Everyday sexism

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 7, 2020.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Hate is a terrible thing Alex, and generally expressed by those that are in or pushing some cause to gain support or further that cause. eg: Trump and Guliani.
    Thing is Alex, that like Trump and Guliani, they are pushing shit up hill, by pushing exaggerated nonsense of casual banter by men and women, young and old, as evil and the only way they can make any supposed impression or progress, is via hate and lying..
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Prove it is all I ask.

    Sure...I set it out rather well..if you want to be specific go ahead ...what contradicts what?

    You have nothing but mud to throw.

    Well you go out to the Lismore shops or any suburb outside of your trendy little suburb and tell each person using the term luv they are wrong...see how you go...the minority is the minority unfortunately for you...now in the suburb that I shop at in Sydney as I have said before...you won't get one person saying love..go somewhere else the opposite can be true.

    the same reasons I gave the last time you asked..read them.

    Er because I have not seen any evidence and I don't guess my verdicts.

    Well thats it then..your job is done...what he does with that information is his business not yours.

    And yet that's not what I see in the real world. However don't you think actual domestic violence is more worthy of your disgust?

    Trying to fit a poor choice of words does you no merit trying to link it with sex crimes...to do so is very wrong.
    Your tendency for exaggeration I find very concerning...

    So the picture you now attempt to paint is someone who calls someone luv is likely to illegally drug you and have non consensual sex...great reality you have there...disgusting a low and disgusting attempted tactic.

    You have my reasonable post if you can't fit your reality in a reasonable acceptance I really don't care...my points are valid and you demonstrate much by your inability to offer a reasonable rebutal.

    I will take it that you don't like it but can not give any reason for your poor choice.

    Go ahead your exaggerations diminish your case and show what lows you will go to in an effort to avoid any reasonable consideration of a simple proposition, as mine was...I bet you can't even remember what I said after thinking up your nonsense...shame on you ..you don't need to exaggerate so why do it? It only takes away from your position..you seriously dont think you are being clever...I would like to think you are being kind to me laying out low hanging fruit that a child could reach..let's go with that.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Oh I get what James is up to he wants to be right but has been shown to be wrong and you and he cant accept being wrong so here we are again...

    Micks dictionary, common usage when applied to booze, in the dictionary remember, two ( actually 3) I can recall where the usage was as Paddo said James offers a dictionary that only mentions sex...dont you see that you are both flogging a dead horse but go ahead..you are making me look very clever and making both you and James like fools...oh just to help out..what James needs is actual evidence you see mind reading just does not cut it...any thing that you can offer that shows Paddo meant it the way James and his dirty little mind takes lubricate...does he even know that the term is used for machinery..probably not as there was nothing to that effect in his dictionary.
    My my..nothing about my history has entered your reality...and as to paper I guess you missed me taking all that time to point that I now use email...
    You really do miss a great deal.

    I tell you what..you point to where I have sexually harassed a women and I will appologise to them ....dinkum..

    I you can't perhaps you admit you called it wrong.

    I think you believe that but given that you clearly do not actually listen to what someone is saying and have a proven propensity to put your own take on things that don't agree with what they really said I think this is where we may have problems...all I am saying is the evidence I have seen relies heavily on what you interpret...the lubricate thing is a good example..Paddo said it, we agree there, but James and you say that Paddo was using the term so as to be sleazy..that we don't know...you can alledge that but Paddo claims inoccence and for you to get the claim of sleazy Ness to stick you need evidence..you just can not say " I know he was being sleasy"...what you need is something else...without something else you have to go with his claim...now add to that we have Micks dictionary specifically saying a term used re booze, and I have experienced the term used as Paddo claims I really don't think James coming up with a shithouse dictionary that only covers a sexual reference to the exclusion of machinery and booze really has absolutely no credibity...in any event if James can back up his claim he is free to do so..what he is not entitled to do is behave like a spoilt brat who is in effect holding his breath until everyone comes around to his side...might have worked when he was a baby but it goes no where with me...just think how passers by must see him now.
    Bells I am unaware of the past...I am only pointing out the lack of evidence in this thread.
    If you would like me to read that encounter I will do so.

