Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[Docker Alyssa]

This is the thing.. I don't think she's always in the right.. some things I don't agree with.. But many here, can't look at this issue objectively and say "nah, actually, the guy was an idiot, and brought it on himself".

You can't bring on someone else's questionable actions. Ford chose to deal with it in a sly way leveraging her pulpit as a feminist wielding social justice.

Now, if the employer themselves found his comments, that's a different story... But it's NOT what happened. So no matter how you feel about the guy, Clementine caused him to get fired the way it went down. I would hope she at least feels some remorse for it. But shes a feminist and a man got "what for". So I'm assuming she sleeps on a bed of sanctimony over the events.

 

[Randomizor]

You can't bring on someone else's questionable actions. Ford chose to deal with it in a sly way leveraging her pulpit as a feminist wielding social justice.

Now, if the employer themselves found his comments, that's a different story... But it's NOT what happened. So no matter how you feel about the guy, Clementine caused him to get fired the way it went down. I would hope she at least feels some remorse for it. But shes a feminist and a man got "what for". So I'm assuming she sleeps on a bed of sanctimony over the events.

Watch out, you've just spoken out against someone's actions. Apparently that means you hate everything that they stand for.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Saudi Arabian example one of actual inequality. Progress is progress but still a long way to go.

 

[romeohwho]

You can't bring on someone else's questionable actions. Ford chose to deal with it in a sly way leveraging her pulpit as a feminist wielding social justice.

Now, if the employer themselves found his comments, that's a different story... But it's NOT what happened. So no matter how you feel about the guy, Clementine caused him to get fired the way it went down. I would hope she at least feels some remorse for it. But shes a feminist and a man got "what for". So I'm assuming she sleeps on a bed of sanctimony over the events.

Did he publicly abuse Ford? Yep.
Was he silly enough to have his work details accessible? Yep
Had he written other offensive things on his Facebook? Yep.
Did his place of work have a good, hard look at what he posted on social network? Yep
Did they make a decision to sack him based upon the array of questionable postings he had made? Apparently.
Does he bear some responsibility for his own actions, and therefore his sacking? Yep.

 

[medusala]

Not too good on the maths though. "I know for a million per cent..."

He is a pikey, they aren't exactly known for the educational prowess.

 

[Chief]

He is a pikey, they aren't exactly known for the educational prowess.

dselikedags?

 

[medusala]

only if they chase hares.

 

[cartwright]

Did he publicly abuse Ford? Yep.
Was he silly enough to have his work details accessible? Yep
Had he written other offensive things on his Facebook? Yep.
Did his place of work have a good, hard look at what he posted on social network? Yep
Did they make a decision to sack him based upon the array of questionable postings he had made? Apparently.
Does he bear some responsibility for his own actions, and therefore his sacking? Yep.

Eh. I think they just don't want to get it.

 

[Lester Burnham]

The old saying sticks and stones is rubbish in any case. One can recover from a broken arm but words that hurt can last forever

So, applying this to a domestic situation, are you saying that verbal abuse should be treated more seriously than physical abuse?

 

[Chief]

So, applying this to a domestic situation, are you saying that verbal abuse should be treated more seriously than physical abuse?

It depends on the facts of each case, of course.

A person can lash out once in anger or while intoxicated, while another might never touch their partner but have all sorts of non-violent controlling behaviours.

 

[Werewolf]

A win for feminism on a grander scale overnight with the elections in Saudi Arabia. Not only the first time that women can vote, but also stand as candidates.

Excellent news. Hopefully archaic laws in backward countries will be repealed and common sense will take over

Saudi Arabian example one of actual inequality. Progress is progress but still a long way to go.

Meanwhile some western "feminists" harbour notions that males over here are privileged (spoiler alert, we're not!)

 

[Lester Burnham]

It depends on the facts of each case, of course.

A person can lash out once in anger or while intoxicated, while another might never touch their partner but have all sorts of non-violent controlling behaviours.

Are you saying a series of non-violent controlling behaviours are worse than a person lashing out once (or occasionally) in anger or while intoxicated?

 

[CbayT]

Unf

Excellent news. Hopefully archaic laws in backward countries will be repealed and common sense will take over

Meanwhile some western "feminists" harbour notions that males over here are privileged (spoiler alert, we're not!)

Unfortunately most of this is window dressing to appease the west and not any real movement for change.

 

[Chief]

Are you saying a series of non-violent controlling behaviours are worse than a person lashing out once (or occasionally) in anger or while intoxicated?

You added occasionally in there.

It depends on the individual case of course. That's how the law works.

 

[Chief]

Meanwhile some western "feminists" harbour notions that males over here are privileged (spoiler alert, we're not!)

In Adelaide?

 

[romeohwho]

So, applying this to a domestic situation, are you saying that verbal abuse should be treated more seriously than physical abuse?

Not really-and must admit I wasn't thinking about a dv situation (other than I know a parent who told their child 30 years ago it was the child's fault the marriage broke down. He still suffers because of that. I know sisters and brothers who haven't spoken for years because things said in anger can't be forgotten). I think things said between spouses can be extremely damaging. And as has been said already, depends on what, how, when, the context etc. And I also think physical violence in a family is dreadful. The scars from both are long lasting and in dv a broken arm will recover but the psychological scars from being subjected to that kind of violence from the person who is supposed to love you and be trusted by you, can take much longer to heal. How can it be measured? So am reconsidering my claim!

 

[Lester Burnham]

You added occasionally in there.

I put it in brackets as an optional clause. What frequency of a person lashing out in anger or while intoxicated is acceptable?

It depends on the individual case of course. That's how the law works.

What law has been broken when there has been a pattern of non-violent controlling behaviours?

