make. So I'll stay sitting on the fence.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Do people really want to live in double-income families?

Economic imperatives aside. If half the workforce said fuck that for a game of soldiers and we created full employment overnight, say. Wouldn't we all be better off?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Do people really want to live in double-income families?
> 
> Economic imperatives aside. If half the workforce said fuck that for a game of soldiers and we created full employment overnight, say. Wouldn't we all be better off?



Personally I'd like to see employers paying enough for a single income to support 2 people and a family but half each of that income is paid to the both people (split in half) rather than paid to one person.

It becomes more complicated when a split is involved because of all the different variables of who gets remarried when etc. and how much custody of the child they get, also complicated due to whether or not they live near or not. But I'm sure a fair system could be devised for all.

Single people with no kids reap the rewards of not having to bear these costs. Making the decision to have kids a much less frivolous one.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Yeah. Because women regularly have kids for frivolous reasons. We have nothing better to do with our lives than bring up a child we never really wanted, after all. 

Half pay going to the stay at home partner solves nothing. That should be a given anyway, via the earning partner not being an arsehole. It doesn't alter the fact that they lose out on training and work experience and end up rejoining the workforce with a fraction of the earning power of a partner who has been able to take advantage of that time to build a future and a credit rating which their partner has no automatic right to benefit from if they split.

Many working-class men don't get the opportunity to substantially increase their wage over a lifetime either, of course (one of the downsides of the minimum wage), but working-class women have no chance when they cannot earn enough to cover childcare so, by default she gets to do it for free.

There aren't any easy solutions, but if someone gives up their future economic security in order for another person to enhance theirs, it should not be allowed to fuck them over in perpetuity if things go wrong in the relationship.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2013)

Did you mean your own decision not to have kids there Gromit? Cos it can be read either way.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yeah. Because women regularly have kids for frivolous reasons.



Some people (not women but people) do. Yes some do.

In no financial or emotional state to have kids but do because they of some concept that it will make their lives better.

For a council house.
Keep the brooding girlfriend happy.
Paper over the cracks of their failing relationship.
Carry on my family name.
All my mates are doing it.
Trap the other into a commitment.

I'm sure others can come up with other reasons why some people have taken such a major life decision for not necessarily the right reasons.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> Did you mean your own decision not to have kids there Gromit? Cos it can be read either way.



I was once in a position where my partner and I had to decide was it right for us to bring a life into the world at that point in time. It wasn't and so we didn't. Thanks for that the mini pill


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> I was once in a position where my partner and I had to decide was it right for us to bring a life into the world at that point in time. It wasn't and so we didn't. Thanks for that the mini pill


I asked only cos your comment about frivolous reasons could be just referring to your own decision, or a wider comment. I thought I'd ask you which it was cos as a wider comment it's provocative. #782 clarified it, thanks.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Half pay going to the stay at home partner solves nothing. That should be a given anyway, via the earning partner not being an arsehole.



You want arseholes to magically not act like arseholes. Well they won't. You know why? Cause they are arseholes.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Yes, I know. Hence, these threads.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yes, I know. Hence, these threads.


 
Do you mean that these threads are caused (directly or indirectly) by arseholes, or that these threads are meant to be somehow addressing arseholes, or the causes of arseholes?  Or that they help keep arseholes occupied with less arseholey pursuits?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> You want arseholes to magically not act like arseholes. Well they won't. You know why? Cause they are arseholes.


 
Then it needs to be made very clear to them that sexist arseholery won't be tolerated on here.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2013)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Then it needs to be made very clear to them that sexist arseholery won't be tolerated on here.


 
There have been some interesting additions to the FAQ's since I last looked at them:




			
				FAQs said:
			
		

> ...racists, bullies, sexist oafs, bigots and general all-round irritating arses...'Sheeple'-accusers, bigoted gun nuts, ranting xenophobes, cut'n'pasters, god-squadders, disruptive 'comical' alter-egos, conspiraloons, fruitloops, small minded bigots etc. are not welcome.


 
<bit of a compression there as I'm quoting from 2 separate rules, but the meaning is undistorted>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Some people (not women but people) do. Yes some do.
> 
> In no financial or emotional state to have kids but do because they of some concept that it will make their lives better.
> 
> For a council house.


