Gender neutral kids clothing

One eyed Jack

penguin88 wrote: »

Fair enough. From the way your post was phrased, it seemed to refer to something that hypothetically could or would happen rather than something that did happen to you.

Ah yeah, when I read your post, I read back on what I wrote and I can see how it would have read that way alright. No I have a general rule that I don't argue with hypothetical scenarios because they can tend to go anywhere, so the whole "What would you do?" thing, I genuinely can't answer with any sort of authority on the matter if I have no experience upon which to base my answer.

You'll see it an awful lot when people answer hypothetical questions and scenarios - they'll put forward what they would like to do in that situation, that would lead to a positive outcome, hypothetically speaking of course. The reality however is always an entirely different matter, because no matter how long and hard they've thought about the issue, they won't have factored in that when dealing with a situation involving more than just themselves, they can only account for their own thoughts and actions. They cannot predict with any degree of accuracy the future behaviour and thoughts of another person. That's the element they're missing.

Jack Killian

Its dead Jim wrote: »

You did say you support traditional gender norms and are against what is normal by society being changed. Then your brought up the 60s which sound perfect for you but you refuse to mention them since.

I'll just assume you think the 60s were great then. Women couldn't be raped by their husbands, had to leave their jobs in the public sector once married, couldn't get a barring order against a violent husband. Good ole traditional gender roles and norms.

It was awful that the leftist cultural Marxists ruined it. You couldn't possibly agree with them changing things.

Some actually view raping and beating women as "traditional gender roles" ?

I must be fluid as fcuk so!

Wait. No, I'm not. Because real men don't rape or beat people they love. They never have.

The Hill Billy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have kids, so you only know how your own kids work. I know how I work, which is more important than knowing how my kid works, because I am a role model for my child. I absolutely wouldn't compromise with a three year old boy who wants to wear his mothers clothing or makeup. He won't, and that's the end of that. There is no discussion, there is no compromise. He is not a girl, never has been a girl, never will be a girl, and will learn what it is to be a man, to be a contributing member of society who cares more about people than he does about fashion.

So, you are saying that only men who don't care about fashion actually contribute to society? Joe Wilkinson for example.
In your book, girls & women don't contribute. Charming!
What about gay men, or transsexuals who wear shell suits - do they qualify as contributing members of society?

MadDog76

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Until the kid wants to wear his Elsa dress into a non uniform day in school. What do you do then, let him? Jesus Christ..
Why are some parents so afraid to be "the bad guy" now?

Surely to Jaysus ye can see what will happen to them for the rest of their life in that school, from that moment? Do ye think other kids will just rally around the boy going "Go you! You progressive fighter for equality, you!"
Jesus ****ing Christ....

Speedwell wrote: »

Just because you were a little $#!+ who would beat up a kid who was different doesn't mean every other kid is.

What a ridiculous post, RM is being realistic and well you know it!

One eyed Jack

The Hill Billy wrote: »

So, you are saying that only men who don't care about fashion actually contribute to society?

No, that's not what I said at all. I'll break it down:

1. To learn what it is to be a man.
2. To be a contributing member of society
3. A man who cares more about people than he does about fashion.

Joe Wilkinson for example.

I googled, and I'm not sure are you referring to the comedian, or Jonny Wilkinson the rugby player who set up his own fashion company with his brother? I'm not sure how either contradict my point that I want my child to care more about people than he does about fashion. The idea behind that is that he doesn't grow up vain and thinking he is the centre of his own universe.

In your book, girls & women don't contribute. Charming!

As bizarre interpretations and things I never said go, that's a doozie that's not even worth entertaining.

What about gay men, or transsexuals who wear shell suits - do they qualify as contributing members of society?

Some do, some don't, the fact that they are gay or transgender is irrelevant as to whether I would consider someone a contributing member of society or not. Being gay or transgender is in the "So what?" territory for me personally. Contributing to society means a person putting the needs of other people in society before their own.

Straight Edge Punk

One eyed Jack, what does it mean to be a man?

Chocolate fiend

I don't have the time to read the whole thread, but, I have bought some of this range for my daughter. She models for them, she didn't do this campaign but, she did the last one, that was shot in Sydney. The designer is a really lovely idealistic lady, she is very much of the idea that kids are kids and her clothes are all beautifully made and colourful and fun, and good enough to be passed down twice or three times.

Sometimes people just don't like things because they are different, or trying to be different. Her last campaign was called "land of no difference" this one is about animals who would never be friends in the wild being "Best Friends" It's interesting and has a story, and isprobably a lot more ethical than anything you will buy in Penneys.

One eyed Jack

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

One eyed Jack, what does it mean to be a man?

