Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

givyjoe

Anyone remember you perma ignore someone again :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

ligerdub wrote:

I don't consider silence to be a support of anything to be honest

Neither do I Which is why I didn't say it is. I did say that nobody bothered to call a load of guff, a load of guff.

ligerdub wrote:

So let's all give our opinion on this, everyone following this thread that is. I don't believe this was the reason behind it. I have no idea why he did what he did.

I don't think sexism and racism by CNN against men was the cause of the LV shooting . I think that's a conspiracy theory led a by the desire to show that white men are a victim. l also have no idea what caused the shooting. I don't have enough information to form an opinion.

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Neither do I Which is why I didn't say it is. I did say that nobody bothered to call a load of guff, a load of guff.

You don't honestly believe your semantics are convincing anyone, do you?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

True enough. But you disagreed with my posts and did find the time to post about it.

If you'll be honest about it, I don't argue against most of your posts.

But you found it worthwhile to post in opposition to someone who pointed out a conspiracy theory.

I'd actually written responses to most of your post.. but then I saw this last quote.. comparing with the first above, and I'm back to ignoring you.

Hilarious. For a while there, I thought we could have a reasonable discussion, but you just can't resist trying to pick fights.

Carlos Orange

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think that's a conspiracy theory led a by the desire to show that white men are a victim.

It is odd how much US media talks about whites [ 6 of the 10 largest mass shootings in the US , 72% of the population ] and how little asians [ 4 of the 10 largest mass shootings in the US 4.8% of the population ]. The men bit is less surprising because mass shooters almost always are men.

hots

psinno wrote: »

It is odd how much US media talks about whites [ 6 of the 10 largest mass shootings in the US , 72% of the population ] and how little asians [ 4 of the 10 largest mass shootings in the US 4.8% of the population ]. The men bit is less surprising because mass shooters almost always are men.

It's the same with pay gaps, racial pay gaps are just as prominent as gender ones. It's not fashionable to be anti-asian.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

You don't honestly believe your semantics are convincing anyone, do you?

I was precise in what I said. You were sloppy in the interpretation. No semantics, I simply said exactly what I meant. It's unfortunate for you that it didn't chime with your misinterpreted but that's not my problem.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

I'd actually written responses to most of your post.. but then I saw this last quote.. comparing with the first above, and I'm back to ignoring you.

It was a conspiracy theory, I pointed it out and somehow you're in opposition to me. The poster of the conspiracy theory couldn't find a dissenting opinion, but pointing out that it's a conspiracy is somehow controversial. Echo... Echo... Echo...

As you wish. Id be interested to know what your response would have been.

The bottom line is that there wasn't a demonstrable angle where men are the victim in the LV shooting. It's a conspiracy theory and nothing more. It's true so I'm not afraid to say it. I can't imagine why that's controversial but it appears to be.

El_Duderino 09

psinno wrote:

It is odd how much US media talks about whites [ 6 of the 10 largest mass shootings in the US , 72% of the population ] and how little asians [ 4 of the 10 largest mass shootings in the US 4.8% of the population ]. The men bit is less surprising because mass shooters almost always are men.

It's interesting information if it's true. Thanks for the info.

Carlos Orange

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's interesting information if it's true. Thanks for the info.

It is fairly trivial to verify since the media are publishing lists of the top mass shootings and many of them are relatively recent.

There was the husband and wife pair after the Christmas party, the gay nightclub in florida, the army psychologist and the Virginia tech shooting.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It was a conspiracy theory, I pointed it out and somehow you're in opposition to me. The poster of the conspiracy theory couldn't find a dissenting opinion, but pointing out that it's a conspiracy is somehow controversial. Echo... Echo... Echo...

As you wish. Id be interested to know what your response would have been.

The bottom line is that there wasn't a demonstrable angle where men are the victim in the LV shooting. It's a conspiracy theory and nothing more. It's true so I'm not afraid to say it. I can't imagine why that's controversial but it appears to be.

I'm not even sure how it's a conspiracy theory?

"If I was to widen that out I'd go as far to say that he was possibly radicalised by CNN. They demonise white men, Trump supporters combine that with an unstable personality and bad things happen"

I am assuming the poster did not mean that CNN deliberately radicalized the guy and so there is no actual conspiracy to speak of.