 
Are you taking the fucking piss?
That may have been true 20-30 years ago for a tiny minority of women, it hasn't been true since then, because even with need-based lets, there isn't enough housing stock in circulation for every pregnant woman who applies for social housing to be socially-housed, not even one in ten of those who do.

For fucking fuck's sake!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> Did you mean your own decision not to have kids there Gromit? Cos it can be read either way.


speaking for myself, i think we should all be very happy that gromit hasn't bred.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are you taking the fucking piss?
> That may have been true 20-30 years ago for a tiny minority of women, it hasn't been true since then, because even with need-based lets, there isn't enough housing stock in circulation for every pregnant woman who applies for social housing to be socially-housed, not even one in ten of those who do.
> 
> For fucking fuck's sake!



You know that. I know that. Doesn't stop people believing the myth that if they pop one out they are sorted for a house and acting upon it.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Then it needs to be made very clear to them that sexist arseholery won't be tolerated on here.



She wasn't talking about here and neither was I. She was talking about people being cunts when it came to money and the person who takes the role of homemaker, child carer etc,.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

They believe the myths because twats like you spread them.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> There have been some interesting additions to the FAQ's since I last looked at them:<bit of a compression there as I'm quoting from 2 separate rules, but the meaning is undistorted>


Those bits have stayed the same for years.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> She wasn't talking about here and neither was I. She was talking about people being cunts when it came to money and the person who takes the role of homemaker, child carer etc,.


No, I wasn't.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> They believe the myths because twats like you spread them.



I wasn't spreading it. I was pointing out that some people make a bad decision because of that myth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> You know that. I know that. Doesn't stop people believing the myth that if they pop one out they are sorted for a house and acting upon it.


 
Except that if they've any experience of the real world, they'll know it's not true.
It's an ancient trope. You'd have to be stupid enough to believe that the word "gullible" is no longer in the Oxford English Dictionary, to believe that particular load of shite.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> I wasn't spreading it. I was pointing out that some people make a bad decision because of that myth.


 
Where does the myth come from, if not from scummy tabloid journalists and the idiots who spread their poison?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> She wasn't talking about here and neither was I. She was talking about people being cunts when it came to money and the person who takes the role of homemaker, child carer etc,.


 
There are arseholes in every walk of life.  Even here.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> No, I wasn't.



This:


ElizabethofYork said:


> Then it needs to be made very clear to them that sexist arseholery won't be tolerated on here.



Was a reply to this:



Gromit said:


> You want arseholes to magically not act like arseholes. Well they won't. You know why? Cause they are arseholes.



Which was a reply to this:



ymu said:


> Half pay going to the stay at home partner solves nothing. That should be a given anyway, via the earning partner not being an arsehole.



At what point in that stream weren't you?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Where does the myth come from, if not from scummy tabloid journalists and the idiots who spread their poison?



Thats exactly where it comes from. Doesn't make my statement that some people make bad decisions from bad information any less true. I can't make that statement without referring to the bad information that has been spread


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

You won't work it out by taking it all out of context.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Thats exactly where it comes from. Doesn't make my statement that some people make bad decisions from bad information any less true. I can't make that statement without referring to the bad information that has been spread


The onus is on you to mention the myth without propogating it. You failed.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2013)

editor said:


> Those bits have stayed the same for years.


 
That may be so.  Haven't looked in a very long time but I dimly remember the debate about whether sexism should be added.  Certainly wasn't aware of the conspiraloon bit - doesn't seem to be enforced.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> The onus is on you to mention the myth without propogating it. You failed.



Please demonstrate how that is done then if you are so clever.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> Certainly wasn't aware of the conspiraloon bit - doesn't seem to be enforced.


Oh yes it does.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Please demonstrate how that is done then if you are so clever.


Noting that it is a myth would be a good place to start.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Please demonstrate how that is done then if you are so clever.


You have been propagating myths on here all along, you dishonest cur


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh yes it does.


 
I'll be holding you to that, pending a good definition of the term. 

edit: Now that's fast.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> You won't work it out by taking it all out of context.



Out of context?! That was the order of the conversation via quoted replies.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> A phrase designed to let men think they were the boss at home for the sake of their egos. An illusion when quite clearly they weren't in most cases.
> 
> Boss of the garden shed perhaps but not the home.


