Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[FlowersByIrene]

Won't someone think of the poor Aussie larrikin

Spare me.

Understandable perception from your type.

 

[romeohwho]

Personally i see it as the promotion of Maude Flandersism - "won't somebody think of the children" and victimisation culture, a degregation of Australian larrikinism and further strides into the systematic attack on men.

But different strokes for different folks.

Crikey Flowers how do you manage to stagger around with that gigantic chip on yr shoulder?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Crikey Flowers how do you manage to stagger around with that gigantic chip on yr shoulder?

It's just frustrating, there's absolutely nothing in it beyond adding to the media beat up of masculinity and men in this country.

It's an agenda

 

[romeohwho]

It's just frustrating, there's absolutely nothing in it beyond adding to the media beat up of masculinity and men in this country.

It's an agenda

Ah well, whilst I don't see it as a big thing, I don't see it as nothing, nor do I see it as an attack on men.

 

[YES! YES! YES!]

Not saying Mel should have just accepted Gayle's behavior, but if you think it's ok for you to behave like that to the opposite sex, but not for that behavior to be returned to you, then you are honestly a ****ing hypocrite.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Here's an excellent example of the privilege Australian feminists experience today.

Despite the fact this article is filled with hateful comments painting any man's actions as sexist (such as complimenting a women...) and putting up blantantly illogical arguments without any reason or standard. Despite those facts this journalist is STILL allowed to be ticked off and have this work published in one of the major news websites.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-truth-about-this-week-of-sexism?CMP=soc_567

The privilige is that these views get accepted and spread with no concern for accuracy or the divide they are creating because feminism is viewed as this infallible moral stick which we should all be measured against.

When in reality it's just these individuals opinions masquerading behind the veil of a universal body of thought.

This is the frustrating part.

 

[bombersfan4000]

It's just frustrating, there's absolutely nothing in it beyond adding to the media beat up of masculinity and men in this country.

It's an agenda

Pictures say a thousand words

 

[skipper kelly]

Not saying Mel should have just accepted Gayle's behavior, but if you think it's ok for you to behave like that to the opposite sex, but not for that behavior to be returned to you, then you are honestly a ******* hypocrite.

wrong person.

 

[DemonTim]

So gayle has now been told he is not welcome back in the big bash according to the media

 

[cartwright]

Understandable perception from your type.

And what's that, Irene?

 

[Maggie5]

Here's an excellent example of the privilege Australian feminists experience today.

Despite the fact this article is filled with hateful comments painting any man's actions as sexist (such as complimenting a women...) and putting up blantantly illogical arguments without any reason or standard. Despite those facts this journalist is STILL allowed to be ticked off and have this work published in one of the major news websites.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-truth-about-this-week-of-sexism?CMP=soc_567

The privilige is that these views get accepted and spread with no concern for accuracy or the divide they are creating because feminism is viewed as this infallible moral stick which we should all be measured against.

When in reality it's just these individuals opinions masquerading behind the veil of a universal body of thought.

This is the frustrating part.

Interestingly, I read the Guardian first of all the online media but hadn't clicked on the link.

You listed one example of 'hateful' comments, what others do you consider 'hateful'?

It is difficult for me to see much hate but agree a couple of them may be 'media' speak but don't think that it would influence or outrage too many people.

When you look at the first three examples, imagine your mother, sister, partner at the end of those examples. (don't know your background but I know that my circle of friends and family would find it unacceptable and they wouldn't do it).

I know that when I first went to work, I hated being called, sweetie, darls, love etc. I had a name. The men weren't labelled in that way.
Then later on when I was in a management position, would never call a male colleague or one that I supervised a hunk, cute or put my arms around him, kiss him etc.

Don't know that I would call it sexism but if it doesn't apply to both sexes, what do you call it?
However I believe it is not accepted standards of communication/behaviour by either gender.

 

[DemonTim]

Here's an excellent example of the privilege Australian feminists experience today.

Despite the fact this article is filled with hateful comments painting any man's actions as sexist (such as complimenting a women...) and putting up blantantly illogical arguments without any reason or standard. Despite those facts this journalist is STILL allowed to be ticked off and have this work published in one of the major news websites.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-truth-about-this-week-of-sexism?CMP=soc_567

The privilige is that these views get accepted and spread with no concern for accuracy or the divide they are creating because feminism is viewed as this infallible moral stick which we should all be measured against.

When in reality it's just these individuals opinions masquerading behind the veil of a universal body of thought.

This is the frustrating part.

Didn't get a chance to read it yesterday, but I think journalists should really brush up on english language. None of the things listed are "sexist acts", and they are certainly disputable.

 

[GuzzLG]

If Gayle was a gay man and said the same thing to a male reporter then the SJWs would now be attacking the reporter for recoiling and being homophobic.

 

[Maggie5]

If Gayle was a gay man and said the same thing to a male reporter then the SJWs would now be attacking the reporter for recoiling and being homophobic.