 

[Chief]

I put it in brackets as an optional clause. What frequency of a person lashing out in anger or while intoxicated is acceptable?

Now you're calling it "acceptable" - a word I didn't use.

What law has been broken when there has been a pattern of non-violent controlling behaviours?

Who knows? Depends on the individual case and local law.

What are you trying to get at? You seem to be chasing specificity and trying to set some sort of consistency trap. Adding in new words where I never used them.

All this is just uni-level stuff I recall from 5-ish years ago.

It is simple fact that you can't say that every physical assault is worse than every non-physical assault. You need to know the facts of each instance.

Say your girlfriend yells at you and turns away, and in the moment you grab her arm. She demands to be let go and you do. Was that a damaging physical assault?

If you stand over her every day as she leaves the house, threatening her with a golf club and tell her you'll beat her to death if she isn't home to cook your dinner, is that a worse assault than the above example? I think it is.

FYI: Every time you touch someone that is "an assault". Every time your doctor touches you, that is an assault. Every time you bump into someone in the street, that is an assault. The facts surrounding the assault are pertinent. Bumping someone on the bus is incidental day to day contact. You give your doctor permission to examine you. If your wife puts her arm around you, that is an agreed and expected part of your relationship. If your wife says "don't touch me" but you give her a hug anyway, is that some terrible physical assault? No, but it is an assault.

The facts around the assault matter. Common law physical assault is not always worse than a threat. Criminal code assault is specifically defined and doesn't match common law.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Did he publicly abuse Ford? Yep.
Was he silly enough to have his work details accessible? Yep
Had he written other offensive things on his Facebook? Yep.
Did his place of work have a good, hard look at what he posted on social network? Yep
Did they make a decision to sack him based upon the array of questionable postings he had made? Apparently.
Does he bear some responsibility for his own actions, and therefore his sacking? Yep.

These are the two I'm not sure of. I think it's more likely they panicked a bit and said "OMG we're going to end up in the middle of some public facebook war and there's going to be bad publicity for us! We'd better do something, anything, quick so it looks like we're concerned and active on this issue!"

Same end result, but not so much carefully considered action.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

http://m.smh.com.au/national/educat...n_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook

This Article was shared on Facebook by the SMH with the tag line "go girls".

Comments were filled with the standard, guys wondering why women are always so shamelessly promoted and your standard rhetoric/hate coming back from the women in the comments.

Women have dominated academics for a significant period. And that article states now top about 70% of high school subjects.

You'll never see any policies or scholarships for boys though. That would be sexist...

As far as most women are concerned (as per the comments on facebook) they wont be satisfied until women top all classes because thats when equality will be achieved (logic).

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

http://m.smh.com.au/national/education/hsc-results-2015-girls-outperform-boys-in-traditionally-male-subjects-20151215-glnzhn.html?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn:fac-14omn0013-optim-nnn:nonpaid-25062014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-smh-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook

This Article was shared on Facebook by the SMH with the tag line "go girls".

Comments were filled with the standard, guys wondering why women are always so shamelessly promoted and your standard rhetoric/hate coming back from the women in the comments.

Women have dominated academics for a significant period. And that article states now top about 70% of high school subjects.

You'll never see any policies or scholarships for boys though. That would be sexist...

As far as most women are concerned (as per the comments on facebook) they wont be satisfied until women top all classes because thats when equality will be achieved (logic).

It's funny how they mention the 70/30 split, then say about how we need girls to improve in the few subjects they aren't leading in.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

It's funny how they mention the 70/30 split, then say about how we need girls to improve in the few subjects they aren't leading in.

Feminisms m-o and the general acceptance of that m-o by society won't be achieved until women dominate every possible aspect of life.

Equality is apparently achieved by domination.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Another example of an article popping up on my news feed (dont have to go chasing them as some suggest)

I agree with some examples here as being over the top but others are most definitely not examples of "sexism" and are just examples of idiots twisting reality through a medium that is bulletproof to criticism (feminism) to promote their own personal views. I.e - i want to wear a crop top, so anyone who stops me is sexist and promiting rape culture.

(Note this dress code stuff isnt really an issue in Australia, although these issues can come up in the work place, as we generally have uniforms here unlike the US)

Here are 12 times badass women fought ridiculously sexist dress codes in 2015. http://www.buzzfeed.com/norawhelan/...chool-dress-codes-in-2015?utm_term=.yyOP72x86

Thoughts?

 

[romeohwho]

These are the two I'm not sure of. I think it's more likely they panicked a bit and said "OMG we're going to end up in the middle of some public facebook war and there's going to be bad publicity for us! We'd better do something, anything, quick so it looks like we're concerned and active on this issue!"

Same end result, but not so much carefully considered action.

Perhaps, but we can't know whether they panicked or considered it carefully-given its not that easy to just sack someone, and given that we hope people in charge of companies are smart and measured, am going to assume that a panic reaction was less likely.

 

[romeohwho]

Another example of an article popping up on my news feed (dont have to go chasing them as some suggest)

I agree with some examples here as being over the top but others are most definitely not examples of "sexism" and are just examples of idiots twisting reality through a medium that is bulletproof to criticism (feminism) to promote their own personal views. I.e - i want to wear a crop top, so anyone who stops me is sexist and promiting rape culture.

(Note this dress code stuff isnt really an issue in Australia, although these issues can come up in the work place, as we generally have uniforms here unlike the US)

Here are 12 times badass women fought ridiculously sexist dress codes in 2015. http://www.buzzfeed.com/norawhelan/...chool-dress-codes-in-2015?utm_term=.yyOP72x86

Thoughts?

Thought most of the pictures in the buzz feed link I looked at suggest that dress codes in America are old-fashioned.