And here is one of them. From the seventies.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Noting that it is a myth would be a good place to start.



I need to spoonfeed the obvious to Urban?

I had no idea idea you had so little respect of the intelligence of this readership.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> And here is one of them. From the seventies.



God have none of you realised that this was a piss take. The garden shed bit is the fucking giveaway.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> God have none of you realised that this was a piss take. The garden shed bit is the fucking giveaway.


Yeah yeah - we still know what you're thinking, Bernard


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> God have none of you realised that this was a piss take. The garden shed bit is the fucking giveaway.


and would the same be true of your previous ten thousand posts?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Yeah yeah - we still know what you're thinking, Bernard



If a woman says "We all know who really wears the trousers in this house" its all taken light-heartedly. She's probably given a pat on the back too.

If I say it I'm failing to recognise years of oppressions by making light of it.

Good fucking grief.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Lest we forget:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/20024193/?q=Trolling&o=date&c[user][0]=1612
My theory is that this trolling persona is a get out clause. He spouts antediluvian shite attitudes then hides behind the 'I was only trolling/joking/taking the piss' mask


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

It wasn't even trolling. That post was a quip, a gag, a light hearted joke.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

Lest we forget:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/20024422/?q=is+a+twat&o=date&c[user][0]=3081


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> It wasn't even trolling. That post was a quip, a gag, a light hearted joke.


Which betrays your Stone Age attitudes


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Which betrays your Stone Age attitudes



I'll remember that next time a woman makes he same joke and point it out to her.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Lest we forget:
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/20024422/?q=is+a+twat&o=date&c[user][0]=3081


How does this further any of your points?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> I'll remember that next time a woman makes he same joke and point it out to her.


What has this to do with you making shit sexist jokes on a thread about sexism? You cite an imaginary source of a woman making a similar joke as if this is proof of your soundness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> What has this to do with you making shit sexist jokes on a thread about sexism? You cite an imaginary source of a woman making a similar joke as if this is proof of your soundness.


he's sound as a drum: there's nothing inside.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Which betrays your Stone Age attitudes


what have you got against stone age men, many of whom behaved perfectly decently towards women?


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what have you got against stone age men, many of whom behaved perfectly decently towards women?


You forgot to log in as Gromit


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> How does this further any of your points?



You tell me. You seem completely unable to take a thread on its own dragging in the past. Why is that?

You remind me of my ex telling me about her ex-husband who was impossible to live with because he was ALWAYS dragging up the past.
Can never move on. Really holds on to grudges.
Why is that?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> If a woman says "We all know who really wears the trousers in this house" its all taken light-heartedly. She's probably given a pat on the back too.
> 
> If I say it I'm failing to recognise years of oppressions by making light of it.
> 
> Good fucking grief.


 
The woman probably hasn't dedicated a massive chunk of the last month to acting like a prick on sexism threads though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> You tell me. You seem completely unable to take a thread on its own dragging in the past. Why is that?
> 
> You remind me of my ex telling me about her ex-husband who was impossible to live with because he was ALWAYS dragging up the past.
> Can never move on. Really holds on to grudges.
> Why is that?


can never move on? she's left you, that's moving on,


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> can never move on? she's left you, that's moving on,


Well I'm moving on from people trying to make this thread about me again and so will stop responding to such posts.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 4, 2013)

I just half watched an "On the Buses" film, my god we've come a long way since then, every single scene was chock full of really full-on sexism.

(Don't interpret this as  me meaning there is no longer a problem BTW)


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> You tell me. You seem completely unable to take a thread on its own dragging in the past. Why is that?
> 
> You remind me of my ex telling me about her ex-husband who was impossible to live with because he was ALWAYS dragging up the past.
> Can never move on. Really holds on to grudges.
> Why is that?


I am merely reminding everyone of your appalling form on matters like this.
I feel duty bound to point this out.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 4, 2013)

Most of 1970s "comedy" was like that.  Makes you cringe to watch it nowadays.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Well I'm moving on from people trying to make this thread about me again and so will stop responding to such posts.


