|
Post by dyertribe on Mar 12, 2021 12:52:47 GMT
Hasn't this politically correct old baggage ever heard of sexual discrimination? She should be defrocked (perish the thought ) and banned from the Upper House and be fined one year's salary for such discriminatory bollox. Next time a mature woman seduces a young man under the age of consent we should insist that all women are curfewed from 6am to 9pm to protect the innocent children with raging hormones who may be easily misled. Fucking stay in the kitchen where you belong. Jeez! A woman has been murdered. She was dressed sensibly, she had sensible shoes on, she walked on well lit streets, she told her family what she was doing. The police way of reassuring other women was to say that it didn’t happen often and perhaps women shouldn’t go anywhere on their own after dark.. THIS is the “discriminatory bollox”. Baroness Jones’ comments were made to highlight the discriminatory bollox already spouted. May I suggest, to paraphrase your post above that you fucking shut up and stay in the Dark Ages where YOU belong?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 12, 2021 13:08:11 GMT
Hasn't this politically correct old baggage ever heard of sexual discrimination? She should be defrocked (perish the thought ) and banned from the Upper House and be fined one year's salary for such discriminatory bollox. Next time a mature woman seduces a young man under the age of consent we should insist that all women are curfewed from 6am to 9pm to protect the innocent children with raging hormones who may be easily misled. Fucking stay in the kitchen where you belong. Jeez! A woman has been murdered. She was dressed sensibly, she had sensible shoes on, she walked on well lit streets, she told her family what she was doing. The police way of reassuring other women was to say that it didn’t happen often and perhaps women shouldn’t go anywhere on their own after dark.. THIS is the “discriminatory bollox”. Baroness Jones’ comments were made to highlight the discriminatory bollox already spouted. May I suggest, to paraphrase your post above that you fucking shut up and stay in the Dark Ages where YOU belong. I think that whilst some on here have misunderstood her point, you have misunderstood the police’s point. I think their point was that, for the time being, a weirdo killer bloke was on the loose in that area so it would be best for women in that area to be extra cautious until he was caught. Which seems entirely sensible to me. But on a broader note, I think you have to be clear what your aims are. Consider 2 aims: 1/ making a point that women should bloody well be able to go out alone at night (however they are dressed) without fear of being killed. 2/ Trying to reduce or prevent future incidents of lone women being killed by mad murderous blokes, by reducing their exposure to the risk. Both are equally valid aspirations, but one is not realistically achievable, that being 1/. Of course you can argue that it SHOULD be the case and most people including me would agree with you. But the sad truth is that it ISN’T the case and just saying it should be so doesn’t make it happen. I doubt it ever will happen. So it is a principled aim that has no bearing in reality, unfortunately. Whereas 2/, even though it might offend your principles, is a strategy that can and does work. Women, regrettably but realistically, have to take some responsibility for their safety by minimising their exposure to mad murderous blokes, eg by not walking home alone, drunk and incapable, late at night. You will have to decide whether your principles, or the lives of some women, is the more important consideration. As an example of similar thinking, one should be able to step onto a zebra crossing without fear of being run over. That is the law. So one argument would be “it is my right to cross the road at a zebra crossing, cars must give way, therefore to make the point I shall just walk onto the crossing without looking for approaching cars. Anyone who says I should look before walking is pedestrianist and must be cancelled. When people get run over and killed, I will blame the car drivers but not encourage people to look before crossing, because that would compromise their rights.”. Not very helpful!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 13:15:19 GMT
Jeez! A woman has been murdered. She was dressed sensibly, she had sensible shoes on, she walked on well lit streets, she told her family what she was doing. The police way of reassuring other women was to say that it didn’t happen often and perhaps women shouldn’t go anywhere on their own after dark.. THIS is the “discriminatory bollox”. Baroness Jones’ comments were made to highlight the discriminatory bollox already spouted. May I suggest, to paraphrase your post above that you fucking shut up and stay in the Dark Ages where YOU belong. I think that whilst some on here have misunderstood her point, you have misunderstood the police’s point. I think their point was that, for the time being, a weirdo killer bloke was on the loose in that area so it would be best for women in that area to be extra cautious until he was caught. Which seems entirely sensible to me. But on a broader note, I think you have to be clear what your aims are. Consider 2 aims: 1/ making a point that women should bloody well be able to go out alone at night (however they are dressed) without fear of being killed. 