You really believe that?
I would have thought that based on some of the posters on BF he would have attacked for being gay.

 

[DemonTim]

You really believe that?
I would have thought that based on some of the posters on BF he would have attacked for being gay.

Por que no los dos

 

[Maggie5]

Por que no los dos

Taco ad?

 

[DemonTim]

Taco ad?

Yes. Why don't we have both?

I'd assume both responses would happen judging by the responses to the current incident

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Interestingly, I read the Guardian first of all the online media but hadn't clicked on the link.

You listed one example of 'hateful' comments, what others do you consider 'hateful'?

It is difficult for me to see much hate but agree a couple of them may be 'media' speak but don't think that it would influence or outrage too many people.

When you look at the first three examples, imagine your mother, sister, partner at the end of those examples. (don't know your background but I know that my circle of friends and family would find it unacceptable and they wouldn't do it).

I know that when I first went to work, I hated being called, sweetie, darls, love etc. I had a name. The men weren't labelled in that way.
Then later on when I was in a management position, would never call a male colleague or one that I supervised a hunk, cute or put my arms around him, kiss him etc.

Don't know that I would call it sexism but if it doesn't apply to both sexes, what do you call it?
However I believe it is not accepted standards of communication/behaviour by either gender.

Firstly the journalist doesnt know what sexism is. So the fact she is incorrectly labelling things as sexist spreads unneccessary hate.

I agree with points 6 and 2 - calling someone baby and kissing someone are innapropriate. (However I don't subscribe to the notion that Gayle is in a shared professional enviroment with Mel.)

I disagree with 1, saying someone has piercing eyes, in and of itself is not sexist or innappropriate. As i've said earlier, a work place is not a cyborg factory, the majority of relationships start at workplaces and this can be a genuine comment with no innapropriate intention. If this comment is not well received, further actions along those lines would be innapropriate however.

Three is just insanity. Saying you are sexist if you misread a situation. Again we are not robots, is this 'journalist' suggesting men should i either not interact with women or if they do state "are you interested in me romantically" like a robot. It's called human interaction, its complex, it's varied, ranging from body language to words and conduct. Once someone says "no i dont want to do this" then no further action should take place, but you cannot demonise the actions before the no is given because both parties are engaging in common interaction.

Four is a non issue, there are gendered insults, dickhead, douchebag, bitch, witch, every side gets it. Calling someone a witch is not a nice thing to do but it's not sexist. It isn't innapropriate, you can say whatever you like. It doesn't cause psycological damage just minor hurt feelings, and as i said i dont think society should be in the realm of defending feelings, it's impossible and unnecessary.

Seven is dismissive of the clear and logical counter argument to this 'journalists' argument and claiming people who diaagree with her are sexist is merely spreading hate. (Similar to Chiefs tactics in this thread, Chief you write this article??)

Labelling actions that arent sexist as sexist demonises men and masculinity and spreads unnecessary hate.

 

[DemonTim]

Firstly the journalist doesnt know what sexism is. So the fact she is incorrectly labelling things as sexist spreads unneccessary hate.

I agree with points 6 and 2 - calling someone baby and kissing someone are innapropriate. (However I don't subscribe to the notion that Gayle is in a shared professional enviroment with Mel.)

I disagree with 1, saying someone has piercing eyes, in and of itself is not sexist or innappropriate. As i've said earlier, a work place is not a cyborg factory, the majority of relationships start at workplaces and this can be a genuine comment with no innapropriate intention. If this comment is not well received, further actions along those lines would be innapropriate however.

Three is just insanity. Saying you are sexist if you misread a situation. Again we are not robots, is this 'journalist' suggesting men should i either not interact with women or if they do state "are you interested in me romantically" like a robot. It's called human interaction, its complex, it's varied, ranging from body language to words and conduct. Once someone says "no i dont want to do this" then no further action should take place, but you cannot demonise the actions before the no is given because both parties are engaging in common interaction.

Four is a non issue, there are gendered insults, dickhead, douchebag, bitch, witch, every side gets it. Calling someone a witch is not a nice thing to do but it's not sexist. It isn't innapropriate, you can say whatever you like. It doesn't cause psycological damage just minor hurt feelings, and as i said i dont think society should be in the realm of defending feelings, it's impossible and unnecessary.

Seven is dismissive of the clear and logical counter argument to this 'journalists' argument and claiming people who diaagree with her are sexist is merely spreading hate. (Similar to Chiefs tactics in this thread, Chief you write this article??)

Labelling actions that arent sexist as sexist demonises men and masculinity and spreads unnecessary hate.

Sexism and misogyny are two of the most misused words in existence.
Inappropriate or offensive does not equal sexist, people can't seem to understand that.

 

[Maggie5]

Firstly the journalist doesnt know what sexism is. So the fact she is incorrectly labelling things as sexist spreads unneccessary hate.