No you are not. You continue to roll in your own shit. People point out that you are rolling in your own shit. You lie there, rolling in your own shit, beseeching everyone to move on.
Well, we can't as your stink is hard to ignore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Well I'm moving on from people trying to make this thread about me again and so will stop responding to such posts.


you'll have to stop posting here then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I am merely reminding everyone of *your appalling from on* matters like this.
> I feel duty bound to point this out.


his appalling what?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> his appalling what?


Form. Corrected.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 4, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> I just half watched an "On the Buses" film, my god we've come a long way since then, every single scene was chock full of really full-on sexism.
> 
> (Don't interpret this as  me meaning there is no longer a problem BTW)



Don't forget the Carry on films still sadly lauded as a British institution.


----------



## lizzieloo (Apr 4, 2013)

Gromit said:


> Don't forget the Carry on films still sadly lauded as a British institution.


 
This was a whole other level.


----------



## Corax (Apr 4, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh yes it does.


Poor PinkLobe.  A great poster, much missed.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 4, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh yes it does.


 


8ball said:


> I'll be holding you to that, pending a good definition of the term.
> 
> edit: Now that's fast.


 
Suspicious, even


----------



## 8ball (Apr 5, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Suspicious, even


 
Jazzz does still seem to be posting, though.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 9, 2013)

So, did anybody make any suggestions of how we are supposed to tackle this then? What is the best way to address it other than bothering mods? There are some instances where the sexism is not so offensive that it really warrants a warning or a ban, it may be a casual attitude or sentiment which offends and it would seem a bit much to report it so what are we to do then? We could post such examples here so that we could all know who the worst offenders are but that might be considered a call out...

Oh yes, I also saw this earlier: Girl Guides petition to end page 3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/09/girl-guides-sun-page-3


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I have to say, I'm seeing a lot more reports about sexism which is A Good Thing. Particularly as previously the mods would get grief about inaction, which isn't fair if we don't know about it.


 
This is a discussion forum; as such, it should be allowable for some to make comments or state opinions that others disagree with, barring extremes like libel, threats of violence etc. If those comments get made, it's up to other posters to take the maker to task. Imo it's not appropriate for moderators to be micro-policing every discussion - at least, not if the intention is to maintain a lively and relevant discussion forum.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 9, 2013)

haven't you flounced a couple of times?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2013)

ddraig said:


> haven't you flounced a couple of times?


once, twice, three times a flouncer...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

ddraig said:


> haven't you flounced a couple of times?


 

Many times. Your point being?

I'm sure I'll flounce again sometime, but  that's for the future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Many times. Your point being?


why do you come back?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> why do you come back?


 
Because I miss you every time I go. 

I can only bear it for so long.

Do you intend to derail this thread about sexism much longer?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Because I miss you every time I go.
> 
> I can only bear it for so long.
> 
> Do you intend to derail this thread about sexism much longer?


*i* haven't derailed it: but your very presence is becoming the topick at hand. tell you what, why don't you, er, 'flounce', and let's all allow this thread to resume its course.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Many times. Your point being?
> 
> I'm sure I'll flounce again sometime, but that's for the future.


you are dishing it out claiming the mods shouldn't interfere and leave us posters to self police yet you are a self confessed flouncer


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> *i* haven't derailed it: but your very presence is becoming the topick at hand. tell you what, why don't you, er, 'flounce', and let's all allow this thread to resume its course.




Why don't you drop it and let the thread resume it's normal course?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> *i* haven't derailed it: but your very presence is becoming the topick at hand. .


 
Only because you seem to want to make it so.

The straight answer is I came back this time because Thatcher died. After all this time, I had to be here for U75's signal event.

As for flouncing: I've been here twelve years, and it's been a lively and tempestuous relationship. And I've come to the point in the relationship where instead of yelling or throwing things, figuratively speaking, I slam the door and go for a long walk instead. This might sound familiar to others in relationships with spouses, significant others, parents etc.

Then I come back till next time. Can we leave this topic now?


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The straight answer is I came back this time because Thatcher died. After all this time, I had to be here for U75's signal event.



They have been waiting a long time for this.   We have all read their fantasists and predictions on what they would do on the day of her death.

They lived up to my expections. How about you?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> They have been waiting a long time for this. We have all read their fantasists and predictions on what they would do on the day of her death.
> 
> They lived up to my expections. How about you?


