"It's other people's fault that he got voted in. It's the feminazis! And the women's-rights types! And the people who get all bent out of shape when I just pat them lightly on the butt! THOSE are the people who are to blame for Trump."
Punishing women for false accusation of rape
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Tell you what James, as one of the old men you sarcastically refer to, firstly remember that we are there, you have yet to make it, secondly many of these old men [no not me I just missed out] have fought and some died for your country.
The frivilous incidentals that you find disturbing, in actual fact I really don't believe, and see it as just a ploy. And I can assure you, and bet my short n curlies, that the simple things like calling a bloke a mate, or a female shop assistant "love" will continue, even when this old bastard kicks the bucket and my generation has passed on. It really is the height of pedantic stupidity to complain about it..
Done some shopping btw this morning and asked the female attendant, "excuse me love, where do you hide the extra virgin olive oil?"
Now James, she was young, pretty and gladly walked me to the appropriate aisle.
I had another female bank teller helping me a few weeks ago, told her she had a beautiful accent love, where do you come from? Belgium was the answer.
I then went home, rung up the manager and remarked about how she had gone above and beyond the call of duty in assisting me and giving me advice.
What I'm trying to say James, is really, cut the crap!
Yes. As will sexism and rape. Not really a good reason to continue them.
Great. I bet you could have even patted her butt and gotten away with it. She's paid to be nice.
Don't be silly.It's the extreme nuts that some of these worthwhile endeavours attract that are the problem. Facetiousness, sarcasm now appear as all you lot have got.
Unlike you I aint a pervert and would never do that.
Again, stop making excuses, pedant nonsense, continued sarcasm and facetiousness is not doing anything for you.
The message is just short and sweet Bells. and adequately conveyed in the OP, not withstanding your agenda driven interpretation.
Simple question Bells, and if I get a reasonable answer, I'll drop out of this tiresome merry-go-round and leave you to it. Do you have any sympathy for the two blokes in the cases in the OP?
paddoboy:
Every post you make just digs that hole deeper. There's just so much evidence of your sexist attitudes on display that it becomes almost pointless to catalogue it all. But perhaps most telling are your responses to the women posting here.
In none of these instances have you been able to point to a single lying statement, by either one of us. You complain about "innuendo", but here you are, acting as if you are completely unaccountable for your own statements.
It is clear that you do not want to answer to the evidence of your own sexism. You don't respond to posts about that - from anybody - because there is no good response. The only honest thing you could do is to own your sexism and vow that you will try to do better in future, but you're having none of that.
Instead, you paint your accusers as liars, all the while never being able to actually substantiate one of your accusations of lying.
What is going on here is that what you're hearing, from the women, or from myself, is making you uncomfortable, and you'd prefer not to feel like that, and you don't want to deal with it. So, you decide that the problem must be with us, and not with you. After all, you're the proud supporter of women's rights, until it comes to whether they mind being called "love" by you, that is, at which point their opinion becomes irrelevant or a lie.
You have not responded to any of the substance of Bell's post to you. Let's unpack what you did do, instead.
First, there's the smiley, which says "I'm not going to respond to you, and I hope that makes you angry. However, as a man, I don't have to listen to women if they upset me."
Second, you presume to assess the quality of Bell's post, saying it is "overall a reasonable post". This is patronising, because you are clearly not addressing the substance of anything she wrote. She is not asking for you to approve of her. She is not asking you to congratulate her, or to assess her posting prowess. She hasn't asked you to grade her work. You aren't her teacher, her father, her employer or her superior. What she wants from you is for you to address the substance of her post. I'm sure she has come over time not to expect you to do that, but never give up hope.
Third, doubtless you are happier that the focus shifted away from your irrelevant claims about your own sexual prowess. That was an embarassing episode for you, or at least it should have been.
Fourth, you trivialise the struggle for equal rights for women. Ha bloody ha. The "women's equality push" still has "some way to go yet". A man like you doesn't want to see too much or too rapid progress in that area. If that happens, you might be forced to change the way you behave in the world, and you clearly have no intention of doing that any time soon.
Lastly, you end your post by sticking your tongue out at Bells, indicated by another smiley. Your message is "Fuck you, women. I don't even have to listen to the likes of you, let alone do you the courtesy of taking what you say seriously."
I also noticed how, a couple of posts later, you tried to send the thread off on another tangent. This time it's about how evil a different bunch of women are (i.e. the ones who support the far right). The only connection to anything that has gone before in the thread is the general anti-woman subtext. Women should stay out of politics - left or right - and leave all that hard stuff to the men. Is that your message?