I took the meaning of this post to be that if CNN are demonizing white people and Trump supporters then this could inadvertently lead to extreme violence either from or towards those demonized groups.

It would only be a conspiracy theory if the poster was theorising
that CNN were deliberately doing things to cause mass shootings because CNN wants mass-shootings.

Here's my theory. You are using the buzzwords "conspiracy theory" to discredit the poster and to avoid discussing their point. Maybe the intent is to derail the discussion.

Would be easier to just say you don't think CNN demonizes anyone.

I think it's worth asking if the American media's apparent obsession with race is having some unforeseen and incredibly dangerous effects. Maybe not in this case specifically but in general?

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

I'm not even sure how it's a conspiracy theory?

"If I was to widen that out I'd go as far to say that he was possibly radicalised by CNN. They demonise white men, Trump supporters combine that with an unstable personality and bad things happen"

I am assuming the poster did not mean that CNN deliberately radicalized the guy and so there is no actual conspiracy to speak of.

I took the meaning of this post to be that if CNN are demonizing white people and Trump supporters then this could inadvertently lead to extreme violence either from or towards those demonized groups.

It would only be a conspiracy theory if the poster was theorising
that CNN were deliberately doing things to cause mass shootings because CNN wants mass-shootings.

Here's my theory. You are using the buzzwords "conspiracy theory" to discredit the poster and to avoid discussing their point. Maybe the intent is to derail the discussion.

Would be easier to just say you don't think CNN demonizes anyone.

I think it's worth asking if the American media's apparent obsession with race is having some unforeseen and incredibly dangerous effects. Maybe not in this case specifically but in general?

CNN demonising white men could have caused a white man to comment to an act of extreme violence. It's a possibility and aid a bold claim so it would take some evidence to tie the claim to the conclusion. There wasn't any attempt to provide any argument beyond 'there could be something to it'

I don't know if CNN demonises any group or not. So I didn't comment on that. I do think it's an Olympic standard leap to get from the claim to the conclusion without anything in between.

In my opinion, the claim was based on a sincere desire to claim victim hood on behalf of white men. I'd say the tenuous link to the LV shooting was just a way to express the feeling of victim hood.

When faced with linking the feeling of victimisation to the LV shooting, I would lump it on the pile with conspiracy theories. If posters feel victimised for their white maleness, that's worth considering in and of itself to get an understanding of it.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

CNN demonising white men could have caused a white man to comment to an act of extreme violence. It's a possibility and aid a bold claim so it would take some evidence to tie the claim to the conclusion. There wasn't any attempt to provide any argument beyond 'there could be something to it'

I don't know if CNN demonises any group or not. So I didn't comment on that. I do think it's an Olympic standard leap to get from the claim to the conclusion without anything in between.

In my opinion, the claim was based on a sincere desire to claim victim hood on behalf of white men. I'd say the tenuous link to the LV shooting was just a way to express the feeling of victim hood.

When faced with linking the feeling of victimisation to the LV shooting, I would lump it on the pile with conspiracy theories. If posters feel victimised for their white maleness, that's worth considering in and of itself to get an understanding of it.

Isn't that your opinion in every post..? Moreover, your opinion that every such claim is unjustified, always...?



To be clear, I.. and I would say everyone else don't view white men as being vicitims re: CNN and the shooting, except of course those who were literally shot

seamus

I'm not normally one for "but what about men" whinging, but this from 2FM is really blatant example of double-standards when it comes to the matter of domestic violence.
https://twitter.com/RTE2fm/status/916282880141221888

"LOL, she's so funny and out-there"

I don't care about what Pink said, what she said is something really relatable, and we should be able to chuckle about it.

But if Ryan Reynolds said that, "Sometimes my wife drives me so crazy that I just want to stab her with a fork", there'd be a collective sharp intake of breath, and the tweet from 2FM would be full of angry emojis and many, many discussions on why "normalising domestic violence is not OK".

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Isn't that your opinion in every post..? Moreover, your opinion that every such claim is unjustified, always...?

It's by opinion that this claim is unjustified. And below you say you agree that it's unjustified. But somehow you object to my pointing out that it's unjustified.

givyjoe wrote: »

To be clear, I.. and I would say everyone else don't view white men as being vicitims re: CNN and the shooting, except of course those who were literally shot

You and I agree on that but one poster in particular was pretty sure there could be a connection between CNN demonising white men and trump supporters, and the LV shooting. If a similar claim was made about an act of violence committed by a woman, I'd say it was nonsense too. But I suspect I wouldn't find the same opposition

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's by opinion that this claim is unjustified. And below you say you agree that it's unjustified. But somehow you object to my pointing out that it's unjustified.


