Podium Girls

[meic]

If you repeat something three times does it instantly become true?

[meic]

Most men dont slap most women, it isnt a sexist issue.
It is a thug's issue. Male or Female.

I don't think it's that easy to separate them. I think sexism and thuggery can feed off one another quite effectively. Thuggery keeps company with lots of remarkably unpleasant states of mind. Absolutely racism, why do you think sexism is any different there?

Because it doesnt have dislike of woman at the heart of it. Certainly not 99% of the stuff complained about.
The podium girls were not put there as an object of hatred.

[Freddie]

Oooh look, it's a straw man argument!

Not really. In a fair society, violence against men committed by women would get 2/3 of the news coverage, don't you agree?

Oooh look, it's a straw man argument!

I think you are confused about what a straw man argument is. Your proposition seems to be women, as a group, are the only victims that need attention relative to the impact of their victimhood. You won't clarify your position for me and when I mention male victims of female violence, you avoid the topic. You could clarify, if you are clear on your own position.

It is quite simple, you either believe in fairness or you don't. I wonder how believing only women need attention relative to their victimhood isn't sexism though. I will re-use honesty's definition, in the absence of you providing one:

Chivalry (as opposed to being nice) is sexism. It's being nice because the other person is a woman. Ok there is no practical way to tell them apart, but at its root if you are being nice purely and only because the other person is a woman, your doing it because you have been programmed to think they need this doing for them, because they are weaker and somehow need protecting, that is sexism.

Perhaps, at least according to honesty's definition, you are more sexist than you imagine, if you are giving special consideration to women purely because they are women.

[meic]

Chivalry (as opposed to being nice) is sexism. It's being nice because the other person is a woman. Ok there is no practical way to tell them apart, but at its root if you are being nice purely and only because the other person is a woman,

So far, I openly admit to being sexist, I have been lucky enough to occasionally meet an equally sexist woman. Otherwise I wouldnt have a daughter's future to worry about.

your doing it because you have been programmed to think they need this doing for them, because they are weaker and somehow need protecting, that is sexism.

Obviously that wasnt my motive, though it does seem to fit for those who make statements like

If women suffer far more violence at the hands of men than vice versa it is a sexist issue.

They do. It is.

which puts women into the position of weaker victims who need protecting.

[honesty]

Not really. In a fair society, violence against men committed by women would get 2/3 of the news coverage, don't you agree?

Oooh look, it's a straw man argument!

I think you are confused about what a straw man argument is. Your proposition seems to be women, as a group, are the only victims that need attention relative to the impact of their victimhood. You won't clarify your position for me and when I mention male victims of female violence, you avoid the topic. You could clarify, if you are clear on your own position.

It is quite simple, you either believe in fairness or you don't. I wonder how believing only women need attention relative to their victimhood isn't sexism though. I will re-use honesty's definition, in the absence of you providing one:

Chivalry (as opposed to being nice) is sexism. It's being nice because the other person is a woman. Ok there is no practical way to tell them apart, but at its root if you are being nice purely and only because the other person is a woman, your doing it because you have been programmed to think they need this doing for them, because they are weaker and somehow need protecting, that is sexism.

Perhaps, at least according to honesty's definition, you are more sexist than you imagine, if you are giving special consideration to women purely because they are women.

I don't believe anyone has said that they are the only group that should be looked at. You seem to be artificially setting boundaries such that you can do one or the other. Yes sexism against women needs to be handled, but that shouldn't be in detriment to looking at societies other issues as well, such as violence, racism, etc. and yes sexism against men. The problem seems to be you are doing the classic utopia fallacy you see when talking about cycle lanes, in that you shouldn't do anything unless you answer everything. I disagree. We should be answering sexism against women as it is far far greater than that against men, one single grant for women in one single area does not disprove this. The examples you give like the lack of violence support for men is actually further evidence of the sexism against women in society and the historic and societal view that men are strong and don't need it, women are weak and do. Fixing the problem with sexism would also need to look at how we deal with men and step outside of the traditional macho view of silent and strong masculinity.

[pjclinch]

Not really. In a fair society, violence against men committed by women would get 2/3 of the news coverage, don't you agree?

Oooh look, it's a straw man argument!

I think you are confused about what a straw man argument is.

No, I'm very well aware, which is how it's so easy to point out you're making them. And, oooh, here we go again!

Your proposition seems to be women, as a group, are the only victims that need attention relative to the impact of their victimhood.

But that isn't my proposition, which is why you keeping on coming back with, "hey, here's some crap happening the other way, what about that then?" is a straw man.

You won't clarify your position for me and when I mention male victims of female violence, you avoid the topic. You could clarify, if you are clear on your own position.

I haven't staked out a position on female to male discrimination/violence. What I've said is that women get an outsize amount of the bad end of things. And it would be good if we strove to do something about that.