I agree with points 6 and 2 - calling someone baby and kissing someone are innapropriate. (However I don't subscribe to the notion that Gayle is in a shared professional enviroment with Mel.)

I disagree with 1, saying someone has piercing eyes, in and of itself is not sexist or innappropriate. As i've said earlier, a work place is not a cyborg factory, the majority of relationships start at workplaces and this can be a genuine comment with no innapropriate intention. If this comment is not well received, further actions along those lines would be innapropriate however.

Three is just insanity. Saying you are sexist if you misread a situation. Again we are not robots, is this 'journalist' suggesting men should i either not interact with women or if they do state "are you interested in me romantically" like a robot. It's called human interaction, its complex, it's varied, ranging from body language to words and conduct. Once someone says "no i dont want to do this" then no further action should take place, but you cannot demonise the actions before the no is given because both parties are engaging in common interaction.

Four is a non issue, there are gendered insults, dickhead, douchebag, bitch, witch, every side gets it. Calling someone a witch is not a nice thing to do but it's not sexist. It isn't innapropriate, you can say whatever you like. It doesn't cause psycological damage just minor hurt feelings, and as i said i dont think society should be in the realm of defending feelings, it's impossible and unnecessary.

Seven is dismissive of the clear and logical counter argument to this 'journalists' argument and claiming people who diaagree with her are sexist is merely spreading hate. (Similar to Chiefs tactics in this thread, Chief you write this article??)

Labelling actions that arent sexist as sexist demonises men and masculinity and spreads unnecessary hate.

I was questioning your use of the word 'hateful', further I didn't say they were sexist and stated that the use of the word in the article was 'media' speak but didn't agree with you that it would influence or cause outrage, if it did, it would be an over reaction.

The thing is though, many of the examples in the article and in your post are inappropriate and unwanted and sometimes the person on the receiving end may not feel confident to say so. This is where the problem comes in.

In my case, I loved my job and didn't feel confident for some months before I felt brave (I was one of the youngest there) enough to say something (meanwhile my stomach churned, so not physiological but definitely physical). He took it well but it didn't really change that much as it was ingrained in his personality.

Left when I got a better job which was a shame as it was close to home and the people were friendly and I learned a lot from the people that had been there for sometime.

Has happened three times in my earlier working life so not a once off.

 

[Maggie5]

Sexism and misogyny are two of the most misused words in existence.
Inappropriate or offensive does not equal sexist, people can't seem to understand that.

Perhaps spend too much time on labels but then avoid fully addressing the inappropriateness and offensive.
Sadly when they are addressed, they address it with possible scenarios/excuses, it's all in fun, that is how some people meet, meant as a compliment etc etc.
That is what people don't understand.

 

[DemonTim]

Perhaps spend too much time on labels but then avoid fully addressing the inappropriateness and offensive.
Sadly when they are addressed, they address it with possible scenarios/excuses, it's all in fun, that is how some people meet, meant as a compliment etc etc.
That is what people don't understand.

Don't label things as something they are not. That is just as bad as making excuses.

 

[Maggie5]

Don't label things as something they are not. That is just as bad as making excuses.

Frustration at the real issues not being addressed worry me more than using a word incorrectly.
Bit of nit picking there.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I was questioning your use of the word 'hateful', further I didn't say they were sexist and stated that the use of the word in the article was 'media' speak but didn't agree with you that it would influence or cause outrage, if it did, it would be an over reaction.

The thing is though, many of the examples in the article and in your post are inappropriate and unwanted and sometimes the person on the receiving end may not feel confident to say so. This is where the problem comes in.

In my case, I loved my job and didn't feel confident for some months before I felt brave (I was one of the youngest there) enough to say something (meanwhile my stomach churned, so not physiological but definitely physical). He took it well but it didn't really change that much as it was ingrained in his personality.

Left when I got a better job which was a shame as it was close to home and the people were friendly and I learned a lot from the people that had been there for sometime.

Has happened three times in my earlier working life so not a once off.

As i said in the last paragraph, the inccorect assertions are hateful because they criticise the actions of men based on illogical conclusions.

Those experiences are unfortunate for you and I sympathise.

Interestingly i've had similar experiences. But i think my personality is one of dealing with it internally rather than externally. (Im the type of person who doesnt send the food back when there's a hair in it, that's the way the dice roll, i lost that one) Some people have different personality styles though.

The crux of that issue is that everyone is different and if you start appeasing the lowest commok denominator, you destroy an important part of human life. (I.e treating a work place like a cyborg factory is the safest, but the cost outweighs the benefit)

It should be noted I also dont generally subscribe to the notion that men are the powerful force in sexual interactions. The woman has the power from start to finish. Positions of power such as superiors, and obviously phsyical sexual assault are examples when men may have an upperhand but generally, as a young person, it's the girls that have all the power (but maybe that's because i'm not one to exploit a women).

 

[Gough]

You guys have got yourselves more wound up more than the dreaded femos about this.