You and I agree on that but one poster in particular was pretty sure there could be a connection between CNN demonising white men and trump supporters, and the LV shooting. If a similar claim was made about an act of violence committed by a woman, I'd say it was nonsense too. But I suspect I wouldn't find the same opposition

Honestly, you should go into politics with the word gymnastics you deploy almost exclusively in TGL. I should have known better than to bother engaging with you.

You and everyone else here are aware, no matter what the scenario.. justified or otherwise.. you will find a way to be against, undermine, downplay, ridicule etc.. any claim by men (white or otherwise) to being treated unfairly. Of course you knew that's exactly what I meant.

I would really love to know what event(s) have caused to disassociate yourself from the average man so vigorously. Someday maybe, you'll admit your bias and whatever on earth the reason for it is.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's by opinion that this claim is unjustified. And below you say you agree that it's unjustified. But somehow you object to my pointing out that it's unjustified.


You and I agree on that but one poster in particular was pretty sure there could be a connection between CNN demonising white men and trump supporters, and the LV shooting. If a similar claim was made about an act of violence committed by a woman, I'd say it was nonsense too. But I suspect I wouldn't find the same opposition

Honestly, you should go into politics with the word gymnastics you deploy almost exclusively in TGL. I should have known better than to bother engaging with you.

You and everyone else here are aware, no matter what the scenario.. justified or otherwise.. you will find a way to be against, undermine, downplay, ridicule etc.. any claim by men (white or otherwise) to being treated unfairly. Of course you knew that's exactly what I meant.

I would really love to know what event(s) have caused to disassociate yourself from the average man so vigorously. Someday maybe, you'll admit your bias and whatever on earth the reason for it is.

There's no word gymnastics. You said I find everything to be about male victim hood and I find all cases to be unjustified. I don't agree with that. I said what I do think and you agreed- in this case the claim is unjustified.

I don't think the wacky theory like the one proposed by Silverharp, is representative of the the average man. I'd disassociate myself from that guff all day long -as did you.

I suppose I just feel comfortable being a man. I don't feel constantly under attack for being myself and I don't feel like a victim of the media. I understand that some posters do feel victimised and I find that very hard to understand.

Should I just go along with stuff like Silverharp's theory to soothe their feelings of victimhood? Or should I call nonsense when I see nonsense? I know which one I'd choose.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's no word gymnastics. You said I find everything to be about male victim hood and I find all cases to be unjustified. I don't agree with that. I said what I do think and you agreed- in this case the claim is unjustified.

I don't think the wacky theory like the one proposed by Silverharp, is representative of the the average man. I'd disassociate myself from that guff all day long -as did you.

I suppose I just feel comfortable being a man. I don't feel constantly under attack for being myself and I don't feel like a victim of the media. I understand that some posters do feel victimised and I find that very hard to understand.

Should I just go along with stuff like Silverharp's theory to soothe their feelings of victimhood? Or should I call nonsense when I see nonsense? I know which one I'd choose.

I'll ignore the usual nonsense (I referenced your tendency to undermine etc earlier) highlighted above and stick to one question.

Fair to say you don't believe sexism against men is a problem then?

Calhoun

Where do you draw the line in the sand though, most if not all men in this thread are not a victim of sexism to an extent but its good to talk about it and make sure there is awareness because if you sit back on your laurels it could just creep up on you.

I am talking about everyday sexism and curtailing of freedoms not so much the institutional sexism in our system of law.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

I'll ignore the usual nonsense (I referenced your tendency to undermine etc earlier) highlighted above and stick to one question.

Fair to say you don't believe sexism against men is a problem then?

No, it isn't. It would be better to ask than tell me what I think. I'll pretend you asked it as a question. There are some serious issues which need to be addressed including but not limited to health (mental and physical) education, employment, treatment in the legal system, fathers rights, sexual orientation, social pressures and freedom of expression.

It is fair to say I think this particular theory proposed by by Silverharp, is an expression of feeling victimised, rather than any serious attempt to explain the LV shooting.