    All the best..stay safe

    Alex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Well think about what I told about a phone call to a mate...all males here..about a party I did not go to...how did the party go? I asks..reply " Peter kept us lubricated with his home brew ..."
    We all interprete words differently but like it Or not and as referenced in the dictionary Mick put up...it is used in referrence to booze and by men to men etc etc...just because you want to attribute something bad to Paddo you really must keep it truthful.

    I don't follow either of those guys and certainly did not know about what you mention.
    I would not call you other than by your names but for me I think he was making the point that your extremism is "no better or worse" than Mr Trump and Mr J...?

    But it is a cruel thing to say..Paddo is not a sex offender yet you did you best to make him out as "Harvey" that was not the right thing to do at all...further which is a big part of my message generally ( remember Ghandi) you really need to be better than your opponent..If they bully and abuse it is better that you don't.. Remember what the Christians did when they captured Jerusalm...killed every body...a century later what did Salidin do...did not kill anyone...anyways I suspect really everything I have to say is lost on you as you reject my most reasonable points, ignore others and will not counternance any wrong doing of the church... you put no value on my experience or my deeds or my attemptsvto prevent a kangaroo court.


    So calling someone love is the same as Harvey right..I dont have to comment...the audience can judge you.

    Forget it then.. your absence in support will not be missed..better you cling to whatever it is you cling to ...
    Oh but you providing various links to support your case is ok...right.
    Just forget it..go to church and just forget it.

    Yes why don't you do that and fill in the gaps that you must to create whatever story you want.

    It is quiet clear what I would prefer and me telling you for the x time won't help you at all...you have your verdict and I am sure nothing I say can get you to change...I am not interested...forget I had the hide to speak.

    And yet the women still are treated like second rate..one wonders why the church has not tried to elevate women...seems like someone does not want anyone saying bad things about their drug.

    How could you as you have not read the research have you.
    Alex
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Not to bad for the Birthday boy, thanks for the thoughts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,250
    Do you know what makes your whole outraged schtick so ridiculous?

    The fact that you demand that paddoboy's behaviour of diminishing women is simply the norm and should be excused and just accepted because of his age and because it's just how it is in some parts, while also blaming and accusing the Church for normalising diminishing women and how they should be punished for it..

    It becomes even more ridiculous that you are stereotyping others, while faking a moral outrage and as you admitted earlier "playing devil's advocate", about lubrication in the context to which paddoboy has been behaving throughout this thread.. What? Do you think when he tried to claim that the women he sleazed onto are "consenting adults", that he was talking about something else?

    You advise him to sue me for defamation?

    Let's see how this would go for you and for him..

    There is a record dating back years of paddoboy's sexism and self admitting sexual harassment on this website, as well as a record of his sexually harassing members and myself on this website. Not to mention a history of abuse, bullying, stalking and harassment. So, he sues me for defamation because I called him Harvey.. On your advice.

    I pull out this record, because if it pleases the court, Paddoboy has shown a long and detailed history of sexual harassment of women, including probably minors in the places of their employ by his own admittance. I would then also detail how he sexually harassed others on this website. And then, I would explain how he has kept repeating for years that his sexual harassment is simply the norm and common banter... And then I would explain the casting couch analogy and how Harvey's victims were afraid to come forward out of fear of not being able to work - which low and behold, there are countless studies, conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the retail unions, Australia's workers unions, which detail how thousands of young women are sexually harassed in the places of their employ, often by customers and how these young women are afraid to speak out about it because of a well known documented history of the 'customer is always right' attitude and how women are often afraid of being believed and would thus risk their employment and future employment if they complained... Notice the similarities in behaviour and "the norm" there?

    And then, because I am a bitch in court, particularly when faced with men who believe sexually harassing women is the norm and should simply be excused based on age, I would detail how paddoboy has a history of demeaning women on this site and attempts to diminish our voices - "girly", "Wegsy", "conniving bitches", "feminazi's" to name a few.