It is quite simple, you either believe in fairness or you don't. I wonder how believing only women need attention relative to their victimhood isn't sexism though. I will re-use honesty's definition, in the absence of you providing one:

Chivalry (as opposed to being nice) is sexism. It's being nice because the other person is a woman. Ok there is no practical way to tell them apart, but at its root if you are being nice purely and only because the other person is a woman, your doing it because you have been programmed to think they need this doing for them, because they are weaker and somehow need protecting, that is sexism.

Perhaps, at least according to honesty's definition, you are more sexist than you imagine, if you are giving special consideration to women purely because they are women.

As far as I can tell a lot of women are bothered by their second-best treatment, and bring it to attention so something can be done about it. If you think doing something that is being asked for is the same as giving a chair to someone who hasn't shown any issues with standing up then it's time for a brain-reboot.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

I don't believe anyone has said that they are the only group that should be looked at. You seem to be artificially setting boundaries such that you can do one or the other. Yes sexism against women needs to be handled, but that shouldn't be in detriment to looking at societies other issues as well, such as violence, racism, etc. and yes sexism against men. The problem seems to be you are doing the classic utopia fallacy you see when talking about cycle lanes, in that you shouldn't do anything unless you answer everything. I disagree. We should be answering sexism against women as it is far far greater than that against men, one single grant for women in one single area does not disprove this. The examples you give like the lack of violence support for men is actually further evidence of the sexism against women in society and the historic and societal view that men are strong and don't need it, women are weak and do. Fixing the problem with sexism would also need to look at how we deal with men and step outside of the traditional macho view of silent and strong masculinity.

This...

[Freddie]

If women suffer far more violence at the hands of men than vice versa it is a sexist issue.

They do. It is.

which puts women into the position of weaker victims who need protecting.

It is a somewhat inescapable and illogical argument being put forward here.

1. Chivalry (concern for women because they are women) is bad and sexist, don't do it.
2. Women are victims more often than men, they need more attention; not relative to their victimhood, but because they are women.
3. Bringing up male victimisation by women is not acceptable. If men are victims (big if!), then it is not as bad and not worth considering relative to their victimhood as a proportion of the population.
4. Every person may have a different interpretation of what is and what is not sexist. Every man must be aware, on edge and ready to adapt to suit the individual woman. As men aren't victims of sexism, not real sexism, anyway, the same favour need not be returned from women to men. It is only women who have legitimate cause for complaint.

and, best of all:

The examples you give like the lack of violence support for men is actually further evidence of the sexism against women in society and the historic and societal view that men are strong and don't need it, women are weak and do.

So when men are victims of female violence, this isn't sexism against men, but sexism against women. Women are the victims, even when men are injured by women. How terrific!

Sexism, as I first thought, is a one way street for some people.

I think I see why it is so hard to get people to take female on male violence seriously, let alone proportionately, when these are the sentiments far too many seem to hold.

[jan19]

Whilst we're on the subject of domestic violence, this one's interesting too.....

http://www.domesticviolencelondon.nhs.uk/1-what-is-domestic-violence-/25-domestic-abuse-against-men.html

Specifically this bit....

The research that is available suggests that women are more likely than men to experience domestic abuse in their lives and to suffer repeated victimisation. They are also more likely to be injured, or have to seek medical help. Another difference is that men are less likely to be murdered by female abusers; Home Office figures reveal that on average, 100 women a year and around 30 men a year are killed within a domestic abuse context. Women are almost exclusively killed by men whereas in contrast approximately one third of the men are killed by other men and a little under a third are killed by women against whom they have a documented history of abuse.


So......men kill approx. 100 women a year from domestic violence. 20 men are killed a year by women, but 10 of those women have suffered abuse by the man.....

Yet people wonder why there are more shelters/facilities etc out there for women than there are for men?

Jan

[AlaninWales]

As far as I can tell a lot of women are bothered by their second-best treatment, and bring it to attention so something can be done about it. If you think doing something that is being asked for is the same as giving a chair to someone who hasn't shown any issues with standing up then it's time for a brain-reboot.

Pete.

Oooh look, it's a straw man argument!

Freddie never said that.

(Note, I backed up my accusation of 'straw man' with a reason why it is.)

[Snow]

It seems a lot of people these days only want to acknowledge it if it's against women and can be used to further whatever belief they have, anything else is either sexism, social conditioning or just wrong (possibly all of the above). Really I don't see why we aren't just dealing with the issues, men need help with a lot of problems they face in society, so do women, but instead of helping each other we're often competing to see who can pull out the bigger statistic.

Progress is slow if the whole team is puncturing each other's tyres

[honesty]

It is a somewhat inescapable and illogical argument being put forward here.

