• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Reply to: General election

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "General election"

Collapse

  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by Fraidycat View Post

    Its not sexist to point out men and women have different biological needs and motivations.

    We can pretend they dont existing through political correctness censorship, but that doesn't make them go away.
    Well that proves my point. You are assuming a difference where one doesn't exist purely on the basis of sex. Any behavioural or attitudinal differences are derived from upbringing, not biology.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Fraidycat read Petersen. And now he thinks he's educated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fraidycat
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    And there you see sexism writ large...
    Its not sexist to point out men and women have different biological needs and motivations.

    We can pretend they dont existing through political correctness censorship, but that doesn't make them go away.
    Last edited by Fraidycat; 30 June 2021, 16:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by Fraidycat View Post

    Women will always be paid less than men

    1) Women are not as money hungry as men. Average looking men need money and status to improve chances of getting laid by a more attractive women. So will work harder longer and take more risks. Women don't have this motivation.

    2) Women often take long career breaks to raise kids. This means they have less experience when they rejoin the workforce.

    3) In general women don't want to do the boring and unrewarding but higher paid jobs like IT Jobs
    (I don't blame them, working in IT is )

    4) Women ask for pay rises less often than men. You don't ask you don't get. Because this applies to many men as well, it is not a sexist conspiracy against women.
    And there you see sexism writ large...

    Leave a comment:


  • Fraidycat
    replied
    Originally posted by OneManBand View Post
    I don't vote, because all parties in all countries play for the same team. They just wear different jerseys.
    It is always about voting for the lesser of two evils.

    Who is going to fook you over the least.

    Can you imagine if Corbyn had McDonnell had won last time?

    Leave a comment:


  • OneManBand
    replied
    I don't vote, because all parties in all countries play for the same team. They just wear different jerseys.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fraidycat
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    and you can't explain away gender gaps with "legacy effects" or "women want different jobs or less pay".
    Women will always be paid less than men

    1) Women are not as money hungry as men. Average looking men need money and status to improve chances of getting laid by a more attractive women. So will work harder longer and take more risks. Women don't have this motivation.

    2) Women often take long career breaks to raise kids. This means they have less experience when they rejoin the workforce.

    3) In general women don't want to do the boring and unrewarding but higher paid jobs like IT Jobs
    (I don't blame them, working in IT is )

    4) Women ask for pay rises less often than men. You don't ask you don't get. Because this applies to many men as well, it is not a sexist conspiracy against women.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    Perhaps you should read what I said again. Of the four programmes referenced, two were not racist, although they contained racist material for a reason.
    I mentioned one program, I'm not especially interested what you wrote about other shows I've never watched. Although the "we're doing it for a reason" line sounds a bit like Trump's "obviously I was being sarcastic" to me.




    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post

    He wasn't reporting on social history, he was telling what was on TV. To my recollection - though I was only a kid in the 80s - it's entirely accurate to say that casual racism like that was entirely normal in 70s/80-s shows, it seemed to be viewed little worse than jokes about the Irish.

    I was reading an article about Anne Robinson's new gig on Countdown which reminded us how she would joke about people's sexuality on Weakest Link, which would be an insta-fire these days.
    Perhaps you should read what I said again. Of the four programmes referenced, two were not racist, although they contained racist material for a reason. If you want casual racism in the context of humour, go look up "The Comedians" with people like Davison and Manning.

    And Bryson was talking about social history, n the wide sense, in a series of articles written for the Mail on Sunday in the 90s.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    It was actually "Love they Neighbour", and like "Till Death do us Part" it was highlighting the appalling levels of racism and sexism in that day's society. Neither was of itself either racist or sexist. Rising Damp was, on the other hand, quite accurate, and a far better illustration of reality.

    Bryson is a good and entertaining read but he is not a reliable source of accurate social history, his views being heavily influenced by his Iowan upbringing in Middle America in the 50s
    He wasn't reporting on social history, he was telling what was on TV. To my recollection - though I was only a kid in the 80s - it's entirely accurate to say that casual racism like that was entirely normal in 70s/80-s shows, it seemed to be viewed little worse than jokes about the Irish.

    I was reading an article about Anne Robinson's new gig on Countdown which reminded us how she would joke about people's sexuality on Weakest Link, which would be an insta-fire these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    No, it's the ones who still think sexism and racism is OK and acceptable that's the cretin - and there are a lot of them out there. But society as a whole, certainly in the UK, is pretty much colour blind and gender blind; in general, they only get riled up when a repressed minor kicks up an unnecessary fuss over something.

    The various pressure groups will one realise they win wwhen they are no longer necessary... on both sides.
    They're just bigger cretins. Plenty of labour force surveys point to endemic sexism, for example, and you can't explain away gender gaps with "legacy effects" or "women want different jobs or less pay". It isn't as bad, certainly, but sexism nowadays is also less Benny Hill than it used to be, so measuring it in those terms is a bit ignorant.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

    Yes, the 1980s were even worse . Perhaps you would not be shocked to learn that the 1180s were worse still. But anyone who thinks that sexism isn't alive and well today is a bit of a cretin.
    No, it's the ones who still think sexism and racism is OK and acceptable that's the cretin - and there are a lot of them out there. But society as a whole, certainly in the UK, is pretty much colour blind and gender blind; in general, they only get riled up when a repressed minor kicks up an unnecessary fuss over something.

    The various pressure groups will one realise they win wwhen they are no longer necessary... on both sides.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

    Yes, the 1980s were even worse . Perhaps you would not be shocked to learn that the 1180s were worse still. But anyone who thinks that sexism isn't alive and well today is a bit of a cretin.
    There are more important things to fix now. Sexism is illegal and policed. We have come a long way since the 50s, lets turn our attention to important stuff.

    Slavery - it still exists. It didn't stop even after we abolished it 200 years ago.
    Crime - we are rubbish at stopping it or solving it.
    Poverty - we have come a long way but millions still subsist on unemployment and pay related benefits for some reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paralytic
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    But anyone who thinks that sexism isn't alive and well today is a bit of a girl.
    FTFY

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    It was actually "Love they Neighbour", and like "Till Death do us Part" it was highlighting the appalling levels of racism and sexism in that day's society. Neither was of itself either racist or sexist. Rising Damp was, on the other hand, quite accurate, and a far better illustration of reality.

    Bryson is a good and entertaining read but he is not a reliable source of accurate social history, his views being heavily influenced by his Iowan upbringing in Middle America in the 50s
    Yes, the 1980s were even worse . Perhaps you would not be shocked to learn that the 1180s were worse still. But anyone who thinks that sexism isn't alive and well today is a bit of a cretin.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X