2/ Trying to reduce or prevent future incidents of lone women being killed by mad murderous blokes, by reducing their exposure to the risk. Both are equally valid aspirations, but one is not realistically achievable, that being 1/. Of course you can argue that it SHOULD be the case and most people including me would agree with you. But the sad truth is that it ISN’T the case and just saying it should be so doesn’t make it happen. I doubt it ever will happen. So it is a principled aim that has no bearing in reality, unfortunately. Whereas 2/, even though it might offend your principles, is a strategy that can and does work. Women, regrettably but realistically, have to take some responsibility for their safety by minimising their exposure to mad murderous blokes, eg by not walking home alone, drunk and incapable, late at night. You will have to decide whether your principles, or the lives of some women, is the more important consideration. As an example of similar thinking, one should be able to step onto a zebra crossing without fear of being run over. That is the law. So one argument would be “it is my right to cross the road at a zebra crossing, cars must give way, therefore to make the point I shall just walk onto the crossing without looking for approaching cars. Anyone who says I should look before walking is pedestrianist and must be cancelled. When people get run over and killed, I will blame the car drivers but not encourage people to look before crossing, because that would compromise their rights.”. Not very helpful! That is a massive amount of black and white thinking...
Neither 1 or 2 exist in isolation of each other.
1 is the best and should be worked towards
2 is a realistic attitude but should never be accepted as 'nothing ever changes' attitude
Just my opinion, and long live those who campaign/protest to make life better for all.
|
|
|
Post by dyertribe on Mar 12, 2021 13:23:12 GMT
I quite agree with you, it is a problem with no solution. I don’t think most men realise how much of a woman’s time is spent on planning for their safety. Where we park, which route we take, in my job, whose house I am entering for an appointment, telling someone where we are going...... My daughter is living in London this year and some of the things she tells me about the comments made to her and about her on her walk to and from the tube to her home, in the park by strangers (when she is in a group of friends) are actually shocking.
All my life there have been attempts to get equality between the sexes, some improvements have been made we are nowhere near equity and the difference in physicality between men and women is something we can’t change.
Funny how the suggestion of curtailing the freedom of men caused so much vitriol here to isn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 12, 2021 13:23:47 GMT
I think that whilst some on here have misunderstood her point, you have misunderstood the police’s point. I think their point was that, for the time being, a weirdo killer bloke was on the loose in that area so it would be best for women in that area to be extra cautious until he was caught. Which seems entirely sensible to me. But on a broader note, I think you have to be clear what your aims are. Consider 2 aims: 1/ making a point that women should bloody well be able to go out alone at night (however they are dressed) without fear of being killed. 2/ Trying to reduce or prevent future incidents of lone women being killed by mad murderous blokes, by reducing their exposure to the risk. Both are equally valid aspirations, but one is not realistically achievable, that being 1/. Of course you can argue that it SHOULD be the case and most people including me would agree with you. But the sad truth is that it ISN’T the case and just saying it should be so doesn’t make it happen. I doubt it ever will happen. So it is a principled aim that has no bearing in reality, unfortunately. Whereas 2/, even though it might offend your principles, is a strategy that can and does work. Women, regrettably but realistically, have to take some responsibility for their safety by minimising their exposure to mad murderous blokes, eg by not walking home alone, drunk and incapable, late at night. You will have to decide whether your principles, or the lives of some women, is the more important consideration. As an example of similar thinking, one should be able to step onto a zebra crossing without fear of being run over. That is the law. So one argument would be “it is my right to cross the road at a zebra crossing, cars must give way, therefore to make the point I shall just walk onto the crossing without looking for approaching cars. Anyone who says I should look before walking is pedestrianist and must be cancelled. When people get run over and killed, I will blame the car drivers but not encourage people to look before crossing, because that would compromise their rights.”. Not very helpful! That is a massive amount of black and white thinking...