1. Chivalry (concern for women because they are women) is bad and sexist, don't do it.
2. Women are victims more often than men, they need more attention; not relative to their victimhood, but because they are women.
3. Bringing up male victimisation by women is not acceptable. If men are victims (big if!), then it is not as bad and not worth considering relative to their victimhood as a proportion of the population.
4. Every person may have a different interpretation of what is and what is not sexist. Every man must be aware, on edge and ready to adapt to suit the individual woman. As men aren't victims of sexism, not real sexism, anyway, the same favour need not be returned from women to men. It is only women who have legitimate cause for complaint.

Your "logic" is interesting, but since no one said those things this is a massive straw man.
1. Chivalry is the historic action of treating women as the weaker/fairer sex, and doing those things for them that they couldn't possibly do for themselves. Like opening doors. It is a historic implementation of the idea that women are less capable and need help from a stronger/dominant person.
2. Well done. I don't think anyone said that either. But goodo. Also has nothing to do with 1. Extra points for implicitly linking to fallacious statements.
3. You are very good at making connections where there are none. Well done. This is an impressive skill. This is also a big strawman. I don't think anyone has said either that you cant bring up male victimization, or that men are not victims. Only you have implied that it is not work considering relative to anything else. Yes it definitely needs looking at, but as the WHOLE of society is pretty much built around the dominance of man then maybe just maybe we need to fix something else faster. The Titanic had rubbish vol-au-vents but not hitting the iceburg is a more pressing issue. Again its not an either or thing here. You seem to be willfully ignoring that.
4. If you say so.

and, best of all:

The examples you give like the lack of violence support for men is actually further evidence of the sexism against women in society and the historic and societal view that men are strong and don't need it, women are weak and do.

So when men are victims of female violence, this isn't sexism against men, but sexism against women. Women are the victims, even when men are injured by women. How terrific!

Sexism, as I first thought, is a one way street for some people.

I think I see why it is so hard to get people to take female on male violence seriously, let alone proportionately, when these are the sentiments far too many seem to hold.

Not sure how you are seeing this as a one way street. its an accepted view that male suffering is kept quiet by the sufferers because admitting it is seen to be un-manly. This view has been build into society because we have defined roles for the genders, women are weak and need looking after, men are strong and do the caring. If you fix the gender imbalance you fix this issue. If you cannot see that the situation as you describe provides evidence towards a gender imbalance in society I'm not sure what else to say to you.

[pjclinch]

As far as I can tell a lot of women are bothered by their second-best treatment, and bring it to attention so something can be done about it. If you think doing something that is being asked for is the same as giving a chair to someone who hasn't shown any issues with standing up then it's time for a brain-reboot.

Pete.

Oooh look, it's a straw man argument!

Freddie never said that.

(Note, I backed up my accusation of 'straw man' with a reason why it is.)

I said "if you think", I didn't say "you said".
Freddie said he wasn't very clear on exactly where the lines are, and I'm pointing out one of them for him. Because I'm nice like that.

[pjclinch]

Most men dont slap most women, it isnt a sexist issue.
It is a thug's issue. Male or Female.

I don't think it's that easy to separate them. I think sexism and thuggery can feed off one another quite effectively. Thuggery keeps company with lots of remarkably unpleasant states of mind. Absolutely racism, why do you think sexism is any different there?

Because it doesnt have dislike of woman at the heart of it. Certainly not 99% of the stuff complained about.
The podium girls were not put there as an object of hatred.

Disrespect may not be as bad as dislike or hatred, but it's still not good, and is another basic problem mixing with thuggery.

[jayd]

JayD:
This was the post that made me make that comment.

This made me giggle. Coming from where it comes from.

Basically the problem is people like Freddie here who are so far into their own world view they cannot understand that their actions/viewpoints as the very root of the problem. You are never going to win against them as they cannot see their view as wrong.

There have been other comments about misogynistic bile directed at another poster.

Now Freddie was not actually called a sexist and I did not actually say that anybody on this forum had called "sexist sexist" but sails were very close to the wind.

So it was a general comment about how the debate goes outside of this forum and previous threads on this forum. Triggered by something getting close.
My comment was not hoping to be a "convenient way to disparage another point of view?" but a comment to steer comment towards the issue rather than towards an individual for the views they hold.

"if anybody disagrees they just keep shouting "sexist, sexist"

"the people who shout sexist in order to silence critics"

Your explanation fails to describe who this collective "people" are, or who "they" are. Or, more importantly, how they have somehow impinged on your right to freedom of opinion. In fact, you've just written that no one has decried "sexist, sexist" in the context of this topic, which I am commenting on.
It doesn't look much like "Sailing close to the wind" at all, more a standard excuse to disparage the imaginary "P.C (It's Gawn Mad) Brigade."