    But the pièce de résistance would be how you, a lawyer, could advise someone with such a history to sue for defamation (while forgetting that no one knows who he is on this site) on grounds that you seem to have forgotten to establish.. Not to mention having ignored his many years long history of sexual harassment and self admitted sexual harassment on this site alone..

    Then I would turn to you.. I would detail your own history here, your contradictions, your threats of violence towards others, your abusing others, your condoning behaviour that is actually illegal, your attempts to normalise his sexual harassment because of his age while ranting about how the church has normalised sexual harassment and treatment of women, your demands that "old folk" not be criminally accountable and cited laws of diminished capacity that applies to minors - but apparently that diminished capacity goes out the window when he tries to sue for defamation, right?.. to name a few problematic legal issues you would face.

    Let me put it to you this way. By the time I would be done, Paddoboy would be publicly known as the Harvey Weinstein of the Woollies circuit and a serial sexual harasser and you would be lucky to still own the caravan you live in while people questioned the morality of your own behaviour in not only condoning the sexual harassment of women, but encouraging it and taking part yourself in sexist behaviour towards women on this site.

    How well do you think you are going to go in that endeavour, Alex? Particularly in the dawning age of the #MeToo movement?

    I'd suggest you keep taking notes.

    That he sexually harasses women?

    He's admitted it himself each time he's described his behaviour.

    I've provided you with numerous links in regards to the legality of that kind of behaviour.

    Refer to above..

    Now, you go to any of the shops in Lismore and ask those people how they'd feel about an "old man" walking up to their young granddaughter who is working at her first job in the local supermarket and he starts flirting with her and tell her she's pretty.

    Having been to Lismore many many times, I'm pretty certain the response would be in the negative.

    Which one?

    You've gone from denying doing it to then saying that old people like paddoboy should be deemed to have limited mental capacity like a small child.

    Which one would you prefer?

    Except when he then returns, repeats doing it, demands it's the norm and then treats us that way.

    Then it certainly becomes our business.

    And if this thread was about domestic violence, you might have actually made a point (would have been your first!).

    Alas, it is about everyday sexism, in particular paddoboy's sexism.. A sexism that feeds the culture that normalises bad behaviour towards women, including crimes like domestic violence, rape, assaults, etc.

    What part of that don't you get yet?
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,250
    Context escapes you completely, doesn't it?

    Frankly, I am shocked that a lawyer failed to note context of the comparison.

    You have repeatedly commented on how his behaviour is the norm, as he has also kept demanding. How because of his age, he should be excused, because apparently that's how old people talk - while claiming you don't do it even at your age (again the contradiction is extraordinary).. When you argue that negative behaviour such as sexual harassment be excused because it is simply the norm, then where does that end? If the "norm" is to be excused, particularly from elderly men, then Bill's crimes are automatically lessened, as is Harvey and his casting couch "norm".

    Understand now?

    It's not that I don't like it. It's that I think you are being completely ridiculous.

    Why can't you answer the question, Alex?

    At what point does diminished capacity cease to exist in a court of law when it comes to an elderly man? You clearly don't think it should exist when you encouraged him to sue me. What crimes should be written off for diminished mental capacity because of his age, in your opinion? You are the one who stated that old men like paddoboy should simply be excused and be treated as though they have diminished capacity like children under 8 and simply cannot be charged with a crime. I'm not the one who said that. You did.

    Why are you now trying to dodge your own comments?

    And common usage, and "the norm", particularly when flirting with young women, "consenting adults" to use paddoboy's description of his victims, states otherwise.

    And you do miss the context of my response..
    I know he is being sleazy because the behaviour he recounts, his actions and his own words, indicate that he is being sleazy.

    When he started telling me how he didn't need the little blue pills in regards to his virility, he was being sleazy. Just as when he admitted to walking up to young women and commenting on just how pretty they are, he is being sleazy. Just as when he walked up to a young woman and asked her where she was hiding that extra virgin olive oil, he was being a sleaze. Just as when he commented how the pretty young female bartenders were keeping him and his mates well lubricated all night, he was being a sleaze.