 
Well, it sounds like a good party was had  by all.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 9, 2013)

I wish you two would fuck off forever


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I wish you two would fuck off forever


 
Like: forever and ever?


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> This is a discussion forum; as such, it should be allowable for some to make comments or state opinions that others disagree with, barring extremes like libel, threats of violence etc. If those comments get made, it's up to other posters to take the maker to task. Imo it's not appropriate for moderators to be micro-policing every discussion - at least, not if the intention is to maintain a lively and relevant discussion forum.



Does this also say include the time when I called out a thread by spring-peeper on the grounds that the 'joke' actually affected me/people close to me particularly and how it plays out in real life (sexism/cis-sexism) and yet I was pretty much told by you JC to stop over-reacting/being over sensitive? 

Even having written a post to explain why I was 'taking the maker to task', I was still made to feel like fucking shit about it. And that was pretty much the point where I stopped feeling comfortable talking about certain stuff, or calling shit out.

Anyways, I only really popped back becoz of Thatcher.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 9, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I wish you two would fuck off forever




And I thought we were both being very polite and respectful, you know - Canadian.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 9, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> And I thought we were both being very polite and respectful, you know - Canadian.


No you are both obtuse and ignorant, and truly a malevolent presence here.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Like: forever and ever?


Aye


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 9, 2013)

steph said:


> Does this also say include the time when I called out a thread by spring-peeper on the grounds that the 'joke' actually affected me/people close to me particularly and how it plays out in real life (sexism/cis-sexism) and yet I was pretty much told by you JC to stop over-reacting/being over sensitive?
> 
> Even having written a post to explain why I was 'taking the maker to task', I was still made to feel like fucking shit about it. And that was pretty much the point where I stopped feeling comfortable talking about certain stuff, or calling shit out.
> 
> Anyways, I only really popped back becoz of Thatcher.


 Yeah, I would say that is included. I missed that thread. I wonder how I managed to miss this undercurrent, particularly if it has driven genuinely nice and reasonable posters to feel uncomfortable or to leave


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> No you are both obtuse and ignorant, and truly a malevolent presence here.


 
You should read some of your own petulant, childish responses sometime. Does this have anything to do with sexism, btw, or are you just hoping to start some sort of flame war on this thread?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Aye


 
Life lesson: you don't always get your way. It might well happen, but if it does, your wishes will have no bearing on the decision.


----------



## toggle (Apr 9, 2013)

steph said:


> Does this also say include the time when I called out a thread by spring-peeper on the grounds that the 'joke' actually affected me/people close to me particularly and how it plays out in real life (sexism/cis-sexism) and yet I was pretty much told by you JC to stop over-reacting/being over sensitive?
> 
> Even having written a post to explain why I was 'taking the maker to task', I was still made to feel like fucking shit about it. And that was pretty much the point where I stopped feeling comfortable talking about certain stuff, or and feeling comfortable calling some things out.
> 
> Anyways, I only really popped back becoz of Thatcher.


fwiw steph, we're trying to tackle some things. and if that kind of crap happens again, there's a lot of people who will support you,



and i dread seeing johnny and sp post on these threads. he's a pig on all of them and she actively encourages him every time. one of those women who has a really nasty attitude towards women and encourages men to be shit to them. it isn't worth letting their shit drive you away. you're worth a shitload more to this place than a dozen of them.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 9, 2013)

steph said:


> Does this include the time when I called out a thread by spring-peeper on the grounds that the 'joke' actually affected me/people close to me particularly and how it plays out in real life (sexism/cis-sexism) and yet I was pretty much told by you JC to stop over-reacting/being over sensitive?
> 
> Even having written a post to explain why I was 'taking the maker to task', I was still made to feel like fucking shit about it. And that was pretty much the point where I stopped feeling comfortable talking about certain stuff, or calling shit out.
> 
> Anyways, I only really popped back becoz of Thatcher.



Strange how a single word or perceived context can really affect you, isn't it?   Sorry if I ever offended you, steph, it wasn't on purpose, 

When I started posting here, I was constantly offended by some of the wording.  I was told to suck it up and stop being so sensitive.  I couldn't stop being offended and never did grow a thicker skin.  I just accepted that what is offensive to me, a canuck, is not to you, a brit - and vice versa.  It make it easier to handle.    