It means that's what boys become when they grow up.

Straight Edge Punk

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It means that's what boys become when they grow up.

Could you clarify it for me? In your mind, what does it mean to be a man?

One eyed Jack

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

Could you clarify it for me? In your mind, what does it mean to be a man?

It means exactly what I said?

My child is a young boy, and he will grow up to be a man. I'm not sure what you're driving at or why that's so difficult to get your head around. It's very simple.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that's not what I said at all. I'll break it down:

1. To learn what it is to be a man.
2. To be a contributing member of society
3. A man who cares more about people than he does about fashion.

I've agreed with a good few of your points but I have to pull you up on this one. Fashion has no inbuilt association with male OR female, just as sport isn't solely one or the other either.

Are you suggesting that a woman who has no major interest in fashion (maybe bar the odd wedding or family event, when even guys get "scrubbed up well") is less of a woman ?

If not - and I hope you're not, because you'd be wrong - what does point 3 have to do with anything ?

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

I've agreed with a good few of your points but I have to pull you up on this one. Fashion has no inbuilt association with male OR female, just as sport isn't solely one or the other either.

Are you suggesting that a woman who has no major interest in fashion (maybe bar the odd wedding or family event, when even guys get "scrubbed up well") is less of a woman ?

If not - and I hope you're not, because you'd be wrong - what does point 3 have to do with anything ?

No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm talking about my child, who is a boy (and therefore any discussion of women is irrelevant and falls outside the scope of what I'm talking about), and I'm saying that I am raising him to care more about people, than fashion, which are transient social trends based upon vanity and appearance. There are more important things in life a person should concern themselves with than just keeping up with the latest trends in fashion.

Other people are perfectly entitled to disagree with that and say that nothing in life is more important than fashion, and that's their priority in their life, but it isn't mine, and I raise my son with values that encourage him to focus his energy on social awareness and consideration for other people in society, rather than vanity and self-centredness. To focus on achievement over appearance.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm talking about my child, who is a boy (and therefore any discussion of women is irrelevant and falls outside the scope of what I'm talking about), and I'm saying that I am raising him to care more about people, than fashion, which are transient social trends based upon vanity and appearance. There are more important things in life a person should concern themselves with than just keeping up with the latest trends in fashion.

Other people are perfectly entitled to disagree with that and say that nothing in life is more important than fashion, and that's their priority in their life, but it isn't mine, and I raise my son with values that encourage him to focus his energy on social awareness and consideration for other people in society, rather than vanity and self-centredness. To focus on achievement over appearance.

All well and good. I'm just curious as to how it came up at all, and it does seem like you're using it as a distinction between the sexes.

However I may well be wrong, having missed something; how did it come up ?

Even as I type this I'm wondering if it was a straightforward reference back to the actual topic of the thread, which hadn't occurred to me as I typed the original question, and if so I apologise.

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

All well and good. I'm just curious as to how it came up at all, and it does seem like you're using it as a distinction between the sexes.

However I may well be wrong, having missed something; how did it come up ?

Even as I type this I'm wondering if it was a straightforward reference back to the actual topic of the thread, which hadn't occurred to me as I typed the original question, and if so I apologise.

Ah no, there's no need to apologise, I know yours wasn't at least a wilful misinterpretation of what I said. It came up as a result of SEP's point here:

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

I have kids, I know how they work.

Compromise is crucial.

To which my reply was:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have kids, so you only know how your own kids work. I know how I work, which is more important than knowing how my kid works, because I am a role model for my child. I absolutely wouldn't compromise with a three year old boy who wants to wear his mothers clothing or makeup. He won't, and that's the end of that. There is no discussion, there is no compromise. He is not a girl, never has been a girl, never will be a girl, and will learn what it is to be a man, to be a contributing member of society who cares more about people than he does about fashion.

As it happens, I do view distinctions between the sexes, and to that end, I am raising a boy who will become a man. I am not raising a boy who will become a woman, so I do not raise a boy as though they are a girl who will become a woman. It's absolutely relevant to the topic of the thread because I don't subscribe to any of this "gender neutral" nonsense.

There is no such thing as a neutral state as far as humans are concerned, whether it be in the social, political, medical or scientific context. It's an ideology that's being promoted in a social context by a tiny minority of people whom I have no interest in entertaining as I regard other things as more important in raising my child to be a contributing member of society rather than his fashion choices.