    I'm not imagining these scenarios. He's the one telling us how he behaves. I can only go on his own words and actions.

    Provably false. Linked numerous times in the course of my discussion with him, which you have been monitoring so well.

    Are you actually trying to argue that you don't follow what Donald Trump does and you have never heard of his openly admitting on video how he sexually assaulted women?

    I mean, there's a record of you commenting on what Trump has done since 2016 on this site..

    Should we put this down to diminished capacity because of age? You just can't remember?
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,250
    Already been explained.

    Trying to argue for "the norm" goes out the window when "the norm" comes back to bite you on the backside, doesn't it?

    You argue for "the norm" of paddoboy's behaviour, while demanding similar normalisation of diminishing of women and failure to recognise our rights by the Church is criminal.. Do you fail to note your own contradiction here?

    If you are going to argue that paddoboy's behaviour is the norm and without malice, while claiming that he is this way because of his history of being a Catholic, why do you then say that the Church that made him that way is bad because they normalise diminishing women and our rights? Understand now?

    If the Church is bad, then those who go forth and repeat the behaviour are also bad.

    Context escapes you again. This was already addressed above.

    What's the matter?

    You are the ones telling us we don't know what's good for us and that you do. Enlighten us.

    The Church that you said taught paddoboy the behaviour you have just spent a few hours ranting was the norm and without malice?
    You are the one who said that old people should be absolved all legal responsibility for their actions and that they should be deemed incompetent to face being charged with any crime, akin to children under 8 years of age. Not me. You!

    I wouldn't want to put words into your mouth, Alex. I can only go by what you tell us!

    You are the one who has repeatedly argued that it's the norm for paddoboy. Why do you have a problem with the Church you said influenced paddoboy's behaviour that you have repeatedly claimed was without malice and harmless and 'the norm'?

    Given how you just tried to diminish our voices and basically told Wegs and I that we don't know what's good for us, and then you proceeded to twist yourself into a pretzel of ridiculous proportions, not to mention encouraged someone to sue me for defamation in the process while completely misunderstanding context of comments because you so want us to know and understand how sexual harassment from paddoboy is 'the norm' and tried to argue that we should excuse it because of his age and apparently he's now mentally incompetent.. I think it's a bit rich for you to be lecturing me about how women are treated..

    Not only have we read the research, Alex.

    We live it on a daily basis in every single walk of our life.

    But please, do tell us what's good for us! We simply can't know otherwise.
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    And now from a representative of the "Church of Let's Make Our Own Reality" I give you the latest LAW they want to impose on those who actually live in a real world

    This article is from the NT News issue of Saturday, 16 Jan

    2-year divorce wait call

    UNHAPPY couples who split would be forced to wait two years for a divorce under a plan to repair broken marriages.

    Federal parliament’s family law inquiry is considering the marriage-mending proposal by the Australian Family Association (AFA), after requesting details of how it might work.

    The AFA has told the inquiry that some European countries require a three-year waiting period for divorce.

    It said Australia’s one-year wait should be doubled to two years, except in cases of domestic violence, to give couples a chance to reconcile.

    The conservative association also it wants to end nofault divorce by giving wounded partners the right to demand damages for infidelity.

    In material requested by the inquiry, the AFA claimed that “longer waiting periods are associated with lower divorce rates’’ and that half of divorces are from low-conflict relationships , which “could survive with help’’ . Nearly 50,000 divorce applications were filed in 2019-20 .

    “Recent research shows that about 40 per cent of American couples who are already in the divorce process say that one or both of them would be interested in pursuing reconciliation,’’ the AFA said. “There is therefore good evidence to consider extending the period before parties may obtain a divorce.’’

    It said divorces should be granted sooner if a husband or wife has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, or threatened physical violence, against a spouse or children.

    Australia has a no-fault system of divorce, with 12 months of separation the only prerequisite for divorce.

    The AFA blamed no-fault divorce for “massive financial and human costs’’ .

    It wants to let spouses sue a partner for straying, by giving judges the ability to “award damages for a breach of the marriage contract’’ .

