Everyday sexism

[billvon]

It's not a perfect world billvon and as much as we would like to make it so, probably never will be.

Well, some of us try to make it better.

Went to a talk on microaggression lately. It specifically referenced your approach; they called it "diminution." It's an approach where you call the upcoming First Lady "kiddo" instead of "doctor." Or calls a black person "boy" instead of "sir." Or call someone "love" instead of "ma'am." It's a way to reduce their stature and importance by referring to them a different way.

Other interesting parts of the talk:

They talk about how one of the most pervasive problems is the approach "well, everyone does it." "xxx is a term of endearment." "I didn't mean anything by it." And they were careful to point out that this is often true - the people employing such terms often really DON'T mean anything bad by it - but the effect is the same. The reduction and minimization of those people.

So the talk was about identifying such behaviors in yourself and others, and how to defuse them. They recommend humor as a way to do it, which is a good approach. They also had a couple of other recommendations, on what works on what sort of people. And they also reminded the people at the talk to accept such criticism when it's given, rather than get defensive. Because very often people understand that you don't mean it the way it is perceived.

It was a good talk. You would have hated it.

 

[paddoboy]

Your words and actions suggest otherwise.

Because you say so? Again wrong, my words and actions [not that you know anymore then what I have told you] reflect a normality that exists in the wider community in general.

Particularly on this website.

And this website isn't the be all and end all of anything.

Not really no.

You are one of the most offensive, abusive people on this site. You openly tout how you sexually harass women in public and crow about it.

You keep telling me that, yet the incidents contradict your fabricated stories.

Pretty sure you don't.


Why do you say that?

You do this often as well.. Suggest that people are getting excited or emotional, etc as a ridiculous tactic.

It follows the pattern, I suppose.

Actually its your own pattern, that stands out, as a dramatisation and fabrication of events that you take an extreme view on.

And yet you can't actually prove it. Instead you linked a story that was discussing how it was based on a fake story.

Talk about a knee jerk reaction!

I linked to a story to show that such extremes do exist, just as news items here have also suggested over the years, but again quickly swept back out of sight.

Ah, that lack of self awareness.

No fact, as the meat of the article gave and which I posted.

You don't use the word. But you keep repeating it in responses to others.

How many times Bells? and first used here....

And I know people who would say the same thing about the word "nigger"... They are also redneck jerks.

Let me help you...once, in reply to it being raised as similar to using "love". It isn't. One was meant to be offensive.

And the emoticons begin!

You don't like them? Why? I can live without them, but hey! while they are there, I'll use them.

It is a set pattern with you. It's your go to. It is what you try to hide behind. Much like a racist tries to declare they have black friends. You, the misogynist, tries to portray how much women just love you.

You appear to be getting excited again Bells. I'm neither racist nor misogynist, and you trying to create a drama here, [on a remote science forum] by smearing me with such allegations, just reflects on your own extremities of PC.

My point still stands.

Not with me it doesn't. You have SFA.

And here we have it.

She has no choice but to be polite, smile and call you Sir and say thank you. It may not mean she likes it.

If she does not smile or respond as you expect her to respond, you complain to the manager.

When you approach people in service jobs, like a bank teller or a person working in a supermarket, you have the power in that dynamic. They do not. So you act like a creep or make obscene suggestive remarks to a young supermarket clerk, she has to smile back at you, chuckle and not be rude to you. She has no choice. She's not smiling because she likes it. She's smiling because if she does not, she could be out of a job.

And that is what you keep refusing to understand.

Not everyone likes or appreciates that kind of behaviour and you refuse to be respectful to them by not putting them in that position.

Total nonsense Bells. While certainly they need to be polite, that also reflects on the customer, just as I was polite. I made the remark, she laughed heartedly and expressed nothing but warmth and appreciation for my thanks. But hey, you do get a point for pointing out my ignorance in IT/banking and such.

Refer to above.

She has no choice but to respond this way. If she does not, she risks losing her job.

Power relations are visible in hierarchical workplace relations. But they are invisible in many customer-worker encounters because qualities like deference, availability and friendliness are seen as an essential part of the job.
[https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2016/not-asking-for-it/]​

You don't know what you are talking about Bells. As I said, you can fabricate, surmise and force your extremities of PC all you like. My experiences in all circumstances so far, tell a far different story. I will probably be going up to the bank later today Bells...I would love to show her your reaction, as well as others.

You really should read what you link.

It was to illustrate the idea of extreme PC that can and may exist.

I'm sure the East Timorese would beg to differ.

Ahhh, change of tact!! OK, Don't really remember too much on that situation, but that changes nothing re the standings of Hawke on both sides of the political spectrum.

No one gives a shit, dude.

So why do you keep referring to my larrickinism?

 

[paddoboy]

Well, some of us try to make it better.

Most of us also strive to make it better, including me, but using extremes of PC and pedant will not achieve that.

Went to a talk on microaggression lately. It specifically referenced your approach; they called it "diminution." It's an approach where you call the upcoming First Lady "kiddo" instead of "doctor." Or calls a black person "boy" instead of "sir." Or call someone "love" instead of "ma'am." It's a way to reduce their stature and importance by referring to them a different way. Certainly not any attempt at diminution.

I call all Doctors, Doctors, sometimes just Doc...have never called a black person boy and address all men I come in contact with as "mate" and women as "love"
All without any exception taken as intended, without a second thought, glance of disaproval or grimace at all. It's called everyday banter.
Plus of course, I dare say if I ever saw the need to go to such a "talk" I would also find some addressing the extremities of PC.