There are some parents who focus more on fashion choices for their children, and that is their own business. I disagree with their ideology, but I don't imagine it's one isolated from all other aspects of parenthood or guardianship, and I would hope for their child's sake at least that they teach the child that they have to have more going for themselves than simply their choice to wear pink dresses and play with Barbie dolls, regardless of the child's sex or gender.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have kids, so you only know how your own kids work. I know how I work, which is more important than knowing how my kid works, because I am a role model for my child. I absolutely wouldn't compromise with a three year old boy who wants to wear his mothers clothing or makeup. He won't, and that's the end of that. There is no discussion, there is no compromise. He is not a girl, never has been a girl, never will be a girl, and will learn what it is to be a man, to be a contributing member of society who cares more about people than he does about fashion.

How do you know he won't come out as a trans female in the future?

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What do you mean "what then?"

I don't spend my time thinking about things that haven't happened.

You just said your son will never be a girl.

Annasopra

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Honestly?
"Er... Can you hold it till you get to college? It'll be so much easier for you after."

Schools have vastly changed in the 10 years since you left by the way.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How do you know he won't come out as a trans female in the future?

I don't? I don't possess the ability to see into my own future, let alone anyone else's, but what I can do, is plan for possible future events based upon my own previous experience and the previous experiences of others, and use that to guide my son in helping him to plan for his future.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You just said your son will never be a girl.

And he won't? Because he is a boy.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Schools have vastly changed in the 10 years since you left by the way.

Schools in Ireland? They really haven't.

That's why there are all sorts of campaigns to try and change schools, the same way there were all sorts of campaigns to change schools when we were in school. The RCC still maintains patronage of the vast majority of schools in Ireland, and children still behave exactly the same as children did when we were children.

Lyaiera

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And he won't? Because he is a boy.

You told me I was wrong to imply you thought trans women were men.

The Hill Billy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that's not what I said at all. I'll break it down:

1. To learn what it is to be a man.
2. To be a contributing member of society
3. A man who cares more about people than he does about fashion.





I googled, and I'm not sure are you referring to the comedian, or Jonny Wilkinson the rugby player who set up his own fashion company with his brother? I'm not sure how either contradict my point that I want my child to care more about people than he does about fashion. The idea behind that is that he doesn't grow up vain and thinking he is the centre of his own universe.





As bizarre interpretations and things I never said go, that's a doozie that's not even worth entertaining.





Some do, some don't, the fact that they are gay or transgender is irrelevant as to whether I would consider someone a contributing member of society or not. Being gay or transgender is in the "So what?" territory for me personally. Contributing to society means a person putting the needs of other people in society before their own.

You might want to consider how you phrase things in future. It would appear that a few of us have required clarification on the true meaning behind your posts in this thread.

One eyed Jack

Lyaiera wrote: »

You told me I was wrong to imply you thought trans women were men.

And you'd still be wrong if you tried to imply that. I'm talking about my own child, who is a boy, who is not a girl, and will never become a girl.

One eyed Jack

The Hill Billy wrote: »

You might want to consider how you phrase things in future. It would appear that a few of us have required clarification on the true meaning behind your posts in this thread.

I always consider how I post because I'm conscious of the fact that being dyslexic, I may sometimes post something that could be misunderstood or misinterpreted, and I'm aware that I could misunderstand or misinterpret something, and I make allowances for that fact, preferring to err on the side of caution and give people the benefit of the doubt that they aren't meaning to be insulting, or that they aren't purposely misinterpreting what I've written or being a smartarse about it (that tends to happen quite a bit among perpetually offended types who seek offence here, who seek offence there, who seek offence everywhere!).

I hope the clarification I've provided is to your satisfaction, but if there's anything else you're unclear about, by all means fire away, and I'll make allowances and give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't meaning to be insulting, purposely misinterpreting what I've said, attempting to be a smartarse, or that you are of the perpetually offended variety.

Perhaps you might offer me the same courtesy, which would lead to better understanding between all of us.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And you'd still be wrong if you tried to imply that. I'm talking about my own child, who is a boy, who is not a girl, and will never become a girl.

So being trans is okay until it's your child

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

So being trans is okay until it's your child

Ahh here, I'm beginning to wonder are people actually reading what I wrote? I've already said that for me personally, being gay or transgender falls into the category of "so what?". It's utterly unimportant to me personally in the grand scheme of things. Literally SO WHAT if my child was gay or transgender?

The fact is that he isn't either gay or transgender, so it's not an issue for me personally that I have to think about as far as my own child is concerned. I have enough issues to be concerned about as far as my child is concerned without thinking about issues that aren't applicable to him.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh here, I'm beginning to wonder are people actually reading what I wrote? I've already said that for me personally, being gay or transgender falls into the category of "so what?". It's utterly unimportant to me personally in the grand scheme of things. Literally SO WHAT if my child was gay or transgender?