---
Now, from here this can go several ways. One is that you double down on your double-downing, and continue to behave like a sexist clown. Another way it could go is for you to have a long hard think about what has been put to you. You could even try composing a thoughtful response to some of the posts made by Bells and others. If you like, you could also try responding to the substance of my posts to you.
I guess we'll see whether you remain true to form, or whether there's hope for you yet.
Every post you make just digs that hole deeper. There's just so much evidence of your sexist attitudes on display that it becomes almost pointless to catalogue it all. But perhaps most telling are your responses to the women posting here.
Now, let's be clear. You have accused Bells of telling lies at least twice now. You have similarly accused me of telling lies.
In none of these instances have you been able to point to a single lying statement, by either one of us. You complain about "innuendo", but here you are, acting as if you are completely unaccountable for your own statements.
It is clear that you do not want to answer to the evidence of your own sexism. You don't respond to posts about that - from anybody - because there is no good response. The only honest thing you could do is to own your sexism and vow that you will try to do better in future, but you're having none of that.
Instead, you paint your accusers as liars, all the while never being able to actually substantiate one of your accusations of lying.
What is going on here is that what you're hearing, from the women, or from myself, is making you uncomfortable, and you'd prefer not to feel like that, and you don't want to deal with it. So, you decide that the problem must be with us, and not with you. After all, you're the proud supporter of women's rights, until it comes to whether they mind being called "love" by you, that is, at which point their opinion becomes irrelevant or a lie.
I see what you did there, too. You're not fooling anybody. Well, maybe you're fooling yourself.RESPECT I believe is the word I used. But overall a reasonable post for you, certainly no questioning of my virility or childish pervert claims. That's an improvement, but like the women's equality push, still some way to go yet.
You have not responded to any of the substance of Bell's post to you. Let's unpack what you did do, instead.
First, there's the smiley, which says "I'm not going to respond to you, and I hope that makes you angry. However, as a man, I don't have to listen to women if they upset me."
Second, you presume to assess the quality of Bell's post, saying it is "overall a reasonable post". This is patronising, because you are clearly not addressing the substance of anything she wrote. She is not asking for you to approve of her. She is not asking you to congratulate her, or to assess her posting prowess. She hasn't asked you to grade her work. You aren't her teacher, her father, her employer or her superior. What she wants from you is for you to address the substance of her post. I'm sure she has come over time not to expect you to do that, but never give up hope.
Third, doubtless you are happier that the focus shifted away from your irrelevant claims about your own sexual prowess. That was an embarassing episode for you, or at least it should have been.
Fourth, you trivialise the struggle for equal rights for women. Ha bloody ha. The "women's equality push" still has "some way to go yet". A man like you doesn't want to see too much or too rapid progress in that area. If that happens, you might be forced to change the way you behave in the world, and you clearly have no intention of doing that any time soon.
Lastly, you end your post by sticking your tongue out at Bells, indicated by another smiley. Your message is "Fuck you, women. I don't even have to listen to the likes of you, let alone do you the courtesy of taking what you say seriously."
I also noticed how, a couple of posts later, you tried to send the thread off on another tangent. This time it's about how evil a different bunch of women are (i.e. the ones who support the far right). The only connection to anything that has gone before in the thread is the general anti-woman subtext. Women should stay out of politics - left or right - and leave all that hard stuff to the men. Is that your message?
---
Now, from here this can go several ways. One is that you double down on your double-downing, and continue to behave like a sexist clown. Another way it could go is for you to have a long hard think about what has been put to you. You could even try composing a thoughtful response to some of the posts made by Bells and others. If you like, you could also try responding to the substance of my posts to you.
I guess we'll see whether you remain true to form, or whether there's hope for you yet.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, with the advent of the ''red pill'' movement, I don't see sexism dying out anytime soon.
Bells lied about me being a pervert and she has continued lying on other matters that I have corrected her on. Please check out my replies to her posts.
With my accusations against you lying, on page one, you said......
"Now non-existent, eh? Are you sure we've eliminated rape and sexual assault from society now?"
I replied....
"Telling porky pies James? Or trying to impress? I said, "The society where women did at one time experience such sexual misconduct has been greatly addressed and in most cases is now non existent, just as it should be."and I was talking of the work place environment in general.