It was a good talk. You would have hated it.

Maybe, maybe not. I may have thrown some questions there way though.

 

[billvon]

I call all Doctors, Doctors, sometimes just Doc...have never called a black person boy and address all men I come in contact with as "mate" and women as "love"
All without any exception taken as intended, without a second thought, glance of disaproval or grimace at all. It's called everyday banter.

You are dead wrong about that. At the talk they mentioned the common defense "no one has ever been offended by what I said!"

The people you say it to often fear that if they say anything, you will react poorly and call them names (like "pedant" or "too PC" for example.)
The people you say it within earshot often think that it's not worth bringing it up, because you probably didn't mean it and it looks like the person wasn't offended.

One of speakers pointed out that it's the duty of people overhearing such talk to point it out.

Plus of course, I dare say if I ever saw the need to go to such a "talk" I would also find some addressing the extremities of PC.

Yes. One such extremity of PC is claiming "I don't see race or gender! Everyone looks the same to me! So if you think I'm being sexist/racist etc it's your problem. YOU are the sexist." That's an example of trying to use 'political correctness' to gaslight someone.

 

[DaveC426913]

Look, public behaviour is not rocket science. Everyone implicitly understands the social contract, even if they haven't thought it through explicitly.


In one's immediate family, you can be as "you" as they will tolerate - because they know you.

The larger the circle, the less one knows the people in the circle, the more one reins in their own behavior.

In one's extended family, one tempers their predilections somewhat. Great granny might not care for that racy blonde-eats-a-banana joke.

In one's community, one reins it in a little more, because, while ones local pub is a place where most people know you, not everyone will. Pretty bad idea to tell a joke about X not knowing if there's one at the table next you with no sense of humour.

On on up...

The internet is a world stage. You don't know anybody, and the probability that others will have sensibilities different from your own approaches one.

So one tempers oneself to accommodate as many others as reasonable. The bigger the group, the fewer you know well, the more you temper yourself.

It is more constructive for person A to accommodate person B by simply being polite for the duration of the discourse than it is for person B to sit in discomfort in the face of person A's courseness.


Oh yeah, and if one (or many) of the people in the group says explicitly that they're uncomfortable with some line being crossed, then you tone it down - or you gracefully withdraw to go find a group more amenable.


That's just part of the social contract.

 

[paddoboy]

You are dead wrong about that. At the talk they mentioned the common defense "no one has ever been offended by what I said!"

No actually I'm dead correct about it, and the reverse applies, that be the common criticism by those who take PC and everyday common banter to realms of unreality and crap, to put it bluntly.

The people you say it to often fear that if they say anything, you will react poorly and call them names (like "pedant" or "too PC" for example.)
The people you say it within earshot often think that it's not worth bringing it up, because you probably didn't mean it and it looks like the person wasn't offended.

One of speakers pointed out that it's the duty of people overhearing such talk to point it out.

Yes. One such extremity of PC is claiming "I don't see race or gender! Everyone looks the same to me! So if you think I'm being sexist/racist etc it's your problem. YOU are the sexist." That's an example of trying to use 'political correctness' to gaslight someone.

Yeah the common cry of those trying to make something out of nothing and taking PC way too far, and attempting to force their extreme beliefs onto society.

Again expecting the usual outcry from those that believe they hold the moral high ground, let me say, I know what I experience and interact in and with...and that covers a wide range and fairly diverse, and none of the claims by you or others re people being too timid, or too scared of losing jobs etc, or any other fabricated excuse making, changes anything that I know I have interacted with and the outcomes and genuine attitudes that were taken.
If anyone did object, I would immediately desist, and most probably avoid in the future.
Here's a lovely old song from Bing Crosby and another whose name escapes me....this is the modern version by
Idina Menzel & Michael Bublé:
Lovely lyrics some extremists may find offensive. [Yes it is from one of the links I gave also]

Yeah, the phrase "lighten up" applies.

 

[Thus Spoke]

I love it when older women call me love, dear, hon, sweetie, and so on. Most people are fine with older women using terms of endearment. Coming from someone younger, it comes off as condescending, but it takes on a completely different tone when used by an older man.

Why do age and gender matter?

 

[Bells]

Because you say so? Again wrong, my words and actions [not that you know anymore then what I have told you] reflect a normality that exists in the wider community in general.

Despite everyone telling you no, you still persist.

And this website isn't the be all and end all of anything.

Guess that's why you just keep coming back....

You keep telling me that, yet the incidents contradict your fabricated stories.

I am not the one fabricating stories. You come out with these bizarre and at times downright creepy explanations of how you interact with women, complete strangers and you crow about it.

And you are proud of it. It is deliberate. You refuse to accept that you are sexually harassing women while they are trying to do their jobs. And you think the fact that they are literally required to smile back, banter with you and simply suck it up whether they like it or not, is just their being cool with it. You cannot seem to grasp that they may not be cool with how you behave towards them and have no choice but to laugh with you or they are out of a job. Well, it's more the fact that you do not care. You deliberately choose to impose yourself on others and they can't actually say no and you think that's acceptable behaviour.

That says more about you than anyone else. It's not society, "PC", etc. It's you that is the problem.

Actually its your own pattern, that stands out, as a dramatisation and fabrication of events that you take an extreme view on.