The fact is that he isn't either gay or transgender, so it's not an issue for me personally that I have to think about as far as my own child is concerned. I have enough issues to be concerned about as far as my child is concerned without thinking about issues that aren't applicable to him.

You mean you don't have a wheelchair at the ready out the back on the off-chance that he ever falls out of a tree and breaks both legs ?

Shocking parenting altogether that!

Renegade Mechanic

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Schools have vastly changed in the 10 years since you left by the way.

Where? In Dublin 4? :rolleyes:
It's genuinely amusing that you think this.

Lyaiera

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Where? In Dublin 4? :rolleyes:
It's genuinely amusing that you think this.

When I was in school just over a decade ago it was shocking to hear of someone coming out as gay in secondary school. There were a few people who came out after the left, but none in the school I was in. Now people are regularly coming out in school.

I would imagine that to be a "vast" change.

Its dead Jim

Jack Killian wrote: »

Some actually view raping and beating women as "traditional gender roles" ?

I must be fluid as fcuk so!

Wait. No, I'm not. Because real men don't rape or beat people they love. They never have.

Nope, I was talking about what society deemed as normal. People wouldn't bat an eye at hitting a woman back then. What society deemed as normal changed. The OP said he was against what society sees as normal being changed.

You can no true Scotsman all you like. Women had little protection against violent partners and it was changed for the better. I know I'm dealing with people who feel threatened that there are clothes they will never see anyone using which look a bit feminine but I expect at least a littl consistency.

One eyed Jack

Lyaiera wrote: »

When I was in school just over a decade ago it was shocking to hear of someone coming out as gay in secondary school. There were a few people who came out after the left, but none in the school I was in. Now people are regularly coming out in school.

I would imagine that to be a "vast" change.

It's a change alright from when I was in school over two decades ago. It was a CBS and nobody cared about whether a guy was LGBT, QUILTBAG, FABGLITTER or any of the rest of it.

They cared about academic and sporting achievements and whether a guy was sound or a scumbag. Schools in Ireland haven't changed at all as much as some people might like to think they have, let alone any "vast" change.

In primary schools things are pretty much the same too, academic and sporting achievement are the primary focus, and social justice issues aren't really touched upon, in the vast majority of schools both primary and secondary that I have experience with anyway.

I understand that my perspective isn't universal of course, and that other people will have their own standards by which they measure whether Irish schools actually have changed that much, if at all.

Jack Killian

Its dead Jim wrote: »

Nope, I was talking about what society deemed as normal. People wouldn't bat an eye at hitting a woman back then. What society deemed as normal changed. The OP said he was against what society sees as normal being changed.

You can no true Scotsman all you like. Women had little protection against violent partners and it was changed for the better. I know I'm dealing with people who feel threatened that there are clothes they will never see anyone using which look a bit feminine but I expect at least a littl consistency.

Society unfortunately doesn't particularly bat an eyelid at women slapping men in the face these days, but I wouldn't go telling someone who doesn't that she "isn't a woman".

And I wouldn't tell the slapper that she's a man either.

The exaggerated stereotypes are irrelevant.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a change alright from when I was in school over two decades ago. It was a CBS and nobody cared about whether a guy was LGBT, QUILTBAG, FABGLITTER or any of the rest of it.

They cared about academic and sporting achievements and whether a guy was sound or a scumbag. Schools in Ireland haven't changed at all as much as some people might like to think they have, let alone any "vast" change.

In primary schools things are pretty much the same too, academic and sporting achievement are the primary focus, and social justice issues aren't really touched upon, in the vast majority of schools both primary and secondary that I have experience with anyway.

I understand that my perspective isn't universal of course, and that other people will have their own standards by which they measure whether Irish schools actually have changed that much, if at all.

Loads of those terms were chucked around at straight people too; it's just lads being idiots.

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

Society unfortunately doesn't particularly bat an eyelid at women slapping men in the face these days, but I wouldn't go telling someone who doesn't that she "isn't a woman".

And I wouldn't tell the slapper that she's a man either.

The exaggerated stereotypes are irrelevant.

Hmm...

Come on now Jack, just because one poster makes an unqualified, unquantifiable generalisation based upon exaggerated stereotypes, doesn't mean you have to follow suit!

Its dead Jim

Jack Killian wrote: »

Society unfortunately doesn't particularly bat an eyelid at women slapping men in the face these days, but I wouldn't go telling someone who doesn't that she "isn't a woman".

And I wouldn't tell the slapper that she's a man either.

The exaggerated stereotypes are irrelevant.

No idea what that has to to do with me pointing out that that what society perceives as normal has changed in many areas for the better but ok.

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

Loads of those terms were chucked around at straight people too; it's just lads being idiots.

