If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I know what post-modernism is supposed to mean, I just can't get away from the view that most people who try to employ really do mean what they say and just try to hide it.
I certainly get the feeling people like Gervais do, although I'm sure he'll be delighted at me saying that.
Evidence that the bloody tax dodgers are not being given enough studying
And that is the point. Shades of grey. "Offensive" is subjective - as this thread clearly shows.
Although it wouldn't be a good idea to go to a women's conference and talk about how they should be all in the kitchen
Can i state for the record I don't really believe that all the women at the fresher's fair should have been in the kitchen making me a sandwich, and the statement was in fact, a joke. EDIT: And a weak one at that.
Are you referring to my arguments about rape convictions? I didn't think i held any dubious views on rape convictions.
He will. He plays on the outrage that people feel towards his act.
TBH I think that the main difference between people like Gervais (who is funny because he clearly doesn't truly feel about things in the way he talks) and someone like Manning (who clearly did) is the way that the gag is told, the wording used and the structure of the gag in the context of the whole gig.
Why not? I've done something similar during a presentation for a group which was solely women.
They laughed. Not because what I said was true but because it was a man telling a clearly stereotypical joke about women which wasn't based on his beliefs.
When I then followed it up with a joke about the menfolk they laughed again - should they have been offended by the first joke and me by the second?
Yea I understood it was a joke, I didn't mean to single you out, but these 'post modernist ironic' jokes crop up a lot and they do wind me up - not for a political reason as in I think they're sexist, just they always pop up in sexism debates. Like it's a funny subject.
I still don't understand what post modernism is
Point taken.
I'm interested to see what morally dubious view Kermit thinks i have about rape convictions - it might explain his apparent general dislike for me!
Wtf?
That's correct! And it probably does to be honest, implying women have manky legs. Still, it's a bit of a funny thing to get heft over in the first place, when you could take either bag, or both.
I think there should be a man vs woman beans eating competition to settle it once and for all.
Errmmm...
I think there were stereotypes and social expectations that men couldn't break out, the same as women. Men were expected to work. Women were expected to cook. And so on.
However, women were denied the right to vote, denied the right to be free from violence, denied the right to be respected and treated equally - this is where they were downtrodden and thankfully the world we live in today is very very different because in the UK at least many of these have been addressed. I think that's why there's been a feminist agenda and not a masculinist agenda over the past 100 years or so.
I agree though that men have found it just as hard to break the gender stereotypes. Even now, men are made out to be 'women' often if they don't dress a certain way or act a certain way. (usually by other men)
So, not getting to vote doesn't count?
Whereas the women stayed at home drinking tea and eating cucumber sandwiches?
Seriously dude you really need to read up on the role of women in our past and what they actually did during both world wars...
'91 if I recall correctly.
Now, the relationship of power and strength between the two sexes and the subsequent subordination of women was basically a result of customs and traditions that dated to the Dark and Medieval Ages, Divine rule of law had it's place well and truly stuck in the middle of the whole thing. It wasn't really until the Enlightenment period that people started to think rationally on the whole issue and challenge male subordination over women. It's a shame that it took over 125 years after that for women to actually get the vote, never mind domestic and social issues which are still not resolved to this day.
Being denied the right to vote because of your sex does count as being downtrodden even without anything else. Also, the fact that one sex was denied the power to vote for or against politicians, contributed to a situation where that sex had plenty of evil laws enacted against them, because they could do nothing about it.
The simple truth is that the human race is divided into two sexes, and both have to have the same rights under law before any society can become fully civilised. Using differences that naturally exist between the sexes as an excuse to give one sex less rights is backward.
It is oppressive because, in a democracy, any group that is disenfranchised for life, whether it be black people, women, immigrants, gay people, or whoever, automatically holds less influence over those who make the law. It is far more important than just ticking a box on a piece of paper.
The lifelong disenfrachisement of any group in society, in and of itself, leads to the government in power being oppressive against that group. Can you not see that?
But holding less influence DID lead to all kinds of evil against them. Do you know nothing of the history of your country? Principles wouldn't seem that pointless to you if you had to live under a system where your entire sex held the same legal status as minors and lunatics. And were treated with such contempt by the law that you could be legally beaten
by your spouse, you had no rights over your own property, (including the wages you earned), had no right to sit on a jury, less rights to seek a divorce than your spouse, and you could do absolutely nothing to influence the politicians to change the law.
The right to vote would probably seem pretty important to you then.
Yes, holding less influence leads to all these problems. If you hold no influence over whether or not a politician retains his seat, he will take no account of your interests when he votes in Parliament. Which leads very quickly to a situation where you are accorded the same legal status as minors and lunatics. As women were before they got the vote.
But men are only human, which means they are frequently ignorant. Even ones who are voted into Parliament can be ignorant. Which is why they should not be allowed absolute power over the female sex. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So look again at your part in bold. Maybe? Of course you shouldn't think for women, it is a denial of our right to think for ourselves. And no you couldn't think for women either. The human race is divided into two sexes, both of whom have unique characteristics. No civilised society will demand that one sex "thinks" for the other, still less that they vote for the other.
That is backward, and stupid. And if you were on the receiving end of it, you would not be half so casual about denying people the right to vote on the grounds of their sex.
People are always too quick to assume there must be an evil underlying motive behind everything.
I don't know why people were so concerned over these bags, I mean it's free after all and you don't have to take one.
I don't think it's sexist to put tampons in a bag designed for women, don't quite a lot of women use tampons? Weren't tampons made by women for themselves origonally, and even I sometimes use the odd vagina mouse, free ones is cool.
What woman would want FHM?
Why shouldn't the women get a proper tin of beans though- I've only ever bought one of those mini tins of beans things and that was only because it had a stupid cartoon on the picture and I gave in to pester power in the supermarket. Beans are yak, but if I were going to eat them i'd want a proper tin, no different from the boys.
Condoms- were they only in the blue 'boy' bags? If so, that's completely stupid, out of order but, I don't know if it's sexism or stupidity or both.
Leg waxing shit/ cellulite cream, just exasperated me, but again, don't a lot of women want these things, don't they force the market into creating more by buying more? I know there are a few other elements in there like social expectations and advertising and stuff, and I would certainly throw it away or leave it on a shelf gathering dust somewhere but I can't work out whether it's sexist or not as I can't seem to seperate the implications from what I just automatically accept as the 'norm'.
The other thing is/was, there was no restriction on who took what bag so I suppose the person choosing the bag stereotyped themselves to best fit into what they would expect from a typical portrayal of gender needs from those colours.
Same as most of the male posters on here- rape is terrible but any steps taken to increase the conviction rate are an "assault on freedom", or some shite.
No dislike from me:)
Whatever way you put it... People have always had to work (or a long time ago, hunt). That isn't oppression, that's life. Yes, some people had crappy jobs, but that isn't anything to do with patriarchy, or matriarchy.