I am literally quoting your words back to you and responding to your words.

I linked to a story to show that such extremes do exist, just as news items here have also suggested over the years, but again quickly swept back out of sight.

You linked a story clearly based on something fake and the ridiculous response to the fake issue that you partook in and then tried to claim it as fact.

No fact, as the meat of the article gave and which I posted.

You are the white old man described in the article.

Let me help you...once, in reply to it being raised as similar to using "love". It isn't. One was meant to be offensive.

Both can be offensive.

You aren't her "love". You don't know her. She's not related to you or your friend. She may not appreciate it. Respect her boundaries and address her appropriately.

She's trying to do her job and she is forced to put up with men like you who "aww love" her and she is forced to smile about it and say nothing. You impose yourself and harass women while they are working and they aren't allowed to say anything to you about it. You admitted yourself if she responded in a way to let you know she didn't approve or appreciate it, you'd report her to the manager. It is absolutely obscene the manner in which men like you behave towards women while they are working and you know full well she is not allowed to tell you to fuck off.

You abuse your power in that dynamic and she is absolutely powerless to stop you without risking her livelihood. Respect her position and stop wanking yours.

You don't like them? Why? I can live without them, but hey! while they are there, I'll use them.

I don't particularly care about them. I tend to leave most of them for kids to use. I notice you resort to using them when you have no argument left..

You appear to be getting excited again Bells. I'm neither racist nor misogynist, and you trying to create a drama here, [on a remote science forum] by smearing me with such allegations, just reflects on your own extremities of PC.

Why are you so obsessed with my "getting excited"? Is this a thing for you?

Because you keep making comments about my supposed excitement level.. Perhaps you mistake my revulsion for excitement..? I guess it explains why you think the women you sleaze onto in public while they are working are into you...

Not with me it doesn't. You have SFA.

Course not. Because you are a misogynist who defends your harassing women while they are working knowing they can't do anything about it.

And then you come on the internet and start crowing about it.

Total nonsense Bells.

How do you know? Did you ask her? Do you know her? Is she related to you? Is she a long time friend? If the answer is no to any of those questions, you have absolutely no place to start "love", "bloody angel" and making inappropriate commentary about her while she is at work and trying to do her job and in no position to refuse you or rebuff you.

She's at work. She's a professional.

Treat her like one. Address her in an appropriate manner.

That's what you can't seem to understand. When you approach her and 'Oh love', you are not treating her like a professional. You diminished her role and her position.

As I said, you can fabricate, surmise and force your extremities of PC all you like. My experiences in all circumstances so far, tell a far different story. I will probably be going up to the bank later today Bells...I would love to show her your reaction, as well as others.

Again, I am literally addressing your words.

Your experience thus far is you failing to treat women (and only women mind you!) as professionals while they are working and abusing your power in the process.

It's nothing to do with PC. It's everything to do with respecting her, her position, the fact that she is in her workplace, her profession..

You can show her whatever you want. She's not allowed to respond negatively. Understand that bit yet? She is not allowed to disagree with you or tell you no without risking her job.

It was to illustrate the idea of extreme PC that can and may exist.

It was a response to a complete lie and addressing the moral panic, such as you exhibited, to the complete lie.

Ahhh, change of tact!! OK, Don't really remember too much on that situation, but that changes nothing re the standings of Hawke on both sides of the political spectrum.

No. It's to point that you admire two men who are both significantly morally flawed and frankly did some abhorrent things and you think they were the greatest..

Do you think the East Timorese love Gough or think he was a great man?

Do you think Hawke's children love him or think he's a great man given what he did to their mother and how he treated them? How about his daughter when he told her to not report being raped multiple times by his own friend because it would affect his political ambition? Good man?

What am I saying, we all know how you feel about women who accuse men of rape.. "Conniving bitches", wasn't it?

I mean, you don't even think sexual harassment is an issue..

So why do you keep referring to my larrickinism?

Because you resort to it like a shield and think it makes you appear a certain way. You think it allows you to get away with crap.

Since you asked so nicely for evidence of my original claim Bells...

Did you read what you linked?

You claimed that they wanted to stop Christmas stuff in schools because it might offend Muslims.

You have yet to actually provide anything that addresses your claims..

Instead, you post even more articles about other fake moral outrages. And the target and yours, is Muslims.

 

[paddoboy]

Despite everyone telling you no, you still persist.

Everyone? And I'll persist and persist and persist, as long as it remains the normality.

Guess that's why you just keep coming back....

As a layperson, I find far more ignorance and pseudoscience crap here then the professional standards and qualified experts on other forums. And of course like this forum, I'm also not the be all and end all.

I am not the one fabricating stories. You come out with these bizarre and at times downright creepy explanations of how you interact with women, complete strangers and you crow about it.

Not stories, simply factual interesting moments in my life and interactions between normal average everyday people, both male and female.

And you are proud of it. It is deliberate.

Proud??more indifferent to it, just as per the indifference shown by those I interact with. Deliberate?? actually more just normality and conventional banter.

That says more about you than anyone else. It's not society, "PC", etc. It's you that is the problem.

Naaa, not at all...I'm just an average old bloke that has many friends, that interact normally and will continue to act correctly, and will always be responsible for my own actions and words.

I am literally quoting your words back to you and responding to your words.

You may be quoting my own words back to me, but also putting a extremist stance and fabricated meaning to, for your own agenda, whatever that may be.