That's it really, most people (because girls are just as handy at it too!) grow out of it when they grow up and become mature adults and gain some life experience, and only a small minority of people either bear grudges or never grow out of it, eventually isolating themselves from society and festering in their bitterness. That's really not a healthy mindset or way to look at people or enjoy life. It can make life and dealing with people that much harder.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's it really, most people (because girls are just as handy at it too!) grow out of it when they grow up and become mature adults and gain some life experience, and only a small minority of people either bear grudges or never grow out of it, eventually isolating themselves from society and festering in their bitterness. That's really not a healthy mindset or way to look at people or enjoy life. It can make life and dealing with people that much harder.

Some so-called adults haven't even grown up!

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hmm...

Come on now Jack, just because one poster makes an unqualified, unquantifiable generalisation based upon exaggerated stereotypes, doesn't mean you have to follow suit!

Really ?. Because I didn't even argue their generalisation with them.

But let's have a look.

A fair chunk of society would have far, far less of an issue with a woman slapping a man than vice-versa.

A cursory glance at any film would show this; while Lauren Baccall might have slapped a man, you could even see Rachel from Friends slapping a man - and that's a feckin' comedy!

Try showing a man slapping a woman in a sitcom and see how you get on!

Have you EVER heard the "if you've been affected by issues in this episode" because of a man getting a slap across the face ? It isn't perceived as violence, as long as it's one way only.

And as I said, I'd not view a woman who views that as acceptable as a man; I'd just view her as a double-standards bitch.

Just in case anyone reads this point completely incorrectly - BOTH are assault and BOTH are out of order.

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

Really ?. Because I didn't even argue their generalisation with them.

But let's have a look.

A fair chunk of society would have far, far less of an issue with a woman slapping a man than vice-versa.

A cursory glance at any film would show this; while Lauren Baccall might have slapped a man, you could even see Rachel from Friends slapping a man - and that's a feckin' comedy!

Try showing a man slapping a woman in a sitcom and see how you get on!

Have you EVER heard the "if you've been affected by issues in this episode" because of a man getting a slap across the face ? It isn't perceived as violence, as long as it's one way only.

And as I said, I'd not view a woman who views that as acceptable as a man; I'd just view her as a double-standards bitch.

Just in case anyone reads this point completely incorrectly - BOTH are assault and BOTH are out of order.

Without addressing all the nuanced scenarios that suit your argument above, the bit in bold there contradicts your own argument. You're a member of society aren't you? You view gender based violence as out of order. So do I, so do most people in society. Society doesn't turn a blind eye to anything. Only some people turn a blind eye, to certain things, because their attention may be on other things that they consider a priority, for them.

That's people for you, and it's people who make up a society and define the social norms for that society. Gender based violence certainly isn't one of those norms, and has never been seen as acceptable, in any civilised society.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Without addressing all the nuanced scenarios that suit your argument above, the bit in bold there contradicts your own argument. You're a member of society aren't you? You view gender based violence as out of order. So do I, so do most people in society. Society doesn't turn a blind eye to anything. Only some people turn a blind eye, to certain things, because their attention may be on other things that they consider a priority, for them.

That's people for you, and it's people who make up a society and define the social norms for that society. Gender based violence certainly isn't one of those norms, and has never been seen as acceptable, in any civilised society.

I hear you. But it's not that clear-cut.

Society as a whole nowadays idolises and rewards money, celebrity, fads and style over substance.

I don't.

But I have to acknowledge that there are more of them than us.

I certainly wish there was more of an awareness of real issues and actual reality instead of "reality" TV, but it certainly feels like I'm in a minority.

Maybe my minority isn't as small as I thought; in which case you'd be more right, maybe even to the point of being more right than I.

But that's where my scenarios come in; if those are on mainstream TV without people screaming their objections, then I'm in a minority.

Slap a black person/slave/servant on TV or film - old films yes, create WW3 nowadays.

Slap a child or woman in anything other than a crime drama ? WW3.

Slap a man ? In a sitcom ? Can you honestly say that it's frowned upon ?

Samaris

Jack Killian wrote: »

Slap a man ? In a sitcom ? Can you honestly say that it's frowned upon ?

And society needs to shout about that too until that is also generally regarded as bad.

As it was with women protesting about spousal abuse towards them though, there -will- be some sectors saying that the bloody women are shouting again, tell the bitchy feminists to shut up feminising men, and some sectors indicating that if a man gets slapped by a weak female, he deserves all he gets for being pathetic and a third sector that claim this is all PC ****e.

It's wrong. It is. And it does need to be stopped, and when it happens on TV, people -do- need to complain about it, women and men. It's the only way it will ever be removed from normalised society.