BUT - that was many moons ago, and now Urban is much more sensitive to others.   


I'm not sure what being "popped back becoz of Thatcher" means - good/bad - but "have a nice day"


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You should read some of your own petulant, childish responses sometime. Does this have anything to do with sexism, btw, or are you just hoping to start some sort of flame war on this thread?


You bring the best out in people I guess


----------



## toggle (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You should read some of your own petulant, childish responses sometime. Does this have anything to do with sexism, btw, or are you just hoping to start some sort of flame war on this thread?


 
posting off topic shit is your job.

deliberately disrupting threads on sexism is your job

and now it appears that throwing allegations of disruption at those male posters who try to tackle sexism is also your job.

you've pulled this crap far too many times for anyone to treat this kind of crap as anything other than aa bad joke.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 9, 2013)

toggle said:


> and i dread seeing johnny and sp post on these threads.



Damn foreigners, coming over here, posting on our internet!!!

 


Dinner needs cooking, so  -  Have a nice day


----------



## toggle (Apr 9, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> Damn foreigners, coming over here, posting on our internet!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
fuck off.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 9, 2013)

Don't hurry back!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> No you are both obtuse and ignorant, and truly a malevolent presence here.


 
I disagree, btw. After 12 years and 100000 posts, my contribution to this board has assisted with its popularity and success.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 9, 2013)

I was talking to s-p
You aren't ignorant.


----------



## toggle (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I disagree, btw. After 12 years and 100000 posts, my contribution to this board has assisted with its popularity and success.


 
an astoundingly egotistical statement.

you're a constant unpleasent disruption. and the boards are a much more pleasent place when you fuck off.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I was talking to s-p
> You aren't ignorant.


 
Obtuse?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2013)

toggle said:


> you're a constant unpleasent disruption. and the boards are a much more pleasent place when you fuck off.


 
You just don't like having anyone around to call you on your bullshit.


----------



## toggle (Apr 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You just don't like having anyone around to call you on your bullshit.


 
only bullshit is yours.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> only bullshit is yours.


 
Do you have any insight into how you are perceived on the boards?


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you have any insight into how you are perceived on the boards?


 
apparently considerably more than you have.

if I've pissed off a sexist and disruptive arsehole like you, I'm doing something right.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> apparently considerably more than you have.
> 
> if I've pissed off a sexist and disruptive arsehole like you, I'm doing something right.


 
I don't mean me: I mean others. How do you think others perceive you?


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't mean me: I mean others. How do you think others perceive you?


 

and now you're definately desperate.

i've got no interest in playing your games. and a thread about sexism is no place for your games. you have been warned and temp banned for that crap befopre


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> i've got no interest in playing your games. and a thread about sexism is no place for your games. you have been warned and temp banned for that crap befopre


 
Well then from now on, maybe people like you and orang utan and pickmans  should start a thread about me if it holds so much interest, instead of launching your personal attacks in threads like this.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> This is a discussion forum; as such, it should be allowable for some to make comments or state opinions that others disagree with, barring extremes like libel, threats of violence etc. If those comments get made, it's up to other posters to take the maker to task. Imo it's not appropriate for moderators to be micro-policing every discussion - at least, not if the intention is to maintain a lively and relevant discussion forum.


You're a nasty little hypocrite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> I wish you two would fuck off forever


what have you got against spring peeper?

e2a: i see what you think you've got against spring peeper.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Well then from now on, maybe people like you and orang utan and pickmans should start a thread about me if it holds so much interest, instead of launching your personal attacks in threads like this.


starting threads doesn't hold much interest but now and again when the opportunity presents itself having a bit of a pop at you is quite enjoyable.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what have you got against spring peeper?