If men feel victimised or demonised, that's worth exploring. Linking it to the LV shooting without anything in between is ,as you agree, not something I would agree with.

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll pretend you asked it as a question.

There's no need to pretend; he used a question mark.

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote: »

Where do you draw the line in the sand though, most if not all men in this thread are not a victim of sexism to an extent but its good to talk about it and make sure there is awareness because if you sit back on your laurels it could just creep up on you.

I am talking about everyday sexism and curtailing of freedoms not so much the institutional sexism in our system of law.

Well Silverharp drew the line at their theory about the media and the LV shooting. I disagree with that line.

As above, I outline a number of areas which are of concern and should be acted upon. I wouldn't have any time to entertain the CNN-LV shooting theory any more than i would entertain some feminists opposite number. I see the two as equal and opposite. They both distract from the real life issues and muddy the waters for legitimate gender equality

partyguinness

I don't think I have ever experienced sexism or at least nothing spring to mind but I have heard men display it.

I did have an ex female work colleague ask me for the name of a snuggy that babies use- my son was about 6/7 months old at the time- she couldnt think of the name of it. Before I had a chance to turn around and answer she dismisses me on the basis I couldn't possible know being a male.

What has annoyed me is my fellow business partners excusing poor work performance or behaviour from female support staff on the basis of hormones and that 'Ohh you can't say anything to them or they will go balistic'

WTF...basically a few things wrong here:

- Blatantly sexist stereotyping.
- Using 'hormones' as an excuse not to confront staff..grow a pair.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

There's no need to pretend; he used a question mark.

Touché Pedantic Percy. I answered their question in any case.

the purple tin

seamus wrote: »

I'm not normally one for "but what about men" whinging, but this from 2FM is really blatant example of double-standards when it comes to the matter of domestic violence.
https://twitter.com/RTE2fm/status/916282880141221888

"LOL, she's so funny and out-there"

I don't care about what Pink said, what she said is something really relatable, and we should be able to chuckle about it.

But if Ryan Reynolds said that, "Sometimes my wife drives me so crazy that I just want to stab her with a fork", there'd be a collective sharp intake of breath, and the tweet from 2FM would be full of angry emojis and many, many discussions on why "normalising domestic violence is not OK".

She said when she was younger her father used to 'put her through the wall' when she misbehaved so no suprise if she has issues.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

I'll ignore the usual nonsense (I referenced your tendency to undermine etc earlier) highlighted above and stick to one question.

Fair to say you don't believe sexism against men is a problem then?

I answered your question so I'd be obliged if you did likewise.

I said: 'Should I just go along with stuff like Silverharp's theory to soothe their feelings of victimhood? Or should I call nonsense when I see nonsense? I know which one I'd choose'

So should we just go along with anything that another poster says when they feel demonised, or should we disagree when we genuinely don't agree?

Calhoun

partyguinness wrote: »

I don't think I have ever experienced sexism or at least nothing spring to mind but I have heard men display it.

I did have an ex female work colleague ask me for the name of a snuggy that babies use- my son was about 6/7 months old at the time- she couldnt think of the name of it. Before I had a chance to turn around and answer she dismisses me on the basis I couldn't possible know being a male.

What has annoyed me is my fellow business partners excusing poor work performance or behaviour from female support staff on the basis of hormones and that 'Ohh you can't say anything to them or they will go balistic'

WTF...basically a few things wrong here:

- Blatantly sexist stereotyping.
- Using 'hormones' as an excuse not to confront staff..grow a pair.

For your ex female colleague, we men sometimes are happy allowing the men know nothing thing fly at times when it comes to child rearing. Its not something that will change over night but i think the view that men are active and willing participants in rearing children is catching on.

I have had the pleasure of working with some brilliant female colleagues who would never thing of using some anything like that as an excuse and would view your ex business partner rightly as neanderthals.

El_Duderino 09

partyguinness wrote:

I did have an ex female work colleague ask me for the name of a snuggy that babies use- my son was about 6/7 months old at the time- she couldnt think of the name of it. Before I had a chance to turn around and answer she dismisses me on the basis I couldn't possible know being a male.

That's part of the opposition men face in fatherhood. It's probably part of the reason paternal leave isn't taken as seriously as maternal leave.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Wind back ,Zulu. I didn't say they agree with it. I said they can't bring themselves to disagree with it. I understand the difference which is why I prepared it as I did, not the way you interpreted it.