Jack Killian

Samaris wrote: »

And society needs to shout about that too until that is also generally regarded as bad.

As it was with women protesting about spousal abuse towards them though, there -will- be some sectors saying that the bloody women are shouting again, tell the bitchy feminists to shut up feminising men, and some sectors indicating that if a man gets slapped by a weak female, he deserves all he gets for being pathetic and a third sector that claim this is all PC ****e.

It's wrong. It is. And it does need to be stopped, and when it happens on TV, people -do- need to complain about it, women and men. It's the only way it will ever be removed from normalised society.

Agreed.

Now, I don't know if you're a man from that username, but there are some who would incorrectly label me/us gender-fluid because we're not THAT TYPE of man.

That is absolutely obnoxious and ridiculous, and is where I regularly end up closing my ears to those who could have something of a valid point, but instead of arguing their own case decide to insult me by projecting what they think onto me.

Define themselves all they like; live and let live.

But call me "gender fluid" simply because I'm civilised and the caller is an obnoxious sexist moron, and I'd consider slapping them

* only I wouldn't know whether or not to slap them 20%, 35%, 66%, 72% or whatever

** ^ joke!

And if those are their "criteria" then that means the concept doesn't exist.

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

I hear you. But it's not that clear-cut.

Society as a whole nowadays idolises and rewards money, celebrity, fads and style over substance.

I don't.

But I have to acknowledge that there are more of them than us.

See, here's the problem with trying to say anything about society as a whole - society is made up of all sorts of social groups and sub-cultures and so on and so much of your argument is based solely upon your own perception. If, as a whole, society valued style over substance (which I think is what you're driving at?), society would simply never have evolved. We'd all be like that film where they have to go to the chambers at 30 to end their lives, it just wouldn't do to have unattractive, unhealthy, unwealthy people amongst us. But society as a whole isn't like that. Only some people in society are like that.

I've always said that if you're part of a minority in one way, you're part of a majority in another way! To use myself as an example for instance, I was always a white male, but at various points throughout my life I was comfortable as a child with the idea that I was gay, attracted to men, no big deal for me as nobody ever talked about sex because I grew up in a fundamentalist religious household where the topic of sex and sexuality just never came up, so I simply didn't know any better, and because nobody ever brought it up, I never had any reason to question it.

I've mentioned already that I'm dyslexic, I couldn't read nor write for shyte as a kid, I've gotten better as an adult but there are still times I'm caught on the hop. I used get a woeful time both at home and in school because I was considered "retarded". What could I say like? They had a point, they could all read and write and I couldn't. It made me feel like shyte, but it also made me more determined to learn to read and write and though she could be a right cow sometimes, I'll always be grateful for my mothers perseverance, because looking back now I wasn't an easy child, by any stretch!

I've been homeless, a drug addict, an alcoholic, the usual stuff, the "issues", that every social justice warrior type would wet themselves over. But to look at me now and the lifestyle I have now, they wouldn't know I'd experienced any of that stuff, and when I work with people who are in those situations now, they look at me and they wonder how the hell can I have any understanding of their lives. The truth is that I can't, because I'm not them, and I have no wish to impose my own issues on them. I prefer to keep that kind of stuff to myself.

There isn't really any "them" and "us" in society when you view a society as a whole, because society is simply made up of all the various groups of people who as individuals all have their own issues and experiences that they're dealing with, and none is more important or deserving of attention than another. That is the whole point of treating others as we ourselves would like to be treated.

I certainly wish there was more of an awareness of real issues and actual reality instead of "reality" TV, but it certainly feels like I'm in a minority.

Maybe my minority isn't as small as I thought; in which case you'd be more right, maybe even to the point of being more right than I.

But that's where my scenarios come in; if those are on mainstream TV without people screaming their objections, then I'm in a minority.

But real issues and reality are simply matters of perspective, and I forgot to include it above but I'm also blind in one eye and crippled with arthritis, and I do a good job of hiding that too so that other people don't perceive it, because I don't want them to. I don't want people to be aware of it because I don't want them to treat me differently, hence why even though I should be using a crutch and an eye patch, I had to stop using them because I just couldn't take the pirate jokes any more! They're funny the first 400 times already, gimme a break! :pac:

Like I said above - we're all in a minority in one way, and we're in a majority in another way.

Slap a black person/slave/servant on TV or film - old films yes, create WW3 nowadays.

That depends on context. You've seen recent films like Django Unchained and 12 Years A Slave? There was more controversy over Cumberbatch's family history than there was any sort of publicity for the films (I always get those two mixed up, all I know is they contain black people).