You linked a story clearly based on something fake and the ridiculous response to the fake issue that you partook in and then tried to claim it as fact.

I stated examples of PC being taken too far, and quickly being swept under the carpet because of the reactions of normal average people.

You are the white old man described in the article.

More correctly I'm part of the greater majority of all age groups that believe correctly that PC can be taken too far, and as per the paragraph I posted.

Both can be offensive.

When I find addressing a good natured, helpful bank teller as love and telling her she's a bloody Angel, as offensive, then I'll cease. Until then, normality [hopefully on both sides] will continue.

She may not appreciate it. Respect her boundaries and address her appropriately.

She did appreciate it, and laughed heartedly, just as the two bar attendants at the Roosters laughed and interacted with nine old farts, without feeling threatened or revolted by it, and replied and interacted in kind. Not withstanding your disgusting interpretations of what you surmise or fabricate from a position of ignorance.

You abuse your power in that dynamic and she is absolutely powerless to stop you without risking her livelihood. Respect her position and stop wanking yours.

Actually its you abusing your position of power. Mine was nothing more then an example of casual banter, just as on the other occasions I described, including the two female ambulance/paramedics officers that attended to my wife during the last Summer's bushfires, and who, like the two bar attendants, I wrote to management commending their services.
Still have E-Mails in reply to those two incidents appreciating my appreciation and thanks.

I don't particularly care about them. I tend to leave most of them for kids to use. I notice you resort to using them when you have no argument left..

I have plenty of argument Bells, and will continue in what I understand to be the norm.

Why are you so obsessed with my "getting excited"? Is this a thing for you?

Because you keep making comments about my supposed excitement level.. Perhaps you mistake my revulsion for excitement..? I guess it explains why you think the women you sleaze onto in public while they are working are into you...

Whatever false moral high ground you see yourself on is your business. The respectful and normal way I interact in my daily life is mine.

Course not. Because you are a misogynist who defends your harassing women while they are working knowing they can't do anything about it.

Ooops, there's another emoji!! No Bells I aint no misogynist or sexist or whatever box you see the need to put me in.

How do you know?

By her actions and hearty laugh.

Did you ask her?

Didn't need to.

Do you know her?

No, and I didn't know the two paramedics either.

Is she related to you?

Nup, just an ordinary helpful bank teller.

Is she a long time friend?

Not at all.

If the answer is no to any of those questions, you have absolutely no place to start "love", "bloody angel" and making inappropriate commentary about her while she is at work and trying to do her job and in no position to refuse you or rebuff you.

She's at work. She's a professional.

Treat her like one. Address her in an appropriate manner.

That's what you can't seem to understand. When you approach her and 'Oh love', you are not treating her like a professional. You diminished her role and her position.

Wrong, wrong wrong. I treated her professionally by listening intently to her advice and help,[ because you know, as an old bastard, I'm not that IT literate, as you wisely pointed out], and answered happily back to her, thanking her [as I detailed] and her immensely proud reaction/s.
That's it in a nutshell Bells.

Again, I am literally addressing your words.

Of course. A shame though you failed miserably to address them correctly.

Your experience thus far is you failing to treat women (and only women mind you!) as professionals while they are working and abusing your power in the process.

We seem to be going over old ground here Bells...I address most males as mate, even though I may not know them from a bar of soap. [hope that's not too blokey for you]

You can show her whatever you want. She's not allowed to respond negatively. Understand that bit yet? She is not allowed to disagree with you or tell you no without risking her job.

Do you understand yet, that she had nothing to disagree with, and was joyful and happy in her interactions, as were the other examples I have given, where women are concerned. Anything else is just your fabrication of events.

It was a response to a complete lie and addressing the moral panic, such as you exhibited, to the complete lie.

I gave other links illustrating and validating my claims.

No. It's to point that you admire two men who are both significantly morally flawed and frankly did some abhorrent things and you think they were the greatest..

Do you think the East Timorese love Gough or think he was a great man?

Do you think Hawke's children love him or think he's a great man given what he did to their mother and how he treated them? How about his daughter when he told her to not report being raped multiple times by his own friend because it would affect his political ambition? Good man?

They were great PM's as you and all Australians should appreciate. On the Daughter's supposed rape, wasn't she contesting his will? Either way, it detracts nothing from the job he did as PM.

What am I saying, we all know how you feel about women who accuse men of rape.. "Conniving bitches", wasn't it?

Did I say that Bells? Perhaps in regards to some women who have been found to falsely accuse men of rape, yes. Two cases in hand at this time with NRL players, have now both been put over for second trials.
Men who rape women or sexually assault them in anyway, need to face the full force of the law. Women who are found to falsely accuse men of rape, need to face the full force of the law.

I mean, you don't even think sexual harassment is an issue..

Your version of it you mean?

Because you resort to it like a shield and think it makes you appear a certain way. You think it allows you to get away with crap.

Naa, Bells, that's just me, take it or leave it!

Did you read what you linked?

You claimed that they wanted to stop Christmas stuff in schools because it might offend Muslims.

You have yet to actually provide anything that addresses your claims..

Instead, you post even more articles about other fake moral outrages. And the target and yours, is Muslims.

I posted links to thoughts and examples of PC gone mad, or the potential to go mad.
Others here have labelled me as an evil Atheist, but I still believe the traditional Chrissy as we all know it, should continue as is.
Have no muslim friends Bells, but also have nothing against them.