As above. I didn't say they agree with it. So whose making a disingenuous argument?

It's amusing that. Someone proposes make crackpot conspiracy theory which receives tangential support. I point out that it's a conspiracy theory and posters find it worthwhile to disagree with me. Echo... Echo... Echo

Wait now, cant we just use the excuse that another nameless group uses for not criticising radicaks and claim "we are not a hive mind"

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

I am talking about everyday sexism and curtailing of freedoms not so much the institutional sexism in our system of law.

I'm confused. If you remove the sexism in our system of law... how do we include how we are experiencing sexism?

For example, the policies that favour women in the workplace over that of men.

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm confused. If you remove the sexism in our system of law... how do we include how we are experiencing sexism?

For example, the policies that favour women in the workplace over that of men.

I don't know what your getting at, my point was that i was focusing on the every day sexism that can happen to men and that we should keep an eye on it and challenge it if it gets to a certain level.

I was just saying i wasn't talking about the wider system in our law which i feel is sexist from an institutional perspective.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote:

Wait now, cant we just use the excuse that another nameless group uses for not criticising radicaks and claim "we are not a hive mind"

You're referring to feminism. I've said that feminism isn't a hive mind when posters act surprised that feminists could take different stances on a topic.

I assume the men's rights crew aren't a hive mind either, which is why I was surprised that nobody disagreed with a wacky theory posted in the thread. I would have assumed at least one poster beside myself would have voiced unprompted disagreement. Instead I'm getting grief for pointing out that a baseless theory, is baseless.

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Instead I'm getting grief for ...

Hang on while I break out my violin :rolleyes:.

As I've mentioned before: you reap what you sow. You're getting "grief" due to your form - that of being dismissive of others, confrontational, and needlessly pejorative. It's nothing short of amazing you expect anything else.

(And of course by grief I can only assume you mean people responding to you, because by and large posters have been very civil to you all things considered.)

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't know what your getting at, my point was that i was focusing on the every day sexism that can happen to men and that we should keep an eye on it and challenge it if it gets to a certain level.

I was just saying i wasn't talking about the wider system in our law which i feel is sexist from an institutional perspective.

Okay.

Then I would point to the sexism of employment quotas, and the impression that employers need to hire more women, rather than hire based solely on the ability to do the job. That has affected me on more than one occasion...
(oh, and if someone feels the need to make a joke that maybe they didn't like my personality for the job, consider the sexism in making that joke about a female applicant)

The sexism that has sectors which are essentially controlled by women, and closed off to men. Kindergarten teaching is a good example. (Yup, I actually did want to be a Kindergarten teacher, and was shot down) This area was closed off to men long before paedophilia publicly raised its ugly head.

The one that often bugs me is toilets. ever notice with small restaurants there might be three toilets. One male and two female. They're separated, enclosed, private... but they're identified by gender, with women getting the extra one. And I've noticed that it's perfectly fine for women to use the men's toilets if they need to, but it's somehow terrible that a man would use a woman's toilet.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're referring to feminism. I've said that feminism isn't a hive mind when posters act surprised that feminists could take different stances on a topic.

I assume the men's rights crew aren't a hive mind either, which is why I was surprised that nobody disagreed with a wacky theory posted in the thread. I would have assumed at least one poster beside myself would have voiced unprompted disagreement. Instead I'm getting grief for pointing out that a baseless theory, is baseless.

If course mens rights arent a hive mind. And so, similarly to feminists, they should be entitled to not have to speak out against other mens rights advocates just to state they disagree with them on specific points.

Sauce for the goose and all that but if we as a society dont take issue with the silence from mainstream feminism about the radical fringe why should we expect other groups to be different? If we allow members of one group to have occasional bouts of extremism and then still give them credibility after then that has to apply to other groups too.

El_Duderino 09

[quote=Zulu;104898090rolleyes:.

As I've mentioninged before: you reap what you sow. You're getting "grief" due to your form - that of being dismissive of others, confrontational, and needlessly pejorative. It's nothing short of amazing you expect anything else.

