Re: tired of the PMS defence
Is that your considered, expert opinion, Hollerith? Millions of women suffer from the frightening psychological effects of PMS. It's not bloody funny.
2823 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Jan 2008
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/nobodyispayinganyattentiontowhatyouwantorwhenyouwantit
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ifyouthinkallyouneedtodoissignapetitiontoeffectchangeyouareanass
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/sogetofftheinternetanddosomethingmoreproactiveinstead
I think more research is needed. Anyway, if you saw the stuff I reject you'd realise that my tolerance is actually... what's a good tolerance simile? Fakir-like? Yeah, that'd do it. Only instead of nails it's like a bed of nasty internet twattiness.
Oh, and well said, AC - there is a fundamentally valid point to this kind of research regardless of the apparent redundancy/appalling waste of money that could er, build some much-needed cheap housing, etc.
Well, maybe blokes should blame their hormones more often - they're a factor in their behaviour just as ours are. It's just that they're not as immediately (ostensibly) predictable and easily ridiculed as women's.
Both genders are subject to the shenanigans of all sorts of other hormones, too, we don't just have one each.
"Sorry girls, learn to control yourself, the same way blokes have to..."
Um, everyone controls themselves, otherwise society would collapse. Anyway, the results differ when we weaken. When women fail to control themselves, there is shopping and crying. When men fail to control themselves, there is drinking and WAR.
Meheh.
What a nice comment to start the week.
I considered letting this one through so it could get blowtorched by the rest of you, but I think it's better off nixed. Just don't come around here talking about "bitches who deserve all the violence they get", AC. I'm sorry if you suffered at the hands of one woman but that doesn't give you carte blanche to be so hateful towards the entire gender.
If that makes you angry, let me know, and see if I put it up for the internet's consideration.
Good day, sunshine!
Why are you being so absolutist, Liam? Where have I said it's a good idea to ignore victims of a crime on the grounds of gender? I'm just pointing out that the more people bleat about sexism - which undoubtedly exists, both ways, in varying proportions - the more they lose sight of the real issues.
This is just bonkers, honestly. We're clearly not starting from the same basic, reasonable position and there's no getting back to it.
I really would like to see a campaign to draw attention to the fact that men can also be victims of domestic abuse - people assume it doesn't happen, of course, and it's a delicate and complex issue about which little has been said. Which means it deserves its own analysis - just as violence against women does, because each scenario, while it may have much in common, is different and requires specific attention. And I hope it happens that violence against men is properly addressed, especially because of the issues with shame etc which have been raised.
It's just that you could insist on total inclusiveness about almost anything, and if you followed it to its logical conclusion, all charities would be obliged to divvy up their funds equally among all the good causes in existence.
I know that's bollocks but honestly, I can't grapple with this any more. And it's going to look like I support Jacqui Smith if I carry on and if you think that then you can kiss my (for the purposes of this argument, non-gender-specified) arse.
I'm going to get out of this thread because I really can't stand to hear what is essentially becoming people raging against the idea of protecting vulnerable women just because nothing has been said about vulnerable men in this instance - even if that's not what you mean, it's how it sounds. Seriously, folks, think through what you're saying and what underpins it. Also, try and get away from the bloody *title* of the thing and try taking apart the content of the proposal which is not going to help anyone, male or female.
Last point - Michael, it's not about feminism, and feminism isn't - or shouldn't be - about being anti-men. Feminists who are anti-men shouldn't be allowed to call themselves feminists - equally, it would be nice if people realised that most women who would like to see women treated more fairly absolutely do not want that to be at the expense of men, much less to see men treated less fairly. Y'know?
And there have been - and are - plenty cases of women making false accusations of rape. They don't help anyone. The actual rape conviction rates are still woefully low here, and these cases are only going to make that worse. (Do I need to point out that I feel bad for the bloke, or indeed any bloke, who has suffered a false accusation of rape? Would you assume I didn't give a shit if I didn't make that clear, being an entirely self-interested female and all? Eeesh.)
Now I'm done. As you were.