 

[paddoboy]

I feel the need to weigh-in here. Sorry Pad,

Of course it is.

I still get called love.

That said, I’ve “known” you from our conversations on here for a few years paddoboy, and while you don’t offend me per se,

OK, I'm officially out of this debacle of a thread [hopefully!!!]
In saying that I would like to say I appreciate the respectful debate/s with the above members, without any need for disgusting accusations. I disagree with most of you but at least you have posted and answered with some decorum.
Thanks again.

ps: As an aside, and if any mod/admin is interested in my opinion two of the above members, I would make as moderators.
No, I'm not attempting to piss in anyone's pockets.

 

[James R]

The word "sexist" usually has a negative implication because it is often the case that the kinds of discrimination against women to which the term is most often applied are most often negative rather than positive.

I would suggest the following simple rules of thumb in dealing with potentially sexist situations. These rules should apply equally to the actions of both the man and the woman in the particular situation, with the second one being the most important.

1. Remember that people are not stereotypes, but individuals.
2. Don't be an asshole.

Lots of men have been culturally conditioned to believe that it is polite to do things like opening doors for women, letting ladies go first, etc. I personally also believe that it's often polite to open doors for other men, too, or to offer up one's seat on the bus to a man who looks like he might need a seat, but I recognise in myself a tendency to offer seats and open doors more often to women than to men, for which I have a no doubt have number of different psychological drivers.

If, for whatever reason, you are the kind of man who wants to open doors for women, then rule number 1 (above) should remind you that different women are likely to react to your door-opening and seat-offering behaviours in different ways. If a particular woman does not take kindly to your opening the door for her, accept that she is very likely reading your act as one of male chauvinism. If her reaction is negative, then as a man you can apologise and explain that your act was altruistic and you did not mean to offend.

On the other hand, if you're the kind of woman who tends to regard all offers of seats on buses or doors held open as acts of aggressive social politics, then it might help to remember rule 2 (above). You might politely explain to the man holding the door that you do not expect such behaviour and would prefer that it is not repeated by him to you in future.

When neither party in this kind of interaction is being an asshole, there are opportunities for friendly - or at least neutral - interaction, no matter how brief. On the other hand, being an asshole is not likely to produce changes in attitudes or behaviours that you might personally prefer.

With these things in mind, consider...

Indeed. I caught a faceful of flak here on his forum for mentioning smiling while holding a door open for a woman. I argued it was technically a sexist act (since I might not have smiled at a man), yet did not constitute misogyny.

It is technically a sexist act, in that it discriminates on the basis of sex. If you would not offer your seat to a man of similar age and other characteristics, and do so only because a woman is involved, that's sexist by definition. I suggest that you keep rules 1 and 2, above, in mind.

Hmm, I'm guilty of smiling at women if they are pretty. The trouble is the older I get the prettier they seem. The good news is I'm so old that I am not seen as in any way threatening, so quite often they smile back. Which makes my day.

I think that rule 2 should mostly apply here.

There is, of course, a difference between a smile and a leer. Some men (not you, I'm confident) don't know the difference.

One fine day circa 1977, riding the elevated/subway in Chicago---heading for the university. A tall woman got on carrying two bags
so
I began to stand up while offered her my seat
and then
she went ballistic demanding of me if i thought she was crippled, and calling me a chauvinistic sexist pig
ok
she is standing over me and screaming at me and i am feeling really uncomfortable(maybe a little frightened)
At the next stop, an old man got on and I stood up and offered him my seat---he said thank you and sat down.
Ok, so now, I'm trying to retreat---moving to the other end of the car---and she was following me berating me all the time
eeek---oh nooooooo
so
at the next stop, I got off

That women obviously forgot rule 2. Given rule 1, that does not mean that you should never again offer a seat to any woman on the subway. Obviously, if you ever see that particular woman again, you'll know better that to offer her a seat.

what the hell was she doing?
could that have been her idea of foreplay?

Her bad behaviour does not excuse subsequent bad behaviour on your part. The responsibility for that sexist comment you just chose to make is entirely yours and it is your reputation alone that is affected by those kinds of snide remarks.

A fully paid up member of the Choir of The Church of the Perpetual I Am Offended Brigade
Sub Branch I Am Insulted You Think I Am Less Than You By Offering Me Your Seat

And don't give me some bullshit about being chivalrous you are trying to lord it over me

The danger in this is that you forgot rule 1.

Just because one woman forgets rule 2, it doesn't mean that you then have a perpetual license to similarly ignore rule 2.

I think this is a mistake that some men are prone to. Mind you, I think that a lot of those men are misogynists to start with and are just looking for one more excuse (N.B. not you, Michael, necessarily).

My view on PC is the PC brigade pick low hanging fruit in their own back yard and us older are REQUIRED to use the new terminology

Remember rules 1 and 2.

Rule 1 tells you that your preferences are not all shared by other people.
Rule 2 reminds you to show a little respect.

I love it when older women call me love, dear, hon, sweetie, and so on.

See rule 1. Your preferences are not necessarily "correct", or better than anybody else's. Some people hate what you love.

Why do age and gender matter?

They are both inherently political.

 

[James R]

Indecisiveness was higher among women (M = 28.82, SD = 6.78) than men (M = 24.91, SD = 5.59)

Yes, with N=135. A hopelessly limited study for many reasons.

I think that we think of them as being more indecisive because we perceive them as weak, as less than, lacking boldness, courage and self-confidence.