(And of course by grief I can only assume you mean people responding to you, because by and large posters have been very civil to you all things considered.)[/quote]

Call it opposition rather than grief then. You haven't voiced any agreement with the baseless theory and still your having a go. Your last few posts have had nothing to do with the discussion but he been side swipes at grammar or picking out a single line in my posts. No attempt to play the ball. Simply because I didn't just go along with a guff theory . I called it out as baseless nonsense and that was deemed a faux pas, even if others agreed that it was a baseless theory.

As a direct question to yourself. Should we all just keep schtum when someone proposes a nonsense theory? After all, that's the approach everyone except me took.

After all, it was the right kind of nonsense as it's premise painted men as victims of demonisation by CNN.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

If course mens rights arent a hive mind. And so, similarly to feminists, they should be entitled to not have to speak out against other mens rights advocates just to state they disagree with them on specific points.

Ok. If that's the standard, that's fair enough. Only last week there was a discussion about how feminists can't make up their mind on issues because there was more than one position on a topic. That argument only works if a hive mind is assumed. So let's take it as read that position is nonsense. No hive minds and we don't expect to have to speak out against every argument we disagree with in the movement as a whole.

tritium wrote: »

Sauce for the goose and all that but if we as a society dont take issue with the silence from mainstream feminism about the radical fringe why should we expect other groups to be different? If we allow members of one group to have occasional bouts of extremism and then still give them credibility after then that has to apply to other groups too.

So occasional bouts of extremism are fine and we're not expected to call them out on either side? Is that's your position?

iptba

I honestly don't watch CNN so I don't why I should be expected to argue against a point a single person raises as a possibility in a thread.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. If that's the standard, that's fair enough. Only last week there was a discussion about how feminists can't make up their mind on issues because there was more than one position on a topic. That argument only works if a hive mind is assumed. So let's take it as read that position is nonsense. No hive minds and we don't expect to have to speak out against every argument we disagree with in the movement as a whole.



So occasional bouts of extremism are fine and we're not expected to call them out on either side? Is that's your position?

Wow way to completely and deliberately misrepresent what i said

gizmo555

tritium wrote: »

Wow way to completely and deliberately misrepresent what i said

Don't bother engaging with it ...

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As a direct question to yourself. Should we all just keep schtum when someone proposes a nonsense theory?

No, we shouldn't "keep schtum". But equally we should feel obliged to offer a discourteous poster the time of day - which is far more apt an explanation in this instance.

After all, that's the approach everyone except me took.

This is untrue and ill conceived, but I suppose, par for your course.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Wow way to completely and deliberately misrepresent what i said

Then I didn't get your point. Should we point out the bouts of extremism or not? Or was the point that we should point out occasional bouts of extremism in feminism?

You said you don't have to point it out and then said what's good for the goose and all that. So what is your stance? Should we point out the things we don't agree with or not?

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

No, we shouldn't "keep schtum". But equally we should feel obliged to offer a discourteous poster the time of day - which is far more apt an explanation in this instance.

We shouldn't keep schtum? Ok.

Zulu wrote: »

This is untrue and ill conceived, but I suppose, par for your course.

Now I'm going to call bs on this. It's easy to check back. Nobody questioned, disagreed, asked for clarification on the wacky theory. I disagreed with it and when pressed, some other posters also said they didn't agree with it. You're talking out your hat.

You say I'm being disingenuous when you pop up now and again, lob some insults at me and disappear again. This post above is the first time you engaged with me in any aspect of this discussion by actually answering a direct question then lobbing a few insults. So he without sin and all that.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Then I didn't get your point. Should we point out the bouts of extremism or not? Or was the point that we should point out occasional bouts of extremism in feminism?

You said you don't have to point it out and then said what's good for the goose and all that. So what is your stance? Should we point out the things we don't agree with or not?

Dont play that disingenuous **** with me mate and dont twist my words. I made it very clear that i was referencing how some elements of one grouping currently deal with any controversy within that group. Given you seem to be a fan of that group (and not really much of a fan of mens rights) you'd be better served by explaining the hypocrisy of holding two groups to a different expectation

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

... then lobbing a few insults. So he without sin and all that.

Lets see the insults then...

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Dont play that disingenuous **** with me mate and dont twist my words. I made it very clear that i was referencing how some elements of one grouping currently deal with any controversy within that group. Given you seem to be a fan of that group (and not really much of a fan of mens rights) you'd be better served by explaining the hypocrisy of holding two groups to a different expectation

Disingenuous has lost all meaning in his discussion. I didn't think your meaning was clear at all. So you were only referring to extremism on the feminist side? That clears it up but it doesn't really answer that question I asked which is whether we should call out nonsense when we see it or not.