But... if you're seeking to end that specific kind of violence, what's wrong with that as a title? It's not 'blatantly sexist', it's just specific. If you wanted to look into stopping quite so many deer being run over on the roads, specifically, there'd be nothing wrong with titling your consultation 'Tackling Deer Deaths On British Roads'. (I hate the gloopy 'Together We Can' crap as much as anyone.) We all know that badgers, frogs and pheasants also get run over, but that's another report, even if you could broadly suggest it would be a good idea to tackle *all* roadkill incidents (if you were so inclined and thought it was important). It's not prejudice. I'm sorry if you're intent on seeing it that way, but... it's not.
Anyway, if you do have a grievance, could you take it up with Jacqui so I don't have to moderate quite so much of the jumping up and down around here?
Sigh.
I wouldn't ever suggest that Jacqui Smith is anything other than a vile and idiotic human being. Nor would I suggest that women beating up men doesn't exist or isn't a serious problem.
But women are still more often on the receiving end of domestic violence and more likely to be seriously hurt, as far as I know (I'd look up some figures if I didn't have to spend the day moderating your thoughts on the matter). Why all the screams of 'sexism'? It's a problem, isn't it? Or isn't it? Nothing wrong with addressing it, even if in this instance it's being poorly addressed. But you can't put the same resources into something that doesn't occur as often, even if it's a deserving cause. Tackling female violence against men is a whole other campaign (which I'd wholeheartedly support). It may be just as important (as is clear by that AC post earlier - glad to hear that had a happy ending), but it is smaller, and no amount of hollering about Labour bigotry is going to change that.
Not that Jacqui knows what the hell she's doing with this embarrassing piffle but sheesh, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging something is an issue, you know. (And I know many of you have but I fear the indignation is tipping a bit far the other way.)
Trust me, it gets harder to tell the difference every day. Satire is dying, man.
Perhaps we could establish Trolls Anonymous. 'My name's godsarse666, and I'm a troll.' Trouble would be getting them all to come to a physical room with actual chairs. Maybe we could ease them into it by means of a secure chatroom. I can't see any drawbacks to that plan, can you?
Well, if you can't figure that Bootnotes don't have an IT angle, you shouldn't be reading a satirical webshite...
I wasn't aware I was supposed to cite all comment catchphrase sources, Greg. I thought that kind of thing made things less funny, like, but I'll remember in future.
Hey, I'm only here because I LOVE IT SO MUCH.
Thanks Edwin. I fear it's true. Ads are often indirectly useful to you in that sense, even if you're not interested in them in and of themselves - without them we wouldn't be here. That's just, as Bruce Hornby so wisely intoned, the way it is.
But it's not a direct opposition by definition, even though it can be oppositional - atheism just means you don't have a religion, essentially. It can be a default position, if you've just never found much about the whole God lark that appeals to you. You can be pretty neutral about it - it's just an absence of belief. Atheists are not a group - they're just the people left over after you take away the theists, and they range from the totally unconcerned to the rantingly radical and unhelpful.
It does bother me that there's an assumption that if you don't have religion, you must have something that occupies that role in your life, and it must be of equal size and shape and just as ready for a big barney to decide who's right. Some people just aren't fussed either way, and if they were pressed they'd have to describe themselves as 'atheist' in the same sense that people who aren't fussed about shagging are 'asexual'.
That's not picking a side - that's choosing not to pick a side at all.
I meant we don't have a shared belief system. Everyone has their own belief system, even if they try to overwrite it with an out-of-the-box one that's shared with a group of others. Atheists have lovely bespoke ones that are constantly being revised and updated. Or they should, at least.
Atheists don't have a belief *system*. There's a crucial difference - there's really no direct comparison to be made between organised religion and atheism which isn't organised in any real sense. It's a very wearying argument. To be honest it's no wonder atheists get a bit smug when people insist on parading their ignorance around.
See also: 'theory' does not always mean 'hypothesis'.
Yeah of course. Some people are going to be all for it, and the 'some' includes some feminists, but it's important to distinguish between the different types, which many people don't seem to do (so I wouldn't want to give the impression of doing the same thing - certainly wouldn't want to defend anyone who's supporting these laws on whatever basis, they don't speak for me). Same as with tiresome radical factions anywhere.
Porn is what divided feminists into different groups in the first instance so there's no reason why that would change now.