Her frequent displays of right-wing arse-holery, snobbery and sexism, possibly?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Her frequent displays of right-wing arse-holery, snobbery and sexism, possibly?


i'd previously thought of sp as innocuous but the mote has been removed from my eye.

thus mote it be


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 10, 2013)

spring peeper's alright though, despite being a bit right wing and such, she has got a bit of a sense of humour and that. JC3 though, he's just a boring twat.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 10, 2013)

lizzieloo said:


> I just half watched an "On the Buses" film, my god we've come a long way since then, every single scene was chock full of really full-on sexism.
> 
> (Don't interpret this as me meaning there is no longer a problem BTW)


 
I remember a couple of Christmases ago, watching On The Buses with my brother - We both just looked at each other and went "This is fucking _dreadful_" - It's not even funny or anything, just really nasty sexism with no redeeming features. And, like you said, a million miles from the Carry On efforts. The sexist gags in Carry On had a bit of affection behind them, which IMO, goes a long way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> They have been waiting a long time for this. We have all read their fantasists and predictions on what they would do on the day of her death.
> 
> They lived up to my expections. How about you?


 
TBF, the only fantasist on this thread is you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> And I thought we were both being very polite and respectful, you know - Canadian.


 
It's Canadian to condone paedophile behaviour, and then lie about doing so, is it?


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> spring peeper's alright though, despite being a bit right wing and such, she has got a bit of a sense of humour and that. JC3 though, he's just a boring twat.


You've not seen her pontificate on the benefits system then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Yeah, I would say that is included. I missed that thread. I wonder how I managed to miss this undercurrent, particularly if it has driven genuinely nice and reasonable posters to feel uncomfortable or to leave


 
I'm ashamed to say I'm sure I've said something ignorant enough to upset Steph at least once (thread about Trinny and Susannah), and been otherwise sexist elsewhere, and offended other posters. I can only hope that I haven't contributed to driving anyone away.
The problem with undercurrents is that by their nature they're submerged - they only get noticed when surface current is disrupted - so, spotting them isn't as easy as it might seem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> You've not seen her pontificate on the benefits system then?


 
She doesn't pontificate, she usually whines extensively about how shoddy Canada's system is, and (to paraphrase and condense) how if she can't get stuff, no-one else should get it either. Pure selfish whining, basically.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> You've not seen her pontificate on the benefits system then?


 
Yeah, she's a nut - But she has got a sense of humour and a modicum of self awareness. Which goes a long way IMO. Mind you, the way she spoke about that 13 year old girl her (adult) son was nobbing didn't show her in a flattering light.

Still, I reckon when any poster leaves the boards are poorer for it - Whether I like them or not. Apart from Canuck who's just a dull bastard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you have any insight into how you are perceived on the boards?


 
Please tell us all how "the board" perceives toogle. I suspect that your perceptions and the actual reality differ markedly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't mean me: I mean others. How do you think others perceive you?


 
I can tell you how I perceive toggle (unlike you, I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself, you see!  ).
I perceive her as a kind and generous person who's always willing to give others the benefit of her informed opinion when asked, and who's always willing to chip in to help people with disabilities jump through the bureaucratic hoops, even when she's physically worn out.

You, on the other hand, you're Puck's more vindictive, less amusing sibling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> I remember a couple of Christmases ago, watching On The Buses with my brother - We both just looked at each other and went "This is fucking _dreadful_" - It's not even funny or anything, just really nasty sexism with no redeeming features. And, like you said, a million miles from the Carry On efforts. The sexist gags in Carry On had a bit of affection behind them, which IMO, goes a long way.


 
Even as a kid (when "On the Buses" was still being made!  ) I used to watch it and think "why hasn't Olive punched her husband and her brother?".


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you have any insight into how you are perceived on the boards?


Is this an (amazingly ironic) attempt to attack the messenger?

I used to think you were just thick-skinned, but you're actually trying to call someone else out for their board rep, and it's toggle to boot. You're not thick-skinned, you're just a bullying cunt with zero self-awareness.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Is this an (amazingly ironic) attempt to attack the messenger?
> 
> I used to think you were just thick-skinned, but you're actually trying to call someone else out for their board rep, and it's toggle to boot. You're not thick-skinned, you're just a bullying cunt with zero self-awareness.


 
He's a dick. And he's not even funny. TBH, JC3 is the only poster who, in my opinion, brings absolutely nothing to the table. I'm not feeling him, me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 10, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> . I'm not feeling him, me.


 

And thank god for it. I don't want to be 'felt' by someone who refers to himself as 'Perverted Monk'.

Yuck.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I don't mean me: I mean others. How do you think others perceive you?


 
looks like i'm far more aware of how people perceive me than you are.


you're showing your own complete lack of self awareness with this tactic johnny.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

Toggle can frankly go one way or the other.