Don't count me in your "we".

 

[James R]

Fairly obviously, there's no helping some people, who are set in their ways.

Nevertheless, it can be instructive to examine those people's attitudes and behaviours.

I call them Love because in most cases I don't know there name.

Why not pick a more neutral form of address? Why make a sexist power play when you don't have to?

In saying that wegs, I can understand where you are coming from. As you say [or infer] there are some arseholes out there of both sexes, but really irrespective of any effort to eliminate even the most "subtle" of remarks, like "love" It won't eliminate these arseholes.

You're right, paddoboy. Some people will insist on continuing to be an assholes even after they know better.

We can't remove all cars off the road because of a minority of drunken hoons that cause accidents and mayhem. All we do is make rules to help contain them.

In our current context, the relevant "rules" are all the things you wave away as "PC rubbish gone mad".

I know James will immediatley employ his " so what" dialogue here, but really wegs, I have never hit a woman and never will...I have never even told a woman to go and get stuffed or similar...I stand up [still] on a bus or train for women even at my ripe old age, not because I see them as inferior, but because women are different1 [at least I hope so] and I respect that difference...we have women's Rugby League in Australia now, and they hit each other near as hard as the blokes do...but we don't have the women playing the men...why? because that difference does [thankfully] exist.

So much to unpack there. Maybe a list?

1. Not having hit a woman does not excuse other acts patriarchal or chauvinist acts.
2. Sometimes it is quite justifiable to tell somebody to get stuffed. Better that than to bottle it up and take it all out on a succession of innocent souls after that.
   
3. You should think about the ways in which women are "different". In particular, try to interrogate your own assumptions about power relationships. Not that I expect you will.

James again likes to pretend that women simply accept these little subtleties because they have grown used to them...

Habit and acculturation obviously affect many things about what people do and do not accept, in terms of everyday behaviour. They are not the only things that affect that, however. Fear is another reason why people accept things that they should not have to accept, for instance.

Let me again say that this type of casual banter exists in society and is in near all cases harmless banter, that both genders partake in and which means absolutely nothing sexually oriented towards the person being addressed. It's as natural as me saying please, or thank you.

You close your eyes to any potential for harm, let alone the reality of it, in this context. Your excuse is tradition and upbringing, which is the usual cry of the conservative with a vested interest in perpetuating a status quo.

... and really wegs, if I even noticed the most subtle look in any female I addressed as love, that they were displeased with the term, they would not have to ask me to desist...I would automatically desist.

That's the thing though. You make it point never to notice such things. Indeed, you claim to be proud that you don't notice, and defiant about altering your own behaviour so as not to be an asshole.

On the remark itself..."it must be a female Alien: she can't make up her mind" that seemed to have initially upset James...have you checked out the thread that this debacle was split from? Did you notice the frivolity that the remark was made in....you know, a monolith [2001 like] mysteriously appears in the desert...bloody Aliens!! then mysteriously disappears!!! bloody Aliens again, and the frivolous comments made and joking [the UFO nuts being the butt of the joke] and then my comment finally in similar jocular fashion.

You're wrong. The butt of your joke was women, not UFO nuts, there. Notice that "UFO nuts" does not appear in your quoted statement - only "alien" and "female", and the only negative is applied to the "female".

Go on, tell me again that you still can't see any problem. I know you're dying to.

I really don't know what else to say except that I totally reject all James' accusations, name callings and insinuations.

As usual, you're not listening. Your ego keeps getting in the way.

It's not just me, either. You're managing to avoid listening to a whole bunch of people who are patiently trying to educate you, including at least two women, whose perpectives you really ought to pay special attention to on this topic.

In summing wegs, I'm not in anyway a sexist or a misogynist and could relate many factual episodes in my life supporting that.

You are sexist, by definition of that term. See my previous post, in combination with your comments about how you treat women differently because "they are different".

I don't think you hate women. But nor do I think you respect women. In refusing to try to do better, you make it clear to all that you really don't give a damn if women think you're a chauvinist asshole.

 

[paddoboy]

Indeed, you claim to be proud that you don't notice, and defiant about altering your own behaviour so as not to be an asshole.


In refusing to try to do better, you make it clear to all that you really don't give a damn if women think you're a chauvinist asshole.

Only called me an arsehole twice James? An improvement I suppose.
And yes my position stands as evidenced by ordinary people, in ordinary life, doing ordinary things in an ordinary way. This is about them, not as you are trying to make it, about me, for reasons of your own.

Just because one woman forgets rule 2, it doesn't mean that you then have a perpetual license to similarly ignore rule 2.

Now that's a typical James R giant cop out if there ever was one!

You are sexist, by definition of that term.

Not at all James...that's simply a silly uninformed extremist PC standard you wish to apply, and that is the crux of this debacle you have created to suit your needs. Similar in many ways to the standards that MR and q-reeus like to pretend exist with ghosts goblins and UFO's.
I'm neither sexist, misogynist, or conservative [weird you saying that] nor an Atheist pig , or radical lefty...just a normal Aussie bloke in a normal average society with normal average people that need not scurry and act pretentious, attempting to grab the moral high ground.
My interactions with bar attendants, bank tellers, paramedical staff, next door neighbours, the Lady walking across the street, remains polite, cordial and respectful...always will, always has.
That will obvious wreck havoc with your's and Bells little scheme and pretentious high ground, but that's the way it is.
My manner of addressing them will always remain as is, unless and if one should object, or even look like objecting. And that has never ever looked like happening. .got it James?

ps: My Mrs now knows about this, and her first remark was, "what's wrong with him?'
Plus much of your pretentious nonsense was not worth commenting on.