And don't tell me what it a fan of and what I'm not a fan of. If being a fan of men's rights requires me to stay silent on theories like Silverharp's baseless CNN LV shooting theory, then I think we mean different things when we discuss men's rights.

Of course I'm a don of men's rights. I listed a number of men's rights issues that I see as serious issues that should be addressed. How on earth opposing this wacky theory says I'm opposed to men's rights is beyond me.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Disingenuous has lost all meaning in his discussion. I didn't think your meaning was clear at all. So you were only referring to extremism on the feminist side? That clears it up but it doesn't really answer that question I asked which is whether we should call out nonsense when we see it or not.

And don't tell me what it a fan of and what I'm not a fan of. If being a fan of men's rights requires me to stay silent on theories like Silverharp's baseless CNN LV shooting theory, then I think we mean different things when we discuss men's rights.

Of course I'm a don of men's rights. I listed a number of men's rights issues that I see as serious issues that should be addressed. How on earth opposing this wacky theory says I'm opposed to men's rights is beyond me.

You really are incapable of not putting your own spin on things arent you?

ancuncha

I just heard a rumor that there is talk of replacing Benedict Cumberbatch in Sherlock with a woman

I really don't get why there is a recent spurge of women wanting to take over male roles, Dr Who and James Bond for example and there are more and they keep saying "it's time"

Whats wrong with making good shows or roles with women rather than taking men's roles? (Dark Matter, Star Trek Voyager both strong female main roles and very good series IMO)

I think this is a strong example of sexism in media, imagine the uproar if men were taking over female characters

silverharp

ancuncha wrote: »

I just heard a rumor that there is talk of replacing Benedict Cumberbatch in Sherlock with a woman

I really don't get why there is a recent spurge of women wanting to take over male roles, Dr Who and James Bond for example and there are more and they keep saying "it's time"

Whats wrong with making good shows or roles with women rather than taking men's roles? (Dark Matter, Star Trek Voyager both strong female main roles and very good series IMO)

I think this is a strong example of sexism in media, imagine the uproar if men were taking over female characters

ha ha the bbc has gone to crap, if there was ever a quintessential male character its Sherlock Homes. Its either cynical because they have run out of ideas, or ideological.

Wibbs

maybe

ancuncha wrote: »

I think this is a strong example of sexism in media, imagine the uproar if men were taking over female characters

Well it is the BBC. In many ways it has become the Jezebel/Tumblr of networks. The usual response trotted out as it was with Dr Who is diversity and redressing of balance. That franchise of late has gone full daft and quite openly "male bashing". Some of the lines trotted out if the genders were reversed would result in much gnashing of teeth and tribunals and sackings. Imagine this line spoken by a man: "What's that face? Are you thinking? Stop it! You're a woman, it looks weird". Cue uproar. I'd have little issue with such lines, if it was going both ways, but it isn't(it had been) and no way would such lines going the other way get off the page.

silverharp wrote:

ha ha the bbc has gone to crap, if there was ever a quintessential male character its Sherlock Homes.

Well one could have also said the same of the above Dr Who, but not anymore as that would be "sexist". So of course they went full on and made him a woman and the upcoming show runner's previous includes Broadchurch, where all the men are unsympathetic rapists, liars, weaklings and the women are #sostrong, so you just know where the new team will be going with this.

Redressing the stupidity of the past is a good thing, claiming you're doing so while repeating the stupidity of the past is beyond moronic.

The Star Wars franchise did similar. Putting in a Mary Sue can do no wrong cos boobs main character(by contrast the original Luke Skywalker was about the most inept, flawed and useless heroes in all of popular culture). In their case they were going more for the hit every demographic option. The new Star Trek series is pushing more of the "right on" line. Now to be fair it always did. Its "thing" was to be very reflective of wider society and the politics of the producers/writers. So we had a Black woman as a main character back in the 60's. So in this ever more polarised political and "gendered" world of media their main character is a Black woman called Micheal, the Klingons are closed border xenophobic types who just want to be left alone(IE must be racist nazis) and the federation is multicultural and "diverse" and "open", except when another culture wants to be left the hell alone, then of course they can't be having that and set Ironies to Kill.