    “The law gives a right to claim damages for breaches of contract in the civil and commercial arenas,’’ the AFA said.

    “Why should marriage be the only contract which may be breached with impunity?

    “The courts could be given the power, on application, to award damages to a party who has breached the marriage contract, namely of a union between two people for life to the exclusion of all others.’’

    The AFA also wants to force couples into “mandatory reconciliation counselling’’ .

    It proposes a partner must give notice in writing before walking out of a marriage.

    The family law inquiry – the final report from which is due in February – is chaired by Catholic MP and father of five Kevin Andrews, who has been married to his wife Margaret for 41 years. He declined to comment on the AFA plan.

    The inquiry’s deputy chair, divorced One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, slammed the plan as “painful’’ .

    “If you’ve made up your mind you don’t want to be together why drag it out for two or three years?’’ she said.

    Copyright © 2021 News Pty Limited

    Some years ago Australian law enacted a law that if you lived with someone for 2 years in a de facto marriage arrangement it would be treated as a legal married situation with all the legalities a legal marriage entailed

    The law aimed to prevent situations where de facto arrangements broke down and one in the arrangement obtained undue benifits. There are such a wide variation of de facto's it's my understanding de facto marriages are treated on a individual basis

    Unable to check if AFA were against de facto arrangements being legalised but I (caution PERSONAL bias alert) SUSPECT the Association would have been

    More about AFA later

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,250
    No one in Australia would be surprised that this recommendation has come from the bowels of the AFA.

    They are a conservative, right wing bunch of hacks that would appeal to the Cory Bernardi's of this world.
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    You have yet to establish the bad behaviour is as you claim but I have said that so many times repeating it won't change your refusal to see my point.

    I have not said the church should be punished and point to that as more evidence that you are not genuine in responding to my comments...

    if you want to ignore the research about the church do so but don't lie about what I said or suggest that given other religions are addressing the problem that there is no problem with the church.

    All you are intent upon is laying in the boot because you don't like Paddoboy.

    You have sort to defame him in the most terrible way and rather than taking a backward step you insist in effect calling him a sexual offender, that is how we describe the film producer, you would not stand a chance in court...damages would be awarded to Paddoboy for your slander...and I expect that the judge would be generous given you make no apology and insist such bas behaviour is ok..and trying to say oh but context ...shows how out of touch you are..the world won't go along with your created reality you know.

    Paddo is not a sexual offender and you calling him such has no justification whatsoever... how would you like it if someone made an entirely baseless claim like that about you..you would be upset..you would say as Paddo would say ..you have no reason to say that..show me the charge sheet..end of story you lose..badly.
    No it is you who have no understanding here at all...there is no context that entitles you to call Paddo a sex offender..none. grow up.
    I post something, in the same manner you posted your links and I get this nonsense... as I said forget it..if you want t to keep your head in the sand do so..it's your problem not mine...but tell me why is it you can post a link and say look at them and I do exactly the same but you respond in the manner you have? Explain what entitles you to treat your behaviour beyond reproach.
    I will give you this...if you have nothing to say then you say it...I don't care..I have said my bit..pretty clearly if you can't get some meaning well forget it.

    But I did not say that...you have taken what I said and twisted same for cheap points..go ahead lie if that's all you have got...I guess I can claim victory if you only have lies as a counter..go back read what I said not what you built in your reality..

    Yet in the reply above you put words into my mouth...please tell me how that works.
    There are countless examples but just take the one above..plus I did not say churches should be punished..heck two in one post and you claim you don't do it...the audience won't believe you.
    Funny reply to


    Xelasnave.1947 said:
    And yet the women still are treated like second rate..one wonders why the church has not tried to elevate women...seems like someone does not want anyone saying bad things about their drug.

    Why don't you comment on that rather than not.

    Odd you make no comment is all I will say...

    How quaint..here you are telling all what is good for "us" and when confronted with a mere request to look at links I provided you carry on like a pork chop...

    Anyways as I said..find one thing the worst at least and put it up with the evidence you claim ...do that ..now if you do I will go get my rope.
    Second time I have asked...