[/QUOTE]
Now if Bells can just answer the simple question I have put to her, and apologise for raising and questioning my virility and calling me a pervert that would be nice of her
You and your ilk regularly make excuses for doing that.
"Everyone does it, and they will do it long after I am gone!"
"That's why Trump won - because stuck up assholes who are offended by a harmless pat on the butt went too far."
"Women have NO PROBLEM with a little pat on the butt. It's people like you, with your excuses, pedant nonsense, continued sarcasm and facetiousness who are the problem."
"No woman has ever said she has a problem with a light courteous pat on the butt. You're the pervert, thinking that's bad!"
Last edited:
Given that you called me a pervert for suggesting that patting a woman on the butt was not a good idea - you're a bit of a hypocrite, aren't you?Now if Bells can just answer the simple question I have put to her, and apologise for raising and questioning my virility and calling me a pervert that would be nice of her
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The Paddoboy thing is partially generational but it's mainly a lower educational class issue. Many/most educated men of his age, maybe people who thought similarly in the 50's, don't think that way now.
Younger people of the same "class" might not be completely different but they will be much less so just because it is no longer tolerated in society.
It doesn't matter if Trump and others like him were elected because that class is upset. Agrarian workers and blacksmiths were upset at the turn of the last century by all the "change" going on and weren't easily able to adjust. Change always has some stragglers. Now it's the pipe fitters apparently.
Paddoboy and Trump have a lot in common. Neither have ever been wrong and everyone else is always the problem.
Every time Paddoboy opens his mouth his foot goes in deeper. It's entertaining if nothing else.
Younger people of the same "class" might not be completely different but they will be much less so just because it is no longer tolerated in society.
It doesn't matter if Trump and others like him were elected because that class is upset. Agrarian workers and blacksmiths were upset at the turn of the last century by all the "change" going on and weren't easily able to adjust. Change always has some stragglers. Now it's the pipe fitters apparently.
Paddoboy and Trump have a lot in common. Neither have ever been wrong and everyone else is always the problem.
Every time Paddoboy opens his mouth his foot goes in deeper. It's entertaining if nothing else.
paddoboy:
First, if it is not clear, your age is not a problem, except insofar as the generation you grew up in has shaped the sexist attitudes you hold now, and in insofar as it has made you incapable of self-examination or change.
My personal opinion of older people is that they are generally not listened to enough by younger people. With age comes experience and, if the person has made good use of his or her time on the planet, knowledge and wisdom. However, age does not excuse bad behaviour or wrong thinking or a bad attitude. Nor does it excuse treating other people poorly.
Second, if you see some sarcasm in my posts for old men, it is for old men with archaic sexist attitudes. Age is no excuse.
Third, you are assuming I have "yet to make it", whatever that means. I have yet to make it to your age, it seems, but I am not young and I am certainly not naive.
Fourth, for some reason you bring up the topic of war veterans. I'm not sure how that is remotely relevant here. Am I supposed to approve of an old man's sexism because he fought in or died in a war? Or perhaps it is that I, as a presumed "young person", should defer to the elderly on all matters, particularly if they joined an army at some point in their lives. You'll need to unpack your reasoning for me, there, then we might be able to discuss it more.
Do you think I'm surprised to hear you say you think it's all "frivolous" and "pedantic stupidity"? Do you think it wasn't clear to me that was how you think, from the first time you mentioned this kind of thing?
The fact that it's "pedantic stupidity", before you even turn on your brain and give it a second thought, is the problem I'm trying to remedy. Maybe next time you call somebody "love" you'll remember this conversation, and even if you go right ahead and act as you always have, I will count that as a win.
How do you think it went for the women involved?
Has it occurred to you that maybe the supermarket woman chatted to her colleagues in the tea room later about the creepy old guy who asked about the virgin (wink wink nudge nudge) olive oil?
A few points here. Since this is becoming somewhat personal, I will express one or two personal views, too.
First, if it is not clear, your age is not a problem, except insofar as the generation you grew up in has shaped the sexist attitudes you hold now, and in insofar as it has made you incapable of self-examination or change.
My personal opinion of older people is that they are generally not listened to enough by younger people. With age comes experience and, if the person has made good use of his or her time on the planet, knowledge and wisdom. However, age does not excuse bad behaviour or wrong thinking or a bad attitude. Nor does it excuse treating other people poorly.
Second, if you see some sarcasm in my posts for old men, it is for old men with archaic sexist attitudes. Age is no excuse.