Look at the recent twitter spats with Taylor Swift being criticised for not presenting a realistic picture of Africa with no black people in her video. Meanwhile Azalea Banks was shooting her keyboard off at Zain Malik and the cross-cultural appropriation contortionists experienced a spasmodic episode because they couldn't decide who was the winner and loser in battle of the privileges! :pac:

Slap a child or woman in anything other than a crime drama ? WW3.

Bollocks, I don't think there's ever been an episode of a soap where someone isn't getting it in the kisser and there's no WW3 about it.

Slap a man ? In a sitcom ? Can you honestly say that it's frowned upon ?

I can of course! It's frowned upon by anyone who gives a shìt. I don't, because I know they're actors, acting is what they're getting paid to do, according to a script, that bears very, very little resemblance to reality, and is certainly not representative nor a reflection of my reality! Hell the amount of crime and violence on EastEnders alone, for a small street, I'd expect to see a social worker in every episode!!

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

See, here's the problem with trying to say anything about society as a whole - society is made up of all sorts of social groups and sub-cultures and so on and so much of your argument is based solely upon your own perception. If, as a whole, society valued style over substance (which I think is what you're driving at?), society would simply never have evolved. We'd all be like that film where they have to go to the chambers at 30 to end their lives, it just wouldn't do to have unattractive, unhealthy, unwealthy people amongst us. But society as a whole isn't like that. Only some people in society are like that.

I've always said that if you're part of a minority in one way, you're part of a majority in another way! To use myself as an example for instance, I was always a white male, but at various points throughout my life I was comfortable as a child with the idea that I was gay, attracted to men, no big deal for me as nobody ever talked about sex because I grew up in a fundamentalist religious household where the topic of sex and sexuality just never came up, so I simply didn't know any better, and because nobody ever brought it up, I never had any reason to question it.

I've mentioned already that I'm dyslexic, I couldn't read nor write for shyte as a kid, I've gotten better as an adult but there are still times I'm caught on the hop. I used get a woeful time both at home and in school because I was considered "retarded". What could I say like? They had a point, they could all read and write and I couldn't. It made me feel like shyte, but it also made me more determined to learn to read and write and though she could be a right cow sometimes, I'll always be grateful for my mothers perseverance, because looking back now I wasn't an easy child, by any stretch!

I've been homeless, a drug addict, an alcoholic, the usual stuff, the "issues", that every social justice warrior type would wet themselves over. But to look at me now and the lifestyle I have now, they wouldn't know I'd experienced any of that stuff, and when I work with people who are in those situations now, they look at me and they wonder how the hell can I have any understanding of their lives. The truth is that I can't, because I'm not them, and I have no wish to impose my own issues on them. I prefer to keep that kind of stuff to myself.

There isn't really any "them" and "us" in society when you view a society as a whole, because society is simply made up of all the various groups of people who as individuals all have their own issues and experiences that they're dealing with, and none is more important or deserving of attention than another. That is the whole point of treating others as we ourselves would like to be treated.





But real issues and reality are simply matters of perspective, and I forgot to include it above but I'm also blind in one eye and crippled with arthritis, and I do a good job of hiding that too so that other people don't perceive it, because I don't want them to. I don't want people to be aware of it because I don't want them to treat me differently, hence why even though I should be using a crutch and an eye patch, I had to stop using them because I just couldn't take the pirate jokes any more! They're funny the first 400 times already, gimme a break! :pac:

Like I said above - we're all in a minority in one way, and we're in a majority in another way.





That depends on context. You've seen recent films like Django Unchained and 12 Years A Slave? There was more controversy over Cumberbatch's family history than there was any sort of publicity for the films (I always get those two mixed up, all I know is they contain black people).

Look at the recent twitter spats with Taylor Swift being criticised for not presenting a realistic picture of Africa with no black people in her video. Meanwhile Azalea Banks was shooting her keyboard off at Zain Malik and the cross-cultural appropriation contortionists experienced a spasmodic episode because they couldn't decide who was the winner and loser in battle of the privileges! :pac:





Bollocks, I don't think there's ever been an episode of a soap where someone isn't getting it in the kisser and there's no WW3 about it.





I can of course! It's frowned upon by anyone who gives a shìt. I don't, because I know they're actors, acting is what they're getting paid to do, according to a script, that bears very, very little resemblance to reality, and is certainly not representative nor a reflection of my reality! Hell the amount of crime and violence on EastEnders alone, for a small street, I'd expect to see a social worker in every episode!!

I think you missed my drama vs sitcom emphasis ?

Django, Eastenders, etc are not sitcoms.

Can you name something meant to be funny that has had a woman slapped by a man ?

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

I think you missed my drama vs sitcom emphasis ?