 

[Bells]

Everyone? And I'll persist and persist and persist, as long as it remains the normality.

How you behave is not the norm.

One of the biggest issues with your behaviour is who you target. Younger women who are forced to comply and who risk their jobs if they tell you that you make them uncomfortable. Those women are powerless in the face of your behaviour.

That complete lack of social boundaries is not the norm. It is a massive and well recognised problem.

As a layperson, I find far more ignorance and pseudoscience crap here then the professional standards and qualified experts on other forums. And of course like this forum, I'm also not the be all and end all.

My point still stands..

Not stories, simply factual interesting moments in my life and interactions between normal average everyday people, both male and female.

All of which involve improper behaviour towards much younger women who are not allowed to tell you to stop.

Proud??more indifferent to it, just as per the indifference shown by those I interact with. Deliberate?? actually more just normality and conventional banter.

You are indifferent to the fact that they are trying to do their job and they are not allowed to tell you that how you speak to them may make them uncomfortable. You simply do not care because you do not respect them.

It is normal and conventional banter with people you know, friends, family, etc. Not with complete strangers who always happen to be younger women. And certainly not in a situation where they cannot refuse or indicate that they are uncomfortable or unhappy with your treatment and they are not allowed to tell you to fuck off, because by your own admission, you'll call the manager and complain.

Naaa, not at all...I'm just an average old bloke that has many friends, that interact normally and will continue to act correctly, and will always be responsible for my own actions and words.

You interact with your friends in a certain way. Because they are your friends.

But when it comes to younger women who are complete strangers to you, you act in a way that is highly improper, forces them to comply with your behaviour or face you calling the manager. Do you seriously not understand the difference?

Her inability to say no, does not mean she is saying yes.

You may be quoting my own words back to me, but also putting a extremist stance and fabricated meaning to, for your own agenda, whatever that may be.

I'm telling you that the manner in which you approach young women who are working and unable to rebuff you, is inappropriate.

That's not a fabrication. That is a fact.

I stated examples of PC being taken too far, and quickly being swept under the carpet because of the reactions of normal average people.

You linked people responding like fuckwits and bigots to lies and you tried to pass the response as appropriate and tried to claim the story of "PC" was correct. It was all a lie.

More correctly I'm part of the greater majority of all age groups that believe correctly that PC can be taken too far, and as per the paragraph I posted.

My father was around your age.

Not once has he ever spoken to women he does not know in the manner that you do. Not once. If he needed help with something, he would wait his turn, smile and say "excuse me, I was wondering if you could help me with [whatever it was]", she would explain it to him, he would smile and say "thank you very much for your help" tell her he hoped she had a good day and move on. Why? Because she's not his "love" or his friend but someone who is trying to do her job and he respected her position and was not the type of man who would want to impose himself on anyone or make anyone feel uncomfortable.

It's not a generational thing. It's a matter of learning to respect others and treat them accordingly. You simply don't give a crap if she's uncomfortable and can't tell you no. My Dad always, and I mean always, acted in a respectful manner towards people. He cared about how they might feel.

When I find addressing a good natured, helpful bank teller as love and telling her she's a bloody Angel, as offensive, then I'll cease. Until then, normality [hopefully on both sides] will continue.

She's not allowed to tell you no.

It's not about you. It's about her, her position and the fact she can't tell you no. You are abusing your position and ignoring how she might be feeling.

She did appreciate it, and laughed heartedly, just as the two bar attendants at the Roosters laughed and interacted with nine old farts, without feeling threatened or revolted by it, and replied and interacted in kind. Not withstanding your disgusting interpretations of what you surmise or fabricate from a position of ignorance.

Again, they aren't allowed to say no, they aren't allowed to not laugh or smile about it.

They may think you're a creep and a pervert, but they aren't allowed to tell you no, they aren't allowed to tell you to stop, they aren't allowed to tell you to go away, they aren't allowed to tell you to please stop acting like a fucking arsehole.
What part of that don't you understand, exactly?

You are taking advantage of the fact that they can't refuse how you treat them as if they do, they could be out of a job.

You are the customer, the paying customer. They are required to ensure your happiness. Even as you and your friends act in an unprofessional manner towards them, they are forced to laugh, comply and try to get on with their jobs. If they don't, you complain to management..

Actually its you abusing your position of power. Mine was nothing more then an example of casual banter, just as on the other occasions I described, including the two female ambulance/paramedics officers that attended to my wife during the last Summer's bushfires, and who, like the two bar attendants, I wrote to management commending their services.
Still have E-Mails in reply to those two incidents appreciating my appreciation and thanks.

I forget, you are used to women being forced to comply to your wishes. You're not used to women who talk back to you.

I have plenty of argument Bells, and will continue in what I understand to be the norm.

Why do you think that is a reasonable excuse?

The norm used to be that men could beat and rape their wives and not face any criminal action. Do you think it was acceptable? No, it was not.

Just because something is the norm (in your opinion) does not mean it is correct or acceptable.

Whatever false moral high ground you see yourself on is your business. The respectful and normal way I interact in my daily life is mine.

But you aren't respectful. At all.