Third, you are assuming I have "yet to make it", whatever that means. I have yet to make it to your age, it seems, but I am not young and I am certainly not naive.
Fourth, for some reason you bring up the topic of war veterans. I'm not sure how that is remotely relevant here. Am I supposed to approve of an old man's sexism because he fought in or died in a war? Or perhaps it is that I, as a presumed "young person", should defer to the elderly on all matters, particularly if they joined an army at some point in their lives. You'll need to unpack your reasoning for me, there, then we might be able to discuss it more.
But are they frivolous? Is the behaviour of the middle-aged male boss, who routinely refers to his younger female employees as "love" or "sweety", a matter of frivolity to you? It might give you a frivolous buzz to ask the checkout chick to direct you to the extra virgin olive oil is, but she's not necessarily going to share in your frivolity about that.
I'm sure it will continue to, but I already said I expected that, above. As for the rest, as usual you ignore the substance and opt instead to make a dismissive assertion, adding in a gratuitous insult for good measure.
Do you think I'm surprised to hear you say you think it's all "frivolous" and "pedantic stupidity"? Do you think it wasn't clear to me that was how you think, from the first time you mentioned this kind of thing?
The fact that it's "pedantic stupidity", before you even turn on your brain and give it a second thought, is the problem I'm trying to remedy. Maybe next time you call somebody "love" you'll remember this conversation, and even if you go right ahead and act as you always have, I will count that as a win.
Lovely stories, but all from your side of the interaction. Sure, you like talking to pretty young girls. You like female attention. And you feel good when you ring up the manager to put in a good word for the pretty young thing.
How do you think it went for the women involved?
Has it occurred to you that maybe the supermarket woman chatted to her colleagues in the tea room later about the creepy old guy who asked about the virgin (wink wink nudge nudge) olive oil?
Not as much in common or down right childish as yourself, particularly with your amateurish game yesterday with the pet names.
Quite observant that no one has yet questioned or refuted any of the links I have given.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Trump also calls anyone who questions him names. No one needs to respond to any of your links when you provide enough data for their observations right in this thread.
Referring to a "woman's movement" as extremism is enough to justify most of the comments people have made about you.
Using those same "pet names" on you yesterday wasn't "childish". It made its intended point. You didn't like it. You don't know that other's like it just because they still wait on you and even if they allow you to complement them.
I've actually heard that you can be quite the sharp dresser, Sunshine. For an old dude, you read a lot of books, Skipper. Good for you, Chief.
Last edited:
So, these flirting scenarios above are common for you, when you're at the grocery store, running errands, etc?
I think you've been conditioned to assume that in order to interact with women, you need to flirt, offer compliments, use cute nicknames etc and while you might run across women who seem to tolerate it, that's about all they're doing...tolerating it, for the sake of their job.
As I thought. Your complaint about people "lying" is when they make assessments about your character or attitudes based on what you post, and you regard those assessments as incorrect. In other words, you disapprove of people expressing their opinions of you, based on their understanding of things you have written.
I have news for you. The people you interact with in this world will form an opinion of you, based on those interactions. They will decide "he's that sort of person", based on what you do or say or write. Some of them are right here, right now, deciding that, about both of us. When these people have an opinion of you which they express, and you don't think that's the "real" you, it doesn't mean they are telling lies about you. It means it's their honest personal opinion of you. They could be wrong about you, but if they are only telling you what they honesty think then they aren't lying.
Like what?
I've checked. Couldn't find any lies. Please give at least one example.
Yes, and I replied to you, did I not?
Notice, also, the question marks in the part of my post you have quoted. A question mark means I'm asking a question, not making a statement. Granted, it could be a rhetorical question. Or, it could be a question aimed at getting you to clarify something you wrote. Either way, a question is usually not a lie.
Perhaps, instead, you're referring to a more general kind of lie. Perhaps you're saying that I'm deliberately misrepresenting your position - erecting a straw man so I can knock it down. That's not uncommon behaviour on sciforums, but I try to avoid it, albeit unsuccessfully at times.
In this particular case, it has been clear from subsequent posts in the thread, if it was not on page 1, that I did not misrepresent your view that sexual misconduct in the workplace has been "greatly addressed" and has become "non-existent", or nearly so. We know this because you've repeated the same claim in later posts. You're just as wrong as you were the first time about that, but pointing that out that doesn't make me a liar.