Django, Eastenders, etc are not sitcoms.

Can you name something meant to be funny that has had a woman slapped by a man ?

I didn't miss your limited conditions that suit your own argument at all, and I'm sure if I cared, I probably could come up with some remote example pulled from the arse hole of the internet, but quite frankly I'm not even bothered googling. The point I'm making is that you care, and I have no doubt you're not alone in that regard, so on some level, as you are part of society, your point that "society turns a blind eye" is moot.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't miss your limited conditions that suit your own argument at all, and I'm sure if I cared, I probably could come up with some remote example pulled from the arse hole of the internet, but quite frankly I'm not even bothered googling. The point I'm making is that you care, and I have no doubt you're not alone in that regard, so on some level, as you are part of society, your point that "society turns a blind eye" is moot.

Googling isn't the same as you naming.

So your answer is no. You can't. (Think table quiz rules if you think I'm being harsh).

And it wasn't about "suiting my own argument"; of COURSE a drama or a show about a murder will show violence. It has to.

Mainstream comedies don't.

Which means that anything seen on mainstream comedies isn't viewed as violence by the makers and their focus groups. And if it's not objected to, not by the bulk audience either, then "society" accepts it.

I see your point but can you at least acknowledge that the fact that you'd have to Google it but could probably (?) name a few off the top of your head where a female character has slapped a man ?

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

Googling isn't the same as you naming.

So your answer is no. You can't. (Think table quiz rules if you think I'm being harsh).

And it wasn't about "suiting my own argument"; of COURSE a drama or a show about a murder will show violence. It has to.

Mainstream comedies don't.

Which means that anything seen on mainstream comedies isn't viewed as violence by the makers and their focus groups. And if it's not objected to, not by the bulk audience either, then "society" accepts it.

I see your point but can you at least acknowledge that the fact that you'd have to Google it but could probably (?) name a few off the top of your head where a female character has slapped a man ?

I completely see your point, I really do - most people don't care that female characters slap male characters in comedies and this is an issue that you feel needs to be highlighted in society. I understand where you're coming from and all, but I just can't bring myself to care about it all that much tbh.

I wouldn't agree that society finds it acceptable though on the basis that a particilar comedy series is popular. It's not popular because it's all about the hilarity of women slapping men. It's popular among people who can relate to the characters and enjoy their contrived interactions. Sex and the City was no different. Mindless stereotypes are popular with mindless people.

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I completely see your point, I really do - most people don't care that female characters slap male characters in comedies and this is an issue that you feel needs to be highlighted in society. I understand where you're coming from and all, but I just can't bring myself to care about it all that much tbh.

I wouldn't agree that society finds it acceptable though on the basis that a particilar comedy series is popular. It's not popular because it's all about the hilarity of women slapping men. It's popular among people who can relate to the characters and enjoy their contrived interactions. Sex and the City was no different. Mindless stereotypes are popular with mindless people.

Not just "a particular series" though; Friends, Two & a Half Men, Seinfeld - I'd be surprised if there are many that it hasn't happened on.

Even the non-crime dramas like The Newsroom would have seen a woman slap a man in the face but never the opposite.

And if you "don't care enough" then maybe I am in my minority and things won't change.

One eyed Jack

Jack Killian wrote: »

Not just "a particular series" though; Friends, Two & a Half Men, Seinfeld - I'd be surprised if there are many that it hasn't happened on.

Even the non-crime dramas like The Newsroom would have seen a woman slap a man in the face but never the opposite.

And if you "don't care enough" then maybe I am in my minority and things won't change.

Ohh I wouldn't take my lack of support as an indication of anything, I'm sure there are plenty of people, given the popularity of these programmes, that will see the issue as one that needs to be highlighted the same as you do.

I'm going to keep quiet about it though as I have a tendency to give my female work colleagues a smack on the ass by way of saying "Now get the fcuk out of my office!!", and all of us would hate for some finger wagging numpty to interfere with that dynamic and tell us our behaviour is out of order. I'm not saying you're a finger wagging numpty, but the types I'm referring to have no sense of perspective whatsoever!!

Jack Killian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ohh I wouldn't take my lack of support as an indication of anything, I'm sure there are plenty of people, given the popularity of these programmes, that will see the issue as one that needs to be highlighted the same as you do.

I'm going to keep quiet about it though as I have a tendency to give my female work colleagues a smack on the ass by way of saying "Now get the fcuk out of my office!!", and all of us would hate for some finger wagging numpty to interfere with that dynamic and tell us our behaviour is out of order. I'm not saying you're a finger wagging numpty, but the types I'm referring to have no sense of perspective whatsoever!!

Just don't wag your finger while you're doing it!