Neither 1 or 2 exist in isolation of each other.
1 is the best and should be worked towards
2 is a realistic attitude but should never be accepted as 'nothing ever changes' attitude
Just my opinion, and long live those who campaign/protest to make life better for all.
I think you slightly misunderstood my point (probably my fault!). Of course 1/ should be worked towards, absolutely no doubt. But in the mean time 2/ is a necessary compensation for the real world. My point is that rejecting 2/ out of hand on a matter of principle, will result in more women dying than is reasonably necessary. Not worth it for the principle IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 12, 2021 13:29:44 GMT
I quite agree with you, it is a problem with no solution. I don’t think most men realise how much of a woman’s time is spent on planning for their safety. Where we park, which route we take, in my job, whose house I am entering for an appointment, telling someone where we are going...... My daughter is living in London this year and some of the things she tells me about the comments made to her and about her on her walk to and from the tube to her home, in the park by strangers (when she is in a group of friends) are actually shocking. All my life there have been attempts to get equality between the sexes, some improvements have been made we are nowhere near equity and the difference in physicality between men and women is something we can’t change. Funny how the suggestion of curtailing the freedom of men caused so much vitriol here to isn’t it? Well only vitriol from people who hadn’t actually fully listened to what she said, but just been grabbed by a tabloid headline. More fool them! But I think it would be wrong to think that planning for one’s own safety only applies to women. Men get mugged, knifed etc too. I would think carefully before walking alone at night in certain parts of certain towns and cities, it is just common sense. I will grant you that women have a lower threshold for this due to the physical difference you allude to, but men are not immune by any means. I am all for equality too, but I do sometimes get a bit riled when some women actually don’t want equality, they want all the things that men have AND special treatment because they are a woman. That is not equality!
|
|
|
Post by dyertribe on Mar 12, 2021 13:44:24 GMT
Yes, some women want the penny and the bun! I hold doors open for whoever is behind me, male or female, it’s only polite not to allow the door to smack them in the face! Whilst I am grateful for help with stuff I can’t physically do, I’m also happy to repay the favour, for instance being only 5ft 2in tall I have small fingers so I’m useful for those fiddly screws and doing jobs in restricted areas. I don’t see it as a gender issue just people using their advantages for others. Some men also want the same, how many men with partners who work full time expect them to do the cooking, cleaning and childcare too?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 12, 2021 14:16:07 GMT
even there there is some blackand white thinking. I used to have an eye on an escape route when I went out at night in some cities ..... there needs to be an awareness of dodgy areas and trouble avoidance whatever your gender. this report (although not UK) gives a surprising comparison of assaults and violence between the sexes ..... www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/51/fewer-women-than-men-fall-victim-to-violence ...... I would suggest the problem is more that there is an undercurrent of threat and violence in our society that I think has got progressively worse over the decades. I doubt that any of the measures I have heard on the radio (which is full of it at the moment) education was being suggested but that will only work to a certain degree ..... there are too many that are not really capable of learning how not to drag their knuckles along the ground, let alone anything else. ( either gender, there are some right thick twunts out there male and female) One person being interviewed (from a feminist organisation, I didn't note which one) was suggesting that all girls should get self defence training .... hmmmmm. I suppose that might even the score somewhat but with plenty of cases of female violence against males one wonders how that would pan out.