Ha! I made a username joke, see!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 12, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> And thank god for it. I don't want to be 'felt' by someone who refers to himself as 'Perverted Monk'.
> 
> Yuck.


 
Soz Johnny, I was a bit out of order there - Everyone brings something to the table. Even a punk like you 

Seriously though, you don't want to slide your fingers under the hem of the perverted monk's habit? You know you do.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 12, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Soz Johnny, I was a bit out of order there - Everyone brings something to the table. Even a punk like you
> 
> Seriously though, you don't want to slide your fingers under the hem of the perverted monk's habit? You know you do.


Behold the magic of Thatcher's death, bringing people together.  Even those who weren't that far apart to start with.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 12, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Behold the magic of Thatcher's death, bringing people together. Even those who weren't that far apart to start with.


 
FL might feel insulted by that comment...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 12, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Soz Johnny, I was a bit out of order there - Everyone brings something to the table. Even a punk like you
> 
> Seriously though, you don't want to slide your fingers under the hem of the perverted monk's habit? You know you do.


 







See me, feel me, touch me.....

Nah.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 12, 2013)

The skull's grinning and so would you be - You know it makes sense.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 12, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> FL might feel insulted by that comment...


Or he might not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Or he might not.


 
Those are the two alternatives.


----------



## coley (Apr 13, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Those are the two alternatives.



What part of Canada do you live?


----------



## Greebo (Apr 13, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Those are the two alternatives.


Who's going to look at Schroedinger's cat?


----------



## coley (Apr 13, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Who's going to look at Schroedinger's cat?



At this time of night? Nae bugger with any sense cats are for stroking and teasing, not for explaining quantum physics or any other bowel movements


----------



## fogbat (Apr 13, 2013)

Let us not forget that Spring Peeper mutilated her own sons for aesthetic reasons.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 13, 2013)

fogbat said:


> Let us not forget that Spring Peeper mutilated her own sons for aesthetic reasons.


Are we talking nose job or circumcision?


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 13, 2013)

deleted


----------



## fogbat (Apr 13, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Are we talking nose job or circumcision?


Circumcision. So they look like their dad. 

TBH I'm hoping to entice a moronic reaction off her, so I can reply "haha you bit at my obvious troll" like she tried recently.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 13, 2013)

fogbat said:


> Circumcision. So they look like their dad.



Of all the reasons I could have imagined to do that your child, that one had never crossed my mind. Crikey.


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2013)

penises (peni?) are much more handsome shorn of their outer layer tbf.


----------



## fogbat (Apr 13, 2013)

I think I may inadvertently have turned this into a circumcision thread. Anti-semitism accusations can't be far behind.


----------



## ice-is-forming (Apr 13, 2013)

random post, but last night i was discussing the john lydon thing that just happened over here, a reporter in sydney called him misogynist, and the person i was talking to had never heard the word before, cue me asking almost everyone in the local pub if they knew what it meant and not one, not one single one knew. I know its qld but ffs! 

literally, just an hour before, i'd been chatting to john on fb and said..




> you know what John? I have NEVER met a bigger bunch of misogynists than Australians, especially Queenslander's! 99% of them don't even know what the word means. so this is hugely entertaining to me  thank you. I wish i could get to see you in Brisbane but pennies n shit. hope you continue to have a ball over here. from the tart who snogged sid  x


 
I later returned to say ..



> so i tested out my theory this evening at my local in qld and i have to say, that even though i had said 99% don't know the meaning of the word, i was even more stunned to find that out of the pub full of people i asked, 100% didn't know! no word of a lie. gob smacked sums it up nicely.


----------



## Firky (Apr 13, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> deleted


----------



## toggle (Apr 13, 2013)

Firky said:


>


 

if you saw what he'd posted, you would know why he got an earful from me for it. and that he should now know not to post up crap like that here again. only difference being my bf made was he got called out accross the room, not on urban. it's faster.


----------



## Firky (Apr 13, 2013)

toggle said:


> if you saw what he'd posted, you would know why he got an earful from me for it. and that he should now know not to post up crap like that here again. only difference being my bf made was he got called out accross the room, not on urban. it's faster.


 
Make him sleep in the huffy bed tonight. That'll learn him


----------