    Alex
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I agree with the ability to sue under a marriage contract ...particularly where the respect aspect is breached.
    I guess the Aussies here have heard about the murder suicide..mom and three kids..they blame the mother but one must wonder why a woman would murder her kids and suicide...
    Why was she so desperately unhappy...I wonder if they were church goers.
    Alex
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Might have known..all the time I was reading and thinking who's idea was this crap...mother church sticking it's damn nose where it ain't welcome.
    Alex
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,250
    His pet names is sexual harassment.

    Are you going to try to argue that sexual harassment is not "bad behaviour"? I mean, you established it yourself several times throughout this thread.. For example:

    And before you start demanding proof, it was provided throughout this post with numerous links to various entities in Australia and elsewhere which clearly define the use of pet names for people being classified as sexual harassment. In other words, if you are about to waste my time yet again demanding proof while ignoring everything provided already, the answer will be no.

    You're more about inciting others to do it for you..
    This you?
    And as has been explained repeatedly, the attitude predates 'the Church' and 'Hollywood'.

    https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-sexism-how-men-came-to-rule-12000-years-ago/

    You like him, right?

    I ask because thus far, you have inferred that he is an old man, suggested that perhaps he be deemed incompetent and that he has diminished capacity akin to a child under 8 years of age because he is an old man, suggested that the reason he is "this way" - about his sexism and his sexually harassing women, is because he was brought up a Catholic, not to mention providing him with distinctly risky legal advice which would have opened him up to all sorts of trouble and trauma, not to mention exceptional legal cost to himself..

    And you accuse me of laying the boot into him?

    With friends like you, who needs enemies!

    I make absolutely no apology in comparing the notion of "the norm" of his behaviour to the norm of the casting couch which existed for decades. Context is everything, which you clearly lack.

    See, damages would not be awarded to paddoboy for his behaviour. Do you know why? Because there is established behaviour, self confessed sexual harassment which he keeps insisting is "the norm" and he makes no apology for it and demands he has a right to continue, not to mention a history of similar behaviour on this website as well against others.

    Given the #MeToo movement, a litany of work by unions and human rights bodies in Australia and internationally who have studied sexual harassment of young customer service staff in detail.. You are so far out of touch, that it's not even funny or comical anymore.

    You can't even tell the difference between sort and sought, nor can you tell the difference between libel and slander, and you think you are in a position to provide him with legal advice at this present time? Not to mention you have tried to make a case that because of his age, he would have equally diminished capacity akin to a child under 8 years of age - which would mean he'd have no standing to sue.

    Please stop giving him bad advice. You aren't helping him. You are actually doing him more damage, especially if he's silly enough to take you seriously.

    Sexual harassment is illegal. And there have been instances where it's been deemed a form of sexual assault, which could see him registered as a sexual offender.

    Paddoboy has a record here going back years, where he has distinctly sexually harassed others, boasted about sexually harassing young women and demanded that he would not stop because as far as he was concerned, it is 'the norm'. And this is the part you seem to be missing in your ranting. Paddoboy basically called us sexual offenders when he called us Donald and Rudy. He then advises that it was in a different context. I responded in kind. What? Are you now going to claim that you've never heard of the casting couch and how it has been recognised as 'the norm' for young women trying to break into the TV and film industry? That's the thing about arguing that something is the norm. It will always come back to kick you.

    And it has now.

    But what is most interesting is that you are more offended by how paddoboy is treated, than by how he treats others. The hypocrisy is so thick one could cut it with a knife.

    And given paddoboy's habit of calling me all sorts of offensive names, how much of a leg do you think he has to stand on?

    I'll repeat this for you again. Stop giving him bad legal advice. Of all the shitty things you could do, this is up there. Stop doing it.

    Oh, there is.

    That's the issue with arguing that bad behaviour is simply 'the norm' as you have been arguing for several pages now.

    Casting couch was deemed "the norm". Sexual harassment was deemed "the norm". People who keep arguing that bad behaviour that harms women be allowed to continue because it has always been 'the norm', will result in such comparisons. If you don't like it, then perhaps you should stop making such stupid arguments.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,250
    You have contradicted yourself so many times, you are basically a tightly baked pretzel.