She didn't raise it. You did. As for the pervert thing, I'll leave you to sort that out with her.Now if Bells can just answer the simple question I have put to her, and apologise for raising and questioning my virility and calling me a pervert that would be nice of her
I'm not referring to any middle aged boss, or any workplace for that matter, where people should as I agreed with wegs, call each other by their names. My approach despite what slant you see fit to put on it, with regards to how I address a shop assistant whose name I do not know, will continue, as that is the pedant that I am referring to. The same as if I appraoch a male assistant, I'll say hey excuse me mate.
Insults??
You get your mods and others into gear re insults and I won't need to use them.I don't really care that much James. I live in the real world.
Count it anyway you like, it will continue, not just my generation, but following generations. Reason? Because it is simply over the top pedantic stupidity for anyone to object to such. I worked for QANTAS James for 14 years, and at one time when all this political correctness was the 'in thing" we got instructions from top management that we were to stop calling manhole covers, manhole covers and call them access or person holes. The union laughed off such stupidity and we had the support of first line management. Needless to say the nonsense was withdrawn.
Wrong again, I rung up the manager because she went out of her way to put me on the right track and deserved a compliment.
Don't knnow JAMES...I hope she got a raise?
Your hypotheticals are yours to dream up James.
But, it goes beyond that though, from what you're shared, now. You don't simply ask the store employee ''hey, love...can you tell me where the soap is?'' (which the nick name is unnecessary too, but...) And, leave it there. It sounds like you're flirtatious, overly complimentary. What motivates you to flirt with random store employees? I'm genuinely curious.
If you were a single guy hanging out at a bar, flirting wouldn't seem out of place. (unless it's unwelcomed, and you persist) But, flirting with random store employees is out of place. Do you see what I'm saying?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I'm not as old as Sunshine but I'm not young. I frequently go to the deli at my neighborhood grocery store to get a cooked chicken breast. There is a young/attractive girl that often works there.
I don't know her name but I recognize her and she always recognizes me as well. She smiles, comes over and says "chicken breast" and while she is getting it she asks how my weekend went, if I walked to the store today, how is the weather etc.
I answer and ask similar questions of her. If she tells me she is going to another city to visit family shortly, I'll remember that and ask about her trip when she gets back.
She doesn't need to call me Hon and I don't need to call her Sweetie. She starts the conversation because she wants to (and that is a normal thing to do with a customer).
In other words I talk to her the same way I would with a friend, a casual acquaintance and the same way I would talk to her outside of the store. She ran into me once outside of the store when she was on the phone. I waved as I walked by and she put her call on hold and ran to catch up with me to say that she hadn't seen me in a while.
All this is "unforced" because I'm not trying to flatter her, bribe her or take advantage of a customer/employee relationship.
It's much better for both parties when there is no imbalance of "power" and if someone is friendly you know it's just because they actually feel that way.
Many guys have been abusing the customer/waitress relationship for years counting on being flirted with in exchange for a nice tip. It's almost always the dumb fuck class that does it. I'm a little embarrassed if I'm at a table and someone I'm with pulls that stuff. It's much better to just be nice and respectful to a waitress. If they flirt with you after that it's just because they are so glad that they have a nice guy for a customer for a change.
I don't know her name but I recognize her and she always recognizes me as well. She smiles, comes over and says "chicken breast" and while she is getting it she asks how my weekend went, if I walked to the store today, how is the weather etc.
I answer and ask similar questions of her. If she tells me she is going to another city to visit family shortly, I'll remember that and ask about her trip when she gets back.
She doesn't need to call me Hon and I don't need to call her Sweetie. She starts the conversation because she wants to (and that is a normal thing to do with a customer).
In other words I talk to her the same way I would with a friend, a casual acquaintance and the same way I would talk to her outside of the store. She ran into me once outside of the store when she was on the phone. I waved as I walked by and she put her call on hold and ran to catch up with me to say that she hadn't seen me in a while.
All this is "unforced" because I'm not trying to flatter her, bribe her or take advantage of a customer/employee relationship.
It's much better for both parties when there is no imbalance of "power" and if someone is friendly you know it's just because they actually feel that way.
Many guys have been abusing the customer/waitress relationship for years counting on being flirted with in exchange for a nice tip. It's almost always the dumb fuck class that does it. I'm a little embarrassed if I'm at a table and someone I'm with pulls that stuff. It's much better to just be nice and respectful to a waitress. If they flirt with you after that it's just because they are so glad that they have a nice guy for a customer for a change.