|
|
|
Post by ianali on Mar 12, 2021 14:57:11 GMT
Funny how the suggestion of curtailing the freedom of men caused so much vitriol here to isn’t it? Not really, as the suggestion made that men should be all at home by 6pm, made by a daft old bat on the gravy train of a politician's salary + expenses, was never going to be taken seriously. I expect someone will be along soon to say "Even rapists and murderers are someone's children." I think she suggested this rather tongue in cheek in response to women being asked to do a similar thing. I know from chatting with daughter and her female friends that it’s a bloody nightmare being out in some areas. Cities in particular. They are pretty sensible and good at looking out for each other, but the level of abuse they receive from some males is pretty scary. Seems obvious to me that this politician wasn’t being serious about a curfew for males. Good for her for stirring this up, it needs addressing.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 12, 2021 15:56:36 GMT
'Equality', we hear the term a lot. We even have a minister for it. I get equity or fairness, but equality? how can any two people ever be equal? Absolute, total bollocks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 16:24:57 GMT
The real surprise is how many read the 'headline quote' and simply responded ... never gave a thought to examining WHAT exactly the Baroness had ACTUALLY said and it's purpose before hurling sexist abuse.
I suppose the problem in a nutshell.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 16:28:41 GMT
Hi Rog. Welcome to Thunderboat.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 12, 2021 17:24:37 GMT
That'll be me, Foxxy ............................. even rapists and murderers are someone's children.
According to the "equality" that has been forced upon us by the do-gooders (even though we are NOT all equal) everyone should be treated equally - men, women, children, rapists, murderers, disabled, folk of undecided gender .......................
Why should the silly old bag suggest that all men, and only men, should be curfewed? In fairness, everybody should be curfewed, then the police can arrest anyone who is out and about after 6pm on the assumption that they are criminals - which they probably are, notwithstanding that they are disobeying the curfew. ................ and of course no women will be attacked on the streets, so any woman who is attacked must be the victim of domestic abuse which will be much simpler to prove and take to court.
Result - all crims off the streets and locked away, hopefully to be lectured by the Baroness on how to be good citizens.
Welcome to the Baroness's New World Order.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 17:36:47 GMT
That'll be me, Foxxy ............................. even rapists and murderers are someone's children.
According to the "equality" that has been forced upon us by the do-gooders (even though we are NOT all equal) everyone should be treated equally - men, women, children, rapists, murderers, disabled, folk of undecided gender .......................
Why should the silly old bag suggest that all men, and only men, should be curfewed? In fairness, everybody should be curfewed, then the police can arrest anyone who is out and about after 6pm on the assumption that they are criminals - which they probably are, notwithstanding that they are disobeying the curfew. ................ and of course no women will be attacked on the streets, so any woman who is attacked must be the victim of domestic abuse which will be much simpler to prove and take to court.
Result - all crims off the streets and locked away, hopefully to be lectured by the Baroness on how to be good citizens.
Welcome to the Baroness's New World Order.
Maybe you agree with naughtyfox that women should wear masks to hide their appearance - maybe you spent too much time in the Middle East...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 17:42:20 GMT
That'll be me, Foxxy ............................. even rapists and murderers are someone's children.
According to the "equality" that has been forced upon us by the do-gooders (even though we are NOT all equal) everyone should be treated equally - men, women, children, rapists, murderers, disabled, folk of undecided gender .......................
Why should the silly old bag suggest that all men, and only men, should be curfewed? In fairness, everybody should be curfewed, then the police can arrest anyone who is out and about after 6pm on the assumption that they are criminals - which they probably are, notwithstanding that they are disobeying the curfew. ................ and of course no women will be attacked on the streets, so any woman who is attacked must be the victim of domestic abuse which will be much simpler to prove and take to court.
Result - all crims off the streets and locked away, hopefully to be lectured by the Baroness on how to be good citizens.
Welcome to the Baroness's New World Order.
I take it irony and sarcasm are lost on you ... or have you just not bothered to find out what was ACTUALLY said ? Rog
|
|