    This you?

    Did you forget what you said?

    Do you need a moment to go over your "notes"?

    What part of it did you not understand, exactly?

    The part where I pointed out your hypocrisy and double standard? Would you like me to use smaller words?

    You provided a link to a video which I explained why I could not watch it.

    I provided you with around half a dozen links which you clearly have not read.
     
  19. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Bells Posts :
    To which you reply :
    Seriously, Alex?
    Surely you realize that everything thing you Post in this Thread/Forum is more or less permanently perusable.

    To Wit :
    On Page 21 of this Thread you (Alex) in your Post #412 stated : " Yet it is used common place by folk being friendly and without malice..that must be taken onto account..your determination to make one law for all fails to recognise many folk just dont see it your way and to seek to impose your opinion without recognition of the reality that most old folk talk like that is very wrong...cant you just wait and until they die?"

    In my (dmoe) Post #418, on the same page I asked you : "Alex,
    Let me get this straight - if someone is "older" we give them a Pass and let them continue their abusive sexist disrepectful behavior because "most old folk talk like that is very wrong...cant you just wait and until they die?"

    You (Alex) Posted your response to my question in your Post #426 on the next page - Page #22 :
    " Not entirely ... I have been addressing what passes for friendly chat between old folk that is not used with any intent to be disrespectful.

    Anything that is disrespectful intentionally in another matter.

    And thinking about it...can we not extend some consideration for old age given the law recognises that a child under eight can not be guilty of a crime under the law? "

    Again, seriously Alex?
    you may want to " ..go back read what " Xelasnave.1947 "said not what you built in your reality.."

    Edit to add : Post #515 got under my Post before I could "Post Reply"...
     
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    We are only hearing one side of Paddoboy’s stories where women are falling all over him - everywhere he goes. When he flirts and tells demeaning jokes about women, it is met with smiles and encouragement ...always. lol Ooookay.

    The purpose of this thread is to discuss everyday subtle behaviors that women have to deal with, from men in order to go about their daily lives. If you are a man and flirt with shop employees, waitresses, etc... everywhere you go, that’s everyday sexism. If you are someone’s boss and do that at work - it’s sexual harassment. Legally speaking. It’s not suddenly different when you’re out of work, is it? Friendly behavior is not flirty, crossing lines behavior. Friendly behavior is appreciated, and is often reciprocated. I don’t believe paddoboy is a sexual offender, but everyday sexism is the slippery slope that society accepts and why sexual offenders are often given a slap on the wrist. Harvey Weinstein has said similar things “I didn’t rape anyone, they wanted it as much as me.” No, paddoboy isn’t like Weinstein in my mind, but he doesn’t see anything wrong with his “everyday” behavior towards women. Neither did Weinstein.

    We (society) have grown immune to sexism in everyday life. How we got here is not as relevant as to how we end it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
  21. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    After reading some of the posts from people I have on ignore, it's fairly obvious to me why I put them on ignore to begin with.
     
  22. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I tried to edit the above to add this last comment but there’s a time limit.

    Something that is being missed here is that sexism isn’t sexism based on the reactions you receive from others, it’s your intention and motivation behind why you need to address people from the get go with cutesy flirty behavior. Whether or not a woman is positive or negative in her reaction isn’t what defines the behavior as sexist. It’s your intention...your perception of women as objects to stroke your ego...your entitled behavior that you should be able to address women as you wish and they should oblige with a smile, that you are friendly with men you don’t know yet flirty with women, etc is what makes the behavior...sexist. Does that make sense?

    I doubt men who flirt and so on with female servers, employees at shops etc do the same with men, right? They may address men as “hey mate” but the rest of the dialogue is friendly. The stories you share paddoboy seem to show a distinction with how you approach men and women - I doubt you’re asking young guys in a cutesy voice where the olive oil is.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Regardless of how these women have reacted to you is not what makes the actions sexist. It’s more in how differently you interact with men and women whom you don’t know.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2021
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502

Share This Page