No Bells I aint no misogynist or sexist or whatever box you see the need to put me in.

Your words and actions say otherwise.

By her actions and hearty laugh.

She is not allowed to respond negatively.

Just because she can't say no, does not mean she is saying yes.

Wrong, wrong wrong. I treated her professionally by listening intently to her advice and help,[ because you know, as an old bastard, I'm not that IT literate, as you wisely pointed out], and answered happily back to her, thanking her [as I detailed] and her immensely proud reaction/s.
That's it in a nutshell Bells.

Again..

She is not allowed to respond negatively to your calling her "love". If she does, she can lose her job.

Understand yet? Do you understand that she is forced to respond that way? Do you understand that she may not have been comfortable at all but was not allowed to tell you so?

Of course. A shame though you failed miserably to address them correctly.

We all are. But you refuse to accept the fact that your behaviour towards strangers, younger women in particular, is not appropriate and that you should stop. You refuse to respect these women or how they might be feeling and instead, you demand that your behaviour be accepted as the norm, despite everyone trying to explain to you and educate you that such behaviour towards others not related or known to you is not acceptable and that there are boundaries in how we address others.

Instead, you keep reiterating how much you get off on imposing yourself on younger women and you keep pushing story after story of your inappropriate behaviour towards younger women and how you think they love it or are "proud" of it. You refuse to accept that these younger women are forced to respond to you positively. You don't care. Why? Because you expect them to comply or you report them to the manager.

It's not acceptable.

It's not about being PC. It's about not being an arsehole.

 

[Bells]

We seem to be going over old ground here Bells...I address most males as mate, even though I may not know them from a bar of soap. [hope that's not too blokey for you]

"Mate" is mutual respect, shared experience and equal footing. When you call someone a "mate", that person is equal to you.

In Australia, a 'mate' is more than just a friend and is a term that implies a sense of shared experience, mutual respect and unconditional assistance.​

"Love" is condescending.. It's not equal. It's the 'aww love', a reminder to her that you are the one in power here. It's a pet name you have for someone. It is patronising. You are putting her in her place, or the place you believe she belongs. You are reminding her that she's not equal to you.

Add to that the fact that she can't tell you no, she is not allowed to tell you to stop, she's not allowed to respond negatively to your behaviour.

Well, everyone else understands this. You do not because you don't care about how she may be feeling.

Do you understand yet, that she had nothing to disagree with, and was joyful and happy in her interactions, as were the other examples I have given, where women are concerned. Anything else is just your fabrication of events.

She is not allowed to say no or to tell you to stop or to tell you to not address her that way. She is forced to smile and act "joyful" about it.

Literally. She isn't allowed to ask you to stop or to tell you she's uncomfortable. She is forced to smile and be "joyful" about it.

I gave other links illustrating and validating my claims.

You gave links that all clearly said that none of it happened. And I mean that literally. They clearly say that none of it happened.

They were great PM's as you and all Australians should appreciate. On the Daughter's supposed rape, wasn't she contesting his will? Either way, it detracts nothing from the job he did as PM.

He disinherited all his children. He also told his daughter who had been raped by his "mate" that she had to keep quiet about her repeated rapes because if she reported it, it would affect his political ambition.

I don't appreciate anyone who condones rape and sexual assault for political ambition, just as I don't appreciate any leader or PM who encouraged and then turned a blind eye to invading a country and the implementation of human rights abuses, mass murder and a dictatorship of an entire country.

Call me strange, but I don't consider anyone who acts that way as "great" or admirable.

Did I say that Bells? Perhaps in regards to some women who have been found to falsely accuse men of rape, yes. Two cases in hand at this time with NRL players, have now both been put over for second trials.
Men who rape women or sexually assault them in anyway, need to face the full force of the law. Women who are found to falsely accuse men of rape, need to face the full force of the law.

We all know what you said in that thread and how you view women in general.

Your version of it you mean?

The well known and accepted version. You don't believe it is a problem. As I said, we all know and remember what you said in that thread.

I posted links to thoughts and examples of PC gone mad, or the potential to go mad.

You posted links that clearly said that the fabrication you were passing off as fact of "PC gone mad" was literally that. A fabrication. A lie.

Others here have labelled me as an evil Atheist, but I still believe the traditional Chrissy as we all know it, should continue as is.

Okay?
No one was saying otherwise. That's the point. You made a claim, a complete lie, and linked articles that detail how your claim was a fabrication that was designed to stir up anti Muslim sentiment (which you expressed and shared and repeated).

 

[DaveC426913]

It is technically a sexist act, in that it discriminates on the basis of sex. If you would not offer your seat to a man of similar age and other characteristics, and do so only because a woman is involved, that's sexist by definition.

Yes. That was my point. It was an act abased on gender, without doubt.
The accusation was that all (female) sexism is also misogyny.(i.e. driven by hatred)

 

[sculptor]

To one degree or another:
Most men are sexist
Most women are sexist
To a certain extent: we all categorize our expectations of people based on sex,
and, are often surprised.

 

[Thus Spoke]

"
"Love" is condescending.. It's not equal. It's the 'aww love', a reminder to her that you are the one in power here. It's a pet name you have for someone. It is patronising. You are putting her in her place, or the place you believe she belongs. You are reminding her that she's not equal to you.

I disagree. If Paddoboy was an older woman it would be endearing.

 

[Tiassa]

I disagree. If Paddoboy was an older woman it would be endearing.

This is called making the point.